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! ×

Wind Turbine Blades Push Size Limits

Researchers in Europe and the US are exploring how wind turbine blades could be scaled up for 10 MW or even 20 MW wind turbines.

Chris Webb, Contributor
July 10, 2012  |  17 Comments

Using sophisticated modelling techniques and comparing the results with existing turbine technology, a 2011 report set out to see if 20-MW offshore turbines could become a reality. The report, entitled Upwind: Design Limits and Solutions for Very Large Wind Turbines, compared theoretical 20-MW designs with present technology. 'Yes, we have the technology but the economics will decide. Costs models will tell us the way forward,' says Bernard Bulder of the Energy Research Centre of the Netherlands (ECN).

The goal of a larger turbine — to increase efficiency by capturing more wind energy using longer blades — was achievable, the report said. The US$33 million UpWind project determined to what extent such turbines are feasible, and whether they make financial sense.

A look into the near future was offered early last year, when Danish company Vestas debuted its 7-MW offshore giant. In October 2011 DONG Energy announced it would test the turbine, with plans to install six at a demonstration site in 2013. Also in 2011, GE Global Research, the technology development arm of General Electric, announced it was to partner with the Oak Ridge National Laboratory to develop a generator to support large-scale wind turbines in the 10-15 MW range. Work has begun on the first phase of the two-year, $3 million project funded by the US Department of Energy.

But the EU-backed Upwind research project is a step forward in assessing the challenges ahead. Made up of 48 partners, half from the private sector and half from the research and academic sector, UpWind is the largest public/private partnership designed for the wind energy sector.

UpWind demonstrates that a 20 MW design is feasible. No significant problems were found when upscaling wind turbines to that size, provided some key innovations are developed and integrated. These innovations come with extra cost, and the cost:benefit ratio depends on a complex set of parameters. The project resulted, for instance, in the specification of mass:strength ratios for future very large blades securing the same load levels as the present generation of wind turbines. Thus, in principle at least, future large rotors and other turbine components could be realised without cost increases, assuming the new materials are within certain set cost limits.

For its assessment of the differences between the parameters of the upscaled wind turbine, UpWind adopted a reference 5-MW wind turbine. This reference was based on the IEA reference turbine developed by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). As a first step, this reference design was extrapolated (or upscaled) to 10 MW. The 20-MW goal emerged progressively during the project, while in the meantime the industry worked on larger machines. The largest concepts which are now on the drawing board measure close to 150 metres in rotor diameter and have an installed power capacity of 10 MW. While a 10 MW concept progressively took shape, UpWind set its mind to a larger wind turbine, a turbine of about 250 metres in rotor diameter and a rated power of 20 MW.

Pushing the Boundaries

New concepts, components and materials are an essential part of the equation when it comes to upping the wind game. Research by Risø Denmark’s National Laboratory for Sustainable Energy at the Technical University of Denmark shows that new technological possibilities arise as a consequence of the development of new materials with improved properties. For a long time the wind turbine sector has focused on the reduction of weight and an increase in the strength of blades. However, components such as the gear train and generator will also benefit from the use of new materials and advanced simulations.

In 2011 Vestas took its first steps towards these mega-turbines, revealing details of its next-generation dedicated offshore turbine: the V164 7 MW. Designed to ensure the lowest possible cost of energy, with a rotor diameter of 164 metres, it represents a dedicated offshore turbine, able to cope in rough North Sea conditions.

Lowering the cost of energy in relation to offshore wind is essential. Some of the major stepping stones in achieving this are size and subsequent increased energy capture, which means a need for much bigger turbines, specifically designed for the challenging offshore environment.

Vestas CEO Ditlev Engel says of the new turbine: ‘Seeing the positive indications from governments worldwide, and especially from the UK, to increase the utilisation of wind energy is indeed very promising. We look forward to this new turbine doing its part in making these political targets a reality.’

According to Anders Søe-Jensen, president of Vestas Offshore, the offshore wind market is set to really take off over the coming years. ‘We expect the major part of offshore wind development to happen in the northern part of Europe, where the conditions at sea are particularly rough. Based on our broad true offshore experience, we have specifically designed the V164 7 MW to provide the highest energy capture and the highest reliability in this rough environment.’

One of the innovative parts is the medium speed drive-train. ‘Offshore wind customers do not want new and untested solutions,’ says Finn Strøm Madsen, president of Vestas technology R&D. ‘They want reliability and business case certainty.’ Construction of the first prototypes is expected in Q4 of this year.

Bigger Means Better Design

But, as the Upwind report points out, growing turbines to 20 MW will require even greater innovation in a number of areas. The 20 MW concept provides values and behaviour used as model entries for optimisation — it’s a virtual turbine, which could be designed with the existing tools, without including the UpWind innovations. This extrapolated virtual 20 MW design was found to be almost impossible to manufacture, and uneconomic. The extrapolated 20 MW would weigh 880 tonnes on top of a tower, making it impossible to store at a standard dockside, or install offshore with the current vessels and cranes. The support structures able to carry such mass placed at 153 metres height aren’t possible to mass manufacture. The blade length would exceed 120 metres, making it the world’s largest manufactured composite element, which cannot be produced as a single piece with today’s technologies. The blade length would also require new types of fibres to resist the loads. However, the UpWind project developed innovations to enable this basic design to be significantly improved, and become a potentially economically sound design.

Key weaknesses of the extrapolated virtual 20 MW design are the weight on top of the tower, the corresponding loads on the entire structure and the aerodynamic rotor blade control. The future large-scale wind turbine system drawn up by the UpWind project, however, is smart, reliable, accessible, efficient and lightweight.                                              

After reducing fatigue loads and applying materials with a lower mass:strength ratio, a third essential step is needed. The application of distributed aerodynamic blade control, requiring advanced blade concepts with integrated control features and aerodynamic devices, is also a significant departure from current technology. Fatigue loads could be reduced 20-40 percent. Various devices can achieve this, such as trailing edge flaps, (continuous) camber control, synthetic jets, micro tabs, or flexible, controllable blade-root coupling.

Further reducing the load requires advanced rotor control strategies for ‘smart’ turbines. The UpWind project demonstrated that individual pitching of the blades could lower fatigue loads by 20-30 percent. Dual pitch (pitching the blade in two sections) as the first step towards a more continuous distributed blade control could lead to load reductions of 15 percent.

A Streamlined System

Advanced control strategies are important for large offshore arrays, where UpWind demonstrated that 20 percent of power output can be lost due to wake effects between turbines. Optimised wind-farm layouts were proposed, and innovative control strategies developed, for instance lowering the power output of the first row (thus making these wind turbines more transparent for air flow), facing the undisturbed wind, allowing for higher overall wind farm efficiency.

‘The more your system is optimised, the more your wind measurement must be reliable and accurate,’ says Peter Eecen, work package leader at the Energy Research Centre of the Netherlands (ECN). ‘Wind-measurement techniques for wind energy are progressing quickly. The UpWind project acted as a node to narrow down wind measurement uncertainties. It helped translate innovation into IEC standards, with support of the whole measurement community,’ says Eecen.

After five years of research, the engineers at Risø concluded that the mega turbines would come with a 20 percent higher price tag than their smaller 5-MW siblings if these larger turbines were built in the same fashion. From the tip of the turbine blade to its base, and further to the grid, the project examined several areas needing further exploration to make mega wind turbines cost competitive.

Researchers hope that the increased power, combined with higher efficiency, will achieve greater economies of scale, reducing the cost of wind generation.

17 Comments

Register To Comment
Aaron Allen
Aaron Allen
August 4, 2012
In our city, in a natural light wind corridor [a river 'valley'] we have three medium-sized w.t. which our Citybus [public transportation agency] installed to reduce their [HQ/offices/maint shops property]--all on one site. They now produce half their electrical demand--a considerable sav- ings. All three are of the 'medium' size and have not experienced any ser- ious problems...Overnight, they feed almost all of their energy back into the local grid. Returning to the subject of multiple-blade w.t., how about contra-props? On some aircraft, they have proven very effective when driv- en by both piston and turbine engines. How about two, 3- or 4-blader con- traprops? Even if they have to be made a bit smaller in diameter, their combined power/torque shud be worth it? The combined 'contra-turbine' cud also turn a slightly-larger, more productive generator? Cud this 'super w.t.' yield 1.5--1.9 times a 'standard' one of the same size? Even if they cud only produce 'half again' the electrical energy, replacing our three [Bus Line] w.t. wud be like adding another 1.5 w.t. to their little 'farm'? On the same baseplates, with the same power conductors, with the same or next up-size control equipment, the gain at lower windspeeds and the high- er overall production wud be worth the trouble? If the generator 'heads' must be replaced, the present ones cud be sold to another 'customer' or 'traded-in' to the w.t. supplier?..Without increasing the footprint of this little farm, more energy can be captured/used/sold?..Aaron Allen...
Aaron Allen
Aaron Allen
August 4, 2012
In our city, in a natural light wind corridor [a river 'valley'] we have three medium-sized w.t. which our Citybus [public transportation agency] installed to reduce their [HQ/offices/maint shops property]--all on one site. They now produce half their electrical demand--a considerable sav- ings. All three are of the 'medium' size and have not experienced any ser- ious problems...Overnight, they feed almost all of their energy back into the local grid. Returning to the subject of multiple-blade w.t., how about contra-props? On some aircraft, they have proven very effective when driv- en by both piston and turbine engines. How about two, 3- or 4-blader con- traprops? Even if they have to be made a bit smaller in diameter, their combined power/torque shud be worth it? The combined 'contra-turbine' cud also turn a slightly-larger, more productive generator? Cud this 'super w.t.' yield 1.5--1.9 times a 'standard' one of the same size? Even if they cud only produce 'half again' the electrical energy, replacing our three [Bus Line] w.t. wud be like adding another 1.5 w.t. to their little 'farm'? On the same baseplates, with the same power conductors, with the same or next up-size control equipment, the gain at lower windspeeds and the high- er overall production wud be worth the trouble? If the generator 'heads' must be replaced, the present ones cud be sold to another 'customer' or 'traded-in' to the w.t. supplier?..Without increasing the footprint of this little farm, more energy can be captured/used/sold?..Aaron Allen...
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
July 18, 2012
Fortunately or unfortunately, prop design is like taking a spatula to a knife-fight -- it starts out as the ineffective, inefficient little brother of extracting power from winds of varying speeds & directions.

If we wanted to actually use physics & engineering, we'd go back further in time, as CalTech has studied...

http://cleantechnica.com/2011/07/14/caltech-vertical-axis-wind-turbines-boost-wind-farm-power-efficiency-10x/
http://media.caltech.edu/press_releases/13430

Yet, even that is wasteful of power, land, species, transmission, etc. There's no need for wind 'farms'. Local solar DG, plus storage, EVs, efficiency and safe nuclear are all we need for thousands of years.

Some readings: "The Wind Farm Scam", "Sustainable Energy Without the Hot Air".
Aaron Allen
Aaron Allen
July 17, 2012
Recently I was reading about the new, modern propellers on turboprop air- craft and wonder how a mid-sized w.t. wud do with a 4, 5, or 6-bladed 'scimitar-type' turbine-design. I'm reminded of the famous 'Aermotor' w.t. used on farms and ranches worldwide: In moderate winds, they developed great torque and cud drive heavy burden water pumps. Why have Dowty, Hart- zell, and other prop-makers adopted this design? It wud be instructive to test models of 3/4/5/6 bladed w.t. in a wind tunnel and in mountain ranges, on flat wind-farms, and at-sea?..Lowering the blade tip-speed may help also? We know how the 'scimitars' perform as engine-driven props--do we know how they wud work as wing-driven 'catchers'?..Aaron Allen...
Anatoly Arov
Anatoly Arov
July 17, 2012
Dear DrAlexC
Your negativity to wind based on need to subsidize this alternative energy, you can find more even more disadvantages and reasons. The major point - that industry is still following 100 years of obsession with lift technology and ignoring latest developments (see first comment) which are bringing its offshore price on the same level with traditional hydro rates. An other reason for wind energy resentment - is intermittency which can only be solved with energy storage or using wind energy for other purpose than energy production, which is not suffering from this problem. For example for separating H2O, but there is problem - it will be not elegible for subsidy. Positive effect of critique - is establishing need for changes which wind industry is not willing to make today. Look in rapid solar improovement driven by innovation.
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
July 17, 2012
And G-S, the COE never includes the environmental costs, decommissioning costs, perpetual transmission power loss, maintenance & insurance, resource consumption, and so on.

In other words, the wind biz is subsidized by more than just ratepayers & taxpayers.
ANONYMOUS
July 16, 2012
gauridutt-sharma,

Recent history shows you to be wrong. Commercial wind COE has dropped significantly over the past decade, due almost entirely to the growth in wind turbine size. Commercial wind progress does not need radical innovation. Instead, what it needs is more of the gradual, continuous evolution it has experienced for the past few years.
Gauridutt Sharma
Gauridutt Sharma
July 14, 2012
Doubling of power generation by oversizing of conventional 3-blade rotary turbine is not going to enhance wind harnessing efficiencies in real terms. I say this as a mechanical engineer with 30 years experience in machinery trade.
"INNOVATION" and not Extrapolation is the need of the hour.
Complacense must be shed at all cost.
We must look at a radical new design of wind harnessing eqpt.
I have plenty of "out of the box" ideas that could be "Game Changers"
gdutts@rediffmail.com www.transformideas.blogspot.com
ANONYMOUS
July 13, 2012
bertwindon-

Yes, in simple terms doubling the diameter of the rotor will quadruple its energy capture capacity. The rotor swept area increases by the square of the diameter.

The conventional wisdom says that structural weights tend to follow a cubic growth rate. But with very large wind turbine blades, things get a bit more complex due to cost considerations. To keep costs low, it is preferable to make blades from fiberglass and vinyl ester. But when blades start to grow to lengths of 80m or more the sheer mass of the blade itself can start to cause problems. The blade could use materials such as carbon fiber and epoxy to reduce weight, but that would be very costly. Large blades also produce massive flap/lag moments on the pitch bearings, which can be a difficult problem to resolve.
Sidney Belinsky
Sidney Belinsky
July 13, 2012
The cost of wind turbine on shore is 70%. The cost of wind turbine offshore 30%, the rest, which includes power transmission, foundation manufacturing its installation, placing wind turbine on it and finally servicing wind turbine during operation are remaining 70%. So it is more logical to achieve significant reduction in the 70% of the cost, that going for a marginal increase in reduction of the 30%.
If offshore wind expect to become a one of the future major source of energy for the Humanity, it has to be able to install wind turbines along the continental's shelf in deepwaters and not be limited to depth determined by the length of the Jack up Cranes legs.
These are the tasks that industry has to look the first, before dreaming of 20 MW turbines.
The Efficient Engineering LLC workes on these tasks already for 7 years and recently came up with breakthrough new technology on a conceptual level for installing wind turbines offshore on a stationary foundations in the depth from 20 to 200 meters. The reduction it would provide to the 70% cost of offshore wind cost, would make offshore wind competitive with onshore wind. This technology is patent pending in the US.
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
July 13, 2012
Along with what ChrisK raises, wind power combined with wave was analyzed bat Stanford recently and found to mitigate a small fraction of variability of either, due to relative time delays in maximum power extraction.

However, the total cost of any wind/wave system is never accounted for -- this includes not only installation, maintenance, power conversion, grid storage or variability costs, but 'minor' things like maritime insurance, liability upon accident, sea-life interference/kills, permanent transmission losses, etc.

All this just so a few investors can get subsidy $ from the rest of us, while filling a land/sea scape with absurdly inefficient, noisy and ugly machines that have low life expectancies compared to baseload combustion or nuclear generation, and which fail to include full decommissioning costs.

And, the basic horizontal prop-generator design is far less efficient than others...
http://cleantechnica.com/2011/07/14/caltech-vertical-axis-wind-turbines-boost-wind-farm-power-efficiency-10x/
http://media.caltech.edu/press_releases/13430

There's no wonder why windmills are not the future, just as they weren't here in Calif. in the '80s -- and we still have their leftover junk scattered around...
http://webecoist.com/2009/05/04/10-abandoned-renewable-energy-plants/

And, on top of all that, after the investors have scammed us all, climate change can make a second whack...
http://spectrum.ieee.org/green-tech/wind/a-less-mighty-wind

Suggested reading: "The Wind Farm Scam" & "Sustainable Energy – Without the Hot Air"
Gerard Vaughan
Gerard Vaughan
July 13, 2012
It's as well my understanding of aerodynamics isn't "cursory", or I might be confusing "exponential" with "square". I might also be disregarding the fact that allthough the area facing the wind will be 9 times as great for a rotor of 3 times the diameter, the weight of the thing will be 3x3x3 = 27 times the original. Turbine cost per square metre is, quite obviuosly, directly related to size.
Alternators - that never mentioned other half - are quite the opposite, however, and 4x the thro'put is only about twice the cost. These two simple facts dictate that the lowest cost per watt will be for sizes where the T costs about the same as the A. This appears to happen at around a very convenient 1m diameter, or less. Here a TA can be built at about 1/50th of the cost per watt of current "areodynamic technolgy" currently littering the world and representing the investment of that many kW-hrs which it has no hope of ever recovering.
Chris Kapsambelis
Chris Kapsambelis
July 12, 2012
MIT conducted a Symposium on Managing Large Scale Integration of Intermittent Renewables, where some 75 experts attended. Large Scale Integration was determined to be between 20% and 30%. MIT Professor John Deutch warned policymakers and regulators that intermittent sources will cost more for total operations, and they have to decide who is going to pay for it.
"as renewable capacity has increased, the intermittent nature of wind and solar generation ... has led to operational difficulties and unintended consequences for emissions and economic efficiency."
Here are a couple of excerpts from the findings.

"In addition, fuel efficiencies will decrease when thermal generation plants are operated at partial load. Lower fuel efficiencies increase emissions rates and total costs, potentially diminishing the benefits of renewable generation. Continuously altering plant output also increases the need for operation outside of normal, steady-state procedures and the likelihood of operator error."
"…when thermal generation plants are operated at partial load, fuel efficiencies will decrease, emissions will increase, and total system costs will be raised, thus diminishing the benefits of renewable generation."
Unfortunately, it looks like the more intermittent renewable we add to the grid the less effective they are. We need to look for something the works more effectively.
I do not see how making wind turbines larger helps. What we need to focus on is utility scale storage.
ANONYMOUS
July 11, 2012
It should be obvious to anyone with a cursory understanding of aerodynamics that making turbine rotors larger rapidly increases their ability to capture available wind energy. The relationship is exponential. Making the rotor twice as large increases its energy capture capacity by roughly four times.

There is also the LCOE factor to consider. A wind turbine with twice the rating does cost twice as much to manufacture and install.

On the other hand, the aerodynamic forces and moments acting on the rotor system (blades, hub, pitch bearings, shaft bearings, etc.) increase at much greater than a squared relationship to rotor diameter.

While it is theoretically possible to keep making blades larger, at some point (such as with a 20MW blade) the sheer mass of the blade itself becomes a problem. The rotor in-plane lead/lag moments due to blade mass eventually become unacceptable.
ANONYMOUS
July 11, 2012
I've some problems to follow Chris,
I am german and when i take a look at Enercon, the biggest german player in windmills all new technical ideas described from Chris are already implemented. They have 7.5MW and on the Hannover Fair they where optimistic to get it on 10MW within soon.

They are just built for onshore because of big problems in the North Sea. Just try to repair a windmill offshore by strong wind.
The costs of offshore windmills are much higher than onshore.

And at least it is not necessary to built the biggest windmill, i would prefer the more cost efficient one.

Greatings from Germany,
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
July 11, 2012
Still a vast waste, via an inefficient, low duty-cycle, land & resource-hungry system that permanently wastes about 10% of its meager generation in conversion & transmission losses. Such a deal for subsidized investors though!
Anatoly Arov
Anatoly Arov
July 11, 2012
Dear Chriss, It is interesting to read about prospects for lift technology and their obsession with building and improoving this 18-th Century design. Lift technology devices are not the most efficient (economically and technically) way for utilization of kinetic energy. ******* I invented a new kinetic energy utilization device called FLOW ENGINE which shows 2.5 times better utilization efficiency than lift devices. Tested recently 1m diameter prototype unit in a wind tunnel. Inexpensive and simple, very well suited for offshore use it has capability to increase utilization rate further to 4 - 5 times compare to lift technology. ****** It is very difficult to convince current manufacturers to take on further development, industry is very concervative and I do not have resources and support for building industrial grade device and test it for offshore use where it has the biggest adwantage by not requiring huge platforms and having easy maintenance access. ***** Please, give this technology a chance....

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

  • 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
  • Parker Hannifin - Precision Cooling Systems
  • North American Board of Certified Energy Practitioners
  • Mersen (formerly Ferraz Shawmut)
  • EnergyDreams LLC
  • Stoel Rives LLP
  • DNV KEMA Energy & Sustainability
  • ExxonMobil Lubricants & Specialties Europe
  • 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