The World's #1 Renewable Energy Network for News & Information
Sign In or Register
Renewable Energy World Logo
Wednesday, June 19, 2013
  • Sections
    • Home
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Solar
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Wind
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Geothermal
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Bio
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Hydro
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Careers
    • Companies
      • Company Directory
      • Press Releases
      • Products
      • Events Calendar
      • White Papers
    • Webcasts
      • Upcoming Webcasts
      • Featured Webcasts
      • Archived Webcasts
      • Events Calendar
    • White Papers
    • Magazines
      • Renewable Energy World
      • Wind Technology
      • Large Scale Solar
      • Hydro Review
      • HRW - Hydro Review Worldwide
      • Renewable Energy World (North America Edition)
      • Photovoltaics World
    • Awards
  • Account
    • Sign In
    • Register
  • Search

One Man's Mission to Recreate Tornadoes to Produce Electricity

Ucilia Wang, Contributing Editor
December 20, 2012  |  34 Comments

Print

Fossil fuel power plants generate ample waste heat that can be used to make more electricity. Here is a novel idea to do just that: creating a huge vortex of warm air to cause a change in pressure at the bottom in order to drive a turbine-generator.

The idea is unusual, and for 35 years Louis Michaud, a retired engineer from ExxonMobil, has mulled over how to bring the concept into reality. Michaud just got some backing, and it’s coming from a prominent Silicon Valley technology investor. A foundation by Peter Thiel, who co-founded PayPal, just awarded Michaud a $300,000 grant to show that his idea could work, said Michaud from his home in the Canadian province of Ontario.

“I think there is a huge potential here, and I don’t want to let it go,” Michaud said.

The money will allow Michaud to experiment with and document the creation of a mini vortex for electricity generation at the Lambton College in the city of Sarnia. The college, located in an oil drilling region, has the proper lab equipment for his project.

The concept for creating a vortex, like a tornado, is based on the fact that air, when heated, will expand, become lighter and rise up.  As the air rotates and goes up, the pressure at the bottom of the vortex becomes lower. As surrounding air enters at the bottom, and the difference in pressures then drives a turbine generator to produce electricity.

The diameter and height of the vortex make a difference in how much energy can be produced. A vortex that is 200 meters in diameter and goes up 10 kilometers into the air could have the production capacity of 200 MW, Michaud said. He envisions power plant owners to set up vortex-building equipment at existing facilities to make use of the waste heat and increase the overall electricity-production efficiency of the power plant.

There already are technologies that exist today to harness waste heat at power plants. A combined-cycle natural gas power plant takes the heat byproduct from burning natural gas and makes steam to run a turbine generator. Doing so increases the efficiency of a power plant from the 40 percent range (simple-cycle design) to just over 60 percent (combined-cycle design).

Michaud claims that his vortex station could make use of the waste heat a second time and boost the efficiency by another 20 percentage points.

For his prototype project, he plans to build a much smaller one that goes up 15 meters into the air and shows how it could turn a turbine. Michaud hopes to produce enough results to prove the technology concept by the end of the summer of 2013.

If he can demonstrate the idea’s feasibility, then he will eventually need some willing power plant owners to give him a chance for a field demonstration. To make this happen will be especially difficult because power plant owners aren’t known to take technology risks. For one thing, they have to abide by a host of regulations, including safety rules, and often under law they could get penalized for not maintaining a reliable supply of electricity. Trying out new equipment could throw their energy production out of whack.

If all goes well, though, Michaud hopes to make money from licensing the vortex station design to power plant builders and owners.  

34 Comments

Register To Comment
roberto colucci
roberto colucci
December 29, 2012
Good day!
This is another case in which we have the Present/Futurure batling with the OLD. This smart solution in harvesting more energy (KWh), is simply a no brainer. BUT, has things are happening in Italy, all clever solutions do step on the feet of the established power controllers.
The "standard power plants" are working on a slower pace due to industrial crisis, too much power capacity applied (it has been calculated that inIaly there are too many traditional power plants)and highier RE energy production (in 2012 in Italy we had a total of 27%, including hidro, wind, solar and geothermal). But the "system" is definitely not fund of distributed and "democratic" KWh production.
Long live RE
kenny magers
kenny magers
December 25, 2012
#32 I agree with you! the use of a tornado vortex has ben known from international shared technologies for futher research & development so all the research doesn't have to happen all over agan (over 20 years ago).The vortex structure top has a air baffeal dispuresing cover so as not to have upper air turblance. Maybe with all this knowledge from the comments, lets group our knowledge and skills and get this systems put together & get it out to the community. I am offering my cantainment chamber as a base unite together it would be less costly to build.( renewablethermalwindpower.com )
Andrew Kazantsev
Andrew Kazantsev
December 25, 2012
IMHO, easier to use not tornado itself, but source of tornado energy by my invention Air Hydro Power http://airhes.com
ANONYMOUS
December 23, 2012
@Dennis - I did NOT saying that nuclear waste does not exist, just that the energy that it releases is nowhere near enough to generate enough hydrogen to fuel the economy. If it were, all of the spent-fuel storage pools would be boiling at a furious rate, producing more steam than the cooling towers of the associated reactors.
And the nuclear industry would already be tapping that heat and steam directly to generate additional power.

As for organic waste, our cars alone require 10x more energy than our bodies, and our excrement has much less energy than the food we eat. Throw in waste food, and it is still less than we eat. The may be a LOT of organic waste, but it is still small compared to our energy demands.
dennis baker
dennis baker
December 23, 2012
Anonymous

apparently all money spent on deep rock disposal(deferral), was based on fraud, as you say the materials do not exist!

I disagree with your allegation that the volume of Organic Waste is insufficient. quantities are in abundance, as most communities spend vast resources disposing of it.

can't do the math without knowledge of conversion rates of Organic materials into Hydrogen. (please supply this info)
Thomas Wayburn
Thomas Wayburn
December 23, 2012
Although being a retired professor of chemical engineering does not make me an expert on AVE. One of my former students is. He is Jerry Toman and I know enough about him to trust his judgement on this topic; therefore, I am convinced that technically the Atmospheric Vortex Engine is solid. That said, it is not clear that it can be produced, installed, maintained, mothballed, cleaned up after, etc. in a market economy for less energy than it is likely to produce over the life of the project.

By the way, I am looking for Jerry Toman. I hope anyone seeing this who knows how to contact him will do so and tell him to write me at twayburn@att.net.
ANONYMOUS
December 23, 2012
@Arov, thank you for finding the discussion positive. I agree that it is pointless to discuss further.

I already checked your issued patent to see if it explained how your pressure-based energy generation is supposed to work, but found that it was different (and I had no time to more than skim through it).

As for presenting your pressure-based device in the future, for technical reviewers the key will be to show where the energy comes from. Without an explanation of that it sounds like perpetual motion.
Anatoly Arov
Anatoly Arov
December 23, 2012
Answer to #25 comment:
It is pointless to discuss further, I am under temporary obligation not to disclose picture which tells all. If you want you can send me email (pips.arov@bellnet.ca) in order, when it becomes possible, to refer to future press release.

Shortly: in device pressure difference initiated rotation of device shaft, no air pumping occurs, as long device in deep water secured it does not move anywhere, can not save $250K required - do not have.

Thanks for discussion, it was positive for me and gave me some crucial hints how to present this idea better in the future. I would love to discuss with you my another controvercial idea about saving energy/fuel (also mechanical device) which allready received patent and is in public domain, and can be disclosed.
Benjamin Gorman
Benjamin Gorman
December 23, 2012
I knew this story sounded familiar. I thinm\k RE World did a story on the Australian man who proposed non-vortex type thermal dynamic generator towers (my own klunky descriptor!) along these lines, and because Renewable Energy World's article search engine is godawful, I found another article about it on Google, linked below. Seems the guy couldn't get the backing in his native Australia, so came to Arizona. http://www.gizmag.com/enviromission-solar-tower-arizona-clean-energy-renewable/19287/
ANONYMOUS
December 22, 2012
@Arov - if the volume to be enclosed were already under pressure, why would putting the box around it change that pressure... unless the pressure is relieved by motion inside, in which case to keep extracting energy you have to keep making room for more water to move in, which takes as much energy as you are gaining.

You can use the pressure difference to STORE energy by pumping air down hundreds of meters, but you don't get more back than it takes to pump the air.

From 50 cubic meters and 100 bar = 10 megaPascals you can extract 50 m3 * 10,000,000 N/m2 = 500,000,000 Joules of energy, which is 1 GW for one half second. That is also the energy it takes to get a hollow box down there, so you haven't gained anything. If you want to extract more energy, you have to empty the box again, which takes as much as the additional energy you get so you still haven't gained anything.

You can even extract energy by using the TEMPERATURE difference between surface and deep water.

But I'll save you $250K: A STATIC pressure difference doesn't work as an energy source.
Anatoly Arov
Anatoly Arov
December 22, 2012
Answer #21 1) there are no thermodinamics involved, strictly mechanical science principles. 2) if I encapsulate unit from surroundings and put it in a box it will not work, loosing source of pressure which drives rotor. Actually enclosure for deep water only needed to carry rotor bearings (excluding use of compressed air as pressure source when it is required) 3) hardware inventions require money, I personally spent $100K on prototyping to evaluate concept to myself and I need probably $250K to make a working device which convince others.
ANONYMOUS
December 22, 2012
Dennis - while energy from waste can be a useful PART of the solution, there is not enough waste to provide anywhere near as much energy as we use. And we don't have anywhere near enough radioactive materials to convert even the waste that we have to hydrogen - do you want MORE radioactive materials??? Please do the math!

Also solar is best on rooftops and in deserts, neither of which uses food land, and the wider wind is spread (especially off-shore) the less its intermittent it is.
dennis baker
dennis baker
December 22, 2012
Can you say Diversion !

The primary source of GHG is the fossil fuel powered electrical generating facilities!
The waste heat is just another reason to replace them, inefficiency.
The heat required to do this if it works does not need fossil fuels, as its source!
In my opinion



We need to replace the fossil fuel power plants, the primary source of GHG. Now!

At a scale required to accomplish this task :

Ethanol starves people : not a viable option.

Fracking releases methane : not a viable option.

Cellulose Bio Fuel Uses Food Land : not a viable option

Solar uses food land : Not a viable option

Wind is Intermittent : Not a viable option



All Human and Agricultural Organic Waste can be converted to hydrogen, through exposure intense radiation!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/DennisearlBaker/2012-a-breakthrough-for-r_b_1263543_135881292.html

The Radioactive Materials exist now, and the Organic waste is renewable daily.

Ending the practice of dumping sewage into our water sources.

Air, Water, Food and Energy issues, receive significant positive impacts .

Reducing illness / health care costs as well !



Dennis Baker
dennisbaker2003@hotmail.com
Penticton BC V2A1P9
ANONYMOUS
December 22, 2012
@Arov: Yes, we have strayed far from the vortex. I am skeptical of vortex practicality since it takes at least a kilometer-high vortex to add anything worthwhile, but it is a cool idea and I hope that it works.

I also understand how hard it is to launch innovations; the burden of proof is on the innovator and proof-of-concept takes money, yet little money is available until a concept is proven, protected and promoted. I wish you well with your innovations, but torque only yields energy with movement.

Here are two things to think about: 1) If you built a rigid box around your device after it is at the bottom of the ocean and has run through at least one cycle, do your calculations show that it would still generate energy? If so, your calculations are wrong (or you have a perpetual motion machine and all of thermodynamics is wrong).
2) If your device would NOT produce energy if a closed box is built around it at the bottom of the ocean, then whatever makes it work (such as raising or lower the box) is where your energy is coming from, and you are leaving the resetting of the device out of your calculations.
Anatoly Arov
Anatoly Arov
December 22, 2012
Answer #18
We came far away from Vortex discussion. I support this guy,for Mr. Thiel this will be money well spent if society will have scientific answer is it worth to explore this direction economically and maybe for safety reasons, I do not have doubt that it works.
To answer your persistent question about W=F*L absolute rule.
Torque has two elements F and R-radius. Any pressure on surface not abstract as you mentioned, surface has 3 dimentions and has center of all individual forces applied, this center in my unit is located not in center of device output shaft creating torque from combined forces. Simple design, complicated multidimentional situation. All invention is about how to take adwantage of this by design as long as pressure exists. In case of compressed air, you need to spend energy to compress and big problem with compress air energy storage that retriewing this energy by kinetic flow is max 15% (I have invented unit with rate of 35%, nobody wants it because it does not have propeller). In this case it is not perpetual motion, but retrieval rate is almost 100% for storage use. Any way if somebody finds source/way that allows explanation of continuous , conversion to energy it is positive. History show that human knowledge is limited (Giordano Bruno burned) by science available at this time, in our time you do not need to kill innovators - you kill them financially as in my case.
Gauridutt Sharma
Gauridutt Sharma
December 22, 2012
Your idea is appreciable, Louis. If not 20 %, even if it contributes net 5% to the generation in typical fossil fuel power house, it is worthwhile. The vortex height of course, is a matter of high concern. Good luck !
www.transformideas.blogspot.com
ANONYMOUS
December 21, 2012
@Arov - High pressure can easily create high torque; that's not the issue.
Torque * RPM = force times distance per unit time, or power (energy/time). Still has distance in it, or you wouldn't get energy.

Without the motion, force (such as pressure times area) does not produce energy. If what you describe worked the way you describe it, it would lead to perpetual motion, and not just for the deep water case.
Anatoly Arov
Anatoly Arov
December 21, 2012
answer #16
You are having big misconceptions:
1) The rule Force * distance aplies only to 3 dimensional system, if you add rotation which is some form of movement right away you have 4 dimensional system, actually in my device I have 6 dimensional set up. You right away move to formula M * n ( M=torque, n=rpm). Example is generator and any motor.
2) The rule does not have dP/dt (P=force, t=time) which creates tsunami called pressure wave.
3) If I did not see it moving with high torque created by pressure difference applied to radius, than I would maybe aggree.
4) See my press release Deep water static pressure to energy conversion giving an other example and different more complicated device creating shaft rotary oscillation which gave me hope in the first place to proceed with this development.
Second stage is creation of car/train/plane power train using pressure of compressed air (no kinetic flow, only leakage). If in case of deep water it is almost perpetual motion as long there is pressure. For other application you need pressure source of compressed air or weight or spring - all are applied using water non compressible property.
ANONYMOUS
December 21, 2012
@Arov - You will have a large pressure differential, and pressure times area equals force. But energy equals force times the distance through which the force is applied. Sure you can 'focus' the pressure, as a hydraulic jack does, but this does not create energy. So what you describe will not produce energy once the water stops moving...
kenny magers
kenny magers
December 21, 2012
#13-14 Answer The relitave facts are known by some researchers, I am applying this concept with hydraulic storage tubes on a structure that is 150ft tall, the weight of the oil is a self priming pump tanks at a good pressure. This is enought to run cooling fans on the oil coolers around the base increassing air flow into the vortex chamber intake structures' base updraft.
Anatoly Arov
Anatoly Arov
December 21, 2012
#8 #13 answer. I am bound by non disclosure, but will try to address your concerns. First, I am using difference between depth pressure and atmospheric pressure in my device; second once water in it does not move and keeping inside vessel pressure connected to outside pressure. So I have pressure difference between elements inside vessel. So there is only matter to have max. surface facing from one side deep water pressure and from the other atmospheric pressure. After this I am using pressure "lense" (as solar does but by focusing difference forces creating rotation or thrust force depending of application). It is easy to say, but I spent two years to fugure out how to do this. This is very powerfull tool, you can imagine what power there will be with 1km depth (100bar) with linear relation between power to depth. I prefer not more than 100m (easier to service) to serve need for power by Vancouver Island; there is problem where to get so powerfull 1GW generators 3600rpm). I am mechanical so may be there will be a "Small 3.7m dia" device on 1GW generator flange or opposite. Thanks for interest.
ANONYMOUS
December 21, 2012
@Arov - I was referring to there being no net potential energy in the deep-water pressure. Sure you can let the pressure force seawater (or other fluid) into a chamber and extract energy as it flows, but no more energy than it takes to get an empty chamber that size at that pressure in the first place, and so there is no net gain.

My guess is that you lowered some sturdy hollow cylinder down and extracted energy by letting the seawater rush in, but that you forgot to include the energy of pulling the empty cylinder down versus the energy of pulling the full cylinder back up in your calculations.

But it doesn't matter whether you use piezo-electrics, turbines, or pneumatic cylinders; there is no energy to extract in the pressure itself. The closest thing would be something like using the colder deep water to condense a gas to make room for the seawater to move in, but that is actually using the temperature difference rather than the pressure as the energy source (hence my reference to OTEC).
Anatoly Arov
Anatoly Arov
December 21, 2012
Answer to #8 reply.
Listed in my reply facts for amount of energy produced are based on preliminary testing results of actual device. Results are compatible with amount of energy produced by cubic meter of nuclear equipment without need to store nuclear waste and having all hazards created by Chernobil and in Japan recently. I think that you have in mind energy produced pressure by pieso effect in pressure sensors.
What I did it is different.
dorothy allen
dorothy allen
December 21, 2012
@Thomas I am glad you bring up EROEI. I think that this metric should become a more popular lexicon in renewable energy discussions. Also mass of CO2 equivalent per energy generated and LCAs should be used to assess environmental performance of proposed RE technology. LCAs are used to examine supply chains and complex manufacturing, they should be considered especially when evluating government subsidies for renewables.
@Ucelia The air from a combined cycle gas plant if emitted at temperatures pretty close to ambient
Cliff Claven
Cliff Claven
December 21, 2012
Novel idea. A 10km-tall vortex would certainly present a hazard to navigation for aircraft, and there would not be much control over where the body of that vortex wandered, so would have to clear out a lot of airspace above your turbine. I cannot imagine that something this tiny and delicate on the scale of nature and normal weather phenomena would survive everyday surface wind and thermal uplift and downdraft windsheer and precipitation events. Also, vorticity arises when input energy to a fluid exceeds a threshold. It takes quite large temperature differentials and quite still air to generate dust devils in desert climes, and this proposal is essentially an attempt at an artificial dust-devil. Curious to see where this goes, but don't think it will be much of a power generator.
ANONYMOUS
December 21, 2012
I believe there is a fallacy in the proposed technique. I think a natural tornado requires a rising column of moist air. As this moist air rises, it cools somewhat, and the water condenses out of it as rain, warming the air relative to the outside cooler air so that it continues to rise. The spin of a tornado comes from air with a slight spin approaching the funnel starting to spin rapidly due to the conservation of angular momentum. To create a tornado, one must have air entering it from outside the funnel. Unless this entering air has the right characteristics, there will be no funnel formed. Hot air coming from a heat source will not have any substantial spin and will not rise in a constrained manner that would cause significant suction at its base. Air entering from outside would simply dilute the hot air from the heat source.

If the proposer is suggesting an enclosed vortex (a chimney) that is 10 km. high, then one must address the economic issues with such a massive structure.
ANONYMOUS
December 21, 2012
@Arov - this would work for waste heat from solar thermal just as well as it works for fossil-fuel generation waste heat, so your reason for not wanting it supported are not valid.

A better reason would be impracticality - the efficiency of this would be proportional to vortex height, so a 1 km vortex would add very little. Even a 10 km vortex would have to be near-perfect (very little energy lost in maintaining the 10 km of vortex above the turbine) to be worthwhile, and the danger of this spawning tornadoes would be significant.

And as for Thiel not supporting your deep-water-pressure energy work, there is no potential energy in deep-water pressure itself - it takes as much energy to create a space for the water to move into (or material to expand into) as you get from the water moving / material expanding. The closest you could come would be to use the temperature difference between surface and deep water (OTEC).
kenny magers
kenny magers
December 21, 2012
Yes this is very important & does work. The structure desgins is very basic knowledge to make a tornado vortex chamber.
The best of such is known as RENEWABLE(THERMAL)=WIND POWER the energy power resource. Public awearness ED. site is all 1 word renewablethermalwindpower.com This system's has 8 naturals & 6 man made thermal transfer systems with induced thermal up drafts( up side down tornado vortex.) This systems make drinking water from the cooling systems at the top of the structure & has jet type fans inclosed(bird friendly.
Anatoly Arov
Anatoly Arov
December 21, 2012
Thanks to renewableenergyworld for posting discussion regarding this controvercial project, and I hope that more discussions will follow.
Personally I think that Peter Thiel foundation should not support this because is based on idea to boost efficiency of fossil fuel power plant instead of elimination of fossil fuel use. Idea is sound but very unpractical, let this guy do R&D which besides is positive, it will allow kill this based on some reasons and on calculation of energy used and produced and not on emotional base.
I can tell that Peter Thiel foundation did not even answer my request for help in real new idea development by developing my invention that allows to utilize deep water pressure potential energy in 1GW energy output using device 50 cubic meter size (at 50m depth, 3.5m * 3.5m * 3.5m) which will really kill fossil fuel use for future energy production and supply base load energy for municipalities having lakes and oceans and not harming environment. Using my limited resources I built prototype, evaluated idea and without any support are forced to stop development, hoping for better. This is a shame.
Kenneth Crook
Kenneth Crook
December 21, 2012
If this power plant vortex creates spinning winds in the right weather system, could a tornado happen? And who would be liable for any damages caused by the created tornado? I think these people should be very careful messing with Mother Nature.
Thomas Wayburn
Thomas Wayburn
December 21, 2012
Here's the problem: Within a market system, venture capitalists exist who are willing to take a big risk in hopes of becoming much, much richer; however, in a market system, the energy overhead of the market itself is sufficient to guarantees that the new technology will fail. See my new blog: http://eroei.blogspot.com/. Energy invested must be less than the energy returned; however, it must include every energy cost that is necessary to recover the environment from whatever degeneration it suffered at the hands of the manufacturing an financial sectors over the life of the project. eroei stands for energy returned over energy invested.
John Sheppard
John Sheppard
December 21, 2012
While clearly the technical aspect of this concept will be challenging the potentials are considerable. From my own perspective in the construction industry this concept could I would imagine be used in multi storey new builds as part of a low energy heating and cooling system with the ducting running up the buildings just as do the lift shafts, possibly using the air displacement created by lift movement as an element in the process initiation. Noise and vibration in such a building would clearly be a major issue however with the considerable understanding of aerodynamics that exists all these issues should be manageable. Another potential with such a build type, particularly given the current desire for ever higher buildings, is to place a series of jet nozzle outlets around the building which could be used to resist wind pressure on the structure or even to damp earthquake vibration. Vortex technology could I believe become one of the most interesting concepts to emerge in recent history.

Regards

John
Gerald Rowley
Gerald Rowley
December 21, 2012
I know all about bringing new technology to the market. Besides dodging all the regulations in place you have to do battle with the Doubting Thomases. Find a couple of heels that are willing. To take the risks to use the technologies. That is the key. We lack so many heros. Go GREEN. VAPSTERDIESEL
Mohammad Ali
Mohammad Ali
December 20, 2012
I think this is an amazing concept, with the right help Im sure you will succeed.

Add Your Comments

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

  • Create an Account!
  • Sign-In
Ucilia Wang

Ucilia Wang

Ucilia Wang is a California-based freelance journalist who writes about renewable energy. She previously was the associate editor at Greentech Media and a staff writer covering the semiconductor industry at Red Herring. In addition to Renewable...
  • About
  • Articles
  • Contact
  • FOLLOW
  • CONTACT
Stay Connected
         
To register for our free e-Newsletters, create your free account here:

Editors' Picks

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

Most Commented

  • 2
    Sir Richard Branson unleashes Plan B for the planet

Total Access Partners

Growing Your Business? Learn More about Total Access
  • Quickscrews International Corp.
  • GoGreenSolar.com
  • Chaloux Environmental Communications, Inc. (CEC)
  • Arena Solutions
  • Active Communications International
  • Prudent Living, Inc.
  • Admirals Bank
  • Texas Renewable Energy Industries Association
  • Renewable Energy
  • Solar Energy
  • Wind Energy
  • Bioenergy
  • Geothermal Energy
  • Hydro Power
  • Blogs
  • Video
  • Finance
Resources
  • Companies
  • Products
  • Careers
  • Events
  • Webcasts
  • White Papers
  • Magazines
  • Press Releases
  • e-Newsletters
Company
  • About Us
  • Our Team
  • Contact Us
  • Advertising & Services
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms & Conditions
  • Site Map
Network Partners - Magazines
  • Hydro Review Magazine
  • Hydro Review Worldwide Magazine
  • Renewable Energy World Magazine
Network Partners - Events
  • Power-Gen International
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo North America
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Europe
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Asia
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Africa
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo India
  • HydroVision International
  • HydroVision Brazil
  • HydroVision India
  • HydroVision Russia
© Copyright 1999-2013 RenewableEnergyWorld.com - All rights reserved.
RenewableEnergyWorld.com - World's #1 Renewable Energy Network for news & Information