Quote :

"Especially if you factor in the impacts of fighting global warming, as non-carbon intensive sources tend to have larger footprints, causing more of scarce habbitat to be gobbled up for farmland, solar and wind installations, and housing/transportation for a more rural population."

This particular part can't be emphasized enough. Solar fields that produce a fraction of the energy of say, one nuclear plant that gobble up entire square miles of space, but are somehow "greener" by definition. God.

6/1/2009 10:22:47 PM

they wouldn't be so bad if it weren't for the fact that they put a fence up around the perimeter of CSP plants.

The discrepancy is this: the people who order the plants to be built want what's better for the environment, but the people who build the plant want to finish their contract and move on.

6/1/2009 11:04:51 PM

Solar power technology can be used for more than gigantic fields of panels.

Many promoters want a move away from that level of centralization.

6/1/2009 11:17:11 PM

Quote :

"More to the point, I'm rather certain there's a difference between 900 ppm CO2 and the atmosphere of Venus."

Of course there is. Venus has an asininely more dense atmosphere. Certainly that makes it a bit different from Earth, dontchathink? naaaaaaaaah... It's that EVIL CO2!!!

Quote :

"Some republicans might just be fine with the fact that we're currently causing the 6th mass extinction event of the planet"

do you have ANY evidence to back that up?

As for the "proof" that GW is killing species, you can stop reading here.

Quote :

"It also reports that between 100 and 200 other cold-dependent animal species, such as penguins and polar bears are in deep trouble."

Polar bears are thriving. There's no evidence they are being affected at all by the alleged AGW. Quadrupling in number in 50 years is hardly "going extinct."

6/1/2009 11:58:09 PM

Quote :

"In the next chapter of the Liberal Hippy Global Warming Conspiracy turns out that Big Energy is actually in on the big secret. Luckily our conservative heroes continue to risk their life day in and out to provide willing listeners with the truth so that they will not be deceived by the travasty of lies that the big corporations and stoner hippies spread about climate change."

Well Spoken.


And remember, who are the original conservationists in the US? The Republicans - the party of progress.

6/2/2009 8:36:40 AM

Quote :

"Old Wood Is New Coal as Polluters Embrace Carbon-Eating Trees By Jeremy van Loon June 2 (Bloomberg) -- Wood is becoming a hot commodity in a new low-carbon world. Power companies are burning trees because they’re renewable and can be cheaper than coal. Wood needs no permit to release carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas blamed for global warming. Vattenfall AB of Sweden, Germany’s RWE AG and American Electric Power Inc. of Ohio, the biggest coal-burner in the U.S., have switched a few plants over to wood and more are planned. So far that hasn’t driven up paper prices or strained forests, which absorb carbon dioxide in photosynthesis. “Wood is very quickly becoming a very important part of the energy mix and in a few years will be a global commodity much like oil,” said Heinrich Unland, chief executive officer of Novus Energy GmbH. The German company runs a wood-power plant north of Hamburg that supplies heat to a Total SA refinery. Using biomass for power and heat -- mainly from poplar, willow and pine trees -- grew by 25 percent during the past two decades, according to the International Energy Agency, the Paris-based adviser to 28 oil-consuming nations such as the U.S. Industrialized nations got 4 percent of their energy from biomass in 2006, the most recent data available from the IEA. That was the equivalent of 151 million tons of oil. Chips of wood stumps and branches, heated to 400 degrees Celsius (750 degrees Fahrenheit) at the Novus furnace, are as efficient as coal and cheaper: European Union rules don’t require carbon-dioxide permits because the trees absorbed a like amount of the gas before harvest, making them carbon-neutral... "

Thoughts? This can't be a good thing. In the long run, there's no way trees can be grown fast enough to keep up with demand.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601102&sid=ardNIC7rNzQE&refer=uk

6/2/2009 10:51:34 AM

^

Dude there is a difference in acknowledging the potential or occurance of AGW versus agreeing with all the crazy moonbat liberal hippy legislation out there (i.e cap n trade, carbon quotas, car MPG regulations, etc).

6/2/2009 11:30:31 AM

I'm making a good observation, and you seem to be arguing against points that I haven't stated. Go play with the other slow kids in chit chat.

6/2/2009 12:14:46 PM

If we assume that taxes to reduce CO2 emission is proper, then I see nothing wrong with burning trees. Afterall, they do grow back. And the process would actually remove CO2 from the air: the trees collect it, and some of it is captured in the ash and burried. Planet wins.

The only question is how efficiently this process can be carried out. Which is answered by the marketplace as companies increasingly engage in the practice, asserting that it is cheaper than paying the socially accepted price for emitting CO2 in the form of coal.

6/2/2009 12:50:08 PM

Burning chipped stumps and branches is going to create far less harmful substances than burning coal. I don't really care much about CO2, but it would do a lot of good for public health to get rid of slag, sulfur dioxide, and mercury emissions. Plus, isnt wood ash good fertilizer?

Granted, this is just speculative oversimplification, but that seems to be the trend in this thread.

[Edited on June 2, 2009 at 3:43 PM. Reason : .]

6/2/2009 3:35:06 PM

^Let's not go on a tangent here. Nobody in this thread is arguing that sulfur and nitrious oxides aren't harmful. We're talking about CO2.

It's pretty clear that if burning wood caught on in a bigger way (and would be encouraged if taxes were levied on CO2 emissions) that deforestation would become a bigger problem than it already is.

And in my (denier) opinion Deforestation remains a huge environmental problem throughout the world (not really in the US anymore though). I feel it's a real problem, not a made up one.

6/2/2009 4:22:40 PM

n/m

6/8/2009 10:42:15 PM

these biomass-to-energy processes can utilize more than just for-purpose wood, but are never going to be scalable enough to provide a huge chunk of our energy needs. feedstocks will vary by region, and most current facilities utilize waste products such as municipal waste, forest waste (leftover from tree farms after trees are cut for paper mills), corn stover, etc as the economics really only work today if you can get a free feedstock. if we institute a national "renewable power standard", as we likely will, we should see more of these plants pop up in the southeast and other places where solar and wind renewable power won't work...but at that point the economics will be subsidized by renewable energy credits and addtional tax incentives - which is how these processes currently stay afloat in the EU.

know this is a late response, just saw the biomass post today though!

[Edited on June 10, 2009 at 9:35 AM. Reason : .]

6/10/2009 9:34:26 AM

6/10/2009 9:40:56 AM

^nothing new to me my friend

Quote :

"we should see more of these plants pop up in the southeast and other places where solar and wind renewable power won't work"

that made me lol. wind power won't work on a large scale anywhere.

6/10/2009 11:31:40 AM

^ thats kind of a narrow minded view. wind power would not work in the south east but is viable in places such as the coast of california and western europe. Of course you gotta factor in the economics of cost of land v energy output cost per unit etc

6/10/2009 11:59:40 AM

why did Obama say it's cool for Iran to have nuclear power if we should be running off solar panels and wind mills?

6/10/2009 12:31:54 PM

^^as the sole provider of energy in any moderately populated area, wind power does not work. Forgive me for not being more specific.

^Agreed. It's bullshit that we're helping the UAE and Saudi Arabia with nuclear power technology, as well as "allowing Iran to have it" when we ourselves make it so difficult to build new nuke plants. Utter bullshit.

6/10/2009 1:00:54 PM

^^^wind energy isn't viable anywhere on earth. It's a brownout waiting to happen, as has been demonstrated in countries like Holland. They aren't even at 20% wind energy yet and their grid has become horribly unstable.

[Edited on June 10, 2009 at 1:01 PM. Reason : ^^^]

6/10/2009 1:01:16 PM

What isn't viable about wind and solar energy? There may be a sizable initial cost, but a turbine/solar panel on ones roof will eventually save lots of money on grid-power costs.

6/10/2009 1:24:15 PM

no one is claiming that wind and solar will ever provide the majority of our national energy supply - but when the RPS is put in place, they WILL fulfill the majority of the RPS requirements in areas such as California, great plains, the southwest, etc. My point was that, in areas such as the southeast where wind and solar simply won't work, biomass-to-energy facilties will be needed to plug that gap.

6/10/2009 1:47:38 PM

Quote :

"What isn't viable about wind and solar energy? There may be a sizable initial cost, but a turbine/solar panel on ones roof will eventually save lots of money on grid-power costs."

Have you ever heard of a discount rate? Or service life?

6/10/2009 2:05:16 PM

Sure. If there's a point you want to make, then make it.

6/10/2009 3:40:27 PM

Quote :

"why did Obama say it's cool for Iran to have nuclear power"

Nuclear power is cool. Thats what we need to start buying. Except we keep getting held back on the left by enviro nut jobs
and on the right by big oil/coal intersts.

Quote :

"wind energy isn't viable anywhere on earth. It's a brownout waiting to happen, as has been demonstrated in countries like Holland."

Sounds like they need some more capacitors on the grid. I never claimed it could totally replace other types of energy

6/10/2009 5:07:29 PM

^ The fact that something a large initial cost is irrelevant of the net economics of it. Something can have a large initial cost and never save money. That's what you call a bad investment.

Now, low variable costs (O&M plus fuel) is good, but again, that's a meaningless statement. If two projects have the same net present value and all other things are equal then the one with the higher operating costs and lower initial cost is favorable. No informed individual claims that wind O&M is greater than coal. But that means nothing!

What you said was about like saying "Things that cost less save money, therefore we should use solar and wind power"

Quote :

"Sounds like they need some more capacitors on the grid. I never claimed it could totally replace other types of energy"

Capacitor storage can help grid stability. And by that I mean storing energy for up to 2 seconds.

For wind power you need to pack what you need away for a week.

[Edited on June 10, 2009 at 5:16 PM. Reason : ]

6/10/2009 5:11:52 PM

Quote :

"Sounds like they need some more capacitors on the grid"

Fixed capacitors in close proximity to a generation site are a recipe for disaster, as the output voltage becomes unstable. DSTATCOMs are an expensive temporary solution that can be used at the location of individual wind farms, but they do nothing to help when too much of our grid is dependent on a generation source that can go away without warning. When a certain percentage of the grid is on wind and the wind stops, an underfrequency event will occur on the system because the remaining generators are bogging down with the required load. The only current solution to this problem is to install massive UPS systems on the line. A 20MW unit recently got installed in California for this reason to help with the underfrequency events they're experiencing, and that is basically just a big warehouse full of batteries. I hate to think about the environmental ramifications of doing that on a larger scale, as the batteries will need to be replaced on about a 5-6 year cycle. Also, 20MW is pretty small.

The only other currently viable option is overfrequency load shedding, which is just a fancy word in the industry for saying when the load gets too high, we kill the power. I, for one, and not ready for the day when I have to deal with rolling blackouts in my home because we're having to use what little generation we have left to run our hospitals and military bases.

[Edited on June 10, 2009 at 6:18 PM. Reason : Maybe I'm just spoiled by the cheap, reliable, and filthy electricity we've enjoyed from coal]

6/10/2009 6:16:44 PM

Nuclear

6/12/2009 11:46:24 AM

Can we just admit that wind and solar will never provide adequate power needs for the U.S?

To me, the best options to explore are nuclear, hyrdo, and geothermal. Maybe if we weren't such big pussies about nuclear this wouldn't even be a question.

6/12/2009 12:04:31 PM

Hot Damn I'm loving Ron Paul more and more these days...

Quote :

"Statement of Congressman Ron Paul United States House of Representatives Statement on Global Warming Petition Signed by 31,478 Scientists June 4, 2009 Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, before voting on the ``cap-and-trade'' legislation, my colleagues should consider the views expressed in the following petition that has been signed by 31,478 American scientists: ``We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.'' Circulated through the mail by a distinguished group of American physical scientists and supported by a definitive review of the peer-reviewed scientific literature, this may be the strongest and most widely supported statement on this subject that has been made by the scientific community. A state-by-state listing of the signers, which include 9,029 men and women with PhD degrees, a listing of their academic specialties, and a peer-reviewed summary of the science on this subject are available at http://www.petitionproiect.org. The peer-reviewed summary, ``Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide'' by A. B. Robinson, N. E. Robinson, and W. Soon includes 132 references to the scientific literature and was circulated with the petition. Signers of this petition include 3,803 with specific training in atmospheric, earth, and environmental sciences. All 31,478 of the signers have the necessary training in physics, chemistry, and mathematics to understand and evaluate the scientific data relevant to the human-caused global warming hypothesis and to the effects of human activities upon environmental quality. In a letter circulated with this petition, Frederick Seitz--past President of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, President Emeritus of Rockefeller University, and recipient of honorary doctorate degrees from 32 universities throughout the world--wrote: ``The United States is very close to adopting an international agreement that would ration the use of energy and of technologies that depend upon coal, oil, and natural gas and some other organic compounds. This treaty is, in our opinion, based upon flawed ideas. Research data on climate change do not show that human use of hydrocarbons is harmful. To the contrary, there is good evidence that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is environmentally helpful. The proposed agreement we have very negative effects upon the technology of nations throughout the world; especially those that are currently attempting to lift from poverty and provide opportunities to the over 4 billion people in technologically underdeveloped countries. It is especially important for America to hear from its citizens who have the training necessary to evaluate the relevant data and offer sound advice.'' We urge you to sign and return the enclosed petition card. If you would like more cards for use by your colleagues, these will be sent.'' Madam Speaker, at a time when our nation is faced with a severe shortage of domestically produced energy and a serious economic contraction; we should be reducing the taxation and regulation that plagues our energy-producing industries. Yet, we will soon be considering so-called ``cap and trade'' legislation that would increase the taxation and regulation of our energy industries. ``Cap and-trade'' will do at least as much, if not more, damage to the economy as the treaty referred by Professor Seitz! This legislation is being supported by the claims of ``global warming'' and ``climate change'' advocates--claims that, as demonstrated by the 31,477 signatures to Professor Seitz' petition, many American scientists believe is disproved by extensive experimental and observational work. It is time that we look beyond those few who seek increased taxation and increased regulation and control of the American people. Our energy policies must be based upon scientific truth--not fictional movies or self-interested international agendas. They should be based upon the accomplishments of technological free enterprise that have provided our modern civilization, including our energy industries. That free enterprise must not be hindered by bogus claims about imaginary disasters. Above all, we must never forget our contract with the American people--the Constitution that provides the sole source of legitimacy of our government. That Constitution requires that we preserve the basic human rights of our people--including the right to freely manufacture, use, and sell energy produced by any means they devise--including nuclear, hydrocarbon, solar, wind, or even bicycle generators. While it is evident that the human right to produce and use energy does not extend to activities that actually endanger the climate of the Earth upon which we all depend, bogus claims about climate dangers should not be used as a justification to further limit the American people's freedom. In conclusion, I once again urge my colleagues to carefully consider the arguments made by the 31,478 American scientists who have signed this petition before voting on any legislation imposing new regulations or taxes on the American people in the name of halting climate change. "

http://www.house.gov/apps/list/speech/tx14_paul/GlobalWarmingJune4.shtml

6/12/2009 1:04:22 PM

Quote :

"Can we just admit that wind and solar will never provide adequate power needs for the U.S? "

No one is suggesting otherwise, so why admit it?

6/12/2009 3:43:19 PM

The "we" in the statement was referring to humanity, not the posters on this board specifically.

I mean as a species, let's stop wasting time on solar and wind and start focusing on improving nuclear, hydro, and geothermal.

[Edited on June 12, 2009 at 4:12 PM. Reason : thanks!]

6/12/2009 3:53:20 PM

agreed!

and its hydro

6/12/2009 3:59:16 PM

Quote :

"I mean as a species, let's stop wasting time on solar and wind and start focusing on improving nuclear, hydro, and geothermal. "

See, now thats a ridiculous thing to say. Wind and solar energy have incredible potential, just not as sole providers. We could drasticly reduce our dependence on grid power by pursing small-scale solutions.

I don't want to get into a whole thing, but there's no reason to simply write off those technologies.

6/12/2009 4:23:05 PM

as far as small scale local use, like on the roof top of your house, I agree. Use what's there. As far as powering a city, no.

6/12/2009 4:26:57 PM

I'd be all for using wind and solar if it wasn't hooked directly into the grid. If you could use them to power some sort of electrochemical hydrogenation facility that recycled CO2 emissions and converted it back into methanol, we would be getting some energy storage potential out of the units without having to worry about grid stability.

6/12/2009 4:30:07 PM

You've got to love close mindedness like this, it really shows you how serious this problem is.

Quote :

"Republicans and their s**t films must be stopped Written by Ann McElhinney & Phelim McAleer Wednesday, 17 June 2009 16:03 blacklists are a silent way of trying to destroy people and their careers. And that suits those doing the blacklisting particularly if they call themselves liberal and claim to care about censorship and human rights. But some liberals forget to keep quiet and make public what is really going on. Richard Lindzen is an MIT physicist whose scientific investigations make him sceptical about Global Warming. But his significant scientific pedigree does not matter to those less qualified who believe otherwise. He recently told the GreenHellBlog that after a house fire he approached a Boston art appraiser to value an antique rug. Professor Lindzen received the following response by email: "I am sorry to inform you that after some consideration, I’ve decided not to perform the appraisal service that you’ve requested. Your writing on the subject of global warming is offensive to me personally, and I feel that I would have difficulty being an impartial appraiser of value given my view on the subject." We smiled when the email was revealed and thought that Professor Lindzen and Boston could do with a new art appraiser. However it was amusing only until we asked a number of US companies to work for us. We needed companies to make DVDs and provide translated subtitles for our new documentary Not Evil Just Wrong. Just like Professor Lindzen it challenges liberal orthodoxy - taking a critical look at environmentalism and Global Warming hysteria. And just like Professor Lindzen we felt the chill hand of discrimination. One of the companies, in the midst of the biggest recessions in living memory, said "our order was too big" and declined to bid for the contract. However, the Atlanta based International Services translation company really gave the game away when in an email they explained why they were refusing to provide us with their services. CEO Sue Ellen Reager stated: "I have researched your film on the web, and do not see scientific reviews or major press reviews in support (may be too early), and needed that support to assure cooperation from our translators. Because we translate with highly educated people around the world, located in countries like Germany and France, who take Global Warming very seriously, I am fairly sure that several countries will refuse to participate in this project." In a follow up telephone conversation Ms Reager explained to "you guys in Europe" how the system really worked. Ms Reager and her company have "worked in Hollywood for years" she explained. Their client list includes CNN, Turner Broadcasting, Google and Microsoft. At first she blamed her European translators. "Your content looks like it is refuting many assertions made by Al Gore and Europe is pro Al Gore... and I am pretty sure they will refuse to participate...we deal with really classy people in Germany and anything attacking Al Gore they will refuse." Speaking on the phone Ms Reager said that in the email she was "just being nice" to us because we were Europeans and that she was worried that the film might be like some of the "Republican shit" that gets released in the US. The real problem is with those pesky Republicans in the US who insist on making films that she and Hollywood don't agree with. "I didn't know whether your documentary is fact based or part of the rubbish that Republicans make. You wouldn't believe the crap they put out. It is unbelievable shit, incredible lies," she said. Many Republicans put out films that are just "faith based imaginings," she added. We are European but isn't Altlanta the home of one of your famous civil rights leaders who in a "faith based imagining" dreamed that people one day would be judged by the content of their character and nothing else. This dream does not seem to have reached Hollywood - just yet. It is a one party town where character, hard work and talent count for nothing. No dissent form the leftist orthodoxy seems to be tolerated and those who disagree experience quiet discrimination that slowly strangles their ability to work in the industry. Phelim McAleer and Ann McElhinney are the directors of Not Evil Just Wrong - The True Cost of Global Warming Hysteria http://www.noteviljustwrong.com"

quite sad.

6/21/2009 12:56:42 PM

Yes, those poor film-makers, suffering from ideological discrimination. How dare those bigoted liberal companies try to exercise their own ideological freedoms, let alone make sound business decisions!

6/21/2009 2:10:30 PM

Georgia is a bastion of liberal thought and oppression.

[Edited on June 21, 2009 at 2:38 PM. Reason : ]

6/21/2009 2:37:45 PM

Quote :

"I mean as a species, let's stop wasting time on solar and wind and start focusing on improving nuclear, hydro, and geothermal."

Wind power
Hydroelectricity
Solar electricity
Biofuels
Geothermal
Fossil fuels
Nuclear

6/21/2009 5:47:42 PM

geothermal scares me almost as much as wind power. Yes, it'd be a great idea to suck energy out of the earth. Talk about unintended consequences

Quote :

"I am sorry to inform you that after some consideration, I’ve decided not to perform the appraisal service that you’ve requested. Your writing on the subject of global warming is offensive to me personally, and I feel that I would have difficulty being an impartial appraiser of value given my view on the subject."

I actually look at this view a bit differently. What the guy was basically saying is that he would have a conflict of interest, and he is actually quite professional to say so up front. Frankly, he could have just fucked Lindzen over and gave him an asininely low figure of worth.

6/21/2009 8:14:33 PM

true enough, but it also shows how people are (now more than ever) treating this like a religion.

6/21/2009 9:40:01 PM

pumping heat out of the desert doesn't sound much different than pumping it out of the earth, and solar facilities installed in the desert are going to see the largest increases in the coming years.

6/21/2009 9:42:20 PM

There's nothing wrong with pumping heat out of the ground and using it for electricity. No, it will not likely cause earthquakes. If anything, it will stop earthquakes. They could prevent the formation of volcanoes in the future and slow tectonic movements if we basically sucked the Earth cold. Not good. But also not significant.

Furthermore, if geothermal plants haven't screwed up something yet, those (same) plants are not likely to screw something up in the future. Why? Because eventually any site where your extract heat reaches equilibrium, where the heat you're sucking out is replenished by the radioactive decay in the center of the Earth.

--
There's also nothing wrong with pumping heat out of the desert. The issues are land development and land use. When they build a square mile solar thermal plant they put a fence around it, drive around trucks, and do maintenance. Whatever ecosystem did exist in that area doesn't anymore. That's the same for ANY large industry you site. The problem with solar thermal is that it takes so much MORE LAND than anything we're used to.

The only thing dangerous about the 'heat' being removed is possibly the effect on the total surface albedo of the Earth - i.e. global warming concerns. If solar PVs absorb 99% of the sunlight that hits it, they are contributing to global warming. 10% of that may go to electricity, but if it wasn't there, maybe 40% would have been reflected back into space. This may sound nit-picky, but there are farmers who have painted their roofs white to help cool the Earth. In a cap and trade system the guberments should be paying you to paint surfaces white. Correspondingly, in a cap and trade system, a solar thermal plant should be paying money to the whitewashes to offset the excess heat from the sun their plant absorbed and did not emit back into space.

6/21/2009 10:03:01 PM

I wasn't trying to imply that they'll cause any problems pulling heat out of the desert - just that this type of power plant is going to be much more prevalent than geothermal. besides, all the large scale solar facilities being built in the desert right now aren't PV - they're parabolic trough and steam turbine designs.

I'm interested to see how they're going to handle coolant water in the desert.

6/21/2009 10:19:09 PM

Ah yes, I did neglect possibly the biggest environmental issue for solar thermal. It doesn't help that they're some of the least efficient steam plants on Earth - causes you to use a lot more water for the same output. And ironically they're in the desert.

Quote :

"just that this type of power plant is going to be much more prevalent than geothermal."

It depends on how you define 'prevalent'.
-The amount of space taken up
-The total amount of money gets spent on it
-How much people talk about it
-The total amount of useful energy produced

6/21/2009 10:51:38 PM

the total amount of energy produced, with is directly correlated with the amount of energy pulled out of the surrounding environment. I don't think the development is that big of a deal, because most of the plants and transmission lines being built are being routed directly beside major highways and on federal lands that will be strictly regulated. What does concern me is the capacity of the plants, which will affect how much water is needed and how much of a heat sink we may be creating in the environment.

6/22/2009 8:25:40 AM

Where did you get your info on these plants being built in the desert?

6/22/2009 10:37:05 AM

Quote :

"true enough, but it also shows how people are (now more than ever) treating this like a religion."

-TKE-Teg

I think a better comparison would be that people are treating global warming skeptics like they treat proponents of eugenics--a small and mostly, politically motivated group of scientists whose research has consequences most people find dangerous.

[Edited on June 22, 2009 at 12:22 PM. Reason : ``]

6/22/2009 12:21:01 PM

ha

"research "

6/22/2009 12:32:44 PM

^^^recent bids I've prepared and articles in Transmission and Distribution magazine. Spain and the US both have plans for about 3GW of parabolic trough systems to be installed in the next 3-4 years.

6/22/2009 12:45:36 PM