A report published this week by the International Energy Agency (IEA) – World Energy Outlook 2011 – made it clear that urgent action is needed now to address what appears to be a forgone conclusion,  that world temperatures are set to rise by 2C (4F) if we don’t stop our reliance on fossil fuels and begin to reduce the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. This is currently 390 parts per million (ppm), with 450ppm being the point of no return.  As domestic energy consumption accounts for 33% of carbon emissions it seems that switching to a green energy tariff is now the single most important contribution you can make!

Those of us not lucky enough to have a suitable south facing roof for solar pv – and even this is being made less cost effective with the Department for Climate Change (DECC) recently announcing the amount paid for electricity generated by home owners is to be reduced – a green energy tariff is the easiest way for people to ditch fossil fuels and make a difference.

With world reliance on oil, coal and gas showing no signs of decreasing any time soon and Government’s making all the right noises and simply going through the motions, it looks like it’s up to the consumer to take up the challenge and address the problem.

The more people who choose a green energy tariff, the more the ‘Big 6’ energy suppliers will have to sit up and take notice and actually meet the Government’s UK’s target for 15% of energy supplied coming from renewable sources by 2020.  At the moment only three companies meet the current Government UK target of 10% renewable energy by 2010.

There are plenty of people ‘doing their bit’ using energy saving light bulbs, not leaving stuff on standby and switching off lights – but in reality although in the grand scheme of things every action counts – nothing counts more than getting hooked-up to renewable energy to reduce your carbon emissions.

So what’s stopping you?  At the end of the day you could get a tariff that price matches your current supplier’s standard tariff (or could even cost you less), and with all the ‘Big 6’ suppliers hiking their prices again just in time for Winter why not check out a comparison of the suppliers green energy tariffs and see what’s out there.

Make reducing your carbon emissions a New Year’s resolution you can keep!

Posted under Articles, Environmental News, News

Most newspapers and magazines are, at least in some part, filled with panic-inducing, alarming news. Inspired Times is different. Now with a circulation of around 6,000, Inspired Times was launched in June 2009 from Bristol. Printed on 100% recycled paper and using vegetable inks, the magazine is distributed in biodegradable plastic – altogether the very epitome of sustainable living.

Widely known as a ‘holistic’ and a sustainable living magazine, Inspired Times is dedicated to exploring the latest in environmental issues and initiatives. The magazine covers all aspects of a more sustainable and, perhaps, ‘greener’ lifestyle, from yoga to holidays to thought-provoking articles on the world around us. It is uplifting as well – it is a comfort to read something about how to improve your way of life or your environment easily and cheaply when other publications are concentrating on the more negative side of life.

The magazine is designed to attract readers of all ages and from all backgrounds – the brightly coloured and abstract designs are intended to grab attention, and they do; the circulation numbers of Inspired Times have the proof in the numbers! The magazine’s contents are, however, mainly aimed at 25-to-55-year-olds. As a publication dedicated to green and sustainable products, companies and services, Inspired Times is an ideal advertising opportunity for the relevant interested parties as it is a guarantee that the target audience will be reached. With an enthusiastic and growing subscription list and reasonable rates, it could be considered to be a win/win situation for businesses.

Many readers have favourably commented on the mix of articles dealing with environmental, spiritual and alternative health topics as well as the overall design of the magazine. With so many varied subjects addressed in each issue, there is much to learn right alongside new information about previously debated ideas.

The magazine is produced quarterly (in January, April, July and October) and is available direct from the website or from local stockists around the country. There is an annual subscription cost of £12.00 for the four issues, or £3.40 each, a deal unlikely to break the bank. In addition to the discounted annual subscription offer, there is a ‘buy one, get one half price’ incentive – buy a year’s subscription for a friend or relative and get your own for £6.00.

As well as reading the magazine, you can also contribute! If you do have any inspiring projects or you know of any products that might be of interest to the Inspired Times team, or have any comments, questions or general thoughts, please contact the magazine by emailing sharon@inspiredtimesmagazine.com or ads@inspiredtimesmagazine.com for business or advertising queries.

Posted under Environmental News, News

If the sign says 'Do not drink this water'...would you?

While this website has covered the debate about shale gas and the methods of extracting it before now (namely, fracking. See: “Fracking – Not Just a Sci-Fi Swear Word“) there are yet more opinions and views to be examined, given that the water pollution in Pennsylvania in the US has reached desperate levels.

WHAT’S HAPPENING AND WHY?

Ten years ago, people did not know about this gas, let alone how ‘easy’ it would be to extract from the ground. Easy, maybe, but with such an impact on the environment and on human and animal life, is it really the way to go?

Speaking to the BBC, Professor Rob Jackson of Duke University in North Carolina, said; “We found some extremely high concentrations of methane: 64 milligrams of methane per litre of drinking water, compared with a normal level of one milligram or lower[…]” Given that the difference is so low – over sixty-four times what it would normally be – what then can we assume is going to be the impact of the rising concentrations of methane? Certainly worry about the levels reaching explosive hazard levels is one such impact, according to Professor Jackson. As the Nicholas Professor of Global Change for Duke University, Professor Jackson recently co-authored a paper entitled “Methane contamination of drinking water accompanying gas-well drilling and hydraulic fracturing” in which he, along with Stephen G Osbourn, Avner Vengosh and Nathaniel R Warner, published their findings from a series of experiments on drinking water in the north-eastern states of Pennsylvania and New York. The scientists took sixty-eight samples from private water wells; the majority came back contaminated by methane and similar toxic substances above the norm.

Indeed, samples taken from ground water supplies near shale gas drilling sites indicate that methane concentrations are increasing to seventeen times above normal. Given that methane is poisonous, it is easy to see why people are starting to panic.

WHY ARE WE STILL MINING SHALE GAS?

If shale gas mining increases the contamination of the atmosphere and the water supplies with methane, why then is it still being used as a way to obtain cheap fuel? And there is the answer. Comparatively, shale gas is cheaper and quicker to obtain from the ground than its counterparts. As well there is, as of yet, no indications that methane can directly poison people through the water we drink. The greatest risks from shale gas mining seem to be in the explosive factor of the operation. Professor Jackson has stated that he cannot find any “[…]peer reviewed literature on the health effects of low level methane on people[…]” but that he and his colleagues are calling for a medical review of chronic and/or low-level exposure to methane.

The rising methane concentrations in the ground water supply can probably be attributed to ‘leaky gas well casings’ – it is certainly the simplest explanation, but it does lack any semblance of reassurance to the public; if it is simply an issue with faulty equipment, why has the equipment not been replaced and why are the concentrations of methane in the water supply still rising? There is another possibility, but one that strikes Professor Jackson as being less likely – that the gas escapes into the water through fissures in the bedrock that could possibly be caused by the process of fracking; that is, the method of extracting shale gas by funnelling five million gallons of liquid through fissures to, essentially, push the gas out from each hidden well underground. After all, as Professor Jackson has pointed out, there is no evidence yet of contamination in the drinking water supplies from liquids used in the fracking process.

Clearly, this debate is far from over. Professor Jackson and his team have published a paper outlining their recommendations and highlighting what must absolutely be addressed in examining whether the industry of shale gas mining needs to be readdressed. However, when there are videos appearing on the web that show people setting fire to water coming from their kitchen taps, it is difficult to imagine how there could ever be an advantage to such a product.

Posted under Environmental News, News

More than just a blot on the landscape?

WHAT IS IT?

What is ‘fracking’? It sounds like a word made up by scriptwriters to get around TV censors for a sci-fi show like Red Dwarf, Firefly or Battlestar Galactica. It is, though, much more complicated than that and involves many more environmental issues than perhaps the word might invoke on first hearing. Fracking (or, hydraulic fracturing) is the process of creating fractures in rocks and through rock bed layers to increase the recovery of oil and natural gas by way of forcing fluid into fractures and including a proppant into the fracture to keep it open. In simple terms, it is a way of getting more oil and natural gas from underground.

Those in the know have probably already heard about the new announcement from the outgoing chairman of Shell – that ‘fracking’ is the new way to go.

At what cost, though? The process of fracking has already been proved to be environmentally unsound – it is a process that contaminates water to highly toxic degrees. Funnelling water mixed with dirt or small rocks into a fissure in the ground is a risky venture due to the fact that rushing water is one of the most unpredictable occurrences on Earth. For proof of the devastating power of water, we need look no further than the recent tsunami that decimated Japan and others like it. As with anything that unpredictable, accidents happen. Just last year, the state of Pennsylvania banned Cabot Oil & Gas Corp. from further drilling in the state after the drinking water of fourteen households in Dimock Township, PA, were contaminated and linked to combustible gas that had been leaked in the process of hydraulic fracturing to the water supply.

Also in 2010, a well blowout in Pennsylvania sent at least 35,000 gallons of fracking liquids up into the air, not unlike a whale expelling water on its return to the surface of the ocean. This contaminated liquid came down on the surrounding forest area and caused the evacuation of all campers and the ‘cease and desist’ order slapped on the companies involved – EOG Resources and C. C. Forbes (the latter being the well-completion company). It is, as yet, unknown what the on-going effects of that incident will be, but spraying the landscape with chemicals has never been a win-win situation, especially given that contaminating water with oil or gas can make it flammable – a dangerous concept indeed.

In addition to these accidents which send chemical and contaminated water into the eco-system, the process of fracking also weakens the geophysical landscape. By wearing away at a solid rock bed, it is only natural that the ground above and around the area will become unstable, causing landslides and subsidence under buildings, to name but two of the problems resulting from this. Chemicals in the water used in fracking are numerous and it is documented that medical personnel have been restricted in their abilities to help workers after accidents because they simply do not know what chemicals are involved.

Taking all of this together, how can one man – and the chairman of Shell Oil, no less – claim that fracking is ‘safe’ and ‘the way to the future’? On-going scientific research seems to point out that fracking is unstable and unreliable. Yet it is still being used as a method of extraction by many big fuel companies. When so many people are protesting the dangers to their health and their environment, why is fracking still being used?

Posted under News

Google, the world’s most popular internet search engine, has invested $168 million into a solar farm – to be added to the $1.6 billion from the US government. A solar farm, that is, unlike most domestic generators of solar energy in that the site is huge. and looks set to be an indication of the future. Situated in the Mojave Desert, the Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System (ISEGS) will be completed in 2013 (work started in October last year) and will be able to boast of 173,000 heliostats that concentrate the sun’s rays onto a solar tower. The towers (three, in total, on the site) will stand about 137 m (450 Ft.) tall and are expected to generate 392 MW of energy – enough to serve more than 140,000 homes in California during the peak hours of the day.

BUT HOW DOES IT ALL WORK?

The whole system works by mirrors turned to catch the sun and then focusing that power onto solar receivers. The ISEGS complex will reduce CO2 emissions by more than 400,000 tonnes a year and is set to be the example and prototype for many more such super solar farms worldwide. While it is the first such project in the United States, similar projects have been announced in other countries. The most notable of these is in Inner Mongolia in China where a facility is being built near Ordos City and will eventually be capable of producing 2.2 GW of energy – although the project will not be completed until 2019 when full capacity is reached.

The ISEGS project has found its site four and a half miles to the southwest of the town of Primm in California – unremarkable to most and unheard of by many outside of California, but now notable for its proximity to the Ivanpah solar power plant. The project is named after the Ivanpah dry lake near its location and the whole venture is being masterminded by the company BrightSource Energy (www.brightsourceenergy.com). Unlike nuclear power plants, any accidents will not have a hugely disastrous impact on the surrounding area.

This is not the first time that Google have invested in start-up renewable energy plans. Last year, the company invested $38.8 million in a wind farm – but the Ivanpah plant is its largest and most ambitious investment to date.

Until now, Europe has laid claim to most of the world’s solar farms – there are several in Spain, for example – but with companies like the US-owned First Solar rapidly expanding, perhaps this venture will truly become worldwide as people learn to rely more on solar power and less on fossil fuels. Solar power, unlike coal and natural gas deposits deep underground, is highly unlikely to run out any time soon.

Posted under Environmental News, News

A biofuel plant - more than just a blight to the landscape?

There is always controversy surrounding the development of new technologies and scientific discoveries, especially when debating whether biofuels really are the way to the future with regard to our economy and our ecological requirements. However, following the push of biofuels to the forefront of the race to find an alternative for the fossil fuels that we have been using for decades, we are now being told that perhaps this might not the case. The Nuffield Council on Bioethics has just produced a report saying that the targets that the EU has set for the production and use of biofuels are unethical and unsafe to both us and our environment.

Clearly, this has come as a shock to some of the biggest companies investing time and money into the advances in this area, but perhaps it should not have been such a surprise. In our current panic over the rapid depletion of fossil fuels and the chaos that they are wrecking on our atmosphere and soil, we are prone to committing ourselves whole-heartedly to anything that seems like it could be the solution to our problems. A new medicine goes through years of tests and trials before it is classed as fit and suitable for humans – and even then there are mistakes made that do not become apparent until many years later. Still, at least the extensive testing means that usually the work is put in to making medicine as safe as possible. Why should it not be the same for the fuels that we use as pesticides and fertilisers, to mention but two of the uses for biofuels?

Working as an independent body, the Nuffield Council is designed to examine the ethical issues raised in the development of medicine and biology – including the area of biofuels – and now they have decided that perhaps striving to hit the targets set by the EU might not be the best way forward after all. Included in the report published by the Council are directives that include;

That biofuels should be environmentally sustainable;

That they should contribute to a reduction in greenhouse gases;

Have costs and benefits that can be distributed in an equitable way.

If this is set against the EU Renewable Directive, which states that biofuels should be accounting for 10% of transport fuel by 2020 in the EU, then there is a clear contrast between what the EU have directed and what the Nuffield Council are now decreeing we should actually be doing. It should be noted that, from the very start, the EU Renewable Directive was a subject of much debate and controversy. Only 3% of transport in Britain uses currently uses biofuels and, of that, only a third of that 3% actually met environmental standards in 2009/10.

There are also numerous conflicts with the idea of introducing an unknown element into the food cycle. If biofuels are used in the manufacture process of fertilisers, then what cost is rolled onto the end product? Fertilising products have always been hotly debated since they became more chemical than natural in their make-up. The fact that we cannot predict what the end result will be only means that people are quickly becoming more concerned about the health of us and our planet. While it is true that we need fuel to produce the food we consume – even the organic vegetables and meat require some form of processing before they hit our shops and tables – some environmentalists and campaigners are calling for a complete cessation in our growing reliance on biofuels.

Perhaps they are right – if you were not assured in the fact that a medicine had undergone rigorous testing to make it as safe as humanly possible, would you agree to take it or give it to your children?

Posted under Environmental News, News

In Japan, the nuclear crisis has been raised to the highest level in recorded history. While nature played a part in the destruction of Japan and the surrounding region, surely the fact that there were four reactors right next to each other did not help. Neither did the flawed earthquake predictions, which lulled Japan and the officials at Fukushima into a false sense of security regarding the safety of the power plant.

Said to be as bad as Chernobyl in 1986, the Fukushima disaster is a highlighted example for the abolition of nuclear power by those opposed to it, and there are a lot of them. The waste produced in the process of generating nuclear power needs to be isolated for varying lengths of time (depending on the type of the waste) until it can be declared to be ‘safe’ and no longer poses a hazard. Our methods of disposing nuclear waste are almost childlike in their simplicity – burial. There is more to it than that, of course, but it essentially boils down to deep burial for the longest lived wastes.

Simple, but is it really safe? No matter how far down the shafts are (500-1000 metres in depth), how thick the concrete walls are, or how much concrete is poured on top, there will always be that lingering fear that we have not been as careful as we could have been. The walls of Fukushima were made out of reinforced concrete – and that did not help when the earthquake hit and the tsunami wave pushed through, decimating almost everything in its path.

Raising the level of the nuclear crisis to 7 is not, however, a result of any sudden, recent incident, but rather a reflection on the total amount of radiation that has been leaked since the emergency began.

Even leaving aside the environmental and political ramifications of the Fukushima disaster, we are left with the humane side of the argument. Anyone who has heard of the dedicated team on the ground in Fukushima, frantically trying to stop the radiation leak will not have failed to have their conscience tugged at. These courageous people have, essentially, given their lives because their bodies and health will never be the same given the amount and the severity of the radiation that they have been exposed to. Would their sacrifice have really been necessary if the proper safety factors had been ticked off, if the warning system had been better or the reactors placed a little further apart from each other? Surely their families now have their reservations towards nuclear power and the power plants that are now erected on nearly every continent.

Over a month on from the earthquake and tsunami that devastated the country, what can we say we have learned about nuclear power and its effects on our world and our lives? Yes, nuclear power has its benefits – it is debatably cleaner and ‘better’ than power derived from fossil fuels – but do those benefits outweigh the disadvantages when human lives are taken into consideration? There are many other alternates available to us, ranging from industrial-sized windmills to solar farms.

And no one has ever been killed while stopping leaks from a solar farm.

Posted under Environmental News, News

Have you ever heard the phrase At the Flick of a Switch? If you haven’t then you’ll still be able to grasp a feeling hidden inside the language of a simple, quick, immediate change. And today, in an era categorised by days that aren’t quite long enough and the time you have flashing out of and back into night, it seems that what the majority of everyday people look for is a clear, concise Yes/No switch for just about everything: Should I drive to work today – No. Should I buy organic – Yes. Is fairtrade necessary – Yes. Can my carbon contribution really make a difference – Yes.

So why is it when we are faced with the decision and ask ourselves Will I benefit from a Green Energy Tariff, knowing the answer instinctively is yes, the lights still don’t come on?

Of course, whether they do or don’t is ultimately up to you; but here we have compiled a quick guide to some of the short-circuit questions that might have left you in the dark for quite some time, and, hopefully, have you charged-up enough so when the power does come back on it will be from a Green supplier.

Which Supplier?

Switching to a green energy tariff is something entirely for us to decide. Whether your options include a package from one of the ‘Big Six’ British energy companies or something specialised from a tailored utility provider that suits your needs a little more, the fact of the matter is there’s a large onus on society to engage themselves with climate change – and specifically, combating it. And without any guiding legislation to shepherd the public into a Green future, it seems to be a troublesome trip from doing nothing into taking those first steps. But don’t fear; the wide world of sustainability has no direct route save renewable energy.

Thankfully the energy market has been coerced into setting-up-shop along the way. Almost every energy company now offers a ‘green’ energy alternative. But the word ‘green’ is interpreted and adapted by each supplier. This is why it is vital to ask yourself What is it I need from an energy supplier, and how do I want it?

Suppliers source electricity in a variety of ways: they may choose to generate their own clean electricity entirely from renewable sources; they may also offer an offsetting policy where for the amount of electricity your needs use up, the supplier will contribute an equivalent amount back into the energy grid; and some follow initiatives that look to support eco-friendly community projects or make donations on your behalf to help further renewable energy research.

These are the basic ways in which a tariff can officially raise up a Green banner. And they are worthwhile, sustainable projects. An active involvement in the renewable energy industry is better than none at all. However, the more specialised utility suppliers will often outgun some of the national household names. After all, a wise man once said that the loudest shout is a whisper.

Green energy tariffs from companies such as Ecotricity and Good Energy will offer a 100% renewable electricity package. So if you are enthusiastic about the environment, they are undeniably top of the leader board.

But what we recommend here at EcoSwitch is taking a look for yourself. Research the green energy market, it won’t take long. Soon you’ll see quite clearly that there are hundreds of options suitable to you and your need, and signing up will save you time, money, and perhaps your enevironment in the long run. And it’s all as easy as the Click of a Button or the Flick of a Switch.

Posted under Articles, Electricity Generation, Gas & Electricity, Uncategorized

Now that you’re up-to-date with what a green energy tariff is, we’ve compiled a concise collection of the leading energy suppliers and a who’s who of the eco-specialists on the market today.

EDF Energy

EDF’s Climate Balance tariff is for their existing customers. It works with a sense of off-setting your carbon usage: 0.42 pence per unit of electricity and 0.147 pence per unit of gas used is first matched by EDF and then contributed into a running fund to develop sustainable energy projects and offset CO2 emissions. Their Green Tariff works through a similar process: this green fund has been set up so that all-year support and investments can be made into initiatives supporting community based and educational projects, such as developing and installing microgenerational equipment (ie., solar panels and wind turbines) for schools and neighbourhood projects.

Scottish and Southern Energy

Scottish and Southern Energy have teamed up with the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) and concentrated their efforts to protect and support Britain’s ecology and local wildlife. When you make the switch, £10 for gas and £10 for electricity donations will be made in your name; as well as an added donation of £5 for every year you remain with the tariff.

ScottishPower

ScottishPower’s H20 tariff focuses on the renewable source of hydro-power. Every unit of electricity used by their customers will be matched by ScottishPower as they’ll generate the equivalent by using their hydro-power stations in Lanark, Galloway and Cruachan. As well as this great way of supporting local renewable power generation, ScottishPower offer another method of investing in renewable energy: their Green Energy Fund means that for a flat donation of £10.50 a year you’ll be able to support the development and day-to-day running of energy projects around the UK.

NPower

Like a lot of the leading energy suppliers, npower offers a ‘matching’ tariff, where for every unit of electricity used they’ll meet it with a unit of renewable energy to be pooled back into the National Grid. They too have a green fund set up, but they themselves will make the £10 donation in your name to help support developing renewable power schemes.

British Gas

One of the most encouraging things about British Gas is that they do not charge their customers to make the switch from a standard tariff to a green one. Plus, they guarantee to source their electricity for this tariff from a variety of renewable sources.

As well as the leading energy companies creating greener tariffs, there are also green energy companies who specialise in offering environmentally aware tariffs. Here are the leading two currently on the market place:

Ecotricity

Ensuring that their electricity is derived from renewable sources, Ecotricity are also keen investors in building, running and developing renewable sources. As well as running wind farms across the UK, in 2006 they invested £7 million in wind energy.

Good Energy

Not only do Good Energy supply 100% ‘clean’ electricity sourced from renewable energy sources – including wind, solar and hydro power – they also provide a unit by unit equivalent service which match your energy consumption and invest the amount of units back into the National Grid. On average, customers have saved two tonnes of CO2 a year and brought back their carbon footprint by about 1/3.

For more information on green energy check out the EcoSwitch comparison page onsite, or find out what it will cost you to make the switch today to a more eco-conscious tariff by clicking on the ecotricity link below.

Posted under Articles, Electricity Generation

It shouldn’t come as a huge surprise that solar and wind are, today, possibly the most obvious signs of alternative power in the widening field of Renewable Energy Sources. This can be seen through their rapid increase over recent years which has taken sight through the steady rise in solar and wind alternatives, not only technologically, but their increase and integration as a whole.

Solar strips and units (PV cells, predominantly) can be seen flanking the edges of most new gizmos and gadgets as well as taking root in a large number of domestic and industrial inventions. Wind has also seen much success lately; microgenerational progression has harnessed the potential of wind power and – especially in countries with a rather blustery climate – has adopted the much celebrated wind turbines which are offsetting domestic carbon footprints up-and-down the UK. And it’s a great thing too! But without a national campaign to homogenise the adoption of alternative power, is it really going to make a significant effect? Possibly not. However, to circumscribe alternative energy solutions to the limited areas of solar and wind is just as bad as giving up all together. Or even worse; not even making a start.

Switchgrass is just one example of what most of us have no real idea about. Switchgrass, and other perennial grasses such as sorghum, are a fast growing, deep rooted super plant. Why? Well, switchgrass can be used to generate energy, and, right now, is being considered as a carbon neutral alternative to coal. So much so, in fact, that wholesale energy giants NRG Energy are experimenting with using sorghum and switchgrass instead of coal at a power plant in Louisiana.

Native to North American districts, switchgrass (Panicum virgatum) is that Little House on the Prairie tall grass that seems to thrive in summer. It is capable of producing high yields with very low amounts of fertilizer; therefore agricultural chemicals are practically non-existent throughout its use. Not only that, but due to its situation along some of the tougher land areas of North America it has been proven to be very tolerant of poor soils, flooding and drought; and is capable of withstanding some of the toughest concerns for ecologists when considering bio-fuels as a viable power alternative.

These robust lowland grasses – tough as they are – have been ‘talent-spotted’ by energy companies throughout America for a reason. Due to their surplus states of land and expansive agricultural plains, it’s clear why this earth-bound natural source has been promoted to the more serious position of possible power alternative – joining associates such as wind and solar power – over in the US. But is it a viable source here in the UK?

That, as they say, is the real question. Right now, with under-developed and limited land sights, switchgrass in the UK is not an impossibility, but is not a particularly effective or economic use of an alternative option for sourcing power. But this is the crux of the situation: there is not one sole solution in sight for tackling the nebulous threats of climate change. Far from it, in fact. Ecologists will advocate that in order to not ‘tackle’ but ‘stop’ climate change, every avenue towards a sustainable solution must be explored. And just like its compatriots in the renewable battleground, switchgrass and bio fuels, just like solar and wind power, must start somewhere in order to reach similar and achievable success.

Posted under Articles, Electricity Generation, Renewable Energy