Readers of this space know that one of the preferred sectors is the electric power generation sector.

And it's preferred for a reason that may not be obvious to all. Electricity via wind, solar, and nuclear generation is likely to play a large role in energy as climate change reduction, then elimination, becomes a societal goal. Electricity also remains a potential propulsion source for cars, given that crude oil has apparently resumed its climb to uncomfortable levels. And with the above in mind, electric power generator Allegheny Energy (NYSE: AYE) is worth a review.

Wind and solar, two renewable energy sources with a promising future, nevertheless face a bottleneck of sorts in the United States: the electric power grid. The existing grid can not handle the new demands, The New York Times reported Wednesday, forcing renewable wind and solar sites to shut down, even when conditions are right to generate and sell power.

An infrastructure-challenged U.S.

Economist Glen Langan says there's a theme that keeps popping up in the U.S. economy in the early 21st century: inadequate infrastructure. "We're a nation of inadequate infrastructures: the power grid, air travel/air traffic control, railways, highways... pick an infrastructure and you'll see a network that can't handle present demands, let alone an expanded national economy in 2020 or 2030," Langan said.

The power grid bottleneck is particularly frustrating and damaging because both wind and solar power generation systems are mushrooming, and could, with an adequate grid, account for more than 20% of the nation's power needs, Langan said, adding that some economic models put renewable energy's potential contribution even higher, at 25% or more.

"Imagine T. Boone Pickens building his massive, multi-billion dollar wind mill farm and having it sit idle because the grid cannot tolerate and transmit the increased power? Pretty sad," Langan said.

The United States is a nation whose electric power generation system and grid is becoming increasing inadequate, even as the nation grapples with another energy problem -- the $4 per gallon gasoline era.

Moreover, an economic slowdown and a relatively mild summer have to-date reduced the typical electric load electric power generation plants would face, but that respite will end when the U.S. economy starts to expand at a healthy rate again. And when it does, electric power demand will increase.

What's one model the United States could follow to generate more electricity while the same time reducing coal-based pollution and climate change? France.

That's right: France. Nuclear power is experiencing a mild comeback in the United States, with 34 new reactor applications on file at the U.S.'s Nuclear Regulatory Agency. In France, it never left. Further, had the United States followed the French model, the U.S. would be vastly more energy self-sufficient today.

France: liberty, fraternity, equality, fission

Nuclear power never went out of style in France, and for this reason France is decades ahead of the United States -- and much of the world, for that matter -- regarding energy self-sufficiency, The New York Times reported. An astounding 77% of France's electricity comes from its 58 nuclear power plants, and it is a net-exporter of electricity to Europe. The United States has 104 nuclear power plants, which account for only 19.4% of its generated electricity, according to U.S. Department of Energy data, The Times reported.

Despite the onset of the latest high energy price era, it goes without saying that the car will remain the main mode of transportation in the United States as the 21st century progresses.

First mass-produced on a national scale by Henry Ford, subsidized by the construction and expansion of the public interstate highway system after World War II, and immortalized by such films as George Lucas's American Graffiti (1973), the car and car culture is intrinsic to modern American life.

The car fuel alternatives

Cheap oil is not intrinsic, however, and that's a major reason why the nation is exploring car / vehicle fuel alternatives. Many options exist, each with strengths / weaknesses, and currently there's no clear winner.

Hence, in a very real sense, your say in the matter will play an important role in determining what fuel most Americans will use for car transportation in the decades ahead.

Given the smorgasbord of economic demands and concerns -- domestic and foreign -- likely to face the new U.S. president, investors (and taxpayers) can justifiably ask 'Where's all the money going to come from to pay for these programs?'

Legitimate question, but one, for now, we'll let the political process sort out. (Current Gallup Daily Tracking Poll as of August 6, 2008, for the U.S. presidential election: Obama, 46%, McCain, 44%.)

Electing U.S. Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, or U.S. Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, will produce different programs and revenue priorities, due to the parties' different sources of power, but the argument forwarded here is that -- regardless of who becomes the new president -- the office holder should address transportation in a comprehensive way. Here are the major concern areas:

• Mass transit: We're early into the $4 gas era, of course, but initial U.S. Department of Transportation data indicates Americans are driving less and using mass transit more. The trouble is, many mass transit systems (rail, commuter rail, subway, bus) need to be expanded/upgraded to handle the increased ridership. Bigger, better mass transit systems will save the United States hundreds of billions of dollars in oil costs, not to mention the environmental benefits.

The need to fulfill promises of increased aid for Africa, and a general agreement between the United States and Russia on an approach to Iran's nuclear program took center stage as leaders from the Group of Eight industrial nations met Monday in Japan, The Associated Press reported.

President Bush, attending his last summit as a sitting U.S. president, underscored the importance of providing aid for Africa, calling on wealthy nations to provide mosquito netting and other aid to prevent needless deaths, the AP reported.

Basic items - - even equipment as basic as mosquito netting - - can reduce mortality rates in sections of Africa. Mosquito netting prevents children and others from dieing of bites from disease-carrying mosquitoes.

In 2005 the G-8 pledged to increase global aid to $130 billion, and increase assistance to Africa to $50 billion. ONE, a nonpartisan group working to end extreme poverty, predicted that the U.S. and the United Kingdom will meet their commitments, while France, Italy, Germany and Canada are off the mark, Bloomberg News reported Monday.

Increased global food aid likely

Economist Glen Langan, whose specializations include agricultural economics, said increased aid for food and agricultural development will likely be announced by G-8 leaders at the summit, or soon thereafter, due to the rising cost of food's impact on poorer nations. "The aid will be targeted to meeting basic needs first, but with an eye toward directing some funds to self-sustaining agriculture," Langan said, adding that Africa "has the potential to achieve food production gains greater than South America."

That the developing and developed world will need considerably more electricity in the decades ahead would not surprise most investors / readers.

That both economic zones can achieve this goal while adding a minimal amount of soot to the atmosphere, however, would.

And the technology that will undoubtedly serve as a key energy-generation component in emerging markets' 21st century power grid? You guessed it: nuclear power -- the power generation form that has lagged in the United States for more than 20 years, due to environmental regulations.

China, India push forward with plant plans

China and India are two emerging market nations that recognize that nuclear power is an essential part of meeting future electricity demand. Nuclear power will account for more than 5% of China's power output by 2020, Bloomberg News reported Monday. Meanwhile, India will start three nuclear reactors this year.

Economist Glen Langan said that while nuclear power is not, strictly speaking, a renewable energy, it has to be considered as part of the next-generation energy mix [along with wind and solar power] to meet the U.S.'s growing demand for electricity.

With the oil and refining sectors providing evidence that $4 per gallon gasoline may represent a floor, auto makers are beefing-up efforts to improve and introduce electric cars, MarketWatch reported Wednesday.

While the new wave of hybrids and electric cars will emphasize plug-in technology (the ability to recharge the car's battery from a standard 110-volt outlet), industry executives and think tank analysts underscored that a series of government incentives and programs will be needed to enable large-scale production of plug-in hybrids and electric cars. Selected automakers have set the 2010 model year as a target for rolling out the new cars en masse.

Economist Glen Langan told BloggingStocks Wednesday the automakers' roll-out timetable may be a tad optimistic.

"What we're seeing now from General Motors (NYSE: GM), Ford (NYSE: F) and others is that classic, delayed, rush-to-the-future response so typical of a sector that's behind," Langan said. "U.S. auto makers and others should have developed at least a hybrid that could compete with gas engines 10 years ago. But they chose not to and battery technology is behind as a result. I don't think we will see a cost-effective plug-in electric in 2010, and we'll be fortunate if a cost-effective, plug-in hybrid will be in mass production by 2012 or 2013."

Almost on cue, following oil's $12 rise in two days to $134, the International Energy Agency said the world needs to invest an additional $45 trillion in the decades ahead to vastly expand both nuclear power and wind power capacity to meet global energy needs.

Strictly speaking, the IEA's call to action was rooted in reducing the world's greenhouse gas emissions and achieving what it argues will be "a clean, clever, energy future" and not to move away from oil or fossil fuels solely on cost grounds. (pdf)

Still, the report's 2050 ETP Baseline scenario projects that CO2 emissions will rise by 130% and oil demand will rise by 70% - - the latter total being equal to five times Saudi Arabia's current oil production. If the IEA's oil projection is correct, that would suggest additional large increases in the price of oil in the decades ahead - - on top of oil's more than 400% price rise since 2001.

Clean coal has hit speed bump on the path to the nation's cleaner energy future.

The United States Government has canceled support for a clean coal demonstration project after the project's development costs nearly doubled, to $1.8 billion, citing the need to limit taxpayer exposure, according to a New York Times report.

Further, more than a decade into the research process, it remains an unanswered question whether the clean coal technology -- capturing and injecting carbon dioxide back into the ground -- can be executed in a safe and cost-effective manner.

Among other hurdles, scientists need to determine which soil formations are most environmentally appropriate for holding and organically processing the carbon dioxide, and that don't contain the risk of dioxide bubbling back to the surface, or polluting ground water.

Coal. Detestable coal.

Politically incorrect coal.

The stuff of Dickens' England. Black-lung disease. Strip-mining. And global warming.

Coal is the 'Rodney Dangerfield of energy forms,' because, like the late comedian, it gets no respect.

Have you ever heard of a positive association regarding coal? As a child in the United States, way back in the twentieth century, you dared not misbehave prior to the holidays, lest you get, coal in your stocking.

(No one ever spoke of a reprimand involving 'getting oil in your stocking.' No sir. Oil is considered 'black gold.')

Well, in the near future you and many others may look favorably on collecting coal, and a lot of it, if current trends continue regarding that other notable energy form, oil.

While Al Gore is busy preaching about global warming and environmentalists around the world hail ethanol as a solution to the "global warming" problem, the less fortunate, poorer countries in the world are in the midst of political turmoil as citizens riot and protest over soaring food prices.

As reported by Marketwatch: "In Egypt, headline inflation jumped to 14.4% in March, with the pace of food price rises soaring to 20.5% year-on-year from 16.8% in February. In addition, the country is suffering from shortages of bread, which is heavily subsidized by the government."

Coming soon to investor email and mail boxes will be annual reports and proxy voting materials, complete with this year's shareholder resolutions. Hot topics this annual meeting season include the ever popular "say-on-pay." Shareholders are incensed that average or even sub-par executive performance and decision making is being handsomely rewarded with gigantic salaries and perks while they make due with crumbs. According to a recent article in CFO Magazine, 76 shareholder proposals dealing with executive compensation have made it onto the ballot.

Also on many ballots are shareholder resolutions dealing with socially responsible investing, particularly on matters revolving around the issue of global warming and/or climate change. So far, 56 shareholder resolutions have made it onto ballots. At least nine companies have taken steps to negate the need for such shareholder resolutions by rolling out policies addressing how the companies will cut back on greenhouses emissions and otherwise "go green."

As this is a presidential election year, there are at least 50 shareholder resolutions to force companies to disclose political contributions. These resolutions probably won't gain the necessary traction to force any action, but any resolution favoring greater corporate transparency is to shareholders' advantage.

New this year are numerous resolutions requesting senior management to disclose a company's exposure to subprime mortgage losses and secondary purchases in the mortgage market. This is a hot topic among investors right now, and many pension fund investors have taken hits. Look for union members to pressure their pension funds manangers on this one.

How will you vote on these subjects?

The economic landscape -- particularly for the United States -- certainly looks different than it did 30 or 40 years ago.

Globalization, the internet, and the rise of a second major economic power in Asia are all developments that would look rather odd to someone in, say, 1973-74. The world in 2008 is one characterized by economic change -- one that may usher-in even more historic political change in the months ahead.

But there has been one constant between the two eras (overlooking cyclicality): the price of oil. It was high, in real terms, in 1973-74, and it's high now. And one thing economists like Glen Langan know regarding economic conditions when oil's price is high -- it simply makes the cost of moving things, the cost of doing pretty much everything, more expensive. Whether it's dropping the kids off at little league baseball or at soccer practice, or transporting a supply chain order of refrigerators across the country, a high oil price "simply increases the cost of motion," he said. And there are few positives for the U.S. economy. Further, it takes dollars that could create spin-off economic effects -- disposable income that could be spent somewhere else -- and simply removes them from the economy.

Democrat presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, today unveiled a new $210 billion federal spending plan that he says would create jobs in construction and environmental services.

The Obama proposal would invest money over 10 years in two programs, the largest of which would be a $150 billion effort to create 5 million "green collar" jobs to develop more-environmentally friendly energy sources.

The remaining $60 billion would fund a National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank to rebuild the nation's highways, bridges, airports and other public facilities. Obama said the construction fund would create nearly 2 million jobs, many of them in construction directly - - a sector hard-hit by the housing sector's correction - - the nation's most severe housing slump in more than 20 years.

Rival Democratic Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-New York, called Obama's effort unoriginal. Neera Tanden, Clinton's policy director, said Obama was offering ideas Clinton proposed months ago. "Voters may ask themselves that if Senator Obama cannot produce his own ideas on the campaign trail, how will he solve new problems as president?" Tanden said in a memo e-mailed to reporters, The Associated Press reported.

Furthermore, the Republican National Committee, which seeks to portray Obama as a tax-and-spend liberal, included Obama's plan on its 'Obama Spend-O-Meter.' The Republicans assert that Obama's announced programs would add $850 billion in federal spending over four years, including health care, education, national service and foreign aid programs, among others. The RNC's web site did not break down the asserted total by year, but economist Steve Affinito told BloggingStocks Wednesday, assuming equal, annual appropriations of $212.5 billion, the total would not be an unreasonable nor an unwarranted outlay, from an economic standpoint, in his interpretation.

"I don't know where the RNC obtained its $850 billion total, but for the sake of argument, even it was $220 billion per year, that's fairly modest, given the services it includes, including universal health insurance," Affinito said. "Also, given the current state of the economy we may find we may need another $150-$200 billion economic stimulus this year, just to keep the economy growing. So in that regard, Sen. Obama's proposal is insinc with the times and a net positive for the U.S. economy."