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! ×

Salazar Announces Approval of 3-GW Wind Farm in Wyoming

Vince Font, Contributing Editor
October 10, 2012  |  42 Comments

For a state so often associated with cowboys and so evocative of "old west" imagery, Wyoming has a surprisingly progressive record. In 1869, Wyoming became the first state to grant women the right to vote. And on October 9 of this year, Wyoming became the future home to what could end up becoming the biggest wind power farm the world has ever seen.

In a visit to the state capital of Cheyenne, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar gave the official green light for the construction of the Chokecherry and Sierra Madre Wind Energy Project, a proposed wind farm to be located in a 350 square mile area near the towns of Sinclair and Rawlins in Carbon County, Wyoming. The proposal for construction of the wind farm was submitted in 2008 by Power Company of Wyoming LLC, and will include 1,000 wind turbines capable of generating enough electricity to power approximately 1 million homes. Once constructed and in full swing operation, the wind farm will have the capacity to generate between 2 to 3 GW (gigawatts) of electricity.

In addition to providing clean energy generation on a massive scale, the approval of the Chokecherry and Sierra Madre Wind Energy Project will also bring jobs to south central Wyoming. It’s estimated that construction of the wind farm will create as many as 1,000 jobs over time, although it’s likely that number will be spread out over the course of three years as 300 to 400 wind turbines are constructed per year. Once construction is complete, there will be 114 permanent jobs created for general operations and maintenance. 

Salazar was quick to point out this additional benefit, citing “tens of thousands of jobs now being created by wind energy” throughout the country. The approval of the Chokecherry and Sierra Madre Wind Energy Project marks completion of a goal set by the Obama administration in 2009 to authorize 10,000 MW of renewable energy on public land. 

“Wyoming has some of the best wind energy resources in the world,” Salazar said, “and there’s no doubt that this project has the potential to be a landmark example for the nation. President Obama challenged us in his State of the Union address to authorize 10,000 megawatts of renewable energy on our public lands by the end of the year – enough to meet the needs of more than 3 million homes – and today we are making good on that promise.” 

With Salazar’s official stamp of approval, the next step in development will be for the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to begin environmental analysis for construction of the proposed wind farms, a 230 kilovolt transmission line, a rail distribution facility, substations for connection to the electric grid, and the laying of the roads necessary to make it all happen. Initial groundbreaking is set to begin sometime in 2013, with the actual installation of wind turbines to follow beginning in 2014.

Lead image: Wyoming flag via Shutterstock

42 Comments

Register To Comment
Richard Viers
Richard Viers
October 20, 2012
Regarding why would anyone put wind turbines in cities? I personally believe this to be a very good question, and the answer is that sometimes roof top wind can supplement the use of solar. We all realize that the sun does not always shine, and the wind doesn't always blow, but most of the time there is an abundance of one or the other, and sometimes both. Having small turbines mounted in accessible locations on roof tops can be an excellent way to supplement power needs, especially if the buildings are sky scrapers and have clear access. There is really no reason I can see not to have turbines. Rich Alternative Energy Products Group
Peter Bubik
Peter Bubik
October 19, 2012
Jandre - The "rooftops, parking lots, highway medians, old land fills, etc.." was YOUR suggestion - I agree, limited potential for wind. Go solar on rooftops.
I do alot of turbine siting for my work (yes that makes me biased and I suppose a corporate hack here to fuel climate fears) and work very much with respected conservationists and native prairie biologists to minimize the impact we cause. (I wish the logging, mining and other industries were held to the same standard that you are holding us to). There are ways to minimize the impact, but I agree can't avoid it. What's left has to be balanced with the impact the alternatives have.
Case in point: we are often forced to move turbines into less effective areas to avoid affecting species. At one instance, we were forced to move turbines to protect "potential nesting site" (no nest there, but there could be one in the future). So we did. The energy production decreased by 2GWhr/yr, which added X tons of CO2 /yr into the atmosphere. The question is was that worth it?
Many conservationists want to care only about their little bubble, even if it hurts everyone else in the process.
John Chase above has a point – we have a long way to go, and we won't get there with just small wind and we tried building a turbine on top of a land fill (about 8x the cost), and very often build them on agricultural land (I wish that industry was held to the standard we are held to) – let's keep on doing that, but we will also need areas where the wind is.
Jim Andre
Jim Andre
October 19, 2012
honestly Bob, there's no way to answer your accusations
Bob Wallace
Bob Wallace
October 19, 2012
Try honesty jandre.

You can earn respect.
Jim Andre
Jim Andre
October 19, 2012
Bob,
Insults and assumptions are not productive in discourse. EPA has recommended 3 million ac of already degraded lands for renewables, these include old landfills, Hazardous cleanup sites, old tailings, etc... You can view the report at the EPA website. My point(and I know this apparently sounds radical to you) is that decentralized generation and already degraded lands offer abundant alternatives to destruction of remote pristine quality lands. Places like Ivanpah Valley CA and Spring Valley NV are located on the boundaries of national parks and wilderness. We should not be destroying those areas as a first option, both for environmental reasons, and economy to to taxpayers.
Bob Wallace
Bob Wallace
October 19, 2012
jandre - "EPA has told Obama this but it hasn't affected Salazar's ambition to industrialize public lands"

That's a load. You've developed some strong hate for doing anything on desert land, but that does not excuse dishonesty.

If you want to be taken seriously then do not fail to acknowledge that the most pristine, the most valuable, the most beautiful, the most ecologically important land has been protected.

I'm starting to think that you've got yourself a little bit of desert land where you live and there's a plan to build a wind tower where you can see it. I've got a feeling that this is all NIMBY.
Jim Andre
Jim Andre
October 19, 2012
Peter,

I don't know why anyone would put wind in cities (or even high density rural areas) when solar is more efficient. Wind is very appropriate on already degraded or even compatible lands (ag?). A combination of wind and solar does not have to sacrifice pristine quality ecosystems. EPA has told Obama this but it hasn't affected Salazar's ambition to industrialize public lands. Rehabilitation is limited after soils have been disrupted, especially in arid lands where biological soil crusts can't be recreated - they take hundreds if not thousands of years to recover, if at all. Obviously solar plants do more immediate, complete, and widespread damage to soils than wind. But in both energy technologies, when placed on lands of high ecosystem quality, they disrupt natural processes to the point of no return.
Peter Bubik
Peter Bubik
October 19, 2012
Jandre: Re: How many acres of our public lands is it ok to sacrifice (....unnecesarily...:)

None, of course - nobody wants to rape land. But it's the wrong question. The important question is:
How many GWhr/yr of RE energy are we willing to sarcifice (in other words how many tonns of CO2/yr are we willing to add into the atmosphere) to build wind projects in less efficient areas (like cities)? BTW, that's not a rethorical question - I am wondering if there is an optimum point - a break-even of sorts.

Roads, crane pads and foundations CAN be rehabilitated very effectively, but we need help from conservationists. Perhaps you could participate in developing methods that minimize impact. The Wind industry listens.

Easy to ciricise any idea, but try expressing the alternative in tonns of CO2 (SOx NOx and all the rest) and its environmental impact.

And I am all for distributed generation and small wind, solar and hydro.
Erik Kiehle
Erik Kiehle
October 18, 2012
http://www.bing.com/maps/?v=2&cp=pcr87w6p0pfh&lvl=16&dir=0&sty=b&where1=Abilene%2C%20TX&form=LMLTCC
Erik Kiehle
Erik Kiehle
October 18, 2012
Here's a link to a satellite view of one of the wind farms to the West of Abilene, TX where I am. You can see that the footings of the wind tower are a very small part of the landscape. Some wild growth is scraped for gravel roads, but the impact to the critters living out there is not insurmountable. There's still plenty of untouched wild growth for the foxes, deer, toads, turtles, etc.
Jim Andre
Jim Andre
October 18, 2012
Then we have a common thread to work from.
Bob Wallace
Bob Wallace
October 18, 2012
Well, I'd sacrifice no acres needlessly.
Jim Andre
Jim Andre
October 18, 2012
As straigthforward as I can be Bob.
Bob Wallace
Bob Wallace
October 18, 2012
Oh, I missed that it was a trick question.

Why would I support sacrificing acres needlessly?

(I suspect you have a follow up in which you argue that no installations on desert lands are necessary. Am I right?)
Jim Andre
Jim Andre
October 18, 2012
Bob,

The question was, how many acres would you sacrifice unnecessarily, not how many you would sacrifice if you had to.
Bob Wallace
Bob Wallace
October 18, 2012
I can't easily answer your question Jim because we can't site wind turbines in cities.

How many acres can we use for solar? I'd say some portion of the 285,000 acres that have just been identified for use. How many acres of desert do we have? The Great Basin is about 6.2 million acres. The set-aside would be about 4.5% of that desert. Have to add in all the other desert areas to get a better number. Perhaps 2% or less?

Then one has to ask how much of that land will actually be used. And one has to do some realistic accounting. Wind farms use only 2% of their area for turbine footpads. 98% is still available for original use. The acreage established for solar farms is not all covered by panels and road or fenced off. Some portion is still available for original use.

Some conservation biologists might be saying that what Interior has done is a mistake. Most don't as they were involved in the plans and approved the outcome.

Personally, I think we'll use only a small portion of that 2/whatever percent. Financial considerations will put most solar on rooftops and over parking lots.

But to attempt to answer your question more directly, I would be very willing to sacrifice 10% of the desert in order to save the other 90%. I'd probably sacrifice 90% to save 10%. (But, again, I do not think we are talking about anything more than a portion of 1%.)

Do not overlook the fact that the most beautiful, the most pristine, the most environmentally sensitive and valuable portions have been put out of reach for development.
Jim Andre
Jim Andre
October 18, 2012
Question to all: How many acres of our public lands (wildlands) is okay to sacrifice for solar and wind, if doing so is unnecessary because we have alternatives to develop these energy technologies in cities and already disturbed lands? 1000? 10000? 1,000,000? This is a reasonable discussion to have I think. Conservation biologists say it's a mistake ecologically. Economists say big subsidized solar and wind in remote locations on public lands is far more costly and creates fewer jobs compared to solar and wind developed closer to the source in the built environment or on already disturbed lands. It's fine to argue otherwise, but the evidence to make the case for deploying massive devastation of public lands under heavy taxpayer subsidies is lacking. It's appealing to want to believe it's a sacrifice we have to make to save the planet. Actually, no sacrifice is appealing, but one of this scale done unnecessarily is irresponsible.
Bob Wallace
Bob Wallace
October 18, 2012
Well jandre - dismiss me as ignorant. I'm certainly no energy corporate hack, or any sort of employee of anyone.
Jim Andre
Jim Andre
October 18, 2012
Bob I've already dismissed you as either ignorant or an energy corporate hack, so I feel your pain.
Jim Andre
Jim Andre
October 18, 2012
Richard, actually native species (plants and animals) and intact soils/ecosystems provide a wealth of services to humans, but I understand if you're not aware of that, I'm trying to help bridge the gap of ignorance. If renewables are desirable because they might give us energy independence and ecological sustainability, then we should make sure they do both. Arid lands soils store 40% of the terrestrial carbon on this planet. Bulldozing them releases inorganic carbon negating any offset achieved by moving off of fossil fuels. Why be opposed to alternatives (rooftops, parking lots, highway medians, old land fills, etc.. to develop renewables. It's not immature to ask that a bridge or skyscraper be engineered correctly is it? Same goes for how we go about developing renewables
Bob Wallace
Bob Wallace
October 18, 2012
jandre, I'm just going to have to dismiss you as a person who resorts to distortion in order to support an otherwise unsupportable belief.

You might have trained as a scientist. You might have made a living as a scientist. But you don't approach decisions as a scientist should.
Richard Viers
Richard Viers
October 18, 2012
I have to say, that jandre is a bit immature with his remarks for someone who has 35 years as a member of the scientific community. I was a trucker for 40 years before I started studying alternative energy and it's impact on the environment. I have consumed more PDF files and white papers in the last couple of years than I can count. Here is the future, we keep burning anything for energy, and I mean anything, and we bring the average temperature up continually till the planet is going to be a different place. We as humans may not survive it. Plant life in some areas will die off, in other areas it will flourish because of the increase in co2 plants use it to grow, so they will do fine in the area that are not affected by drought. The global economy will shift in favor or the areas that are still able to grow crops, and the US likely won't be one of them. We already have seen drastic changes in climate here. Next, the people who are in control of the crops will have to hire armies to protect them, and only the wealthy will be able to afford to eat a well rounded meal. Hopefully you will have alternatives for nutrition available, or the world population will undergo a huge drop due to starvation. Of course we have all seen these thing characterized in Science fiction, but what was once science fiction often becomes reality. Be careful what you ask for. Those pristine lands you are speaking of are mostly desert and would not really contribute to your future welfare. Cacti and scrub serve the purpose of providing homes and food for very few animals, and not for humans much at all. I say that if they want to open up lands that are otherwise not productive it is a good thing. Wind, solar and any other form of production that does not require burning is by far better for the environment no matter where you put it.
Erik Kiehle
Erik Kiehle
October 18, 2012
@john-chase-152392 and Jandre

It seems to me you folks are advocating genocide of any humans inhabiting these Wyoming territories. After all, we humans have a big impact everywhere we go. We also use a lot of water, and demand a lot of electricity. Since in Wyoming and in west/central Texas where I live water is in critically short supply we simply cannot supply our electrical demand (AC takes a lot of electricity!) with local coal, NG, or nuclear energy. There isn't enough water to burn off in steam with fossil/nuc generation plants. So we look at what we do have. Abundant wind. Hmm, that works! Then we can keep what little rain falls from the skies for humans to live in these areas.

Or we can go with your solution and kill off some of the human parasites and restore that pristine scrubland! How many millions need to die to save your precious (worthless, otherwise useless) land?
Jim Andre
Jim Andre
October 18, 2012
Bob,
When an entire administration, led by the Secretary of Interior, goes up on stage in every major city to promote ambitious plans to industrialize public lands (renewables), and at an unprecedented pace orchastrates a wave of initial permits resulting in the groundbreaking of dozens of projects already, solar projects in pristine wildlands averaging 5,000-25,000 ac each, are you determined to keep blinders on and deny where this is going anyway?
Bob Wallace
Bob Wallace
October 18, 2012
jandre - permits mean nothing. There are people who rush out and get permits in order to tie up land with the hope of selling rights to someone who actually wants to do something with the land.

It's like people who register hundreds of web page names with no intention of using them.

If you're a scientist then you should spend more time understanding facts and figures. Science is not done by rushing to conclusion.
Jim Andre
Jim Andre
October 18, 2012
Bob, you're completely misinformed. The PEIS looks at 19 million ac, it won't develop all 19 million obviously, but 2-3 million ac are already in permit or application. Denying the impacts and intentions is one thing, but why deny the abundantly available alternatives? Do you have a financial gain at stake? And yes, scientists can engage in discussions that go beyond their research, we're people too. In my case I have kids, and students, and I don't want them to live in a cooked world, fried by ignorance of what is actually a green technology.
Bob Wallace
Bob Wallace
October 18, 2012
jandre - if you're a scientist, then act like one.

Do your really think this statement should be coming from the keyboard of a scientist?

"We're looking at an unprecedented rate of destruction by Obama/Salazar, 22 million ac are at stake in the next 3-5 years."

--

"Federal officials on Friday approved a plan that sets aside 285,000 acres of public land for the development of large-scale solar power plants, cementing a new government approach to renewable energy development in the West after years of delays and false starts."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/49393980/ns/us_news-environment/t/solar-energy-zones-created-federal-land-southwest/#.UIA5CcVX1n0

Looks to me that you've exaggerated by 77x. Furthermore you are quite aware (you should be quite aware) that only a small portion of that 285,000 acre area will be developed. It's simply the portion of desert that could be used.
Jim Andre
Jim Andre
October 18, 2012
There is abundant scientific data, stacked through the roofs, that provide evidence that destroying wildlands for oil, wind, solar, coal, etc... will only promote rapid climate change. Displace the carbon and oxygen producers, lose the carbon atmosphere balance battle. There is also clear evidence that conservation and development of solar on rooftops, parking lots, already degraded lands near the source of their use, will actually help us in part stem the tide of climate change, while also creating more jobs and true energy democracy and security. Those who lash out at anyone opposing Big Corporate Taxpayer Subsidized Oil, Gas, Coal, Wind and Solar that rapes public lands without clearly addressing green alternatives that rooftop solar provides, is ignorant of facts to the point of our detriment.
Jim Andre
Jim Andre
October 18, 2012
@ Bob Wallace,
Bob, I'm a scientist who's 35 yr career as a conservation biologist in the west has exposed the consequences of impacts to our natural heritage, especially those of mining and grazing. Grazing of public lands has been the #1 impact to the 300 million ac of public lands in the western states..until now. We're looking at an unprecedented rate of destruction by Obama/Salazar, 22 million ac are at stake in the next 3-5 years. That's about 10 times the number of ac. that have been mined on public lands since the 1872 Mining Act as passed. And, though the impacts to soils and vegetation by over 100 years of over-grazing are tremendous, they pale in comparision to bulldozing the land for solar panels. Plus, you can't graze or mine a rooftop, but you can panel them.
Bob Wallace
Bob Wallace
October 18, 2012
jandre - make a lot of noise about the land rape that occurs by grazing, mining, oil drilling, and off road vehicles and perhaps I'll form a bit of respect for your opinion.

If you can't see the wisdom in using a tiny part of 1% of the desert land in order to avoid significant climate change which would devastate 100% of the desert then there's no hope for your thought processes.
Jim Andre
Jim Andre
October 18, 2012
@ Bob Wallace,

Bob, characterizing anyone who points out the problems associated with Big Land Raping Corporate wind and solar and denying the actually green alternatives by calling them coal-mongers and earth haters, makes me wonder if you're a corporate hack here to fuel climate fears to promote the continual flow of your companies taxpayer handouts? Simplistic thinking, and greed, have no place in this discussion, not when the consequences are so great. Renewables are absolutely necessary and now, but not if it comes wtih destroying the planet they profess to save.
Bob Wallace
Bob Wallace
October 18, 2012
John, at one time coal produced 0% of our electricity. Over years we built more and more coal generation until coal produced more than 50% of our power.

Now we understand why using coal is a bad idea and we're developing replacement technology to replace coal and natural gas as electricity sources. We can't replace all the coal overnight. But we have cut coal from a >50% share to a 36% share (first half 2012).

We've grown wind from a 0.4% share in 2007 to a 3.5% share for the first half of 2012. Solar, while still a bit under 1% of our grid supply has risen 9x during that same period. If you add in end-user/rooftop solar we are well over 1% of our total electricity from solar. Probably 5% of all our electricity from wind and solar combined.

We're a few years away from needing new storage for making wind and solar 24/365 power. We've got at least four very promising battery technologies being developed.

Wind and solar are just-maturing technologies. Their prices have fallen dramatically in the very recent past. Economics will drive their installation faster and faster now that we've crossed the "affordable" threshold.
Bob Wallace
Bob Wallace
October 18, 2012
Sing out for coal Sherry!

As we cook the planet we can thank people like you for your support of fossil fuels.
Sherry Hellmuth
Sherry Hellmuth
October 18, 2012
END the PTC and the Crony Corporate Welfare and this will end the destruction of our beautiful American lands for no good reason. Wind is a farce and anyone who supports wind is a supporter only of corporate welfare because you don't consider all of the facts--such as the one tone of rare earth minerals required for each turbine that must be mined in China (because China has 98% of the world's extractable rare earths) and take a look at the water and air pollution that is the result of China's extraction of these minerals for the greenies greed. It's not enough that the greedy greens take our American taxpayer dollars and waste on wind, but they also rape the planet in doing so in more ways than they will admit. Stop the nonsense by ending the PTC and let's see what happens to wind--it will die!
Jim Andre
Jim Andre
October 18, 2012
at Bob Wallace. Maybe you should ask why I love our public lands? Using our pristine public lands for renewables when viable alternatives exist in the already built environment is an environmental catastrophe of the highest degree. We need renewables now, but we're not doing it the right way. There is nothing green about needlessly destroying what's left of our wildlands. See
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2011/04/myths-about-large-scale-solar-threaten-public-lands
John Chase
John Chase
October 18, 2012
I applaud this action, but it is a drop in the bucket. Few Americans understand how far we have to go to displace fossil.

For an apples-to-apples comparison, discount the "2 to 3 gw capacity" by a factor of about 2.5 since the wind does not blow 24/7. Thus it is really 1.0 gw, or about the same as one modern coalfired plant, or a single nuclear reactor.
Richard Viers
Richard Viers
October 13, 2012
As a facilitator of Alternative Energy Products, I have to say I am happy to hear that the energy department is showing an interest in wind farms. I would love to have the energy department, and director Salazar in particular on my side. My partners and I are attempting to get a PPA for a 100 MW solar farm augmented with wind and possibly waste conversion technology so we can proceed with our project in Utah.
Bob Wallace
Bob Wallace
October 12, 2012
jandre - That's a load.

Turn your attention to the people who really damage our wild lands - oil drillers, cattle ranchers, off-road drivers.

Why dump on the technology that is our route to keep our wild lands from turning into extreme deserts? Why do you hate our environment?
David Bainbridge
David Bainbridge
October 12, 2012
Your statement about Wyoming being the first STATE to grant women the right to vote is incorrect. Wyoming did not even become a state until 1890! So it should say the first territory which later became a state in 1890.
Jim Andre
Jim Andre
October 12, 2012
rather than develop renewables on disturbed lands or on rooftops, Salazar continues his unprecedented rape of our pristine western public lands instead.
ANONYMOUS
October 12, 2012
Just curious, but if Romney/Ryan are elected, will they kill this project, the way they promised to kill Obamacare?
Bob Wallace
Bob Wallace
October 10, 2012
If I've got the correct information, it seems that Wyoming's wind tends to pick up about the time that the Sun starts to drop out of production along the West coast. That makes Wyoming wind ideal for late afternoon/evening peak hour supply for the West Coast.

The HVDC line would (IIRC) tie into the existing Pacific Intertie and Intermountain Intertie lines, completing a loop which would connect PNW hydro, SoCal solar, and the newly discovered Utah geothermal resources. Moving toward a very robust 'west of the Rockies' renewable energy grid.

Add Your Comments

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

  • Create a Free Account!
  • Sign-In
Vince Font

Vince Font

Vince Font is a professional freelance writer specializing in the fields of renewable energy, high tech, travel, and entertainment. Read his blog at www.vincefont.com or follow him on Twitter @vincefont.
  • About
  • Articles
  • Contact
  • FOLLOW
  • CONTACT
Stay Connected
         
To register for our free e-Newsletters, create your free account here:

Editors' Picks

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

Most Commented

  • 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
  • 2GreenEnergy.com
  • AltE
  • Chaloux Environmental Communications, Inc. (CEC)
  • Renewable Energy World Europe
  • The Stella Group, Ltd.
  • Everblue
  • North American Board of Certified Energy Practitioners
  • The Interstate Renewable Energy Council, Inc.
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