For those of you who, like me, watch very little commercial news television, here’s a sample of reporting to consumers on the energy industry. This happens to concern Solyndra – a debacle that’s thrown a cold swimming pool of water on the already floundering US renewable energy industry.

Btw, I’d love to know how this happened in the first place. I talk to people in the private sector all the time who swear they saw this train-wreck coming far in advance. At I meeting I had with Kleiner Perkins managing partner Ray Lane earlier this year, he told me, “We knew that technology wouldn’t scale. We had been telling the DoE that for over a year, but no one would listen.”

So what are we to believe? That the public sector knew this too but made it happen for “political purposes?” Sorry, I think there’s more to the story than that. Yet God help me if I can add more clarity. I feel rather like those trying to figure out the JFK assassination; I know what didn’t happen, but not exactly what did.

I thought the DoE spokesperson did a good job in this piece in his handling the question: Shouldn’t the market, rather than government, pick the winners and losers in technology? This is a parallel question to: ought our government to support the development of technologies?

The spokesperson points out that it’s not a matter of “should” or “ought.” It’s a matter of fact. This is precisely what the governments of the large countries in Asia and Europe are, in fact, doing. The question is: Do we Americans want to do the same, or sit on the sidelines while we become irrelevant in the 21st Century global energy industry? Personally, I think he’s nailed this one.

But making this happen will be exceptionally difficult given the political climate, and voter expectation. Let’s examine those expectations for a second.

Except for the dwindling few of Americas who lived through the Great Depression, most of us have been exceptionally privileged with an outrageously high standard of living. And in the process, we’ve demonstrated a near-complete lack of attention to sustainability and an utter disregard for the consequences of over-consumption and under-preparation. So now we expect our elected leaders to bring us back from the precipice? We think someone’s going to win an election on an “austerity” platform, and force us reduce the ridiculous levels of gluttony that all of us take for granted? Even if there were such a person, he couldn’t get elected dogcatcher.

That cold swimming pool of water I mentioned? Get ready to be thrown into it.

Related posts:

• What’s the Return on Investment on Solar Thermal?
• Is China’s Wind Power Growth Sustainable?
• Russian Heat Wave Dents Hopes of Climate “Winners”
• Germany Is Calling for Sustainable Development Experts
• U.S. Cities Grapple for Electric Vehicle Cash

In a previous post, I wrote about the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) Energy Innovation Portal, an online tech transfer tool designed to link energy technologies developed by U.S. national laboratories and other research institutions with potential licensing and commercialization partners.

Last month, Energy Secretary Steven Chu announced the “America’s Next Top Energy Innovator” challenge, a plan to encourage transfer of these technologies by reducing the cost and simplifying the process for obtaining an option agreement to license them.

In particular, DOE will establish a standard set of licensing terms for startups to reduce the upfront time and cost of negotiating and processing licenses and provide faster access to the technologies.

Starting on May 2, 2011, DOE will post its streamlined template option agreement online for entrepreneurs to submit to the laboratories. Applicants have to identify the technology of interest and submit a business plan to be considered for the program.

From May 2 through December 15, 2011, the total upfront cost of licensing DOE patents will be reduced to just $1,000 for a portfolio of up to three patents. According to the DOE press release, this represents a savings of $10,000-50,000 on average in upfront fees.

Other license terms, such as equity and royalties, will be negotiated on a case by case basis and will kick in only if the licensee company becomes commercially successful.

Any of the over 15,000 unlicensed patents and patent applications held by the national laboratories will be available for licensing under this program.

For more information on the program see the press release here, and for information on the available technologies see the Energy Innovation Portal.

Eric Lane is a patent attorney at Luce, Forward, Hamilton & Scripps in San Diego and the author of Green Patent Blog. Mr. Lane can be reached at elane@luce.com.

Related posts:

• In PV Furnace Case Green Patent Litigation Moves Upstream
• KIPO Green Tech Fast Track Inaccessible for Most Applicants
• Toyota Tends Gardner with Hybrid Vehicle Patent Win
• Two Clean Tech Applications Enter Peer-to-Patent Review
• Canada Launches Green Patent Fast Track Program

We keep hearing that China is going to become a really big deal in world energy markets. But it wasn’t until I read this statement by Jane Henley, CEO of the World Green Building Council, that I grasped the scope of its coming influence:
“China is projected to build the equivalent of 10 New York Cities over the next decade.”

For some, such rapid economic expansion by China is cause for fear. Others see opportunity. The US green energy markets were nudged toward the opportunity-seeker category this week with word from the Department of Energy of the nation’s first export strategy for renewable energy and energy efficiency.

It’s a funny place for us to be. We tend to be known on the international stage for our energy consumption. We are the world’s largest oil importer, and its third largest producer. And when it comes to green energy, the last few years have been marked by more imports than exports. A flock of international companies have established themselves in the US to build wind and solar energy, sometimes by buying out US companies.

Many US’ green energy companies simply do not export, according to the report “Renewable Energy & Energy Efficiency Export Initiative,” issued December 7 by the DOE and several other government agencies. The report pegs US export of renewable energy goods at about $2 billion last year. This isn’t a very big number when you consider that worldwide $162 billion in private capital went toward renewables and energy efficiency technologies and $183 billion in government stimulus funds.

While the report quantifies current US renewable energy exports, it has a tougher time defining the energy efficiency market, not an unusual problem for an industry that encompasses everything from home improvements to combined heat and power plants. However, the export market potential for energy efficiency technologies is “likely substantial,” the report said.
So if you want to export energy efficiency, what countries should you look to?

If you manufacture industrial energy efficiency equipment, clearly economically developed countries offer best opportunities Markets also are likely to be ripe for US imports if they consume more energy than they produce (Germany), or if they have high energy prices (Japan), according to the report.

Canada offers the best market for US building materials. Canada already imports more building materials from the United States than the next 20 export markets combined. Other top export markets for building materials include Australia, China, Germany, Japan, Mexico, and the United Kingdom.

If you plan to export electronics, appliances, and information and communication technologies, look to Canada, China, Japan, Mexico, and Singapore, with Canada and Mexico representing the major importers, according to the report.

The full report, which explains specific strategies and supports the US will offer green exporters, can be found here.

Elisa Wood is a long-time energy writer whose work appears in many of the industry’s top magazines and newsletters. She is publisher of the Energy Efficiency Markets podcast and newsletter.

Related posts:

• Export Opportunity for US Energy Efficiency?
• China to Keep Rare Earths Export Quota at 2010 Levels
• Boosting Exports of Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Technology
• Holy water: Israel leading the way from the Levant
• U.S.A., Energy Exporter?

A new type of transparent solar film developed by the U.S. Department of Energy could turn windows into clean electricity generators.

Harnessing the power of the sun means placing solar collection devices where they are most likely to be in direct contact with its rays. For many years, that ideal place has been the roofs of homes and businesses, but new technologies are aimed at expanding this range to windows as well.

Scientists at the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) Brookhaven National Laboratory and Los Alamos National Laboratory, have created a new type of self-assembling transparent thin film material that could boost the cost-effectiveness and scalability of solar window production (Chemistry of Materials).

The material consists of a semiconducting polymer doped with carbon-rich fullerenes – honeycomb-like molecules that are composed of 60 carbon atoms. When the polymer is applied to a surface under controlled conditions, the pattern repeats over a large area.

The densely packed edges of the honeycomb shape strongly absorb light and could facilitate electrical conductivity, while the centers don’t absorb much light and are relatively transparent, according to the researchers.

The project’s lead scientist Mircea Cotlet told Gizmag this material could have a big impact on the solar industry.

…This is the first report of such a material that blends semiconductors and fullerenes to absorb light and efficiently generate charge and charge separation. Imagine a house with windows made of this kind of material, which, combined with a solar roof, would cut its electricity costs significantly.”

And windows aren’t the only unexpected places solar technology is cropping up lately. Parking lots, NFL training centers, and even venetian blinds have all been redesigned with solar in mind.

Article by Beth Buczynski, appearing courtesy Crisp Green.

Related posts:

• A New Window Opens on Solar Power
• Transparent Solar Cells Can Turn Windows into Solar Panels
• Advances in Solar Design to Provide Power for Cell Phones
• Two More Eco-marks Dinged for Descriptiveness
• Glass Window Solar Power Closer to Reality

In seeking to establish new standards for home improvements that would increase energy efficiency, the EPA is asking for comments from the public. They have released a draft protocol which contains a series of best practice tools that would protect indoor air quality during a home energy retrofit. The goal is to devise a set of standards that would ultimately ensure health standards of building occupants during and after such a renovation.

Last month, Vice President Biden announced the intentions of the federal government to design a stronger home energy retrofit market through the administration’s economic recovery package of 2009.

“Recovery Through Retrofit is a blueprint that will create good green jobs – jobs that can’t be outsourced, and jobs that will be the cornerstones of a 21st-Century economy,” said Vice President Biden. “And, thanks to the Recovery Act’s unprecedented investments in energy efficiency, we are making it easier for American families to retrofit their homes – helping them save money while reducing carbon emissions and creating a healthier environment for our families.”

The draft protocol is titled Healthy Indoor Environmental Protocols for Home Energy Upgrades. It is closely associated with a document from the US Department of Energy (DOE) titled Workforce Guidelines for Home Energy Upgrades. The DOE document serves as a guideline for the training of skilled labor in the home retrofit industry. The idea is that a certified, skilled workforce would inspire more confidence in home-owners and increase the demand for more retrofit work.

One of the key elements of EPA’s protocol is guidance for conducting home assessments prior to the work starting. An improper assessment may not take into account the effects on indoor air quality caused by the retrofit. For example, many older buildings have asbestos insulation in the walls and on the pipes. Plus, it is often these older houses that demand the greatest amount of retrofitting. A proper assessment is needed to determine if an asbestos abatement would be necessary.

EPA’s protocol is intended for voluntary adoption by weatherization assistance programs, federally-funded housing programs, and private sector home performance contractors. They would recommend minimum specifications and best practices to be followed during and after each retrofit project.

Even though the proposed guidelines are would not be required by contractors, they would eventually become the norm. Having a staff trained according to the EPA rules would give retrofitting contractors the edge over their competitors, causing everybody to adopt them. Combined with the DOE guidelines, the EPA hopes the proposed rules would boost the industry and provide healthier households in America.

The draft proposal is available for public comment. All the appropriate information can be found here.

Article by David A. Gabel, appearing courtesy Environmental News Network.

Related posts:

• Where to Find Energy Efficiency Business Opportunities
• Launch of Rocky Mountain Institute’s RetroFit Depot
• Less Power To Refrigerators! Appliances Get More Efficient in 2014
• Energy Efficiency Is Super Cool
• Breaking Light Bulb Myths

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) this week announced new efficiency standards for most new refrigerators as of 2014. Energy efficiency for these domestic appliances is set to increase by 25%. They account for about 10% of household electricity use.

Advocacy groups and appliance manufacturers welcomed the news. “We appreciate that DOE has moved so quickly to adopt the agreed-upon standards,” said Andrew deLaski, Executive Director of the Appliance Standards Awareness Project (ASAP). “The consensus standards not only save consumers a huge amount of energy and money, they also save DOE the energy, time, and money that a contentious rulemaking process can require.”

According to the proposed rule, a typical new 20-cubic-foot refrigerator with the freezer on top would use about 390 kilowatt hours (kWh) per year, down from about 900 kWh/year in 1990 and about 1,700 kWh/year in the early 1970s. On a national basis, the new standards would, over 30 years, save 4.5 quads of energy, or roughly enough to meet the total energy needs of one-fifth of all U.S. households for a year. Over the same period, the standards will save consumers about $18.5 billion. DOE will finalize the standards by year’s end, and they take effect in 2014.

“The appliance industry has a strong history in reaching agreement with a broad base of energy and water efficiency advocates, as well as consumer groups, to develop energy conservation standards for home appliances,” said Joseph McGuire, President of the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers. “The new minimum energy standards are a significant part of the agreement, as is the extension of the current super-efficient manufacturers’ tax credits, which we are urging Congress to act on, and a soon-to-be-submitted petition to ENERGY STAR on smart appliances.”

Based on the July agreement, home appliance manufacturers and efficiency, environmental and consumer advocates have agreed to jointly pursue with Congress and the Administration new standards for six categories of home appliances (refrigerators, freezers, clothes washers, clothes dryers, dishwashers and room air conditioners), a recommendation that ENERGY STAR qualification criteria incorporate credit for Smart Grid capability, and a package of targeted tax credits aimed at fostering the market for super-efficient appliances.

As part of the new refrigerator standards, ice maker energy consumption also will be reflected in product energy-use ratings to help consumers gauge actual energy use choosing a refrigerator.

Article by Antonio Pasolini, a Brazilian writer and video art curator based in London, UK. He holds a BA in journalism and an MA in film and television.

Related posts:

• Energy Star Failings: Much Ado About Something
• Energy Efficiency Can Eliminate India’s Electricity Shortage
• U.S. Home Energy Use As High as in 1970s, Despite Advances
• Energy Efficiency Is Super Cool
• What I Heard About Energy Policy through Advise the Advisor

The stimulus bill along with the $31B cleantech element focused on grants and loan guarantees through the Department of Energy was passed into law over 18 months ago. About a year ago I wrote about how the cleantech stimulus was not very stimulating to our economy. I suggested at that time that the goals of stimulus and of long-term investment are largely incompatible, and the evidence is bearing that out. At the time, I felt like a bit of an outcast for having such a critical view and yet being an ardent supporter of clean technologies and the need to wean our nation off fossil fuels. On the anniversary of my first post on this topic it seems appropriate to take a fresh look at where things stand.

While stimulus supporters and the press love to focus on the selection of award winners for grants and loans, funds appropriated but sitting in the U.S. Treasury have zero potential to stimulate the economy irrespective of whether a winner has been selected. As of September 10, 2010 and about 19 months after the stimulus became law, according to the Obama Administration’s Recovery Act web site, recovery.gov, the Department of Energy had paid out just over 23% of the $31B of funds appropriated to the department for various cleantech activities under the stimulus bill. At that rate it will take roughly six years for all funds to be dispersed. According to DOE’s more detailed numbers, in the past 12 months, the department has awarded (i.e. selected winners) for about $14B in grants. Less than 10% of that amount has actually been disbursed to date. In addition, there are over 730 awards representing $1.2B that were made in 2009 for which no funds have been paid out at all. Many of these likely still are trying to get their contracts in place, an often-arduous process that can take many months.

In the Smart Grid segment of stimulus, where stimulus actually slowed spending because utilities stopped work to wait and see whether they would win a grant, less than 8% of the over $4B appropriated has been paid out. People in the utility industry who have received grants have told me about calls from DOE staff “virtually begging them” (in the words of one source) to spend money against the grants that have been awarded more quickly. In other words, the government seems more concerned about optics of getting the money spent than having it spent wisely.

As stated on recovery.gov, the goal of the Recovery Act was to “… jumpstart our economy, save and create millions of jobs, and put a down payment on addressing long-neglected challenges so that our country can thrive in the 21st century.” It’s amusing that the recently released Administration Report on the Recovery Act emphasized that its focus would be only on “the ‘Reinvestment’ part of the Recovery Act” and completely avoids any comment on the stimulus’ impact on the economy or jobs. Seems like quite a testament to failure of the recovery spending to provide stimulus in any meaningful way.

If the focus of the cleantech “stimulus” was really on reinvestment, then the government would be careful and diligent about naming grant/loan winners rather than rushing to make awards as fast as possible (which is motivated by stimulus). Yet, while money has been slow to flow from DOE, award winners have been selected for virtually all of the $31B from the recovery program. As I said earlier this year in a Cleantech Forum debate with DOE Renewable Energy Grants Advisor Sanjay Wagle, the government is simply incapable of both getting grant/loan money out the door quickly and spending it wisely. I still maintain that programs like Cash for Clunkers and energy efficiency tax credits (whether you agree with the specific policy or not) have a rapid positive impact on the economy. The evidence on the government’s own recovery site seems to bear that out: by comparison, 77% of all tax-related stimulus benefits (only some of this cleantech-related) have been paid out to recipients in the form of reduced tax obligations. While one can debate the degree of impact those funds may have, funds awarded but not transferred from the federal treasury have no chance of stimulating the economy.

Much of the press focus on the cleantech stimulus has been on the Advanced Research Projects Agency – Energy (ARPA-E) funding into early stage cleantech technologies with “game changing” potential. The government has long played a role in funding early stage research and such a program has worthy goals. Yet, ARPA-E represents only about 1.3% of DOE’s stimulus funding with most other funding going to much less disruptive grant/loan programs in which the government is trying to play business person and has a notoriously bad track record of doing so. And ARPA-E’s appropriation for 2011 is likely to be less than 2010 with the House number passed at a 50% reduction.

The unfortunate reality is that by using the stimulus bill as a vehicle for pushing funds through the slow and ineffectual government bureaucracy rather than focusing on stimulative policies that would have had greater impact on the economy, the Administration may very well have lost the opportunity to enact macro-economic policies affecting the cost structure for energy that could have had much more far-reaching and long-term positive impacts on the goal of reducing our consumption of fossil fuels. I believe time will bear out that many of the grant/loan awards made in such a hurry will turn out to be a waste of money.

Conversely, the macroeconomics of energy are certain to change as finite fossil fuels continue to be consumed… it is only a question of over what time period. It is that reality which is driving the private sector investments that must be the backbone of any sustainable change in our energy economy. Careful federal policy around carbon-based fuels could have provided greater visibility into the time frame and degree of increase in the market cost of fossil fuels even if there was a very slow phase in of such a policy to avoid collapsing the economy. The result would have been greater clarity of when (and shorter time horizons for when) clean technologies could become cost competitive. This would have resulted in a corresponding increase in investment by the private sector in building those businesses to profit from the impending change. And that would have been extremely stimulative to our economy without needing to borrow a penny to fund it.

Related posts:

• Obama Cleantech Stimulus: Bad Policy, Bad Politics and Bad for Cleantech
• Near-term Stimulus vs. Long-term Green
• Will Washington’s Clean Tech Spending Spree Pay Off?
• Mine the stimulus bill for CleanTech and Renewable Energy projects
• High-Speed Rail: So Much Track, So Little Money

As suspected, Energy Star appliances do not always live up to their energy savings claims, according to preliminary results of laboratory tests reported his week by the US Department of Energy (DOE).

The DOE began testing the appliances after watchdogs raised serious questions about the federal labeling program. The Energy Star seal appears on hundreds of models of refrigerators, air conditioners, clothes washers and other appliances as proof to consumers that the products meet government standards for energy efficiency and performance.

But because manufacturers self-certify their products, the program is “vulnerable to fraud and abuse,” alleged the federal Government Accountability Office in a March 2010 report. In response, the DOE, which runs Energy Star with the US Environmental Protection Agency, hired four independent labs to test actual energy savings against manufacturers’ claims.

Richard Karney, program leader in testing and verification for the DOE Buildings Technology Program explained findings from the first round of testing in a webinar Aug. 24.

The DOE purchased the appliances directly from stores, and the labs tested to see if they achieve savings within 5% of their claims. With over 40% of tests complete, the DOE reported failure by 16% of the refrigerators, 18% of clothes washers and 29% of room air conditioners.

To be fair, the tests also revealed that a fair number of appliances exceed Energy Star savings requirements.

So what happens now?

The DOE has informed manufacturers who failed in the first round of testing. Next, the federal agency will purchase additional appliances and retest the failed models. Manufacturers can choose to pull their models from the second round of testing. All appliances that fail a second time, or are pulled from the program by manufacturers, will be reported to the EPA for enforcement action. The EPA may then strip the appliances of the Energy Star label.

The EPA will make public the products that are disqualified. It will not name those that passed the test out of concern they will gain unfair market advantage over those appliances that have yet to be tested, Karney said. The DOE plans to test 20% of Energy Star appliances annually with the goal of evaluating all models over five years.

The initial findings underscore the importance that the efficiency industry establishes best practices to verify energy savings, a task that has haunted it for years. The nation’s new emphasis on green energy places efficiency in the spotlight, a good thing if the industry performs, a bad thing if it stumbles. The DOE is especially concerned about verification for appliances because the federal government has allotted $300 million to states for appliance rebate programs.

Cognizant of the problem, private industry groups are wisely stepping up to measure and verify energy efficiency for products and buildings, most recently the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers http://www.aham.org/ht/a/GetDocumentAction/i/49947.

Such self-policing is crucial to the industry’s longevity. The green energy movement has enemies who would love to portray it as a fraud. Providing consumers with accurate data is the only way to counter them.

Labs testing Energy Star appliances

• BR Laboratories

• CSA International (Toronto) and CSA OnSpeX

(Cleveland)

• Intertek Testing Services

• Springboard Engineering

Elisa Wood is a long-time energy writer whose work appears in many of the industry’s top magazines and newsletters. She is publisher of the Energy Efficiency Markets podcast and newsletter.

Related posts:

• Energy Star’s Video Challenge
• UN Report: Humanity Headed for a “Major Planetary Catastrophe”
• DOE Preparing to Launch an Energy Star-like System for Commercial Buildings
• Energy Efficiency: To HOME STAR and Beyond
• A Star Is Falling–Builders Association of the Twin Cities Sues Minnesota Green Star

Today, a panel of government scientists released a report which said that the vast majority of the oil from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill has either evaporated or been burned, skimmed, recovered from the wellhead or dispersed much of which is in the process of being degraded. A significant amount of this is the direct result of the federal government’s aggressive response to the spill.

The chart below outlines the breakdown of what has happened to the oil released into the Gulf of Mexico since the oil spill began in April:

These interagency findings were generated using a scientific tool called the Oil Budget Calculator, which employs a combination of direct measurements and the best scientific estimates available. The calculator is based on 4.9 million barrels of oil released into the Gulf, the government’s latest estimates of the flow rate from Monday. More than 25 of the best government and independent scientists contributed to or reviewed the calculator and its calculation methods. Scientists from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department of Energy (DOE), as well as academic scientists are continuing to work to refine these calculations.

While we welcome the news contained in this report, we continue to be extremely concerned about what this oil spill means for the health of the Gulf ecosystem and the millions of people who depend on the Gulf for their livelihoods and enjoyment. To that end, our response effort will continue until the well is killed, the oil is cleaned up and until all of the people are made whole again. 

For more information about the ongoing Administration-wide response to BP Oil Spill, visit RestoreTheGulf.gov.

Article by Heather Zichal, Deputy Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate Change

Related posts:

• Big Oil’s Collective Responsibility
• China Versus US in Commitment to Renewables — How Much is a Trillion?
• Oil Spill Investigators Say Access to Data Is Being Blocked
• AltaRock Energy Geothermal Project in California Suspended
• Could Thorium Be The Key To Safer Nuclear Power?

The natural gas grid has been referred to as “the other grid,” taking the back seat while the electric “smart grid” receives significant attention. Although not in the spotlight – and receiving zero funding from the Obama administration’s American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) – the gas grid has reason for celebration, due to the industry’s near flawless tenure in safely and reliably delivering natural gas. The electricity grid is the subject of attention because it has not been upgraded in over 100 years and it is showing its antiquated nature through inefficiencies and money lost. In contrast, the gas grid has been extremely reliable, safe, and efficient throughout its tenure. The current demand to update the gas grid is more about reducing utility expenditures, increasing energy conservation, and meeting global climate initiatives and mandates, rather than dealing with failing system integrity issues.

Additionally, as smart meter deployments continue to provide operational, cost, energy efficiency, and awareness benefits to consumers and utilities, gas utilities will begin to approach public utility commissions for gas AMI approval. The first movers in the gas industry will most likely be combination utilities, or combo-utilities, especially those that received funding from the Department of Energy (DOE) to upgrade their electricity business by providing smart meters to their customer base. Combo-utilities are currently updating their electricity networks, by implementing any number of neighborhood area network (NAN) technologies. One example, and a leading technology, is RF Mesh Networks, allowing two-way sending of data from the utility to the electricity meter. Combo-utilities are clearly aware that they can employ sub-metering. This is a process by which a gas module is put on an existing gas meter, sending signals to an electricity meter. In turn, the meter sends a signal containing gas and electricity data to the utility business system. Sub-metering is driving combo-utilities to demand a comprehensive AMI system that is able to interface with the gas AMI system.

Important to note is that Southern California Gas (SoCalGas), a Sempra company, was recently approved by the California Public Utility Commission (CPUC) to implement a $1.05 billion, 5.5 million meter AMI system in Southern California. This decision is groundbreaking in that SoCalGas is the largest gas utility in the United States and is a gas-only utility.

Article by Jevan Fox, appearing courtesy Matter Network

Related posts:

• U.S. Unveils Programs to Modernize Electric Grid System
• Earthships: Get rid of your utility bills with off-grid homes
• Solarthon 2009 — Want to Learn How to Install Solar?
• Vehicle to Grid Storage and the Future of Electric Vehicles
• Siemens Promotes Smart Grid Technology Innovation Contest