which will start showing up in the daily report from tomorrow - always feel free to drop me an email if you think there are any that I am missing.

EDP Renovaveis - the recent IPO spin-off from Energias de Portugal of their Renewables Division

and then two Canadian Solar stocks . . .

Opel International - who have a niche in concentrating solar power for photovoltaics, i.e. not CSP or Concentrated Solar Thermal Power

Timminco - a manufacturer of solar grade silicon

A great couple of articles in this week's Economist - under the Technology Quarterly section. The two pieces are;

i) A new twist for offshore wind - on the progress being made in deploying wind offshore to deeper water locations and the points of interest were;

• there are still only 300-400 offshore wind turbines deployed in the entire world, so this is still relatively  unproven, experimental technology
• floating wind turbines are evolving that can be moored to the bottom up to 150 metres deep at the same cost as the conventional limit of 40 metres. Theoretically, that opens up vast tracts of seabed real estate for offshore wind business - according to average depth figures here - the entire North Sea (average depth 94m), Hudson Bay (101m), Baltic Sea (55m), the Irish Sea (60m) and the English Channel (54m).
  
• Italy's naval-certification agency demands that a floating wind turbine must be strong enough to withstand a "100-year wave" of 9.7m high. That's what I call a tall order.
  

Sometimes I wonder why if the argument in favour of offshore wind is higher wind speeds and bigger turbines,  the entire offshore wind industry doesn't just go vertical axis - whose higher cut-in speeds will be offset by self-stabilising turbines with longer lifetimes, no military radar interference, lower avian mortaility rates, higher cut-off speeds and able to capture wind energy from any direction.  A case in point is the  Aerogenerator, which can be situated at up to 150m depth and crucially, has an impressive design life of 35-40 years. See details here and here and ask for a brochure here. Offshore wind needs something game-changing like this if it is to deliver on the industry hype. But as far as I can see, apart from them, no one is doing it. Sadly, almost all of the innovation seems to have gone out of the wind industry over the last few years. No wonder people like Professor Dieter Helm are calling it "mature".

ii) The coming wave - a survey of what's happening in wave energy technology. This is even more experimental but progress is being made. And naturally, I  was alerted to the words "... several wave-energy companies are thought to  be planning stockmarket  flotations in the coming months".

When all is aaid and done though, I'm struck by how the potential of the oceans - the greater kinetic energy in  wind, currents and waves - is for the time being cancelled out by the enormous cost of engineering machinery that can withstand the forces of a hostile, tough and unforgiving environment. Sing along now, For those in peril on the sea . . . !

One day, with stronger, cheaper materials, these barriers will be overcome - but don't hold your breath, just yet.

The dance of the utilities around alternative energy continues . . .

Energias de Portugal - a portuguese utility with substantial renewable assets, is considering floating those same assets an IPO which some analysts reckon could be worth 8.9 to 11 billion euros. It's funny how that kind of size doesn't even seem like such a big deal these days. A few years ago, when I started looking at alternative energy stocks, the largest at just about $1 billion market cap. was New Zealand's Trustpower. What's interesting here is that EDP are looking at floating only 20-25% of the unit. That tells us that they see this market as having a long way to go and they want to stay invested in it, if not raise that cash specifically for further renewable investments.

I think we're going to see a lot more action from the utilities in the renewable sector in the years to come and not only because they have the money. Utilities need to get their hands on renewable assets in order to meet rising targets for renewable energy, particularly in Europe, the United States Canada and Australia. So if you're a independent renewables firm, contemplating an IPO in testing market conditions, here's another idea; organise a private auction between cash rich national and regional utilities for the sale of your company. You might actually get more !

Another day, another record oil price - we're almost getting used to it. Yet according to Michael Lewis of Deutsche Bank, as reported in the excellent piece in the Economist makes clear, in real terms, the oil price will not hit a historical record unless . . .

1. it exceeds $94 when rebased and inflated in line with America's producer-price index - done !
2. it exceeds $118 when measured by the consumer price index - nearly there . . .
   
3. it exceeds $134 according to the oil purchasing power of the average G7 consumer - 318 barrels equivalent in 1981
4. it exceeds $145 when oil last ate up the biggest share of Americans' disposable income, 8% whilst it is only just under 7% now.
5. it exceeds $150 a barrel when spending on oil as a share of global output peaked in 1980 at 5.9%, today it is 3.5%

You might also add to that whilst this continues to be a commodity priced in dollars (not a certainty), it may even have to go higher, because the international purchasing power of dollars ain't what it used to be. Anyway, the bottom line is that $150 oil really doesn't seem so extreme any more.

Alternative energy watchers have been quite fixated by the price of oil for some time, although there's no direct relationship that can be easily untangled between the two, it is for many the default benchmark for the arrival of alternative energy. And so this leads me to my next point, if oil prices are so high, why has the alternative energy IPO trail gone cold?

Here's a list of companies I've been keeping track of who seem to be holding out for better market conditions;

GT Solar
Real Goods
Oceanlinx
Falck Renewables
Everq
Eolia Renovables

The answer of course has to be the global credit crunch which has greatly unnerved markets. And we may not be clear of this until 2010.

The image of the unemployed Australian who likes nothing better than surfing, beers and barbecue has been transformed by the strength of the economy, their currency and increasingly, a fast-rising alternative energy sector.

No question, Australian commerce has done very well over the last 10 years and no one seriously doubts that this will continue, pending the election on November 18th. We've all heard about the amazing mineral resources of this sparsely populated, continent-sized nation. Yet alternative energy investors should play close heed to their emerging alternative energy plays and also, assuming you're coming out of dollars, the ongoing strength of the Aussie dollar. That's because . . .

The AUD has just about doubled in value since April 2001 against the USD.

Anyway, here are those 3 new stocks (all listed on the ASX) and I have to say, they're a very eclectic mix;

Wind Hydrogen Ltd, which IPO'ed in September, has some proprietary technology for converting wind-powered electricity into hydrogen via electrolysis
ZBB Energy, which stands for Zinc Bromine Batteries - used in backup for intermittent renewables
Solco Ltd, which make solar heating, solar pumps and solar power products

A few years ago, I much enjoyed reading (although certainly didn't always agree with) Jeremy Rifkin's book, "The Hydrogen Economy". One part though that stuck in my mind was his reference to hydrogen from wind powered electrolysis. On page 189 of the paperback edition he said:

"When wind power drops to 1.5 cents per kilowatt hour in the next few years, electrically generated hydrogen, using wind power, will be competitive with gasoline."

5 years on, wind power prices - as measured by the installed cost per megawatt - have actually gone up. And even with one of the best sites and the lowest possible installation costs, the levelised cost per kilowatt hour over a 20 year period is still pretty much 5 cents per kilowatt hour, excluding all other externalities (additional transmission lines, grid-reinforcing, load-balancing, avian mortality rates, etc. . . . all of which rise with an increased wind penetration). From today's standpoint, 1.5 cents a kilowatt hour looks a very long way off.

But the concept is still alive.

That's why I was intrigued and very grateful to learn from an AEI reader based in New Zealand of a new company seeking to IPO on the Australian Stock Exchange next month (10th August), called Wind Hydrogen Ltd.

The company says it holds international patents over hydrogen-based technology that is complementary to wind power generation, able to overcome the issue of variable output from wind farms, considered a key long-term barrier to the commercialisation of wind power. They also believe their technology opens access to markets for hydrogen and hydrogen-based products. This last bit is important - they think they can sell off the surplus hydrogen to downsteam chemical companies who would otherwise take it from natural gas, releasing CO2, for the production of ammonia.

What I found particularly interesting though is that they have patents pending on wind monitoring and prediction. Combine accurate wind forecasting to an electricity spot market in short supply of power and very quickly you could get a profitable business model.

But hydrogen has to be most expensive form of energy storage so they are dependent - and I suspect taking a bet on - rising and unpredictable gas prices affecting the electricity and chemical industries. Meanwhile, Hydrogenics has just opened a wind-powered hydrogen fuelling station in Dakota.

Wind Hydrogen is definitely a company to watch. Still, the cynic in me thinks if this energy storage is so good, why not combine their storage technology with a fully amortised and rainfall-deprived hydro power plant?

This would be a lot cheaper - and more profitable, as well as renewable.

Following a couple of IPOs over the last week, here they are;

PV Crystalox - a company in what I regard as the sweetspot of the solar business, a manufacturer of silicon ingots and wafers

and

Solaria Energia - a Spanish PV company, which disappointingly, only carries the Spanish language on its website. There has been a bit of a buzz about Spain becoming the next Germany in solar power - that's why several German firms were keen to open subsidiaries there over the last year or so. And yet, you have to think that a Spanish supplier ought to have more opportunity to exploit that over a German one. Let's see. A friend of mine incidentally with a large holiday home in Spain, was advised not to install solar pv panels, because they would be stolen. If that's really the case, the millions of holiday homes (800,000 built last year alone) there will not be a market and the growth will most likely have to be Spanish-led or more ways than one.

News that a new Chinese solar stock, Jetion Holdings, is planning an IPO on AIM made me think about the routes recent Chinese alternative energy floatations have been taking.

It does appear that AIM is popular for those who will capitalize at less than USD 500 m - in the case of Jetion Holdings, their valuation would be in the region of USD 220 m. Meanwhile, Yingli Green Energy, who today capitalise at USD 1.5 billion, took the American Depository Recept route.

And Suntech Power Holdings, AEI's largest stock by market cap. has a full listing on the NYSE, capitalises at over USD 5 billion.

I think it's all about costs and the smaller you are, the less able you are to absorb them. So I think it's fair to say that you could rank these exchanges - on costs alone - like this;

1. Full listing - NYSE/ Nasdaq - most expensive
2. ADR IPO - on NYSE / Nasdaq - less expensive
3. AIM IPO - least expensive

Ok, ok, I haven't included some of the other European or Canadian markets - but it does generally appear that if you're a Chinese company looking to IPO, it's London or New York.

A useful piece just published here on Motley Fool Scouting the latest IPOs.

The article mentioned 5 companies that touch on the alternative energy realm about to IPO or that just have;

i) Clean Energy Fuels Corp - a company that seeks to provide natural gas for municipal transport needs. Gas is certainly much cleaner and an environmental benefit in terms of reduced particulates. And I've got a lot of sympathy for this technology as I use it myself (liquified petroleum gas or LPG in Europe) with my old BMW. But unlike some, I would never claim this was alternative energy technology any more than including clean coal technology companies.

ii) LDK Solar - a Chinese solar wafer manufacturer, going public this week. There are plenty of Chinese solar companies already but analysts are divided on whether this party has only just got started or if it is now looking like a bubble.

iii) Yingli Green Energy - (no website I can find) another Chinese solar cell manufacturer, to IPO shortly - announced deal terms of 29 million American depositary shares at $11-$13 per share. The lead managers are Goldman Sachs and UBS.

iv) Imperium Renewables - A US-based biodiesel producer

v) China Sunergy (no website yet, to be added very shortly to AEI) - IPO'ed a couple of weeks back and makes solar cells.

In recent weeks, many have been fretting about the alternative energy bubble. But since alternative energy stocks first started to appear, arguably in the late 1990s, there have been several pullbacks or more accurately, shifts of investor focus;

Fuels cell stocks led by Ballard until 2000
Danish and German wind stocks
US-based ethanol stocks until April 2006
German solar stocks
And now it seems to be Chinese solar cell manufacturers are in vogue

So we must never fail to keep asking ourselves how long will this particular alternative energy theme last and what's next?

It has been a while since I've had the chance to post about a forthcoming IPO - a shame because historically, IPO Watch has been one of the most popular sections on this website.

So I was pleased for more than one reason to learn of National Hydroelectric Power Corp's plans to sell a 13.8% stake in an IPO to raise $580m. Growing at over 8% per annum, India needs a lot more power and they will need all the capital they can get to obtain it.

Apart from which, I like Hydropower - it is proven technology, can deliver clean energy in gigawatt scale and does so at the lowest possible cost compounded over the lifetime of the plant - up to 200 years. So my personal view is that exploiting fully amortized hydropower is an excellent long-term bet. But selling off only 13.8% of your company strikes me as a bit blasé - and some would unkindly sum up the attitude behind it as this;

we want your money, but we won't concern ourselves with what you think and will care even less, because you will always be a minority shareholder.

I've just been reading a fascinating and revelationary book by Eric D. Beinhocker "The origin of wealth - evolution, complexity and the radical remaking of economics". and I was very taken by one point (amongst many) that he made - essentially that mankind has evolved a system for fairness and reciprocity in business, but if the conditions for reciprocity, fairness and trust are not replicated following the business transaction, then civilization does not advance much beyond the Machiguenga people of the Peruvian rain forest (I abbreviate and exaggerate for effect, but it's not an unfair synopsis).

Why am I saying this?

Because there is another Indian hydropower company Jaiprakash Hydro Power, which although much smaller, continues to earn respect and good ratings, not least because far more of its shares are traded on the open market.

Going public with an IPO is about trusting the market and the investors to have the best interests of your company at heart. That's why deep down, I believe that anything less than a 50% offering is a long-term mistake.

So I hope NHP reconsider and think big by trusting big. And I dearly hope many other alternative energy companies do not eschew the market either.

Because the public markets still leave the venture capitalists and the banks for dust when it comes to raising larger amounts of capital at lower overall cost.