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! ×

NREL Adds Giant Wind Turbine to Research Site

Bill Scanlon, NREL
May 05, 2011  |  19 Comments

Blades longer than a basketball court, a tower the length of a football field, the 3-megawatt Eco 100 is the latest — and largest — wind turbine behemoth erected at the National Wind Technology Center (NWTC) near Boulder, Colo.

Built by French power-generation company, Alstom, the Eco 100 is being tested at NWTC, part of the U.S. Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), so it can be certified for use in the United States. Its certification will mean good-paying jobs in the United States for years to come, and what is learned during testing will bring the nation closer to DOE's target of 20 percent wind energy by 2030.

Alstom paid for the project and will benefit from the information the tests provide, but NREL and America as a whole also will benefit, speakers at the April 26 Turbine Dedication ribbon-cutting said.

The cooperative research and development agreement signed last May between Alstom Power and NREL is being extended to include ongoing tests. Later, the two public-private partnership could be extended to include research on off-shore turbines.

The partnership will continue to produce results that "will strengthen our ability to harness the wind and power our future with clean, safe, and renewable energy," said John Cohen, Alstom Power's vice president for Government Affairs. He said the "what ifs" at the beginning of the partnership already are coming true. "What if a new technical process for turbine design accelerates expansion of wind power? What if together we make progress to meet tomorrow's energy needs? What if our push for innovation accelerates new clean-energy jobs in the United States?"

Manufacturing Plant in Texas

Alstom is building a manufacturing plant for the nacelles — the cigar-shaped enclosures attaching the tower to the blades — for the Eco 100 in Amarillo, Texas. The plant will open this fall and create and maintain 275 American jobs, NWTC Director Fort Felker said.  A single Eco 100 is powerful enough to supply energy to 2,000 homes and, with expected service life pegged conservatively at 20 years, could easily generate revenue in the tens of millions of dollars.

In this photo, the heads and torsos of four workers can be seen near the top of a white cylindrical tower piece. They're eying the next section that is being lifted by a crane.

Left: Four workers inside one section of the Eco 100's tower prepare to receive the next section hoisted by a huge crane.  Credit: Dennis Schroeder Enlarge image

Alstom already has 27 Eco 100s operating in France at wind farms south of Paris.

"Partnerships are in our very blood," said Robert Hawsey, NREL's associate laboratory director for Renewable Electricity and End Use Systems. "We're delighted Alstom chose NREL as a strategic partner."

The tests are measuring power performance, power quality, noise, and system frequency. Success in those tests already has given Alstom the IEC certification of its 60Hz model it needs to start sales and production in the United States. Ongoing tests will create a sophisticated engineering simulation model of the Eco-100 drive train. The turbine will go through long-term field tests for model validation that could last another several years.

NREL is measuring inflow conditions, including wind speed wind direction and air pressure and temperature, on a large meteorological tower at its National Wind Technology Center. NREL also is measuring voltage and current at 1Hz to establish a power curve — a plot of power versus wind speed. In addition, the tests will measure voltage and current fluctuations for their impact on the power grid. Later this spring, NREL will measure turbine noise by placing a microphone on a soundboard downwind of the turbine. Measurements will be taken at a wide range of wind speeds.

Instruments at the base of the tower measure pressure under the foundation and the strain inside the foundation. The tests are aimed at checking the assumptions in the design and optimizing the design of the foundation.

Partnership to Research Reliability

In a photo, a huge crane lifts a white cylinder next to the tower parts already in place. In the background are green mountains, white clouds and blue sky.

Right: One of the largest cranes in the world lifts a section of the wind turbine's tower into place at the National Wind Technology Center in the shadow of the foothills south of Boulder, Colo.  Credit: Dennis Schroeder Enlarge image

The NWTC is the most extensive wind-turbine testing facility in the nation.

The NREL-Alstom partnership reinforces "how relevant NREL is to the wind industry," DOE's Deputy Assistant Secretary for Renewable Energy Steve Chalk said. The new turbine, together with the recent construction projects at NREL's Golden, Colo., campus, represents "investments that will really pay off down the line. It means NREL will continue to attract the best scientists, and that will lower the cost of renewable energy," spurring greater demand for it.

"We're extremely proud and excited to work with NREL and DOE," Andy Geissbuehler, vice president and general manager of Alstom Power Wind Business North America, said at the dedication ceremonies "We chose the right partner. We would like to continue the partnership and work with NREL on off-shore wind."

This photo shows twilight, and the sun barely peaking through clouds, making the wind turbine tower and the two cranes appear as dark columns.

Left: The sun sets on the Eco 100 Wind Turbine shortly after the first blade has been attached to the tower. Credit: Dennis Schroeder Enlarge image

The Alstom Eco 100 turbine employs a novel drive-train design that isolates the gearbox from rotor loads, putting less strain on the gearbox.  That is a promising difference-maker because the wind industry worldwide has been addressing the problem of gearbox reliability for several years.  NREL heads a consortium of turbine manufacturers, utilities and suppliers, the Gearbox Reliability Collaborative, that examines ways to improve designs and retrofits for gearboxes.

"This has the potential to greatly improve gearbox reliability," Felker said. "Through this project with Alstom, NREL will develop a comprehensive understanding of this innovative drive-train topology."

Soaring High Over the Prairie

Never has a wind turbine churned wind as high above the ground at the NWTC as the 3-MW Eco 100. How big is it?

At its base, the 300-foot (90-meter) tower is about 14 feet (4.5 meters) in diameter.

The entire turbine weighs about 600 tons, with each of the three blades weighing about 11 tons, said Rodrigo Vallejo Paez, project manager for Alstom. The 33-foot by 16-foot (10-meter by 5-meter) nacelle, which cradles the gear box and other instruments high up on the tower, weighs 95 tons.

When one of the three 160-foot-long (50-meter-long) blades of the turbine is at high noon, the entire structure reaches more than 400 feet (130 meters) above the ground.

In this photo, a worker stands erect on the hub of the wind turbine near to where the blades are attached. An orange harness is wrapped around one of the blades and attached to the crane's pulley system. The man's height is approximately equal to the width of the blade.

Right: A worker from Michels Wind Energy prepares to release a harness after the third and final blade was attached to the Alstom Eco 100 wind turbine. Credit: Dennis Schroeder Enlarge image

To ensure that the behemoth withstands 90- to 100-mph winds blowing from the mountains to the west, the base of the tower was planted into a foundation that required 70 truckloads of concrete.

Alstom hired Michels Wind Energy to install the turbine. Stage-by-stage, one of the largest cranes in the world, lifted turbine parts above the short-grass prairie of rural Boulder County, Colo., in the shadow of the Rocky Mountains in December.

The crane, from Mullen Crane Services of Soda Springs, Idaho, has a lift capacity of 1,350 tons. The graceful bend in the blades, supplied by LM Wind Power, would look at home in a museum of sculpture. The blades are shaped to have pre-bend in the upwind direction — a reverse camber that hooks into the wind. The aerodynamic forces will bend the blades downwind, ensuring that the blades don't hit the tower under any weather condition.

This photo from ground level shows yellow grasses with the white wind turbine in the background.

Left: At the April 26 dedication ceremony, Alstom's Eco 100 wind turbine rose above the short-grass prairie at the National Wind Technology Center. Credit: Dennis Schroeder Enlarge image

"People don't appreciate how much power these machines have," Felker said. "It's a tremendous job to install a 3 MW wind turbine."

The 90-meter tower arrived in five giant sections. The 50-meter-long rotor blades were shipped on special trucks. "Meticulous engineering and planning was required to ensure that the project proceeded safely," Felker said. Ironworkers, millwrights and electricians were among the skilled workers who erected and installed the turbine and its instruments.

Wind energy has been one of the fastest-growing segments of the U.S. electrical system for many years, and will be an essential part of the transformation to clean energy, Felker said.

Jeroen van Dam, NREL's project manager for the Alstom project, agrees.  "Wind power is a clean energy source that can be rapidly deployed, is abundant and creates manufacturing jobs," he said. "It is already cost-competitive with fossil fuels in a lot of locations and it doesn't use any water."

Felker said it's important that the United States commit long-term to wind energy. "Too often in the past, the wind industry has been buffeted by expiring short-term policies. A policy needs to be in place that recognizes that wind energy provides renewable energy at a competitive cost, with no carbon emissions and with the lowest water consumption of any electricity-generating technology."

Bill Scanlon is a writer for the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL).  This article was originally published as an NREL news feature and was reprinted with permission.

19 Comments

Register To Comment
Alison Tottenham
Alison Tottenham
May 9, 2011
Surely, having gone to the trouble of getting planning permission for a wind farm or even one wind turbine, the sensible thing would be to erect a second on the same site; and simply not consider removing the infrastructure until it shows signs of decay. Most of the gadgetry that will become out-dated over the years, is likely to be replaceable and located in the nacelle. So, once we have found ideal sites, would it not be better to stick with the same and not search for new sites. This would also be best for the migrating birds as over the decades, they will learn to vary their flight paths. Besides, even migrating birds tend to avoid flying in the sort of wind conditions that will have the wind turbines rotating at peak production speeds; slowly turning blades are unlikely to cause a problem. Migrating birds also tend to fly at heights in the range of 28,000 feet - just a little above the highest wind turbine. Only as they ascend from and descend to feeding and breeding areas are they at risk, and in USA you seem to be placing wind farms in areas that would be unattractive to the birds!

Therefore, by all means ensure that the Wind Generation company has put aside funds in a bond to meet future eventualities. But lets hope that the funds are only ever used to erect the next generation of wind turbines, when the fabric of the first is showing signs of becoming unsafe.

I also agree with Dave Fisher, that wind turbines are responsible for a very low percentage of bird deaths. Pesticide use - now declining, glass windows and buildings - now increasing with human population demand, and netting and shooting for eating, pose far greater risks to their survival.
Anne van der Bom
Anne van der Bom
May 9, 2011
tgearing,

And very likely, the decomissioning of a wind farm can be done at a negative cost due to the scrap value of the materials like iron and copper. Especially with the expected rise in costs of those commodities.

http://www.wind-watch.org/news/2011/01/09/decommissioning-study-says-scrap-value-more-than-cost-to-dismantle-turbines/
Thomas Gearing
Thomas Gearing
May 8, 2011
fire - there were some sad events back in the 1970's where scam-artist wind farm developers were getting up-front grants, buying totally useless junk turbines and putting them on concrete foundations all over acres of leased land from farmers. When the turbines produced only one tenth the declared power, the scammers paid themselves millions of $$s in salaries and bonuses, and declared bankrupcy, leaving the farmer's fields scared and no more lease payments. To get their crop land back, the farmers had to pay to have the turbines removed and concrete dug out. Now almost all windfarms are required to post bonds for de-commissioning at end of life for the equipment.
Thomas Gearing
Thomas Gearing
May 8, 2011
Anne - I like your math. Here is a little more: 20 years from now (or 30, as direct drive turbines do not have the weakest link -transmissions) the wind will still be blowing, so why even ask: 'Whose gonna dig out that concrete base 20 years from now'?
The answer: No One! The tower will last 40 or 50 years, so the owner will put a new turbine on the tower! Support roads are all there, grid connection is there, and we will still want clean energy, so no one will destroy a good wind power site. (and the new turbine will weigh less, so the crane rental cost will be half of the original)
Thomas Gearing
Thomas Gearing
May 8, 2011
Debu - hidden agendas only work if they stay hidden eh? On their home page, they proclaim that they are not allowed to solicit large investors to buy into their 'protoype' but I clicked on the 'more information plese' link, and the solicitations began. They are smart enough to know if you have access to 10 or 20 million $$ or not, which I did as principal investigator on a wind resource study project, so they really wanted me to recommend them as a great investment to the Tribal Government where I worked at the time. If they had lined up us as another sucker to buy investor shares in their sham org, they would spend it all on their salaries, and have lived very high wasting the investor's money, never producing any product. There's the motivation.
Anne van der Bom
Anne van der Bom
May 8, 2011
Dr Alex,

Your posts are mostly devoid of evidence - again. Nothing to support your position. Show some sources please. 'An engineer friend of mine' is not a credible source.

As for the number crunching you apparently find so hard to do, I can do it for you if you like. A base of 1000 m3 of concrete weighs about 2000 tonnes. CO2 emissions from concrete production are about 1.5 tonne CO2 per tonne of concrete, all production & mining included. So the base comes to 3000 tonnes, equal to 5 million kWh for an average generation mix of 600 g/kWh. That is less than a year's production and based on the figures *you* mentioned. I have no time to check whether a 1000 m3 concrete base is standard for a 3MW wind turbine.

'We can ask a local solar PV manufacturer how many kW of panels would come to total 309 tons. Again, this illustrates the profoundly low power density of wind'

More innuendo, without checking the facts. PV panel specs are not hard to find. A 200 W panel weighs about 15 kg. So for 1 tonne you get ~14 kW, for 309 tonnes about 4 MW. That is exclusive support structures, trackers, inverters. 4 MW of solar generally produces less energy per annum than 3 MW of wind. So you seem to be wrong again.

'Whose gonna dig out that concrete base 20 years from now'? Well, duh. The owner of the wind farm. That is just plain FUD you're spreading here. Sorry.

Again I note you prefer to keep everything fuzzy, use all kinds of exaggerating language to make a point that has no basis in fact.
Thomas Gearing
Thomas Gearing
May 8, 2011
Anne - before you take DrA too seriously, here is a peek at his hidden agenda. This is a quote from one of his posts at another blog: "The Chinese are now pursuing what we developed 40 years ago, so maybe that will scare us into sense, so we complete the R&D necessary to fulfill the promise of safe nuclear power sufficient for millennia."
Cheers!
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
May 7, 2011
And this continues again, due to the comment interface not seeming to know what 2000 characters is...

For concrete, mining transporting & kilning of lime, producing aggregate, mixing, transporting, CO2 evolution, water, etc. all add up to a large burden for foundations of systems that can never generate as much power per acre as several (rather than hundreds) tons of solar PV. And, who's going to dig out that 1000 cubic meters of concrete years from now when the site is obsolete, for whatever reason -- cost? Engineers all know this, but the process of concrete production is documented many places, like those you can find.

That also applies to Vestas you mention (I know a Vestas sales guy). "Only" 309 tons? We can ask a local solar PV manufacturer how many kW of panels would come to total 309 tons. Again, this illustrates the profoundly low power density of wind. And, we its variability, which requires special grid-interface/storage gear. And, then the loss.

By the way, another engineer just sent me this example...

Google: "A few facts about wind turbines" - then scroll to the heading: "A few facts about wind turbines," which should bring up "Redneck USA" where you can click on the video. For starters, let's see: 30 concrete trucks = at least 500 yds. of concrete @ say $150/yd = $750K plus transportation costs + elaborate site prep. roads, and labor - just for the pad! + plus of course, a large ruined top of the mountain. Lifetime of unit "20-25 years" but gear box and generatior " 10-15 years."

Continued above to 1st in this chain of 3...
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
May 7, 2011
This should have appeared above...

Ok Anne, it's right to ask for facts, which is why I raise the issues with wind power, as currently promoted.

Indeed my figures for coal to steel come from an engineer in the industry. The rate is 5lbs coal per lb of carbon steel. Recycling helps (it's part of the efficiency leg of our future), but the entire chain of production & recycling must be accounted for, if we want to be honest -- sometimes a big "if" in the advocacy realm. So, if one accounts for more than just the coke production required to get the carbon into iron to make steel, the number is indeed about 5:1, minus whatever is recoverable from recycling -- after accounting for the fuel required to do that plus everything else involved in getting several hundred feet of steel tower to the point of erection. Then I've ignored the alloying burdens, which may be considerable as well -- again, accounting fully & honestly.

Actually, I credit the NREL site with more output than they installed, since a top line Siemens machine peaks at 5MW output, using 400 tons of steel and 1000 cubic meters of concrete, plus all the rest.
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
May 7, 2011
Continuing for Anne... The use of EROI hides reality. The 'investment' is not immediate and monetary. It's all about full accounting, cradle to grave, since what's being held up as the "bad" form of energy production for comparison, is coal -- the easiest target one could imagine, given its maximal production of CO2 per Watt and its subsidies from poorly-regulated mining, its transport dependence on petroleum, on through unregulated emissions and to unregulated ash dumping.

So to prop (excuse the pun) wind up as a 'green' hero can only be respected if all those accounting lapses allowed coal aren't allowed for wind. EROI doesn't begin to do that. And, it doesn't begin to address the relative impacts & benefits of alternatives. This is exactly why efficiency & solar DG are being advocated by concerned groups.

As to "a lot of speculation in your posts", please indicate what you mean.
--
Dr. A. Cannara
Menlo Park, Calif.
650-400-3071
Anne van der Bom
Anne van der Bom
May 7, 2011
Dr Alex,

Where did you get your number of the amount if coal necessary for steel making from? Googling around I found this source that states: 'World crude steel production was 1.2 billion tonnes in 2009. Around 761 million tonnes of coking coal was used in the production of steel.'

http://www.worldcoal.org/coal/uses-of-coal/coal-steel/

And that is crude steel. Large part of steel is made from scrap metal, requiring even less energy.

For this turbine that would turn out to be less than 500 tonnes of coal.

Second thing you might want to take into consideration is the fact that this is a test site. They might have overdimensioned the base & tower to later test a larger turbine. The Vestas V90 3.0MW with 90 m high tower is only 309 tonnes total weight.

http://www.autonavzduch.cz/dokumenty/vestasV90-3MW.pdf

You claim a lot of energy is needed for the concrete base. Do you have solid figures, and how that relates to the energy produced by the turbine?

There have been numerous studies done on eroi of wind turbines. The eroi for large turbines is ~20. Easy to find, google for 'wind power eroi'.

Apparently, Cutler Cleveland has done a literature study for the eroi of wind and written about it on the oil drum: http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2006/10/17/18478/085

I notice a lot of speculation in your posts, please back it up with solid evidence. As they stand now, I find your claims without merit.
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
May 6, 2011
To all breathing hard about wind vs coal, that's not the issue at all -- coal is a straw man. The key is environmental impact overall. Honest accounting, in other words. Wind machines operate on 2nd-order solar power. They consume large amounts of energy & CO2 emitters per installed MW. They run intermittently. They waste output in transmission and consume grid power when awaiting the right wind. They require construction of permanent concrete foundations, access roads, transmission/control structures, etc. (even if they pay up front for windmill teardown & removal -- which do?). And, they need frequent maintenance (which is what the article on new transmissions illustrates). And, there are the maintenance injuries -- just had one recently, when a blade buckled killing a maintenance guy.

Comparison with even present, 20% eff. solar PV is an unfair fight (for wind), because of the vastly reduced demands on production, installation & land consumption -- especially local solar (DG), which also builds a more robust grid and fits directly into CCA efforts around the country (you can read about that on this site as well).

The love affair with wind power is not about love, for the investors. It's about $ -- taxpayer/ratepayer $. How 'green'!
Thomas Gearing
Thomas Gearing
May 6, 2011
Debu - great to see you searching for facts, although scammers do buy multiple web pages to seem like others back up their claims. The small veritcal axis wind turbine at the 2010 expo - how much power did it produce, from the article you read? My guess would be only enough to run a single hand-held hair dryer, but that's just a guess. '20% more efficient than a normal turbine' is PR fluff - what 'normal' turbine? 'Advantages' only count if they result in more power being produced than a horizontal axis turbine on a tower at the same location. In real life, 90% less power is usually the outcome with any vertical axis wind turbine, so bumping that up by 20% still leaves you with 88% less output. Scammers are very clever people.
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
May 6, 2011
Indeed, 600 tons of steel, copper & magnet material, plus "70 truckloads" of concrete to only hold it against "90-100mph winds"? Really?

So, 600 tons of steel, etc. take 3000 tons of coal (yes, coal) to make. 70 truckloads of concrete take vast amounts of petroleum to mine/kiln the limestone, grind the aggregate, mix, truck & pour, but at least we're not counting the transmission losses, if this were a real system.

A coal power plant uses about 5000 tons of coal a day to generate 24,000MWHrs of juice, net. We have that invested to generate, maybe 24MWHrs, on some days? That's 1000 days to break even, if the windmill displaced coal generation; several times more if displacing gas firing, and almost forever if 'displacing' nuclear. Such a deal! Of course, all that doesn't even account for the construction, road building, transmission building, yadda, yadda. No wonder they worry about "expiring" subsidies being an issue for wind. It's all full of wind.
;]
Alison Tottenham
Alison Tottenham
May 6, 2011
As a non-technical critic who is actually pro Wind Turbines - for the record Wind Mills are the multisailed structures used to produce high torque for grinding flour etc. - I would like to make one comment.

A family with fairly extravagent electrical use, would use 6MW/ann. Therefore, 2,000 such homes would use 12,000MW/ann. If the wind turbine is running at its rated power of 3MW/hr, then it could supply the 2,000 homes in 4,000 hours. However, there are roughly 8,760 hours each year. Therefore, it would seem that this turbine is not being sited in a suitable site; after all its production would seem to be less than 50% of the possible yield.

Surely for the expense of production and installation, we should be ensuring that wind turbines are installed on the best possible sites with enough wind to generate at peak production for more 60 - 70% of the time. Perhaps this site in Colorado would be better suited to a Photovoltaic array or a Solar Furnace? Of course, if the surrounding land is available for cropping or livestock production, then this extra electrical production may equate to excellent value for money from the land in question.
Ken Higgs
Ken Higgs
May 6, 2011
fireofenergy-150745:

For efficiency, 'Near ground' is 'near disaster' for wind.

Skin friction of land, turbulence from buildings, is all bad.
Velocities are slowed, become confused, are not a steady slip-stream,
one reason for tower height, apart from long-leveraged blades requiring same.
Ken Higgs
Ken Higgs
May 6, 2011
Use the ASC concept: HTSC stator-rotor, with no gearbox.

The article is full of ego and emotion, but not new technology.

The high costs of transporting parts, huge-crane erection,
high problems with maintenance so far up a high tower, are
far more than the advantages seem to speak to, for 3MW. Bla!
Edward Scott
Edward Scott
May 6, 2011
It occurs to me that since the energy lost to friction in existing wind turbines has to be on the order of 5 - 10 % (my personal estimate, admittedly - may be too high but certainly isn't too low), eliminating 100% of it could not improve the efficiency by 100s of times. Having to provide the power to the magnets in the bearings would offset the reduction in friction versus standard designs, reducing any efficiency gains even further.
Thomas Gearing
Thomas Gearing
May 5, 2011
Bill - if it is a "60Hz model" then why test "voltage and current at 1Hz to establish a power curve"?

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
  • 10
    No Easy Fix for Broken Wind Turbine at US High School
  • 6
    Renewable Energy Research Initiative Launched in UK
  • 3
    Wind Turbine Lubrication and Maintenance: Protecting Investments in Renewable Energy

Total Access Partners

Growing Your Business? Learn More about Total Access
  • SolarEstimate.org
  • RenewableEnergyWorld.com
  • 3TIER
  • Renewables Academy AG (RENAC)
  • Richardson RFPD, Inc.
  • Johnson Controls, Inc.
  • Everblue
  • The Stella Group, Ltd.
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