The World Bank Group's financing for renewable and efficient energy projects increased 24% in the last fiscal year. Reaching $3.3 billion, the bank's clean technology investments have reached their highest level ever.

At the Bonn International Renewable Energies Conference in 2004, the World Bank committed to increase its contribution to cleantech investments by $1.9 billion through 2009. Not only did last fiscal year's result more than double the five-year commitment, the World Bank's support surged by $7 billion.

What is the next hottest government program now that "cash for clunkers" is over? Yup, you guessed it. It's wind farms.

According to the Wall Street Journal (subscription required), the government is starting a new program to subsidize the production of wind farms all over the country. Under the program, the government will rebate 30% of the cost of building a renewable energy facility, awarded 60 days after the application is approved. The Energy and Treasury Departments expect to spend $3 billion initially. Some people believe, however, that applications could grow to $10 billion. This new program started July 31.

"Over the past year, ITC Holdings (NYSE: ITC) has been focused on identifying ways to integrate wind and other renewable resources into the power grid," notes growth stock expert Alexander Green.

In The Oxford Club Communique, he explains, "This young company -- that despite being in the midst of the biggest economic slowdown in more than 70 years -- is taking in more than $600 million in annual revenue, enjoying 46% operating margins and experiencing 72% quarterly profit growth.

The U.S. housing sector remains in deep recession. Consumer spending is down. Business investment remains lackluster, with industrial production indicators hitting new lows monthly. And lay-offs have hit alarming levels.

Against this backdrop it's understandable if one holds a not-so-optimistic view regarding the U.S. economy and the markets for early 2009: the economy's fundamentals are weak, and it's going to take a lot of stimulus, fiscal and otherwise, to turn them around.

Nevertheless, there are bright spots -- in this case literally, as well as macroeconomically -- regarding the U.S. economy of tomorrow.

This way to the future

One small, but significant data point: despite the plunge in oil prices to around $50 per barrel, demand for solar energy and solar panels remains strong. Demand for solar energy systems increased 45% in 2007 and is expected to register another impressive gain in 2008, The New York Times reported.

About 25,000-35,000 workers -- installers, manufacturers, distributors, project developers, and material suppliers -- are currently directly employed in the solar energy sector, which is expected to grow to more than 110,000 in 2016, according to Solar Energy Institute Association data, The Times reported.

And here's an equally important stat: the jobs pay between $15-30 per hour, with many solar companies offering health benefits, The Times reported.

If you're an economist, like David H. Wang, you wake up some days muttering, "What has happened to the industrial base in the U.S. economy?"

The auto companies are practically on life support, and other sectors are paring-back operations, even as international competition mounts. Hundreds of thousands of jobs have been lost. How did this happen? Eight more years of industrial base decline without a viable plan to counteract it? And now, as a result of the financial crisis and de-leveraging, the prospect of a period of less-available credit threatens to delay economic recovery.

Well one remedy for the above, Wang argues, is to invest in the industrial sector via investing in the United States' infrastructure. And what's one project worthy of consideration? Investor T. Boone Pickens' plan to substantially increase domestic wind power via his Pickens Plan, Wang argued.

Pickens' investment fund has fallen on tough times, as of late. His BP Capital investment fund has shrunk by 60%, due to energy sector losses, and will drop to about $500 million after redemptions, by week's end, Pickens told CNBC Thursday. Pickens, who sees oil sector consolidation, expects the price of oil to recover to $100 per barrel in 2009. Oil Thursday closed down $1.81 to $65.69 per barrel.

Pickens Plan: a better investment than AIG?

Wang is less certain about a $100 oil price in 2009, but he is certain about the merit and benefits from investing in Pickens' project, and his argument is compelling. (Wang added that he does not have an investment stake in any power/energy company.)

It was going so great for a while. Investors were eagerly pouring cash into renewable energy stocks as solar and wind energy seemed the perfect answer to the looming energy crisis. The more the news became grim and gas prices went up, the more investors fled to companies like First Solar (NASDAQ: FSLR), driving the stock to over $300 a share in the spring and summer of 2008. Today, the stock closed at $115.75 and has hovered in the low 100s for past few weeks.

This climate has changed, all right: it's changed to "fear." No longer are investors content to contribute to long research & development cycles for unproven business models; nor are they satisfied that credit will be available to finance the major capital expenses which accompany wind and solar energy systems. The world may be sinking ever faster into an energy crisis, but it's the financial one that matters far more to opportunistic investors -- and with a recent drop in demand, industry watchers are concerned prices may not hold up to mid-2008 expectations. According to green fund manager Chris Walsh, quoted in a Reuters article, "There are too many players out there, and there are too many smaller players."

In my opinion, while the best-performing alternative energy stocks were certainly pricey in early summer, the downturn they've taken is shortsighted. The recent plunge in oil prices (and let's remember it's a plunge only compared to the newly-set benchmark of 2008) won't last for more than a few years, at most, if worldwide oil production models are correct; and then alternative energy sources will gain renewed interest from investors; making it a likely long-term bet.

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.

It would appear to be axiomatic to say that there are few benefits from an oil price over $100 per barrel. Nevertheless, during oil's latest climb to the stratosphere, some have argued that a high oil price is 'net-positive for the global economy,' or 'a long-term good thing.'

Economist Glen Langan has a word for insta-analysis like the above. "Misguided," he calls them.

Not that Langan is an ardent advocate of oil use; hardly. Would that the developed and developing world could shift today to an alternate, renewable, and more environmentally-friendly energy form, he says. But the world can't, and as is some times the case in social science circles, "the normative influences the empirical," he says, and leads to curious conclusions like an 'oil shock being net-positive for the global economy.'

For the record: an oil shock is never net-positive for the global economy, Langan argues.

There are some benefits, to be sure, such as increased conservation, increased research on alternate/renewable energy forms, a transfer of some wealth to some developing nations and, of course, astounding increases in wealth in those connected to oil and oil services, but the overall effect is net-negative. Oil traded Thursday up $5.46 to $121.42 per barrel.

In light of oil's rise to triple-digit prices, the United States' inability to pass an energy policy aimed at increased efficiency, renewable energy, and energy independence, represents an opportunity squandered -- on two fronts: transportation and power generation.

True, oil has retreated from the $135 range to the $125-128 range, but the nation now faces record-high gasoline/diesel prices, along with high prices for heating oil, natural gas, and coal. As a result, the broad-based disposable income -- so essential for U.S. economic growth -- has been squeezed, with many economists now arguing adequate GDP growth is not possible, if energy prices remain at current levels.

At minimum, the U.S. faces a period of economic and social adjustment -- corporate, public, personal -- as it copes with the brave new world of $4 gasoline ... and that's if gasoline remains in the $4 per gallon range. A variety of scenarios could quickly send gasoline over $5 per gallon and higher in 2009.

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.

Dell, Inc. (NASDAQ: DELL) has announced that its entire corporate headquarters is now running on "green energy," as the computer maker continues to become one of the most ecologically-conscious companies on the planet. It has competition in the retail sector, though, from Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (NYSE: WMT) and internet search king Google, Inc. (NASDAQ: GOOG).

All 2.1 million square feet of Dell's Round Rock, Texas headquarters facility is now powered by renewable energy sources -- no fossil fuel burning is present. To get there, Dell has about 40% of its headquarters power needs supplied by a gas-to-energy plan from leading waste disposal company Waste Management, located in nearby Austin. The other 60% of its power needs comes from wind energy supplied by TXU Energy.

Paul Bell, President of Dell Americas, said "Powering an entire campus with green power, in partnership with these two leading companies, is an important step in becoming the greenest technology company on the planet and the right thing to do for our shared earth." He's right, and Dell is expected to save about $2 million per year on energy costs alone with the green conversion of its Texas-based facilities -- along with cutting carbon dioxide emissions at the same time. That's what being green is all about.

General Electric and Vestas Wind Systems are reaping the benefits as U.S. utilities assertively add generating capacity from renewable/alternative energy sources, Bloomberg News reported Wednesday.

For example, XCel Energy (NYSE: XEL), the U.S.'s largest provider of wind power, is buying 67 General Electric (NYSE: GE) turbines for a Minnesota wind farm, and GE expects its turbine sales to increase 25% to $6 billion this year, Bloomberg News reported. GE was the largest supplier of wind turbines in 2007, with a 45% market share. Siemens AG (NYSE: SI) and Vestas are two other major global manufacturers of wind turbines that should continue to benefit as wind power usage increases: each is opening manufacturing plants in the U.S. to accommodate increased wind energy-related sales.

GE's shares gained 89 cents to $34.29, while Siemens AG rose 20 cents to $128.20 in Wednesday afternoon trading.

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.

The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries may reduce production when it meets next month as part of a strategy to try to keep the price of oil above $80 per barrel, Bloomberg News reported Friday.

For long-term plays, the preferred investment is a company with a demonstrated business model (10 years), in an established market, with an average total annual return on equity of 20% during that span.

To be sure, First Solar (NYSE: FSLR) does not fit that profile, but it's worth a review, given both macro fundamentals and the company's outlook. Note: Underscoring, this is a high-risk stock.

First Solar uses an advanced, thin-film technology that uses cadmium telluride semiconductor material to convert sunlight into electricity. With a global polycrystalline silicon shortage holding back some producers of solar cells, First Solar's glass as substrate, coated with cadmium telluride can march ahead, while others await their raw materials.