Thanks for all the useful information
@msf NALFX available at Schwab without a load.
NEE has an enormous portfolio of renewable energy so it can really not be considered as fossil fuel dependent as other utilities.
I have not found ESG calculations at M* very useful, as they are too inflexible. "G" is so widely defined almost any tech company qualifies.
Making money on the alternative energy ETFs seems dependent on when you buy them, and the price, as always. That is one reason why I think an active fund has advantages.
A lot of the performance of many of these funds recently is dependent on how much TSLA they own. Active management can cut back large positions like this when they price gets too extreme, but even funds without TSLA have gotten burned last year. ZGEIX for example held onto Beyond Meat as it crashed but sold it before the third quarter.
There are other sources of information but most cost a lot. For example, "Thunder Said Energy" sends out daily emails about their extensive engineering based research, but charges $500 a report. The free charts are very useful, however. As an example, they list projected Lithium demand, or requirements to upgrade the electrical grid. This lead me to GRID, for example, which has number of positions that are critical to upgrading the power grid, many of them in other funds.
The jury is still out on the environmental impact required to implement alternative energy infrastructure. Minerals, steel cement are all needed in much greater quantities than traditional oil and gas extraction.
One point the people at Thundersaidenergy make over and over again, is that the "transition" to decarbonization will require A LOT of energy and fossil fuels. I think it is short sighted to eliminate all oil companies from your investments because they will do well in the near term.
I have small positions in PWO, LIT, REMX,GMET,TAN,FXC NLR as water and minerals and
nuclear power will have to assume greater roles than oil and coal in the years ahead.