The Worlds #1 Renewable Energy Network for News & Information
Sign In or Register
Renewable Energy World Logo
Monday, May 20, 2013
  • Sections
    • Home
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Solar
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Wind
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Geothermal
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Bio
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Hydro
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Careers
    • Companies
      • Company Directory
      • Press Releases
      • Products
      • Events Calendar
      • White Papers
    • Webcasts
      • All Webcasts
      • Featured Webcasts
      • Upcoming Webcasts
      • Archived Webcasts
      • Events Calendar
    • White Papers
    • Magazines
      • Renewable Energy World
      • Wind Technology
      • Large Scale Solar
      • Hydro Review
      • HRW - Hydro Review Worldwide
      • Renewable Energy World (North America Edition)
      • Photovoltaics World
    • Awards
  • Account
    • Sign In
    • Register
  • Search

Ending The Food V. Fuel Debate: Researchers Define Surplus Land

Rachel Nuwer, Contributor
October 22, 2012  |  26 Comments

Which is the better use for a plot of land: growing crops to feed nations or growing crops to power them with biofuel? The answer to this question is, perhaps not surprisingly, complex and turns on the definition of "surplus" land, or idle, marginal spaces. Now, an interdisciplinary group of researchers from Europe and the US has decided to nail these concepts.

Despite the heated “food versus fuel” debates, researchers noted that there is no common language or guidelines that brings together this emerging field. Moreover, no one seemed to agree on what, exactly, defines surplus land.

For example, does the region already have more than enough food to feed its population? Do people living around the area support nuclear energy, or prefer wind or solar? How much gas will farmers have to use driving to and from those new plots? Are there any endangered or endemic species living there? What’s the soil type and the annual rainfall?

Confusion Is "Not Very Helpful"

“This is exactly what we stumbled over when reading the international literature about land availability for producing bioenergy crops – there is no clear-cut definition of surplus land,” says Jens Dauber, a landscape ecologist at the Thunen Institute in Germany and one authors of the paper in the journal BioRiskdiscussing the concept. “We thought it was worthwhile to have a look at what people understand when talking about surplus land.”

Combing through all of the published literature on the topic, Dauber and his colleagues encountered a plethora of terminology that seemingly all referred to different versions of the same thing, including marginal land, reclaimed land and degraded land.

This confusion “might not be very helpful” when it comes to making proper assessments of bioenergy potential for land plots, Dauber says, so he and his colleagues created detailed definitions of various types of surplus land; these are areas not currently used for agriculture due to unfavorable soil, climate or other factors.

Definition in hand, governments or individuals can identify the ideal places to grow biofuel plants and, from there, figure out which crops are best suited for plots of surplus land.

Most food crops, like corn and cereals, require pesticides, fertilizers and fossil fuels during steps in their production, making them ill suited for the surplus plots. Perennial crops like oilseed rape and switch grass, however, require fewer inputs necessary for them to thrive, and thus stand out as energy crops. Cultivated trees like poplars and willows could work as biofuel staples, too.

Creatively Utilizing Surplus Land

Once biofuel producers identify which crop or group of plants are the best match for the local landscape, they can brainstorm ways to creatively utilize surplus land to benefit not just energy production, but the environment, too.

Biofuel crops can be planted along the edges of farmers’ fields, for example, where they’ll make use of formerly wasted space and also trap crop runoff – a common pollutant – and prevent it from emptying into nearby streams and lakes. Mosaics of biofuel crops planted together would create better habitat for wildlife than the typical crop monocultures. And amidst the broader agricultural landscape, diverse biofuel plants may help create microclimates that mitigate climate change.

“We might get socioeconomic benefits and at the same time preserve biodiversity in these areas,” Dauber says.

Dauber and his colleagues point out that biofuels can couple with other green energy options and contribute to overall regional sustainability.

All told, a country, region or even company’s decision to convert a plot of land to biofuel crop production depends on individual tradeoffs between food availability, other alternative energy options, the environmental friendliness of an energy crop design and the project’s economic viability.

“We have to openly discuss all of these issues, but in the end this should be a decision by the people about what kind of energy they want for the future,” Dauber says. “Though, if we run out of fossil fuels, there’s not much of a choice anymore.”

This article was originally published on ecomagination and was republished with permission.

Lead image: The Lone Tree Courtesy/Flickr user Alex E. Proimos

26 Comments

Register To Comment
Sabri Ipek
Sabri Ipek
November 3, 2012
"Nature however, works on a cyclical model---production is repeatable, waste is broken down and becomes the new feedstock eventually---nothing is wasted, and everything is used over and over again."
I agree that such a system can use the resources in a much more sustainable way and buy us some time to correct course (assuming that the powerful interests would let us adopt such a system), but our population would still be a problem. At our current population level (and increasing), we are using too much of the sun's energy trapped by the plants. Even without the suicidal madness of present day industrial capitalism (which we conveniently call progress), we would still continue degrading the living world because we would not leave enough food and space for the other species to live reasonably natural lives.
Our problem is not technological but spiritual. Unless we realize that we are here to just observe and enjoy the living world (like native Americans and many other indigenous people around the world did), not to change it, we will continue to degrade it, until we run out of millions of years worth of living capital and the web of life can no longer sustain us along with many other species.
David Robbins
David Robbins
November 3, 2012
Miscanthus has a positive carbon balance and has a huge return(EROI) Do your research. I suggest you look at Illinois State University and Iowa State University for the research already conducted. Better yet, research Europe(specifically, Great Britain) for the successful EROI's on producing acreage. Respectfully, broad statements without research(as we have done over 5 years) is useless and dishonest to interested parties. Follows the rhetoric in the current Presidential election.
David Robbins
David Robbins
November 3, 2012
Bio fuels are here to stay and certain species will replace other less efficient sources while adding wildlife habitats and growing dedicated energy crops for fuel. Nothing will ever run out because necessity is the mother of invention. I don't believe we can use our atmosphere over and over again. Our fossil fuel resources were created over millineums and we are consuming them at an ever increasing rate. We can't replace these resources in centuries. Lifeforms will perish without alternative environmentally friendly energy. Follow natures rules and stick your head in the sand. Future generations will suffer. The time is now and in fact, may have already eluded us. It may be too late.
Fred Linn
Fred Linn
November 3, 2012
-----" We should be thinking about changing our economic system which considers the living world a commodity for our use and abuse, as opposed to what it really is: a web of interconnected life forms of which we are a part."-----

I agree.

So far as much of the thought process of industrial society operates by, it is a linear process. Rip out, take what you want, create mountains of waste---exhuast the supply then hunt for new places to repeat the process.

Nature however, works on a cyclical model---production is repeatable, waste is broken down and becomes the new feedstock eventually---nothing is wasted, and everything is used over and over again.

We have far more than we will ever need available to us---we just need to follow nature's rules----nothing will ever run out, it will be used and reused over and over again.
Cliff Claven
Cliff Claven
November 3, 2012
@ssipek: Excellent point: Average area of land required per kW of continuous power: Corn Ethanol: 3175 m2/kW Wind Farm: 885 m2/kW Solar Farm: 200 m2/kW Oil & Gas Field: 3.9 m2/kW This is why Sierra Club and the Nature Conservancy and others are blocking wind farms and solar farms all over the country, and why they should be screaming against biofuels.
Sabri Ipek
Sabri Ipek
November 3, 2012
How about leaving some land untouched, for the use of wild life forms? Do we have to use every square foot of land to benefit some real or imagined need of our own species? The world does not owe us food, energy and whatever we may demand of it. We owe the world our lives. We should start acting like we appreciate the gift.
The discussion should be about how to reduce our numbers, our energy use and our demands from the world in a drastic way, and in a very short time. We should be thinking about changing our economic system which considers the living world a commodity for our use and abuse, as opposed to what it really is: a web of interconnected life forms of which we are a part.
We should leave untouched whatever wilderness is left, and try to restore as much land as close to its original condition as possible. Otherwise we are approaching a point very quickly that we may become another one of the extinct species in the long history of life on earth, and for the first time it will be because of our own actions, not a natural disaster.
Fred Linn
Fred Linn
November 3, 2012
-----" @Fred: Please disavow all use of petroleum and coal and nuclear power and give up all products made from their energy and feedstock and invest all your money in green energy."--------

Natural gas is already replacing coal. And this cycle will increase as the present coal plants age and need to be replaced. That is already happening.

Nuclear power is pretty much dead in the water right now. Siemens AG, the world's largest producer of nuclear reactors has announced that their nuclear power division is being shut down permanently by the end of the fiscal year---and they are diverting resources to the renewable energy division which is more profitable and has the advantage of a much better market future.

Biofuels are replacing petroleum right now. It will happen---it already is in many other places. Petroleum is a dying dinosaur of the past. There are many other places that are willing to innovate, change and bet on the future by switching to biofuels.

Those countries that create and use renewable energy sources will be the new powerhouses in a changing world economy. The ones who don't will fall by the wayside. This too is already in the process of taking place.
David Robbins
David Robbins
November 2, 2012
We are in a period of transition. Hopefully, it's not too late. Fuel to feed our vehicles, homes, schools, factories and utilities will be augmented, not replaced through evolutionary socio economic cycles. Natural Gas is now beginning to replace coal and fuel oils. It has emissions challenges, albeit significantly less than other forms of fossil fuels. We can't just throw a crowbar in the engines that drive our economies and day to day lives. Green energy will augment fossil fuels and slow the environmental degradation and depletion of these resources. Man can't keep extracting the carbon stored for eons to power society without a price. We have a choice to partner with fossil fuels or fail because of arrogant idealism. If we choose all or none, we will end up with none(or our ancestors will).
Cliff Claven
Cliff Claven
November 2, 2012
@Fred: Please disavow all use of petroleum and coal and nuclear power and give up all products made from their energy and feedstock and invest all your money in green energy. Eat your marshmallows and sponge cake while they last. We'll let Charles Darwin and Adam Smith sort it out for you.
Fred Linn
Fred Linn
November 2, 2012
-------" @Fred: Petroleum EROI overall is between 8:1 and 24:1"----

Well, since the last time you checked was 1924, perhaps you should check again Cliff.

In 1924, no one was shipping oil from the North Slope, 800 miles above the arctic circle----or shipping petroleum 40,000 miles around Africa from the Middle East to the US. And there was no such thing as a well deeper than about 2,000 ft.

Why is that? Because we keep using it up faster and faster---and there is no new oil being made. Give me all the sarcastic put downs you want to---but even a kindergartener can figure out, if you keep taking marshmellows out of a box, and no new marshmellows get put into the box---sooner or later, you WILL run out of marshmellows.

We can make ALL the marshmellows we need. But we can't make petroleum.
Fred Linn
Fred Linn
November 2, 2012
--------" including all the water used for EOR and in refining. Corn ethanol in the US is 1,220 gallons per gallon of ethanol (1,983 gallons per gallon of diesel energy equivalent) "--------

Where I grew up---we were surrounded by LOTS and LOTS of corn.

The water the corn used to grow on, came down out of the sky, free. The energy input the corn used to store energy in the form of hydrocarbons came down out of the sky, free. What ran off of the corn fields, we went swimming in----and caught fish in.

I do NOT recommend swimming or eating fish out of the effluent of a petroleum refinery.

In the words of Jimmy Buffet:

Livin' on sponge cake,
Watchin' the sun bake,
All of those tourists
Covered in oil.....

(Takes on a whole new meaning after BP and Deep Horizon doesn't it?)
Cliff Claven
Cliff Claven
November 2, 2012
@Fred: Petroleum EROI overall is between 8:1 and 24:1 and has been in that range since 1924, while corn ethanol is 1.25:1. Water use for petroleum is in the ratio of 5.5 gallons of water per gallon of refined diesel including all the water used for EOR and in refining. Corn ethanol in the US is 1,220 gallons per gallon of ethanol (1,983 gallons per gallon of diesel energy equivalent) and double that water consumption as the global average. Biodiesel from all feedstocks is much higher because the yields per acre are much lower. Rapeseed biodiesel in Europe is 10,000:1 and Jatropha is 20,000:1. Now let's see your facts.
Fred Linn
Fred Linn
November 2, 2012
We have the capacity to produce all the biofuels we need and much more.

Tell me Cliff, what is the EROI on petroleum?

What is the water savings with petroleum when you have to dig up 4 tons of bitumen and wash it with hot water to remove the tars to make petroleum? How much energy do you save when you have to heat those tars over 300*F to get them to flow through a pipeline?

And the water that was used to remove the tars is so toxic that it must be kept in holding ponds--------and kills any birds that land on it.

Petroleum use destroys the lands, destroys the waters, and destroys the air. Producing biofuels enriches the earth, cleans the water, and clears the air---and produces the oxygen that you need to breathe.
Cliff Claven
Cliff Claven
November 1, 2012
@David-R: Thank you for agreeing that water is essential to plant growth. It is amazing how many people refuse to acknowledge that all plant life--food and non-food--competes for the same things: land, water, sunlight, and soil nutrients. Cultivated crops--food and non-food--also compete for ammonia fertilizer, pesticides, herbicides, farm machinery, transportation, financing, etc. If you are cultivating your miscanthus, you will get much better yields, but at the cost of unacceptable EROI and inherent dependence upon fossil fuel energy inputs that will make your price always more expensive than conventional fuel. If you are not cultivating your miscanthus, you will get good EROI but very small yields with such a low geographic density that it will be very challenging to harvest economically, let alone process into liquid fuel. That's the catch-22 of biofuels. Additionally, biofuels are subject to unpredictable floods, droughts, and freezes, and will have market price volatility based upon the already mentioned competitions within the agricultural world, as well as competition with petroleum fuels. Climate change has been happening since the peak of the last ice age now believed to be 19,000 years ago. I am unsure whether it is something to be alarmed about to the point of hamstringing our entire civilization, or whether it is something we can even appreciably affect because of the immense scale of the forces involved. We are actually overdue for the next ice age--usually brought on by an asteroid impact or super volcano. Atmospheric CO2 is increasing and the temperature is rising, but the measured rates are far lower than predicted by the doomsayers, and the models/simulations still can't handle the single most important variable--atmospheric moisture--which is not a constant but increasing with human influence, and affects the all-important creation of clouds. I'm open to facts, but have to reject claims that violate the laws of physics and chemistry and biology.
David Robbins
David Robbins
October 31, 2012
Cliff-
No crop grows absent water. Our MxG(not elephant grass, but in the family) is drought tolerant due to it's large rhizomatic root system. Not like cactus, but far more drought tolerant than sugarcane or corn. Also, as a perennial, it survives for 20 years without annual replanting. I'm not trying to sell any snake oil, just trying to introduce a crop that is noninvasive and has been used in Europe for over 20 years as a feedstock as co-burn in Coal fired electricity generating plants. In the states, it has application in Cellulosic ethanol production.
Food versus fuel is a debatable point. Food farmland can be interpreted as vegetables, fruits, nuts, cereal grains, even pasture land. Every crop(food or fuel) benefits from land with full access to water.
The analysis is the land for food demand and forecasted demand, to establish projected "surplus" land for the use in fuel crops. Obviously, environmental impacts must be evaluated(invasiveness, fertilization and chemical requirements, etc.). To be able to grow on strip mined land is a challenge for any crop. Marginal land would probably include pastureland, but an argument for animal grazing could be made. There is over 40 million acres of land in ag set asides, presently and planting fuel crops on these lands could make a huge impact on ethanol production and have a positive carbon balance. If climate change is snake oil to you, then go drill some more oil wells, my friend!
Cliff Claven
Cliff Claven
October 31, 2012
@David-R: Ah, yes, the other 'elephant grass.' Do you claim your crop will GROW under drought conditions, or that it will just SURVIVE? Anumakonda claims his agave and opuntia THRIVE under drought conditions, which means 'to grow or develop vigorously.' He is a snake oil salesman. What are you?
David Robbins
David Robbins
October 31, 2012
We are growers of a dedicated energy crop, called Miscanthus x Giganteus. This crop can survive under drought tolerant conditions once mature(2-3 yrs). Of course, growing it on surplus lands that could be cultivated for food is preferred to maximize yield. One perfect example for it's benefit is in the ag set asides land, which lays fallow or farms crops that provide the most profit/acre.
We harvest the hay and convert it or any agro-waste to solid fuel through densification for shipment to any US state, via rail or cargo ship. Distribution costs are offset by the increased bulk density of the feedstock. We can ship 190k per rail car anywhere in the continental USA.
HENRY BAYON
HENRY BAYON
October 31, 2012
In otherwords, comment six above?
Fred Linn
Fred Linn
October 31, 2012
There IS no such thing as "waste" land. There are only prevailing conditions.

Arctic tundra is "waste" land to a corn farmer----but not to a raindeer herder.

You select the crop based on the prevailing conditions----and what is adapted to make use of prevailing conditions.
Joanne Ivancic
Joanne Ivancic
October 30, 2012
Along with using marginal lands for advanced biofuels feedstock comes the problem of insufficient feedstock to support integrated biorefineries every 50 miles. Thus, the need to efficiently convert the biomass to precursors or intermediates for more efficient transport to large scale, multi-product biorefineries.

See http://advancedbiofuelsusa.info/the-distributedcentralized-bioproduction-approach-sustainable-biofuels-and-bioproducts-are-possible-through-the-significant-reduction-of-biomass-transportation-costs and http://advancedbiofuelsusa.info/?s=distributed%2Fcentralized&x=4&y=6 for discussions and ideas to address this need.
HENRY BAYON
HENRY BAYON
October 30, 2012
As soon as the range of opinions and experiences gets this wide, you know economics is happening. People are striving to allocate scarce resources as optimally as possible between alternative uses. Do we have to have a universal peg or should we settle for location, situation-specific pegs?
Anumakonda Jagadeesh
Anumakonda Jagadeesh
October 30, 2012
Reply to cliff-claven:

You are totally ignorant how agave and Opuntia thrive under harsh conditions. We planted Agave for fencing in our fields but never watered. It grows naturally. So is Opuntia. It is not a FREE LUNCH or PAID LUNCH but identifying the right species for the right purpose that matters. Nature is very intelligent. It provides plants for different uses by humans,animals etc. Resources are there but it requires RESOURCEFULNESS to get WEALTH FROM WASTE. Is not Water Hyacinth Spreading on its own? Are not many uses for which Water Hyacinth can be put? In Indonesia they make Fine furniture from water hyacinth and export it. Biogas production from Water Hyacinth is known for years along with animal dung. NECESSITY IS THE MOTHER OF INVENTION. Now that there is debate on FOOD Vs FUEL, one can switch over to Biofuel from Agave and Biogas from Opuntia and Water Hyacinth and subsequent power generation as these plants are care-free growth ones.
Dr.A.Jagadeesh Nellore(AP),India
E-mail: anumakonda.jagadeesh@gmail.com
Cliff Claven
Cliff Claven
October 30, 2012
Beware the snake oil salesman of biofuels who uses phrases like "drought-loving species" or "thrives on marginal land." No plant is drought-loving. Some are drought-tolerant, but they don't produce fruit or seeds or lipids or new biomass of any sort when they are starved for water or nutrients. That would be magic, not science. India farmers got badly burned on Jatropha recently by believing the promises of high yields without irrigation or fertilizer. The sun only supplies photons, not hydrogen or carbon or nitrogen or any other element or nutrient, and photosynthesis is about 0.1% effective in converting sunlight into biomass. Switchgrass takes 20-30 years to become a mature biome from scratch without cultivation and fertilizer. Same for pulpwood forests. Of course you can speed up growth and increase yields by adding energy to the plant in the form of ammonia-based fertilizer--made from natural gas--and there goes your energy balance and "greenness" into the toilet, putting your crop in the company of corn ethanol and soy biodiesel. It's not whether it's a food crop or not, it is whether it is cultivated or not. And if you don't cultivate something growing on marginal land, it won't yield enough per acre-yr to make it economically worthwhile to even harvest it. There is no free lunch.
Timothy Baye
Timothy Baye
October 30, 2012
Alas, putting together a committee of government and academic experts to define the concept of "surplus lands" serves only those stakeholders who might seek to regulate these land's use. In much of the U.S. the producers (the accepted term for "farmers") have been monitoring and intellectually involved in the biomass space for many years. This stakeholder group is, on average, further ahead in their thinking than most others, concerning both benefits and costs.

High level thinking and broad generalities about "surplus lands" does little for the actual development of a sustainable supply-chain. We have found that producers view biomass production in the same terms as other land-use options....in terms of risk and reward. Engaged producers are quite aware that land must be managed over the life of the offtake contract. Producers remain interested in having a portion of their assets generate returns than are less volatile than row crops. Producers have the best insight regarding which lands are best suited to these crops and risk/reward outlooks. Any "definition" or resulting policy that does not squarely place the decisions of land selection in the producer's wheelhouse would be terribly misguided.

Timothy Baye
Professor, BioEnergy/Business Development
University of Wisconsin-Extension
Anumakonda Jagadeesh
Anumakonda Jagadeesh
October 28, 2012
There are alternatives to produce biofuel in waste lands thus countering Food Vs Fuel debate.

The main drawback for wider application of Biofuels is input. There was a big moment for biofuel from Jatropha in India but in reality not much has been achieved. Agave(Americana),Sisal Agave is a multiple use plant which has fermentable sugars and rich in cellulose.

"Mounting interest in agave as a biofuel feedstock could jump-start the Mexican biofuels industry, according to agave expert Arturo Valez Jimenez.

Agave thrives in Mexico and is traditionally used to produce liquors such as tequila. It has a rosette of thick fleshy leaves, each of which usually end in a sharp point with a spiny margin. Commonly mistaken for cacti, the agave plant is actually closely related to the lily and amaryllis families. The plants use water and soil more efficiently than any other plant or tree in the world, Arturo said. "This is a scientific fact—they don't require watering or fertilizing and they can absorb carbon dioxide during the night," he said. The plants annually produce up to 500 metric tons of biomass per hectare, he added.

Agave fibers contain 65 percent to 78 percent cellulose, according to Jimenez. "With new technology, it is possible to breakdown over 90 percent of the cellulose and hemicellulose structures, which will increase ethanol and other liquid biofuels from lignocellulosic biomass drastically,

Agave for Biofuel and Opuntia for Biogas and power production can be grown in waste lands.

Dr.A.Jagadeesh Nellore(AP),India
E-mail: anumakonda.jagadeesh@gmail.com
Thomas M
Thomas M
October 24, 2012
Well, without food, the human species cannot even exist to make these decisions. So food over fuel should prevail.

Add Your Comments

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

  • Create a Free Account!
  • Sign-In
Stay Connected
         
To register for our free e-Newsletters, create your free account here:

Most Commented

  • 17
    The Economic Case for Divesting from Fossil Fuels
  • 10
    Breakdown: Penetration of Renewable Energy in Selected Markets
  • 8
    Finland's New Energy Solutions
  • 1
    Moniz Unanimously Confirmed As New DOE Chief

Total Access Partners

Growing Your Business? Learn More about Total Access
  • Green Power Conferences
  • Chaloux Environmental Communications, Inc. (CEC)
  • Natural Power
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo North America
  • American Council On Renewable Energy (ACORE)
  • Renewable Energy World Europe
  • RenewableEnergyWorld.com
  • 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
  • News
  • Conference & Expo
Network Partners - Magazines
  • Hydro Review Magazine
  • Hydro Review Worldwide Magazine
  • Renewable Energy World Magazine
Network Partners - Events
  • Power-Gen International
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo North America
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Europe
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Asia
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Africa
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo India
  • HydroVision International
  • HydroVision Brazil
  • HydroVision India
  • HydroVision Russia
© Copyright 1999-2013 RenewableEnergyWorld.com - All rights reserved.
RenewableEnergyWorld.com - World's #1 Renewable Energy Network for news & Information