Newsweek - National News, World News, Health, Technology, Entertainment and more... | Newsweek.com
SPONSORED BY
Full Post
Posted Friday, October 17, 2008 3:15 PM

Solar and Wind Energy in a World of $70-a-Barrel Oil: RIP?

Sharon Begley

When oil was $147 a barrel and money was sloshing through the financial system like water, renewable energy seemed like a slam dunk: wind and solar projects attracted bank loans and private-equity money, and the higher cost of generating electricity from green sources compared to fossil fuels seemed like it might soon be a thing of the past.

All that, of course, was back in the good old days. July.

A mere three months later, green-energy backers are “assessing the risks and opportunities in renewable energy in the new economic climate,” as a symposium I attended this morning put it. Organized by the law firm Chadbourne & Parke, the meeting began with a provocative panel on how the financial upheaval is affecting the development of renewable energy projects such as wind farms and solar installations. As former New York governor George Pataki, now of counsel at Chadbourne, put it with understatement, “A little bit has changed. But there is still tremendous opportunity in green energy going forward. I think we’re going to see increased government investment in renewables and efforts to require the transformation of our transportation and auto industry.” Translation: with a new administration, we’re not going to keep up the insanity of importing 10 million barrels of crude oil a day. As Obama said in this week’s debate, “we’ve got to stop sending $700 billion a year to countries that don’t . . . like us very much,” such as Venezuela and Saudi Arabia.

Advertisement

You think small business owners are having trouble getting bank credit to meet their payrolls, finance expansions and the like? Try pitching a wind farm to bankers these days. “There is some money” available to renewables projects, said Brian Goldstein, managing director of BNP Paribas Securities. “But the challenge is, as capital becomes available again [with the federal bailout], where will banks allocate it? . . . Smaller is better” for energy projects, since “we’re seeing a reluctance to underwrite” big projects.

Steve Cheng, managing director of Credit Suisse, said that “some institutions have liquidity and will do deals. But it’s different today than two years ago,” most starkly in what rate backers are demanding to lend money: since loans in the secondary market are treading at 65% to 70% of their face value, reflecting fear that the borrowers will not repay them, they have an effective yield of 16% to 18%. For a new loan for a new renewables project to be attractive to a banker or investor, the rate will clearly have to be high. “There are still people with liquidity, with money they need to put to work,” Cheng said. “They will definitely come into the market and make loans, but what borrowers will have to pay will be much higher.”

Paul Ho, a principal at Hudson Clean Energy Partners (a private equity firm that invests in green projects), didn’t sound like he intended to keep his wallet closed, in part because the $700 billion bailout bill extended tax credits for solar and wind power. “We were all pleasantly surprised that renewables got bundled into the [bailout] package,” he said, though in the short term he said he expects “a serious slowdown” in the financing of projects.

“There has been a whole repricing of risk,” added Rahul Advani, vice-president of Energy Capital Partners, another private equity firm that invests in renewable energy. “Lenders are now saying they need a premium” to make a loan attractive. “Maybe we’re now living in a 9%, 10% or 12% world.” (And you think your mortgage rate is high?) “But at the end of the day, good projects are going to get financed. Relative to a lot of assets in the energy sector, renewables are a good investment.” But not as good as they were at $147-a-barrel oil.

You must be a registered user to comment.  Click here to register.  Already a user?  Click here to login.

Member Comments

Posted By: bayravin (October 18, 2008 at 8:59 PM)

We need to establish a floor price of the price of crude oil that is imported. This way, it gives a marker for the entreprenuers to have a baseline for the economics of their ventures. Or else, we will be bouncing around like a yo-yo with the Saudis holding the strings.


Posted By: mcurland (October 18, 2008 at 6:00 PM)

1) This rant has nothing to do with the energy article

2) "Joe the Plumber" is not running for elected office

3) Retards don't make a quarter million a year, in any field

4) Threats and endorsements of violence against dissenting inviduals should not be tolerated


Posted By: Arjuna (October 18, 2008 at 4:39 PM)

AS the price of gasoline falls to 3$, we should tax gasoline, approximately 20cents per gallon. 10cents of the income, by law should be allocated to supporting the infrastructure (such as bridges, roads, etc.) in the respective states. The other 10cents should go towards subsides for clean energy, and research into clean energy. As Obama has said the nation should commit itself to the goal of eliminating all foreign oil imports by 2019, and to creating millions of jobs in the green energy sector. ONe can even envision small scale greenenergy projects in our rural areas (a multicentric plan) ina ddition to large scale projects. The immediate investment into infrastructure will spur the immediate creation of jobs. THis can and should be sold to the American public, no matter who gets elected(Hope it is Obama, and not Palin)