Currently viewing the category:
"electricity"
Colorado sets 30% target for 2020 Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter (D) signed into law yesterday a revision to the state’s renewable energy standard, requiring that 30 percent of the state’s electricity come from renewable sources by 2020. The state currently requires 20 percent of its electricity to come from renewable sources. Ritter said at a signing ceremony that Colorado’s efforts to create a friendly business climate for renewable energy has attracted pioneering companies such as wind turbine manufacturer Vestas Wind Systems A/S. “This is a commitment to clean energy that is unparalleled in the country,†Ritter said. “There is no place in the world that compares to Colorado in research and technological innovation around renewable energy.†The bill emphasizes home electricity production using devices such as solar panels and small wind turbines. State officials have predicted that 100,000 Colorado homes could begin producing energy because of state programs. Solar-panel installers must be certified, according to the bill. The addition was criticized by Republicans, who described it as an effort to drive business to organized labor. Chrysler, Fiat will produce electric minicar Chrysler Group LLC and Fiat SpA will produce a plug-in electric version of the Fiat 500 minicar as the first electric vehicle marketed under the automakers’ new alliance. The car will feature a lithium-ion battery connected to an electric vehicle control unit to manage the flow of power to the engine. There are no other details about the car’s range or how far it can be driven between each recharge. Every part of the vehicle except for the powertrain will be assembled in Toluca, Mexico. The battery is being developed by A123 Systems Inc. of Watertown, Mass. Neither would say where the battery will be produced, but signs point to Michigan, where the battery company recently got $100 million in tax credits. Chrysler separately restated plans to produce a test fleet of plug-in electric versions of the Dodge Ram pickup with a $48 million Department of Energy grant. The Ram EV will have a lithium-ion battery from Electrovaya Inc. and is expected to get 65 percent better fuel economy than the gas-powered version. The automaker canceled plans for a gas-electric hybrid version of the Ram. Toshiba in talks with TerraPower on reactors Toshiba Corp., owner of the U.S. nuclear firm Westinghouse, is in preliminary talks with a startup backed by Bill Gates on jointly developing advanced nuclear reactors, the Japanese electronics giant said. Toshiba is discussing with TerraPower the possibility of manufacturing traveling-wave reactors, which are designed to use depleted uranium or other unconventional nuclear fuels and could run for as long as a century without refueling. Such reactors, which would be smaller in scale than current nuclear plants, would be suitable for emerging markets, said Takeo Miyamoto, an analyst for Deutsche Securities. “If you put a regular reactor like the one used in Japan in some emerging nations, that could sometimes create overcapacity and make it difficult to back that reactor up when you take the unit off line for maintenance,†Miyamoto said. Toshiba said the talks are in an early stage, and nothing has yet been decided. The firm is also developing its own mini reactors, and it anticipates some 80 percent of the technology developed for these reactors could be applicable for traveling-wave reactors. Take a global view of climate change The Senate is due to unveil a bipartisan climate and energy package soon. As lawmakers consider it, they must not lose sight of the vital connection between people and nature. Numerous studies — including last month’s Quadrennial Defense Review by the Penatgon — have detailed how the changing climate could affect people around the world, wreaking havoc on developing nations and punishing the poorest communities. But why should Americans care about these far-off communities and the climate threats they face? The fact is, their plight is our plight. Already, more frequent droughts, floods and other climate-related disasters in the most vulnerable countries are forcing entire communities to flee their homes. Military experts predict that conflicts over shrinking food and water supplies will destabilize already shaky governments and economies around the world. In an age of globalization, these seemingly remote challenges directly affect Americans, from the prices we pay for coffee or cotton clothing to the families who send sons and daughters overseas to serve in war-torn nations. Our two organizations have different missions — one aimed at supporting communities, the other at protecting nature. But as we increasingly see the effect climate change is having on our work around the world, we share the goal of protecting the communities, both natural and human, we have pledged to help. In the South American Andes, for example, decreased rainfall is threatening local communities and their greatest source of income — alpaca wool production. “There is no snow, so there is no water,†Cayetano Huanca, a farmer in Peru, told us. “The springs, wetlands, are not the same as they were.†We hear similar stories elsewhere. In western Zambia, the rainy season now arrives much earlier, causing floods that leave villagers homeless, hungry and vulnerable to disease. In Cambodia, droughts kill rice fields, pressing thousands of farmers and their families to migrate to already crowded cities. Tackling climate change is not just about lowering carbon dioxide emissions. It is also about helping people and nature survive its inevitable effects. The reality is that even if we stopped greenhouse gas pollution today, the fallout from 200 years of industrialization would be felt for generations to come. Japan Proposes Wind, Geothermal Power Feed-in Tariff A Japanese trade ministry panel today proposed expanding the feed-in tariff to require utilities to buy electricity at a premium from hydropower stations, wind turbine and geothermal operators. Utilities may have to buy renewable power at between 15 yen (17 cents) and 20 yen a kilowatt hour, according to a report released in Tokyo today. The incentive program would run for between 10 and 20 years, it said. The government wants to supply 10 percent of the country’s primary energy from renewable sources by 2020, compared with about 3 percent in 2007, according to the International Energy Agency. The proposed tariff compares with 5 to 7 yen a kilowatt hour utilities pay for nuclear power and about 8 yen for oil- fired generation, said Tomohiro Jikihara, an analyst at Deutsche Securities Inc. in Tokyo. “The rate for renewable power, except for solar, should be as high as 20 yen if Japan really wants to boost the use of alternative fuels,†Jikihara said by phone. Japan introduced a feed-in tariff in November, requiring utilities to buy surplus solar power supplied to the grid by homes and businesses, and pay as much as 48 yen a kilowatt hour. Japan Wind Development Co. and Japan Power Development Co., known as J-Power, are among companies operating wind farms and geothermal plants. Tokyo Electric Power Co. and nine other regional utilities supply almost all the country’s power. Without Affordable, Clean Alternatives, South Africa Turns to Coal South Africa’s finance minister, Pravin Gordhan, has an op ed in the Washington Post that illustrates the challenges facing developing nations as they struggle to provide the affordable access to modern energy needed to pull citizens out of poverty. The piece highlights the tension between such objectives and simultaneous concerns about the environmental and climate impacts of energy development. With South Africa’s economy growing rapidly — it’s expanded by two-thirds since 1994, when Nelson Mandela first took office — the nation’s demand for energy has grown apace. As Gordhan notes, “Millions of previously marginalized South Africans are now on the grid.†And that’s a very good thing. Consider that not having access to affordable, modern energy sources, particularly electricity, means no access to potable, running water; it means having to burn dung and wood and other primitive biofuels to provide cooking and indoor heating; and it means sputtering kerosene lamps as the only source of light after the sun goes down. The human toll of such energy poverty is incredible. According to the World Health Organization, solid fuel use causes 1.6 million excess deaths per year globally, especially among women and children, while waterborne disease is one of the leading global killers, ending the lives of over 3 million annually — again, many of them young children — who lack access to clean and safe water supplies. Ranking Cities on Building Efficiency Los Angeles and Washington, D.C. took the top spots in the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s ranking of cities with the most energy efficient buildings. Los Angeles was the star of the Energy Star rankings, with 293 buildings achieving the E.P.A. designation, according to the Top 25 list released Tuesday. The agency awards the Energy Star label to commercial buildings that rank among the top 25 percent in energy efficiency compared to similar structures. Washington took second place with 204 Energy Star buildings while San Francisco, which has about 20 percent of the population of Los Angeles, came in third with 173 buildings. Denver and Chicago rounded out the top five. With 90 Energy Star buildings, New York City ranked 10th, behind Houston, Lakeland, Fla., the Dallas-Fort Worth area and Atlanta. Detroit came in 15th, just behind Seattle and ahead of cities with decidedly greener reputations like Austin, Tex. The number of buildings qualifying for the Energy Star award jumped 40 percent from 2008, when the E.P.A. first issued the ranking. Collectively, the 3,900 buildings that won Energy Star ratings in 2009 cut carbon dioxide emissions by more than 4.7 million metric tons, saving some $900 million in energy costs, according to the E.P.A. The agency said commercial buildings’ energy consumption accounts for 17 percent of the nation’s greenhouse gas emissions.
Continued here:
Energy and Global Warming News for March 24: Colorado sets 30% renewables target for 2020; Chrysler, Fiat will produce electric minicar
The natural gas industry wants to have its cake and eat it, too — after cooking it with some shale gas , of course. Guest bloggers Richard W. Caperton Policy Analyst at CAP, and Tom Kenworthy , a Senior Fellow, has the story of the industry latest effort to bypass safeguards for the controversial drilling technique known as “hydraulic fracturing.†According to E&E Daily (subs. req’d.) The latest draft of the climate and energy bill being written by Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) reportedly includes language saying U.S. EPA would not regulate the oil and gas drilling technique. Hopefully, this is just wishful thinking by gas companies, rather than a proposal that’s actually in the comprehensive, bipartisan clean energy and global warming legislation under development by the three senators. The EPA should have the ability to protect people from all potential sources of drinking water contamination, including hydraulic fracturing (also known as “frackingâ€). Recognizing the potential threat to water supplies, the EPA announced last week it will undertake a major study of the process to see if it poses dangers to public health and safety. In the fracking process, a solution of water, sand and chemicals is injected into underground rock formations. This cracks the rock, releasing natural gas that wasn’t previously recoverable. Unfortunately, as CAP’s Tom Kenworthy recently explained , there’s a risk that the chemicals in fracking fluids will pollute nearby drinking water sources. This is especially important in light of today’s news report (subscription req’d.) that a gas drilling company has violated an agreement with the government and injected diesel fuel near drinking water aquifers. “One of the world’s largest oilfield services companies continued to tell U.S. EPA it was complying with an agreement barring the injection of diesel fuel near drinking-water aquifers, documents show, after admitting to Congress that it had violated the pact,†according to the report. If the industry succeeds in getting a fracking exemption in Senate energy and climate legislation, it would expand special treatment for hydraulic fracturing that started with the Energy Policy Act of 2005 that exempted the process from EPA regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act. Allegedly, the draft proposal would also protect the oil and gas industry from having to publicly disclose the chemicals they use, which removes neighbors’ right to know about the risk posed by adjacent drilling. While fracking is a decades old practice, huge new discoveries of shale gas in the U.S. mean that the drilling technique is increasingly widespread. New horizontal drilling technologies, using fracking, have opened up giant reserves of gas from the West to the mid-Atlantic states. This “gas gale†has opened up new possibilities for replacing old, polluting coal-fired electric plants with cleaner and less polluting plants fired by natural gas. In the years ahead, greater demand will mean more gas production, and more fracking. often in states that have relatively little experience in ensuring that a drilling boom is done responsibly. If fracking is exempted from EPA regulation, the risk of drinking water contamination will remain. By definition, this pollution is an externality – an extra cost of production, except society rather than gas producers bear this cost. The whole theory of a new clean energy economy is that the externalities of fossil fuel production and combustion – carbon pollution — should be included in energy prices. Indeed, this is exactly why natural gas would benefit from a price on carbon pollution: incorporating the cost of carbon dioxide emissions into power costs will raise the price of power from coal, making natural gas electricity cost-competitive . It’s hypocritical for the natural gas industry to propose that other industries have their externalities priced, while the externalities from fracking go unpriced. Environmental safeguards are an essential component of energy development, and no industry should receive blanket exemptions. This applies to both renewable and fossil fuel industries. For instance, solar power developers in California’s Mojave Desert have to contend with delicate endangered species habitats . Instead of simply saying that the Endangered Species Act doesn’t apply to solar developers, the right approach is to find locations that avoid critical habitats. Similarly, the right approach for fracking is not to say that the Safe Drinking Water Act doesn’t apply to natural gas production, but to make sure that natural gas drilling doesn’t contaminate water supplies and to require energy companies to disclose the chemicals they use so that if contamination does occur public health officials can respond appropriately. Of course, some companies have billions of dollars riding on avoiding federal standards for fracking, most notably Exxon Mobil and natural gas company XTO. Exxon has offered to buy XTO and its natural gas reserves for an astounding $31 billion, but a clause deep in the contract gives Exxon the right to back out of the deal if the federal government makes fracking “illegal or commercially impracticable.†Should Congress create different rules for the natural gas industry just so this merger can go through? Is it reasonable for the natural gas industry to benefit from unpriced externalities? If Congress exempts fracking from additional EPA safeguards, they will clearly be saying, “Yes,†to both of those questions. Senators Kerry, Graham and Lieberman must not issue a blank check to natural gas producers who would prefer to keep their chemicals secret while society bears the cost of their use. Related Post: Getting to the bottom of natural gas fracking Game changer, Part 8: ExxonMobil’s $41 billion XTO deal — A big bet on unconventional natural gas AND on climate change Frack Attack: Drilling Technique Under Scrutiny
Follow this link:
A double standard for natural gas?
Back in January, the journal Science exploded the myth of clean coal, with a study concluding mountaintop removal (MTR) “permits are being issued despite the preponderance of scientific evidence that impacts are pervasive and irreversible and that mitigation cannot compensate for losses.†Guest blogger Anne Polansky has the latest on citizen action against MTR in this repost . Polansky, a long-time friend and colleague, applies her training in the Earth sciences and public policy to effect positive change in government and the marketplace, with a strong focus on global climate disruption and sustainable energy policy and practices. The awesome poster above is courtesy of thatvisionthing . You gotta admit, it’s creative.  Smack in the middle of the floor of an otherwise sparkly clean lobby of a JP Morgan Chase bank branch in Manhattan sits a big pile of dirt, shaped like a mountain.  Atop sits a letter to the CEO of the behemoth bank, Jamie Dimon, begging for mercy on behalf of huge mountains just west of here (DC) being blown to smithereens by the likes of Massey Energy to get at the solid black gold laced throughout, the stuff that powers our homes and quite likely, this blog post.  As are an increasing number of us, Reverend Billy and his choir are really ticked off about Mountaintop Removal and show it by ceremoniously carrying plates of “overburden†fresh from the country roads of West Virginia, singing the gospels of mountain beauty and inspiration, inviting the rest of us to join in the righteous indignation.  You go, Rev, and keep it up.  You speak (and sing) for me, too.  Earth-alujah!!!! Earthfire’s diary :: :: Link here for the Rev’s diary of the action ; he even facebooked it . There you’ll see links to a couple of must-see videos: . And a photo taken a little while later:  the cops arrive, visibly baffled…. Q:  Hey Joe, what on Earth is this stuff?  A:  The Earth (or used to be!) To be fair, to walk into a bank and see a big pile of dirt (without a dirty bomb inside) put there on purpose probably is a bit baffling.  Let’s help them out a little bit. So Officer Joe, and other curious passers by, here’s the deal on MTR (mountaintop removal). Coal is used to generate more than half of the USA’s electricity. One could say that “America is the Saudi Arabia of coal†as the US has about 250 years’ worth of coal reserves at our current burn rate.  More than 100 new coal-fired plants are on the drawing board, despite the many problems that coal burning creates, climate change being at the top of the list.  In other words, there’s lots of coal swirling around inside Appalachian Mountains, and lots of coal-fired power plants willing to pay for it to be extracted. JP Morgan Chase finances and underwrites coal mining companies like Massey Energy Co. and electric power generation companies that continue to burn cheap coal to make electricity, despite the risks to planet Earth. MTR is wildly destructive.  We’ve essentially detonated, decimated, and put some lame bandaids on tracts of land that, taken together, exceeds the square miles of Delaware. The cookbook version of MTR goes something like this: Remove the forest. (Note, the US EPA estimates that 2,200 square miles of Appalachian forests will be cleared for MTR sites by the year 2012.) Scrape away topsoil, the larger the steam shovel, the better. Insert bomb.  (States engaging in MTR each detonate about 1,000 tons of explosives a day and some blasts have lopped as much as 800 feet off a mountain.) Remove coal, sell on open (highly subsidized) market. Use bulldozers to put “overburden†(sterile dirt) back to try and make mountain look “good as new.†Push and shove leftover rock and soil debris into hollows and stream beds, ignore fish screams. Repeat. To add idiocy to injury, we can look inside the mind of CEO of Massey Energy Company, Don Blankenship, who has been whining about reduced profit margins from his quarterly coal revenue of a half a billion dollars. Commenting on the 4th Q of 2009, Massey said : “We were pleased with our control of costs and our positive cash generation during the fourth quarter in spite of very difficult market and operating conditions .†What are these difficulties he’s all upset about?  Whether he realizes it or not, he’s upset about an increasingly disrupted climate system as the result of CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion, like coal burning, for example.  In his own sadly ironic words: “The weak global economy and lower total energy demand from electric utilities and steelmakers weighed on the quarterly sales volumes. In addition, weather, weather-related power outages and disruption of rail and ocean transport significantly impacted Massey’s operations. Produced tons sold in the quarter totaled 7.8 million compared to 10.2 million in the fourth quarter of 2008. The shipping delays caused by the remnants of Hurricane Ida as it pounded the east coast of the United States in November were only exacerbated by the heavy snowfalls and extreme low temperatures of December. The impacts of the adverse weather on mine operations and transportation and regulatory constraints prevented us from reaching our quarterly shipment targets. However, other projections for revenue and costs per ton were within guidance tolerances.†So — when will oil and coal barons get a clue that the very business they are engaged in is itself creating market conditions that will make it increasingly difficult to continue the very business they are engaged in…. This is in the category of DUH. – Anne Polansky
Originally posted here:
Bringing a blown up WV mountain to JP Morgan Chase
The words “peak oil†are being heard more often these days, and in increasingly exalted corridors , but what do they actually mean? Mere inconvenience and higher prices at the pump? Or TEOTWAWKI (for “the end of the world as we know itâ€)? Let’s look at some of the scenarios various experts have have imagined: A smaller, relocalised world. Jeff Rubin, former chief economist at CIBC World Markets, doesn’t envision the apocalypse, although he acknowledges, “much could go terribly wrong in this transition.†However, in his new book, “Why Your World is About to Get a Whole Lot Smaller: Oil and the End of Globalisation,†he sees the potential for many silver linings: more farmers’ markets and less imported Atlantic salmon, more revitalised local factories and less stuff shipped from the ends of the Earth, fewer SUVs but a “more livable and enjoyable world.†In its latest report, the sustainability organisation Feasta is decidedly less cheery. “Tipping Point: Near-Term Systemic Implications of a Peak in Global Oil Production – An Outline Review†warns there’s a good chance our civilisation today is “on the cusp of a fast and near-term collapse.†“Appeals towards localism, transition initiatives, organic food and renewable energy production, however laudable and necessary, are totally out of scale to what is approaching,†writes author David Korowicz. While his study doesn’t lay out any clear answers, it still ends on a note of hopefulness: “There is much we can do. Not to prevent or defer a collapse, rather to prepare to some degree our selves and communities for some of its impacts … (T)he reality is that this is the most important, meaningful, and potentially liberating work that we have ever had to do, and it must be done right now.†The “think-and-do-tank†nef sees declining oil — and other dwindling resources — as a call for an end to endless economic growth and consumption . And, like Rubin, it sees that transition as a potentially good thing: “Such a new economy implies the need for a great ‘reskilling,’ for example in the food economy, and the growth of urban agriculture. Other adaptations could bring a range of social, environmental and economic benefits. A redistribution of paid employment via a shorter working week, tackling the twin problems of overwork and unemployment, would free up time for people to do more things for themselves, each other and the community, and reduce their dependence on paid-for services.†Some big-league business and energy players — including Virgin’s Sir Richard Branson — lent their names to the latest report from the UK’s Industry Task Force on Peak Energy and Oil Security. Released in February, “The Oil Crunch: A wake-up call for the UK economy†doesn’t welcome the idea of a sharp reduction in growth — something it sees as an invitation to “even deeper recession.†Higher oil prices, it warns, will bring Britons higher travel costs, higher food bills, higher heating bills and more expensive goods in general. To avoid such outcomes, the report states, the government needs to speed up the green-economy revolution and make plans to protect the public, especially the poor, from the cost impacts brought on by peak oil. Finally, we have oil industry expert Matthew Simmons, who sees peak oil as both a crisis and an opportunity. While oil discovery rates are declining and the giant wells that have produced most of the output are getting harder to pump, Simmons believes all those offshore rigs could be put to good use as infrastructure for a new era: the age of ocean energy (pdf). Deep-water wind facilities, he says, could provide a wealth of benefits: electricity, desalinised water, hydrogen and liquid ammonia, which could be used as everything from a solvent to a vehicle fuel. “This exciting opportunity is where offshore oil and gas was 80 years ago,†Simmons asserts. All in all, not quite TEOTWAWKI, but perhaps one version or another of the veiled curse, “May you live in interesting times.†Share this on del.icio.us Digg this! Share this on Reddit Stumble upon something good? Share it on StumbleUpon Share this on Technorati Post this to MySpace Share this on Facebook Tweet This! Subscribe to the comments for this post? Share this on Linkedin Related posts: Pick your peak: Which resource runs out first? Plan now for peak oil, transport chiefs say One peak we should bring on faster: Peak plastics
View post:
Peak oil coming soon? Let’s see what it might look like
Peak oil might have been on the minds of business leaders who met in a behind-closed-doors summit with Britain’s energy secretary this week, but there’s another critical commodity that the UK should be paying attention to, according to a new paper: heat. Published as England bids farewell to its coldest winter in over 30 years , the white paper — “Energy: It’s the heat, stupid!†— argues that heating energy should be viewed as a valuable commodity that, if generated by the right sources, could be a more effective way to decarbonise the economy than changes in transport systems. Developing renewable heat would help to both meet the UK’s rising energy demands and replace its ageing energy infrastructure, argues author James Woudhuysen, who’s a visiting professor of forecasting and innovation at De Montfort University in Leicester. Furthermore, with focused government support, large-scale renewable heat production, such as that generated by geothermal plants, is needed to provide a supply that’s essential to safeguarding Britain’s energy future. (I)t’s time Britain got serious about generating heat, period,†Woudhuysen writes in the paper, sponsored by Geothermal Engineering Ltd . In countries like Sweden, Denmark and Finland, he notes, “fully a third of heat comes from renewable sources.†Those sources include combined heat and power (CHP), which uses the same fuel to generate both electricity and heat, and district heating, which uses centralised boilers to provide heat for whole blocks of flats or an entire neighbourhood of homes and businesses. Similar technologies could be implemented in the UK to meet the nation’s rising demand for heat, Woudhuysen argues, pointing out that, since the 1970s, the average temperature at which Britons keep their homes has risen from 12 degrees C to 18 degrees C. In his paper, Woudhuysen welcomes Britain’s new Renewable Heat Incentive (RHI), which in April 2011 will begin offering cash to homeowners, businesses, organisations and communities that turn to heat sources other than gas, electricity or oil. Today, those three sources provide 94 per cent of the nation’s heating needs. “Britain’s RHI is the world’s first scheme to offer cash in return for renewable heat, CHP, and district heating,†Woudhuysen writes. “Under it, an adequately insulated semi-detached house installing a ground source heat pump could receive £1000 a year; if the GSHP replaced oil-fired central heating, annual savings could amount to £200 a year. These figures are modest, and, sadly, at this stage, the scheme does not specifically cover some emerging technologies such as deep geothermal energy — which, with the right investment, will deliver not only extensive electricity, but also even larger amounts of pure heat to local areas. But if the RHI is properly built on, the chance is that, by 2020, no less than 12 per cent of Britain’s heat will come from renewable sources.†Woudhuysen’s paper also concludes that: Fears about the availability of Russian gas in the UK are overdone. On the other hand, delays in plans to build new nuclear reactors are probably underestimated. Renewable heat holds the medium-term promise of lower energy bills, as well as the immediate reality of local independence from shortages of gas, electricity or oil, reducing risk and emissions at the same time. Renewable electricity sources can help bolster energy supply, and the electricity they generate can be used for heating. However, not all renewable options can provide power 24/7, and this intermittency will require a much stronger electricity grid. The UK’s ageing energy infrastructure, coupled with likely increases in demand for energy, puts the country at risk of power cuts if nothing is done. “The UK is pursuing too few renewable energy options and projecting totally unrealistic timeframes for national projects such as new off-shore wind farms,†Woudhuysen says. “We need investment in a broader palette of energy options to meet future demand for energy, and the government needs to recognise that sooner rather than later.†“The UK government has started to take renewable heat seriously, but we have some considerable catching-up to do in a very short period of time,†adds Ryan Law, who is managing director of Geothermal Engineering Ltd, a company planning Britain’s first commercial-scale geothermal power plant. “Germany, for example, has been building up renewable heat supplies for years and this development is heavily supported by their government. The UK has good untapped geothermal resources which could provide low-cost heat for towns, hospitals or schools, but we need our government’s support to make it happen.†Share this on del.icio.us Digg this! Share this on Reddit Stumble upon something good? Share it on StumbleUpon Share this on Technorati Post this to MySpace Share this on Facebook Tweet This! Subscribe to the comments for this post? Share this on Linkedin Related posts: Report: Lost heat could meet 25 per cent of UK’s needs
View original post here:
Report: Renewable heat energy key to UK’s energy future