Following the disaster at Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plants in 2011, Germany said it would shut down all its nuclear generation and Japan has already closed down all but two of its reactors. In May, Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (NYSE: GS) committed to investing $487 million for renewable energy projects in Japan, and the bank has now said it is targeting a total of $3.19 billion on renewable energy projects including solar and off-shore wind power in Japan.

Goldman established the Japan Renewable Company in August of last year and the bank’s energy projects look to add about 1,000 megawatts to Japanese renewable generation. The country currently generates about 6,100 megawatts of its total supply of around 285,000 megawatts from renewable sources. By the end of this year, that total is expected to grow to 9,400 megawatts. Clearly, there’s a lot of room to grow the renewable share.

After France and the U.S., Japan was the largest consumer of nuclear power generation in the world. And while both the U.S. and France remain committed to keeping nuclear generation in the mix, the defections of Germany and Japan and the shutdown of several plants in the U.S. due to age continues to squeeze demand for new nukes.

The U.S. Department of Energy recently committed $150 million to a subsidiary of engineering firm The Babcock & Wilcox Co. (NYSE: BWC), mPower, that is working on a design for a small module reactor (SMR) that is projected to cost about $5,000 per kilowatt of generation. A 200-megawatt version would cost about $1 billion, far below the double-digit billions of a full-scale 1,000-megawatt plant.

Whether the SMRs will be viable and acceptable remains to be seen, but as old reactors are shut down in the U.S. and new coal-fired plants are highly unlikely to be built, natural gas-fired plants and renewables like solar and wind are set for more growth, provided financing does not become a major obstacle.

Goldman’s bet in Japan is not a very large risk. The big risk these days is betting on nukes.

In the 2013 report, the global economy is expected to grow on average by 2.8% from 2010 to 2040. The company sees population growth expected to be 35% to almost 9 billion people by 2040. The projection expects India’s population to overtake China’s after 2030. Africa’s gross domestic product is estimated to grow by about 4% per year, and China is projected to grow more than 5% on average annually through 2040.

Over the next five years, Exxon Mobil expects to invest approximately $185 billion in energy projects. It is probably not surprising, but Exxon Mobil sees oil remaining the number one global fuel. Oil and gas are predicted to supply about 60% of global energy demand in 2040, versus about 55% in 2010. The company also sees natural gas growing by 85% and overtaking coal for the number two spot. Nuclear power is expected to double out to 2040.

While the stress was on efficiency, Exxon did note that wind and solar energy would form an important and growing part of the global energy mix. Unfortunately, the limitations of these are still present as well. The oil and gas giant even goes on to say that climate change policies will play a key role in limiting the growth of greenhouse gas in the future.

Also read: The 24/7 Wall St. 2013 Alternative Energy and Cleantech Picks and Pans for 2013

Here is Exxon’s full annual outlook.

JON C. OGG

We have also added caveats and color if applicable This sector and company list was put together in a nonpartisan manner.

Alternative Energy: This is the most obvious sector that was hoping for an Obama win. The implication is that the Department of Energy will keep spending on alternative energy investing. First Solar Inc. (NASDAQ: FSLR) is the biggest of the solar players in the United States, and its shares are indicated above $25 after closing at $24.79 on Tuesday. In ETFs there is the PowerShares WilderHill Clean Energy (NYSEMKT: PBW), which is now only $4.00 per share. While this sector seems an obvious winner, be advised that alternative energy has been such a bad investment that these have turned 401(k) plans into 201(k) plans. At the peak of the energy craze in 2007 to 2008, PBW was at $28 and First Solar was above $300.

Autos: Despite the debate over Romney’s GM handling or Obama being more prounion, ultimately the industry is going to try to sell more cars regardless. General Motors Co. (NYSE: GM) in theory will be more protected than Ford Motor Co. (NYSE: F), as the U.S. still has its massive stake in the company. Tesla Motors Inc. (NASDAQ: TSLA) will shine as the model car company.

Banks: Bank regulation is higher under Obama and Dodd-Frank, but now the banks likely have this incredibly low-rate environment to deal with. The flip side is that Romney would likely have allowed the too big to fail banks to fail. Jamie Dimon of J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. (NYSE: JPM) did not exactly win new friends in the election.

Big Dividend Stocks: Higher taxes under Obama are said to be an issue, but it is amazing that many of these stocks already have pulled back. This applies to the likes of Altria Group Inc. (NYSE: MO), utilities under the Utilities Select Sector SPDR (NYSEMKT: XLU) and others. It may even apply to the likes of an AT&T Inc. (NYSE: T), although the stock is down 10% from its highs in anticipation of higher dividend taxes and as the dividend trades became too crowded in 2012.

Bonds: The bond market would prefer the status quo of easy money and low rates, as we have already seen. Bond prices (lower yields) are theoretically set to remain where they are for the foreseeable future. Merrill Lynch’s latest RIC report said:

The election outcome may have important implications for Fed policy. A Romney victory could lead to a more hawkish Fed over the medium term. This would likely be good for the US dollar, but bad for gold.

Brokerage Firms: Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (NYSE: GS), Morgan Stanley (NYSE: MS) and the rest of the large investment banks will be disappointed with the election outcome. Wall St. bonus attacks are likely to remain a focus.

Buffett: Warren Buffett has been a strong supporter of Obama, and that in theory protects the interests of Berkshire Hathaway Inc. (NYSE: BRK-A).

Casinos: Casino owners have been very negative against President Obama after he bashed companies for expensive junkets in Las Vegas after the 2008 election. Sheldon Adelson of Las Vegas Sands Corp. (NYSE: LVS) was a huge Republican supporter, and Steve Wynn of Wynn Resorts Ltd. (NASDAQ: WYNN) has been very vocal against the administration. Neither one of those bosses is happy about the outcome, but both stocks are down substantially from their 52-week highs.

Coal: Let’s just say that “I like coal!” came from Romney, and coal has not exactly been very favorable under Obama. Peabody Energy Corp. (NYSE: BTU) was around $70 at the start of 2011 and is now around $29.00. There had been a Romney-bounce in the last month from $22 so watch for some potential pressure to remain. The ETF that has all of the major coal names is the Market Vectors Coal ETF (NYSEMKT: KOL), and at almost $26 this has been cut in half since early 2011.

Defense: Romney wanted to keep defense spending higher, although there has been a debate over how much the cuts really will be because of the job losses that will come from defense spending cuts. Defense cuts are a huge portion of the coming fiscal cliff. It is interesting that Lockheed Martin Corp. (NYSE: LMT), at almost $95, is still within almost 1% of a 52-week high and carries almost a 5% dividend yield.

Gold and Silver: Gold bulls want the same Fed policy we have been seeing, as the printing of money and low rates help it. Therefore, ditto for silver. Gold started to bounce handily in the past few sessions and is trading up so far on the Obama victory. Merrill Lynch noted in its RIC report:

The election outcome may have important implications for Fed policy. A Romney victory could lead to a more hawkish Fed over the medium term. This would likely be good for the US dollar, but bad for gold.

The SPDR Gold Trust (NYSEMKT: GLD) is worth a whopping $72.5 billion in market value, but the smaller ETF Physical Swiss Gold Shares (NYSEMKT: SGOL) has a lower management fee and its gold is kept in Swiss vaults. The Market Vectors Gold Miners ETF (NYSEMKT: GDX) tracks the mining sector for gold and is barely above $50, which is down about 20% from its year high of $63.05. iShares Silver Trust (NYSEMKT: SLV) is the largest silver ETF, with just over $10 billion in market value, while Silver Wheaton Corp. (NYSE: SLW) is the go-to player in the Devil’s Metal when it comes to silver miners.

Housing: On the surface, the housing sector would initially prefer Obama because of the Fed policy, QE3 and interest rates. Ultimately this is debatable, but that has been the take of market pundits. Just keep in mind that this sector already has rallied massively, and the key ETF SPDR S&P Homebuilders (NYSEMKT: XHB), at $26.70, has a 52-week range of $14.96 to $27.06.

Luxury Goods: Will display of wealth be shunned? That depends on whom you speak with, and it is still up for debate whether higher taxes will curb spending on luxury items. The question is whether it is really only millionaires and billionaires, or if the basis dips down to those families making $250K. Tiffany & Co. (NYSE: TIF) is perhaps the poster child of luxury spending companies, but with shares close to $65, its 52-week range is $49.72 to $78.43. Michael Kors Holdings Ltd. (NYSE: KORS) would fit in along the higher-end apparel and accessories theme as well, and its shares are up massively from the initial public offering.

Media: TV, Web, papers, radio and every other form of media had more media spending in this election that ever. The full tally is not yet known, but this should have given a real boost to quarterly earnings. Some outlets are conservative and some are liberal. We will not identify individual companies here on either side because there are so many units and local efforts that may not be the same as the parent company might indicate.

Nuclear: While nuclear has never been officially killed, it has never really been embraced either. USEC Inc. (NYSE: USU) has been all but left for dead.

Oil and Gas: The United States has had no real energy policy in three decades, and let’s just say that the oil and gas sector was hoping for a Romney victory. Exxon Mobil Corp. (NYSE: XOM) is the largest of big oil, with a $400+ billion market value. United States Oil Fund (NYSEMKT: USO) tracks the price of oil each day, while Market Vectors Oil Services ETF (NYSEMKT: OIH) tracks the major oil and gas services companies.

REITs: Real Estate Investment Trusts fall under the high dividend classification, but the reality is that the REIT sector involves too many facets of land use to target in general. The key ETF here is the Vanguard REIT Index ETF (NYSEMKT: VNQ), but its price peaked in September around $69 and is around $65 now.

Technology: Outside of the government spending plans, technology is probably a net neutral. Most investors believe that White House policies and the efforts of Congress do not (currently) target Apple Inc. (NASDAQ: AAPL) or Microsoft Corp. (NASDAQ: MSFT). Technology should be a net neutral, minus of course whatever infrastructure spending gets cut in the coming fiscal cliff. One question up for debate, which has not gone its way yet: Can Obama make Research in Motion Ltd. (NASDAQ: RIMM) cool again?

Telecom: Ultimately, this sector is a neutral, based on the election outcome. The exception here is that both AT&T Inc. (NYSE: T) and Verizon Communications Inc. (NYSE: VZ) are the behemoths, and they are classified along with utilities under the high-dividend theme stocks. That could pose more selling if investors think that the dividend taxes will really more than double.

Utilities: This sector wanted a Romney victory almost across the board. This was due to regulation, what source of energy can be used (coal versus other) and due to perceived higher dividend taxes coming down the pipe. Utilities Select Sector SPDR (NYSEMKT: XLU) is the key ETF, but American Electric Power Co. Inc. (NYSE: AEP) has been the industry champion of lobbying and has even been very vocal in dividend taxation on behalf of investors.

And finally the big kahuna … Health care is generally too big to group under one header, and the reality is that whether or notthe sector liked Obamacare, most subsectors of health care already have moved their business models and expectations based on Obamacare remaining.

• Health insurance: Ultimately Republican leadership was preferred, but the entire industry has now consolidated in anticipation of the Obamacare rules, and the industry had moved to adapt to changes in the health care system starting in 2014. UnitedHealth Group Inc. (NYSE: UNH) is worth more in market value than the three next large public competitors in health care insurance.
• Hospitals: Higher expense coverage under Obamacare gives hospitals a victory. HCA Inc. (NYSE: HCA) is one of the behemoths here.
• Medical devices: Higher reimbursement rates possibly would have been seen under Romney, and Medtronic Inc. (NYSE: MDT) is in that camp. But its shares are close enough to 52-week highs that this is probably up for debate.
• Big pharma and biotech: Theoretically they preferred a Romney victory, although share prices have not been at risk as much as they were ahead of the election in 2008. Stem cell companies, on the other hand, are likely happy about the outcome of the election.

Also, the small public sector of retail gun selling should benefit as well but this is a very small segment in the grand scheme of the economy.

JON C. OGG

Follow on Twitter @jonogg

Dominion has sought a buyer for the plant for the past 18 months or so. The company will meet its contractual obligations to two customers of the plant by buying power on the open market until the contracts expire in December 2013.

The Kewaunee plant began operating in 1974 and Dominion acquired it in 2005. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission renewed the plant’s license in 2011 for an additional 20 years, out to 2033. That should have given the plant a new lease on life, but with few exceptions, there simply are no buyers for nuclear generation since last year’s disaster in Japan.

Dominion’s shares are down 0.9% at $53.01, in a 52-week range of $48.87 to $55.62.

Paul Ausick

Read: The 10 States That Use the Most Energy

The vast majority of U.S. consumption is from fossil fuels, mostly petroleum, followed by natural gas and coal. The remaining use comes from nuclear energy, at 8.6%, and renewable energy, at 8.2%. While the nation consumes an enormous amount of energy as a whole, some states consume much more energy than others. Based on EIA’s data for 2010, 24/7 Wall St.’s reviewed the 10 states that consume the most energy per capita.

Regions that produce the most energy also use the most and pay the least. Nine of the 10 states are among the top 20 producers of energy per capita. Combined, the 10 produced 33.2 quadrillion Btu, roughly a third of our total energy production. Meanwhile, they paid 8.3 cents per kWh on average, less than the national average of nearly 10 cents.

Energy prices in the states that consume the most energy per capita are among the cheapest in the country. This is due largely to the availability of locally produced energy, particularly petroleum. Eight of the 10 states with the highest energy use are among the third with the cheapest costs. Wyoming, the state with the highest consumption per capita in the country, also has the cheapest costs per capita, at just 8.7 cents per kWh. The U.S. average cost is nearly 10 cents, and in Hawaii, it is 25 cents per kWh.

In addition to using the most, many of these states tend to be among the greatest producers of energy relative to the size of their population. Some, including Louisiana, Texas and Wyoming, are also the greatest producers overall. Wyoming produces 10.5 quadrillion Btu of energy, roughly 14.5% of the nation’s production, despite being the least populous state in the country.

The reason these states are producing and using so much energy has much to do with their main industries. Most of these states, including North and South Dakota, Wyoming and Texas, are in the energy production industry, particularly oil production. Energy production requires a great deal of energy use. Industrial use, which includes manufacturing and energy production, is among the highest in these states. Every one of the top 10 states for energy industrial consumption is among the top 10 for overall energy consumption.

Residential consumption is also high in many of these states, but not nearly as high as industrial consumption. Of the 10 states that use the most energy per capita, five are among the top 15 for residential energy consumption per capita.

There are four major uses of energy in the country, and they divide up total share relatively evenly. Residential consumption, nationwide, is only 22.3% of total consumption, while industrial consumption accounts for 31%. The commercial industry accounts for 18.4% and transportation uses 28%.

24/7 Wall St. relied on U.S. Census 2010 population statistics and U.S. EIA 2010 energy consumption and production data to produce both consumption and production on a per capita basis. We also included costs per kilowatt hour and consumption for each of four major types: residential, industrial, commercial and transportation, from the EIA.

These are the 10 states that use the most energy.