Renewable Energy Solar Energy Wind Energy Geothermal Energy Bioenergy Hydropower
 

Alice in EVland Part II; The Hall Of Mirrors

By John Petersen, Contributor
December 7, 2010   |   29 Comments
Mark Twain reportedly said that "Figures don't lie, but liars figure." Truer words were never spoken.

Do you like this opinion & commentary?

Email   Bookmark Bookmark   Print   Feed   Share
 
Content Technologies
 

The information and views expressed in this article are those of the author and not necessarily those of RenewableEnergyWorld.com or the companies that advertise on its Web site and other publications.

29 Reader Comments
No image available
Comment
1 of 29
Anonymous
December 7, 2010
Apparently, "John the Lawyer" has clients that don't like the idea of electric vehicles. Personally, I pulled the engine out of my truck last year and replaced it with an electric motor, and then this past summer, installed additional solar panels on the carport, in order to charge it. However, I'm sure "John the Lawyer" has a complex argument, using the term "mother earth" 5 times, against that as well..
Comment
2 of 29
December 7, 2010
The EPA embarked upon a silly and confusing quest when they
attempted, for some bizarre reason, to equate kWhrs and gasoline. Now Peterson has swallowed the bait and tried to explain why the EPA miscalculated. Who cares? Nobody cares what absolute amount of energy is removed from "Mother Earth" as if there were a big pile of the stuff that must last forever. The only two concerns are the avoidance of emissions, and oil dependencies. We don't use any significant amount of crude to make electricity these days. So EVs represent the only viable means to reduce oil imports and tailpipe emissions. The fact that, at present, we create emissions making kWhrs, should not lead one to disparage EVs, but should logically lead one to demand more emission free nuclear plants.
And as for Peterson's strange fear of removing energy from Mother Earth, realize that if we don't use uranium to produce power, we won't use it for anything and it will only go to waste. Besides, there is enough uranium out there to last well over 250 years, long after fossil fuels have disappeared from the scene, via technology. Peterson displays considerable tunnel vision in his arguments, something that the renewable field has in abundance.
Comment
3 of 29
December 8, 2010
I'm not sure if Mr. peterson included in his analysis the BTU's to transport oil from the mideast or the energy and ground water used to extract oil from Alberta Tar sands (a 1:3 energy ratio I believe) or the cost of removing CO2 from the atmosphere if in the future we have to and do it quickly. Electric cars are for the most part in the testing stage and will need to be further analyised before assumptions such as these are made.
Comment
4 of 29
December 8, 2010
Yes, we all agreed that the EPA is not doing a helpful thing to try to do a comparable with the gas/kWh statistics. But no amount of number slicing and dicing and spinning by John can erase the fact that development of electric travel and true renewables is the fastest path to energy independence and climate restabilization.
Comment
5 of 29
December 8, 2010
As noted, there is a huge difference between "BTUs extracted from Mother Earth" in stable democracies such as the USA and those extracted in regressive thug states populated by those who desire our destruction. Mr. Petersen, in his anti-EV zeal, conveniently ignores this truth.

Also ignored is that fact that the raw BTUs per mile of the EV will improve during its life whereas the Prius will get worse during its life. More to the point, the raw BTUs for the incremental electricity generated to power the Volt and LEAF are much less than the overall grid average, and intelligent policy can reduce these incremental raw BTUs even further.
Comment
6 of 29
December 8, 2010
Boy, such negative responses! Peterson brings up many valid points and interesting facts. I, too, am concerned about the "equivalent" mpg figures that are being talked about. Frankly, I don't think a comparison to gasoline should be used at all. People are most interested in one of three things about electric vehicles: cost per mile driven, offsetting oil imports, and/or reduction of CO2.

I'm mostly concerned about environmental impacts. If your electricity is from a coal plant, there are still lots of CO2 emissions, as well as harmful pollutants being emitted. If you have a high mileage gas vehicle, your CO2 emissions may actually be less than from an electric vehicle, due to the coal burned to make those kw.

Solving all of these concerns is renewable energy. And I don't include nuclear as solving this, because it does have associated CO2 emissions in its life cycle, much higher than renewables like wind and solar, as well as its risks of terrorist threats, storage, and accidents.

Energy Policy 36 (2008) 2940– 2953, explains how the mining, milling, construction, transportation, and storage issues of a nuclear plant create CO2 emissions, sometimes half as much as from a gas fired power plant.
Comment
7 of 29
December 8, 2010
Add my vote to the pollution-reduction and dependency-on-foreign-source-reduction lobby.

Let's also put longevity of vehicle operation on the table to discuss. If these EV's prove out to last longer, then there is energy and pollution saved with that factor.

Knock on wood, I am driving an old Prius that has required less service than any other vehicle I have ever had anything to do with.

Now that it is out of warranty, I could add a booster battery and get even better mileage and distance, if I wanted to spend that money (I don't) and if I were handy (which I aspire to being some day).

It's a city car, but I'm a city person, so not much loss there, though my maintenance guy told me to trade in the bald tires that do not do well in winter, so I did.

I don't feel the mileage I get has decreased that much, unless I get in frustration mode and let my pedal-foot get a bit heavy.

Does anybody rely on government statistics by themselves any more any way? Don't people relay on car magazines more for that kind of thing?

In these jaded times, isn't it better to look to 3 sources, if one wants to be serious about such stuff?

Different strokes for different folks in transition times. A lot of issues need log sheets for different environments and lifestyles.

Add in accident rates too, if we are figuring costs. We should be throwing every variable we can think of in the mix.
Comment
8 of 29
December 8, 2010
Do you really think the EPA would lie ? As we shiver from global warming, let's not forget about renewable biofuel as an energy source to suppliment wind and solar and hydro for recharging these electric vehicles. Convert coal generators to burn biomass and use the exhaust to grow algae. Or the UN will be forced to reduce global population.
No image available
Comment
9 of 29
Anonymous
December 8, 2010
With CURRENT METHODS of electricity generation, the author's main point is undisputed. Cradel to grave, it takes more energy to fuel an EV. Until we solve two main problems, the true advantages of EV's cannot be realized:

-Create vast amounts of electricity from sustainable sources.
-Find a way to efficiently store vast amounts of electricity so that we can use our sustainable energy when we want to.

The EV concept is great, but I for one won't buy one until I'm convinced these problems are at least partially solved. I hope that mass availability of EVs (which seems inevitable) will drive the required innovation in generation and storage.
Comment
10 of 29
December 8, 2010
one is 20% better and one is 20% worse.
does it really make that much difference?
It is only moving a couple of people a few miles
and I hope it is in warm weather or heat is a problem..
For trucking and aircraft and long distances looks to
me like GreenGas.cc is the only one left now that Gore
lets the truth out about ethanol and biofuel ect.
Comment
11 of 29
December 9, 2010
A couple of facts about EVs
1. You don't actually need any fossil fuels to produce the electricity for them, that fact that much currently is irrelevant in the bigger picture.
2. A performance EV, such as the Tesla Roadster, could drive about 10,000 miles/year powered by about 2.5 sq-m of CPV (concentrating PV) located somewhere like the Nevada desert. That's ~$1000 one off capital cost for 20+ years driving plus annual maintenance, or about $100 per year. An equivalent ICEV using 2nd gen biofuel would need about 2,000sq-m of land to grow biomass every year, although it may be possible to getaway with ~200sq-m of algae biofuel grown in expensive closed bioreactors.

Comparing mpg's of EVs vs ICEVs is probably fairly meaningless anyway when considering vehicle economies, energy consumption KWh or BTUs per mile or Km is far more meaningful when considering the time when we can no loner just pump the energy straight out of the ground but have to supply it from renewable sources.

The short answer is that powering EV's from RE electricity is likely to prove far more viable than powering ICEVs from biofuels.
Comment
12 of 29
December 9, 2010
This was a good attempt, Mr. Peterson; though I enjoyed this less than the first article within your "Alice in EV land" series.

The problem is that no-one (should) care about Earth-to-wheels efficiency... they should care about net emissions and cost.

The first "Alice" installment correctly showed how economically inviable this fantasy of electric cars is... So when you choose to focus on the fueling options, you should focus mostly on cost comparisons and emissions comparisons.

To do so, we need to use the following assumptions:
First, fossil energy will be used to charge electric cars. This is obvious from the simple expedient of noting that there isn't a tremendous amount of spare renewable capacity out there. Since ~100% of all the solar energy that can be produced IS produced, the power company won't ramp-up unused solar panels to provide the extra energy for the new demand from electric vehicles... nor will they power on that unused nuclear reactor. The coal plants have spare capacity, so it's coal that will be ramped up to provide the extra power demand.

Second, as the world runs out of quick-and-easy petroleum, it will be tar sands and their equivalent that will be needed to power cars in the future - so by not using gasoline, we'll have a net result of not developing that many gallons of tar sands fuels.

Now the comparison is easy.

Assuming tar sand fuel, the total life cycle emissions from the production and consumption of 1 gallon of gasoline is ~14 kg, so that means that the Prius will be responsible for ~280 g-CO2/mile.

At a cost of $3/gallon gasoline, the Prius costs $0.06/mile

The U.S. grid has an average carbon intensity of 879 g-CO2/kWh. So assuming the Leaf gets an average of 3 miles/kWh, that means that driving the Leaf would result in a net total of ~293 g-CO2/mile.

At a cost of $0.11/kWh, driving the Leaf costs $0.037/mile.

The leaf results in more pollution per mile driven, and shows a cost break-even at ~350,000 miles.
Comment
13 of 29
December 9, 2010
The Leaf uses five times fewer Btus per mile than the average American car when all you look at is energy taken from the plug to fully charge the battery verses energy taken from the gas pump to fill a tank.

Therefore, any lifecycle analysis will have to show five times greater lifecycle energy usage for the Leaf to nullify its five times more efficient use of plug-to battery energy per mile . Using the data in the above post I find that the Leaf consumes 40 percent "less" lifycycle energy per mile than the average American car and only 8 percent "more" than the Prius. So, until our entire car fleet gets replaced by Priuses, the Leaf will use less lifecycle energy than the average car on the road today, a lot less.

Lifecycle energy use aside, the Prius uses half the energy per mile of the average car and the Leaf uses half the energy per mile as a Prius. Replace coal and natural gas with renewables and nuclear and you have close to a zero carbon transportation system with electric vehicles. We could be oil exporters instead of importers! ; )

It is utterly irrelevant that it presently takes more Btus of coal or natural gas to power electric cars than it takes to power a Prius with oil (but the Leaf will already use much less energy than the average car) because we have to begin the transition away from fossil fuels for several reasons. The electrification of transport has to be done at the same time that we reduce oil use and replace coal and natural gas with renewable and nuclear. You can't wait until we have done all that and then start building electric cars.
Comment
14 of 29
December 9, 2010
The national average electricity cost is $0.1147/kWh. That means the average cost to charge the car would be $2.75 from Empty to Full. http://www.nissanusa.com/leaf-electric-car/faq/view/22#/leaf-electric-car/faq/view/22

1 kilowatt hour = 3 412.141 479 9 Btu http://www.onlineconversion.com/energy.htm

5,465 Btu per vehicle mile http://cta.ornl.gov/data/tedb29/Edition29_Full_Doc.pdf

115,000 BTU per US gallon http://www.epa.gov/oms/rfgecon.htm

10,378 BTUs of coal energy ...to make 1 kWh (per the above article, sources not listed).

Transmission and distribution losses in the USA were estimated at 6.6% in 1997[13] and 6.5% in 2007
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_power_transmission#Losses

24 kWh (or 81,808 Btu) to charge a Leaf with a 75 mile range = 1,091 Btu per mile for the Leaf

Average American car Btu per mile = 5,465.

5,465/1,091 = 5 (the Average American car uses five times more Btu per mile)

"...Both stickers were heralded as the dawn of a new age in transportation..".

I think you made that up so you could knock it down (a strawman).

"...Unfortunately, they were outrageous lies..."

The EPA is just a bureaucracy trying to come up with an equivalent system to mpg that consumers are comfortable with. Mpg ratings have never included full life cycle fuel analysis. For example, it takes quite a bit more energy to make diesel than gasoline You certainly don't see that reflected in a diesel car's mpg ratings, never mind the ratings for E85.
Comment
15 of 29
December 9, 2010
"...The leaf results in more pollution per mile driven, and shows a cost break-even at ~350,000 miles...."

If the cost break even metric was all that mattered to the consumer we would all drive two-door economy cars. Obviously, consumers are more concerned about image, status, and other factors.

There have been several studies that show that electric cars using today's grid fossil fuel mix would produce more GHG than hybrid cars (thanks to coal). That is really old news. However, those studies also show that electric cars would produce fewer GHG than the existing car fleet.

It is also nonsensical to use the cost of the first cars to hit the market. The costs will rapidly come down as other competing designs arrive.
Comment
16 of 29
December 9, 2010
Russ,

I recognize that the environmental impact of the vehicle and the net operating cost are not the only issues that concern the average buyer... if that were the case then the obscenity of SUV's would never have caught on as a fad.

However, if you acknowledge that driving an electric vehicle is:
a. worse for the environment than using fuels derived from tar sands, and
b. costs significantly more for a much smaller, range restricted vehicle...

Why on Earth would you ADVOCATE or (far worse) SUBSIDIZE that worthless product?

Yes people make dumb choices with their personal lives... but no-one should be actively involved on a site like this advocating options that are more expensive and worse for then environment. That just doesn't make sense.
Comment
17 of 29
December 9, 2010
A vital perspective left out of this discussion is the impact that a new revenue source will have on utilities that can offset likely declining revenues from more and more customers providing their own power over the coming decades, as solar PV drops in price (in the long-run, technology costs go down, fossil fuel costs go up).

Utilities will use low rates to encourage night-time charging when the grid has excess capacity and to avoid stressing the grid during peak hours, so the appropriate cost is the marginal cost of base load plants OR the avoided losses from wind turbines that would otherwise sit idle at night when the wind blows but consumption is low. (I suggest plugging $0.05/kWh into your models).

Add the benefits to society from substituting low carbon renewable energy (wind) for high carbon fossil fuel coal and you have an added benefit of reduced GGE and energy independence (how much do Oil Wars - now or in the future - cost society?).

Now consider the relative simplicity and potential longevity of technology rich EVs - avoid the complex combustion engine and transmission and maintenance costs should be much lower.

We tend to focus on fuel cost alone in these calculations - this article is a transparent hit piece with an agenda - nonsense.

I personally find the idea of having a car that I can power off of the grid or my rooftop, and if needed, use to run the appliances in my home an attractive proposition. Try doing that with a gas-powered car. The EV is fast when needed, but quiet in operation.

To be objective, the EV should be viewed as a utility business strategy, a grid balancing services provider, a carbon reduction strategy, an energy independence strategy, a personal energy storage device, a home appliance, and a substitute for personal transportation.
Comment
18 of 29
December 9, 2010
Glenn,

"...I recognize that the environmental impact of the vehicle..."

The environmental impact of the Leaf is extremely low when compared to America's existing car fleet.

"...However, if you acknowledge that driving an electric vehicle is: ...a. worse for the environment than using fuels derived from tar sands, and
b. costs significantly more for a much smaller, range restricted vehicle..."

According to the original article's numbers, the Leaf only uses 9 percent more life cycle energy than a 2010 Prius:

"...3,106 BTUs of energy from mother earth to move the Prius a mile. In comparison, we have to extract 3,388 BTUs of energy from mother earth to move the Leaf a mile..."

(3,388-3,106)/3,106 = 9 %

...but the Prius doubles the gas mileage of the average American car:

(50-25)/25 = 100% which means the Prius (and according to the author's numbers, the Leaf is just a little worse than the Prius) uses 100% less life cycle energy than the average of the 300 million cars in America

So, according to the original article's numbers, the Leaf also uses far less life cycle energy than the existing average of the 300 million cars in America because it is only 9% worse than the Prius (which is 100% better than an average car).

Critique is good. For every energy scheme that exists there are those who are critical of it, coal, oil, corn ethanol, wind, solar, nuclear...

The debates that arise are of great value to those who follow them. The point of a debate is not to try to get your opponent to cede the argument. That never happens. The audience reads the debate and decides on their own who wins, and in the end they win because they learn so much.
Comment
19 of 29
December 9, 2010
"...[the Leaf]. costs significantly more for a much smaller, range restricted vehicle...."

I addressed that already above. Ignoring a debunking doesn't work on the internet because the audience does not ignore them. There are many, many sports cars that are no bigger or even much smaller that cost just as much or more than the five person hatchback Leaf.

Many people will buy the Leaf not only because it is environmentally better than the American average car fleet but also because it carries even more stature than those sports cars, although for different reasons.

The range issue is irrelevant to those who want a Leaf for its other features and don't care about that limitation, just as having four doors is irrelevant to those who buy a Corvette.

"...Yes people make dumb choices with their personal lives... but no-one should be actively involved on a site like this advocating options that are more expensive and worse for then environment. That just doesn't make sense...."

Did you just say that the hundreds of millions of Americans who have bought a car other than a Prius made a dumb choice? And, ah, you are the one actively advocating "against" an option that is far better for the environment than the existing fleet, which doesn't make sense.

"...Why on Earth would you ADVOCATE or (far worse) SUBSIDIZE that worthless product?..."

Because the Leaf is far better than the existing car fleet, not far worse. And to call the Nissan Leaf a worthless product is nonsensical.
Comment
20 of 29
December 9, 2010
Ecomergence,

Nice comment. Money quotes:

"...We tend to focus on fuel cost alone in these calculations - this article is a transparent hit piece with an agenda - nonsense.

I personally find the idea of having a car that I can power off of the grid or my rooftop, and if needed, use to run the appliances in my home an attractive proposition. Try doing that with a gas-powered car. The EV is fast when needed, but quiet in operation.

To be objective, the EV should be viewed as a utility business strategy, a grid balancing services provider, a carbon reduction strategy, an energy independence strategy, a personal energy storage device, a home appliance, and a substitute for personal transportation..."

See "Securities Lawyer Mocks Electric Vehicle Enthusiasts--Gets Mocked Back:"

http://biodiversivist.blogspot.com/2010/09/securities-lawyer-mocks-electric.html
Comment
21 of 29
December 10, 2010
What was left out of the equation was, walking, bicycling, public transportation, working locally, carpooling, etc. etc....
Comment
22 of 29
December 10, 2010
Russ,

I don't care about the average American car fleet. I care about the idea that government and a few zealous advocates are telling everyone that they should buy THIS option, when there are better options that cost less and do less net harm to the environment.

In the case of EV's, the government is so psyched about this non-viable technology that it's willing to bribe a person $7500 if they choose the EV over a better, cheaper, more environmentally friendly option. It's disgusting.

If you want to advocate improving America's fleet fuel economy, then great! Do so. But that could be done much more cheaply and to much greater effect through other options. So offer each option a subsidy based on the amount that it improves upon that fleet economy and LET THE BEST TECHNOLOGY WIN. That winner will not be EV's.

This is simply a non-viable technology.

For the record, if you were to replace the Volt's 16 kWh battery with a 1 kWh battery, and withdraw the ability to plug it in to the wall, and restore some of the more cost effective features that are found in common vehicles (but which are slightly more electricity demanding) it would likely be quite competitive with the Prius. The series hybrid offers a few interesting advantages... but it's incredibly stupid, both from an environmental standpoint and a market standpoint, to design the car to run only on grid electricity.
Comment
23 of 29
December 11, 2010
Glenn,

"...I don't care about the average American car fleet."

The Leaf does much less net harm to the environment than the average car. That is the key lesson to be learned in this exchange. It is vastly better than 98% of the cars in existence.

"...I care about the idea that government and a few zealous advocates are telling everyone that they should buy THIS option."

Having options is what a market is all about. Everyone isn't going to buy a Prius, like I did, and get a $3,000 tax break like I did ; )

"...it's willing to bribe a person $7500 if they choose the EV over a better, cheaper, more environmentally friendly option."

There is only one car that, according to this article, uses less life cycle energy--the Prius. But using just 9% more energy is a small price to pay to not use oil and the grid is getting cleaner daily.

The economic viability of the electric vehicles is for the market to decide. We will soon see. People said the Prius wasn't economically feasible when it first arrived. GM insisted that Toyota was taking a huge loss on every one built.


"...offer each option a subsidy based on the amount that it improves upon that fleet economy and LET THE BEST TECHNOLOGY WIN. That winner will not be EV's.

When it comes to reduction in oil use the EV is already the winner. $33K/$22K = a 50% cost increase for a 100% reduction in oil use.

"..This is simply a non-viable technology."

Wrong as rain.

"...The series hybrid offers a few interesting advantages... but it's incredibly stupid, both from an environmental standpoint and a market standpoint, to design the car to run only on grid electricity."

Unlike the Leaf, the Volt is not an electric car. The Volt is a plug-in hybrid. I tend to agree with you that it is the worst of both worlds but time will tell if consumers agree with us.
Comment
24 of 29
December 13, 2010
Russ,

How about this:

If you believe that the ultimate end goal is to reduce gasoline consumption at any cost... why isn't government offering subsidies/incentives for ALL options which reduce gasoline consumption.

The American fleet fuel economy is ~20 mpg. If you buy a leaf, you theoretically reduce that consumption 100% (this isn't actually true)... and the government is willing to shell out a whopping $7500 (of my tax dollars) to encourage this. Why then, wouldn't the Prius have a $5000 subsidy - as it reduces fuel consumption by 66.7% over standard fleet economy...
For that matter why wouldn't a small car like a Nissan Sentra (my car, btw) be offered a $2500 subsidy, as it reduces consumption of gasoline by 33%?

Why is the subsidy for the Volt equal to the subsidy for the leaf, rather than 75% of what the Leaf's subsidy...

What benefit does the Leaf and the Volt provide society that they should be SINGLED OUT and promoted by government by having some portion of the bill payed for by my tax dollars?

If you state the benefit is reduction of global warming, as I've already explained the Prius should have a HIGHER subsidy and most compact cars should have a very similar subsidy to the Leaf...


The point is that there is no justification for the singling out of these inviable vehicles based on any societal "good".

If people wish to spend lots of money for a lesser car based on some goal of achieving a status symbol... that's fine. That's just capitalism. But there's no "greater good" here. It's just a completely corrupt bribe that being paid with taxpayer money to make a car that can't honestly compete attempt to compete.
Comment
25 of 29
December 13, 2010
Poor Assumption.
Electric cars can use waste electricity - energy which would be lost if not used - for example - nuclear power plants have unused capacity at night - this energy burns no carbon etc, then the energy is used the next day in lieu of carbon fuel, so the carbon or btu cost is essentially 0.
Comment
26 of 29
December 13, 2010
Glenn,

"...The American fleet fuel economy is ~20 mpg. If you buy a leaf, you theoretically reduce that consumption 100% (this isn't actually true)..."

My numbers suggest the Leaf will use about 50 percent less life cycle fuel energy than a car that gets 20 mpg.

"... and the government is willing to shell out a whopping $7500 (of my tax dollars) to encourage this..."

That is about 22% of the car's retail price. It will be phased out in time as was the Prius rebate. I see you are hoping to debate me on that topic but unfortunately, I'm agnostic about the rebate and I am not privy to how that value was derived. When I bought my Prius the credit was about 15% of the retail price. I was agnostic about that credit as well but took it anyway ; )

"...It's just a completely corrupt bribe that being paid with taxpayer money to make a car that can't honestly compete attempt to compete..."

Well, that's what some said about the Prius subsidy. Time will tell if you are right.
Comment
27 of 29
December 14, 2010
Oh, by the way, I just finished an article critiquing this article:

"The EPA's outrageous lie ...yawn."

http://biodiversivist.blogspot.com/2010/12/epas-outrageous-lie-yawn.html
Comment
28 of 29
December 14, 2010
Russ,

If you're agnostic about the subsidies then we can agree to disagree. I believe that electric cars will be similar to ultra-large rims - economical insane, but preferred by some portion of the country regardless. However, I've never spent any time or energy campaigning against ultra-large rims because regardless of how silly they are, the person buying them is spending his money (stupidly) on his priorities. I get upset when people want to spend MY money stupidly on THEIR priorities.

So if you're simply an enthusiast who doesn't support the subsidy, I respect your right to spend your money as you wish... and only ask that you choose not to accept the completely unjustified bribe that the government will offer you when you DO spend your money.
Comment
29 of 29
January 22, 2011
A previous poster indicated that he felt that Nissan should receive a lesser incentive as they take away American jobs. I quote, "I have to agree, that ONLY AMERICAN MADE electric vehicles be given such a hefty subsidy (in this country)! Nisson and toyota should be given a smaller subsidy based not on "eco" but on the fact they take away from needed American jobs.
In Smyrna, TN Nissan has already built a factory for producing The Leaf and they are geared up to do tens of thousand of Leafs this year. That is a lot of American jobs!
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

John Petersen

View John Petersen's Profile
About: firm of Fefer Petersen & Cie (www.ipo-law.com) and represents North American, European and Asian clients, principally in the energy and alternative energy secto... more »

Advertise With Us

American Solar Energy Society Ingeteam Apricus, Inc. Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo North America GoGreenSolar.com Rittal Corporation Midwest Renewable Energy Association
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