The World's #1 Renewable Energy Network for News & Information
Sign In or Register
Renewable Energy World Logo
Saturday, May 25, 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! ×

The Silent Energy [R]evolution 20 Years in the Making

Since the late 1990s, wind and solar installations have grown faster than any other power technology across the world. But it's still too early to claim the end of fossil-based power generation.

Sven Teske and Caroline Chisholm, Greenpeace
August 26, 2011  |  12 Comments

The bright future for renewable energy that has long been predicted is already under way. Analysis of the global power plant market shows that since the late 1990s, capacities of wind and solar installations have grown faster than any other power plant technology across the world - with about 430,000 MW total installed capacity between 2000 and 2010.

But despite this impressive development, it is still too early to claim the end of fossil fuel-based power generation. Over the same timeframe more than 475,000 MW of new coal-fired power plants have been installed, with embedded cumulative emissions of over 55 billion tonnes CO2 over their technical lifetime.

On average, the global market volume of renewable energies in 2010 was as much as the total global energy market volume each year between 1970 and 2000. That said, the window of opportunity for renewables to dominate new installations replacing old plants in OECD countries as well as ongoing electrification in developing countries will close within the next years. Good renewable energy policies and legally binding CO2 reduction targets are therefore urgently needed.

An overview of the global annual power plant market of the past 40 years reveals that between 1970 and 1990, OECD countries that electrified their economies mainly with coal, gas and hydropower plants dominated the global power plant market. The power sector was then in the hands of state-owned utilities with regional or nationwide supply monopolies. The nuclear industry had a relatively short period of steady growth between 1970 and the mid-1980s - with a peak in 1985, one year before the Chernobyl accident - while during the following years the industry was in decline, with no real sign of a "nuclear renaissance," despite the rhetoric.

Between 1990 and 2000 the global power plant industry went through a series of major changes. While OECD countries began to liberalise their electricity markets, electricity demand did not match previous growth, so fewer new power plants were built. Capital-intensive projects with long payback times, such as coal and nuclear power plants, were unable to get sufficient financial support. The decade of gas power plants had begun.

Economies of developing countries, especially in Asia, began growing rapidly during the 1990s, and a new wave of power plant projects began. Like the US and Europe beofe them, most of the new markets in the 'tiger economies' of Southeast Asia partly deregulated their power sectors. A large number of new power plants in this region were built by Independent Power Producers (IPPs), which sell the electricity mainly to state-owned utilities. The dominant new built power plant technology in liberalised power markets is the gas power plant. However, over the last decade China has focused on the development of new coal power plants. Excluding China, the global power plant market has seen a phase-out of coal since the late 1990s; the growth is in gas power plants and renewables, particularly wind.

MARKETS IN THE US, EUROPE AND CHINA

Electricity market liberalisation has a signficant influence on the chosen power plant technology. While power sectors in the US and Europe moved towards deregulated markets, which favour mainly gas-fired plants, China added a large amount of coal until 2009, with the first signs for a change in favour of renewables in 2009 and 2010.

The liberalisation of the power sector in the US started with the Energy Policy Act of 1992, which became a game-changer for the entire sector. While the US in 2010 is still far away from a fully liberalised electricity market, the chosen technologies have changed from coal and nuclear towards gas and wind. Since 2005 a growing number of wind power plants have made up an increasing share of the newly installed capacities as a result of mainly state-based renewable energy support programmes. Over the past year, though, the role of solar photovoltaic (PV) has grown significantly, with a project pipeline of 22,000 MW.

About five years after the US began deregulating the power sector, the European community began a similar process. Once again, the effect on the power plant market was profound. Investors backed fewer new power plants and extended the lifetime of existing ones. New coal and nuclear power plants have seen a market share of well below 10% since then. The growing share of renewables, especially wind and solar PV, is due to a legally-binding target for renewables and the associated renewable energy feed-in laws which have been in force in several Member States of the EU 27 since the late 1990s. Overall, new installed power plant capacity jumped to a record high due to the repowering needs of the aging power plant fleet in Europe.

The steady economic growth in China since the late 1990s, and the associated growing power demand, led to an explosion of the coal power plant market, especially after 2002. In 2006 the market hit the peak year for new coal power plants: 88 percent of the newly installed coal plants worldwide were built in China. At the same time China is trying to take its dirtiest plants offline: from 2006-2010 a total of 76,825 MW of small coal-fired power plants were phased out under the country's 11th Five Year Programme. Nonetheless, while coal still dominates the newly added capacity figures, wind power is rapidly growing as well. Since 2003 the wind market has doubled each year and was over 18,000 MW by 2010, making up 49 percent of the global wind market.

However, although coal still dominates the power plant market - with over 55 GW of new installed capacity in 2010 alone - the Chinese government aims to increase investments in renewable energy capacity, and during 2009 about US$25.1 billion (RMB162.7 billion) went to wind and hydro power plants, representing 44 percent of the overall investment in new power capacity, for the first time larger than that of coal (RMB149.2 billion), and in 2010 the figure was $26 billion (RMB168 billion) - 4.8 percent more in the total investment mix compared with 2009.

GAINING GROUND IN THE POWER MARKET

Since 2000 the wind power market has gained a growing market share within the global power plant market. In 2000 only a handful of countries (Germany, Denmark and Spain) dominated the wind market, but the wind industry now has projects in over 70 countries around the world. Following the example of the wind industry, solar PV experienced equal growth since 2005. Between 2000 and 2010 26% of all new power plants worldwide were renewables - mainly wind - while 42 percent were gas power plants. So, two thirds of all new power plants installed globally are gas power plants and renewables, with close to one third coal-fired. Nuclear remains irrelevant on a global scale with just two percent of the global market share. About 430,000 MW of new renewable energy capacity has been installed over the last decade, while 475,000 MW of new coal came online - 78 percent or 375,000 MW of which is in China.

So, the energy revolution towards renewables and gas, away from coal and nuclear, has started on a global level already, and this picture is even clearer when considering the global market shares excluding China. About 28 percent of all new power plants have been renewables and 60 percent have been gas-fired power plants. Excluding China, coal gained a market share of only 10 percent globally. Between 2000 and 2010 China added over 350,000 MW of new coal capacity: twice as much as the entire coal capacity of the EU. However, China has recently kick-started its wind market, and solar PV is expected to follow in the years to come.

THE FUTURE OF THE ENERGY [R]EVOLUTION

While the trends of the renewable energy markets - especially for wind, solar PV and concentrated solar power (CSP) - are very promising and double-digit growth has been maintained over the past decade, the next years will decide whether the world will move towards a 100 percent renewable energy supply.

For seven years Greenpeace, the European Renewable Energy Council (EREC) and the German Space Agency (DLR) have published global, regional and national energy scenarios - the Energy [R]evolution - which use the International Energy Agency's (IEA) World Energy Outlook business-as-usual scenario as a reference scenario. In the first global edition published in 2007 a global renewable energy installed capacity of 156 GW by 2010 was projected, a figure that was already reached by the wind sector alone in 2009. It is evident that the energy revolution is underway and this will form a major role in combating climate change. The economics of renewables will further improve as they develop technically, as the price of fossil fuels continues to rise and as the saving of carbon dioxide emissions is monetised.

The Energy [R]evolution scenario sets a key target for the reduction of worldwide carbon dioxide emissions to a level of around 10 gigatonnes a year by 2050. The advanced Energy [R]evolution Scenario takes a much more radical approach to put the emergency brakes on global emissions: it assumes much shorter technical lifetimes for coal-fired power plants - 20 rather than 40 years.

To fill the resulting gap, the annual growth rates of renewable energy sources - especially solar PV, wind and CSP - have to be increased. The advanced scenario also considers population and economic growth from the basic version, as well as most of the energy efficiency roadmap. Under this scenario, within the heating sector there is a faster expansion of CHP, more electricity for process heat and a more rapid growth of solar and geothermal heating systems. Combined with a larger share of electric drive within the transport sector, this leads to a higher overall demand for power. Even so, the overall global electricity demand in the advanced Energy [R]evolution scenario is still lower than in the reference scenario.

In the advanced scenario, the latest market development projections of the renewables industry have been calculated for all sectors. The speedier uptake of electric vehicles, combined with the faster implementation of smart grids and expanding super grids (about 10 years ahead of the basic version) allows a higher share of fluctuating renewable power generation (PV and wind) to be supported. The threshold of a 40 percent proportion of renewables in global primary energy supply will therefore be passed just after 2030 (also 10 years ahead of the previous projection). By contrast, the quantity of biomass and large hydro power remain the same in both Energy [R]evolution scenarios, for sustainability reasons.

POLICIES TO EXPAND THE ENERGY [R]EVOLUTION

Although a small number of countries developed renewable energy policies in the late 1980s and early 1990s, subsequent years have seen a huge increase in uptake, particularly from 2005 to 2010.

Over 85 countries had a policy target by 2009, up from 45 countries just four years before. Electricity production dominates many national renewable energy targets, typically 5-30 percent, but as high as 90 percent in some. Other targets include shares of total primary or final energy supply (typically 10-20 percent), installed capacities of various technologies, and total amounts of renewable energy production. Most recent targets aim for 2020 and beyond. Europe's target (20 percent of final energy by 2020) is key among OECD countries. Brazil leads developing countries with a target of 75 percent of electricity by 2030, followed by China (15 percent of final energy by 2020), India (20 GW solar by 2022), and Kenya (4 GW of geothermal by 2030). Many countries also have regional and local targets.

Indeed, renewable power generation policies currently exist in at least 83 countries. Of these, the feed-in tariff (FiT) is most prevalent. In 2010, at least 50 countries and 25 states/provinces had FiTs, and more than half of these were just five years old. Support for FiTs continues to grow, and they are increasingly being adopted at state and provincial levels. Globally, renewable portfolio standard (RPS) policies or quotas are currently supported by 10 national governments and 46 state/provincial governments. Most RPS policies require renewable power shares to meet 5-20 percent, with many targets extending beyond 2020.

Policies are often adopted in combination with direct capital investment subsidies, grants, or rebates, which are offered in at least 45 countries. Other tax incentives, such as investment tax credits and import duty reductions, are also popular. Solar PV markets in particular have been backed by capital subsidies and tax credits. Energy production payments or premiums also exist in a few countries. Public competitive bidding for fixed quantities of renewable power capacity is now common practice, and net metering laws for distributed generation have been adopted in at least 10 countries and 43 US states.

FINANCING RENEWABLES

Financing renewable power projects differs from financing coal or nuclear projects. While most of the renewable energy projects are in the range of a few kW and double-digit MW, the finance volume is much smaller and the number of projects is far bigger compared to a few but very large scale (1000 MW and more) coal-fired or nuclear power plant projects.

However the policy requirements are similar. Renewable energy project developers need to have confidence that the entire volume of electricity which can be generated from a project, for example a wind farm, can be sold at a certain (minimum) price and that access to the grid is guaranteed over the entire financing time of the power plant. This is on a par with the coal-fired power plant finance concept adopted for Independent Power Producers (IPPs), which requires a power purchase contract over the given timeframe to finance it and a guarantee of grid connection.

Certainly it is evident that power plants cannot be financed on the basis of stock market prices, or on the basis of tradeable CO2 or renewable energy obligation certificates, if there is no guaranteed minimum fixed price, as this is not bankable. Multi-million dollar investments need reliable and secure income projections.

Therefore, Greenpeace demands a FiT system - with a guaranteed buyback tariff in combination with guaranteed and priority access to the grid. The only difference between this and the power purchase contract for IPPs is that the tariff is not negotiated between the IPP and the grid operator and/or utility, but 'standardised', as small businesses cannot negotiate with grid operators.

To date, feed-in tariffs have been by far the most cost-effective mechanism to phase in renewables since the start of the wind industry in early 1990s in Germany. Trading systems always lead to higher costs, as they add an additional 'layer' - the traders - between the grid operator and the project developer and/or plant operator. Indeed, traders add additional costs to the project that are not needed to implement renewable energy developments and represent an unnecessary burden for consumer electricity bills.

In the next years we will see whether the world will move toward a 100 percent renewable energy supply. Let us hope that the current promising trends continue.

Sven Teske is a climate campaigner for Greenpeace International. Caroline Chisholm is climate change communications manager at Greenpeace in the Netherlands.

12 Comments

Register To Comment
Steve Poppitz
Steve Poppitz
September 2, 2011
Very good article
I find it interesting that it makes no reference of Brazil. A true revolution has taken place in that third world country.
Anthony Rawson
Anthony Rawson
August 31, 2011
I agree Anne, and when you concider how in the US we are constantly being bombarded with anti renewable propaganda (too expensive, unreliable, cannot provide our needs) while all the major power companies are spending billions to build their large solar farms and other renewable projects so we all remain hooked to their teat instead of becoming energy independent, it becomes clear its more than just the financial incentives that are being set up to benefit the large players instead of the little guy.
Anne van der Bom
Anne van der Bom
August 31, 2011
Anonymous comment on 29 august:

Spot on. FiT's empower small companies and citizens, whereas the US system keeps power concentrated in the hands of a few large enterprises.

I don't think that what this world needs is more concentration of power in the hands of a few big global corporations. Especially for something as essential to every aspect of our modern economies as energy.
Anne van der Bom
Anne van der Bom
August 31, 2011
plindsey,

Nuclear is simply too costly and too slow to build. Thanks to all the easy government money in the 70's and 80's (because in the cold war nuclear technology was deemed to be of strategic interest), it has never been able to grow into a competetive industry.

Whereas any technology that I know of gets cheaper over time, the weird thing with nuclear is that it is getting more costly every year. So the outlook is pretty dim.

Wall Street has already concluded this long time ago. Investors will not put a dime in nuclear power unless the project is backed by solid government guarantees.
Anne van der Bom
Anne van der Bom
August 31, 2011
There are a lot of numbers in this article, but what the authors should have pointed out is that there are large differences in capacity factors for different generating technologies. On average, capacity factors for renewable energy are much lower than fossil and nuclear power plants. Consequently, the picture is not as rosy for renewables if you look at *energy* instead of *power*. We need energy, not nameplate capacity.

I say this with pain in my heart, because I fully support renewable energy. And the (r)evolution will go on and renewables will one day provide more energy than fossils & nuclear. But this article contains a lot of apples to oranges comparisons that do not help anyone. Reality is what it is.

The road ahead is still long and bumpy and we have a lot more work to do than the authors suggest by their numbers.
ANONYMOUS
August 30, 2011
The author of comment #3 writes: "Communities in the US own a mere %2 of wind installations whereas German farmers and Cooperatives own 50% of all wind installations. What this demonstrates is that our system caters to large-scale corporate investors and creates an environment that excludes diverse participation in the RE market. "

I suspect that if you were a poor person living in an apartment in the city and you could buy wind power from a large corporation cheaply or from a cooperative at a much higher rate you wouldn't have the same positive view of the cooperative that commenter #3 has. The high FITs Germany implemented may have allowed a lot of small businesses to get into the electricity market, but their electricity already costs double what the mean US rate is and they are only at ~16% renewable generation. Furthermore, when large corporations build wind farms in the US they typically make lease payments to the owners of the rural lands, so the farmers get a significant cut of the business without the risks inherent in direct investment. Large corporations can be invested in by anyone who wishes to purchase publicly traded stock, whereas small cooperatives are often funded by elite investors that reap oversized profits. I don't share the view that large corporations are inherently inferior to smaller ones or that the latter are any more "democratic." The one clear difference is that large corporations are more efficient and produce energy at lower prices. I also note that mergers tend to consolidate small businesses into larger ones, so the business size distribution in the German wind industry may alter with time; Germany's high electricity costs seem to be irreversible.
Steven
Mark Lytle
Mark Lytle
August 30, 2011
Here's a remarkable development in offshore wind from Japan, with their back to the wall, they're showing courage in innovation. By placing a precisely shaped lens shaped collector over the rim of a conventional turbine they have shown a doubling of efficiency. Makes one wonder if existing turbines could be retro-fitted. Here's the link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GBqdyit59uw
Anthony Rawson
Anthony Rawson
August 30, 2011
Since radioactive materials are extremely toxic and mutagenic for thousands of years and the reactors and fuel processing facilities that contain them like to blow up every decade or two, rendering thousands of square miles uninhabitable for generations, its quite understandable that legitimate environmental organizations arn't nuclear cheerleaders like yourself plindsey.
Paul Lindsey
Paul Lindsey
August 29, 2011
Typical Greanpeace (and Sierra Club, etc) "anything but nuclear" projection. Perhaps the authors missed Dr. James Hansen's recent article, including the footnotes on pages 7-8.
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2011/20110729_BabyLauren.pdf Dr. Hansen has it right: "Easter Bunny" thinking.

They also missed SCANA's mid-year 2011 analyst's day presentation. On page 28 (of 164), SCANA shows that when the VC Summers Units 2 & 3 are complete and online in 2019, SCANA's coal generation will be cut by 50% and NG generation by a third. http://www.scana.com/en/investor-relations/webcasts-and-presentations/ 6-16-11 "2011 Analyst Day Presentations"
ANONYMOUS
August 29, 2011
@Steven - Some food for thought about other benefits of FITs. Germany, one of the foremost leaders in RE development, has relied primarily upon FITs, while the US has viewed them as too costly.
The Heinrich Böll Stiftung just released a report entitled "HARVESTING RENEWABLE ENERGY
German-American Lessons Learned on Rural Development"(http://www.boell.org/downloads/Harvesting_RE_Final_Web.pdf). Page 16 of the report shows a comparison of US vs German Wind Ownership. Communities in the US own a mere %2 of wind installations whereas German farmers and Cooperatives own 50% of all wind installations. What this demonstrates is that our system caters to large-scale corporate investors and creates an environment that excludes diverse participation in the RE market. The FIT system, as implemented in Germany, allows a whole range of participants to invest in the RE market. To me, this is what effective policy should do - it should empower individuals and small and medium sized companies.
Anumakonda Jagadeesh
Anumakonda Jagadeesh
August 28, 2011
Yes. The Growth of Renewables in the world in the last two decades has been remarkable. Here are statistics for UK:
UK Support for the renewables £millions
Research grants+ RO NFFO Capital grants
1990-91 21.3 -- 6.1 --
1991-92 24.8 11.7
1992-93 26.6 28
1993-94 26.8 68.1
1994-95 20.5 96.4
1996-97 18.5 112.8
1997-98 15.9 126.5
1998-99 14.4 127.0
1999-00 14.9 56.4
2000-01 15.9 64.9
2001-02 24.0* 54.7
2002-03 27.6* 282.0* unknown 60
2003-04 29.0* 405.0* unknown 131
* estimates
+ Direct Government funding for R&D on renewable energy through the DTI's Sustainable Energy Programme & through the Research Councils via the Science Budget. Source: Hansard, 21 Nov 2001 : Column: 300-01W
RO: Estimated sales by licensed suppliers
UK sales,Total obligation & Total obligation as percentage of sales
Period TWh TWh %e
2002-03 313.6 9.4 3.0
2003-04 316.2 13.5 4.3
2004-05 318.7 15.6 4.9
2005-06 320.6 17.7 5.5
2006-07 321.4 21.5 6.7
2007-08 322.2 25.4 7.9
2008-09 323.0 29.4 9.1
2009-10 323.8 31.5 9.7
2010-11 324.3 33.6 10.4
Source: Renew On Line (UK) 37
Dr.A.Jagadeesh Nellore (AP), India
Wind Energy Expert
E-mail: Anumakonda.jagadeesh@gmail.com
ANONYMOUS
August 27, 2011
The authors write:
"Therefore, Greenpeace demands a FiT system - with a guaranteed buyback tariff in combination with guaranteed and priority access to the grid."

Factions that make demands without the clout needed to get them just seem clueless and foolish. "Suggests" would be a far more prudent word than "demands" given the weak position Greenpeace is in and the dubious effectiveness of what they advocate.

The authors also writes:
"To date, feed-in tariffs have been by far the most cost-effective mechanism to phase in renewables..."

This certainly is the mantra of the renewable industry, and with good reason: who wouldn't want high and guaranteed profits no matter what the future brings? Of course, energy consumers have reason to object. Competition and risk taking tend to spur the innovation that leads to price reductions, and corporations that received state sponsored price supports grow fat and lazy. When we are told of the great "successes" of FITs we should ask what the metric for success is. Naturally, if one is willing to pay an oversized fee for a product a lot of it will be sold, but few rational people (excluding the sellers) would consider this a success. Claims that increased production have spurred price declines are rather dubious--wind and solar PV costs have been dropping at a sharp rate since long before the advent of FITs. If anyone has actual data supporting such a claim, let's see it. A log-log plot of price vs. time showing a change in slope after the imposition of an FIT would be good evidence. All the limited data I have seen suggests no such price effect exists, there is only the steady price decline that is associated with any new technology as it evolves. All FITs do is funnel money away from effective strategies such as increasing R&D into the hands of a special interest group.
Steven

Add Your Comments

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

  • Create a Free Account!
  • Sign-In
Renewable Energy World Magazine

With over 57,000 subscribers and a global readership in 174 countries around the world, Renewable Energy World Magazine covers industry, policy, technology, finance and markets for all renewable technologies. Content is aimed decision makers...

  • Archives
  • About
  • subscribe
  • advertise
Stay Connected
         
To register for our free e-Newsletters, create your free account here:

Editors' Picks

  • EU Debate Over Climate Change Policy Could Dampen Renewable Energy Growth
  • The Future of Solar in Latin America
  • Fighting Blackouts: Japan Residential PV and Energy Storage Market Flourishing
  • The Economic Case for Divesting from Fossil Fuels
  • Are Run-of-River Hydroelectric Systems Ready to Ride US Currents?
  • Moniz Unanimously Confirmed As New DOE Chief

Most Commented

  • 8
    San Antonio Solar Fans Delay Introduction of SunCredit Program
  • 6
    Renewable Energy Research Initiative Launched in UK
  • 3
    Texas Legislature Passes Commercial and Industrial PACE Bill
  • 3
    French and German Ministers Call for 2030 Renewable Energy Targets

Total Access Partners

Growing Your Business? Learn More about Total Access
  • Met Office
  • marcus evans
  • Martifer Solar USA, Inc.
  • Helios Solar Works
  • Array Technologies
  • Associated Renewable
  • GoGreenSolar.com
  • Westinghouse Solar
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