Industrial production decreased 0.2 percent in March after an increase of 0.8 percent in February, according to the Federal Reserve's latest monthly "Industrial Production and Capacity Utilization" report, released this week. However, manufacturing output rose 0.7 percent in March, with the production of both durable and nondurable manufacturing increasing. Output in the manufacturing sector moved up 0.7 percent in March, with advances in production of durable goods having led the increase. Mining output edged up 0.1 percent over the same period.

At 112.5 percent of its 2002 average, overall industrial production for March was 2.3 percent above its year-earlier level. The rate of capacity utilization for total industry fell 0.2 percentage point, to 81.4 percent, a level 0.4 percentage point above its 1972-2006 average.

The production of non-NAICS manufacturing (logging and publishing) edged up for a second consecutive month.

The factory operating rate moved up 0.4 percentage point, to 80.1 percent.

The production of durable goods rose 0.9 percent after having edged up in February.

The indexes for nonmetallic mineral products, machinery, computer and electronic products, and miscellaneous manufacturing all rose 1.0 percent or more; these gains more than offset decreases in the indexes for wood products, furniture and related products, and aerospace and miscellaneous transportation equipment. The index for nondurable manufacturing moved up 0.5 percent; gains occurred in the indexes for food, beverage, and tobacco products; chemicals; and plastics and rubber products. The indexes for textile and product mills and for leather and apparel both declined more than 0.5 percent."

The statistics would seem to place us in "weak progress" mode – better than a decline but nothing to write home about. While there are many factors that affect manufacturing's health in America, energy costs have to be high on the list of most significant.

Long-term outlooks for oil do not look promising, according to Chris Nelder at Energy and Capital.

What may be surprising, though, is the reference to "renewables." Of course, the ethanol industry seems to be pushing along nicely, but, after all the energy inputs are accounted for, what percent of impact can vegetation contribute to replacing crude in the long run?

The advances in solar power, while amazing in the lab, seem difficult to bring into production and distribution. It seems we need a Manhattan Project for energy independence, but nobody seems willing to step up to the plate and announce, "I'll fund it." Few people want windmills in their backyard, and the American auto industry fights conservation. And some of the aging nuclear facilities are nearing the end of their life cycle (not to mention that the class-action lawyers are probably sharpening their knives, should another nuclear incident ever occur). Energy from fusion technology is still considered a long shot, and a hydrogen-based energy environment would require an immense up-front investment.

Our short-term economy, which is great for bringing new electronic products to market quickly, just isn't very supportive toward making new energy companies well funded and comfortable that risk would be rewarded.

So we've been thinking about building a bicycle generator to power our TV and DVD player. Anybody know of any kits?

Earlier:

Manufacturing Improved Slightly in March

Alternative-Fuel Vehicles on the Road: A 'Real-World' Guide

Alternative-Fuel Vehicles on the Road: A 'Real-World' Guide, Pt. II