Our Magazines Article Archives
 

Last Word: Solar Thermal – Time to Redress the Balance

By Petri Konttinen
October 21, 2008   |   29 Comments

Do you like this magazine?

Email   Bookmark Bookmark   Print   Feed   Share
 
29 Reader Comments
Comment
1 of 29
October 23, 2008
Petri, the main reason, as with most anything is money. I believe that PV is pushed, especially grid, or greed tied systems, only benefit the big power companies. They entice the public with rebates and net metering. They give homeowners pennies per KW and turn around and sell it to their neighbors for current rates. Eventually, they can turn around and give them nothing. Also if everyone feeds into the grid, the grid has to grow, and at whose expense? The customers of course. And they get a new system for nothing.
With solar thermal, they cannot profit. Just take a look at the new energy bill that passed. All is focused on electric production and solar thermal is once again put on the back burner. Why? Because they cannot profit from it. You cannot feed hot water or hot air back into the main utilities. Lowering one's dependence on fuel sources that provide heat and hot water heating will also put less money in their pockets as providers.
I work in the solar field and my main focus is on hot water heating for domestic hot water and home heating, design of passive and active heating and daylighting to lower or eliminate the use of fossil fuels for everyday use. Every customer I have loves their systems and praise them highly. I try to keep cost as minimal as possible to encourage keeping the systems going. I feel the only way solar thermal will catch on is for people to see them in operation and for the homeowners, and people like me and you to spread the word.
As you mentioned, people do not want to believe that solar thermal works, especially since there is very little advertisement and public knowledge available. It kills me when I see ads on tv now pushing PV knowing that the big guy is behind it. But just like you, I think PV is okay. I push small dedicated systems to reduce dependence on the grid and to provide year round and back up power without the complications of connecting to the grid.
With home heating cost rising, solar thermal should grow
Comment
2 of 29
October 24, 2008
Thomas,
I agree with your comments. I still believe that when solar thermal grows big enough, and the largest companies list to the stock market giving more transparency to the key financial figures of solar thermal, it will expand and some big greentech companies will get seriously interested.
I'm a member at both ESTIF and ESTTP, and we are working on advertising and awareness-raising campaigns for solar thermal.
One of the best I ever saw was a picture made by two small kids. The one from Cyprus had a house with solar thermal on roof, the on from England had drawn a chimney with smoke. So, if we can start educating even small children or if they see solar thermal all around them like in Cyprus, they will think it is the natural heat source instead of fossil fuels.
Comment
3 of 29
October 24, 2008
Hi TM: God, as I was reading your comments I felt like it was something I had written, less some sarcasm... I would comment but you hit all the nails on all the heads...

.....Bill
Comment
4 of 29
October 25, 2008
Petri,
In the spirit of your question, The problem with what you call Solar Thermal is the relationship between supply and demand.

Absent a tight-fit in both time and space between the RE energy and target load, there is no opportunity for cost avoidance.

So you can heat water in the middle of the day - what - for a shower at 6 in the morning before you go to work? Because you can't hit your target you need both a storage system, and an integrated legacy heater. Those costs quickly challenge the savings of the system.

There is another reason, Houses are built to sell; buyers look at the monthly payments for the house - not the related energy bill's - If Fanny-mae would provide homes loans based on the /combined/ monthly cost of mortgage and energy, then there would be an incentive to optimize the product for real cost.

Benjamin
Comment
5 of 29
October 26, 2008
Hi Ben:

For the moment, lets say your comment is 100% true. Given that truth, a solar thermal system still pays back twice to three as fast as any PV system using a no subsidy cost/payback model. The solar thermal equipment is cheaper per unit of delivered energy, more efficient and given the onsite heat storage, you now begin to raise the bar on energy independence. A PV grid tie system, when the power goes out is useless without adding all those things that a solar thermal system already has in an electric form, I.E. batteries etc.. A grid tie PV system does have a non local storage system which allows it to target load, its just that the storage is the power company which is the provider as well... loose it and you loose both provider and storage. Every aspect of nature from an individual cell to planet climate control uses energy storage. The success of PV in comparison to thermal is solely do to the same old thing that allowed SUV's to sell after the 73' oil crunch, marketing and memory fade…period… it is just that simple.. driven by the profit incentive for large corporations…

…..Bill
Comment
6 of 29
October 27, 2008
Bill,
I'm no advocate of PV, (or ethanol) so I may be the wrong guy to bat this ball; However,

I have been paying attention to this question for a while - first perhaps called "Negawatts", which in short is why can't the rationale for energy avoidance get the same respect as new energy creation.

I've come to believe that energy efficiency is a dead end road. Yes, you can make great progress, and yes, it's probably a part of any solution; but, in all fairness, there is no way that we can achieve the hybridized goal of a "green-economy" where "efficiency" is the flagship.

What is needed is renewable forms of fungible energy, for transportation first - because it is the most difficult, and for everything else.

If we could run our cars on 1x Solar Thermal panels, there would be huge support. We can't and there isn't. This isn't an opinion - I'd like for things to be different as much as the next guy - it is only an observance - hopefully a helpful one.
Best,
Benjamin
Comment
7 of 29
October 27, 2008
Hi Ben:

I myself would pick transportation last because it is the most difficult and we need to build models of success first.... I.E. we didn't go to the moon first then orbit the planet... we started first on the smallest and easiest tasks and then upped the challenge as our experience grew.... Look at the HUGE, absolutely HUGE amount of energy that could be saved if just all the homes that could support SDHW had it. This is all easily doable and no technological boundaries exist at all.... NONE... so why not..???.. because it has not been marketed so.... and there is no ONE big energy industry that would benefit from this accomplishment, only man as a whole, which without the money does not matter....

.....Bill
Comment
8 of 29
October 28, 2008
Bill

> I myself would pick transportation last because it is the most difficult ...

Hold the phone!

Would that we had the luxury to postpone transforming transportation. Minor detail, we are facing a global oil crisis, www.oilcrisis.com/ before climate change impacts become pervasive (i.e., noticed by enough people that serious mitigation begins in earnest).

With the ready potential for a megawatt per mile, the Solar Highway, www.SolarHighway.com/ -- using automated podcars, Automobile 2.0 -- is on the path to success ... in Sweden, Poland, the Netherlands, the UK, and even in Silicon Valley, www.sanjoseca.gov/transportation/.

This technology may seem difficult, but the benefits to society are too large to ignore. Solar powered podcars can be 10X more efficient, use 100X fewer materials, emit 1000X lower greenhouse gases and become 2000X safer than the automobile.
Comment
9 of 29
October 28, 2008
I drove about 900 miles to El Paso about 2 years ago. Old man Cobos
stood up. He had been pushing solar for decades. He said that the reason that you see so little information in the newspapers about solar and other alternative energy is because the newspapers are owned by the car dealers.
He of course did not mean that they owned newspapers, but their advertising is so dominant in newspapers that they can literally influence the stories printed in newspapers.
And I suspect the same is true in TV. How many car commercials did you see the last time you sat down in front of your TV? And how many other
commercials from corporations that have a comfortable niche
that solar might crowd?
So you do not see much about solar in the newspapers. But there is hope.
Their circulation and influence is falling because of the internet. And they are allowing readers to comment very freely on their internet sites. You can publicly comment on
Wall Street Journal stories, New York Times stories, L.A. Times stories , Houston Chronicle stories , etc. The readership of the WSJ and NYT is in the millions. Go there and comment. Follow their stories and comment.
Get the word out. Tell them "Solar Thermal Is Coming!"
Comment
10 of 29
October 28, 2008
RS:

I agree with you except do not use Europe as a comparison to the USA problem when it comes to transportation. You can just about fit all of Europe in the NE quadrant of the USA. Size does matter and is expressed in this case as travel distance. The bulk of Europe's population very much occurs in concentrated areas compared to the USA pop... having to travel short distances for your goods and services greatly changes the current "basket" of technological solutions, and I am not going to get into the argument over redesigning the USA pop spread... Transportation needs to be addressed but there are many things that need to be changed and addressed to solve that problem. Solar thermal has no engineering hurdles or tech boundaries. We can do it NOW, any time we want to... Its funny, JT above talked about auto dealers and there influence in the media... I recently was talking to the owner of a small local AM talk radio station where I live. He wanted to get me on to talk about high gas prices, energy cost etc... me being in solar and RE.. this was about 2 months ago before the oil bubble burst. We were talking about possible show format topics and of course gas and autos came up and I kind of gave him my opinion on autos and the oil companies, their link etc... anyway, he casually mentioned that one of his biggest advertising bases were the auto dealerships and we would not want to say anything that would alienate them... etc.. etc.. needless to say the show, at least with me, did not happen...
Everyone in this country, other than IQ's below 50, knows EXACTLY what makes this country and our system "tick". Its nothing NEW and has been going on since day ONE. By the numbers, people are lemmings wanting to get on and stay on the social gathering lists in their local area. Social popularity has allways been the quintessential driver from prom night to president… you reap what you sow…..

.....Bill
Comment
11 of 29
October 29, 2008
"Or maybe it is because we still have a child-like fascination with novelty. We will clamour to investigate the next exciting thing to come along while abandoning a tried and tested technology, like solar thermal."

Good insight.

Americans seem to look for the magic bullet solution to most problems. There must be a new technology or device or political leader that will solve the so-called energy crisis and life can go on unchanged. We have invested billions into failed or failing schemes while satisfying that "fascination with novelty"

Conservation and efficiency improvements can be implemented quickly and inexpensively without the end users even knowing that they are making a sacrifice for green power.

It is not possible to actually quantify but it is probably a true statement that in 2007, more energy was saved by the nation's installed base of variable frequency motor drives ( based on modern rectifier/inverter PWM technology) than was produced by the total installed base of Solar PV. At less than 10% of the cost/MwHr saved.

Thousands of VFD systems are being installed each month producing millions of "negawatt"/hours or saving thousands of megawatt/hours; depending on your reference.

Paraphrasing Ben Franklin " a watt saved is a watt produced"
sorry Ben
Comment
12 of 29
October 30, 2008
Dear Petri,

thans for your article and
RIGHT YOU ARE!!
I have only few comments:

IMAGINE

Imagine there are affordable houses with no or low energy demand. Would you install a whole heating system with a burner, a tank, radiators in each room, piping etc.? The only heat demand you would have is for domestic hot water and possibly for a small fraction of space heating. Solar collectors are the perfect solution!

Such houses are available in Germany and they are of course equipped with collectors.

Bye, Davorin
Comment
13 of 29
October 31, 2008
Thank you for the story and the passion for Solar Thermal.
I would advocate Solar Energy in all its forms, from Solar Thermal, to concentrated solar power, to PV, to daylighting, etc.

I would also advocate using distributed PV as a viable transportation fuel. Plug-in Hybrid electric vehicles will help to reduce our dependency on foreign fossil fuels for transportation, with biofuels made from non-food sources as a back-up for extending a driver's range beyond battery capacity.

I agree that more emphasis should be put on solar thermal for hot water and space heating at the residential level. I think it is a dis-service that we call methane "natural gas", which makes it sound like it's a renewable resource that is not a fossil fuel. Only landfill gas or methane from cows can be seen as renewable non-fossil fuel "natural" gas. Heating with "natural gas" is not sustainable, renewable, nor is it helping reduce greenhouse gases, except and unless it displaces dirty coal for generating electricity. Even when you use this argument, "natural" gas infrastructure leaks are possibly the fourth largest source of manmade greenhouse gases (after CO2 from transportation, heating, and concrete manufacturing, if memory serves me correctly) according to the EPA study looking at greenhouse gas "sources and sinks". This is yet another argument FOR SOLAR THERMAL and AGAINST reliance on NATURAL GAS for heat and/or electricity.

Go Solar!
Kurt, Solar Connections, Madison, Wisconsin
Comment
14 of 29
November 1, 2008
Solar Thermal is not recognized because we cannot (yet) put it in our backyard or rooftop. In fact, large scale commercial thermal makes a very pretty picture, so we do see it often.

However, there is a common impression that PV needs less physical maintenance. With our home life too busy already, Soccer moms & salaryman dads do not have time to constantly tweek thermal solar collectors.

Find a way to make Solar Thermal collectors personally sized (something one man, or strong woman can carry & maintain alone) and you will have a billion-seller on your hands.

That, and you'll save the ecology, and the civilizations of mankind on Earth.
Comment
15 of 29
November 2, 2008
Hi KB:

Where have you been hanging out..??..
Evacuated tube thermal units are assembled and the parts are light enough for one person to carry up on a roof or where ever... and BTW, they are the most efficient type of thermal units out there..
As for the location of thermal arrays, that is where they have been going for ever, roofs, ground arrays etc.. As for constant maintenance, you put them up and let them alone. If you want to play with it, that's your choice, which allot of people like to do, I.E., being actively involved with your own energy creation.... It feels "Good" in case you never tried it.....

.....Bill
Comment
16 of 29
November 2, 2008
Kevin,
Solar Thermal of the type you meant (ie Solar Trough) are not only recognized, but are installed and producing more of the World's Solar Electricity than PV.

There is a company working on much smaller units, though I'm not always convinced smaller is better.
Comment
17 of 29
November 3, 2008
Hi All:

If BG is correct KB, and you meant concentrators for electric power, those will only be effective in clear sky climates. Diffuse sunlight is useless to them, and in the NE and many other parts of the country a large percentage of the energy that falls is diffuse. For different thermo-mechanical reasons, converting heat into electric is a difficult proposition on a small scale, I.E. efficiently..... The trillion $ invention is taking diffuse energy and being able to concentrate it easily, so that no tracking is required for either direct or diffuse light. I seem to remember an article not to long ago about films on glass kind of doing that very thing, putting light to the edges regardless of the incident angle.... it's a start maybe…

.....Bill
Comment
18 of 29
November 4, 2008
I would like to add to the discussion three items also being included in the ESTTP proposal for wider utilization of solar energy: 1) industrial heating & cooling at 80-250 centigrade, which is so far almost untapped area with huge potential 2) efficient solar cooling for domestic ond office purposes, also very large potential, and 3) solar desalination by evaporating. All these applications need much more political support, R&D and industry effort to become technologically mature and economically feasible.

Totally another issue for cost reduction is the full integration of solar collector's onto the roofs, just like windows are doors are fully integrated into all buildings.

There's a lot of effort to standardize solar collectors, which would make this more easier in mass-production, but different building regulations and roofing traditions alone make it difficult. An interesting option could be type-design practise and standardization on a national level. We have a company in Finland making custom-made windows: They use automatized factory manufacturing based on customer's dimensions with sizing of 1 mm accuracy. For them, four most common window types cover 80% of all applications. And it is cost efficient with type-design practise.

Both type-design and standardization could help the constructors and end-users to treat collectors like they should: a normal component from of the building part catalogue. I foresee a not-so-far future, where the need for solar thermal energy is just so large, that we need these kind of approaches to fulfill the market demand of tens and hundreds of millions of collectors.
Comment
19 of 29
November 5, 2008
Dear Petri,

Thanks for your article which- I believe, will make our voice heard. As a professional in Solar Thermal Technologies (STT), I believe that we have to put a magnifynig glass on our technology to see the whole picture clearly. First of all we have to admit that as of today STT has some obstacles and handicups which prevents it from being a worldwide star. Some of them are as follows:

1- It's a linked-technology. Especially for my speciality area: Solar Cooling. For example, when you're constructing a Solar Cooling, Air-conditioning, Heating etc energy supply system with Parabolic Trough Collectors (PTC), you have to use mostly Double-effect Absorption Chillers. But unfortunately the minimum capacity for them is 233 kWh (for BROAD brand). So, your system should be over 233 kWh. Which means that you lost home-users (As they require lesser capacities like 10-15 kWh)

2- The total area for your collector field is not small enough. For example, a PTC occupies an area of 9 m2 approximately. And for a small-sized facility- let's say 250 kWh, you'll need an area of 1,000 m2. Which becomes a problem especially for Hotels, Buildings, Hospitals, Universities etc. Of course in order to overcome this problem we can mount our collectors on the roofs as well. But each collector weighs approximately 100 kg's and the roof-loads of the buildings are not sufficient most of the time.

3- Countries like Turkey, Gulf countries and some Mediterranean ones are still do not publish encouriging policies for especially Solar.

Beside these facts, I believe that future is Solar Thermal. And there is a lot of work that we – the solar professionals, have to do...

erenengur@yahoo.com
Comment
20 of 29
November 5, 2008
I think there are a variety of reasons why we don't see more solar thermal. I think it is important to separate publicity from actual implementations.

One of the reasons PV gets a lot of attention because there are huge amounts of money pouring into the industry from venture firms. Solar thermal is a more established technology with less perceived room for growth or innovation. Venture money wants to invest in game changing technology not established technology.

The amount of money flowing into PV brings attention from media, research writers, analysts, etc. The money brings more ability to market for the PV companies which they unquestionably do better than solar thermal companies.

Some other reasons:

1. Economic Focus- The people I talk to in the solar thermal business do not put calculating results or ROI as high up on their priority list as PV companies do. Some of that is because estimating output is more difficult for a thermal system than a PV system. There are more factors to consider and more engineering to be done. I am a strong believer, however, that in order to take solar from a niche industry to mainstream we need to be able to speak strongly to payback and return on investment and then deliver results in accordance.

2. Complexity- Solar hot water and heating systems are more complex to design and engineer than a PV system. The number of variables in understanding different types of systems is challenging. In the recent issue of Solar Today there are 10 different types of hot water systems described. A PV system is much simpler.

It comes down to getting better at selling solar thermal systems. Get out there and sell and install more and drive the costs down further. Then publicize the successes and use the information to do better payback analysis which leads to more sales.

Eric Zimmer
Tipping Point Renewable Energy
http://tipenergy.typepad.com
Comment
21 of 29
November 8, 2008
Here in the USA electricity is still relatively cheap, provided by still-abundant albeit decreasing-quality coal. So homes heated electrically are still relatively cheap to heat. Most of the remaining homes (about 51%) are heated by natural gas which is just approaching peak or already there, so these homes are also relatively cheap to heat, FOR NOW. Hot water is heated by both coal-electricity and gas-heat as well so it's still relatively cheap to heat. Within the decade I think we'll see prohibitive cost increases in these energy sources and so in home and water heating costs --natural gas because it will have peaked, and coal because the cost of gasoline and diesel to mine and transport it will soar with peak oil and because serious carbon-reduction mandates to mitigate global warming will be costly to execute (carbon tax and "carbon capture and storage technology" CCS). When American homeowners feel the severe space-heating and water-heating cost bite they will quickly learn that the low-hanging fruit for space heating and water heating is solar thermal, naturally. That's when we're sure to see the US common wealth (our tax money) subsidizing domestic retrofits for solar thermal in the form tax credits and business/R&D subsidy, maybe at a higher priority than domestic photovoltaic installations --we can survive without our electrified labor-saving and entertainment devices but not without habitable shelter. But I hope that with Obama in the White House, promising a government-backed renewable energy revolution, we'll see solar thermal in the spotlight much sooner because it is, as Petri stated, the natural, the biggest and the most economical player in making shelter habitable. Thanks for your clear statement, Petri, and I appreciate Sweden's leadership in national sustainable living initiative. People are wise here too, but still too comfortable and sleeping. When the USA wakes up, we'll pull strongly with the rest of humanity to a bright future.
Comment
22 of 29
November 10, 2008
Wonderful article!

The problem with "solar thermal" may well be that name....really, it's Solar Plumbing or Solar HVAC, and requires Solar-Enhanced Architecture to make it most aesthetically efficient.

If the President-elect is serious, he's going to have to fund trade schools in the high schools and junior colleges to put the Solar into the existing trades of plumbing and HVAC. These systems aren't designed on paper for residential; the guys on the ground install as they see fit. (We could throw in Solar Electrician, too, but I'm with the author on this one. Solar Electric is sexier, but Solar Thermal would pay the bills.)

And not just trade school for the dis-advantaged! We need our best and brightest on this, as home energy accounts for 40% of America's energy. It's too bad we've lost our respect for people working with their hands and channel all smart people into college--maybe that's why we're in this mess in the first place.....
Comment
23 of 29
November 12, 2008
With 219,000 TWh of energy available from the sun every year... How so? ... you might ask.

Insolation at the Earth's surface is approximately ~1000 watts per square meter for a surface perpendicular to the Sun's rays at sea level on a clear day. So, the Sun sends on average ~1000 Watts for every square meter (~1 kW/m^2) of infrared, visible and ultraviolet electromagnetic radiation only where it shines down directly at 90 degrees, like at noon on the Equator. Accounting for lower sun angle evening and morning of each day and sun angle changes over seasons the average insolation for the Earth is approximately 250 watts per square meter (6 (kW*h/m^2)/day). or (~1 kW/m^2)(6 hrs/day).

The Earth's land surface area is ~148,940,000 km^2 (29.2 % of the total surface area) or ~149E12 m^2.

365 days/year * 6 (kW/m^2)(hrs/day) * ~149E12 m^2 = ~326,000 TWh/year

Taking into account clouds and/or haze @ ~1/3 of the time ...

~219,000 TWh/year = 0.67 * (~326,000 TWh/year)

other wise known as ~219 PWh (peta-watt hours).
Comment
24 of 29
November 18, 2008
Sean,

My figure was taken from a collegue's calculation. He has moved to another company and I could not locate the exact data behind the figure. I typically make local calculations based on the excellent book "Solar Engineering of Thermal Processes" by Duffie and Beckman.

However, it is more an indicative figure in the right magnitude. As you mention, the actual figure depends on cloudiness, haze, etc.. Therefore the figures vary depending on the factors taken into account.

The key point here is, that there is several magnitudes more solar energy available on earth compared to what humankind needs even in the very long perspective.
Comment
25 of 29
November 20, 2008
PK:

That is an excellent book along with "Solar Thermal Engineering" by the late Peter J Lunde....

.....Bill
Comment
26 of 29
November 22, 2008
We installed solar thermal on our home in South Carolina (USA) this summer. But I was not aware till very recently that solar thermal could be used to provide heating for our home.
Heating is our major cost as it is fueled by gas and rates have gone up 5 times in the last 4 years.
Does anyone know how we can use our existing solar thermal for space heating?
Comment
27 of 29
November 24, 2008
Viji,

There's an excellent "Solar Heating Systems for Houses - A Design Handbook for Solar Combisystems" made by IEA Solar Heating and Cooling Programme Task 26 on the net for free: http://www.fys.uio.no/kjerne/task26/handbook/handbook.html

You can get the idea from there, and I suggest after having a glance on those principles you contact the dealer who sold you the system and ask what would be needed for heating for your house.

If he can not help, please contact Dr. Harald Drück in Germany and ask him for the best solar combisystem experts in the US. His email is: drueck(at)itw.uni-stuttgart.de. Just substitute (at) with @

I hope this will help you.

Petri
Comment
28 of 29
November 24, 2008
Petri,
Right on! I live in Massachusetts which currently has a rebate program for residential PV. The payback is 17 years. I'm wondering why no one is promoting solar thermal. Now I do like PV but, it makes absolutley no sense to build a system that has a 17 year payback compared to a solar thermal that I estimate has a 6 year payback (that's with $2.59 heating oil). I have one question that someone else with more background might know the answer to. Is everyone talking about flat panel and/or encapsulated systems? While solar thermal generally receives little press, geosource is an even poorer relation in that category. Depending on location my first order calculations indicate that geosource system should payback sooner (at least in New England). I realize that there are some additional costs for the heat pump etc. but it would be even more attractive for new construction. I am considering a well water open loopsystem as I reside on a large acquifer (as does a lot of New England).
Comment
29 of 29
November 25, 2008
You are spot on -- solar thermal is PV's "homely sister" and has missed out on the economies of scale. It's not all the consumer's attention deficit, though. There are several solar thermal outfits charging exhorbitant prices for inferior product, and they are high up in Internet search results when a consumer goes shopping. So they see big price tags for something that should be even cheaper by now than the units sold by above-the-board companies -- as those companies have been forced to cater to a niche market that demands the highest energy density by rooftop square meter (vaccuum tubes) instead of cheaper less "efficient" solutions like no-drainback freezable rubber hose and forced air.

That said, direct comparisons of thermal watts to electrical watts should be avoided -- electrical watts could drive a heat pump and move more watts thermal than their electrical rating.

However until PV gets very efficient and very cheap (enough to make room in the budget for the heat pump) solar thermal will still be able to beat it out in payback period, I would guess for at least the decade to come, given the demand for electricity going forward. Moreover, for the most part solar thermal doesn't use the same raw material base as PV technologies so it can scale up without competing for resources.

As always no matter what's on lab shelves gathering dust it all comes down to whether someone can get a factory up and running, and keep it running/scaling. We've been failing that challenge on all fronts here in the U.S. and that has to change.
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
ISSUE COVER IMAGE: About Renewable Energy World

With over 50,000 subscribers and a global readership in 174 countries around the world, Renewable Energy World Magazine covers industry, policy, technology, finance and markets for all renewable technologies. Content is aimed ... more »

 

Advertise With Us

GreenBrilliance Zep Solar Canadian Solar Inc. Johnson Controls, Inc. 2GreenEnergy.com Parker Hannifin - Precision Cooling Systems Schletter Inc.
World's #1 Renewable Energy Network
PennWell
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 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