News aggregator

08/16/2010 - Clean Edge and NASDAQ's three benchmark clean-tech stock indexes experienced rough movement last week with the NASDAQ Clean Edge Green Energy Index (CELS) down 8...

08/16/2010 - The Kittitas County Board of Adjustment recently approved a permit for

(none)

Did you know that you can put solar on your roof in New Jersey, and earn actual cash for 15 years for doing so? Even though you'll also get to use that clean power you make – because you can stop paying electric utility bills (that average 17 cents a kWh in the state) yet your solar home earns money for producing electricity. You get to have your cake and eat it too.

The money you can earn comes through legislation akin to the remarkable Feed-in Tariffs that shot Germany and Spain to solar leadership. You earn the money for sending clean sunshine power to the grid with Solar Renewable Energy Credits (SRECs).

The money you can make can be staggering.
(more…)

Did you know that you can put solar on your roof in New Jersey, and earn actual cash for 15 years for doing so? Even though you'll also get to use that clean power you make – because you can stop paying electric utility bills (that average 17 cents a kWh in the state) yet your solar home earns money for producing electricity. You get to have your cake and eat it too.

The money you can earn comes through legislation akin to the remarkable Feed-in Tariffs that shot Germany and Spain to solar leadership. You earn the money for sending clean sunshine power to the grid with Solar Renewable Energy Credits (SRECs).

The money you can make can be staggering.
(more…)

Need some shade on your company parking lot? Instead of a putting up a dumb structure that merely shades the parking lot, take a look at this solar powerhouse made by Ohio-based ProtekPark Solar. The company builds extremely sturdy pre-engineered covered parking structures specifically designed to support solar panels as the roof.

Why make electricity when you've got a business to run? You could be making some money on the side from making solar electricity. You can do it off your roof at home too, but I'm thinking there's more space over your parking lot. The bigger the space, the more power it makes.The more solar power you can make, the more you can earn. That's because in certain states now, you can get paid to make electricity through trading SRECs.

About seven states enable you to go into solar farming and earn cash from it. In New Jersey you could earn serious cash over the next 15 years from making solar power.
(more…)

Need some shade on your company parking lot? Instead of a putting up a dumb structure that merely shades the parking lot, take a look at this solar powerhouse made by Ohio-based ProtekPark Solar. The company builds extremely sturdy pre-engineered covered parking structures specifically designed to support solar panels as the roof.

Why make electricity when you've got a business to run? You could be making some money on the side from making solar electricity. You can do it off your roof at home too, but I'm thinking there's more space over your parking lot. The bigger the space, the more power it makes.The more solar power you can make, the more you can earn. That's because in certain states now, you can get paid to make electricity through trading SRECs.

About seven states enable you to go into solar farming and earn cash from it. In New Jersey you could earn serious cash over the next 15 years from making solar power.
(more…)

In the war for efficiency, not only energy harvesters (like solar cells, wind turbines and others) have to win, but they will also have to be accompanied by storage devices, coming from behind. Daiwon Choi, working at DOE's Pacific Northwest National Laboratory has discovered how paraffin (wax) can improve the battery manufacturing technology by enhancing their electrodes.

Genie Lens Technologies has developed the easiest solution yet: a sticker that applied to the solar cell, will direct the incoming light onto the light-sensitive surface, greatly reducing reflections and improving the efficiency.

Indian Oil Corporation is looking to diversify into renewable and nuclear energy sectors and has earmarked $430 million for investment in the next five years.

The move comes as no surprise as several other government-owned oil companies have showed interest in investing into renewable energy infrastructure. IOC is looking to develop wind energy, solar energy and tidal energy for commercial sale of power. Additionally, it is also looking to form a joint venture with the Nuclear Power Corporation of India to take full advantage of investment opportunities resulting from the Indo-US nuclear deal.

The company already generates power from wind energy for captive use but intends to foray into power generation for commercial sale, either to the power exchanges or to the grid itself. The company is looking for sites in Rajasthan and Tamil Nadu for setting up solar and wind energy plants; both these states have significant wind and solar energy resources. The company has also registered for roof-top solar installations implying that it could look into small-scale installations coupled with feed-in tariff schemes that ensure higher revenue due to higher tariff rates. (more…)

Indian Oil Corporation is looking to diversify into renewable and nuclear energy sectors and has earmarked $430 million for investment in the next five years.

The move comes as no surprise as several other government-owned oil companies have showed interest in investing into renewable energy infrastructure. IOC is looking to develop wind energy, solar energy and tidal energy for commercial sale of power. Additionally, it is also looking to form a joint venture with the Nuclear Power Corporation of India to take full advantage of investment opportunities resulting from the Indo-US nuclear deal.

The company already generates power from wind energy for captive use but intends to foray into power generation for commercial sale, either to the power exchanges or to the grid itself. The company is looking for sites in Rajasthan and Tamil Nadu for setting up solar and wind energy plants; both these states have significant wind and solar energy resources. The company has also registered for roof-top solar installations implying that it could look into small-scale installations coupled with feed-in tariff schemes that ensure higher revenue due to higher tariff rates. (more…)

Solar is great if you have a good roof. But what if you don't? Why not make kilowatt-hours in your basement? Small residential Combined Heat & Power (CH&P) boilers that run on natural gas can effectively cut the greenhouse gas emissions in half, because these boilers don't just make hot water, they also make electricity.

A few companies are now introducing residential-sized CH&P units that are about the size of a clothes dryer, and make from 1 KW to 6 KW of electricity, just the amount of power needed in an average home using from about 300 kWh a month to about 900 kWh (you'd need to look at your bill to see your monthly usage, but most of us are in this range.)

Then the hot water produced is more than enough to supply the needs of average homeowners. And great for homeowners in cold climates who want to do radiant heating as well as hot water (as well as get the electricity!) (more…)

Solar is great if you have a good roof. But what if you don't? Why not make kilowatt-hours in your basement? Small residential Combined Heat & Power (CH&P) boilers that run on natural gas can effectively cut the greenhouse gas emissions in half, because these boilers don't just make hot water, they also make electricity.

A few companies are now introducing residential-sized CH&P units that are about the size of a clothes dryer, and make from 1 KW to 6 KW of electricity, just the amount of power needed in an average home using from about 300 kWh a month to about 900 kWh (you'd need to look at your bill to see your monthly usage, but most of us are in this range.)

Then the hot water produced is more than enough to supply the needs of average homeowners. And great for homeowners in cold climates who want to do radiant heating as well as hot water (as well as get the electricity!) (more…)

Wondering what the general emotion of the cleantech venture sector is right now?

The three posts I put up today (here, here and here) should paint the picture pretty well.

Things are happening. Deals are getting done. Startups are making progress, moving into production and revenue phases. Some exits are taking place. Emotion: Cautious optimism.

But funding remains tight. And companies are having to take inside-led rounds to get by. Moving into production phases makes that challenge even more acute. Investors are backing their companies through a few months hoping they'll be able to unlock additional funding quickly, from one source or another. But economic jitters continue, while a large number of cleantech venture investors are out of dry powder and already or soon to be out raising money from somewhat skeptical LPs. So the funding spigot seems unlikely to open back up really soon. Plus, the US Senate pulled the rug out from under everyone, stealing critical momentum. Emotion: Anxious.

For many cleantech companies, particularly those involved in production of solar, biofuels, vehicles and batteries, it really feels like a pressure period right now.

At Canaccord Genuity's very good sustainability dinner in Boston this week, I had an enjoyable conversation with CG's Marc Marano, a leader on their cleantech team. He told me about some pretty interesting data they'd pulled together on the solar industry.

We're all familiar already with what a down year 2009 was for financings, but perhaps no sector was harder hit than solar panel manufacturers. Marc's team had pulled together a list of all the financings in the solar sector for the five quarters Q1 2009 through Q1 2010. And looking over their tally, I see 18 follow-on rounds during that period to solar panel manufacturers or their suppliers.

Twelve of those rounds were insider rounds, often bridge financings. And two of the remaining ones were led by a corporate investor not an institutional investor.

Basically, during those five quarters almost no VCs were writing big new checks to follow-on rounds. They were backing their existing solar panel plays, and making small Series A investments. Marc notes that things have been better since then (including a couple of deals his group helped), but still...

It's a wonder we haven't seen even more of a shakeout than is already going on in that sector. I suspect we'll soon start being able to tell eventual winners from losers with a little more clarity...

From a news release issued by Orion Energy Systems:

MANITOWOC, Wis. — Aug. 12, 2010 — Orion Energy Systems Inc. (NYSE Amex: OESX) on Thursday raised the first urban wind tower in Manitowoc County, which will help offset energy consumed at the company’s technology center.

Based on average wind speed, the 20-kilowatt wind turbine is expected to generate up to 32 megawatt-hours a year. The wind turbine was manufactured by Oshkosh, Wis.-based Renewegy.

The monopole tower is the first urban wind turbine in Manitowoc County. Urban wind is the process of generating electricity through wind power to be used at an adjacent load center in an urban setting, significantly reducing the inefficiencies of transmitting and distributing electricity generated in rural areas.

“Urban wind is smart because the turbine is located at the load center, eliminating the need to transmit and distribute the power over long distances, which can result in the loss of up to 15 percent of the energy,” said Orion CEO Neal Verfuerth. “Like Orion’s growing suite of energy solutions, which now includes efficient lighting, wireless control systems and renewable solar technologies, urban wind will create permanent distributed load reductions — delivering capacity to the stressed energy grid and delivering energy savings to the end-user.”

“I’m proud to be standing here today for the erection of the first wind tower in the city of Manitowoc,” said Mayor Justin Nickels. “It’s truly amazing to have a company like Orion that, like the city of Manitowoc, continually looks to the future. We’re proud to have Orion in Manitowoc and to work with them to continue offering technologies that provide real energy solutions.”

About 40 people watched from the balcony of Orion’s tech center as two hydraulic lifts erected the fully assembled wind tower into place.

U.S. Rep. Thomas Petri, R-Wis., said the wind tower and Orion’s suite of products and services that deliver permanent distributed load reductions will “make our country stronger, help us consume less, yet have a higher standard of living.”

“Orion is a change agent in the energy sector,” Petri said. “You’re looking at the problem in a different way and thinking of new solutions to energy use.”

State Reps. James Soletski, D-Green Bay, and Ted Zigmunt, D-Francis Creek also attended the event, along with media, civic leaders and Orion employees.

The Ontario government and its energy planner, the Ontario Power Authority, sparked a big firestorm after announcing last month that they wanted to reduce the feed-in-tariff rate for small ground-mount solar PV projects to 58.8 cents per kilowatt-hour from a very rich 80.2 cents. The move caught many off-guard, and while there was a lot of grunting about the reduced rate, most were unhappy with the sudden and arbitrary nature of the announcement, which undermined the business plans of many companies that were participating in the program in good faith. Bottom line: it undermined confidence in the entire program, even though from a megawatts perspective it only dealt with a tiny portion of green power.

After a brief consultation period it seems the government and Ontario Power Authority took the industry's complaints to heart, even though my own sources told me just recently that the government was being pig-headed and planned to stick with its proposal. In the end, they caved in to pressure — a very smart face-saving move, I might add. The price reduction will still take place, but it will be reduced to 64.2 cents, not 58.8 cents, and it won't apply to anyone who applied to the program before July 2, 2010, meaning the OPA plans to honour the original 80.2 cents for those who meet that cutoff. This decision is a big gesture, because the plan under the original proposal was to only honour the 80.2 cents for those minority of projects that had already received a contract or conditional offer. That means the more than 10,000 applications that were going to be tossed out (with project proponents forced to reapply under the new rate) will now be honoured at the 80.2 cent rate so long as they applied before July 2.

There's a small catch, however. Commercial aggregators will no longer be allowed to participate in the microFIT program, but will still be able to participate in the larger FIT (10 kilowatts and up) program. The government didn't like the idea of aggregators merely leasing rooftops and then building and owning the systems, saying it defied the spirit of the program, which was to get households, farmers, communities, First Nations, etc… to participate directly on their own. I have to say, I *completely* agree with them there.

The OPA also announced it will be establishing a new advisory panel that will provide advice on program evolution, including the two-year FIT review process. The advisory panel will be made up of industry, academic and other stakeholders. I should point out that an attempt will be made to accommodate commercial aggregators of smaller projects, but it will be done outside of the microFIT program using a different set of rules to be established partly by the new advisory panel.

“The OPA has received almost 19,000 microFIT applications since the program was launched less than a year ago. More than 6,100 conditional offers have been sent to applicants and almost 800 microFIT projects are now feeding clean energy into Ontario's grid,” according to the agency's release today. “The OPA is working to respond quickly to microFIT applicants. Most ground-mounted applications that have been submitted will be processed by the end of September.”

Kudos to the government and OPA for putting meaning back into the word “consultation.” Showing a willingness to listen and change direction restores confidence in the process and the program, and the fact an advisory body has been set up to avoid future surprises can only help.

a2a_linkname="Ontario goverment, power authority try to make good on controversial tariff reduction proposed for ground-mount PV solar projects"; a2a_linkurl="http://www.cleanbreak.ca/2010/08/13/ontario-goverment-power-authority-try-to-make-good-on-controversial-tariff-reduction-proposed-for-ground-mount-pv-solar-projects/";

By Devon Swezey and Rob Atkinson

Originally posted at the Huffington Post.

If you want to understand why we haven't made any measurable progress on energy and climate change for the last 30 years, there's no better place to look than the visceral partisan reaction to Bill Gates' recent call for major federal investment in energy innovation.

Gates has been speaking out publicly over the last few months--first in a blog post on his website, then in a talk at the TED conference, and now as part of the American Energy Innovation Council--for radical energy innovation to drive carbon emissions to zero. In a climate discourse dominated by targets and carbon caps, Gates has provided a refreshing and clear-eyed look at the first-order importance of direct public investment to develop clean, affordable technologies to replace fossil fuels on a global scale.

But proving once again that no good deed goes unpunished by both the right and the left, Gates was roundly criticized by partisans on both sides for speaking truthfully about the enormous climate and energy challenge.

On the left, environmental advocates attacked Gates for daring to suggest that innovation will be critical to dramatically reducing greenhouse gas emissions, recycling the tired mythology--repeated ad nauseum by Al Gore--that "we have all the technologies we need" and "all we lack is political will."

On the right, libertarians and conservatives, while not hypnotized by the myth that clean energy is an affordable alternative to fossil fuels today, attacked Gates for proposing a substantial role for government in innovation, conveniently ignoring the long and successful history of government investment in developing nearly all the high-tech products we take for granted today.

Both the left and the right are wrong and Gates is right. The intense reaction from both sides to Gates' message shows why so little progress has been made on shifting away from fossil fuel energy over the last 30 years.

The Off-the-Shelf Mythology: We Don't Have All the Technology We Need

After publishing his article and speaking at TED, climate and environmental advocates on the left immediately attacked Gates for centering on the need for breakthrough technologies and radical technology innovation to solve climate change and sustainably power the planet.

Climate blogger Joe Romm of the Center for American Progress called Gates' position "myth-filled," and "suicidal," and dismissed the need for R&D investment on the scale that Gates advocates.

David Roberts of Grist, an influential online environmental magazine, penned an article titled "Why Bill Gates is Wrong," arguing that "new social arrangements" with existing technology are as important as new technology in creating a sustainable future.

The idea that "we have all the technology we need" is not new. Indeed, it has been a mantra for the environmental left for over 30 years. In 1976, Amory Lovins, the President of the Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI) and one of Joe Romm's mentors, predicted that by the year 2000 renewable energy, excluding hydroelectricity, would supply nearly one-third of U.S. energy consumption. The actual contribution of these energy resources in 2000 was 3 percent. In 1984, Lovins, who is considered a national energy efficiency guru, predicted that "we see electricity demand ratcheting downward over the medium to long-term." In fact, America's electricity consumption increased nearly 66 percent over the following 20 years.

Despite the fact that Lovins' many predictions have been so obviously wrong for so many years, he has gained notoriety and attracted high-profile disciples who continue to preach that we don't need new technology. Top of the list is Former Vice President Al Gore, who told the Daily Show's Jon Stewart that "we have all the tools we need" to solve global warming. Joe Romm repeatedly dismisses the need for breakthrough innovations, calling it an "illusion."

Against this view is the consensus among energy experts and scientists that innovation, both incremental and radical, is necessary for a whole suite of technologies in order to achieve global carbon mitigation goals. Most clean energy technologies remain much too expensive to gain the necessary market penetration, especially in low and medium-income countries. This view is shared by leading energy scientists like Nate Lewis of Cal Tech and Secretary of Energy Steven Chu, the latter of who has repeatedly argued that Nobel-caliber breakthroughs are needed in areas like solar photovoltaics, advanced batteries for vehicles and energy storage technologies.

These experts also recognize the need for prioritizing major government investments to develop these technologies and make clean energy cheap. Last year, 34 Nobel prize winning scientists wrote a letter to President Obama calling on him to honor his commitment to investing $150 billion in energy R&D over 10 years, writing that "rapid scientific and technical progress is crucial to...reducing greenhouse gases at an affordable cost."

Take the case of solar. Issues like system reliability, integration with existing systems, control infrastructure, and installation economics pose key technical issues that must be addressed if we want to have greater penetration than the forecasted 5 percent to 10 percent in the next decade. The integration of a high volume of inverter-based photovoltaic systems will require not only a smart grid, but also advances in present-day inverters. Sophisticated algorithms need to be designed to ensure interactive controls like passive monitoring and active control that will allow PV systems to disconnect when necessary but stay on-line when drops in utility voltage and frequency levels occur. Currently, the technology is not there to support massive movement to solar PV.

Perhaps the greatest indictment of the left's dismissal of breakthrough technology is an honest assessment of the scale of the global energy and climate challenge. In 2007, humans consumed roughly fifteen terawatts (trillion watts) of energy. Humans will need to produce roughly 60 terawatts of energy annually by 2100, if every human on earth is to reach the level of prosperity enjoyed by the world's wealthiest 1 billion people. Even assuming an increase in energy efficiency of 30%, global energy demand would still triple by century's end.

To give a sense of scale, providing 10 TW of carbon free power, less than one-third of what will likely be necessary by the end of the century, would require the equivalent of building 10,000 new 1GW nuclear reactors, or a new nuclear reactor every other day for the next 50 years. This is, quite simply, an impossible task with current technology. Radical innovation to reduce the costs and improve the performance of low-carbon energy technologies is the only possible path forward.

The Lone Inventor Mythology: Government Investment is Key

On the right, conservatives and libertarians dismissed Gates for acknowledging a substantial government role in innovation; something they know is better left to the private sector.

James Pethokoukis, a right-leaning business and economics columnist for Reuters, suggested that Gates' "Big Government" plan is "a long-shot at best," arguing that there is "no clear-cut evidence" that government R&D provides any economic benefit.

Robert Michaels, an Adjunct Scholar at the libertarian Cato Institute, urged Gates to remember how he made his fortune ostensibly free from government intrusion:

"Can you imagine where you (Gates) would be now had there been a National Computing Strategy Board to coordinate research and investments? None of us really want to know what might have happened, although there is a chance we would have gotten something better than Windows Vista."

But alas, as with most libertarian critiques, blind disdain for anything involving the government has led them to misunderstand (or deliberately misrepresent) the history of government involvement in technology innovation.

Against the "lone inventor" mythos that is so widely propagated in the United States, it has been clearly documented that most of the U.S. technologies that we now take for granted today, including jet engines, microchips, computers, and the Internet, were the result of direct investment and support from the public sector--the same thing that Gates and Co argue is needed to drive innovation in new clean energy technologies today

There is a pervasive collective amnesia among not just libertarians and conservatives but increasingly mainstream environmentalists like Joe Romm--who perpetually derides massive public investment in clean technology as "Big Government"--about the critical role that the U.S. federal government has played in developing the technologies that have driven waves of U.S. economic prosperity.

Personal computing is one clear example. The story of the PC is consistently misrepresented as the genius of lone inventors tinkering away in secluded garages. In reality, from the beginnings of the computer industry, federal agencies promoted critical research into computing hardware and deployed early computers throughout the federal government. Indeed, the roots of IBM come from early contracts with the Census Bureau. Moreover, not only did government provide the key support for research, including often bringing researchers from the public and private sector together to better share and commercialize results, but computer, semiconductor and software technologies were, according to economics professor Vernon W. Ruttan, "nourished by markets that were almost completely dependent on the defense, energy, and space industries."

The story is the same for microchips, where public procurement played the key role in allowing early semiconductor firms like Fairchild, Texas Instruments and Intel to not only sell enough chips to gain needed revenue to reinvest in R&D but to get the scale needed to bring down prices. Throughout the early 1960's, the federal government bought virtually every microchip that firms could produce--so many that the price of a microchip fell from $1,000 per unit to $20 per unit in the span of a few years.

The Education of Bill Gates

Gates himself was an early preacher of the view that private sector and the magic of the free market created the PC industry. Defending his company on the day the Justice Department brought an anti-trust suit against Microsoft in 1998, Gates declared, "The PC industry is leading our nation's economy into the 21st century...there isn't an industry in America that is more creative, more alive and more competitive. And the amazing thing is all this happened without any government involvement."

Yet, to his credit, Gates has since taken a hard look at the facts and recognized the important role government has played. Indeed, he now willfully acknowledges that he owes much of his career to early government investments in information technology, telling the Washington Post:

"The Internet and the microprocessor, which were very fundamental to Microsoft being able to take the magic of software and having the PC explode, were among many of the elements that came through government research and development."

The private-sector executives of the American Energy Innovation Council point to similar government investments across a whole host of technologies that led to the development of world-leading industries:

"Federal programs have been responsible for a wide range of game-changing technologies: new unmanned aircraft systems save the lives of American soldiers serving overseas; the Internet was born from military programs; and many of the most important medical breakthroughs of the last century came from our world leading investments in medical science research at our universities and laboratories."

This is not to say that entrepreneurial drive and risk taking were not also critical to America's innovation success story in the second half of the 20th century. Of course they were. But what made America the leader of the world is that we combined both factors: brilliant entrepreneurs like Gates and a visionary federal government willing to make the kinds of investments needed to foster technology revolutions.

Why the Left and Right Reject Innovation

So why do both the right and left not only ignore the message but shoot the messenger that we need clean energy innovation? There two main reasons. First, admitting that we need innovation threatens the core project of both: the left's job of getting more government, the right's of getting less.

The left fears, perhaps with some truth, that if policymakers realize that we don't actually have the technology needed to address climate change, they will balk at putting in place carbon caps. In contrast, the right fears, again probably with some justification, that if policymakers realize that we don't have the technology, they will empower government to play a key role in developing it.

But there is a deeper reason for the left and right's attack on the apostles of clean energy innovation. Neither pay much attention to innovation and neither think the government has much to do with it. For the left, government's job is to regulate business, (e.g., cap carbon emissions) not help them. How they meet these caps is their problem, not our problem. For the right, government's job is to get out of the way and let the magic of the market do its thing. For them, if we don't have a technology, by definition it means we don't need it. For to admit anything else is to admit that the market alone is not the final arbiter for technologies; the government is.

But, ironically by attacking the message that we need a robust clean energy innovation policy both the left and right are likely to have their worst fears realized. For the left, without clean energy innovation climate won't get solved. For the right, without clean energy innovation big government regulations, and the significant costs they impose, will be the only, albeit inadequate, path forward.

So how do we go forward? Gates has pointed the way (as has Breakthrough and ITIF). Gates and company call for public investment of a similar scale as in the last half of the 20th century to catalyze both incremental and radical innovation in the energy sector. Their conclusion is the same as a growing "energy innovation" consensus among Nobel scientists, high-tech businesses, and leading think tanks and universities.

To break the deadlock stalling the transition to clean energy technologies in the United States and around the world, at minimum, direct federal funding for energy R&D of the scale that Bill Gates advocates--$16 billion per year--is necessary to make clean energy cheap. Even greater investment would in fact be quite prudent.

If we are ever going to deal with our energy and climate challenges, then both the left and the right need to take a cold hard look at the facts, instead of attacking Bill Gates for injecting a needed dose of realism into the climate debate.

Rob Atkinson is President of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, a Washington, DC-based think tank. He is also author of The Past and Future of America's Economy: Long Waves of Innovation that Drive Cycles of Growth. His focus is on IT and innovation and policy to support them.

Devon Swezey is Project Director at the Breakthrough Institute and co-author of "Rising Tigers, Sleeping Giant."

"Metaline Falls has been submerged since Boundary Dam was built in 1967," a Light spokesperson told me. "It has been visible during drawdown events like this one, the last time being 1983."

A recent study has noted that with the right and sustained incentives to the wind energy sector, it can generate as much as 24 percent of India's total power demand by 2030.

The study conducted by the Global Wind Energy Council and the Indian Wind Turbine Manufacturers Association found that India needs a national level revolution in the wind energy sector similar to the National Solar Mission which aims at installing 20,000 MW of solar energy power plants by 2022.

While wind energy is the most popular renewable energy resource in India and, at 12,010 MW, comprises of nearly 70 percent of the total renewable energy generation capacity installed in India. As far as installed capacity is concerned India is the fifth largest wind energy market however, there is a huge gap in the installed capacity and the actual generation. (more…)