Cancel
Advanced Search
KEYWORDS
CATEGORY
AUTHOR
MONTH

Please click here to take a brief survey

Interview with Idealab
Article Photo

Bill Gross spearheaded the creation of Idealab, one of the most influential business incubators in the commercial Net with early ventures into e-commerce (Toys.com), local directories (CitySearch) and paid search (Goto.com). Now, Idealab has taken a new, perhaps more serious direction, building businesses that tap the market opportunities in addressing the big global challenges of our time. As Idealab has reinvented itself, Energy Innovations (EI) has emerged as perhaps the most dynamic and noteworthy member of its stable of startups. With Bill Gross as its CEO and former dot com executive Andrew Beebe at the helm as president, EI seems to pushing the envelope to make affordable solar a reality – today for thousands of Googlers and soon a much wider audience.

WC: Idealab has been on leading edge of innovation for more than decade. Tell us about its history and where Idealab is today.

BG: Idealab started in 1996 – we just celebrated our 10 year anniversary – and was started primarily to create companies in parallel. I had been a serial entrepreneur, and wanted to organize the infrastructure to work at more than one company at time.

Initially, we raised $3.5 million with $1 million reserved for operating costs and $2.5 million set aside to start 10 Internet companies at less than $250,000 each. We did that, some were successful, and we raised more money. When the first of our companies went public, we reinvested those funds into Idealab and were able to grow. Between 1996 and 2000 we started about 50 companies, and about half of those were successful.

After the dot com crash, we found ourselves in a situation where we had a very good cash situation but took a step back. We realized that Internet companies were going to be difficult to finance, and that we had expertise beyond just online services. So, we wanted to tackle new challenges, to explore fields where we could create a huge impact and identified telecom, renewables, and robotics. Our first company was Energy Innovations which we started in 2001.

For some time, we also were trying to make company a month and did so from 1996-1997. Now, at most, we will create just one company a year, but they will have the biggest impact possible. The more world-changing, the more excited we are about it.

WC: How did each of you get interested in energy and renewables?

BG: In 1973, I was attending high school in southern California when the oil crisis hit. There were gas lines around block and you had to buy gas on odd- or even-numbered days. I read Popular Science magazine and read about all the dreams of people who wanted to go to solar. Based on what I was learning in school, I started to tinker with solar technology, even making small parabolic dishes and Stirling engines in metal shop. I wanted to take world away from fossil fuels.

I started to take out small mail order ads in back of Popular Science to sell these solar devices that I was building and it became a business that I ran it for three years. I think it helped me to get accepted to Caltech. . After I graduated from Caltech, OPEC had flooded the world with cheap oil and dried up all the investment interest in solar.

Then, in 1981, the personal computer was launched and I fell in love with it. I started creating software companies. When the inkling of electricity shortages in California appeared in early 2000, I wanted to see what else had happened in solar in the last 20 years. I found that not much had changed for many reasons. It was exciting because I had been passionate about this issue since I was a teenager but now I had business experience and company formation skills to do some thing about it.

AB: When I first met Bill, I could not believe the length of his commitment. In one of our first meetings, he brought in the issue from Popular Science with the ad of him selling parabolic dishes! [laughing]

For me, when I sold Bigstep, my first company, I wanted to find something big that would have impact on planet. I did full market scan for something huge and immediately impactful. The real "a-ha" moment for me on solar came when I was reading a Moore's Law. If you want to make solar cost effective, one of the ideal ways is to concentrate sunlight. People have dreamed about that for a long time, but microprocessors were too expensive. Now that Moore's Law has been on a march for 40 years, a full fledged microprocessor that can track the sun costs only twenty cents. That is down from $2000 just two decades ago. This already has affected personal electronics as we see in computers and cell phones but until recently had not been brought to energy.


WC: National governments in Europe have taken an active role to promote renewables with tariff structures that serve as policy mechanisms. Why has that not happened in US?

AB: Stay tuned. There have been interesting pockets at national level here in the US. Not too long ago, tax deductions for solar were introduced in the US Senate by Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN) and President Bush signed the legislation. As governor, George Bush was supportive of wind power in Texas. I believe there is bipartisan interest and we will start to see real momentum take place now, especially because I think there is final consensus around the threat of global warming.

BG: Japan and Europe in particular have been leaders in believing that we need to do something on renewable energy. They have put countrywide policies in place to encourage adoption and spur R&D. That has driven price down and that is feeding the goal of making it more and more cost effective so that you can get these sources and energy cost effective without subsidies. It's important to note all our energy and highway systems were built with subsidies. I believe that the purpose of government is to use subsidies to incentivize behavior and to make the world a better place over the long-term. Individuals only make decisions with a 3-5 year time frame, so they are short-term optimizers. Our highway infrastructure, for example took 30-40 years to build. But once they were completed, then everyone reaps huge long-term benefits. We need to have the same longer-term thinking applied to renewable energy.

Japan and Europe have put in place plans that have caused intense demand, intense adoption and the resulting volume production from that has led to decreasing prices. We have done some things in US but we have done it unevenly; for example, we have started a 30% tax credit but only for two years. You can't make long-term plans if something last for only two years. That was a big mistake but apart of political process. Hopefully that will be corrected soon.


WC: California appears to once again be leading the country in progressive policy with its recent Million Solar Roofs Initiative. Is this just another give-away, or are we on the cusp of something huge?

AB: While our country is playing catch up globally on solar, California is taking lead on our behalf. The program introduced here in California is extremely well-designed to do what we do best – design and implement world-changing technology. Specifically, the Million Solar Roofs Initiative is encouraging solar adoption in the commercial, residential and non-profit sector via $3 billion worth of subsidies and yet forcing cost reductions through decreasing financial support of solar over the ten year period of the program. As of January 1, when the program went into affect, for every Kilowatt hour generated, the local public utility will credit a certain amount off the bill back to user.

Each year, based on the volume of solar installations, the program ratchets down the amount of financial support provided by subsidies until the amount reaches zero. The intention is clear – if installation costs drop due to competition or the introduction of new product, more solar will be installed and government subsidies will decrease. In this way, the subsidies drive toward creating cost-effective solar, not a long-term dependency.

It's also smart because the span of a ten-year program shows industry a consistent plan that is very transparent. It's a serious commitment that companies can bet on. This also has happened in other countries like Germany who have taken a similar approach and allowed industry to thrive.

In contrast, the wind industry has set up federal tax credits but only on a two year horizon. They say that the only thing worse than short term policies are bad long-term policies. A two year production tax credit does not allow business to plan large scale wind development farms that require at least three years to build and put into place.

WC: Why do you think that California has taken the lead relative to the rest of the US and perhaps state governments across the world?

BG: Only speculation but I think because we have good sunshine and high demand for electricity, we previously have had lot of pollution though car laws have improved things, we have a lot of citizens who want to reduce coal use, and we have some enlightened leaders who are taking a concern for children and grandchildren. Results will be felt much more in 10-20 years than tomorrow, but we still need to act now. Typically politicians work for a short-term because they want to get reelected but we have politicians in our state who seem to care about our long term as well.

AB: At the macro level, I think that California always has been more focused on clear air and clean power than rest of country. There is an underlying awareness among people here in California that is a bit unique. Challenges like price spikes in the earlier part of the decade and less than perfect behavior on the part of energy traders also gave people a spike of awareness.

WC: Tell us about the strategy behind Energy Innovations

BG: There are three different strategies for reducing the price of solar electricity. First, make silicon cheaper. Lots of people are working on this idea by scaling production of silicon, robotizing more, make it thinner so there's less waste. None of these are working that well at present because prices are only coming down 3-4 percent a year.

Second, find alternatives to silicon that can be mass produced. There are many companies working on this, looking for a non-photovoltaic process to turn photons into electrons. The challenge is there is a lot of R&D to go and likely lower efficiency than purified silicon, but all very promising.

Third, use less silicon so rather than make it cheaper or don't use it; concentrate the sunlight and use 100 times or 500 times less of the expensive precious semiconductor material. This is our strategy, to use the high efficiency semiconductors and use very little of them by concentrating sunlight as much as possible. We are not first to try to concentrate sunlight but we uniquely are making systems to do it compactly, reliably, and inexpensively.

One other aspect that EI uniquely is doing to make it cost effective is our tracking concentrator that is low profile and thus roof mountable. All other track concentrators are large, need to be pole-mounted into the ground, and are expensive to construct at the site. Our low-profile, fully-assembled, manufactured in China unit is much lower cost and easy to mount as you can do it in just a few minutes.

AB: Another important piece of business, EI Solutions designs and builds large scale solar and PV installations for corporate customers. Our implementation shop will install anyone's products, so it's not just vertical integration around our proprietary solar technology.

WC: Can you explain your relationship with Google.

AB: Google certainly is a major milestone for our company and for the industry. We have the honor of working with them to install the largest commercial installation in US history and we are very excited about this accomplishment. Google is a visionary company with visionary leadership and their efforts fit perfectly in line with their notion of making the world a better place.
We are completing a 1.6 megawatt installation which constitutes three acres of a rooftop covered with solar panels. It consists of about 7500 solar panels, so approximately 50 percent larger than any other corporate campus install in the US. There are a number of one megawatt installs but nothing nearly this large on a corporate site.

It covers about 30 percent of the energy needs of the Mountain View campus and includes a lot of carports so it's mixed types of installations. Google wants to be a leader and not a follower in their adoption of renewables. Everything that they are doing with Energy Innovations reflects this desire.

WC: What are the broader implications of the Google deal?

BG: Google brings a few good things to the market – again, it's the largest commercial install in US industry and shows real leadership from a large corporation about the need to lessen fossil fuel use. We also showed that we could make the payback period very favorable from an economic stance, which was important for the company's shareholders.

It also gives our company a large scale installation so we can prove our installation capabilities to the marketplace which might be attractive to other large scale customers. While we're not ready to talk about the next deals we're building, it immediately led to a series of discussions with potential customers across California. Companies see that they can take advantage of solar in a cost effective way

WC: Why are you guys getting so much traction?

AB: I think Energy Innovations has been succeeding because people are excited about our innovations and the opportunity to reduce costs. New technology definitely is a large part of what will make our business successful. The second piece is that we have geared our entire business toward large-scale corporate installs and very few companies have taken this same approach. Some are focused on the entire market but we are focused solely on commercial, institutional, grid-tied solar installations. Customers seem to appreciate that they are the only thing that we care about.

WC: What is role for startups vs big incumbents in this space? How does that dynamic play out? What happens to Big Oil in 25 years?

BG: I do think that the 'Innovators Dilemma' rings as true in this industry as in any. Today, the entire solar business is only $4B. That is a lot in relative terms for the industry and the growth is very strong, but it is very small for an energy or oil company – it's almost a rounding error. As a result, the only ones who care about making highly profitable disruptive business are startups.

Think about in a large energy company how those people make their bonuses, take their vacations, get their promotions - in a company with 50,000 employees, nearly all are bonused on core revenue and profits on main line of business. In light of this situation, I don't think you can unlock the kind of innovation necessary to make a breakthrough in renewables. However, they do have the capability to scale innovations -- Take MySpace and News Corp. It's a good example because it's not clear if MySpace ever would have been created internally by News Corp, but News Corp is the perfect partner to reinvest, scale and catapult MySpace to next level.

AB: I think that there are many parallels between clean energy technology and the evolution of the Internet. In the beginning of the dot com period in early 90s, there were plenty of large technology companies but you have to ask why did they not transform themselves? We see the same situation today with the large energy companies.

Distributed energy is a new paradigm that does not lend itself to the strategic advantage of big companies. Big energy companies are good at harnessing competitive advantage through access management – they own the supply and access to large-scale fuel sources like oil, coal, and natural gas. However, with solar, they obviously cannot control the resource. This is a real shift of power.

They also are good at managing large-scale distribution systems like the grid itself. Just like those companies who had supercomputers or the few T-1 lines that were scattered across the US, these larger players soon will be disintermediated by smaller companies who can sell direct to customers and offer strong benefits at low costs for distributed power generation. That makes a good recipe for startups.

WC: Do you see this trend happening around the world?

BG: The conditions absolutely changed in energy in the last five years and there are powerful disruptive forces at work around the world. Today, the richest person in China is a solar entrepreneur. You have a number of public companies in foreign markets, startup solar companies that are profitable or close to profitable, but valuable for shareholders. Many move into the industry for these reasons, let alone the feel good reasons because it's so impactful. This is why I originally got into the space. The IPO prospects weren't on the horizon. But now the opportunity to make an impact and make a profit is powerful.

WC: What will the competitive landscape around renewables look like in 25 years?

AB: Again, I would say that it's going to look a lot like the transition in the technology industry. Today there are large companies who thrived in an earlier time and yet have not succeeded at same rate. At the same time, there are some big companies like IBM and Microsoft who innovated and still compete.

Today we also have some massive new companies and industry leaders like Amazon, , Google, and Yahoo! , none of whom even existed 25 years ago. Looking ahead, it would not surprise me if many of large oil companies were still intact but, like BP already is trying to do, evolve into broader energy companies that own a piece of renewables.
BG: I believe that solar will account for a dramatically increased portion of our electricity usage – it's miniscule today but will be much higher. There will be a number of startups that grow into Google-like size. Many startups also will be acquired by large companies and so innovation will take place outside those companies, then migrate into big corporations through acquisitions.

WC: What's next for Energy Innovations?

BG: Our biggest challenge is to take advantage of the enormous market in California and continue to roll out reliable systems to piggyback onto larger and greater business. The opportunity is incredibly exciting. I believe there is chance to build very large business here in California. I hope that other states will get as aggressive as California in years to come.

WC: As you have suggested in this conversation, Idealab has evolved quite a bit over the past ten years. What is the future of Idealab, particularly in the realm of tackling big problems and creating world-changing companies?

BG: At Idealab, our mission is to create and operate pioneering companies, and to challenge the status quo. We are very focused on all aspects of the renewable energy arena, and this is the area that excites us the most. We are completely driven by the idea of making renewable energy cost effective, across a whole spectrum of opportunities. We believe that that will allow us to build great businesses and make the world a better place.

Bookmark and Share


Comments

I really like to hear people wanting to do renewables more present. But i rarely hear of the issue of producing large amounts of energy at low demand time, especially for solar and wind. I've read recently about using air compression in tanks, filling tanks at low demand time and releasing it at high demand time.
The output ratio was close to 70%, but was upgraded to 95% by heating the compressed air with a little quantity of renewable burning material. Something like this is in test in Marseille (Fr) at the moment and it could really help with time fluctuating renewables.

Hope this help, keep on the good work
Dav


Posted by: litteuldav on 22 Jan 07

Is the Sun finally rising on Solar Power?

In 1931, Thomas Edison had a conversation with Henry Ford and Harvey Firestone. He said, “I’d put my money on the sun and solar energy. What a source of power! I hope we don’t have to wait until oil and coal run out before we tackle that.?

We have waited 76 years, but an innovative company may have finally found a solution. The sun supplies enough energy to earth in one hour to supply all of our energy needs for an entire year. But currently solar power produces less than ½ of 1% of our residential energy needs. Why?

In the past, solar power has been too expensive and too complicated. To switch to solar, people had to invest their children’s college fund or sell their second car. The average consumer pays $40,000 to convert their home to solar—plus you are responsible for the installation, maintaining the equipment, getting permits—who has the time (or the money)?

A company called Citizenre has a bold plan to remove all of the traditional barriers to solar power. They offer: No system purchase. No installation cost. No maintenance. No permit hassles. No performance worries. No rate increases. No way!?

Like most innovations, their model is so simple it makes you wonder why no one thought of it before.

You simply pay Citizenre the same rate per kilowatt for power that you used to pay your utility company—but it gets even better. Citizenre will guarantee that your rate per kilowatt will not go up for 25 years. With ever increasing electricity rates, this gives consumers peace of mind and can add up to significant savings. They even have a solar calculator on their website that shows exactly how much you will save over 1, 5, and 25 years. I saved over $13,000 and by using clean energy; it was the equivalent of taking 24 cars off the road or planting 400 trees. Nice.

In the past, “going green? usually implied sacrifice. You get to feel good about saving the planet but most “green? products are more expensive than their “dirty? counterparts. With Citizenre, going green can actually save you money.

This is all made possible by net metering laws that require the utility companies to allow renewable energy to flow into the grid and then allow the consumer to pull that same amount of energy off of the grid at no cost to the consumer. Basically the grid becomes a huge battery. The meter spins backwards during the day when the sun is shining and forwards at night when the consumer pulls that power back off the grid.

Nine states do not have net metering yet. You check your area on their website: http://www.jointhesolution.com/4greenenergy
They have a little map on the bottom next to the solar calculator. Now you can upgrade to solar with no investment.
For Contact information: Antonio Guerrero
Email: greenenergy@usa.com


Posted by: 2renu on 22 Jan 07

Thank you, WorldChanging.com and Jonathan G., for this wonderful interview with Bill Gross. I've heard of Idealab, but I've never taken a moment to really see what they're all about. Your feature inspired me to dig deeper, and I'm truly amazed and inspired by their feats during the past decade. What an extraordinary company - and a dynamic, laudable mission, too.

You even got me to stop everything and post about their efforts on my own company's blog: http://www.epiphaniesinc.com/blog/2007/01/23/can-one-good-a-ha-solve-the-worlds-energy-crisis-idealab-thinks-so/

The more people who see examples of Big Thinkers changing the world, the better we all are! Your site is wonderful. Keep up the great work.

Lani Voivod
www.EpiphaniesInc.com
"A-Ha Yourself!"


Posted by: Lani Voivod on 23 Jan 07

What about Changing World Technologies? They transform organic waste into refineable oil.


Posted by: Randall D. Parkes on 24 Jan 07

My enthusiasm for Renu (citizenre.com) waned the more I studied their proposal.

FIRST, when considering a new approach, I like to come up with alternatives – other approaches that may be cheaper, more environmentally sensitive, cheaper – with which I compare the new approach. It guards against feeling trapped: this solution or staying stuck where we are. Have we:
1) Reduced our consumption? Before we support the production of all those collectors, converters and controllers, plus our share of the company and its support staff, have we reduced our energy requirements so that the sum total of this added equipment and services is minimized? Thus, we should have switched out of incandescents to compact fluorescents, if not LEDs; replaced our old refrigerator with a more energy efficient model; upgraded our hot water heater to one better insulated when replacement was necessary (or insulated the one we have); turned down our house thermostat; reduced our AC load by insulating south windows, improving hot air exhaust in attics; improved overall house insulation; converted to geothermal if feasible.
2) Considered purchasing from already existing green energy sources? There are already green producers of energy on the market. Their infrastructure is already in place, and may be ecologically more benign than the PV panels and the considerable electronic components associated with them. At the simplest level, we could compare the kwh cost of purchasing from those sources versus the costs of purchasing power from Renu, which, from my thinking below, may be considerably higher than the 0.075/kwh touted by Renu.

SECOND, it is important to assess the direction and speed with which new technology changes. European, Japanese and Chinese innovations in PV are way ahead of the United States. Consider the following scenario: PV efficiencies increase at the same time household device efficiencies increase. Thus, the Renu panel production potential increases as your household electricity consumption decreases. I’m sure they will replace inefficient panels with more efficient ones, as that means they will be able to produce more power (and charge the customer more). By their own Terms and Conditions, they agree to keep their production system in line with customer’s consumption. Does that mean Renu takes PV panels off your roof as customer’s requirements decline? If “no?, customer pays more for power. If “yes?, the company is living up to its agreement, but society as a whole (i.e., the power grid) suffers a decrement in access to solar. The longer the term of the contract, the more this poses a problem.

THIRD, as I read the Terms and Conditions of the contract, I found myself caught up in mind-numbing detail, and this raised the question as to how Renu makes its money. For starters, the term “rental,? appearing in such phrases as “rental charge,? occurs 44 times in their agreement. There are also many other potential costs that raise the cost/kwh. For example, Section 5.2 places all responsibility for all malfunctions, failures, damage to or loss of components with customer. This may require customer to get an additional policy, or rider on existing Hazard Insurance policy, which ends up adding to your cost of electricity. If there is a deductible, this will also add to the kwh cost.

Oddly because of the grid inter-tie, the solar PV system may NOT act as a backup in the event of power failure (Section 3). Does customer have the option to select such backup? Not being able to access PV when the power to house is down seems like a serious drawback. I realize that such backup may require storage batteries, but couldn’t backup without batteries be arranged at least when the sun is out?

Section 7.2 treats “Security deposits.? How big is a typical installation? How big could the security deposit get? There is some risk here, and this increases the cost/kwh of electricity delivered. This same charge applies to removal of system to effect roof repairs, for example, moving out of your house, etc.
While Section 2.2 vests operation and maintenance with the Provider, Section 7.3 vests test and repair charges with the customer in the event of “misuse?. Of what does misuse consist? This seems to allow additional charges.

Section 7.6 refers vaguely to possible taxes, fees, and surcharges. Section 7.7 mentions a minimum service charge. This is a noteworthy charge for power consumers who have taken maximum steps to conserve their power consumption already. I estimate the minimum service charge from our local electricity provider was $5 on a bill of $6.48 one summer month for a mere 24 kwh.

Section 7.8 gets to the root of how Renu makes its money: the customer is charged for electricity on the basis of what the Renu system PRODUCES, not what the customer USES. Let us imagine two cases:

Case 1: the customer uses more than the Renu system produces. No problem. Customer pays the same rate/kwh to the power company as to Renu, as customer still requires extra power beyond what Renu produces.

Case 2: the customer uses less than the Renu system produces. Drawback: customer pays for power customer is not using! This overpayment is reduced only by the amount/kwh the power company decides to pay you for buying back net power produced by you. Putting this another way, unless the power company pays you THE SAME AMOUNT IT CHARGES YOU FOR USE OF ELECTRICITY, YOUR POWER BILL WILL ALWAYS BE LARGER THAN IT IS NOW. Let us explore this with two examples:

Example 1: In the sunny month of August, Renu produces on your roof 2,000 kwh @ 0.075/kwh. Renu charges customer $150. You actually use 1,200 kwh. Under net metering, power company owes you for 800 kwh, for which it has agreed to pay you 0.04/kwh. You get a credit of $32. Your total cost of power that month is: $150-32 or $118 or 0.098/kwh, not 0.075.

Example 2: Same scenario as above, but you use only 800 kwh. Renu still charges you $150. Under net metering, power company owes you for 1200 kwh, for which it has agreed to pay you 0.04/kwh. You get a credit of $48. Your total cost of power that month is: $150-48 or $102 or 0.13/kwh, not 0.075. Note that THE LESS YOU USE OF WHAT RENU PRODUCES, THE MORE YOUR KWH RATE GOES UP.

Clearly, the key here is the nature of the net metering agreement with your power company. Renu gets its rate from you regardless. What you, as customer, must fight for, is a rate at least as good as the rate which Renu is charging you. This net metering rate should include a higher rate for peak load, because it is precisely meeting peak load that Renu is good at: it is producing maximum net power while customer is typically off at work.

Here is the text from Renu’s Rate Determination and Guarantees section: "The rate is applied to all electricity generated by the REnU and Citizenrē will also guarantee that the REnU is engineered to produce no more than the average of your three prior years of electricity consumption in any year of the contract period, unless otherwise agreed to by you. By engineering a system to meet your historical annual needs, Citizenrē believes that adverse net-metering laws should not affect you negatively." This pretty much leads to what I have shown in Example 2 above. There will be many days, in the course of a sunny summer in particular, when your Renu is producing much more power than you use. During those days, you will be subject to the unfavorable net metering rates with your local power company. To see how this works, Renu can realize its claim above of providing customer with a system that produces ON AVERAGE what customer consumes. However, summer consumption may be less than winter consumption, just as summer production is greater than winter production. If the winter deficit is, say, 50%, this will offset the summer overage of 50%. Viola! You pay higher power bills than you otherwise would six months of the time. How much more you pay will depend on the net metering arrangement. By monitoring your energy use and system production on a daily basis, they maximize the revenue they can collect from you. This is why daily monitoring is so important to them.

Another Arrangement Which Seems Preferable:

Consumer puts Renu’s collector system on her roof. She uses what she needs and pays them at the contract rate. They sell excess to the power utility. They become the net power supplier. You continue on as a “customer? – their customer. They have a 2nd customer: the utility. Right now, you are their only customer and you have to deal with the utility and unfavorable net metering arrangements. They are in a better position to negotiate more favorable net metering arrangements with the utility than you because they are bigger. You are the lone consumer.

In short, I don’t think this is anything I would go for. And I haven’t even gotten into the ecological impacts of PV, or the Payback. The ecological impacts are high, and the Paybacks are LONG. The rational consumer would never buy a PV system for her house. It is simply too expensive. Why do under the cloak of the corporate marketplace what one wouldn’t do oneself?


Posted by: Gene Bazan on 29 Jan 07

Some one saw my web site and recommended I get in touch with you. I am an inventor and have been developing a ocean energy converter that will be affordable for big and small countries and even countries that are land locked. The energy will be converted to hydrogen or electricity. It can be used all over the ocean and would free the world of it's dependency on fossil fuels. I hope you will take a look. Please send a contact. WWW.SWELLFUEL.COM


Posted by: Christopher on 11 Feb 07



EMAIL THIS ENTRY TO:

YOUR EMAIL ADDRESS:


MESSAGE (optional):


Search Worldchanging

Worldchanging Newsletter Get good news for a change —
Click here to sign up!


Worldchanging2.0


Website Design by Eben Design | Logo Design by Egg Hosting | Hosted by Amazon AWS | Problems with the site? Send email to tech /at/ worldchanging.com
©2012
Architecture for Humanity - all rights reserved except where otherwise indicated.

Find_us_on_facebook_badge.gif twitter-logo.jpg