Renewable Energy Solar Energy Wind Energy Geothermal Energy Bioenergy Hydropower
 

Part 1: A Glimpse of the Energy Future

By Larisa Brass
August 15, 2007   |   23 Comments
Buildings offer the greatest opportunity for energy conservation.

Do you like this news?

Email   Bookmark Bookmark   Print   Feed   Share
 
"If we continue to construct the same kind of inefficient buildings that put high demands on the power grid, we will have to build additional supply-side infrastructure to serve them. What we need is to fundamentally change the way we approach the construction and operation of our buildings. If done right, we, as a nation, can have our cake and eat it too."

-- Patrick Hughes, ORNL, buildings technology research program
23 Reader Comments
Comment
1 of 23
August 15, 2007
<p>It only &quot;costs&quot; .$.41 per day for electrical.What worthless propoganda!</p><p>Who paid for the solar panels? How much did it add to the costs of the House, if its included in the mortgage?&nbsp; Did electricity cost only $.41 per day, while the mortgage is $300 per month higher? Or did the gov't/utility pay the money thereby saving that homeowner and sticking everyone else with the $300 per month extra costs?<br /> </p><p>It is mindless proganda like the above article which truly insults anyone with n ounce of common sense. Solar costs 3x to 5x the costs of conventional power ($.30 to $.60 per kwh installed solar)&nbsp; I would bet Tennese charges its customers the$.15 rate for electrical power to consumers noted in the article. &nbsp;</p><p>The writer is either ignorant or outright dishonest in claiming the power only costs the consumer $.41 per day.&nbsp; Basic economics indicate a different conclusion.&nbsp;</p>
Comment
2 of 23
August 16, 2007
<p>&quot;Tenn. $.15 or about 1/2 to 1/4 the whole sale costs&quot;</p><p> should read, &quot;Tenn. $.15 or about 1/2 to 1/4 the costs of solar&quot;</p><p>sorry, but I didn't want to confuse Mr. Maupin.&nbsp;</p>
Comment
3 of 23
August 16, 2007
<p>Mr. Maupin said about me that, &quot; your ignorance is only surpassed by your lack of&nbsp; understanding of the subject.&quot;</p>Is it ignorant to point out that someone is paying for the difference between the costs of solar power generation and vastly cheaper sources of power generation?<p>My only contention is that the article is fails to accurately report the costs of electrical power and thereby promotes solar as nearly free when in reality it costs more than anything else we can buy for power. That is completely wrong. </p><p>How was I demonstrating any form of ignorance? </p><p>I site figures for which the solar ones can be verified on Solar Buzz year end report 2006 that solar costs $.30 to $.60 per kwh for INSTALLED&nbsp; generation. I now further point out that the panels by themselves cost about $.21 per kwh plus delivery and installation.&nbsp; </p><p>In contrast, nuke /coal/wind/hydro/natural gas costs are 1/3 to 1/5 the costs - I did not site a source but the you can see those figures batted around here and the whole sale rate of electrical power is often around $.09 kwh and I note that I speculate that the retail rate in Tenn. $.15 or about 1/2 to 1/4 the whole sale costs.</p><p>I demonstrated no ignorance.&nbsp; Maybe you need a dictionary.&nbsp;</p><p>I will point out that here in California, which is too far away to directly use TVA power, we encourage new homeowners to put up solar panels to liberate themselves for utility bills, while increasing their mortgage payments by $300 to $500 per month.&nbsp; So people claim its a good deal, I differ. </p>
Comment
4 of 23
August 16, 2007
Just what is the true cost of electricity?&nbsp;It has been far removed from the end user that is for sure.&nbsp; I have been researching PV for the past month and though it seems expensive now the price will keep coming down.&nbsp; Until then keep burning up those fossil fuels and act like everything is A-ok on this ball spinning in space. <strong>love you </strong>
Comment
5 of 23
August 16, 2007
<p>Mr. Berry obviously doesn't unstand the mission of the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) or the Oak Ridge National Laboratory. I am a resident of Tennessee. I can spell it correctly.&nbsp; The mission of TVA is and has always been to &quot;provide and improve the&nbsp; lives, economies,&nbsp; environment, and&nbsp; commercial development for the citizens in the 5 states&nbsp; along the Tennessee River Valley&quot;. </p><p>Power produced in the TVA System is also exported to many other states into the National Power Grid. Chances are Mr. Berry receives some of that power. Residents in the TVA System not only received&nbsp; some of the lowest electric rates in the United States, but also enjoy economic development performed by TVA to provide jobs by attacting investment by major corporations to locate throughout the region.&nbsp; </p><p>Tennessee, Kentucky, Georgia, Alabama, and Mississippi all benefit from the economic&nbsp; attractions made possible by the United States Department of Energy and TVA. Their commitment to stewardship of watershed, wildlife habitat,&nbsp; flood control, river transportation, agricultural&nbsp; land&nbsp; conservation, have prevented the five states from becoming&nbsp; a&nbsp; dust bowl and elevated the standards of living of all residents.&nbsp; </p><p>I'm only a small farmer that has lived on the same land for&nbsp; 8 generations. Having reached an old age and knowing the quality of life that existed in the region of&nbsp; 4 family generations before me,&nbsp; I can only say&nbsp; that &quot; your ignorance is only surpassed by your lack of&nbsp; understanding of the subject&quot;.&nbsp; </p><p>Stephen C. Maupin</p><p>Dresden, Tennessee,38225&nbsp;</p>
Comment
6 of 23
August 17, 2007
<p>Mr. Barry thank you for adding a dose of reality to the discussion.</p><p>I think a better way of thinking about PV solar system is purchasing your next 15 year's worth of electricity in advance.&nbsp; So when you pay $15,000 for the system, what you are doing in effect, is paying your electric bill 15 years in advance.&nbsp; Which is a slightly strange thing to do.&nbsp; To Mr. Barry's point, the owner is not paying just $0.41 per day for electricity because most of the electricity is &quot;prepaid&quot; in the mortgage.</p><p>&nbsp;&nbsp; For some fairly complete cost accounting for one 5KW system, look at Gray Watson's http://256.com/solar/.&nbsp; The breakeven is not too bad, about 11.4 years. But bear in mind two things.&nbsp; </p><p>&nbsp;&nbsp; 1) electricity in this area is $0.19 per KWH</p><p>&nbsp;&nbsp; 2) there are significant subsidies in Massachusetts<br /> </p><p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; (I think this comes from a $0.0025/KWH fee from rate payers) </p><p>It does make me wonder if this is mis-directed government policy.&nbsp; It seems like large scale winds turbines might be a better use of this money because the economics seem to be better.</p><p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; One other point I would like to make.&nbsp; In new home construction, I think there is usually a fixed budget in mind for the house.&nbsp; So when someone adds solar panels, they may end up cutting costs somewhere else in the construction.&nbsp; So perhaps people were already going to spend up to their limits anyway.&nbsp; In that case, I think it might be better to have solar panels than granite counter tops.&nbsp; However, dollar for dollar, the person and environment might be better serviced by spending money on insulation rather than solar panels.</p><p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; I guess my point is, even if you want to be green, you need to spend you green dollars in the most effective way, and solar panels might not be the first choice.</p><p>Thanks<br />John C. Briggs </p>
Comment
7 of 23
August 17, 2007
<p>You guys are missing the point on subsidies. Solar is 3 to 5 times its value, as stated by a pro industry magazine. Your rate of return is less than 3%, which most consider a bad yield for long term investments of 15 to 30 years. So society is OVER paying for this power.</p><p>Against hard numbers (except Nuke insurance which doesn't exist), you make reference to subsidies given to other industries, including costs of polution, without hard, or any, numbers and CONCLUDE that solar is certainly/probably better.&nbsp;</p><p>I also contend that only a fool pays 3 to 5 times the value of something. </p><p>If you bought a new house/car/television and told your friends that you 5 times what its worth to buy it, would your friends call you &quot;smart&quot;?&nbsp; Then are you &quot;smart&quot; with your electric purchases?&nbsp; </p><p>&nbsp;</p>
Comment
8 of 23
August 17, 2007
Nice article, but also depressing. Slapping solar panels on suburban roofs is like swatting at a mosquito while staring down a hungry lion. "A nearby four-lane drones in the background." Where will these people get their commuting fuel from in a few years? What will their ostensibly "green" houses be worth when the suburbs become "energy slums?"

We need a change of life-style, folks -- not a green facade of solar panels on the roofs of a life-style that is going down.

http://www.EscapeFromSuburbia.com
Comment
9 of 23
<p>I apologize for mispellings, Im passonate about my thoughts, and ask forgiveness for writing fast and not proofreading . </p><p>Most wars I may add are over economic reasons, America could lead the world in being energy independent. again the price is king ideals we have , has shown it's ugly head in the recent Chinese&nbsp; recall problems with toys and lead paint.&nbsp; Yes the price was cheap on front, but what is cost to children putting toys in mouth and injesting poison. </p><p>America used to give their employees health insurance , like companys like Sears, then the low price Wal Marts came out giving us lowest prices. Of course there went taking care of employee insurance. Then we have problems with Wall Mart buying 80% of their products from the chinese. Well we have cheap price right, but what is cost of lost American jobs, and the very polluted industrial air that China is doing to ramp out our cheap product needs. Well we can just wait for the wind from china&nbsp; to blow the pollution this way. Not to mention China owning us when we have given them most of our money.&nbsp; </p><p>Summary, we need to be more independant in energy, and take care of our people, why, because if we dont , who will?</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p>
Comment
10 of 23
August 17, 2007
<p>Jim Berry has a point, but he is incorrect that solar costs that much more than grid.&nbsp; Obviously somehow the costs are built into the house - someone is paying for the generated electricity.&nbsp; However, my PV system (seen at <a href="http://www.zapsys.com/solarpanels.jpg" target="_blank">www.zapsys.com/solarpanels.jpg</a>) probably costs .14/KWh, while grid power in Arizona is .085/KWh.&nbsp; But that is today.&nbsp; I expect grid power cost will double within 5 years.&nbsp; Also, that's not really apples to apples because grid power is HUGELY subsidized.&nbsp; </p><p>What do you think is the real cost per KWh of grid power?&nbsp; You need to find the coal, get rights to the property the coal is on, mine the coal, transport the coal, build a HUGE plant to burn the coal, maintain the plant and all the mining equipment, put up millions of miles of wires and transformers to distribute the power, and spend millions maintaining that grid, not to mention installing, checking, servicing meters and billing, plus thousands of employees.&nbsp; Seriously, do you think grid power is really cheaper than my 32 solar panels that need no maintenance (except I wash them once a month) and power that travels 120 feet to my box?&nbsp; No way.</p><p>If we move the grid subsidies to renewables, the difference in price would be incredible.&nbsp; But, I didn't install my PV system to save money.&nbsp; I installed it because I didn't think my gov't could be trusted to keep power cheap after doubling gasoline prices for no reason.&nbsp; Plus, it's nice that it helps keep down pollution.</p>
Comment
11 of 23
Respectfully, to Mr. Berry, I would like to say I agree with mr. Maupin.&nbsp; Mr. Berry you thinking is typical of the American system as price is king.&nbsp; Unfortuenety there are indirect cost that you may not be considering.&nbsp; Coal burning plants of the front side produce inexpensive power.&nbsp; But when adding the destruction to the environment, such as Mercury that poisons the fish as byproduct of coal buring it is higher cost then solar, why?&nbsp; Well the reason is poisen fish when eaten will allow mercury into the bloodstream which can cause permenat neuroligical disorders. (what is cost to patient and hospitals for this) .Please add something to that for every killawatt hour of coal.&nbsp; Then the studies that have been done with schools that are close to coal plants. They have medical problems such as 35% higher asthma rates in children.&nbsp; Please add those costs to the coal killawatt hour.&nbsp; Then figure the death such as happened in Utah of the coal miners, and also black lung desease to many miners, add their health cost to the coal killowatt hours. I could go on and on, and then there is acid mine drainage from the coal mining that poisens are&nbsp; lakes, which then we have to add calcium carbonate to lakes to keep them from dying, add that to the killowatt hours of coal. And of course the acid mine drainage that evaporates, to clouds , then rains acid rain which damages automobile finsihes, the cars have to be painted, there is cost then to car owners, and or course the paint fumes get in air paiting the cars, causing air pollution.Add that cost&nbsp;to the killowatt hours of coal. Now I could go no and on. Nucleur power has diposal issues of dangerous waste.&nbsp; What I saying is America if it cares about its people truly , it will look at all cost in any power generation.&nbsp; Then we enter war in Iraq, secound largest oil reserves in world. What is cost of war, then rebuilding the country after we bomb in for oil. Anway solar is cheap when you consider the sun is free and unlimited!!
Comment
12 of 23
August 17, 2007
<font size="2"><p>Winter Energy Savings Tip: If you have windows that face in a generally southern direction and are not shaded by trees or other buildings, remove the screens, wash the windows and open the blinds to let in free solar heat for your home. Be sure and close the blinds at night to prevent radiant heat loss.</p><p>A 3 foot wide and 4 foot tall window can let in about 2.8 kilowatts of heat every sunny day. If your electricity costs 10 cents per kilowatt hour (Gas heat has a similar cost), you could save close to $42 over the winter from just one window of that size. The best part is that you don't have to pay any taxes on your savings and you are reducing greenhouse gas pollution.</p><p>If you are concerned about the sun fading a fabric, just cover it with an old sheet or similar type cover.</p><p>Please pass this tip along to your friends.</p><p>Christina Nelson,&nbsp; <a href="http://www.theoriginalcoffeecompanyonline.com/page/1193710" target="_blank">My Green Page</a></p></font>
Comment
13 of 23
August 17, 2007
<p>Jim Berry, There are indeed a truckload of subsidies for power from any source, I'll focus my remarks on nuclear power. As an old nuke protester I'll go for a deal allowing these newfangled &quot;inherently save&quot; nuke plant designs to be built anywhere, anytime and in any number provided that the industry disavow the insurance coverage subsidies mandated by the Price-Anderson Act. This law sets an artifically low cap on insurance liability in case of a catastrophic event then requires the government to assume 80% of that cost, leaving the other 20% to be assumed by private insurance. (Mr. Levy misspoke on this point, it's not that nuke plants are uninsured just that none are primarily privately insured). The insurance companies would refuse to take full liabilty just as they did in the '50s before the first version of the PA Act was passed and even if they didn't no power company would&nbsp; assume the costs.</p><p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Secondly you posted that homeowners in California are being bamboozeled into installing solar panels in thier homes resulting in up a $500 increase in thier mortage. I can understand how this might create a hardship on one's credit cards, but hopefully that doesn't entail a lifetime commitment. I can also understand how that could increase property taxes but isn't proposition whatever it was passed in '78 still in force? I can also understand how a subsequent buyer of such a home may be forced to pay a higher price for it but the statement as you posted it is baffling.</p>
Comment
14 of 23
August 17, 2007
<p>Mr. Berry - your argument is a good one if you look at coal and nukes in the vaccuum that they are often looked in.&nbsp; Do you honestly think that the true cost of using coal is 9 - 15 c/kWh?&nbsp; If you do, then you really are ignorant.&nbsp; The reality is, massive subsidies and tax breaks are provided to all energy producers.&nbsp; In fact, utility wind does not receive subsidies that can even compare to the ones provided to the coal and nuke folks.&nbsp; In fact, nuclear is so risky, not one nuclear plant in the world is even insured - who pays for the constant repair for those facilities?&nbsp; You guessed it bud - we do.&nbsp; You cannot compare the true cost of wind/pv and ignore the true cost of coal and nukes.&nbsp; Who pays for all the massive cleanup operations around the US (ever hear of superfund????).&nbsp; The reality is, tax payers are sheltered from the true cost of coal and nukes through subsidies, something the Renewable Energy folks can only dream of.&nbsp; The beauty of renewable systems is that when they are taken away, they are truly gone.&nbsp;&nbsp; Try decomissioning a nuclear plant or a coal mine - guess who pays for that too???&nbsp; </p><p>&nbsp;Ignorant you are not - one sided arguments is however what you are presenting.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Regards.</p><p>Tom</p>
Comment
15 of 23
August 17, 2007
I think the following article that states that these homes were built for 5-10% more finishes this argument.&nbsp; Both these articles are about new build, not retro-fitting existing housing.
Comment
16 of 23
August 18, 2007
I agree with Jan Steinman's perspective:

"A nearby four-lane drones in the background. Where will these people get their commuting fuel from in a few years? What will their ostensibly "green" houses be worth when the suburbs become "energy slums?"

To obtain cheap solar access, these houses are built on remote land; every tree has been chopped down. The inhabitants are isolated from universities, from well-educated friends/co-workers, from rich cultural experiences: Welcome to the ghetto!

To calculate energy-use cost is a meaningless exercise. Rather, we must calculate the TOTAL LIFETIME ENERGY COST to live in an environment that is RICH IN EXPERIENCES, including:

1. A variety of world cultures (including cost of air travel);

2. Education at the finest universities;

3. A work environment of maximum lifetime achievement and joyful creation;

4. Friendships and marriage partnerships of optimum cultural/intellectual richness.

5. An opportunity-rich child-rearing environment.
Comment
17 of 23
August 18, 2007
<p>I think the current solar panel technology is perhaps more cost effective than some of the comments here suggest.&nbsp; Looking at the&nbsp; http://256.com/solar/ website and using figures of 25 year service life, 5000 kWh/per year production, $35,000 installation costs (full cost)&nbsp; and&nbsp; $12,300 system costs (after rebates and incentives)&nbsp; I see that</p><p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; $0.19/kWh for commercial electricity (2007)</p><p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; $0.28/kWh for solar power (no rebates or incentives)</p><p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; $0.10/kWh for solar power (with rebates and incentives)</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>So looking at $0.19/kWh for commercial electricity versus $0.28/kWh for solar power (no rebates),&nbsp; clearly solar power is at a premium today at about 1.5&times; (no rebates).&nbsp; This is not the 3&times; to 5&times; that other people have claimed.&nbsp; Of course, it depends on regional electricity rates.</p><p>&nbsp;&nbsp; Also, over the 25 year service life, I expect electricity rates to rise and the solar power will be cheaper.&nbsp; This is despite the fact that it is &quot;today's&quot; technology.&nbsp; Given that, is there really any compelling reason to wait.</p><p>Thanks</p><p>John C. Briggs&nbsp;</p>
Comment
18 of 23
August 18, 2007
<p>The real point is that locally-generated solar power is not cost-effective today.&nbsp; Photovoltaic solar panels cost $6-$8 per installed watt.&nbsp; That equates to $.25 per kilowatt hour over the 25 year life of the system - and that's with rebates.&nbsp; However, research in both solar cells and solar thin films may soon reduce the cost to around $1 per watt, which is when solar power becomes directly competitive with power off the grid (at $.10 per kWh). At that point the energy revolution begins.&nbsp; Meanwhile, I do not appreciate paying 6% on my electric bill for energy rebates for people who install the present technology.</p><p>And thanks to REA for removing the ad for Sundance generators and Hummingbird engines.</p>
Comment
19 of 23
August 18, 2007
<p style="__styledocument: [object]">One of the aims of my previous post was to dispel ,it seems, common misperception that nuclear insurance is nonexistant. If one is talking of his/her homeowner's policy this is true but the drift of this thread is about the nuke plants themselves. The mechanism of the Price-Anderson Act is a mix of private but mostly government provided insurance. Its core principle is limited liability which I'd gladly give my opinion of if forum rules didn't prohibit &quot;the use of vulgarity&quot;. It is however an overstatement to say such insurance is nonexistant, more accurately it is grossly inadequate. But don't take my word for it, Google it. You will find there are some 14,000 entries which isn't a lot since this law has been on the books since the '50s. Perhaps the powers that be want to limit our awareness of this, though I can't imagine why;). The point is this is one part of a witches brew of subsidies of nuclear power.</p><p style="__styledocument: [object]">Since wind power has the advantage of not being rocket science California may indeed be erring in its tilt toward solar. Unfortunately many consider windmills ugly, from the prominent so and sos on Martha's Vneyard to millions in modest suburbs. I think complimentary systems would be wise considering the wind doesn't always blow and the &nbsp;sun doesn't always shine and safely storing electricity on site remains problematic. However let's accept that not all subsidies are bad.</p>
Comment
20 of 23
August 19, 2007
<p>Jim Berry said: &quot;You guys are missing the point on subsidies,&quot; and then discusses the investment value of installing&nbsp;solar for your home.&nbsp;&nbsp;I just think there is more than one point, and investment value is pretty low on my list.&nbsp; Although, to that point, investment value for an additional bathroom on your home might be 90% of the cost when you sell your house.&nbsp; That means you lose 10% of your investment - that sucks.&nbsp; So, why would you ever do it?&nbsp; Well, obviously, investment value is not the reason you do it.</p><p>What's the investment value of a new car?&nbsp; Depends on how long you keep it, but if you keep it forever (like my 1990 pickup), the investment value is -100%.&nbsp; You lose 100% of your money.&nbsp; Obviously, I didn't buy my pickup because of investment value.</p><p>If a solar PV system has a 3% investment value as suggested, that's just icing on the cake.&nbsp; There are other reasons to install one.</p><p>I would submit (as I have before) that anyone that spends $50K on a new car, but does not have a solar PV system, needs to re-evaluate their priorities.</p>
Comment
21 of 23
August 19, 2007
If the sun is there to be turned into electricity, Then it should be harvested just have to buy the panels and wires to do it and have that being used instead of stuff that ruins the water too.
Comment
22 of 23
August 20, 2007
Interesting comments and remarks.&nbsp; I think the cost of PV will decrease as the industry grows. Normal competitive pressures will force price reductions both from a retail purchase price as well as from a labor to install price. More innovation will lead to possible cost savings as well.&nbsp; The key to trigger all of the opportunities for price reductions &amp; innovation is &quot;demand&quot;.&nbsp; The industry needs to expand and we will all share the benefits.
Comment
23 of 23
September 10, 2007
<p>&quot;Think - Two for One&quot;.&nbsp; On&nbsp;Jan Steinman's perspective:<br /><br /><strong>&quot;A nearby four-lane drones in the background. Where will these people get their commuting fuel from in a few years? What will their ostensibly &quot;green&quot; houses be worth when the suburbs become &quot;energy slums?&quot;</strong></p><p>Well the &quot;green&quot; houses will be worth even more, irrespective of the equity in kW comparisons from grid to panel.&nbsp; If a panel can be mass produced that creates ~10% efficiency or better, and subsidies from the government grow to match the costs of the PV setups over 10 years payback time - PV becomes feasable. </p><p>If we produce cars (Phev's) that plug into our 120/240 grid tied outlets- what happens then?&nbsp; Effectively we have cut down the &quot;four-lane drones in the background&quot; and have a win-win situation at hand.&nbsp; Our cars run on electricity being generated by our homes grid tied PV systems.&nbsp; Our destiny&nbsp;with PV is not murky&nbsp;here.&nbsp; Utlize all of the PV energy captured before sending it back into the inefficient grid and save more energy in the first place by having no or little &quot;send-back&quot; attenuation-distribution inefficiencies.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>We all understand that&nbsp;everything in mans mind gets created eventually; and it starts out usually with&nbsp;good intention, but certainly not to the placation of all.&nbsp; Solar WILL grow and GeoThermal WILL grow because they simply MUST.</p><p>Let the people who have their current systems enjoy, brag, be happy about and otherwise talk endlessly about their systems.&nbsp; This is how ideas grow, stimulation occurs to have the &quot;next best thing&quot;, and how we're gonna move to better and better installations and more efficient housing and driving infrastructures.</p><p>..we need to start building green by utilizing: SIP's (S'x insulated panels), by using ICF's (insulated concrete forms) and GeoThermal in all of our buildings too.&nbsp;This is more than clear.</p><p>In these cases, homes would need such a small footprint of energy that the cost of the PV units needed (perhaps 1500kW) for a 2500sf home would be cheap.</p><p>Our appliances are just now being designed to have less stand-by energy demands by mandate, our energy star homes are moving closer to net homes (certainly not as good as new building technologies however), so we are moving into the right arena.&nbsp; We can't do it all over night unless we bleed some more for our energy costs.</p><p>All the Best, FB</p>
Add Your Comment

Registered users, please make sure to Sign-In. We and others want to know your ideas and opinions. If you are not yet Registered -- it's quick and easy. Just click below.
Thanks!

Register Now   Sign-In

Advertise With Us

Sharp Solar Energy Solutions Group Conergy Inc. National Hydropower Association Delta Rigging & Tools Sol Systems LLC HelioSage Asia Solar Expo
World's #1 Renewable Energy Network
PennWell
Renewable Energy World Magazine North America Renewable Energy World Magazine International Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo North America Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Europe Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Asia Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo India Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Africa
RenewableEnergyWorld.com Photovoltaics World Magazine Solar Power Gen Conference & Expo Hydro Review Magazine Hydro Review World Magazine
HydroVision International HydroVision Brazil HydroVision India HydroVision Russia
Twitter Facebook Linked In RSS Feeds e-Newsletters