The World's #1 Renewable Energy Network for News & Information
Sign In or Register
Renewable Energy World Logo
Thursday, May 23, 2013
  • Sections
    • Home
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Solar
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Wind
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Geothermal
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Bio
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Hydro
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Careers
    • Companies
      • Company Directory
      • Press Releases
      • Products
      • Events Calendar
      • White Papers
    • Webcasts
      • Upcoming Webcasts
      • Featured Webcasts
      • Archived Webcasts
      • Events Calendar
    • White Papers
    • Magazines
      • Renewable Energy World
      • Wind Technology
      • Large Scale Solar
      • Hydro Review
      • HRW - Hydro Review Worldwide
      • Renewable Energy World (North America Edition)
      • Photovoltaics World
    • Awards
  • Account
    • Sign In
    • Register
  • Search
Don't Miss The Great Solar Debate: Where Does the Global Solar Industry Stand? Click Here to Register! ×

Fossil Fuel Factual Fallacies: New York Times Called Out by Renowned Geoscientist

J. David Hughes - Fellow, Post Carbon Institute
November 23, 2010  |  25 Comments

Rarely is the public treated to such inaccurate, misleading and unhelpful journalism as in "There Will Be Fuel" by New York Times correspondent, Clifford Krauss (New York Times, November 17, 2010), even in this era of political spin and smoke and mirrors surrounding energy.

Let’s begin with the article’s concluding comment: 

“When you add it up,” Mr. Morse noted, “you get something that very closely approximates energy independence.”

The facts of the matter are that no nation on earth is more dependent on imported oil than the U.S. Although consumption has declined somewhat, due to the Great Recession, imports accounted for more than 61 percent of U.S. oil consumption in 2009. Net 2009 U.S. imports of 11.5 million barrels per day exceeded China’s TOTAL OIL CONSUMPTION of 8.6 million barrels per day by 33 percent. Americans, with a population of 310 million, consumed 18.7 million barrels per day in 2009 compared to China, a country with 1.32 billion people, which consumed a mere 8.6 million barrels per day. This works out to 22 barrels of oil consumption per American in 2009 compared to 2.4 barrels per person in China. 

Although American oil production increased slightly in 2009 from a recent low in 2008, it is down 36 percent from its all time peak in 1970. Meanwhile oil imports are up by 358 percent since 1965. The vaunted 100,000 barrel per day growth in shale oil production by 2013 in Krauss’ article, if it occurs, would amount to half a percent of current U.S. consumption. 

The search for subsalt oil in deepwater locations in the Atlantic, deepwater exploration in the Gulf, and Arctic exploration, represent the last frontiers, as less hostile locales have already been thoroughly explored and exploited. Enough growth in deep water production in the Gulf of Mexico to offset declines in the onshore U.S. fields remains to be seen, given the fallout from BP’s Macondo blowout. The Santos Basin fields in the Atlantic off of Brazil may contain 40 billion barrels, and the mean estimate in the recent circum-Arctic study by the USGS was 90 billion barrels. Added together these equal perhaps four years of world consumption at current rates of 31 billion barrels per year – the catch being that this oil, if it exists, will take decades to produce. 

Groups other than the uber-optimists at CERA cited in the article have expressed concern about deepwater production by non-OPEC countries, which constitutes much of the future potential for new production, and about the implications  of peak oil production globally. There are many other credible recent reports on the implications of peak oil, which the author of this article willfully chose to ignore.

Notwithstanding the IEA’s recent projection of increases in world oil production to 99 million barrels per day by 2035, this represents a stunning decline in IEA estimates of future oil production, which as recently as 2005 were at 118 million barrels per day by 2030. A closer look at how the recent IEA oil production estimates are to be achieved reveals that all growth in its forecasts will be due to unconventional oil (including biofuels) and natural gas liquids, and that conventional crude production will remain on a plateau below 2006 production levels through 2035 (a highly optimistic assumption in my view). 

With respect to shale gas production in the U.S., which the author hypes along with LNG, U.S. gas production in 2009 was still four percent below the 1973 gas production peak. The U.S. is still a net gas importer via pipeline from Canada and via LNG from many countries. Despite the hype of people like Aubrey McClendon, the CEO of shale gas producer Chesapeake, who was recently featured on 60 Minutes, and who testified  before Congress that U.S. gas production could increase by 50 percent or more in the next decade, the realities of shale gas make this unlikely. Shale gas wells have very high decline rates, between 65 and 85 percent in the first year, are high tech and hence expensive, utilize large amounts of water, and have environmental costs that are now becoming evident. The EPA has begun an extensive investigation of the environmental issues surrounding “fracking,” upon which shale gas production depends.

In summary, oil and gas are finite resources that are being consumed at unprecedented and growing rates. Despite what Krauss’ article says, the U.S. is the worst offender and is highly vulnerable to future energy price and supply shocks. The growth trajectory of the already high consumption levels in the industrialized world and the rapid growth in consumption in the developing world is patently unsustainable. Articles such as this falsely promote complacency and thus are an extreme disservice to understanding the energy sustainability dilemma facing the World. The premise of this article that the U.S. is approaching “energy independence” could not be further from the truth.

David Hughes is a geoscientist who has studied the energy resources of Canada for nearly four decades, including 32 years with the Geological Survey of Canada as a scientist and research manager. He developed the National Coal Inventory to determine the availability and environmental constraints associated with Canada’s coal resources. As Team Leader for Unconventional Gas on the Canadian Gas Potential Committee, he coordinated the recent publication of a comprehensive assessment of Canada’s unconventional natural gas potential. Over the past decade, he has researched, published and lectured widely on global energy and sustainability issues in North America and internationally. He is a board member of the Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas – Canada and is a Fellow of the Post Carbon Institute.

 

25 Comments

Register To Comment
pierre vincent
pierre vincent
December 7, 2010
I saw David Hughes' presentation on peak oil. The graphs and data he presented are absolutely mind-boggling. It is beyond abundantly clear that the world's energy demand is in a very steep exponential climb, and the earth's remaining resources are on the decline. The former is the real clencher as to when we reach the end of fossil fuels, far more than the latter, even though on its own the latter suffices.
Hopefully our modern society will crash into that brick wall before the climate damage plunges the planet into an eocene-like hot house climate.
Dana Blankenhorn
Dana Blankenhorn
December 6, 2010
This is a good fisking which seems to have brought out some trolls. The quality of the discussion, even among the trolls, is higher than I have seen anywhere else. All in all a real enjoyable read. Congratulations to David, and to all who have commented.

My own view is whether or not we can reach short-term energy independence by scrapping environmental rules, prices are going to rise as resource quantities are reduced. It's really no different than how the cave men got energy.

Harvesting energy with devices that tap the sunlight, the wind, and the energy beneath our feet is getting increasingly efficient, and lower in relative cost, all the time.

Even the most die-hard advocates of burning stuff should be able to draw a graph, and it points to cost equality in a fairly short time. We can argue whether that time is 3, 5, or 10 years in the future, but we know it's coming, and it's going to be an enormously profitable turning point.

Anyone who wants to keep American entrepreneurs from getting on that profit train does not have their best interests at heart.
Fred Linn
Fred Linn
December 1, 2010
MMBtus at Henry Hub fluctuated from $3.50 to $4.00 during Nov.

One barrel of oil contains about 5,800,000 Btu.

Rounded off to 6MMBtu ng to one barrel of oil = $24/barrel energy equivalent at the highest trade value.

Oil has been trading in the $75 to $85/barrel range---over 3 times the cost per Btu compared to natural gas.

This does not take into account that due to refining waste, not all of the 5.8 MMBtu available in the barrel of crude is recoverable as fuel, on the other hand, every single Btu in natural gas is usable fuel----there is no refining.

Right now, the price of natural gas is about the same as it cost in 1990----the price of gasoline at the pump is about 4X what it was in 1990.
pete c
pete c
November 29, 2010
"We get 60 years of power with an eternity of dealing with radioactive waste and large areas unfit for any use."

Actually, all the nuclear waste ever made in this country can fit on a single football field, 20 feet high. The population density of the lower 48 amounts to 3.5 football fields per-person. The amount of land to store nuclear waste on is absurdly huge relative to the amount of land required.

The French process their nuclear waste more than the US, so their nuclear waste can fit in a single room.

"The price of natural gas in my area is about 15% higher than the price of gasoline. "

I find this hard to believe. The price natural gas is trading at all time lows relative to the price of oil.
Fred Linn
Fred Linn
November 28, 2010
What area are you in? Overall, the price of natural gas is lower than it has been for many years.
Allen Gerhardt
Allen Gerhardt
November 28, 2010
Again this discussion is subject to being distorted with lies and false comparisons. The price of natural gas in my area is about 15% higher than the price of gasoline. The so-called cheap shale gas is not cheap and is becoming more expensive as people realize that poisonous chemicals are injected into the shale, resulting in permanent pollution of our water supplies. This murderous practice will not continue. The use of natural gas is not any decent answer to our energy needs. The costs of fracking for gas goes beyond money. To argue over the amount of imported oil is pointless. To expect drilling the 3% of domestic oil supplies is going to impact the 60% we import is ridiculous. We can not drill our way out of reduced supplies. To ruin our oceans for a few years of oil use is the thought process of a mental defective.The same story with nuclear power. We get 60 years of power with an eternity of dealing with radioactive waste and large areas unfit for any use. That is the worse trade off ever invented.
Fred Linn
Fred Linn
November 27, 2010
----" If it weren't for "insane environmental rules and regulations" American companies would be exploring and drilling on land and in offshore areas, the Gulf of Mexico,California's Pacific coast, in Alaska ANWAR's, a so called pristine area where nobody visits or vacations.These 'rules and regulations' inhibit companies from turning our abundant coal reserves into liquid fuels as SASOL has been doing for over 40 years in South Africa."-------

Are you refering to the insane environmental rules and regulations regarding oil drilling, pipeline and refinery safety? Not to worry, the oil companies are pretty much ignoring them or buying off enforcement with bribes, graft or corruption.
The Gulf of Mexico and the California coast are areas that nobody sees or visits? Maybe YOU don't, but there are millions of people who DO. Perhaps we should as as them whether THEY want over 200 million gallons of crude oil and toxic dispersants dumped on them.

It is ANWR---Alaska National Wildlife Refuge, NOT Alaska National Corporate Profit Refuge. Allowing oil drilling is destroying the environment that belongs to all the citizens of the United States for the profit of a few. That is not right.

------" .These 'rules and regulations' inhibit companies from turning our abundant coal reserves into liquid fuels as SASOL has been doing for over 40 years in South Africa."--------

Maybe you should get a job in a coal mine---and THEN complain about "rules and regulations".
Maybe you should live downstream from an ash sludge holding pond and then complain about "rules and regulations".
Maybe you need to live on a river or lake that has massive fish kills due to acid leaching and then complain about "rules and regulations".

----" Now even Al Gore is admitting that his support for ethanol was not science based but was a political decision to curry the farmer's vote. "--------

Al has never said anything of the sort to me.
pete c
pete c
November 26, 2010
"pjc claims the article is inaccurate. But follow the links he provides and they back the article up. For the first link, select "Dry natural gas production" rather than gross withdrawals and you get the 4% reduction from 1973 to 2009. "

While correct, this is misleading. A great deal of natural gas from Alaska is re-injected into the oil well from which it was recovered. In the 70's, this natural gas was "flared", essentially wasting the gas. By re-injecting, the gas is used to generate more oil, and it is also stored in the oil-patch for latter recovery.

Currently, Alaska has no method of exporting it's natural gas to the lower 48 or the global market. This will change if and when a pipeline or LNG terminal is built. The low prices resulting from shale gas drilling are the biggest barrier to this infrastructure. However, if one considers the point of the NYT article, which is that there are large natural gas reserves available for the US to consume in the next 50 years, it would be silly to exclude the re-injected gas in the Alaskan North Slope.

By looking at dry gas instead of gross withdrawals, this is what Mr. Hughes is doing. I suspect, he is excluding re-injected gas not because he is unaware that such gas can and will be used in the future, but rather because he needs to exclude such gas to make his point that there is a looming energy shortage.
pete c
pete c
November 26, 2010
"The U.S. imports nearly twice as much oil as the next largest importer, Japan. Does using per capita numbers make our situation any better?"

Yes, of course it does. Using gross numbers instead of per-capita numbers would lead one to all sorts of absurd conclusions. The city of Tokyo, Japan burns many times more gallons of gasoline than the city of Pueblo CO. Does that mean that Pueblo is somehow better at energy conservation than Tokyo? No, of course not. It simply has fewer people.

There are the three times as many people in the United States as there are in Japan. Obviously, any measurement you can think of is going to be larger for the US than for the Japanese, unless one measures per-capita.

"pjc, you're arguably right--Japan is "more dependent on imported oil" than the U.S. On the other hand, it has no domestic oil, while the U.S. started out with a huge domestic resource. The notion that because Japan imports more oil per capita than the U.S., Japanese efforts at energy efficiency have been a waste--makes no sense."

The fact that the US has a large base of a oil and natural gas is entirely the point. Countries tend to conserve based on their energy reserves. The Canadiens burn more oil (per capita) than the US. Why is the US then the "worst offender"?

Of course,I am not surprised to see a wind energy employee jumping in to shout down shale gas. It has been well observed that cheap natural gas has greatly diminished the prospects for wind power. The fact is, natural gas is *cheap*. Per BTU, it is 1/4 the price of oil! The last time natural gas was this cheap, gasoline cost $1.50 a gallon.

Here is the clincher ... outside of the US, hardly anyone has even tried shale gas drilling. Does anyone really think this technology will work only in Texas and PA, and not in India, Australia, China, Brazil, etc. There is no EPA to slow down drilling in those countries. They are going to drill for shale gas until they're drowning in it
Upali Wickramasinghe
Upali Wickramasinghe
November 25, 2010
Another comment outside the use of fossil fuels and biofuels.The compacts need bio or fossil fuels to motivate their vehicles.There is no alternative.
This requirement is not universal. The large vehicles that can accommodate a compressor on board can be motivated by compressed air.A manufacturer had installed a rotary engine that runs on compressed air.

Your cost will come down to about 0.0001 US cts per km.
Upali Wickramasinghe
Upali Wickramasinghe
November 25, 2010
e-patrick-mosman-41976. What ever the comments from others were, there is much substance in the proposal to shift the production of ethanol to the tropics.Tropics have sources of feedstock that yield more Ethanol per hectare per year than the best feedstock identified in the US.Secondly these sources being canopied plants with life cycles spreading over 10 years, contribute to reduce the farm gate price feedstock and ex-factory price of ethanol.Your scientists have worked on the successful use of hydrous ethanol, which is 25-40% cheaper than using dehydrated ethanol that goes into E85.

The tropical plants with canopies will ensure less use of water and agro inputs than all the feedstock that your country has.

On the obverse in the consumption of water.Your feedstock require water in the proportion of over 1:1000 while in the tropics it can be worked at worst scenario 1:1( approx).

It is a catch 22 situation be it ethanol feedstock or tar sands your water sources will deplete and make your country less inhabitable.
E.Patrick Mosman
E.Patrick Mosman
November 24, 2010
If it weren't for "insane environmental rules and regulations" American companies would be exploring and drilling on land and in offshore areas, the Gulf of Mexico,California's Pacific coast, in Alaska ANWAR's, a so called pristine area where nobody visits or vacations.These 'rules and regulations' inhibit companies from turning our abundant coal reserves into liquid fuels as SASOL has been doing for over 40 years in South Africa.
Now even Al Gore is admitting that his support for ethanol was not science based but was a political decision to curry the farmer's vote. The ethanol gang is receiving 6 to 7 billion dollars a year in taxpayer subsidies that even Gore thinks is too much.Recently a top IPCC official openly stated that the meeting in Cancun is not about climate change ,nee global warming, but about distributing the wealth of the USA and other successful industrial countries, except China, to Africa and other developing nations. This is robbery of the American taxpayer on a grand scale.
Derek Boyle
Derek Boyle
November 24, 2010
Oil from Canada's Tar Sands creates many times the pollution as oil from other sources as well as uses and wastes Billions of barrels of fresh water that's needed by the people and tribes where it's extracted. Tar sands oil risks critical American natural resources when piped through vulnerable pipes across America's heartland to Gulf Coast refineries. Tar Sands Oil from Canada is no one's solution except those who don't have the sense that God gave them.

The Alberta tar sands is one of the largest and most destructive projects on Earth, creating toxic lakes filled with cancer causing heavy metals and neurotoxins. The proposed Keystone XL Pipeline -- 1,980 miles of pipes crossing American wilderness in six states and the Ogallala Aquifer, puts almost 30 percent of our country's agricultural water at risk of contamination.

Increasing the fuel-efficiency of our cars by 2.5 miles per gallon would save more oil than the Keystone XL pipeline is designed to carry. Every dollar invested in clean energy creates over three times as many jobs as a dollar invested in fossil fuels.
ANONYMOUS
November 24, 2010
Labeling oil as 'imported' disguises the fact that most of our oil and refined product comes from Canada and Mexico. Canada is now thinking of using the Portland(ME) pipeline to export oil for shipping elsewhere. Mexico is now drilling deep water wells in the gulf and Russia is keeping Siberian and arctic oil/gas deposits a state secret.....all of which is pushing that mythical 'PEAK' further into the future, once again.

Europe and Asia are slowly converting fleets to CNG and adopting Waste-to-Energy biorefineries, relieving the pressure to use fossil fuels. The U.S. is just waking up to this fact.
David Doty
David Doty
November 24, 2010
Great work, David. This is one of the best overall assessments I've seen in some time. Especially glad to see realism inserted into shale gas economics. More reality will come to light over the next few years, as the initial shale gas production – which has all been from heavily subsidized wells, and those subsidies are ending – falls off a cliff. It will be very interesting to watch the price of gas in the US over the next three years.

Your comment that EIA projections include substantial growth in unconventional oil needs enlargement. The reference projection for unconventional oil in 2035 was broken down, by b/d, into: 5M for oil sands; 4M for biofuels, 2M for extra-heavy oil, 2M for CTL, 1M for GTL, 1M for other. I suspect most of the above are fairly realistic, other than biofuels and CTL, both of which are very optimistic, and "other", which is quite pessimistic. However, a few Mb/d correction to unconventional production in 25 yr is not a big deal.

The huge errors are in their conventional oil production projections, where they expect deep-water oil to be adding 12 Mb/d (new capacity) by 2016. That is clearly not going to happen now, and that will be bringing the world economy to its knees again within five years.

Within 2 years, the debate on the urgency of CO2 emissions will be ending for good, and the futility of biofuels will be accepted by most unbiased observers – as the price of biofuels soars in lock-step with petroleum.

The only scalable, sustainable path is to synthesize standard liquid fuels efficiently from CO2 and cheap off-peak wind and nuclear energy, as explained here http://dotyenergy.com/ . The sooner this begins to be appreciated, but better our chances of averting an economic catastrophe from peak oil in 2016.
bill bishop
bill bishop
November 24, 2010
David Hughes makes good points with this article. We are not going to drill our way to energy independence, and it's not because of "insane environmental rules and regulations".

pjc claims the article is inaccurate. But follow the links he provides and they back the article up. For the first link, select "Dry natural gas production" rather than gross withdrawals and you get the 4% reduction from 1973 to 2009. For the second link, select "Totals" instead of per capita oil imports and yes, the U.S. is the largest net importer of oil. The U.S. imports nearly twice as much oil as the next largest importer, Japan. Does using per capita numbers make our situation any better?

China and India are scouring the world to gobble up any petro resources they can, to feed their growing demand. We are already past peak oil (2006 - hidden in the IEA World Energy Outlook 2010). It is silly to think that a few more wells here and there are all we need to gain energy independence. Time to stop fooling ourselves.
Todd Flach
Todd Flach
November 24, 2010
I read the NYT article and it was a total hack job. Obviously timed to counter the IEA World Energy Outlook 2010, which is a very poorly disguised dire warning of very serious global liquid fuel shortages in the very near future.
J. David Hughs is absolutely correct here. He could have added that as soon as the US pulls out of Iraq, that the total dissolution of the country will pull another 2 million barrels of oil daily off the world market. And all that export growth from Iraq will just be pipe dream. Anarchists with an extreme Islamist bent could easily impact several OPEC exporters, and I doubt the USA will come to the rescue next time.
Rich Barbarics
Rich Barbarics
November 24, 2010
Regardless of fuel source, prices will be much higher due to increased production/transport costs. And this is before consideration of a devalued dollar and inflation which is on its way thanks to enormous US govt expenditures. Hughes is right about the journalists doing innacurate 'he said/she said' non-researched writing. Several years back I read a news article about a solar install reported to save the community $ 10 K per month. I reported to the article writer that it was actually 10 K per YEAR but that writer said they were only reporting what they were given from the political source ('he said'). In this state of journalistic innacuracy it is hard to believe much of anything published in the press... where is Moyers when we need him?!
E.Patrick Mosman
E.Patrick Mosman
November 24, 2010
The major reason that the USA is dependent on imported oil is the insane environmental rules and regulations which prohibit exploration, drilling and production in our own onshore and offshore areas. Shortly foreign companies will be drilling in Cuba's waters possibly as close as 90 miles from Florida and should they be successful they can produce oil that is under our territorial waters.Strangulation by regulation is not the answer to energy independence when every major country is drilling wherever they can place a drilling rig.
pete c
pete c
November 23, 2010
Here is another interesting link. Look at those petro-states dominating natural gas production... oh wait... that's the good old USA producing more natural gas than any other country in the world. 10% more than Russia, and 6X as much as Saudi Arabia.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2180rank.html


It seems pretty clear that the Grey Lady's fact checking is far superior to that of David Hughes. Mr Hughes livlihood as a post-carbon fellow is clearly dependent on a narrative that is far removed from reality.
pete c
pete c
November 23, 2010
Sorry, here is the web page showing per capita oil imports.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_oil_imp_net_percap-oil-imports-net-per-capita
pete c
pete c
November 23, 2010
This article itself appears quite inaccurate and misleading.

Specifically, refer to this web page, which clearly shows that natural gas production in the US surpassed the 1970's throughout most of the last 10 years. http://www.eia.doe.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n9010us2a.htm

The other obvious fallacy is that the US is the largest net importer of oil. This web site shows that there are 5 countries that import more oil per capita than the US - including Japan, Greece and Spain. (So much for mass transit being the key to energy inefficiency - the Japanese import far more oil per person than the US).
ANONYMOUS
November 23, 2010
doesn't 18.7 million barrels per day for 310 million people work out to .06 barrels per person per day. and for china the number is closer to .0065 barrels per person per day?
ANONYMOUS
November 23, 2010
So then why are you reading this site?

I'd be curious to know if there's anything in this article you find specifically misleading.

That would be more helpful for readers like myself, rather than have you troll comment boards to make silly comments.
ANONYMOUS
November 23, 2010
"Rarely is the public treated to such inaccurate, misleading and unhelpful journalism"- Apart from this website, where inaccurate, misleading and unhelpful information is offered by renewable energy advocates every day.

Add Your Comments

To add your comments you must sign-in or create a free account.

  • Create a Free Account!
  • Sign-In
Stay Connected
         
To register for our free e-Newsletters, create your free account here:

Editors' Picks

  • America's Real Problem with Solar Energy
  • US, Australian Companies Taking Giant Steps for Global EGS Geothermal
  • EU Debate Over Climate Change Policy Could Dampen Renewable Energy Growth
  • Wind Power — Even without the Wind
  • Massachusetts Resets Its Solar Energy Bar, Four Years Early

Most Commented

  • 12
    Breakdown: Penetration of Renewable Energy in Selected Markets
  • 6
    Renewable Energy Research Initiative Launched in UK
  • 3
    French and German Ministers Call for 2030 Renewable Energy Targets
  • 1
    Moniz Unanimously Confirmed As New DOE Chief

Total Access Partners

Growing Your Business? Learn More about Total Access
  • American Council On Renewable Energy (ACORE)
  • Chaloux Environmental Communications, Inc. (CEC)
  • Natural Power
  • Renewable Energy World Magazine
  • RussTech Language Services, Inc.
  • The Stella Group, Ltd.
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo North America
  • Stoel Rives LLP
News
  • Renewable Energy
  • Solar Energy
  • Wind Energy
  • Bioenergy
  • Geothermal Energy
  • Hyrdo Power
  • Blogs
  • Video
  • Finance
Resources
  • Companies
  • Products
  • Careers
  • Events
  • Webcasts
  • White Papers
  • Magazines
  • Press Releases
  • e-Newsletters
Company
  • About Us
  • Our Team
  • Contact Us
  • Advertising & Services
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms & Conditions
  • Site Map
Network Partners - Magazines
  • Hydro Review Magazine
  • Hydro Review Worldwide Magazine
  • Renewable Energy World Magazine
Network Partners - Events
  • Power-Gen 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 Africa
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo India
  • HydroVision International
  • HydroVision Brazil
  • HydroVision India
  • HydroVision Russia
© Copyright 1999-2013 RenewableEnergyWorld.com - All rights reserved.
RenewableEnergyWorld.com - World's #1 Renewable Energy Network for news & Information