The Worlds #1 Renewable Energy Network for News & Information
Sign In or Register
Renewable Energy World Logo
Sunday, May 19, 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
      • All Webcasts
      • Featured Webcasts
      • Upcoming 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

Solar Takes Wind in Test

Utility hopes to inform customers with project.

Becky Kramer, The Spokesman-Review
January 31, 2011  |  28 Comments

Blustery gusts keep a wind turbine spinning at Inland Power and Light's corporate headquarters on the West Plains, but solar panels are the real powerhouse at the utility's alternative energy pilot project.

The solar panels have produced about five times as much electricity as the wind turbine over the past 14 months. The sun’s ability to generate more electricity than the wind – even during short winter days – has surprised the utility’s engineers.

“Solar,” said Richard Damiano, the utility’s chief engineer, “is trouncing wind.”

Inland Power set up the experiment to help the utility customers compare alternative-energy options for their homes. Each year, the utility fields from 50 to 60 calls from people interested in producing some of their own electricity. Initially, most think they want a wind turbine, Damiano said.

To help customers with the analysis, Inland Power officials decided to collect their own data.

The utility bought a 35-foot wind turbine and a bank of solar panels. The systems are representative of technology scaled to individual homeowner use, Damiano said. Each cost from $22,000 to $24,000 to install.

Conventional thinking suggested that wind turbines would outperform solar panels, particularly on gray winter days.

“It’s the West Plains, so there’s a perception that the wind is always blowing,” Damiano said.

But wind is more erratic than people realize, he said. The wind dies down, for instance, during hot weather and cold spells. Inland Power’s turbine is similar to the larger ones installed in the Columbia River Gorge. It needs a stiff breeze of around 12 miles per hour to start producing electricity.

Solar panels, on the other hand, generate a certain amount of electricity even on cloudy days.

During the first 13 days of January, Inland Power’s solar panels produced 35 kilowatt-hours of electricity, compared with 10 kilowatt-hours from wind generation.

The results don’t surprise Linda Finney, who sold the wind turbine to Inland Power. She and her husband initially installed it on a grassy hill above their home on the Palouse Highway, about 12 miles south of Spokane. After two years, they took the turbine down because it wasn’t generating the results they hoped for, and they replaced it with 16 solar panels.

At certain times of the year, “our meter runs backwards,” said Finney, executive director of Leadership Spokane. “We’re banking energy during the summer months.”

Damiano said some customers do the research and still end up with wind turbines. In areas heavily shaded by trees, for instance, wind turbines can outperform solar panels.

In the Inland Power pilot project, the solar panels produced about 15 percent of a typical household’s electric needs over the course of a year. The wind turbine produced less than 3 percent.

From a cost-benefit standpoint, erecting a wind turbine or putting in solar panels is still a reach for most homeowners, Damiano said. Those who take the plunge are making a lifestyle choice to reduce their carbon footprint, he said. Recovering the installation costs for turbines or solar panels can take years, even with the 30 percent tax subsidy available to homeowners.

“It will take you a chunk of time,” Finney acknowledged. But she encourages people to think about the long-term benefits.

“Some people spend $25,000 on a new car,” she said. “We decided this is how we wanted to live and how we wanted to spend our money.”

Becky Kramer is a reporter for The Spokesman-Review in the Idaho department. She covers the environment, natural resources and utilities.

Copyright 2011.  Reproduced with permission of The Spokesman-Review. Permission is granted in the interest of public discussion and does not imply endorsement of any product, service or organization otherwise mentioned herein.

28 Comments

Register To Comment
RUY ARCAYA
RUY ARCAYA
February 7, 2011
To compare Wind energy production and PV, this must be in the same terms, which are, power, geographic location ant time.
Glenn Doty
Glenn Doty
February 7, 2011
Avanderbom,

Even if you were correct about installed costs (there is no support for a net installed system cost of $4.8/W in Washington state), and even if you were correct about longevity and degradation (observed degradation rates have been between 0.5%/year and 4%/year - the panels degrade, that's absolutely and irrefutably true)...
You're still presenting a system with a LCOE of ~$0.42/kWh once a reasonable discount rate of 7.5% is applied.

It's just not a remotely wise investment. 5000 kWh's/year is worth ~$500/year in total returns.

If you were looking to spend $24,000 on something that would help the environment, you could invest that $24,000 into a large wind farm somewhere in the wind corridor. Even if the wind farm venture had to curtail 50% of its energy, you'd still see MUCH better than $500/year in returns, and that wind farm would do far more good in reducing emissions.
Anne van der Bom
Anne van der Bom
February 7, 2011
glenn-doty,

"The outlined solar project here produced 35 kWhs in 14 days for $24,000.

Solar panels typically will last ~25 years with a 1%/year degradation. Assuming summer power production at 2.5X the winter production, these panels should produce ~38,200 kWhs in their lifetime, give or take ~10%."

Great, extrapolating 2 weeks production with a made-up correction factor for summer/winter difference to estimate total power production. The 'give or take 10%' is overconfident.

A $ 24000 gives you a pv system of around 5 kW that will generate, in the state of Washington, around 5000 kWh per annum. That's closer to 125000 kWh lifetime generation, instead of 38000.

And the 1% per year degradation has never been observed in the field (for crystalline silicon). That figure is derived from the manufacturer's guarantees, which are of course always on the very, very safe side.
Glenn Doty
Glenn Doty
February 3, 2011
Michelmge -

Fair enough. Thank you for the reference. I am not familiar with micro-turbines, as I don't believe them to be a wise investment. On reflection, it makes sense... as for the small turbines you probably would not have hollow blades or posts, so material thickness would increase with size, resulting in mass increasing geometrically with blade length.

The quoted cost for the 35 ft turbine listed in the article (installed cost of 22,000) is only ~$22/square foot, btw. But again I don't enough about micro-turbines to determine why the article's quoted cost are different from your source. (It could be that Home Power was listing installed cost, while this article was listing off-the-shelf purchase cost... which would make this article even more useless).

For reference, installed cost of some of the large utility-sized turbines are under $17/ sq ft, with hub heights of ~100m. At 100 m, a well sited turbine hub will have average wind speeds of 25mph or higher, allowing as high as 50% capacity factors.

It just doesn't make any sense to me to go small.
Michel Maupoux
Michel Maupoux
February 2, 2011
to: glenn-doty-175949 & all

For small wind turbines, the 'wind power guide' published in home power June 2010, shows a remarkable consistency in cost per sq. ft of swept area across a list of more than 20 models from 8ft to 20ft diameter. With a few exceptions, purchase costs were about $50 to $60 per sq. ft. Much more proportional to area then to diameter (blade length). If you take the vendor-published AEO (annual Energy Output, in kWh) for a same average wind speed of 12mph, the consistency is quite remarkable as well.
This might not apply to large, utility-size turbines, but is relevant to the turbine size mentioned in the article.
Glenn Doty
Glenn Doty
February 2, 2011
@Doggydogworld -

It would be useful if you had any research or facts to back up your snide remarks.

please do show a cost comparison between installed turbine options that shows a geometric cost scaling with regards to size...

Or show some evidence that you've researched the topic at all...

Or just shut up and stop trolling.
ANONYMOUS
February 2, 2011
They now 'admit' that the siting was poor; but this was an educational installation, despite the huge sales pitch on all the clean, inexpensive energy it would produce and how much fossil fuel would be displace---never mind that most of Maine's energy is Hydro or natural gas, this sales pitch resonated among the university community.

The other excuse was the admission that the turbine was made in India; and a friend quipped it makes him sikh to hear of this slur.

There is a raging controversy in Maine over industrial wind farms and outside foreign corporations profiting from them at our expense.

A major legislative conference involving various citizen groups will be held this Saturday to settle on the legislation which will go into the wind portfolio that will pretty much remove the subsidies and profit from corporate wind farming.

The lastest foofus involves two of the first large wind turbines installed in Freedom, Me. on the premise that the tax income would lower property taxes.

Well, theoretically it would; but the town selectmen decided to apply the revenue to make up for shortfalls and to get back some of the revenue as salve for some upset tax payers, reappraised the wind turbines at a much higher rate.

The company, of course, objected; so the tax assessor requested the invoices to use instead of some comparable data....standard operating procedure in setting tax rates for industrial property. Furthermore, the company is depreciating the turbines at 10% a year, a ten year life span???.

The company refused, claiming confidentiality; and the town isn't budging from their assessment without the real data.

This has added another contentious issue into an already complex situation; and one, which if not solved the the satisfaction of towns will bring wind farming to a screeching halt in Maine.
ANONYMOUS
February 2, 2011
Maine's only Industrial wind turbine installed at the University of Presque Isle on euphoric breeze of marketing hype has been running for nearly two years.

Here's a progress report:

"February 1, 2011

One month ago, on January 1, 2011, the UMPI website had gone blooey, showing no data, so as a surrogate for 1/1/11, we'll use the KWH recorded on 12/29/10 - 1,029,982. To see the 12/29/10 production, please look at the Excel screenshot dated 12/29/10 at
http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/umpi-wind-turbine-2011

Today, project to date KWH's stand at 1,057,220, an increase of 27,238 for the month, or 879 KWH per day. That represents a capacity factor of 6.1% for January 2011.

The turbine was down for part of the month, but such is the real world. Project to date capacity factor stands at only 11.7%."

11.7% this is real world data, on line...see URL for details.

The marketing hype has been transformed by the President of the College basking in all the accolades he's received as such a progressive, forward energy thinker; into a mantra of excuses:
BUCK SHAW
BUCK SHAW
February 2, 2011
I thought selling back to the Grid was a great thing. Until now some Idiot I think its Governor "Moon Beam" is talking of TAXING my excess energy. Go figure.....
Mary Saunders
Mary Saunders
February 2, 2011
I'm throwing in with alligatorhardt and Maxie.

It's going to rain and blow enough in Spokane to clean the panels enough, to minimize ops and maintenance work.

Solar in the NW tends to yield at peak, which is win-win for owner and enlightened utility.

What's more, as the grid switches to using recycled or other sources of batteries or switched-out batteries to maintain fast-feeds to even out the grid with efficiency, this gets better and less pollution-using over time.

I applaud communities that are doing these sorts of pilots. My opinion of Spokane got even better than it already was.
William Lange
William Lange
February 2, 2011
Taxpayers are being sold a bunch of garbage about how great wind energy is. Harnessing wind energy with blades rotating at right angles to wind flow is laughable! Current turbines require designs resulting in greater and greater rotational speed to increase efficiency. So gear box, blade, and generator failures are increasing. Gear boxes designed for 20 year life expectancy are failing in just 6! I have not heard a "peep" about the negative effects of constantly rotating the upper assembly into the wind. Those massive blades are a huge gyroscope being forced to do something they don't want to do! They not only resist being turned left/right, they do something unexpected..they want to tilt! I have a patent pending on a vertical axis wind turbine that addresses that issue and more. Lets talk about a more practical way to capture the wind's energy..bill.lange4821@att.net
chris eddy
chris eddy
February 2, 2011
"However, the COST of the turbine scales linearly with increased size."

Laughably incorrect.
stellios mavrakis
stellios mavrakis
February 2, 2011
In the UK 1kw of mono/poly PV panels will yield a guaranteed 850kwh per annum,rising to over 1000kwh in the southern coast (Thin Film will yield 920kwh) so if you installed a 35kw system you would generate,effectively 30,000kwh annually, and over a 25 year period they will produce 875,000kwh. This,electrical production, unlike wind power, is an absolute certainty and that is the vast difference, as PV produces reliable power at peak consumption. Wind power because of the extremely unpredictablity of wind is useless because for any practical energy supply you need to know that it will be available when it is required. To make matters worse because of this fundamental flaw of unreliabilty in wind power generation there has to be commensurate back up to provide the energy from rapid fire up power stations which can only be gas.In fact in Stewart Brand's book'The Whole Earth Disipline' he gives the production figures for wind, because of intermittency, as only 20% of the theroretical peak capablity, a hard reality, which is now being backed up by field trial data in the UK. So wind power solves nothing in practical terms, PV does, and the carbon production payback is 2/3 years with(unlike heavy maintenance for wind turbines)virtually zero maintenance.
ANONYMOUS
February 1, 2011
The experiment is the experiment, the data is the data, get over it! Location is very important; however, for a micro-producer the location is what it is: one wouldn't normally factor in moving to an ideal location as part of the equation. In this case, the site seems optimal with clear flat terrain and a hub height that would likely violate most zoning bylaws. Don't forget that the guys doing this experiment are experienced wind farm operators.

'Average' windspeed is always on the high side of the distribution relative to typical wind speed. In an ideal location, the dropout windspeed of the generator should be substantially less than the average windspeed to achieve a high capacity factor. If one were to apply the windmill tested where the average windspeed was 5 m/s (11.2 m/h), the wind would be below dropout speed most of the time. Further, seasonal variation of wind can be quite high. The 13 days cited provides an example of this. Some microturbines have drop-out speeds as low as 7.5 m/h and one should probably consider this as a very important selection criteria. As well, the low RPM efficiency will depend on the effective gearing of the generator and complexity of the switch gear. A simple alternator with fixed poles and fixed gear ratio will not do may have to drop out at high speeds as well. As described above, windpower scales down exponentially, not linearly based on physical principles and that's before you consider that large turbines have not only sophisticated gearing, magnetics and switch gear but also sophisticated dynamic attitude adjustment per blade, blade shaping and drag control systems which go far beyond what one can practically do for a microturbine. No doubt, some microturbines have better performance than others and this will get better over time, but, you only get what you pay for.

Guys who sell $2000 turbines with 300 KWh/a practical capacity are snake oil salesmen.
Glenn Doty
Glenn Doty
February 1, 2011
@ SSteward -
Exactly what do you imagine the inflation rate of electricity will be?

The outlined solar project here produced 35 kWhs in 14 days for $24,000.

Solar panels typically will last ~25 years with a 1%/year degradation. Assuming summer power production at 2.5X the winter production, these panels should produce ~38,200 kWhs in their lifetime, give or take ~10%.

The value of that energy, at today's energy prices in Washington State, is $3,056.00. If you include a meager discount rate of 6% to the panel purchase, you're looking at a prospective cost of $46,389! How much should we expect energy to inflate?

It's fine to make a $24,000 sacrifice for the planet, but make it sensibly. Investing that much would get you between a 3-10% ROI if you invested in a large-scale wind farm, and it would abate hundredsfold more CO2. Investing that in a new technology might net you a return of between 0 and 100,000% over 25 years, and you could easily result in offsetting tens of millions of times as much CO2.

Some technology is a waste of money that could be spent elsewhere doing good. If one is inclined to spend money to do good, spend it well.

If you wanted to spend more than $500,000... you are welcome to look into investing in our carbon-neutral fuels/grid stability venture: www.WindFuels.com.

If not, then at least you can invest in large-scale wind, and invest in companies that are investing in large-scale wind.

:)
ANONYMOUS
February 1, 2011
The more I become involved in siting assessments and determining R.O.I. and providing solutions? to the vexing problem of fluctuating energy output from both wind and solar; I more appreciate the reliability and dependability of hydro power.

The 1992 Maine HydroPower Plan had a quote to the effect that hydropower was as close to a perpetual motion machine as it gets; many facilities are still running with minimal maintenance for over 100 year.

With both wind and solar, the entire system may need to be replaced as soon as 10 years after installation; and both are vulnerable to harsh weather...hurricanes, tornados, other wind events, ice storms, and sea gull poop!

I rarely buy features, but warranties; and say a little prayer every day that the company I bought it from will stay in business that long.

Assessments never include the replacement costs; something your never have to worry about with a grid based power system, and the larger the alternative, the necessity of having large scale redundancy for replacement power is essential. In Europe, the redundancy is not solar, not wind, not biomass, not gas or coal, but pumped storage lakes(2).

This comparison of the two modalities is enlighting from a short term perspective; but missing are the long term replacement and maintenance costs. Power output is only factor in a real R.O.I. equation!
Stephen Stewart
Stephen Stewart
February 1, 2011
Everyone is arguing over the lengthy payback period but noone has pointed out that electricity cost are going to rise much faster than inflation in fact they will be one of the primary drivers for inflation. If this is factored into the mix the payback will become more reasonable.
Ron Peterson
Ron Peterson
February 1, 2011
A home mortgage will cost me about 5%.

Since the $22,000 solar array will generate about $100 worth of power a year, I would be much better off paying off the mortgage.
Glenn Doty
Glenn Doty
February 1, 2011
The economics here are pretty easy to understand, as long as the following fact is understood: turbine blades are hollow.

For those that are scratching their heads, consider this: the actual area that receives wind is a function of the square of the blade length... so the power transferred is a quadratic function of the blade length. However, the COST of the turbine scales linearly with increased size.

Furthermore, the total power that can be transferred is a cubic function of the speed of the wind, so if your turbine needs 12 mph wind to generate some power, 24 mph wind will generate 8X that much power... Wind speed always increases as a function of hub height (though the increase is not proportional), and costs typically scale either linearly or quadratically with hub height. But siting considerations can make a tremendous difference in wind speed. Sometimes as little as 500-1000 ft in tower positioning can change double or half your average wind speed (again making an 8fold difference in power).

So micro-turbines are economically ill-considered. If you spent ten times as much on a turbine you would receive over 100 times as much energy from that turbine (and if you spent 100 times as much you might generate 10,000X as much energy); and by limiting your siting to a very small personal lot, you can effectively reduce your prospective yield from wind by an order of magnitude.

Invest in large-scale wind projects with that $25,000. You'll do hundreds-fold more good for the planet (it's the same atmosphere), and you're already committed to squandering the money; this way you'll see a far better return than you would have on the micro-turbine, if not the typical return you'd want out of a paper investment.
Lawrence Carroll
Lawrence Carroll
February 1, 2011
It will be interesting to see if wind turbines will soon be deployed much higher up using proposed types of "flying" or "floating" methods (as described in a recent DISCOVER magazine article), eliminating the need for tall towers. If so, the energy harnessed could become much higher than currently enjoyed.
Rich Barbarics
Rich Barbarics
February 1, 2011
I guess if you ask the wrong question, it doesn't matter much what the answer is. If I had placed the solar panels under trees and they produced only half of the expected power for that location, wind would have won. Wind requires a sensible site assessment to ascertain the wind resource, an understanding of surface conditions (ground drag), obstructions (turbulence), an understanding of the cube law concerning favorable/unfavorable turbine heights, an understanding of turbine types and ways to properly measure their output vs expectation. J Galbraith once said there are those that don't know and those that don't know they don't know. The defense rests.
Anne van der Bom
Anne van der Bom
February 1, 2011
There is an interesting test bed for micro wind turbines over here in Zeeland. They are pretty disappointing, with two exceptions: the Skystream and the Montana.

Sorry, it's only in Dutch, but perhaps Google translate can mangle it in to some intelligible variant of Anglospeak :-)

Overview of the turbines: http://provincie.zeeland.nl/milieu_natuur/windenergie/kleine_windturbines/de_turbines

Raw data up to dec 2010: http://kreeft.zeeland.nl/zeesterdoc/ZBI-O/ZEE/ZEE0/8012/801257_1.pdf
Maxie Coale
Maxie Coale
February 1, 2011
Location, location, location. The performance of solar and wind energy systems really depends on geography. It boils down to whatever works for a particular area.

On another note, I completely agree with aligatorhardt about that at least renewable energy systems have a payback period while fossil fuels don't. It was simple point but a great one. I expounded on it: http://greenenergyinsiders.com/?p=1002
Wolf Dietrich
Wolf Dietrich
January 31, 2011
This strikes me as a strange article and result, as some of the figures do not add up at all. It says that the wind turbine generated 10kWh in 13 days, which would be - if averaged over one year - roughly 300kWh annual yield. This can be achieved - in a decent wind location with an annual average wind speed of 5m/s - by a small turbine that costs maybe $2,000. Tests with larger turbines in the $10-12k range have shown that they are clearly capable of generating 2,000-3,000 kWh annually, if positioned in a decent spot. So if a $20k wind turbine generates only 300kWh annually, something is very wrong - either with that particular turbine, its positioning or something else.
ANONYMOUS
January 31, 2011
Interesting. Would have thought it was the other way around at first but it makes sense. Sun's always out even when it's not. Might be interesting to see a utility-scale comparison like this - see an apples-to-apples comparison.
ANONYMOUS
January 31, 2011
Micro-wind devices are a highly questionable investment and perform nothing like the turbines used in modern wind farms. The results here would have been easy to predict....
Steven
William Fitch
William Fitch
January 31, 2011
Hi:

As usual, everybody is talking about the payback... and if simply making your meter read less for the money is the only goal, fine.
However, if true energy independence is the goal then the ability to produce power 24/7 is of more importance. The sun will never shine at night, never. However the wind, especially in Winter (our area at least) blows often at night and on very cloudy days.... It is unusual during the Winter to have a day that you don't have either wind or sun. It happens, but it is not the majority. Grid power failures also occur more often when wind is involved. So, having wind as an RE generator matches well with grid failure scenarios.
Regarding their data, putting up a turbine that only STARTS to produce at 12MPH was not a good choice... you can do much better than that...
If energy independence is the goal, than flat generation is the target.... not the payback per device...

.....Bill
Allen Gerhardt
Allen Gerhardt
January 31, 2011
"The systems take years to payback". A range of actual payback times would be helpful. I have been paying for electricity for many years and it is never paid off. Why complain about "years" for payback when the alternative is no payback at all. Getting paid for electricity produced at home is far more than an investment in a new car will bring. It seems that investing in your own needs just has some kind of mental block to overcome.

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
  • EU Debate Over Climate Change Policy Could Dampen Renewable Energy Growth
  • Massachusetts Resets Its Solar Energy Bar, Four Years Early

Most Commented

  • 55
    Energy Expert Predicts Solar Could Upend Major Utility in California on Price
  • 27
    Fighting Blackouts: Japan Residential PV and Energy Storage Market Flourishing
  • 17
    The Economic Case for Divesting from Fossil Fuels
  • 12
    Massachusetts Solar: Healthy Mix of Business Sense, Environmental Awareness and Public Engagement

Total Access Partners

Growing Your Business? Learn More about Total Access
  • Reed Exhibitions
  • AR Power Company, Ltd.
  • Array Technologies
  • Prudent Living, Inc.
  • Enecsys
  • Parker Hannifin - Precision Cooling Systems
  • Arena Solutions
  • Johnson Controls, Inc.
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
  • News
  • Conference & Expo
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