I used to write about the oil business. It was a diversion from high tech I took for a couple years in the early 1980s. I worked in Saudi Arabia, attended OPEC meetings in Geneva and Vienna, and hung with a variety of characters from the era of what we called the energy crisis. This column is not about that crisis per se, but rather about how that crisis and our current energy situation are so different and yet so alike. Very interesting things are happening in the energy market — things that have taken 30+ years to come about. The future of energy isn’t what most people — even heads of state — think it is.
It’s better.
First understand that the original energy crisis of the 1970s was a sham — a political hiccup turned to advantage by a greedy oil industry. I have written about this before, but here again is the damning evidence courtesy of one of my oldest friends:
“During the summer of 1973 I worked on a tow boat on the Mississippi River. Every 10 to 14 days, we’d load our barges on the Gulf Coast and deliver petroleum products to some place in the Midwest. That was the summer of the big gasoline shortages. As we would travel up and down the Mississippi, we’d pass an Exxon tow. It would have eight barges (a double unit) fully loaded, or about 10 million gallons of gasoline. The tow wouldn’t be moving, it would be tied up in a quiet spot on the river. Each trip we find more tows tied up. Shell, Texaco, Exxon, Amoco were all doing it. One day they announced in the news how much gasoline would be used in the USA in a single day. I made some quick calculations and realized we had passed a month’s supply on our last trip.”
In 1973 U. S. oil prices, thanks to price fixing by the Texas Railroad Commission, were already the highest in the world at $5.50 per barrel for West Texas Intermediate — the global standard. World oil prices were around $2 per barrel and going down. Until the OPEC embargo, that is, when, with the assistance of the big oil companies as described above, an oil crisis was created from nothing. World prices went from $2 to a peak of $43, sending every drilling rig in the world back to work and over time doubling U. S. oil production to almost 11 million barrels per day until demand crashed and the price of oil dropped back to a low of $8. That was still higher than $5.50, but recovery to an inflation-adjusted version of that peak $43 price took 25 years.
That’s the way it is with supply and demand when demand is relatively inflexible and new supplies are slow to come on-line. But inevitably they do come online, sending prices crashing back until new supplies are finally depleted and the cycle starts all over again, which is what we are seeing now.
Only all of this has to do strictly with oil and gas, not renewable energy sources, because those are even slower to come online. Most of the current crop of renewable energy sources, for example, were well known in the 1970s, too. Back then they were just inconsequential because their contribution was so small.
That was then, this is now. My work on this past summer’s Startup Tour introduced me to a number of energy startups with technologies that will actually make a difference in this age-old pattern of supply and demand. Because for the first time the supplies that are being created are renewable — they generally won’t be depleted. There is no new well involved to come online then peak and then die. There is just slow and steady energy production growth for 25 years or so from the same facility to which is added over time another and another and another machine.
We have one solar startup that is moving slowly and inexorably toward a target of making electricity from sunlight for $0.50 per watt. They are about three years from reaching their goal, at which point they will bring online a manufacturing capacity greater than the world has ever seen — all without spending a cent to develop that capacity (cue spooky music).
Electricity from coal usually costs $2.00 per watt to produce, so $0.50 per watt is amazing. What if this is hype and they are off by a factor of 10? Electricity at $5.00 per watt is still competitive with everything except coal and hydro. It’s still amazing.
Now imagine a smart electric grid that works differently than the one Al Gore talks about. Gore’s grid is smart, too, but this one is smart and superconducting. The power lines have virtually no electrical resistance, meaning the average transmission line loss of 35 percent drops to maybe five percent, making U. S. energy production effectively 30 percent greater without building any new power plants. Not only that: a superconducting grid can carry lots more power, making it every more possible to trade power between regions, working around regions of local control and high supply prices (remember Enron?), thanks to another of our startup companies that I’ll be covering in text and video in the next few weeks.
This is something like Moore’s Law hits the oil patch. Or maybe it should be called Ford’s Law, because this is really an effect of mass production against an effectively undepletable supply of raw materials.
Any argument about Peak Oil should include a discussion of Peak Demand, because that’s where we were two years ago. Energy demand in the U. S. is going down, not up, and all these renewable sources are coming into volume use against that falling demand. That would usually mean these new sources would give way to King Coal as they did in the 1970s, except for that $0.50 (or $5.00) per watt.
That low price per watt scares the crap out of BP and will change the geopolitical balance in the world within a decade, making the Middle East maybe a little less important.
For the good of the nation and the world I really, really hope you’re right — but I have doubts that Big Oil and their pocket politicians will give way very easily.
$0.50 per watt? Does not compute. Do you mean $0.50 per watt-hour?
Oh, I get it. It costs $0.50 for the installation of equipment capable of generating one watt of power.
Even $0.50 per kilowatt-hour doesn’t compute. Bob, que paso?
Yes, it makes sense. Right now solar is around $2 per watt (excluding install, controller, etc). That means if the solar cell is generating power for 25 years, 4 hours a day, it will generate 36.5 KWH of electricity in its lifetime, or 5.5 cents / KWH.
$2/watt? Think again. $5/watt, just for the panel, is about the cheapest you’re likely to find.
Cost of solar energy also includes the cost of deployment, the real estate, and maybe also storage. Still, such a low price should encourage more solar on home roofs (no real estate problem).
s/watt/megawatt/ maybe? Otherwise I’ve been getting a great deal from PG&E, something like $0.15 a _kilowatt_ at my house.
If you assume a useful life of 10 years, an average of 8 hours of production per day, then per installed watt you get 29.2 kWh (10 * 365 * 8 kilo Watt hours).
This gives you a cost of 1.7 cents per kWh (50 cents / 29.2 kWh).
These assumptions may be a bit optimistic, and you also have to add the cost of deployment.
$0.50/watt? How much will that be per kilowatt-hour?
If you assume a useful life of 10 years, an average of 8 hours of production per day, then per installed watt you get 29.2 kWh (10 * 365 * 8 kilo Watt hours).
This gives you a cost of 1.7 cents per kWh (50 cents / 29.2 kWh).
These assumptions may be a bit optimistic, and you also have to add the cost of deployment.
For residential-scale installations (i.e. 2-5kW on your roof) installation costs will be at least $4/watt.
Is peak demand falling because of the global economic troubles? If so we can’t count on it staying that way. Growth generally means an increase in energy consumption or economies require energy to help drive growth.
In the US we typically need to drive/travel distances for work (and play.) As the economy improves, we’ll necessarily drive more and want to play more. Renewable energy won’t satisfy this need unless we have a major announcement from the battery or super capacitor people.
I think that a small part of this decease in use could come from more energy efficient products hitting the market. It seems every man and his dog is selling “green” electronics and cars etc. This coupled with an uptake in solar panels and solar hot water etc means less power is needed from the power companies. Also, companies are scrambling to reduce their carbon foot print so they include less packaging in products etc which means less creation energy/costs and less destruction energy/costs too. Less trips to the land fill, less time running machines to make polystyrene etc.
Also, I’m not sure what the weather has been like in the States this year but here in Australia we had a fairly usual winter (where we power our central heating with natural gas) but so far the spring and summer have been unusually cool and wet (where we would usually use electricity to power our AC units).
These are probably the smaller changes rather than the big one but they all add up.
Bob,
What about the controversial and exciting FREE energy company in Dublin, Steorn? They claim to have invented a solid state generator, “Orbo”, that outputs 300% of the power fed into it. Orbo is based upon specially timed variant magneto-mechanical interactions.
I’d send you cash to support your visit to their labs to examine all they have.
I believe you’d be welcomed. They claim that some unnamed scientists have confirmed their results, but would rather not go public and risk damaging their careers. You, OTOH, have nothing to lose and everything to gain!
Seems outlandish, doesn’t it?
Here’s some links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steorn
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Steorn_Free_Energy
http://www.steorn.com
So, where do I send some dough?
Get back to me when that startup actually makes it to production and produces .50/watt electricity. Ditto the superconducting power grid. Until it’s actually done, it’s pie in the sky, same as 1.00/gallon ethanol or algal biofuels.
Put it this way….
Claims are easy. Doing it is hard. I’m from Missouri. It’ll take more than claims. You gotta show me.
Capital cost of solar today is ~ $10/watt – meaning the solar panels I have in my van – destined for a wildlife live video project – each cost about $500 for 50 watts of output at full sunlight hitting them dead centre.
Above the 49th parallel this means that in Winter, I get something less than 5 watts for about 8 hours out of them most days – about 40 watt/hours – but over the course of the year, I get something like 100 watt/hours average per day, or 36500 watt hours – for a capital cost of $500 (Canadian – so at today’s discount rate, maybe $480 US)
Your mileage may vary – especially if you’re below the 49th and somewhere where it rains a bit less 🙂
richard
That’s retail – small quantities – purchase in larger quantities and cut through the reseller chain and you’re away ahead of the game.
Yea, what is the kilowatt hour production rate.
Your numbers with the superconducting are off too. If you go from a 35% loss to a 5% loss, that is a gain of not thirty percent, but 30/65=46%
T. Boone Pickens is pushing Nat Gas, which is cheap and safe (we’ve been doing “fracting” for over 40 years with no REAL problems). Why don’t you get behind nat gas? We could tell OPEC to “shove it” in 3 years!
You don’t need superconductors for long distance transmission.
High voltage DC will lose as little as 3% energy per 1000 km.
Michael
AC or DC, it’s the same thing — losses are I^2R, where I is the current and R the resistance of the wire. We already use high-voltage AC for long distance transmission, going to DC doesn’t really help.
And you also have to factor in the losses from the AC/DC DC/AC conversion.
Even if Robert is wrong on the specific details, he’s absolutely right about the principles. Even the cost of resources used to make p/v panels goes through the roof there are plenty of other technologies at different prices which will become both convenient and practical at some point. There may be some considerable pain before we get there; but I believe we will get there.
I look forward to the post about this new company and their technology, but I’m not holding my breath on this one. I remember the excitement about new hard drive technologies Bob was talking about. I think he was even a partner with the company. The one that used this big roll of film like paper that goes in the hard drive and stores the data. It was mentioned to be cheap, easy to do and very competitive with what’s out there. Why haven’t we been kept up to date with this?
I like the ideas that are introduced on this blog but I hate how some threads of thought are left dangling.
Finally, some good news . . . if it pans out. Not surprised the private sector produces the innovation, not the public sector.
Another innovation is high voltage DC transmission. Turns out that over long distances AC leaks power (the wires alternately attract and repel each other, and the RF just leaks away into the ether too). For long distances DC beats AC. The technology was pioneered in Manitoba, Canada. I think all the power from the Three Gorges Dam in China is transmitted via high voltage DC. If I remember correctly it’s around 30% more efficient than AC transmission, even without superconducting lines.
The innumeracy on display in the paragraph comparing “$0.50/watt for solar” to “$2.00/watt for coal” throws the rest of the article into doubt. Fix it please, “Bob”.
Hey Cringely, if you want to see the future of energy (maybe), check out BlackLightPower.com. Dr. Randy Mills, the founder, is either the next Einstein or a fraud. He has come up with a way to release energy from the hydrogen atom by “squeezing” the electron closer to the nucleus – enabling abundant cheap energy. The catch is that doing so violates the current orthodoxy of quantum physics. Before you dismiss him as a quack, his new model of the electron does have some interesting properties: predicted the acceleration expansion of the universe years before it was predicted, derives the mass of fundamental particles in a 1/2 page of calculations (a few years ago a team of scientists announced they did the same with a cluster of supercomputers), calculates molecular bonding energies using an Excel spreadsheet more accurately than current supercomputer models. It would be great if you, as a journalist, could take a look and debunk this or not.
*** edit *** predicted the accelerating expansion of the universe years before it was observed,
Blacklight Power was making those claims 5 years ago. So far nothing real has been demonstrated to the public. So, they go into the free power quacks category until they can demo a reproducible product.
Read the next article License to print money.
It clearly states the 50 cents is to manufacture.
Chalk this up to si-fi. No mention of the cost per KWH, only something less than $5 per Watt, which is not how we measure the cost of energy. In addition, add super conducting wires for free. Oh well, Bob’s columns are thought provoking… Any dilithium crystals needed and an engineer named Scotty?
Well if this is localized low level power production, the superconducting wires are not that important.
A quick correction – “average transmission line loss of 35 percent ” is simply inaccurate. Electricity delivery loss in the US averages around 7-8%, with about half in long distance transmission and the other half in local distribution. (This includes losses in conductors, substation transformers, and the like) If superconductors can help reduce the significant portion of energy that is lost in the original conversion of heat/fuel into actual electricity, that would be of enormous value. These conversion losses are about 2/3 of the total heat input.
The source for this data is the Energy Information Administration’s Energy Annual. It’s a great compendium of all the relevant stats. Links to the relevant figures found here https://www.eia.gov/emeu/aer/pdf/pages/sec8_4.pdf and here https://www.eia.gov/emeu/aer/pdf/pages/sec8_3.pdf
Jim
(and no, I don’t work for the EIA or DOE)
The standard way of comparing power sources (wind, solar, nuclear, coal etc) is thousands of dollars per kilowatt installed. If you divide by 1000 you have dollars per watt installed. It is not the cost of producing the power (which is in cents per kwhours), but the cost of building and installing the generating plant to begin with.
50 cents per watt installed is unheard of for solar. Make it so.
Until we have a tribal/socialist society, one which accepts group transport (supported by taxes) as normal, gasoline powered autos will remain. Until they deplete all the oil and kill us with fumes. People have a time horizon of about a week.
There is no Mr. Fusion in our future. And there’s the minor problem of Malthus: we’re already perilously close to a population which exceeds both water and grain capacity.
I think Bob over-simplified the cost comparisons. There are two components to energy costs delivered to the transmission or distribution grid – equipment capital cost, and operating costs (fuel, operation, and maintenance). The capital costs have to amortized over the life of the plant and equipment, and the operating costs are immediate on the production of energy. Generating equipment with combustion turbines have relatively low capital costs, and with minor modification, can burn anything from nautral gas to bunker oil. Coal burning plants have higher capital costs, but moderate operating costs. Wind, hydro and solar all have high capital costs, and low operating costs. Generally, capital costs are expressed in terms of $/Kilowatt of plant capacity, but the market is structured so that mostly, it’s energy that is sold, and that cost is expressed in $/ Kilowatt-Hour. Wind, solar, and new hydro projects are not cost competitive with coal for electricity generation without subsidies such as tax credits. As Mr. Pitt points out above, the energy production from solar cells is limited to bright daylight hours. Wind and hydro similarly have outputs that average only about 30% to 50% of the installed capacity. However, coal and nuclear plants are generally operated near full load 24/7, so the high capital cost, amortized over many years of full time operation, is a small part of the price of the energy produced.
The recent trends in natural gas reserves (up) and pricing (down) will make it more difficult for solar power to compete in the short term. But, having flown over north-west Mexico and SW USA, it’s clear that there is a lot of area available for solar power, once the manufacturing costs are sufficiently reduced.
Superconducting transmission lines anyplace other than in very densly populated areas are a long way off, and the gains in efficiency have been misrepresented to Bob. Jim M above has the numbers right. High Voltage DC transmission has similar advantages but the power conversion (AC to DC and DC to AC) terminal equipment has high capital costs. For many years the rule of thumb was that it took about 400 miles or more of transmission line length before the savings in wire, towers and losses would pay for the terminal stations. With recent advances in high power semiconductor equipment, terminal costs have come down, and HVDC transmission lines may become more common soon, but very few transmission projects are even in the planning stage in the US today. This may be because the tariff systems undervalue transmission facilities, even though all large blackouts have had the root cause of an overloaded transmission grid.
Bob, I’m a long-time listener, first-time caller.
Can you (or anyone) please clarify the comment about “average transmission line loss of 35 percent”? I was recently corrected on numbers like this by an expert at my university. In the province of Alberta, transmission losses are apparently more like 9% to 12%.
Is the difference between 35% and 12% due to geographic differences (with different grids implemented), slightly different metrics, or something else?
I’m asking because if the losses are closer to 12%, then reducing them becomes much lower in priority for my project, than the priority of say better power usage efficiency.
Bob’s just wrong on this one.
Losses are under 10%.
You can cut transmission loss significantly by using high-voltage DC (IIRC about 3% loss over long distances, not including local distribution)
There’s no need for a superconducting grid.
That would be tough to do considering the need for cooling (there are no room-temperature superconductors outside of science fiction)
“Superconducting” power lines? Um, methinks not, at least for several years, perhaps several decades. Superconducting materials, (of a kind required to install on an electrical grid) are super-exotic, super-expensive, and super-sci-fi. So far, the highest temperatures for super-conductors still hovers at less than 150 Kelvin (K), (the boiling point of water is 273 K). That’s still pretty frosty.
Anyone know anything about super high voltage transistors? Years ago, Scientific American had an about research into them. They were maybe 6′ in size.
One application was power transmission. Something about a digital switching solution would be more efficient than the current analog (load balancing) strategy.
Superconductors would be great. But maybe there are some worthwhile interim improvements.
Bob, your man’s ‘damning evidence’ assumes all those barges were chock-full of gas. What if they were empty? Hmmm… not so damning after all.
The problem with comparing solar PV with coal, for example, is that coal scales. Need more power? Assuming there are more coal mountains to blow up and choke them poor Appalachian hillbiliies, you can build another coal-burner next to the old one, and double output. Build another two next to that and quadruple output. The industrial economy grows and grows.
But sunlight? Averaged out, year for year, you get no more PV power next year than you did last year. Ten, fifty years out, you still have the same power. And the economy hasn’t been able to grow in all that time, unless you can squeeze more efficiency out of your PV panels. But once you hit your theoretical max efficiency for your materials and tech (or 100% – heck, let’s go wild) then you get no more juice, ever.
Our industrial/capitalist/banking-based economy needs growth. Growing populations require growth, too. Growth of steel, land, water, energy – things.
Renewables, at least the ones so far working, will only substitute for a small fraction of the oil if every oil extraction declines globally – as is expected within a decade or two. We will then need every bit of juice the renewables can give us, and we will still need to shrink energy use, and therefore the economy – growth will not be feasible.
Only nuclear, and fusion at that, scales and does what we will need to grow. But fusion is hard.
And whether we lick the tech of fusion or get PV panels at a penny/watt and plan on covering the entire ocean with them, it will take cash-money to move from our current infrastructure to the next. And when you’re talking money, you’re talking about a global money bubble that has only begun to deflate, and will take a long time to reach equilibrium again. We could pay for all these smart grids and new tech infrastructure, only at the cost of giving up a lot of other things.
And Americans have shown themselves unwilling to give up anything. We don’t know the meaning of the word ‘sacrifice’ anymore – at least not in political parlance.
Agreed. But nuclear has been working fine in many countries and none of it is fusion. We need to focus some effort on modernizing it.
The best solution for the world’s energy needs is Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors.
http://energyfromthorium.com/
‘but this one is smart and superconducting. The power lines have virtually no electrical resistance, meaning the average transmission line loss of 35 percent drops to maybe five percent”
A superconducting wire does not have “virtually no electrical resistance”, it has *exactly* no electrical resistance – that’s why it’s called “superconducting”. In any case as other comments have said it’s a pipe dream, there are no room-temperature superconductors currently.
There is something called High Temperature Super Conductivity: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-temperature_superconductors .
Yes Ronc, there is. Did you even read the link you posted?
“As of 2009, the highest-temperature superconductor (at ambient pressure) is mercury barium calcium copper oxide (HgBa2Ca2Cu3Ox), at 135 K”
135 K is high temperature for the field of superconductors. For us laymen, that’s a chilly -138 degrees Celsius. Yep, you’re not going to see lots of wires running around the countryside at those temperatures, I can promise you that 🙂
All con artists talk the same way. They dangle something you want or need, like wealth, or in this case cheap energy. They make vague promises and never concrete information. The carrot is always out of reach. Until the tension builds and you are asked to pay something. That’s when the trap door closes.
Remember Bob’s “miracle” tin foil hard drives were going to revolutionize the computer industry? Now we have miracle renewable energy, that has zero development cost and beats coal hands down. What a f***king high school joker this cringing a***hole is.
Granted we should be very careful when investing in risky ventures. Perhaps that’s why Bob has suggested he could head up a taxpayer funded agency to spread the risk. Personally I’d perfer privately funded so that everyone involved has a personal stake it it. But let’s not criticize Bob for making the effort to learn about new technologies and sharing them with us.
EIA’s 2016 Levelized Cost of New Generation Resources from the Annual Energy Outlook 2010 give the following costs (dollars/megawatt-hour):
Coal – $100.40
Advanced coal – $110.50
Advanced Nuke – $119.00
Hydro – $119.90
Wind – $149.30
Offshore Wind – $191.10
Solar Thermal – $256.60
Solar PV – $396.10
It gets worse for the “renewables”, the best capacity factor for renewables is for Offshore Wind – 39.3%. The worst for conventional is for hydro – 51.4%. Coal is 85%, Advanced Nuclear is 90%. That means that renewable average slightly more than a third of their faceplate capacity. And their are intermittent, which means you have to build a backup capacity to carry the load, or else far more expensive storage (and even more generation capacity) to cover the load.
Yeah, color me skeptical.
howdy, I haven’t much spoken to you on the blog in a while, but I guessed I would most likely message you from my modern Android !! No fun, I work for a brand new company currently in the fraud dep. Don’t tell any person but we located this site that is completely glitching and giv ing out 100 % free Notebook!! to everybody that signs up. I believe you may have to confirm your email, Thanks Oma anal
Even if we have cheap, renewable energy, there’s still plenty of useful things to do with petroleum, besides burn it. All varieties of plastics, lubricants, building materials come directly from oil. I can’t see that this would put BP or Exxon/Mobile out of business.
Of course, if you have cheap energy, then you can make oil from biological waste products using thermal depolymerization (known today as Thermal Recycling because no one knows what depolymerization means)
So what if BP creates a “green” energy division (I believe they already have, no?) or funds a “green” startup venture and buys up these startups?
That’s what the auto industry did to the electric trolley cars or the railroads did to the competing steamboat lines on the West Coast a more than a century ago.
That’s what worries me.
Oh,nice article. Good informations..
Oh,nice article. Good informations..
Oh,nice article. Good informations..
I will tell fairly … the first time has come on your site on purpose “clever spam”. 🙂 But to write that that close on a theme it is necessary to read. Has started to read – it was pleasant, Has subscribed and with pleasure I read. Very to be pleasant your site – interesting The maintenance, pleasant design for reading … 🙂
I will tell fairly … the first time has come on your site on purpose “clever spam”. 🙂 But to write that that close on a theme it is necessary to read. Has started to read – it was pleasant, Has subscribed and with pleasure I read. Very to be pleasant your site – interesting The maintenance, pleasant design for reading … 🙂
Oh,nice article. Good informations..
Oh,nice article. Good informations..
I will tell fairly … the first time has come on your site on purpose “clever spam”. 🙂 But to write that that close on a theme it is necessary to read. Has started to read – it was pleasant, Has subscribed and with pleasure I read. Very to be pleasant your site – interesting The maintenance, pleasant design for reading … 🙂
Oh,nice article. Good informations..
I will tell fairly … the first time has come on your site on purpose “clever spam”. 🙂 But to write that that close on a theme it is necessary to read. Has started to read – it was pleasant, Has subscribed and with pleasure I read. Very to be pleasant your site – interesting The maintenance, pleasant design for reading … 🙂
Oh,nice article. Good informations..
This is an awesome site, I’ll be sure to add this blog to my bookmarks 🙂
I’m a sucker for your internet site!
Thank you for another great blog. Where else could i obtain this kind of info written in such an incite full way? i have been looking for such information.
do your homework, Bob.
for solar to become competitive, costs will have to drop to 5 cent/watt for PV panels lasting 20 years at least. i am not holding my breath, thats less than the cost for a bare concrete pavement.
you dont believe me? look at capacity factor and necessary backup generation or storage. or are you going to use electricity only when the sun shines?
solar is a technological dead end, only good at harvesting goverment subsidies.
smart grid is nonsense. it should be called with its real name, energy rationing.
Not daily do you come across good writing with fun information like yours. You are really relevant on the topics you create which is very helpful to many. Carry on the excellent work so we have something to expect.
After reading you blog, I thought your articles is great! I am very like your articles. I bookmarked your blog! I trust you will behave better from now on.
just reading yourwebsite, like your words. It is not isn’t ain’t too easy to discoveredmeaningful site, in the internet Time.
Improving your form will automatically give you a couple inches to your vert. The pros know how to make it look good, but form is doesn’t just to look good, it brings results. Study the following to get started Read more…
Very informative blog here. I couldn’t have made a better one if my life depended on it.
Bob,
Great to catch up on your column again after several years. I have no idea where you do your research, and your sources are probably deeper and more numerous than I can imagine. Nevertheless, I found MIT’s “technologyreview.com” to be quite informative about renewable energy and related tecnologies. Its writers often put numbers and prices to their topics, providing the reader with a useful comparison between the tried and trusted fossil fuels and the subject of the article.
Notwithstanding the above, I’ve always enjoyed your style of writing and the topics you choose. Keep up the good work.
I can imagine. Nevertheless, I found MIT’s “technologyreview.com” to be quite informative about renewable energy and related tecnologies. Its writers often put numbers and prices to their topics, providing the reader with a useful comparison between the tried and trusted fossil fuels and the subject of the article.
Hostgator Black Friday 2010 Special Offer: (80% off everything)50% OFF EVERYTHING From 12:00AM CST – 5AM CST – Coupon Code : blackfriday50off,80% OFF EVERYTHING From 5AM – 9AM CST – Coupon Code : blackfriday80off,50% OFF EVERYTHING From 9AM – 11:59PM CST – Coupon Code : blackfriday50off
Reading your work has been such a pleasure that I don’t ever want to stop. Your selection of words were appropriate and interesting. I look forward to see more from you.
nice work keep it up
Buy $10 Replica Designer Sunglasses with 3-day FREE SHIPPING
It must be emphasized that every individual even children have hemorrhoids or piles in their bodies. It is only when these become inflamed and swollen that health problems like bleeding and itching of the anus blood in the stool and physical pain occur. Fortunately most piles resolve on their own so hemorrhoid cures are often unnecessary. However it will help matters along when you adopt the following dietary changes to treat and prevent their recurrence.
Hey! I just wanted to ask if you ever have any trouble with hackers? My last blog (wordpress) was hacked and I ended up losing many months of hard work due to no data backup. Do you have any solutions to stop hackers?
In the united kingdom, studies demonstrate that about 70% from the woman human population do not use the beats by dr dre headphones and rather straps on ill-fitting, not comfortable ones.
beats by dr dre headphones and rather straps on ill-fitting, not comfortable ones.
Reply
As we would travel up and down the Mississippi, we’d pass an Exxon tow. It would have eight barges (a double unit) fully loaded, or about 10 million gallons of gasoline. The
Pretty part of content. I just stumbled upon your weblog and in accession capital to say that I get actually enjoyed account your weblog posts. Anyway I’ll be subscribing on your feeds or even I success you get admission to persistently quickly.
Acquiring low-cost shades does not often suggest that you are just acquiring low good quality shades. It is easy to get reasonably priced shades on-line from every single of the popular designers. The on the world wide web prices concerning eyeglasses are considerably much less pricey than you’d pay in an exceedingly normal store and there is certainly a substantially wider quantity of designer sunshine eyeglasses available.
Un très bon site riche en informations. Je vous remercie une fois de plus. Bonne journée
formation référencement http://blogagencereferencementnaturel.wordpress.com référencement internet