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

Obama: Good Instincts, Solid Achievements, Weak Surrogates

Scott Sklar, The Stella Group
March 07, 2013  |  24 Comments

Print

Here we have a President who has been emphatic on green energy and has put money where his mouth is: $90 billion in the Stimulus Bill (ARRA), highest car mileage standards ever (CAFÉ, 50+ mpg), and the first Clean Air Act regulations for mercury from coal electric power generation plants.

The President had good intentions in nominating Nobel Prize winner Chu to head the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), and I admire Chu’s commitment and intellect, but frankly, the experience wasn’t a good one. His relations with Democrats were not good, and his relationship with Republicans was non-existent.

The Secretary was aloof and not very political, although he somewhat compensated for those qualities by being open and interactive with the scientific community and industry. But frankly, the national laboratories were “iced out” of communications for quite awhile, and the Secretary not only didn’t have an open dialogue with industry, he “staged” interactions and meetings — there was no ongoing free flow of information to impact thought, policies or actions. 

So in term two, I thought the President would learn from this past experience — but sadly, no. MIT’s Dr. Ernest Moniz is his nominee. He is a former Clinton Administration retread with a solid intellect, but he also has much of the same weaknesses as his predecessor — just without the Nobel Prize.

Moniz is not an administrator that can run a $26 billion federal agency.

Moniz is not known for an easy manner and solid political skills, but, similar to Chu, he is academically superior and aloof. 

Moniz is not known as an “interactor with industry.”

But the fatal flaw may be none of the above. The media has labeled Moniz as “a strong supporter of second generation nuclear power and natural gas.” And that’s what troubles me the most, even as I blend natural gas with many of my renewable and efficiency projects.

This focus and expertise is back towards the twentieth century world view — analogous to focusing on main frame computers and wired copper telephone lines. We are in the twenty first century with distributed, self healing communications and information systems.  We have a severely aging electric grid that is open to outages from minor storms, poor electric power quality (surges sags and transients), and breaches in cyber security, which already costs us hundreds of billions of dollars in lost economic activity.  Nuclear power plants (which have a host of other vulnerabilities, costs and risks) are not the answer.

The Moniz nomination might be an easy Senate confirmation, but it does not position the United States into a more agile, resilient, distributed energy system or one that maximizes energy efficiency, storage, and electric load management — which we know is always less expensive than electric generation from any source and technology. 

The Secretary of Energy for the twenty first century needs to be someone with solid academic skills, but also with proven business experience and innate political skills. The Secretary must interact with every political faction in Congress, and also focus on the media, laboratories, universities and, most importantly, the private sector. Staged public meetings should be avoided. 

Governing is not easy, but choices of leaders and their portfolio of attributes send messages.  Having PhD’s are great, but a portfolio of experiences and the “human” quality needs to have equal billing. The issues are too important, and incremental improvements or “more of the same” is not an option.

Lead image: U.S. Capitol via Shutterstock

24 Comments

Register To Comment
Michael B Casey
Michael B Casey
March 12, 2013
Cliff,
My very 1st comment on this story was to suggest that the development of Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors instead of the continuous use of Light Water Reactor technology would solve considerable problems including many of those you listed. Thorium is an abundant metal. It has ninety times the energy density of the uranium used to fuel LWRs. One of the byproducts of the LFTR would be Rare Earth Materials ending Chinas' monopoly on the stuff. R&D and production of batteries and electronics would cost much less. The 600 to 800*C waste heat from the LFTR could be used to convert coal into clean gas. Finally clean coal and we have lots of coal. The price of oil would drop considerably. No more oil wars. R&D on EVs for all kinds of equipment would ramp up drastically. You could run a Euclid with the torque provided by electric motors and with LFTRs generating all the electricity necessary and plenty of Rare Earth to develop batteries many problems could and would be solved.
Dr. Alvin Weinberg who invented the LWR and the LFTR technologies while the head of Oakridge National Labs recommended to the DOE that LFTRs be pursued for domestic energy production because it's safer, Thorium is more energy dense, and there is lots more of it. LFTRs have zero possibility of a runaway reaction, need no water for cooling and much more. LFTRs have one thing going against them, the waste products that the reactor produces cannot be used to make weapons. On the other hand the 1/2 life of the waste is <300 years.
Please everybody do some research and make some noise!!
ThoriumEnergyAlliance.com

God bless,
Mike
Cliff Claven
Cliff Claven
March 12, 2013
@Mike, I assure you my comments were very ingenuous. How many solar powered mines are pulling bauxite or copper or iron or silica or rare earths from the ground? How many solar-powered smelters are making aluminum or steel or glass? Bow many solar-powered lime kilns are out there cooking portland cement and how many solar-powered rock crushers making aggregate for concrete? How many solar-powered cranes are lifting wind turbines into place? How many solar powered trucks and trains are hauling LED light bulb crates across the country? Same questions for wind power. The answer to all of these is zero. Low power-density energy sources like solar and wind are simply not suited to high power-density purposes such as industrial manufacturing. 82% of all US energy is provided by fossil fuels, and a higher fraction for its high power-density needs. The balance of high-density power is provided by nuclear and hydro. Solar and wind are niche players that make sense only for ranches and suburban homes. In other applications they are carried on the shoulders of their big brothers. People who have paused to think critically about this for even a minute realize that it costs more fossil fuel energy and GHG output to manufacture a hybrid car than a conventional car because of its greater complexity, having two motors and many toxic batteries. The person who buys a hybrid car is doing more short-term damage to the environment and the climate than someone who buys a conventional car of comparable size. The only justification can be that, at some point in the future, the hybrid's lower per-mile consumption and emissions make up for its higher initial debts. Achieving that point of future "break-even" or "pay back" is all important. Sklar's hydrogen fuel cell says it all to me. Hydrogen is a clean fuel, but making hydrogen by electrolysis is hugely wasteful of energy and making it from fossil fuel is dirtier than burning oil. He knows better.
Michael B Casey
Michael B Casey
March 12, 2013
I am a firm believer that RE has a place in the energy mix for supplying electricity in the world.
That said if it is installed on the site where it will be consumed then it will make the building energy independent and will not add to the load on the grid. That's great and extremely satisfying! Trust me I know because my home is 100% off-grid solar.
But renewables will need a lot of help powering or replacing the electric generation already in place ie. LWRs, coal, oil, and gas.
The perfect, let me repeat, THE PERFECT fit for that task is
LIQUID FLUORIDE THORIUM REACTORS!
Please do some research and a good place to start is ThoriumEnergyAlliance.com. You won't be disappointed!

God bless,
Mike
Michael B Casey
Michael B Casey
March 12, 2013
Cliff-Claven,
Your comment to Sklar about the GHGs produced while manufacturing the components for his green equipment are a bit disingenuous. 1st, how do you know what percentage of green energy was used to manufacture the equipment? 2nd, once the green equipment is installed Sklars contribution to GHG production is pretty much over! Now, one cannot say that about fossil fuel consuming HVAC equipment nor the electricity that it takes to operate that stuff that will go in a non-green built house.
3 cheers for Scott-Sklar! HIP HIP HOORAY! HIP HIP HOORAY! HIP HIP HOORAY!

God bless,
Mike
Cliff Claven
Cliff Claven
March 12, 2013
@Sklar: when solar power energy can manufacture your solar panels and geothermal heat pump and electrochromic glass and wind turbine and hydrogen fuel cell and LED lights, etc., then you will have something to crow about. Your post just explains how you have frivolously used tons of fossil fuel energy and produced tons of GHG up front in commissioning costs for all your gadgets so you can live a chosen lifestyle and feel more green. What is the real payback for all that when the true costs are considered?
Scott Sklar
Scott Sklar
March 12, 2013
Just a note in response to some of the comments. I have a zero energy home (pv, swh, smart battery bank, direct exchange geothermal heat pump, electrochromic glass, energy star++ appliances), and a 2-story office building (pv roofing shingles, smart battery bank, small wind turbine, and a hydrogen fuel cell, solar daylighting, LED lighting, and energy star ++ office equipment). My business, worldwide, blends high value energy efficiency and renewable energy - optimizing this portfolio primarily for commercial, mixed use developments, and critical infrastructure. Scott Sklar, President of The Stella Group, Ltd., and Adjunct Professor at The George Washington University.
ANONYMOUS
March 11, 2013
Nature is a supply-chain for bio-life. The carbon fuel-technology disrupts the carbon-sequestration methodology nature has created. The lead-time shown above (comment 14) for CAFE standards to become operational is a rationalization rather than what is possible. Didn't the Auto and the ship building industries change course during the war-era of the 30 s and 40 s without any lead-times?
Thomas M
Thomas M
March 11, 2013
"Moniz is not known for an easy manner and solid political skills, but, similar to Chu, he is academically superior and aloof."

Gee, I would hate to see them start to bring intellegence and manners into politics because obviously the two don't mix....
Phil Manke
Phil Manke
March 11, 2013
My mistake; I should have said "monopolistic centralized power provision scheme".
...............And William; I use capitalism every day, but IMO, an unchecked idolized view of it leaves society severly wanting. Glad to stimulate thots on the idea.
George Mamulashvili
George Mamulashvili
March 11, 2013
Asked whether any question on the relation between the duration of life on earth from the increased use of «dirty technologies» for reception of electric energy?
According to the forecasts of the world health organization morbidity and mortality from oncological diseases in the world will increase in 2 times for the period from 1999 to 2020: from 10 to 20 million new cases and from 6 up to 12 million registered deaths.

For the examination of this question let us turn to the best sphere of human activity, where nuclear technology directly concentrated with his life.

So, the 10 astronauts, with rare exceptions, not the old, died from cancer. And all the astronauts who died his death (deaths as a result of accidents in this case do not consider) - 18. Consequently, the share of Oncology account for 55%. The similar indicator of the us as a whole - 24,84%. Comparison of the figures are shocking. It turns out that astronauts flew in two with superfluous time more likely to die from cancer than ordinary Americans.

One of the most common in the emissions of NPP radionuclide - caesium-137. He quickly concentrated in food chains and getting into the human body, is held in muscle cells, being the cause of one of the varieties of cancer - sarcomas. Strontium-90 is also present in the emissions of most of the nuclear power plant. Once in the human body, he can replace the calcium in solid tissue and human milk. It leads to the development of bone cancer, blood cancer (leukemia), to breast cancer.

When will global address the issues of implementation of all crucial directions in the ecologically clean renewable energy sources? These issues are and need to be addressed in this century! Alienate the land solar batteries not necessarily, there is a solar-wind power technology, which concentrate the best qualities of both the directions! For example meteorological reactors: http://www.solar-tower.org.uk/other-vortex.php.
Todd Flach
Todd Flach
March 11, 2013
Hi Colleagues, regarding the comment on top that 12 years is slow to achieve 54 MPG goal of CAFE. It takes a car company up to 7 years from a design concept to initial production for a completely new drivetrain. If the concept is successful, then it is scaled up to mass production. Refer to the Chevy Volt. It is selling well in its first 3 years of production compared to the first Prius, but it is still a long way to go before it takes a big slice of the market. But once the plug-in hybrid drive train is fully "proven", I expect it to be adapted for essentially most of the car and truck lines, so there will be a plug-in hybrid option for most models. This will happen in the next 10 years.
ANONYMOUS
March 11, 2013
@MikeyBC-When we have plenty of thermal-solar energy what is the need to burn any other natural resource such as the thorium,even if it is safe? Anything is feasible with applied knowledge and technology. Simply because something is possible we need not make and force it upon the humanity. The future generations deserve responsible management of the planetary resources and not politics, policy or research. Nature has solved the puzzle of living happy lives on this planet and created species to be symbiotic. All humanity needs is the willingness to use its resources as intended and not make "unnecessary work". Does this not make sense?
William Fitch
William Fitch
March 10, 2013
Hi:

Suggesting that Phil should stop 'ranting' against capitalism because he 'uses' it especially since he lives in the USA, is logically absurd. It is the only system out there, a monetary based world, all of which can be loosely called Capitalism really. An excellent documentary called, 'Zeitgeist: Moving Forward', gives an overview of a resource based world rather that a monetary based world. Should be required viewing.... OOPS..I used the word 'required', I must be a Communist, but wait, that politics not money. I'm safe...

.....Bill

PS: I think 'you all' give Obama way too much credit.... If he was really bucking the establishment, there would be a coup d'etat against him like JFK.
ANONYMOUS
March 9, 2013
Anonymous10- I agree that individuals complaining about power company profits or lack of utility-scale RE is a bit silly. In the US, anyone that chooses to can buy an EV and/or install a PV solar and battery system in their residence, which would make them completely independent of oil companies and power companies.
ANONYMOUS
March 9, 2013
Phil writes in comment #8:
"I oppose any centralized power provision scheme on the face of it. "

I wonder if Phil grows all his own food, spins all his own cloth, etc. If not, perhaps he will explain why he thinks the energy industry should be reduced to a pre-industrial business model but other sectors of the economy are exempt from this. Large-scale organizational structures yield the economies of scale that permit the high standard of living of modern civilization. It is hypocrisy for Phil to rant against capitalism while taking advantage of all the benefits it provides. I suggest he stop one or the other.
Steven
Michael B Casey
Michael B Casey
March 9, 2013
One of the advantages of LFTRs is they can be manufactured to be modular and small if necessary. The test reactor built by Dr. Weinberg was ~8MW. The building footprint of a 10MW reactor would be no bigger, necessarily, than a 250MW reactor.
I also am a believer in decentralizing our power system. That is why I am advocating LFTR technology. They can be located anywhere because they are not water cooled. They need no water. They produce very little waste and the waste it does produce has a 1/2 life of less than 300 years.
LFTR technology would put an end to green house gas production for producing energy, can solve the nuclear waste storage problem by burning the waste from LWRs to create more power, increase R&D spending on EV and battery technology and on and on and on.
My home is completely off-grid, solar PV electric and solar heat and hot water. That is the way solar should be utilized. Centralized wind farms and solar farms are not efficient and they are ugly.
It is stupid that the DOE is not funding the development of this technology.
Me thinks they are protecting big business, oil, and utilities. Such as Westinghouse, General Electric, Shell, Exxon/Mobile etc.

God bless,
Mike
Phil Manke
Phil Manke
March 9, 2013
I oppose any centralized power provision scheme on the face of it. Thorium, all burn-tec, nuke, or even huge wind and solar farms are very extractive of both resources and faith in human empowerment. Faith in an establishment ideal method is limiting and extractive because it allows those who would trade in the entrepreneurship of others for their own leveraged position in the pyramid of wealth generation. It is just un-needed. Enabling the power of all humanity to help themselves may be what the minions of stock trades fear most of all. Freedom seems to me, the ability to provide for oneself, and those who temporarily rely on family structure while on earth. As the ego heals it's belief in separation, the idea of family will expand as conciousness allows. ........ Capitalism seems a dinosaur, but I have no idea of what, if anything, can take it's place. Perhaps a truer recognition of our democratic constitution, as written, and an honest interpretation of what is intended.. It is the belief in superiority of some over others that limits all humanity from their true realization and gain in peaceful grandeur.
Michael B Casey
Michael B Casey
March 8, 2013
Hey folks, nuclear energy is not dead! Fifty years ago Alvin Weinberg built, ran and proved that a Thorium reactor was the best and safest way to produce electricity without producing vast quantities of highly radioactive waste. Thorium is abundant on this planet and many of the by-products, extreme waste heat(500-800*C) for industrial processing and rare earth materials to name a few, are very useful and desirable. Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors don't produce weapons grade waste so the DOE ignored Dr. Weinberg's recommendation and went with the Light Water Reactor. And like most bureaucrats, refuse to be convinced that they made the wrong decision or at least that it is time to change course.

God bless,
Mike
Patrick O'Leary
Patrick O'Leary
March 8, 2013
Scott, you write as though policy were the point. Politics was and remains the point, patronage politics specifically. 'Magic money' was payback (payoff?) for Silicon Valley and Indutrial Wind, all of whom lionize themselves for computing and innovation. They mistake lucky for smart, as do the 'party animals.'

Chu issued a general call for 'solar solutions.' I was only one of the people who answered. No doubt the others got a similar computer generated acknowledgement. Tamping down the peak power spike would take the only 'sexy thing' out of the big Utilities. It would be bad for profits and bonuses, true. But it would be good for the economy, the one the 'party animals' drove into the ditch.
ANONYMOUS
March 8, 2013
Sklar is critical of the former and future DOE Secretaries for a lack of management experience and political savvy, but the President didn't have either of these when he was elected and this has been more damaging to the cause of renewable energy than any deficiencies at the DOE management level. Obama squandered his chance to make significant progress on renewable energy by pushing for a vast cap and trade scheme instead of a set of policy objectives that might have actually been approved by congress. He didn't even manage to get the production tax credit renewed in a timely manner or for a multiyear timeframe--something that would have easily been achievable if he had displayed any political savvy whatever.

The primary role of the DOE is to safeguard the nation's nuclear weapons stockpile and to finance and conduct basic energy research. Renewable energy is only a small portion of the DOE mission, with only one of the DOE labs having that as its primary mission. While interaction with the private sector is important, it certainly isn't the most important role of the DOE. The Obama era expansion of the DOE interactions with industry via the administration of the loan guarantee program was problematic at best. The DOE should probably refocus on its core missions instead of expanding its interactions with industry--the department has expertise in science and technology but not finance.

Sklar doesn't seem to exemplify the political savvy he longs for. If he did, perhaps he would avoid pejorative labels such as "former Clinton Administration retread" and pointless insults (such as calling people "academically superior and aloof" and suggesting cryptically that most of the Chu's meetings were "staged").
Steven
Cliff Claven
Cliff Claven
March 8, 2013
Scott Sklar applauds the President for wasting $90B on "renewables" (which parasite off of fossil fuel energy for the manufacture of their panels and turbines and the agriculture and refining of their fuels, and have yet to pull their own weight by reaching breakeven in net energy) and attacks him for nominating an energy expert from MIT (with a "solid intellect" and proven practical appreciation of America's energy needs and realistic solutions). This is the typical logic of "green" energy. Damn the reality of increased lifecycle GHG emissions and accelerated fossil fuel use, and charge forward to industrialize millions of acres of biodiverse habitat with solar and wind farms and agri-fuel cropland.

If only such intellectuals as Sklar would give up the 82% fraction of their daily energy they get from fossil fuels and live off the grid and internet like the pre-industrial agrarians they are trying to transform our civilization backward into, it would be a much quieter and more sensible world.
ANONYMOUS
March 8, 2013
I agree with Scott Sklar on the need to avoid 20th century technologies of 2nd generation or even 3rd generation nuclear technologies and natural gas as a solution for the future energy needs. The first anonymous commentator also is right, especially about the long duration given to realize the new CAFE standards. Solar-thermal with improved distribution network ( smart-interconnected-grids) is the best way to spend federal dollars to promote sustainable energy policy. Spain has successfully created utilities to prove its viability. USA does not need to depart from global approach to assert its self-sufficiency. Sooner humanity becomes one, sooner will it succeed in creating environmentally sustainable future for its global citizenry. The world has enough solar-thermal power to become an all-electric world before the second-term of this presidency is over. A new energy-secretary who is willing to accomplish this vision is what is the needed now.
George Mamulashvili
George Mamulashvili
March 8, 2013
I was faced with the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), when submitted the application for financing of a project built-in Aero-thermal power plants two years ago in 2010.

My idea was to develop a model series of buildings with full or partial reduction of the provision of electrical energy from cleaner silent current source, working, among other things, on the waste of human life, namely the conversion allocated thermal-to-electric energy, that is affective use of a closed cycle for the complete phase-out of the consumption of environmentally hazardous to human energy and fossil fuel - natural gas, oil, nuclear decay.

However, a stony silence DOE is still very stable.

I don't even was awarded with the response to my technical proposal, which by the way is confirmed by several inventions to the world level of novelty.

I am very sorry that account alone punch rock adherents of the collapse of the kernel, which do not even realize the danger of new discoveries in this area for humanity.

These sources can be used only on planets with a vanished civilization, where there is no place for the human life!

It's time to start thinking about this and redeploy the resources there necessary for industrial production.

Especially for this capability is already there and not to the technology of the splitting of the nucleus of future disasters.

Here on Earth should develop a life in harmony with nature, which itself dictates any sources of power supply does not violate the balance in itself!
ANONYMOUS
March 7, 2013
The track record of the Obama administration over the past 4+ years regarding the tens of $billions of taxpayer dollars spent towards RE, is actually rather dismal.

And while Congress did pass legislation raising the CAFE standards to 54.5mpg, it won't take full effect for another 12 years.

As for the notion that the US energy secretary must have "political skills" in order to deal with Congress, the fact of the matter is that the energy secretary works for the President, and not Congress. And since the Senate has not bothered to pass a federal budget for over 4 years, there is no longer any reason for the energy secretary to employ "political skills" in order to placate members of the US Senate.

Add Your Comments

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

  • Create an Account!
  • Sign-In
Scott Sklar

Scott Sklar

Scott, founder and president of The Stella Group, Ltd., in Washington, DC, is the Chair of the Steering Committee of the Sustainable Energy Coalition and serves on the Boards of Directors of the Sustainable Buildings Industry Council, the...
  • About
  • Articles
  • Blog
  • 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

  • 9
    Country-Based Action to Achieve Universal Access to Energy
  • 3
    From the Sea to the Pump: Is Kelp a Viable Biofuel?
  • 2
    Sir Richard Branson unleashes Plan B for the planet
  • 1
    Renewable Energy Investments Shift to Developing Nations

Total Access Partners

Growing Your Business? Learn More about Total Access
  • RussTech Language Services, Inc.
  • Renewable Energy World Magazine
  • RenewableEnergyWorld.com
  • Chaloux Environmental Communications, Inc. (CEC)
  • Renewable Energy World Europe
  • Rotork plc
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo North America
  • Green Power Conferences
  • 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