3.26.2011
Tea Party Valiantly Protects Bank of America From ...
Tea Party Valiantly Protects Bank of America From "Big Government"
OK, so maybe Bank of America regularly screws over the citizens of St. Louis and the rest of the United States. You can see examples of that here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. But they've got the word "America" in their title, so they must be extremely patriotic, right?
Tragically, from what I'm reading on tea party blogs, it must be extremely difficult for Bank of America to survive in this era of Big Government oppression. For example, after BOA and their other corporate buddies crashed the American economy in 2008, BOA only received a $45 billion dollar bailout. And, on top of that, they've had to pay zero dollars in federal taxes while their executives eeked by with only $6 to $30 million dollar salaries! With oppressive big government action like that, it's totally understandable that the St. Louis tea party is now working hard to protect the nearly defenseless (aside from billions of dollars) bank from protesters who remind the public of BOA's actions and challenge them on their unjust foreclosure practices.
Thank goodness the tea party is out there protecting the most vulnerable citizens of all: multibillion dollar companies who regularly distort the free market by infusing the political system with blood money.
St. Louis Activist Hub: Tea Party Valiantly Protects Bank of America From ...: "OK, so maybe Bank of America regularly screws over the citizens of St. Louis and the rest of the United States. You can see examples of tha..."
Solar Stocks Still Undervalued | DanaBlankenhorn
Civilization is never going forward so long as we're tied to the technology of our caveman ancestors, looking around for stuff to burn, then burning it. It progresses – I would argue it starts –
While most investors were hurt bad by the Sendai earthquake, those who invested in solar stocks were protected.
Big solar companies like First Solar and SunPower have, in fact, been out-performing the market this year. But even with recent gains they're still selling at price-earnings multiples below that of the market, comparable to those of big oil companies like Exxon Mobil.
They're not being treated as growth stocks. They're being treated like newspaper stocks. One reason makes sense – we don't really know who the long-term winners are. Another reason is foreign competition. Some folks just don't believe America can win. (Picture from Civilianism.)
That may be why the Wall Street Journal still expects natural gas, despite its environmental problems, to outpace solar.
I'd like to place a bet on that one. This is an industry that grew 67% last year. You really think natural gas can compete with that?
Fact is, as the folks at SolarDock and other suppliers know well, solar efficiency measured in watts of output per square foot continues to climb. It's doubled in the last decade, and there's no reason to believe it won't double again in the next.
The theoretical maximum is 1000 watts per square foot, because that's the average output of the Sun on the average piece of ground on the average day. Most current production panels run at 150 watts per square foot, so there's room for improvement.
Improvement comes every year, and not just on that single dimension. I wrote yesterday about how PPA agreements can become standardized. That cuts costs. Connectors can become standardized, and that cuts costs. Mass production leads to cost reductions, and that cuts costs. Harnessing heat as well as light (not to mention non-visible wavelengths) increases production and cuts the cost per watt. I'll bet you can think of some other dimensions of improvement as well.
Natural gas can never work that way. Greater production, at enormous long-term costs to our water table, could increase supply and maintain costs at near their current level, in the near term. But every cubic meter of gas consumed is one less cubic meter of gas in the ground. Meanwhile, the Sun keeps shining.
Civilization is never going forward so long as we're tied to the technology of our caveman ancestors, looking around for stuff to burn, then burning it. It progresses – I would argue it starts – when we settle down to harvesting the energy that's all around us.
Let this be the century when man is finally civilized. Let the Wall Street Journal put $100 into natural gas stocks, you put $100 into solar stocks, and see who wins 20 years from now.
- when we settle down to harvesting the energy that's all around us. Let this be the century when man is finally civilized.
- Let the Wall Street Journal put $100 into natural gas stocks, you put $100 into solar stocks, and see who wins 20 years from now.
While most investors were hurt bad by the Sendai earthquake, those who invested in solar stocks were protected.Big solar companies like First Solar and SunPower have, in fact, been out-performing the market this year. But even with recent gains they're still selling at price-earnings multiples below that of the market, comparable to those of big oil companies like Exxon Mobil.
They're not being treated as growth stocks. They're being treated like newspaper stocks. One reason makes sense – we don't really know who the long-term winners are. Another reason is foreign competition. Some folks just don't believe America can win. (Picture from Civilianism.)
That may be why the Wall Street Journal still expects natural gas, despite its environmental problems, to outpace solar.
I'd like to place a bet on that one. This is an industry that grew 67% last year. You really think natural gas can compete with that?
Fact is, as the folks at SolarDock and other suppliers know well, solar efficiency measured in watts of output per square foot continues to climb. It's doubled in the last decade, and there's no reason to believe it won't double again in the next.
The theoretical maximum is 1000 watts per square foot, because that's the average output of the Sun on the average piece of ground on the average day. Most current production panels run at 150 watts per square foot, so there's room for improvement.
Improvement comes every year, and not just on that single dimension. I wrote yesterday about how PPA agreements can become standardized. That cuts costs. Connectors can become standardized, and that cuts costs. Mass production leads to cost reductions, and that cuts costs. Harnessing heat as well as light (not to mention non-visible wavelengths) increases production and cuts the cost per watt. I'll bet you can think of some other dimensions of improvement as well.
Natural gas can never work that way. Greater production, at enormous long-term costs to our water table, could increase supply and maintain costs at near their current level, in the near term. But every cubic meter of gas consumed is one less cubic meter of gas in the ground. Meanwhile, the Sun keeps shining.
Civilization is never going forward so long as we're tied to the technology of our caveman ancestors, looking around for stuff to burn, then burning it. It progresses – I would argue it starts – when we settle down to harvesting the energy that's all around us.
Let this be the century when man is finally civilized. Let the Wall Street Journal put $100 into natural gas stocks, you put $100 into solar stocks, and see who wins 20 years from now.
Presidential Campaign Slogan for 2012: It's Innovation Stupid! | KC_Donovan
*Big Oil spends $15 million each day advertising
Okay, so the winds blowing through Congress may set back any energy and climate legislation for years. But all is not lost: With the corporate world embracing innovation in clean energy, lawmakers will soon be forced to keep up with the times.
Of course, we're still up against a wall of doubt built by opponents.
We consistently see the anti clean energy media making the point that a transition to renewables will drive prices up, lose jobs and cause damage to an already fragile economy. It's a classic "denial" marketing strategy – trumpet exactly the opposite of reality. Some leading this effort are experts at this strategy and earned their stripes after speweing decades of misinformation while working for the tobacco industry, and have moved to crafting the response for challenges to the status quo of energy production.
Certainly those currently making money in the fossil fuel industry have a lot at stake as they don’t want to become this century’s Black Smiths. Robert Kennedy Jr. pointed out in an excellent interview with Grist.com that collectively, Big Oil spends $15 million each day advertising their "scary" message. By comparison, that’s about what the entire Clean Energy and Environmental Community spends in a year.
Little wonder why there is no legislation for clean energy and climate policy, that 25-30% of the public question Climate Change’s existence and that government subsidizes the oil industry to the tune of between between $130-280 billion annually. This last point seems patently absurd when you realize that three of the five largest companies on the planet are oil companies (Shell, Exxon Mobil, BP) – and they’re the most profitable. Even after paying out billions in Gulf Oil Spill damages in the summer of 2010, BP still was able to earn almost $2 billion in profit during the same period. Do these guys really need taxpayer financial support? Sad when you consider that a new transmission line to bring the Mid West wind and Southwest Solar energy to our population centers would cost less than four years worth of that oil subsidy.
All of these inequities are bought and paid for – plain and simple.
We can go on and on ranting about the lack of common sense that goes into the energy hopper of public policy and discourse, or we can look enthusiastically at making a difference through innovation. Looking back through history, it has always been improvements in technology and business models that have brought about change.
It was the cotton gin and steam engine that spawned the industrial revolution (outlawing slavery in the British Empire also helped); harnessing electricity and oil was the key to such incredible growth in the 20thCentury; and the interent created a vast network that formed the basis of our today's information-driven global economy. In every case it was the implementation of new technology that undid our past practices and ushered in greater waves of prosperity.
It will be no different this time.
We certainly have our Morgan’s, Carnegie’s and Rockefeller’s in our midst that pull the levers of power and retain most of the wealth. But this time around there are Gate’s, Khosla’s and Buffett's to balance out the Cheney’s, Koch’s, Blankenship’s and their ilk.
These and others have been powerful thought leaders in this sector. In addition, the efforts of clean energy opponents have been thwarted by giant companies like WalMart, Intel and GSK that have turned to renewable energy solutions to power their businesses. In addition, other giant conglomerates like GE, Siemens and Honeywell have become leading investors in clean energy solutions; GE has pledged to spend hundreds of billions in new energy technologies in the coming years, and recently announced that it would also buy 45,000 electric vehicles for its sales fleet.
The Carbon Disclosure Project, which reviews the Global 500 biggest companies and rates their climate and sustainability policies, recently reported that more than 80% of top companies are working on carbon emissions reduction and sustainability programs. In addition, a recent UN sponsored study conducted by Accenture of 766 global CEOs found that 93% say that sustainability will be critical to the future success of their companies.
With this kind of support from the corporate world, there's a real chance that we can continue our progress even without consistent support from Congress. As innovation keeps brewing, federal lawmakers will have no choice but to listen.
Okay, so the winds blowing through Congress may set back any energy and climate legislation for years. But all is not lost: With the corporate world embracing innovation in clean energy, lawmakers will soon be forced to keep up with the times.
Of course, we're still up against a wall of doubt built by opponents.
We consistently see the anti clean energy media making the point that a transition to renewables will drive prices up, lose jobs and cause damage to an already fragile economy. It's a classic "denial" marketing strategy – trumpet exactly the opposite of reality. Some leading this effort are experts at this strategy and earned their stripes after speweing decades of misinformation while working for the tobacco industry, and have moved to crafting the response for challenges to the status quo of energy production.
Certainly those currently making money in the fossil fuel industry have a lot at stake as they don’t want to become this century’s Black Smiths. Robert Kennedy Jr. pointed out in an excellent interview with Grist.com that collectively, Big Oil spends $15 million each day advertising their "scary" message. By comparison, that’s about what the entire Clean Energy and Environmental Community spends in a year.
Little wonder why there is no legislation for clean energy and climate policy, that 25-30% of the public question Climate Change’s existence and that government subsidizes the oil industry to the tune of between between $130-280 billion annually. This last point seems patently absurd when you realize that three of the five largest companies on the planet are oil companies (Shell, Exxon Mobil, BP) – and they’re the most profitable. Even after paying out billions in Gulf Oil Spill damages in the summer of 2010, BP still was able to earn almost $2 billion in profit during the same period. Do these guys really need taxpayer financial support? Sad when you consider that a new transmission line to bring the Mid West wind and Southwest Solar energy to our population centers would cost less than four years worth of that oil subsidy.
All of these inequities are bought and paid for – plain and simple.
We can go on and on ranting about the lack of common sense that goes into the energy hopper of public policy and discourse, or we can look enthusiastically at making a difference through innovation. Looking back through history, it has always been improvements in technology and business models that have brought about change.
It was the cotton gin and steam engine that spawned the industrial revolution (outlawing slavery in the British Empire also helped); harnessing electricity and oil was the key to such incredible growth in the 20thCentury; and the interent created a vast network that formed the basis of our today's information-driven global economy. In every case it was the implementation of new technology that undid our past practices and ushered in greater waves of prosperity.
It will be no different this time.
We certainly have our Morgan’s, Carnegie’s and Rockefeller’s in our midst that pull the levers of power and retain most of the wealth. But this time around there are Gate’s, Khosla’s and Buffett's to balance out the Cheney’s, Koch’s, Blankenship’s and their ilk.These and others have been powerful thought leaders in this sector. In addition, the efforts of clean energy opponents have been thwarted by giant companies like WalMart, Intel and GSK that have turned to renewable energy solutions to power their businesses. In addition, other giant conglomerates like GE, Siemens and Honeywell have become leading investors in clean energy solutions; GE has pledged to spend hundreds of billions in new energy technologies in the coming years, and recently announced that it would also buy 45,000 electric vehicles for its sales fleet.
The Carbon Disclosure Project, which reviews the Global 500 biggest companies and rates their climate and sustainability policies, recently reported that more than 80% of top companies are working on carbon emissions reduction and sustainability programs. In addition, a recent UN sponsored study conducted by Accenture of 766 global CEOs found that 93% say that sustainability will be critical to the future success of their companies.
With this kind of support from the corporate world, there's a real chance that we can continue our progress even without consistent support from Congress. As innovation keeps brewing, federal lawmakers will have no choice but to listen.
Re: Compromise is key to setting energy policy
Editorial: Compromise is key to setting energy policy Mar 16, 2011 Knox News Energy crises have been a part the American landscape on and off for the past 40 years. However, it seems we have learned little, except perhaps that politicians understand they can get a lot of mileage when they complain about America's dependence on "foreign oil." Since the 1970s when gasoline prices shot up during an embargo by the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, Americans have talked about decreasing their dependence on oil from other nations, especially the Middle East. (During the current crisis, OPEC has ramped up production to compensate for the loss of Libyan crude.)
The early 1970s also was the time the environmental movement was hitting its stride, so there was talk about ending dependence on fossil fuels and switching to alternative forms of energy: solar, geothermal and wind power, among others.
And speaking of alternative sources of energy, credit U.S. Sen. Lamar Alexander with leading the way. The Tennessee Republican last week became one of the first consumers in the state to purchase a 2011 Nissan Leaf electric car, encouraging the use of electric-powered vehicles.
If enough Americans made similar purchases, he said, "that would be the single best way to reduce our dependence on foreign oil."
With gasoline prices hitting an average of $3.50 per gallon nationwide last week - about $3.35 per gallon in Tennessee - Alexander's purchase was timely.
Meanwhile, those rising gasoline prices continue to capture most of the current attention. And even politicians who seriously want Americans to find alternative sources of energy acknowledge that gasoline will remain the fuel of choice in the near future.
Now, some predict that gas prices will reach $5 per gallon by the summer, and that is causing the rhetoric to rise as well. Tennessee's U.S. representatives have decried the dependence on foreign oil as well as the lack of a clear energy policy.
U.S. Rep. John J. Duncan Jr., R-Knoxville, also expressed understandable concern about people in rural areas having to drive longer distances to work. Duncan chairs the House Transportation Committee's Subcommittee on Highways and Transit.
An energy policy should include drilling in new areas and accelerating approval of nuclear power plants, Duncan said. U.S. Reps. Scott DesJarlais, of the 3rd District, and Phil Roe, of the 1st District, agreed. DeJarlais added that alternative forms of energy should be expanded, while Roe said the U.S. should boost the use of natural gas.
Duncan said he expects the new Republican majority in the House to begin pushing for an energy policy that includes more domestic production.
The discussion needs to begin anew and not disappear when gasoline prices fall. If the GOP majority can get it going, good for them. With the House in Republican hands and the Senate and White House controlled by Democrats, the current crisis might produce what has been lacking in the past.
That would be a compromise that gives Americans a clear, coherent energy policy, one that builds instead of blames and guides instead of guesses. That would be an achievement 40 years in the making.
--
Scott's Contracting
scottscontracting@gmail.com
http://www.stlouisrenewableenergy.blogspot.com
http://scottscontracting.wordpress.com
President Carter was right
--
Scott's Contracting
scottscontracting@gmail.com
http://www.stlouisrenewableenergy.blogspot.com
http://scottscontracting.wordpress.com
Coal and E.P.A. Proposes New Emission Standards for Power Plants
Adaptation to all the proposed rules constitutes an extraordinary threat to the power sector — particularly the half of U.S. electricity derived from coal-fired generation-
Is this why the Big Coal and Big Oil Firms are Lobbying to Cut the Funding for the EPA?
--
Scott's Contracting
scottscontracting@gmail.com
http://stlouisrenewableenergy.blogspot.com
http://scottscontracting.wordpress.com
- first national standard and will require all plants to come up to the standard of the cleanest of current plants
Is this why the Big Coal and Big Oil Firms are Lobbying to Cut the Funding for the EPA?
| Mar 17, 2011 | New York Times | ||
| WASHINGTON — The Environmental Protection Agency on Wednesday proposed the first national standard for emissions of mercury and other pollutants from coal-burning power plants, a rule that could lead to the early closing of a number of older plants and one that is certain to be challenged by the some utilities and Republicans in Congress. Lisa P. Jackson, the agency's administrator, said control of dozens of poisonous substances emitted by power plants was long overdue and would prevent thousands of deaths and tens of thousands of cases of disease a year. Ms. Jackson pointedly included the head of the American Lung Association and two prominent doctors in her announcement to make the point that the regulations were designed to protect public health and not to penalize the utility industry. She estimated the total annual cost of compliance at about $10 billion (This is the Same Projected Cost for New Nuclear Reactors), in line with some industry estimates (although some are much higher), and the health and environmental benefits at more than $100 billion a year. She said that households could expect to see their electric bills rise by $3 to $4 a month when the regulation was fully in force after 2015. Ms. Jackson was acting under a court-ordered deadline to produce a draft rule by Wednesday. "Today's announcement is 20 years in the making and is a significant milestone in the Clean Air Act's already unprecedented record of ensuring our children are protected from the damaging effects of toxic air pollution," she said. Ms. Jackson said that mercury and the other emissions covered by the rule damaged the nervous systems of fetuses and children, aggravated asthma and caused lifelong health damage for hundreds of thousands of Americans. She said that installing and maintaining smokestack scrubbers and other control technology would create 31,000 short-term construction jobs and 9,000 permanent utility sector jobs. Even before the formal unveiling of the rule, some utilities, business groups and Congressional Republicans cast it as the latest salvo in a regulatory war on American industry. They cited a number of recently issued E.P.A. rules, including one on industrial boilers and the first of a series of regulations covering greenhouse gases, which they argue will impose huge costs on businesses and choke off economic recovery. "E.P.A. admits the pending proposal will cost at least $10 billion, making it one of the most expensive rules in the history of the agency," a group of utilities, the Electric Reliability Coordinating Council, said in a report this week. "Adaptation to all the proposed rules constitutes an extraordinary threat to the power sector — particularly the half of U.S. electricity derived from coal-fired generation." The group questioned Ms. Jackson's assertion that the technology needed to reduce emissions of mercury, lead, arsenic, chromium and other airborne pollutants was readily available and reasonably inexpensive. The need to retrofit scores of plants in the same short period of time will tax resources and lead to delays, it said. A spokesman for the utility industry's largest trade group, the Edison Electric Institute, said it would be easier for some utilities to comply than others, particularly those that rely more heavily on nuclear power and those that have switched to natural gas for part of their generating capacity. One utility executive said compliance would not be unduly burdensome. "We know from experience that constructing this technology can be done in a reasonable time frame, especially with good advance planning," said Paul Allen, senior vice president and chief environmental officer of Constellation Energy. "And there is meaningful job creation associated with the projects." Public health advocates said utilities had delayed the rules for more than two decades with court challenges and lobbying campaigns. "If you think it's expensive to put a scrubber on a smokestack, you should see how much it costs to treat a child over a lifetime with a birth defect," said Dr. O. Marion Burton, president of the American Academy of Pediatrics, who stood with Ms. Jackson in announcing the rule. Roughly half of the nation's more than 400 coal-burning plants have some form of control technology installed, and about a third of states have set their own standards for mercury emissions. But the proposed rule issued Wednesday is the first national standard and will require all plants to come up to the standard of the cleanest of current plants. The new rules bring to a close a bitter legal and regulatory battle dating back to the passage of the 1970 Clean Air Act, which first directed the E.P.A. to identify and control major industrial sources of hazardous emissions. By 1990, however, federal regulators had still not set standards for toxic emissions from power plants, and Congress, in the face of stiff resistance from utilities and coal interests, passed legislation directing the E.P.A. to study the health effects of mercury and other emissions, and to detail the cost and effectiveness of control technologies. In 1998, the agency finally complied, delivering a comprehensive report to Congress detailing the health impact of numerous pollutants, including mercury, which by then had been linked conclusively in multiple studies to serious cognitive harm to fetuses. In December 2000, in the last days of the Clinton administration, the E.P.A. finally listed power plants as a source of hazardous air pollutants under the Clean Air Act. The Bush administration E.P.A. faced its own deadlines to devise and put into effect controls for power plant pollution. But rather than issue emissions standards in line with federal law, in 2005, top agency officials instituted a controversial cap-and-trade program for mercury, despite a warning from agency lawyers that the move would throw the issue back into the courts and almost certainly be reversed. As predicted, a coalition of states and environmentalists sued the agency, arguing that the cap-and-trade program would not limit other toxic emissions like arsenic and would allow the dirtiest power plants to pay for the right to pollute, putting nearby communities at risk. In 2008 a federal judge ruled against the E.P.A., giving the agency three years to develop standards for mercury and other pollutants. The long delay has meant that emissions of some major pollutants have grown in recent years. The E.P.A.'s most recent data shows that from 1999 to 2005, mercury emissions from power plants increased more than 8 percent, to 53 tons from 49 tons. Arsenic emissions grew even more, rising 31 percent, to 210 tons from 160 tons. The E.P.A. will take public comment on the proposed regulations for the next several months. It anticipates publishing a final rule at the end of this year or early next year. The rule would take effect fully three or four years later. | |||
--
Scott's Contracting
scottscontracting@gmail.com
http://stlouisrenewableenergy.blogspot.com
http://scottscontracting.wordpress.com
new gearless wind turbine-low to moderate wind speeds
The Innovation by Siemens could be the solution to St Louis Wind Speeds cut in Wind Speed is 3mph just what was needed for our Wind Speeds in the St Louis Area!-. I'm further researching and will post the findings in an upcoming post. Scotty
Energy Sector / Renewable Energy Division
Energy Sector / Renewable Energy Division
Siemens launches new gearless wind turbine for low to moderate wind speeds
Brussels, Belgium, 2011-Mar-14
Siemens Energy today launched a new direct drive gearless wind turbine for low to moderate wind speeds at the EWEA 2011 wind power exhibition and conference in Brussels. The core feature of the new SWT-2.3-113 wind turbine is an innovative drive concept with a compact permanent magnet generator. This type of generator is characterized by its simple, robust design, requiring no excitation power, slip rings or excitation control systems. This results in high efficiency even at low loads. With a capacity of 2.3 megawatts (MW) and a rotor diameter of 113 meters the new wind turbine is designed to maximize power production at sites with low to moderate wind speeds. The SWT-2.3-113 is fitted with the new Siemens B55 Quantum Blades. This new blade design boosts efficiency and optimizes performance. A prototype of the new machine was installed in the Netherlands in March.
Together with the SWT-2.3-113 Siemens is introducing the Quantum Blade, a new generation of rotor blades. The new blade is lighter than previous models but retains the superior strength of earlier generations. The new B55 Quantum Blade used for the new wind turbine is 55 meters long and features a redesigned tip and root section. The root section uses Siemens "flatback" profiles to minimize root leakage and provide greater lift. The blade tip has also been redesigned to minimize loads and reduce noise levels. With a noise level of only 105 decibels (dB) the SWT-2.3-113 is one of the quietest wind turbines on the market.
Together with the SWT-2.3-113 Siemens is introducing the Quantum Blade, a new generation of rotor blades. The new blade is lighter than previous models but retains the superior strength of earlier generations. The new B55 Quantum Blade used for the new wind turbine is 55 meters long and features a redesigned tip and root section. The root section uses Siemens "flatback" profiles to minimize root leakage and provide greater lift. The blade tip has also been redesigned to minimize loads and reduce noise levels. With a noise level of only 105 decibels (dB) the SWT-2.3-113 is one of the quietest wind turbines on the market.
To date, Siemens has installed and commissioned a total of five gearless SWT-3.0-101 wind turbines in Denmark and Norway. Further projects with Siemens direct drive wind turbines are planned in the U.S., Denmark and Germany. In addition to these two new wind turbines with ratings of 3 MW and 2.3 MW, further turbines are already at the planning stage. "This year we'll launch our 6-MW direct drive wind turbine, which will be particularly suitable for large offshore wind power plants," Stiesdal stated.
Wind power is part of Siemens' Environmental Portfolio. In fiscal 2010, revenue from the Portfolio totaled about EUR28 billion, making Siemens the world's largest supplier of ecofriendly technologies. In the same period, our products and solutions enabled customers to reduce their carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by 270 million tons, an amount equal to the total annual CO2 emissions of the megacities Hong Kong, London, New York, Tokyo, Delhi and Singapore.
Further information on the SWT-2.3-113 is available at: www.siemens.com/wind
Download of this and more press photos: www.siemens.com/Renewables/pictures/ERE201103050
The Siemens Energy Sector is the world's leading supplier of a complete spectrum of products, services and solutions for the generation, transmission and distribution of power and for the extraction, conversion and transport of oil and gas. In fiscal 2010 (ended September 30), the Energy Sector had revenues of approximately EUR25.5 billion and received new orders totaling more than EUR30.1 billion and posted a profit of more than EUR3.3 billion. On September 30, 2010, the Energy Sector had a work force of more than 88,000. Further information is available at: http://www.siemens.com/energy
Reference Number: ERE201103050e
Download SWT-2.3-113 wind turbine Spec Sheet Here cut in Wind Speed is 3mph just what was needed for our Wind Speeds in the St Louis Area!
--
Scott's Contracting
scottscontracting@gmail.com
http://tlouisrenewableenergy.blogspot.com
http://scottscontracting.wordpress.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
-
Thank You for stopping by the Green Blog. If additional information in needed or you have a question let me know by posting a question or ...
-
Making a decorative axe from melted copper wire by u/SinjiOnO in oddlysatisfying Thank You for stopping by the Gree...
