Welcome to the Energy Blog


  • The Energy Blog is where all topics relating to The Energy Revolution are presented. Increasingly, expensive oil, coal and global warming are causing an energy revolution by requiring fossil fuels to be supplemented by alternative energy sources and by requiring changes in lifestyle. Please contact me with your comments and questions. Further Information about me can be found HERE.

    Jim


  • SUBSCRIBE TO THE ENERGY BLOG BY EMAIL

After Gutenberg

Clean Break

The Oil Drum

Statistics

Blog powered by Typepad

« EPRI Analysis Finds Utility Based Energy Efficiency Programs Could Cut Energy Consumption 7-11 % | Main | Missouri City Goes 100% Wind Power »

April 27, 2008

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451b5da69e200e551fc5edc8833

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Optisolar to Build Largest Solar Farm in North America:

Comments

JohnBo

According to this article:

http://guntherportfolio.blogspot.com/2007/04/optisolar-to-solar-electrify-sarnia.html

they are selling their power at about 20 times the cost of nuclear power. At 42 cents per kwhr this really puts the screws to the people of California.

Cyril R.

JohnBo you are comparing a new solar project to old amortized nuclear plants.

You should compare to new nuclear projects. These, at 5 to 8 bucks a Watt, are likely to have real levelized cost in the order of 15-25 cents per kWh. If the costs don't escalate again. And they are baseload which is not a very lucrative market; a solar plant in California for peaking can get perhaps double the revenue per kWh as a baseload plant. Also, San Luis Obispo isn't that good a solar location, there are much better sites available in the SW.

Don't worry about it. Cheap energy only leads to wasting it. We've been spoilt with cheap energy for too long and that's one of the reasons we're in trouble now.

Clee

The blog says that Optisolar is selling power to Canada from their Canadian solar farms for 42 Canadian cents per KWH. I see absolutely no mention of the price that Californians would be paying for the power from the California plant. I would bet that it is not anywhere near as much as 42c/KWH

JohnBo

Clee/Cyril,

Thanks for your comments. Perhaps you are right and the cost will only be about double that of nuclear. Californians are used to high costs so it won't make much difference...haha.

I am afraid we are going to regulate our country out of prosperity if we are not careful.

Clearly, the most damaging problem is over population. I wish the green movement would get behind population control. Rather than trying to provide less and less for more and more people there should be less people. The government rewards those with more children... this is up side down. When nature limits population, it is very unpleasant.

Cyril R.

Since nuclear can't provide peaking for e.g. AC needs in California, there really is no competition anyway. The PV would mostly compete with NG peakers, which aren't cheap.

I think there is some hope with regards to population growth. As people get wealthier, they generally have less children. This appears to be the case in other countries as well, it looks like population may be levelling off perhaps in the 9 to 12 billion people range. That's a workable level.

Nevertheless, there will be difficult times ahead, with the population momentum having a huge impact on resources before it starts to stabilize a bit.

Cyril R.

So it appears that, in order to solve the population issue, people have to get rich and use a lot of resources and energy per capita, so they have less children, in order to curb total resource and energy use in the long run.

An awkward controversy.

Al Fin

This plant won't begin construction until 2010 and won't be finished for at least 3 years after that. By then, the energy situation will have changed--maybe we'll get lucky and have efficient flow cell utility storage or something equivalent by then.

Until PV gets better storage, smaller local PV plants that tie directly to municipal power systems make much more sense than the huge 500 megawatt installations.

At the fast rate that the technology is developing, planning huge projects based on today's technology involves a lot of risk.

Roger Brown

”So it appears that, in order to solve the population issue, people have to get rich and use a lot of resources and energy per capita, so they have less children, in order to curb total resource and energy use in the long run.”

The key to reducing the birth rate is two fold: Easy access to effective birth control and a sense of future security which is not based on being taken care of by one’s children. In the capitalist economy as it currently exists, future security is based on storing up large amounts of personal wealth and is thus dependent on a ‘healthy’ (i.e. growing economy). If we do not find another path to material security, we are going to be in a world of hurt. Our future material security should come from the community which we support and which should in turn support us rather than from amassing private fortunes. I realize that in making such a statement I am exposing myself to accusations of promoting some evil sort of ism. However, in a finite world I do not see any democratic path to a sustainable economy that does not lead to voluntary simplicity (i.e. making our economic goal be to live well in a sustainable manner rather than to get richer forever) and mutual support.

In my view this conclusion has nothing to do with political ideology. It does not matter if you are a full blown Marxist who believes that dialectical materialism is the ultimate revelation of the universe’s inner workings, or if you are a libertarian who believes that anyone who shows up in a government office asking for a handout should be taken out and shot as a public nuisance. Two plus two still equals four. You cannot turn off the law of gravity. You cannot travel faster than the speed of light. An economic system in which the rich are striving to get richer forever is sooner or later going to collapse in a finite world.


Bob Wallace

There are a number of issues that seem to be working to reduce birth rates in large portions of the world.

1. Urbanization.

When one lives in a farming society children are an asset. Just have to give them minimal food and they start providing a labor source at an early age. (Little kids out tending the goat herd, for example.)

In urban settings children can become a liability. One must feed, clothe, and educate them and there is little chance for them to produce significant income until they are at least teenagers.

2. Education and access to birth control methods.

That one shouldn't need any explanation.

3. Empowerment of women.

As women get more control over their lives they tend to limit family size.

4. Establishment of a social safety net.

Traditionally people had lots of children in order to provide for their own old age. High birth rates were more important when survival to adulthood was lower (and probably still is in some places).

There are probably other reasons as well.

Religious decree might be one.

Out-populating your enemy might be going on in parts of the Middle East. Take a look at the Palestine birth rate.

Cyril R.

I realize that in making such a statement I am exposing myself to accusations of promoting some evil sort of ism.

Hardly. You have excellent points. There are several discourses out there, and something very positive can be said about each of them. In Dryzek's classification, you would perhaps be a "green radicalist": a departure from industrialism as well as a large degree of societal change. While I believe those things would be very helpful, perhaps even necessary, it's difficult to imagine how it will be brought about, and if it can be done, would there not be a serious risk of societal collapse in the process?

Cyril R.

The most annoying discourse is that of the denialist. Basically, if it's not proven, it's not true. And if it is proven, it's not a problem. And if it's proven to be a problem, we can't do anything about it!

The reason some people think this way is probably because most people don't.

Cyril R.

So what's positive about the denialist discourse? You never have to worry about responsibility :)

Bob Wallace

"An economic system in which the rich are striving to get richer forever is sooner or later going to collapse in a finite world."

Yes. And No.

If we don't allow individual effort/initiative to be rewarded we will likely to sink to a "let someone else do the work" system. That's what happens in a pure socialism system.

When countries have tried socialism they generally find that they need to resort to force to keep things moving along. Even small "socialistic" units such as families generally require a 'strong hand' to keep functioning.

The other end of the continuum is a monopoly where a small group of individuals own everything and everyone else ends up being their 'slaves'.

What seems to work best is something in between, a controlled capitalism with adequate safety nets for those who truly need them.

Tom G

Some very good discussion here regarding population. The TV show 'human footprint' on the National Geographic Channel brought it home for me. Here is a youtube link to the very short version of the TV show. Take what you see here and start multiplying it by the 2-10 million more people we get in the U.S. each year.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fsZAfrE2SaQ

Roger Brown

What seems to work best is something in between, a controlled capitalism with adequate safety nets for those who truly need them.

That depends what you mean by capitalism. If you believe (as I do) that some degree of large scale machine assisted enterprise is desirable then a method has to be found for capitalizing such enterprises, since virtually no one would be able to save up enough money out of personal wages for this purpose. However, the current version of capitalism (which I call private finance capitalism) in which monetary investors expect to get richer as a result of financing manufacturing infrastructure requires constant growth to function effectively. Ideally money represents work that its possessor did in the past. Allowing the possessors of money to get richer without doing additional work is a reasonable thing to do only in an economic system in which our productivity in constantly increasing. If you believe that such increases are going to go on forever then there is a bridge in New York City that I would like to sell you.

Then there is the question of what is really being rewarded in the current economic system. If someone works hard, efficiently and dedicatedly doing some humble, but necessary work such as picking fruit, pounding nails, hauling garbage etc. why should they receive a smaller reward than an engineer or an actuary, let alone a marketing executive? Is hard work being rewarded or is luck (genetic endowment, social background etc.) being rewarded? In a society which really valued hard work and risk taking coal miners would be among its highest paid workers. People who claim that the current system of economic rewards cannot be changed without risking productive disaster generally mean ‘my position in the rewards hierarchy should not be changed’.

Furthermore the idea that monetary rewards alone make the productive world go round is incorrect. As Henri Poincare pointed out, if the only people who engaged in scientific and mathematical research had been people concerned with immediate practical applications and short term financial rewards, then the enormous practical engineering successes of modern society would never have come into existence. There is more in heaven and earth than is dreamt of in your philosophy of monetary rewards.

bigTom

Roger, We are running quite a bit off topic, but I'll take the bait. I think you raise some interesting points. I'm not totally convinced that an expanding economy is a precondition for investor finacing of capital equipment however. Even in a steady state economy, old productive equipment will need to be replaced. Hopefully somewhat better production methods will be found as well (even if aggregate growth isn't happening), and some means of rasing the capital will still be needed. But the portion of return on investment that is created by a "growing" economy wouldn't be there anymore, so achieving historical levels of return on investment would not be so easy. I think you may be overamoured with fairness, versus an incentive structure designed to maximize societal value (however that is measured/defined). A maximizing social benefit incentive structure would look significantly different from a fairness maximizing one. I don't know if much economics research has gone into economic systems/social systems that are designed to fit into the no growth economy.

Roger Brown

Even in a steady state economy, old productive equipment will need to be replaced.

The above statement is absolutely correct, and, what is more, in the transition from a wealth increasing economy to a wealth maintaining economy we will have to reallocate capital from relatively useless production enterprises (e.g. plasma screen televisions, jet skis, SUVs etc) to more useful ones (energy efficient buildings, wind turbines, public transportation etc.). We will have to find ways to keep investing in manufacturing infrastructure and in capitalizing new enterprises. Without a doubt some of the required new enterprises will be more productive than others. However if we reach the point where society’s overall productivity is stagnant or declining then it will not be possible for one person to increase his or her purchasing power without someone else losing purchasing power. If this statement is not true then economic growth has not really come to an end. In a zero growth economy obtaining investment income is a zero sum game. If a class of investors exists who are consistently increasing their net worth by financing manufacturing infrastructure then somebody else is getting poorer.

My suggested solution to this dilemma is to replace private finance by public or community finance. The physical bottom line of financing is that somebody produces economic output and gives it to some other economic producer under the assumption that the receiver’s future productivity will pay for the loan. Neither private financiers nor the interest mechanism is required for such investments. For example we could have community banks (financed through taxes) which provide interest free financing with the purpose of making sure that goods and services needed by the community get produced. The bankers would receive salaries for services rendered but would not make money based on the total money volume of loans which they process. My idea is to preserve private enterprise and the price system, but to replace private finance by community finance. I do not know if such an idea will really work, but I have a high degree of confidence that the current system has finite lifetime.

curt

All this sounds so nice and intellectually friendly, but I think that there is simply not enough time for changes in the form of 'soft evolution' in modern world, considering global warming and climate changes. Scarcity of commodities and different natural disasters are going to profoundly change geo-political picture of the world.
Differences between world societies are simply too large...
Back to reality: efficiency rate of OptiSolar photovoltaics technology is going to increase a bit and production costs are going to be even lower; that's good news for the final cost per 1W of generated power.

About nuclear power plants: in UK, there is simply no data about the real cost of decommissioning old power plants, which is doubling every few years and are now estimated to more than $150 billion !!!

Bob Wallace

Roger, I agree with a lot of your sentiment, but I just can't see it working.

My suggested solution to this dilemma is to replace private finance by public or community finance."

Our major breakthroughs and startups do not come from community action, but with individuals pursuing a dream.

And while you might dream of an ideal community like Gaviotas, remember that our communities on the large not only with people who are willing to work for other than monetary rewards you also have to accept the slackers and barely interested.

Roger Brown

All this sounds so nice and intellectually friendly, but I think that there is simply not enough time for changes in the form of 'soft evolution' in modern world, considering global warming and climate changes. Scarcity of commodities and different natural disasters are going to profoundly change geo-political picture of the world.


Back to reality: efficiency rate of OptiSolar photovoltaics technology is going to increase a bit and production costs are going to be even lower; that's good news for the final cost per 1W of generated power.

It does not matter whether the evolution is ‘soft’ or hard. Even if we have to descend into chaos and then rebuild from ground up change is coming. Social institutions come into existence because someone has the imagination to conceive of them and the will to make them into a political reality. Unless you believe that you are personally going to outlive the arrival of disaster, then discussing technology costs within the context of the current economic system while ignoring the larger systemic issues seems like a choice to stick your head firmly into the sand.

Bob Wallace

Ah! You're assuming a great coming disaster.

Lots of us are looking at the same data and not....

Roger Brown

Our major breakthroughs and startups do not come from community action, but with individuals pursuing a dream.

Innovation and invention has an individual creative aspect and a social aspect, neither of which can be dispensed with. In modern complex economies in many cases invention cannot occur without access to very expensive capital equipment. If you want develop improved semiconductor circuits you need access to very expensive photo-lithography equipment and to extremely expensive vacuum deposition equipment. You may be individually brilliant and bursting with good ideas but you cannot make progress unless you persuade other people to let you have access to the necessary capital resources. You cannot develop new semiconductor processes in your garage with spare cash from your monthly check. Even in those cases where you can invent something new in your garage, most of the time volume manufacturing requires that you go to the money men and persuade them that your idea is worth pursuing, not to mention agreeing to give them a cut of the profits. When I propose community finance I am not proposing that invention should be carried out by government committees. I am proposing that the money men should be public servants rather than private profiteers. One can make a good argument that when the price of innovation includes paying for rich people's yachts and ski condos that this impedes progress rather than aids it.

And while you might dream of an ideal community like Gaviotas, remember that our communities on the large not only with people who are willing to work for other than monetary rewards you also have to accept the slackers and barely interested.

You do not seem to have read what I wrote very carefully:

My idea is to preserve private enterprise and the price system, but to replace private finance by community finance.

Nothing that I wrote suggests that people who refuse to work or who work in a shoddy half-hearted manner should not be economically punished for this choice. I assume that such punishment takes place even in government agencies. Presumably NASA has performance reviews and people who spend their time at work surfing the internet rather than doing engineering can be fired.

Perhaps you are suggesting that my idea of flattening the salary range of competent hardworking people of different natural talents would be the death of personal initiative. If by this you mean that people who are currently scientists, engineers, architects, etc. would suddenly become content to spend their lives hauling garbage or pounding nails, I don't believe you. If you mean that people who are currently corporate lawyers, marketing executives, advertising professionals, etc. would choose instead to become skilled craftspeople or organic farmers, I would regard this as a change for the better.

Thomas Pedersen

Zero energy growth does not necessarily entail zero economic growth. And even if it did, zero fossil/nuclear energy growth does not entail zero energy growth!

As a person from Denmark, where we pay around 42 c/kWh (taking into account the record low dollar) and use only about half-to one third power, I'm telling you that you can live happy, but less energy intensive lives. I have American friends and I've seen how much energy they spend to get essentially the save level of comfort and service as I enjoy.

So don't worry about the cost of electricity going up - it's gonna be fine. You (we) will adapt and survive!

The bottom line is, if solar power can produce electricity at 20 c/kWh or less, we have nothing to worry about! We can go on inventing new exciting stuff (like Intel slashing the power consumption of their processors by a factor of four for the same performance or Sony selling TVs with only 0.19 W standby power).

Roger Brown

Zero energy growth does not necessarily entail zero economic growth.

The above statement is correct. However constant percentage growth of the economy is exponential. Trusting that exponential efficiency improvements can continue forever is not an intelligent strategy. We will use the efficiency improvements you mention above to sell more televisions and more laptop computers etc., and when all 8 billion people on the planet (or whatever number the human population tops out at) have 40 inch plasma screen televisions, laptop computers, super-efficient hyper-cars, etc. we will have to keep inventing and manufacturing new toys if we want to keep the growth economy going.

Keeping the pedal to the metal on economic growth and waiting for the market or the ecosystem to give us signals that we have gone too far is the strategy of madman.

Roger Brown

Zero energy growth does not necessarily entail zero economic growth.

The above statement is correct. However constant percentage growth of the economy is exponential. Trusting that exponential efficiency improvements can continue forever is not an intelligent strategy. We will use the efficiency improvements you mention above to sell more televisions and more laptop computers etc., and when all 8 billion people on the planet (or whatever number the human population tops out at) have 40 inch plasma screen televisions, laptop computers, super-efficient hyper-cars, etc. we will have to keep inventing and manufacturing new toys if we want to keep the growth economy going.

Keeping the pedal to the metal on economic growth and waiting for the market or the ecosystem to give us signals that we have gone too far is the strategy of madman.

DR. HUSSAIN ALROBAEI

In recent years the idea of introducing PV energy into the electrical network has become quite popular. Grid-connected systems, such as PV in Buildings, also have a significant potential. Though in recent years, solar PhotoVoltaic (PV) systems are typically located on residential or commercial building. At the same time the costs of solar PV systems keep on reducing and as advances in Building Integration (BI) techniques continue to be made there is growing interest in grid connected BIPV systems and the possibility of integration into the roof of residential buildings is of great importance. The application of BIPV systems is particularly interesting because it demonstrates several advantages compared with conventional PV power plants. Moreover, on-site generation has the additional efficiency benefit of avoiding the transmission and distribution losses associated with centralized generation. However, the solar PV array convert of 8: 15 % the absorbed solar radiation to electricity, the rest dissipates as heat. This motivates a heat and electricity cogeneration system, where heat is removed from the PV array, stored and used not only for DHW heating but also can be used for low temperature space heating. Various concepts of combined PV-thermal collectors are possible. These concepts differ in their approach to obtain the maximum yield and it is not easy to say whether the yield of a complicated design will be substantially higher than the yield of a simpler one. The long-term goal is to realize Grid Connected Solar System (GCSS) hat produce electrical as well as thermal energy at sufficiently low cost. This means that investment costs has to be lowered as much as possible. From this standpoint the recent study [1] was undertaken to include proposed GCSS targets the two dominating energy demands in residential buildings: low level energy for DHW heating and high level energy (electricity) to cover a significant fraction of the electricity demand. The study result shows that, GCSS offer some potential advantages over a separate GCSS consisting of side-by-side solar PV panels and thermosyphon solar water heaters, enabling faster introduction solar energy buildings. For the case study [1] the annual specific rate of fossil fuel saving in electrical power grid amount 269.4 kg.fuel/year per square meter of the solar PV/T collectors as a result of 199.6 kW.hr/year.m2 electrical, and 904.5 kW.hr/m2.year thermal, power generation. However, solar PV/T collector concept results in lower direct electric and thermal power output, but the advantages are a potential of high specific rate of fossil fuel saving and good overall performance of the solar system. Such concept requires careful analysis on a case-by-case basis of potential future commercial applications, which may greatly benefit from cogeneration of hot water and electrical power.
[1] Hussain Alrobaei, 2007 , The Effectiveness of Combined Heat and Power Solar Water Heating Systems/ environmental-expert.com/resultarticlept.asp.


Kit P

“has become quite popular”

Why do smart people do stupid things? Why do folks want to put PV on roofs? To reduce the environmental impact of producing electricity with solar.

Here is the problem with solar. It is not good for the environment, it has environmental impact. Some who are little short of vision only focus on the environment of ghg and other air pollutants. Okay, you want to reduce ghg. The benefit of PV is only offsetting fossil generation. When you integrate solar into building you take a bad way of making electricity and make a really bad way to make electricity.

When CF = 5%, PV has the same ghg emissions per kwh as coal. However, coal is a good way of generating electricity when we need it.

ccm

Regarding the San Luis solar project is there any mention of the cost of 6,000 acres of land?

SJC

Wow, it only took about 10 comments for this to get totally off track. Way to go guys, keeping your eye on the ball:)

Ray The Money Man

I think they lull in the economy has people thinking the surge in energy needs is peaking. I don't believe that. As we get into 2009 the China/ India expansions will explode. Take a position in infrastructure, your grand children will thank you later.

http://thealternativeenergyinvestor.blogspot.com

Lisa P

We are all familiar with natural disaster. It is the consequence of a natural hazard and the examples are volcanic eruption, earthquake, or landslide which affects human activities. Human vulnerability, exacerbated by the lack of planning or appropriate emergency management, leads to financial, environmental or human losses. The resulting loss depends on the capacity of the population to support or resist the disaster, their resilience. This understanding is concentrated in the formulation: "disasters occur when hazards meet vulnerability". A natural hazard will hence never result in a natural disaster in areas without vulnerability, e.g. strong earthquakes in uninhabited areas. The term natural has consequently been disputed because the events simply are not hazards or disasters without human involvement. When natural disasters strike, it can leave a huge weight on your dwellings, as well as your finances. I was fortunate to have access to quick money loans, which helped tremendously when a natural disaster struck my hometown. The people who were affected by the California wildfires should be informed and have the same access to the extremely useful resource – quick money loans. Flood devastated my community back in the winter of 2007. Unlike many victims in the California’s current wildfire, I was fortunate enough not to lose my home. Still, I was forced to evacuate under short notice. Not only was I unable to stay at home, but the freeway was shut down, and I was not able to get to my job. While making no money, I was spending more money. I mean, I really didn’t have a choice and I was clearly at a roadblock. To make matters worse, I didn’t have flood insurance at the time and had to pay all of the damages done to my home and my belongings. That was besides the supply of food needed and the hotel bill. Natural disasters can really cause financial disasters. I have since gotten flood insurance, but I was still unable to cover all of the costs. I then found out about quick money loans, and thank goodness I did. Now, I’ve made sure that if anything like that should ever happen again, I will be prepared. Even still, I would use quick money loans in a heartbeat to help pay for any emergency needs. Click here to read more on Quick Money Loans.

solar-cost-solar-panels-solar-house

Solar power will indeed produce electricity at 20 c/kWh or less in the not-too-distant future. In the meantime, until technology catches up, we can expect to resolve the additional energy needs we require through hybrid solutions: passive + active systems; solar to wind + hydroelectric... you name it. Today's business climate is producing very creative solutions and no one is driving harder toward moving off-grid than the American consumer.

saurabh surana

I came across the following useful documents related to energy efficiency which i think your blogs' visitors might be interested in.
• The E&U webcast "Green Data Centers:Game Changer for Energy & Utility Organizations" is available on demand :
https://event.on24.com/eventRegistration/EventLobbyServlet?target=registration.jsp&eventid=116313&sessionid=1&key=A4DB94CD6ED4813235CD998617778041&partnerref=IBM01&sourcepage=register

• The FSS webcast, "Going Green is Good Business" is available on demand for clients in the banking, insurance, and financial services industries:
https://event.on24.com/eventRegistration/EventLobbyServlet?target=registration.jsp&eventid=108526&sessionid=1&key=171355E2AAB9FA4F91BB522C2B56B1B6&sourcepage=register

• The white paper about going green in the FSS sector is available for clients in the banking, insurance, and financial services industries:
http://www.ibm.com/common/ssi/fcgi-bin/ssialias?infotype=SA&subtype=WH&appname=STGE_OI_EE_USEN_&htmlfid=OIW03017USEN&attachment=OIW03017USEN.PDF

• Here is the invitation green data center webcast to clients in the government, healthcare, and education industries:
https://event.on24.com/eventRegistration/EventLobbyServlet?target=registration.jsp&eventid=121897&sessionid=1&key=CEC80955A823DA15F802D83AC17AD91F&partnerref=IBM01&sourcepage=register

Rick L.

SOLAR POWER! I can't wait until they build this. Hopefully it will work because I think it is going to kick some serious rear. Thanks a bunch, Rick Lanese

sandhya

Hello
Great Blog I will definitely bookmark your blog. I am also having a blog related to energy news (  http://energymarketnews.blogspot.com/ ) which gives latest analysis and trends in energy industry in the present recession period. I would appreciate if you could kindly bookmark my blog too

hawaii solar panels

solar energy has become a great power. everybody is discussing it. May be soon we all will be off electric grid, being the children of the sun:)

penis enlargement

OK do the same
my best wishes are with you.
Optisolar to Build Largest Solar Farm in North America

Custom Term papers

Wonderful article, very well explained.

Thanks for sharing this energy blog..

Solar Power Electricity

It's great to see big investments into solar technology.

mindy

yeah..

Caroline

THat is good news. I truly agree that using solar power is much more efficient and free of any outside dangers since the energy just comes from the sun. I hope that I would be able to update myself with this project because I'm afraid, I would be busy doing my custom term papers.

Business Process Improvement Training

Cheap energy only leads to wasting it.,,,, We've been spoilt with cheap energy for too long and that's one of the reasons we're in trouble now...........

Retractable Solar Screens

I've being researching about Solar Screen and reading your blog, I found your post very helpful :) . I thought I would leave my first comment. I don't know what to say except that I have enjoyed reading.

webthesurfi rugs webdesign

I hope that this helps

http://philsexamresult.blogspot.com/p/webthesurfi-rugs-webdesign.html

quality writing service

I truly agree that using solar power is much more efficient and free of any outside dangers since the energy just comes from the sun.

Электронный документооборот

Solar energy is the future of our world. But do big companies agree with that? I have doubts

Made in China

Made in China

Term Papers

I never thought of it like that, but it really is true.

arcono29

I do know lots of scholars which from time to time purchase the argument essay connected with this good topic at buy essay service. Therefore, I do not hear any bad word just about the high quality of assistance.

construction permit Ukraine

The bottom line is, if solar power can produce electricity at 20 c/kWh or less, we have nothing to worry about! We can go on inventing new exciting stuff (like Intel slashing the power consumption of their processors by a factor of four for the same performance or Sony selling TVs with only 0.19 W standby power).

The comments to this entry are closed.

. .




Batteries/Hybrid Vehicles