The World's #1 Renewable Energy Network for News & Information
Sign In or Register
Renewable Energy World Logo
Wednesday, June 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
      • 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

Death to PV Subsidies

Candidates should pledge to end all Federal subsidies for all forms of electricity generation by the end of 2016.

Tim Keating, Contributor
February 03, 2012  |  29 Comments

Print

Unsubsidized solar photovoltaic (PV) systems already produce electricity – in some parts of the world – less expensively than coal and gas-fired power plants. As PV system prices decline it's inevitable that subsidies will end. Rapid decline or outright disappearance has already been seen in all the major solar markets except China and India.

The usual strategy for subsidized industries is to fight to increase or extend their subsidy. I suggest that the opposite approach is the right one for the U.S. solar industry to take in the run-up to the 2012 elections. The PV industry should ask candidates for President and Congress to pledge to end all Federal subsidies for all forms of electricity generation by the end of 2016.

The truth is that the subsidies the nuclear and fossil-fueled generators receive — and have received for years — are the only things that make their product “affordable.” Those subsidies take many forms, but the most significant are their “externalities.” Externalities are REAL costs, but they are foisted off on all of us instead of being paid by the companies that caused them.

Earlier this year the http://www.nyas.org/publications/annals/Default.aspx">Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences published an article by Dr. Paul Epstein, director of Harvard Medical School Center for Health and the Global Environment titled “Full Cost Accounting for the Life Cycle of Coal.” The article presented measurements of the health and environmental impacts of coal, including: mining, transportation, combustion in power plants and the impact of coal’s waste stream. The authors found that the life cycle effects of coal and its waste cost the American public $333 billion to over $500 billion dollars annually. This study outlines the costs thecoal industry is not paying and what everyone else is paying! What would eliminating that subsidy do to the price of coal-fired electricity?

The math isn’t hard. The United States generated 1,755,904GWh of electricity from coal in 2009, the last year for which figures from the EIA are available. That means each kWh from coal burdened our nation’s people and environment with $.28 of costs. Eliminate the subsidy and coal-fired electricity doesn’t cost six cents per kWh, it costs thirty-four cents. Unsubsidized solar can beat that price anywhere in the U.S.

I believe a carbon fee and dividend is the fairest, most transparent and politically viable method to de-externalize the costs of using fossil fuel to generate electricity. Under this approach, a fee is levied on coal, oil and natural gas based on the costs of remediating their environmental and health impacts. That’s the “fee” part.

The dividend part is that all the fees collected would be paid out to the American people, with every citizen and permanent resident getting an equal share. This would be virtually identical to the way Alaska’s Permanent Fund has been paying each state resident an annual dividend based on their fair share of the state’s oil revenue. The 2010 Permanent Fund Dividend was $1,281.

If we divided $500 billion among 300 million citizens and permanent residents, the annual dividend would be $1667 per person or $6667 for a family of four. Americans could choose whether to spend this money on expensive coal-fired power – or to switch to solar, wind or other non-polluting sources of electricity. I’m confident that most Americans would do the right thing. Within a year of getting that first dividend check, a million new solar installers would be working in every corner of the country. Let’s demand a level playing field for all generation technologies! Death to subsidies by the end of 2016!

Related Links

  • Visit the Photovoltaics World Website
  • Read More from This Issue of Photovoltaics World

29 Comments

Register To Comment
Richard Viers
Richard Viers
February 14, 2013
As I see it today, the cost of pv has come down so much as to be very near parity. The only draw back to this is that manufacturing, which is the one side of pv that has really been contributed to by tax payer money is on the decline in US markets. The increase in sales of pv and wind systems is evident, in spite of these boondoggles like Solyndra. Solyndra clearly created a big snafu for the industry. They are the only really big issue that has caused a problem for this industry. There are more and more utility scale and small scale installations continuing to be approved and built. I don't really think we need government money to continue to grow, we need to be more pro design and engineering end of the industry. More efficient and lower cost products are being developed. Renewable energy will continue to grow. Venture Capital is being invested. Private funds are being invested. Disparity of market trends is falling and the renewable energy field is growing constantly. Let's all be advocates, not debaters.
My name is Richard Viers and I advocate for Alternative Energy Products Group. http://alternativeenergyproductsgroup.com
Bob Wallace
Bob Wallace
April 2, 2012
Jonty -

Solar manufacturing is skyrocketing. Panel manufacturing grew 36% in 2011 to 37.2GW.

"Cell producers are still predicting a combined production of around 52.5 GW in 2012 — a 41-percent growth year-on-year. Overall, they are planning to increase capacities by 19 percent to around 69 GW in 2012, after raising capacity by 57 percent to nearly 58 GW by the end of 2011."

Source: Clean Technica (http://s.tt/18oE5)

There are essentially no limits on how much solar we manufacture per year. Factories are quickly built and materials are not limited.

Here's a couple pictures for you...

This one will show you how much of each region of the world would have to be covered with solar panels in order to provide 100% of all the world's electricity.

http://www.randompics.net/wp-content/main/2010_07/1278665858091.jpg

The green rectangles are somewhat bigger than what would actually be required. Solar panels are now more efficient, would use less space. Think rooftops and parking lots....



This one will show you how much of the North African desert would have be be used for concentrated solar in order to generate 100% of the electricity for the entire world.

http://www.desertec.org/uploads/media/stage-start_en.jpg

---

Yes, we do need better batteries. And they seem to be coming out of the lab and into production. One company, Aquion, has what seems to be a very good battery for grid storage and they are setting up their first factory right now. Should be in production late this year.

Of course solar will likely never be 100% of our electricity supply. Wind, geothermal, tidal, hydro, biomass/gas and perhaps wave will also contribute. The more varied the sources, the easier it will be to produce power when it's wanted.
jonathan harvey
jonathan harvey
April 2, 2012
It is better batteries we really need as solar doesn't work by moonlight, I have tested it.
jonathan harvey
jonathan harvey
April 2, 2012
The conventional wisdom around here is that PV will never acheive the scale needed to be globally significant due to manufacturing problems and not enough places to locate it.
Please convince me this is not true.
William Fitch
William Fitch
February 9, 2012
Hi:

Well all the nuke people should be celebrating tonight with the first nuke approved in GA For Southern (Imagine that...who would have guessed) in decades.. Now we have one more plant producing with no place to put the stuff..
And the great farce of human existence continues...

.....Bill
F SC
F SC
February 9, 2012
I agree with the article. Why should my tax dollars go to pay for my boss's super electric rooftop so he can run his air conditioner 24/7, when at night I just open the windows? Either through pollution, externalities or taxes, if he stays with carbon, I am screwed; if he goes solar, I am still screwed.
Great article. Terrible headline.
It should read: "First a carbon tax, then death to ALL energy subsidies".
ANONYMOUS
February 7, 2012
The fact is that if developers/owners of nuclear power plants were required to carry adequate insurance (given the comps at hand for the industry) then no new plants would EVER be built and operating plants would be closed. Odd that so many people simply ignore the reality of the inherent risk of nuclear power--in the U.S. the taxpayer is on the hook, just like they were to bail out the banks, and quite frankly as they were for much of the BP spill costs.
Michael Keller
Michael Keller
February 7, 2012
"The truth is that the subsidies the nuclear and fossil-fueled generators receive — and have received for years — are the only things that make their product "affordable.""

That is complete nonsense. The power is reasonably priced because :(1) the cost of the fuel is reasonable; (2) the cost to build the plants is reasonable (or they are already paid); the power is provided when it is needed.

Externalities are nearly impossible to determine, as the statistics can be easily skewed by the assumptions being made.

Stop with the whining and concentrate on reducing the costs of renewable energy. Beat the competition head-on.
Peter Chase
Peter Chase
February 7, 2012
Steven (Re; Comment # 17), I generally agree with you that "Billing policies divorced from underlying costs cause all sorts of distortions but we should not evaluate competing technologies based on such transient policies."

However, California's tiered rate system is not going away any time soon. In fact, it is politically and economically beneficial to the utility as it is easier to justify increasing the rates of the higher tiers faster than those of the lower tiers on the grounds of ability to pay and encouragement of conservation. For PG&E customers from July 2001 to July 2011, tier 1 and 2 rates have decreased by almost 3%, while tier 3, 4 and 5 rates have increased by 55%, 43% and 32%.

Similarly, I do not expect subsidies to fossil fuel and their distortions to go away soon either. Nor, do I expect a US carbon tax soon; perhaps, when solar with storage reaches grid parity in Alaska. :-)

So, I identify a sizeable market where unsubsidized PV solar provides electricity substantially cheaper than the grid which uses a fair portion of subsidized fossil fuels to generate power.
Gerry Wootton
Gerry Wootton
February 7, 2012
Coal, natural gas and nuclear all use the environment as a waste pit both for emissions as well as waste thermal energy at no cost; in fact, they count any measure to prevent this as a cost. Coal and nuclear also create a legacy liability of waste as they produce toxic solid waste without any actual provision for permanent storage. History shows that temporary storage of such waste always results in public expenditures down the road as 'responsible' parties simply disappear or otherwise evade their liability (including getting politicians to put a cap on liability). In many cases, the actual cost cannot even be predicted as the amount, level of toxicity, adequacy of temporary storage technology, impact on neighboring properties and businesses are unknowns. Locally, we have several multi-million dollar cleanups in the works: leftovers from previous decades of private utility operations. And it gets worse once the public assumes responsibility: this opens the door to injured/inconvenienced third parties to sue the government for damages, greatly increasing the cost of a cleanup.
Gerry Wootton
Gerry Wootton
February 7, 2012
To paraphrase Conkie 'anonymous, there you go firing your numbers off all careless like'. You disparage a VSL estimate of 7.5 million dollars; why not say what value function you would put on it - would you say 1000 times less? IMHO anything that causes a depreciation in life expectancy of more than a few years non-trivial. I think that most people would find premature death a high price to pay for anyone else's profitability.
Anonymous did say battery technology would have to become 1000 times cheaper in order to address the variable generator problem. Again no actual numbers, i.e. $/kWh or which battery technology. Take the differential between on-peak and off-peak utility rates in the hourly electrical price market for utilities or customer rates for local generation. In the latter case, the TCO of advanced lead acid battery systems is good enough in some US markets (~0.15 $/kWh last time I checked). Line up the demand curve against the solar power curve, you find you only need to store a fraction of the total energy, consequently, the cost of storage needed per kWh produced is fractional. For HVAC requirements,there are small scale thermal battery options with a respectable TCO for time shifting heating or cooling loads.

The author focuses on externalities. Detailed studies in this area still have limited scope: many that arrive at dollar amounts are focused on human health or human economics. Studies with a more ecological focus don't always talk dollars; for instance, what's the VSL for raptors or salamanders (anonymous might allow a buck or two)? Some hunting and angling groups, tourist operators and so on, have also done numbers. Preservationists concerned about the health of historical buildings too. I have yet to see a study which actually incorporates the full spectrum of externalities: possibly any number available is a low ball number.
ANONYMOUS
February 7, 2012
@Bob regarding comment #11:

You wrote: "You called out the author of this article saying that he was not honest and you made it seem like the real number was 17.84, when the author did use a real number, just not the most honest. "

Careful reading will reveal that I did not suggest the author was dishonest, merely that his assertion was incorrect. You should be more sensitive to the subtleties of language.

The author has another error in that he suggests that the cost of coal externalities when these are not priced into the cost of coal would be the same if they were priced into the cost of coal. Obviously, the industry would embrace technologies such as pollution control if it had to pay for health effects at the prices used in the article. Of course, the article greatly inflates these health costs--my example of how much you would have to charge smokers if you used the same methodology should suggest the calculation scheme is deeply flawed.
Steven
ANONYMOUS
February 7, 2012
@ NorthernPiker, regarding comment #15:
We should draw a distinction between the cost of a particular form of generation and the price a utility charges for electricity. Billing policies divorced from underlying costs cause all sorts of distortions but we should not evaluate competing technologies based on such transient policies. Note carefully that the authors claim was that solar could compete with the cost of coal and gas generation--not with some artificial utility cost structure.
Steven
ANONYMOUS
February 7, 2012
Now William, you should learn to read more carefully. I said a miraculous event making batteries 1000 times cheaper would resolve short-time-scale intermittency issues; I did NOT say they NEED to become 1000 times cheaper to resolve this complication. My discussion was strictly about seasonal intermittency and I did not need to clutter the discussion with other factors. Surely the concept of behavior in an asymptotic limit is not too deep for our mind to grasp.

As for your notion that global warming is going to significantly shift the need for heating, you are much mistaken. A 2 degree K temperature change would be a big problem for the planetary climate, but would hardly remove the need for heating in winter.

Seasonal variability for wind isn't nearly as strong are solar's seasonal variability. In 2010 US solar generation was 17.6 times as large in June as it was in January; in 2009 the summer peak month production was a factor of 17.3 times the January minimum. The ratio of best to worst monthly generation for wind was 1.8 in 2010 and 1.5 in 2009. Wind production in January is actually typically well BELOW average. The seasonal variability of wind and solar PV do NOT balance very well.
Steven
Peter Chase
Peter Chase
February 7, 2012
@ comment #3

"... I can't think of any place where PV can compete directly with coal and natural gas."

Well, think California, or any temperate region (Japan & Italy come to mind) where utility rates exceed 30¢/kWh.

California has a 5-tiered electricity rate scheme that results in an annual residential consumption of 15,000 GWh at rates in the upper three tiers with an average cost of over 30 ¢/kWh. At an installed cost of $4/W, the ROI on a residential solar installation would be over 10% (after tax). Oh yeah, if you tilted the panels at 20 degrees southerly (anywhere from southeast to southwest), the annual panel output would increase a further 10%, with much of the increase in winter months.

With typical California's sunshine, 15,000 GWh would be the output from 10 GW of solar panels, a pretty substantial market.
William Fitch
William Fitch
February 7, 2012
Hi:

These answers by you know who make me laugh...
Batteries need to be 1000 times cheaper...
I hope that was just a thoughtless number...
Actually one order of magnitude (10 fold) would be more than enough... To be able to spend 200 dollars for my 24 KW battery bank instead of 2000 dollars would be a Christmas present of great proportion.
As the planet warms, Winter heating will very quickly give way to Summer AC loads as it already does in much of the USA. AC rises so fast with little outside temp increase because in Winter the heat generated by your normal electric usage goes to reduce the added heating load. In short it works towards your favor. Summer AC is the opposite. All your regular electricity usage (heat), works against your goal of cooling not to mention the additional latent heat load with water removal from the air, also not a factor in Winter heating...
PV and wind very much complement each other. In my neck of the woods, the wind is best (Winter) when the sun is reduced. SO wind is a very good choice to flatten monthly electricity production. There are so many ways that different RE's can be coupled to solve each energy situation, now today... All you have to do is look a little and design with thought and K.I.S.S., with a little genius thrown in...
The negative people out there have a business profit motive that they will never verbally give up for the most part... Oh and just to repeat, I AM not in the PV or wind business...

.....EOL

.....Bill
Brian Neveil
Brian Neveil
February 7, 2012
Grid prices needs to continue the up slide for the common public to look into what you and I know "solar" being the money winner/correct 1st line choice. Free Fuel source.. If the Sun dies we die.

Neveil
Sky Solar Solutions
Trevor Bond
Trevor Bond
February 6, 2012
Which other options do you think are better?

And all valid points, but as far as I can see PV would not ever provide 100% of electricity needs(my hope would be something like 60%). It needs to be be coupled with other sources such as wind (and many others) to provide more reliability and consistency (yes i realize wind is not reliable, but its just an example and it pairs well with PV.

As for cost, I do not see that as a big issue as the costs and efficiency have been getting better every year. It is only a matter of time.

No doubt solar is not the only solution to our energy needs and its never claimed to be. But I expect it to play an increasingly large role in energy production.
Trevor Bond
Trevor Bond
February 6, 2012
I made it clear that I was posting the high estimate. If the low estimate was wanted then you can click on the link and find it for yourself. You are correct in using the best estimate, but you were incorrect in saying that the author only claimed 17.84 cents, which was untrue. He claimed a range because external expenses are hard to fully measure. Just wanted the honest truth out there. I did not claim anything that is untrue. I have absolutely no stake in the renewable energy industry so there is no reason for me to try to be biased. You called out the author of this article saying that he was not honest and you made it seem like the real number was 17.84, when the author did use a real number, just not the most honest.

As for the inflation, its hard to say. Yes there are more restrictions, but there are also more people and more plants. Yes this wouldn't affect per kw costs if you count just the health costs. But one of the largest costs is from climate change and coal factories are still pumping out co2. I wasn't saying that the inflation definitely would make it increase bc I don't have that knowledge on hand I was just saying its possible the author of this article could have factored that in.

Not trying to pick a fight, just wanted the facts out there unbiased.

As for the scrubbers, that may be true but the factories have no reason to add them unless they are made mandatory or a carbon tax is imposed.
ANONYMOUS
February 6, 2012
In comment #8 Bob asks:
"@Steven Why do you hate on PV so much? Just curious as there is no reason to believe that PV will not make up the majority of energy use in the future so long as grid/storage issues are sorted out?"

I do not hate PV. I oppose the wasteful and shortsighted way in which PV is being supported, often at the expense of other technologies that are not as well developed and which would benefit far more from support.

Seasonal variability is always going to place a limit on the effectiveness of PV for meeting energy demand. Even if intermittency on a daily timescale and all shorter timescales was somehow miraculously addressed (for example by a major breakthrough making batteries 1000 times cheaper--something I would not hold my breath for) PV is still going to generate much less energy in Winter than in summer. Last year in the US electricity demand in July was only 15% higher than it was in January. An optimistic estimate would be that in January PV would give a third of the electricity generated in July. Thus, if you install enough PV to meet 100% of July demand (something the intermittency on a short time scale would almost certainly make impossible anyway) you still would have only provided for ~40% of current winter demand. As heating is increasingly supplied by renewable resources the electricity demand peak is almost certain to move to winter making this seasonal variability even more problematic. So PV is now very costly and with has major intermittency concerns on multiple time scales. We are going to need to rely on something else....
Steven
ANONYMOUS
February 6, 2012
Bob writes in comment #8: "Both the author and Steven need to be more truthful. The article states a high estimate of 26.89 cents per kilowatt in 2008. Adjusted for inflation (and you could argue the increasing costs each year as more people are affected) the author has a case. Steven uses the best estimate of 17.84 cents per kilowatt, which again is in 2008. It is now 4 years later. Please be honest when making comparisons."

Using the best estimate is a perfectly defensible thing to do. What is highly questionable is quoting an upper bound without quoting the lower bound as well. Bob does this, so he is throwing stones in a glass house as I see it.

Furthermore, I reject the notion that the values in the 2008 study should be inflation adjusted. Much of the "cost" attributed to coal in this study was due to slight excess death statistics in areas where coal mining was present. Assuming the authors are correct that this was correlated to coal mining and use (lots of other factors would have to be correctly accounted for before one could make such a conclusion) it is very likely that these mortality statistics depend on several decades worth of prior history. Environmental practices have been tightened significantly over time so we would expect a gradual lessening in health consequences over time--exactly the opposite tread to what Bob would predict based on inflation estimators.

As an aside I will note that coal mining and use is a nasty business and I would be quite happy to see the practice phased out. However, if we imposed additional regulations or pricing mechanisms for such environmental costs, it would not take nearly as much money as estimated to address these problems. Adding scrubbers, for instance, would be much cheaper than paying the rates the authors suggest.

Steven
Trevor Bond
Trevor Bond
February 6, 2012
Both the author and Steven need to be more truthful. The article states a high estimate of 26.89 cents per kilowatt in 2008. Adjusted for inflation (and you could argue the increasing costs each year as more people are affected) the author has a case. Steven uses the best estimate of 17.84 cents per kilowatt, which again is in 2008. It is now 4 years later. Please be honest when making comparisons.

Also, Steven claims "these externality studies are always greatly inflated". Where does this come from. And saying always will get you into trouble as no matter what there will be an exception. I thought the assessment was very unbiased and realistic.

@Steven Why do you hate on PV so much? Just curious as there is no reason to believe that PV will not make up the majority of energy use in the future so long as grid/storage issues are sorted out?
William Fitch
William Fitch
February 6, 2012
Hi:

Gee...WOW... and I was just shooting for a little humor...LOL...

.....Bill
ANONYMOUS
February 6, 2012
In comment #5 William resorts to fictions spoken in the voice of a fictional character because he cannot muster an iota of truth in defense of his position.
Steven
William Fitch
William Fitch
February 6, 2012
Hi:

(Obi-Wan) "Stephen! Don't give in to gas. That leads to the Dark Side."

(Stephen) "but I can't think of any place where PV can compete directly with coal and natural gas."

(Yoda) "It is the past you see."

(Stephen) "Solar PV is never going to supply a majority of our energy needs."

(Yoda) "So certain are you. Always with you it cannot be done. Hear you nothing that I say? "

....LOL...

.....Bill
ANONYMOUS
February 6, 2012
The text: "Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences published an article by Dr. Paul Epstein"
Should have read Epstein et al. because there are 12 authors on this article.

The author claims: "That means each kWh from coal burdened our nation's people and environment with $.28 of costs."
Even Epstein et al. only claim $0.178/kWh. However, these externality studies are always greatly inflated. Consider for example their use of a VSL (value of statistical life) estimate of 7.5 million dollars. If we were to treat cigarette smoking by the same standards we would get a 3.3 Trillion dollar cost and if we billed all the smokers for their harm to the economy they would have to pony up $53,000 each by this accounting practice.

The notion that you would get a carbon tax (or any other tax) on the order of $0.28/kWh implemented is fanciful beyond belief. Additionally the notion that ALL renewable subsidies should end is unwise; there are lots of other technologies that are not as well developed as solar PV that hold promise and need support. Solar PV is never going to supply a majority of our energy needs.
Steven
ANONYMOUS
February 6, 2012
The author claims: "Unsubsidized solar photovoltaic (PV) systems already produce electricity – in some parts of the world – less expensively than coal and gas-fired power plants."

Where? There are a few islands that use oil for electricity generation where solar PV might be competitive--and even there the PV market share is surprisingly low--but I can't think of any place where PV can compete directly with coal and natural gas.
Steven
Bob Wallace
Bob Wallace
February 5, 2012
Death to your Headline. It sucks.

----

You want an even playing field? Great with me.

Go with a first in, first out approach. Just like paying taxes on stock sales.

Get rid of all subsidies for fossil fuels. Charge them for all their externalities, including health and environmental damage and military costs (to keep "our" oil supplies open).

Then cut subsidies for nuclear. Charge nuclear for the liability insurance we give them for free. Charge nuclear for the billions in security costs we never seem to mention.

Undo the support for fossil fuels and nuclear and then we can talk about the petty cash that renewables receive.
William Fitch
William Fitch
February 4, 2012
Hi:

In theory this sounds good, but the reality would be that RE would get screwed and the conventionals would find a way to still get their hands on the money, one way or another...
SO, practically speaking, keep the money coming as long as you can...

.....Bill

Add Your Comments

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

  • Create an Account!
  • Sign-In
Photovoltaics World Magazine

This magazine is no longer being published as of May 1, 2012. To subscribe to the similar solar energy content click here. Or, subscribe to our worldwide Renewable Energy World magazine digital edition here.

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

Editors' Picks

  • Residential Demand Spurs US Solar Installations in 1Q13 Residential Demand Spurs US Solar Installations in 1Q13
  • Ocean Energy Development: Apply Common Sense to Common Problems Ocean Energy Development: Apply Common Sense to Common Problems
  • Severn Barrage “No Knight in Shining Armour for UK Renewables” Severn Barrage “No Knight in Shining Armour for UK Renewables”
  • Project Permit: Cutting Red Tape for Green Energy Project Permit: Cutting Red Tape for Green Energy
  • Solar CHP Innovations Offer Efficiency Kick, Future Energy Storage Options Solar CHP Innovations Offer Efficiency Kick, Future Energy Storage Options

Most Commented

  • 4
    California Energy Storage Plan May Require $3 Billion Investment
  • 4
    Women in Power – It’s a Natural Fit
  • 4
    Renewable Energy in Myanmar: Not Just Clean, It’s Necessary
  • 3
    Big Apple Anticipates Solar Explosion for 2013

Total Access Partners

Growing Your Business? Learn More about Total Access
  • Greenpower Capital
  • AR Power Company, Ltd.
  • RBI Solar Inc.
  • Magnum Energy Inc.
  • Everblue
  • Talesun Solar USA, Ltd.
  • American Council On Renewable Energy (ACORE)
  • Northern Lights Solar Solutions
  • Renewable Energy
  • Solar Energy
  • Wind Energy
  • Bioenergy
  • Geothermal Energy
  • Hydro 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