Say goodbye to hopes of an early springtime. It’s time to invest in fossil fuels.

Mixing the two sciences leads to a surprising conclusion: Wind and solar power have a limited future in a warmer world.

So it might be prudent to invest in coal and petroleum for those who have to survive winter weather, which will routinely last six weeks past Feb. 2. The winter of 2010 will be extended because the great prognosticator of winter, Punxsutawney Phil, indeed saw his shadow yesterday as he was carried outside his hut in Pennsylvania.

The tradition of relying on a groundhog to predict the weather evolved from the Dark Ages in Europe when sunny skies on Candlemas Day (Feb. 2 under the old style calendars) meant an extended winter. The Germans added the hedgehog to the prediction technique. This idea emerged in America in 1887 with the twist that a sunny sky meant Punxsutawney Phil could see his shadow, therefore winter would last longer.

Why is this good for coal and fossil-fuel suppliers?

For a couple of reasons, Phil will be increasingly predicting longer winters.

The thinking: As global warming increases in intensity, a warmer Earth will decrease wind activity, which cools land and sea. Warmer seas would bring on more cloud cover, which would hang around for longer periods, so there would also be less sunlight to power up your cell phone.

Conclusion, at least from blogger Hank Green: Global warming will make it hard to generate green power from solar and wind technologies.

One plus from all the extra cloud cover: Fewer visible full moons, so fewer appearances of the Wolfman and other creatures born of the full strength of moonlight.

(Note: Not to rain on groundhog scientist too much, but officially, the Spring Equinox is March 20, so technically, Phil’s always wrong about a late spring arrival. Phil’s prediction of six more weeks of winter brings us to March 16. That means spring always comes early — by four days — according to Phil’s predictions about winter.)

We’re talking $2.3 billion dollars in federal tax credits handed out by the Department of Energy (DoE) to create green manufacturing jobs in 43 states.

DoE says the credits will generate 17,000 clean energy jobs and provide a boost to 183 renewable energy projects. The 30% tax credit approved by the energy agency is expected to pull in another $7.7 billion in private investment to help companies make:

1. solar cells, panels and arrays
2. wind turbines and microturbines
3. fuel cells for homes and businesses
4. high-tech batteries
5. electric cars
6. energy efficiency upgrades
7. smart grid technology products, and
8. pollution control equipment that captures carbon dioxide.

Some of the tax credits approved by DoE:

• AAF-McQuay, Inc., won $2.7 million to produce more efficient industrial chillers and filtering equipment in Kentucky and Virginia,
• Abound Solar, Inc., won $12.6 million to expand production in Colorado of solar panels made with cadmium telluride semiconductor technology,
• Brevini Wind USA, Inc., won $12.5 million to build a factory in Indiana that will make the gear boxes for wind turbines,
• CaliSolar, Inc. won $53.6 million to build a California facility that will make silicone used in solar cells,
• DuPont won $50 million to produce film coatings used to make solar cells,
• General Electric received more than $92 million to make Energy Star heat pumps, refrigerators, dishwashers, gas turbines, a heat-pump powered clothes dryer and a more fuel efficient airline engine. GE’s also getting credits to relamp some of its manufacturing facilities with fluorescent lighting systems,
• SolarWorld Industries America, Inc., won $82 million to make solar components and materials in Oregon, and
• United Technologies Corp., won $110 million to produce a more efficient jet engine in Connecticut.

All of the Section 48c Manufacturing Tax Credits approved by DoE must be completed by 2014. Roughly 30% of the projects will be ready in 2010.

That’s the warning sounded by energy suppliers and investors in clean energy technologies. The problem is that energy demand is growing, despite the current recession.

However, there are no plans to create new power capacity that’s based on the status quo of burning good old coal. Instead, everybody’s been investing in solar, wind and nuclear energy.

These investments all depend on a high price for carbon credit offsets to justify building new clean-power capacities. But the lack of binding GHG reduction agreements at Copenhagen has pulled the rug out from under these plans.

The Guardian reports that the price of carbon credits fell 10% after it was clear that the Copenhagen event would end without a mandatory agreement to cut GHGs. Lack of a Copenhagen agreement forced the European Union to scrap plans to raise its goal of cutting GHGs from 20% to 30% by 2020. The 20% reduction target remains in effect.

Reuters reports falling prices for carbon offset credit prices, now at a six-month low, have cooled interest in the once-hot clean energy sector. Investments in solar, wind and geothermal projects may not revive until 2012, the news service reports.

Result: No GHG cuts, no income from carbon credits to build new capacity, no new capacity ready to go. So suddenly talk is back to energy shortages and higher prices.

Now that EPA officially says carbon dioxide (CO2) is a dangerous air pollutant, what’s it mean for business?

It’s high time to embrace concepts like energy efficiency or energy conservation or whatever you want to call it. Most smart money’s on those who are looking for ways to use less energy and rely more on power made by renewable sources like solar, wind and geothermal to reduce their company’s carbon footprint.

Reason: EPA’s action gives the Obama administration the ticket to force radical changes throughout the American economy to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. So, the fewer GHG emissions your facility creates directly, or indirectly by buying electricity produced by burning fossil fuels, the cheaper it will be for you to operate and the fewer regulatory hassles you’ll have to deal with.

Benefit: Whether your company makes these changes willingly or not, everybody can claim green credits for reducing GHG emissions and helping fight climate change.

In the short term, the biggest changes flowing from this “endangerment” finding is that it clears the way for EPA to:

1. impose tailpipe standards on GHG emissions from cars and trucks.  It will be the first time EPA sets GHG tailpipe emission standards, and
2. force industrial facilities to actually control and reduce their GHG releases by installing what’s known as best available control technology.

EPA is expected to break regulatory speed records to get both Clean Air Act rules out in final form by March 2010.

At first, EPA says regulation will be limited to the 13,000 largest facilities — the ones that emit 25,000 metric tons or more of GHGs a year. But many fear EPA will be forced to regulate smaller facilities as well, and all EPA has to do is to lower this 25,000 ton threshold.

There’s already precedent to do this. Oregon’s GHG reporting rule, for example, starts by regulating those that emit 25,000 metric tons per year. But in year two of the program, the reporting threshold falls to 2,500 metric tons per year. The reporting threshold in Washington state is 10,000 metric tons per year.

The tailpipe GHG emission standard will force U.S. automakers to make more fuel efficient vehicles.

Normally, the auto industry would raise all kinds of ruckus to avoid making more efficient cars. However, now that GM and Chrysler fell into bankruptcy and were bailed out by the U.S. taxpayer, President Obama gets to call the shots on this issue, so they won’t be able to oppose the new standards.

Most agree that EPA’s regulation will be far tougher on industry and business than the proposed cap-and-trade program being negotiated in Congress.

Obama has said he prefers the national cap-and-trade program and will restrain EPA if Congress approves emission trading program legislation.

That’s the encouraging prediction in a report from renewable energy consultants, New Energy Finance.

The firm predicts that the cost of solar power will be 50% cheaper in 2010 than it was in 2008, while wind power projects will fall by up to 20%  — based on the lifetime cost of a kilowatt produced by these clean, renewable energy sources.

Solar projects will be much more affordable, the research firm predicts, because of the steady decline in the cost of equipment. Also driving capital investment costs down is the falling price for financing, according to a statement by New Energy chairman Michael Liebreich.

The cheapest solar technology is a thin-film system, which is expected to produce electricity as cheap as $3 per watt of installed capacity.

While the New Energy report focuses on major capital investments, other technological breakthroughs are expected next year to bring cheap solar within the reach of the average Joe business owner and homeowners.

Dow Chemical says it will introduce a new solar panel next year that will be as easy to install as everyday asphalt roofing shingles. Dow says it has developed a low-cost production technique to make solar power available by mid-2010. The company hasn’t announced pricing just yet of its Powerhouse™ Solar Shingles, but some expect the panels to be up to 40% cheaper than some rigid solar panel arrays.

While prices for wind energy technology are also falling, the report notes that the overall cost of these projects will be offset by huge construction costs as energy developers try to build offshore wind power installations.

The cost-advantages of opting for a geothermal energy project won’t match the sustained declines in costs for solar and wind technology. The problem is that geothermal drilling costs, which have fallen by up to 50% due to the recession, will rebound when worldwide demand for oil and natural gas production picks up.

The cost of solar and wind power installations should be dropping sharply in 2010. Solar prices are supposed to fall by half.

That’s the encouraging prediction in a report from renewable energy consultants, New Energy Finance.

The firm predicts that the cost of solar power will be 50% cheaper in 2010 than it was in 2008, while wind power projects will fall by up to 20%  — based on the lifetime cost of a kilowatt produced by these clean, renewable energy sources.

Solar projects will be much more affordable, the research firm predicts, because of the steady decline in the cost of equipment. Also driving capital investment costs down is the falling price for financing, according to a statement by New Energy chairman Michael Liebreich.

The cheapest solar technology is a thin-film system, which is expected to produce electricity as cheap as $3 per watt of installed capacity.

While the New Energy report focuses on major capital investments, other technological breakthroughs are expected next year to bring cheap solar within the reach of the average Joe business owner and homeowners.

Dow Chemical says it will introduce a new solar panel next year that will be as easy to install as everyday asphalt roofing shingles. Dow says it has developed a low-cost production technique to make solar power available by mid-2010. The company hasn’t announced pricing just yet of its Powerhouse™ Solar Shingles, but some expect the panels to be up to 40% cheaper than some rigid solar panel arrays.

While prices for wind energy technology are also falling, the report notes that the overall cost of these projects will be offset by huge construction costs as energy developers try to build offshore wind power installations.

The cost-advantages of opting for a geothermal energy project won’t match the sustained declines in costs for solar and wind technology. The problem is that geothermal drilling costs, which have fallen by up to 50% due to the recession, will rebound when worldwide demand for oil and natural gas production picks up.

That’s a question that has most of the GOP and all of the global warming denier crowd scratching their heads and feeling betrayed on a hot emotional issue. Graham supports the Obama administration’s plan to create a cap-and-trade program to reduce U.S. greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

Recently, Graham joined with Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) in a New York Times op-ed article to propose a radical compromise that would merge environmental and energy policies under the cap-and-trade banner.

The deal: Graham says the GOP will sign off on a climate change bill that would give environmentalists their holy grail, a GHG cap-and-trade program. In exchange, Kerry says the Democrats will accept expanding nuclear power, increasing oil and gas exploration offshore, and investing in clean coal technologies to capture carbon dioxide releases.

Kerry and Graham also support imposing a border tax on products from developing nations — India and China — if they refuse to match the U.S. effort to reduce GHG emissions.

Graham’s not ignoring business interests. The Kerry/Graham plan would also set maximum and minimum emission credit prices to ease the pain of the transition to low-carbon and clean energy sources like wind, solar and geothermal power.

Graham sees using the cap-and-trade bill as a vehicle to finally formulate a national energy policy that’s primarily designed to reduce American reliance on imported oil.

This story of strange bedfellows is more complicated that simple horse-trading.

It turns out that Graham thinks the planet is in peril due to global warming. As a Washington Post feature points out, Graham thinks it’s high time for the Republicans to stop pretending global warming is a hoax and admit that climate change is a real problem.

There’s a maverick streak in Graham as well. He has worked with Democrats in the past to find compromises on other hot button issues, including immigration reform, judicial nominations, terror trials and health care.

So far, Graham has been all alone in the GOP supporting a compromise on climate change legislation. But he says there are other conservative GOP senators who agree with him.  He says they’re just not ready to openly talk about it right now.

Meanwhile, Graham has been rebuked back home. The Charleston County Republican Party voted to censure the Senator “for many of the positions he has taken that do not represent the wishes of the people of South Carolina.” First on the list: passing a cap-and-trade energy bill.

What do you think about the Kerry/Graham deal? Is it time for Congress to work on a policy that solves an environmental and energy problem? Please share your thoughts in the comments section.

The feds just funded 123 geothermal development projects in 39 states to jumpstart development of this renewable and clean form of energy.

The payoff: 25% to 50% cheaper heating/cooling bills with a geothermal heat pump system. And the savings can be even greater for those upgrading older buildings with inefficient heating and ventilation systems.

The Department of Energy touts the grants as creating thousands of new green jobs that will help avoid creation of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Geothermal is a clean energy source because the only release is steam. The energy comes from the 10 gallons of hot water produced for every barrel of oil or natural gas. The heat energy is captured and the water is recycled.

The technology can be developed in virtually all 50 states, especially in the West where there are lots of geothermal fields that have very hot water to tap. But DOE’s also funding 11 low-temperature geothermal projects in the East.

The winners of these grants, which total $338 million, include:

• ClimateMaster, Inc., which got $233,819 to build system performance software that will allow customers to monitor cost and performance of their geothermal heating and cooling systems
• Johnson Controls, which received $311,324 to install a geothermal system in a green building in Glendale, WI, and
• United Technologies Research Center, which got $1.199 million to improve a condenser system so it reduces water consumption and improves cooling power.

DOE notes that geothermal power from a California facility built in the 1960s sells for $0.030 to $0.035 per kilowatt hour (kWh). A newly built geothermal plant would likely charge $0.05 per kWh during normal demand and more during peak demand periods.

In July 2009, prices for conventional electricity averaged $0.0712 per kWh for the U.S. with a low of $.0496 in Louisiana to a high of $0.1376 in New Hampshire.

Within the next 90 days, all federal agencies have to explain how they’ll reduce energy and water usage and, of course, explain how they’ll reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

The agencies have to have these plans ready by Jan. 5, 2010 under an executive order signed last week by President Obama.

A similar order by President Bush ordered federal agencies to purchase eco-friendly electronics products — those that are certified under the Electronic Product Environmental Assessment Tool (EPEAT) program run by the Green Electronics Council.

But Obama’s order pushes federal agencies much more aggressively to make federal buildings much greener. The agencies that run the government’s 500,000 buildings have to meet a number of green goals, such as:

• imposing sustainability purchase requirements in 95% of federal contracts
• improving water efficiency by 26%
• increasing recycling and waste diversions from landfills by 50%, and
• reducing petroleum fuel purchases for federal fleets by 30%.

To meet these goals, federal agencies will have to purchase environmentally preferred products and services, promote wider use of renewable energy systems (wind, solar, geothermal, biofuels), set net-zero-energy building requirements, purchase alternative fuel vehicles, and reduce stormwater runoff.

Those supplying federal agencies may also find themselves voluntarily reporting their GHG emissions and reporting how they’re actively trying to reduce these emissions. Vendors will be pressured to do this because Obama has ordered the General Services Administration, the agency that buys most of the products for federal agencies, to study how to create a GHG registry for GSA vendors.

This would have major repercussions throughout the supply chain feeding federal agencies. Vendors not on the list or not making progress in reducing their GHG releases could be locked out of federal contracts.

The information to do this would likely be based on the GHG emission data that will be reported to EPA starting next year.

The 2009 GSA Global Supply Catalog: Environmental Products is available here.

Wells Fargo & Company says it will reduce its GHG releases 20% by 2018, based on 2008 emission levels. Like most companies, Wells Fargo’s contribution to climate change is indirect, so it’s focusing on reducing energy consumption as its GHG-reduction strategy.

The main strategy for the bank is to focus on energy efficiencies and to switch to renewable energy, such as solar and wind, for its electricity needs.

For example, the bank is installing solar power systems. The latest branches to go solar will be 10 “banking stores” going up in Denver, CO. These systems will generate about 300,000 kilowatts a year, which will garner the company the equivalent of reducing 450,000 pounds of carbon dioxide emissions a year.

The company’s also big into wind power. Under EPA’s Green Power Partners program, Wells Fargo is one of the nation’s largest buyers of renewable energy — using wind power to supply 40% of its electricity.

The push to reduce GHG emissions and increase efficiencies is part of the bank’s longstanding push to develop an eco-friendly reputation. Other energy-efficiency measures include:

• encouraging customers to get their bank statements online
• educating employees on how to reduce energy use at work and at home
• buying energy-efficient office and building equipment
• getting suppliers to identify energy-efficiency advantages of their products, and
• managing data centers for energy efficiencies.

In addition to the solar panels at some of its new outlets, Wells Fargo banking stores also meet green building standards set by the U.S. Green Building Council. Its newly built outlets use 20% less electricity and 40% less water than conventional banking outlets. At many of its existing outlets, Wells Fargo uses energy management systems, which cut energy consumption by 25%.

All the greening has generated positive press for the bank. For example, Wells Fargo recently scored #13 in Newsweek’s first annual Green Ratings.