- Selling a Bridge to Nowhere: NREL Lithium/Carbon Metric
- Glimpse Recessed LED Lighting
- Japanese Public Protests Plan to Reopen Nuclear Reactors
- Penn State Researchers Discover Method of Off-Grid Hydrogen Production
- Solyndra Facts & Lies
- Siemens Ditches Nuclear
- Solar Charger and Case Now Available for iPhone 4
- Florida Power & Light Steps Up Its Solar Efforts
- Solyndra Loan an Ant Hill Compared to Mountain of ‘Military Boondoggles’
- Clearing Up How Loan Guarantees (like Solyndra’s) Work? (VIDEO)
Posted: 20 Sep 2011 01:58 PM PDT
Back in 2003, for those who know the history of the second coming of electric cars, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) was convinced to rewrite the definition of zero emission vehicles to include hybrids. About the same time, Chevron was suing everyone to keep the nickel-metal-hydride battery out of electric vehicles. However, they became the standard for hybrids. The movie "Who Killed the Electric Car" may have been inconclusive but attention did shift to hybrids, which continue to use gasoline, as the EV was crushed.
With this in mind, I have been rather surprised to find a number of recent articles promoting hybrids over battery electric vehicles due to lithium usage. A NREL study concludes lithium is used more sparingly in hybrid cars per pound of carbon saved than in an EV. Bill Moore of EV world gives us: "Hybrids: The Best Use for Lithium." At Alternative Energy Stocks they are of two minds when it comes to an EV, with Tom Konrad taking a slightly more pro EV perspective than his colleague John Peterson.
There are several ways to look at this information and it may be too easy to draw inaccurate conclusions. Is the NREL study inaccurate? We might ask if lithium is a scarce resource, and then, if using lithium is the only means to achieve the lower carbon goal? We might ask if saving carbon is the only reason for advocating electric cars. We could simply ask who would promote this point of view. Does the NREL study tell us we should pursue hybrid technology over a vehicle that only operates on batteries?
As with any study, the NREL information is narrowly focused. It weighs two variables: the amount of lithium used and the amount of carbon offset. Is the data inaccurate? A casual review of the study can’t give us this information. To save time and effort, we can assume for now that the study is accurate and look at what it says and the conclusions..
Scarcity of Resources
Gasoline is a combination of elements. We are concerned about gasoline becoming scarce because energy is stored in the bonds between its elements. The elements themselves don’t disappear, they just form new relationships at a lower energy level. It is actually the energy we are concerned with losing and not the elements.
Lithium is an Element
It doesn’t possess chemical energy by itself, but we can store electrical energy by using it in a battery. So while we store gasoline in a relatively cheap fuel tank. Lithium is the fuel tank into which we “pour” the fuel, electricity. It is constantly reused, and when the battery is no longer as useful as a container, we can recover the elements.
Alternatives to Lithium
There are two facts not mentioned in the NREL study. Lithium is not the only possible battery chemistry. Because its maximum storage capacity is less, our ultimate goal is that we will, within 5 years, be looking at a different chemistry like Zinc-Air that offers even more potential. There are also studies that suggest the cheapest path to vehicle electrification would be to use wireless technology in electrified roadways. Such a system would give unlimited range with no need to recharge a vehicle and no concerns about recharging times.
How Much Lithium?
The NREL study projects lithium usage out for 50 years (as if technology will remain static) yet concludes that we have enough lithium to meet the needs of Lithium batteries worldwide. As an exercise, we could ask if we have enough lithium to bring us, within 5 years, to an even more advanced energy storage. Within 4 years, the present administration proposes to have 1 million electric vehicles on the roads, including hybrids. Some suggest that that this may be more practical within 5 years. The Nissan Leaf battery uses about 9# of lithium. We would theoretically need about 9 million pounds of lithium over 5 years, or about 4500 tonnes. We presently produce about 25,000 tonnes each year and about 25% of that is used for batteries. Plenty of lithium.
Is Carbon Our Only Concern?
We have explored the use of petrol vehicles for over 100 years. The use and options with this transportation are widely known. All electric vehicles are like a key that unlocks options we need. An EV is the most efficient vehicle. The vehicles will be charged primarily at night. This time shifts our power usage and makes our grid more efficient. Battery electric vehicles can be used for backup power and might be even more cheaply powered using solar panels. Such vehicles lead to a decentralization of power. This, in turn, provides security not only from foreign energy supplies but from growing debt, inflation, and interest rates.
A bridge to nowhere
What does this study actually do? What action does it advocate? If lithium were scarce to the point of rationing, I might remotely understand the purpose of such a study. If the adoption of battery electric vehicles were not so useful a public policy, we might question our course of action for that reason. Rather, the study only looks like something of substance. It might be useful if some unusual conditions were to arise, but its conclusions are empty as the initial condition is not met. As such, the study, or at least its use, begins to look like a bridge to nowhere.
Posted: 20 Sep 2011 01:45 PM PDT
Recently, Lighting Science Group unveiled a new recessed LED lighting fixture. Unlike competitors models, Glimpse can be surface mounted to a J-Box as a luminaire or be retrofit into 5" or 6" recessed downlight by replacing the existing Edison base lamp and trim.
The Glimpse owes it mounting versatility to it’s thin size, only 2.116″. LSG was able to obtain such a small frame by using a single heatsink whereas most recessed LED lights employ multiple heatsinks. The Glimpse will retail for $37 at the Home Depot.
Image ©: Lighting Science Group
Posted: 20 Sep 2011 01:42 PM PDT
Japan has long had strong feelings on the subject of nuclear energy, only heightened by the tsunami and subsequent meltdown in Fukushima last spring. Before the disaster, approximately a third of its power supply had been supplied by nuclear reactors, with plans in place to increase that percentage to half.
Now, the majority of Japan's nuclear reactors are offline (both due to regularly scheduled maintenance and emergency safety checks, presumably to determine whether or not other reactors would be able to withstand foundation-splitting earthquakes and massive walls of water). However, they may not remain inactive – current prime minister Yoshihiko Noda favors re-opening the idle reactors once they have passed the appropriate stress tests.
The prospect of returning to nuclear power sparked a show of public opposition on Monday in Tokyo, with at least 20,000 participants (according to the police) and perhaps as many as 60,000 (according to various media reports). Protestors carried signs stating "No Nukes – Let's Stop All Radiation Now" and "This Child Doesn't Need Radiation"(complete with a happy cartoon boy). A few of the more well-known faces among the protestors were quite vocal in their opposition – popular actor Taro Yamamoto stated that Japan's other energy sources were already sufficient and that further use of nuclear power would result in a stockpile of nuclear waste, while Nobel literature laureate Kenzaburo Oe simply exhorted fellow protestors to "let leaders of major parties and the Japan Business Federation know that we intend to resist [nuclear power]."
Former prime minister Naoto Kan was also among those opposing re-instatement of nuclear power, although not present at the protests. He has gone so far as to state during recent interviews that he had feared for Japan's future as a nation during the nuclear crisis and considered evacuating 30 million people from Tokyo itself.
Amidst continuing radioactive leaks from Fukushima Daiichi and an evacuation zone measuring 24 miles in diameter around the plant, the overwhelming majority of the population polled by Associated Press does not favor nuclear expansion, but a perplexing 35% favor keeping existing plants open. Those evacuated – approximately 100,000 in total – may not be able to return for years, perhaps decades, due to persistent high levels of dangerous radiation.
Source | Picture: The Guardian
Posted: 20 Sep 2011 12:45 PM PDT
A Penn State research team reports an unlimited supply of pure hydrogen gas can be produced using seawater, river water and organic waste. The news may mean our renewable energy infrastructure will soon undergo a dramatic shift.
According to the Penn State team of Bruce E. Logan, professor of environmental engineering, and postdoctoral fellow Younggy Kim, a grain of salt or two may be all microbial electrolysis cells need to produce hydrogen from wastewater or organic byproducts. They contend this could occur without adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere or using grid electricity.
“This system could produce hydrogen anyplace that there is wastewater near sea water,” said Logan. “It uses no grid electricity and is completely carbon neutral. It is an inexhaustible source of energy.”
Get prepared for a radical shift in how renewable energy is produced and distributed. Microbial electrolysis cells that produce hydrogen are the basis of this recent work, but previously, to produce hydrogen, the fuel cells required some electrical input. Now, Logan, working with postdoctoral fellow Younggy Kim, is using the difference between river water and seawater to add the extra energy needed to produce hydrogen.
Their results of this research, published in the Sept. 19 issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, “show that pure hydrogen gas can efficiently be produced from virtually limitless supplies of seawater and river water and biodegradable organic matter.”
Logan’s cells were between 58 and 64 percent efficient in producing between 0.8 to 1.6 cubic meters of hydrogen for every cubic meter of liquid through the cell each day. According to a press announcement from Penn State, the researchers estimated that only about 1 percent of the energy produced in the cell was needed to pump water through the system. The research team says the key to these microbial electrolysis cells is reverse-electrodialysis (RED) that extracts energy from the ionic differences between salt water and fresh water. An RED stack consists of alternating ion exchange membranes — positive and negative — with each RED contributing additively to the electrical output.
RED technology to hydrolyze water — split it into hydrogen and oxygen — requires 1.8 volts, which would in practice require about 25 pairs of membrane sand increase pumping resistance. However, combining RED technology with exoelectrogenic bacteria — bacteria that consume organic material and produce an electric current — reduced the number of RED stacks to five membrane pairs.
Previous work with microbial electrolysis cells showed that they could, by themselves, produce about 0.3 volts of electricity, but not the 0.414 volts needed to generate hydrogen in these fuel cells. Adding less than 0.2 volts of outside electricity released the hydrogen. Now, by incorporating 11 membranes — five membrane pairs that produce about 0.5 volts — the cells produce hydrogen. “The added voltage that we need is a lot less than the 1.8 volts necessary to hydrolyze water,” said Logan. “Biodegradable liquids and cellulose waste are abundant and with no energy in and hydrogen out we can get rid of wastewater and by-products. This could be an inexhaustible source of energy.”
Logan and Kim’s research used platinum as a catalyst on the cathode, however, subsequent experimentation has shown that a non-precious metal catalyst, molybdenum sulfide, provided 51 percent energy efficiency.
Pure hydrogen doesn’t occur naturally. Traditional production methods have required significant energy, usually generated by fossil fuels.
This could be the discovery of the century for the renewable energy industry.
Photo: Bruce Logan
Posted: 20 Sep 2011 11:24 AM PDT
This is a full repost of a Media Matters article too good to pass up, especially since we continue to get inane comments here on CleanTechnica about it and I can only imagine how many people have been confused by the disinformers.
In the rush to cover the bankruptcy of Solyndra, a solar panel manufacturer that received a loan guarantee from the federal government, many news media outlets have misrepresented or omitted key facts.
CLAIM: Bush Administration Rejected Solyndra’s Application
FACT: Same Panel Of Career Officials Approved The Loan Guarantee
Bush Admin. Advanced 16 Projects, Including Solyndra, Out Of 143 Submissions. The Department of Energy’s Loan Guarantee Program was created by the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and expanded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. At a congressional hearing, Jonathan Silver, the Executive Director of Department of Energy’s Loan Programs Office, testified that the Bush administration’s DOE [Department of Energy] selected Solyndra from 143 submissions to move forward in the process:
Under Bush Admin., The Credit Committee Remanded The Project “For Further Development Of Information.” During the final days of the Bush administration, the Department of Energy’s loan guarantee credit committee, consisting of career officials, said that although the Solyndra project “appears to have merit,” the committee needed more information in several areas before it could recommend approval of a conditional commitment. The committee “remand[ed]” the loan “without prejudice” for “further development of information.” [Credit Committee, 9/9/09, via Huffington Post]
DOE Under Bush Admin. Set Out Timeline For Completing Solyndra Review. After the credit committee remanded the project for further information, officials at the Department of Energy under the Bush Administration developed a schedule for due diligence on the Solyndra project, envisioning completion in March 2009. [Department of Energy, 9/14/11]
In March, The Same Credit Committee Of Career Civil Servants Recommended Approval. As Climate Progress noted, in March 2009, “The same credit committee [consisting of career civil servants with financial expertise] approves the strengthened loan application. The deal passes on to DOE’s credit review board – political appointees within the DOE issue a conditional commitment setting out terms for a guarantee.” [Climate Progress, 9/13/11]
CLAIM: Email Saying Deal Was “NOT Ready For Prime Time” Was Warning About Financial Risk
FACT: The Email Did Not Voice Any Concerns About Risk Of Loan
Email Concerned Timing Of Announcement, Not The Merit Of The Loan Guarantee. Republicans on the Energy and Commerce Committee released some of the context around this email, which was written by an analyst with the Office of Management and Budget, according to House Republicans. In response to an email about a potential announcement of the Solyndra loan during the President’s visit to California on March 19, 2009, the analyst argued that the presidential announcement should not be made before the loan deal was completed. The email argued that “This deal is NOT ready for prime time” because there were more steps to be completed before the loan guarantee could be finalized — namely, OMB had to review the credit rating and Solyndra needed to raise an additional $200 million in private captial. [House Energy and Commerce Republicans, 9/14/11]
Obama Did Not Announce A Deal During His March California Trip. On March 19, 2009, Obama visited California and held a town hall meeting in Los Angeles. He did not announce the Solyndra deal. The conditional commitment to Solyndra was issued on March 20 and announced by Energy Secretary Steven Chu in a press release. [Department of Energy, 3/20/09]
VP Announcement Came After Loan Guarantee Was Finalized In September. The Solyndra loan guarantee was formally issued by DOE on September 3, 2009. On September 4, Vice President Joe Biden announced the deal via satellite at the groundbreaking of the plant along with DOE’s Chu and Arnold Schwarzenegger, who was the Governor of California at the time. [Department of Energy, 9/4/09;Contra Costa Times, 9/5/09]
OMB Reviews Credit Subsidy Cost; It Does Not Select Loan Guarantee Recipients. From the Congressional testimony of Jeffrey Zients of the Office of Management and Budget:
CLAIM: Obama Fundraiser George Kaiser Is Personally Invested In Solyndra
FACT: Kaiser’s Nonprofit Foundation Made The Investments, Along With Conservative Walton Family
George Kaiser Family Foundation Made Investment Through Argonaut Ventures. Tulsa Worldreported:
Second Largest Investor In Solyndra Was A Major Donor To Republicans. The Los Angeles Times reported:
Politico: Solyndra Had “Close Ties To Both Political Parties.” Politico reported:
CLAIM: Administration Restructured Loan To Favor Kaiser Rather Than Taxpayers
FACT: Walton’s Firm Also Part Of The Deal, Which DOE Expects Will Result In Higher Recovery For Taxpayers
Memo: Walton Family’s Firm Was Part Of The Restructuring Deal. A memo released by the House Energy and Commerce Committee states that both Argonaut Venture Capital, the fund tied to Kaiser’s foundation, and Madrone Capital Partners, which is tied to the Walton family, “negotiated the terms and conditions of an agreement to restructure the Solyndra loan guarantee”:
AP: “Two Private Investors” Provided The Emergency Loans. Despite its headline, “Obama admin reworked Solyndra loan to favor donor,” the AP article stated that Madrone Partners LP was also part of the deal:
DOE Determined “That The Facility Would Be More Valuable, Even In The Event Of A Future Liquidation, Once Complete.” In his testimony before the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Director of DOE’s Loan Programs Office Jonathan Silver stated that “DOE determined, as part of the restructuring, that the facility would be more valuable, even in the event of a future liquidation, once complete.” He went on to say that “DOE determined that restructuring the loan guarantee gave the U.S. taxpayer the best chance of being repaid”:
DOE Expects Recovery of Taxpayer Money To Be Larger Due To Restructuring. During the hearing, John Dingell said: “I would note that the government’s chance of recovery from that reorganization are better both in amount and certainty than if we had seen Solyndra go into bankruptcy earlier. Is that right?” Silver replied:
NY Times: Experts Said DOE’s Decision To Restructure “Is Routine In The Commercial World.”From a September 16, New York Times article:
VentureWire: DOE “Squeezed The Terms Of Its Loan In Its Favor.” VentureWire reported in March:
CLAIM: It Was Obvious Before Loan Guarantee Was Granted That Solyndra Would Fail
FACT: Solyndra Was Seen By Many As Promising
Solyndra Raised $1 Billion In Private Capital. Time noted that “in addition to government loan guarantees, Solyndra also scored over $1 billion in private capital–including from GOP-friendly investors like the Walton family of Wal-Mart.” [Time, 9/15/11]
WSJ Ranked Solyndra As The Top U.S. Clean Tech Company. In 2010, the Wall Street Journalranked Solyndra the top clean-tech company with the “capital, executive experience and investor know-how to succeed in an increasingly crowded field.” The “research firm VentureSource (owned by NewsCorp., which also owns Dow Jones & Co., publisher of the Journal) calculated the rankings, applying a set of financial criteria to some 350 U.S.-based venture-backed businesses in clean technology.” [Wall Street Journal, 3/7/10]
WSJ Also Ranked Solyndra In Top Five “Next Big” Venture-Backed Companies. The Wall Street Journal ranked Solyndra number five in a list of the “top 50 venture-backed companies.” The rankings were calculated based on “the track record of success for the venture-capital investors who sit on the company’s board (Board Ranking); the amount of capital raised by the company over the last three years, in comparison to its peers (Total Equity Ranking); the track record of success for the company’s founders and chief executive (Executive Ranking);” “the recent growth in the value of the company (Valuation Ranking)” and the rankings of Dow Jones venture capital reporters and editors. [Wall Street Journal, 3/9/10]
MIT’s Technology Review Chose Solyndra As One Of The World’s 50 Most Innovative Companies. The Technology Review evaluated companies based on their “business model[s], strategies for deploying and scaling up its technologies, and the likelihood of success.” [Technology Review, 2/23/10]
Analyst Cited Solyndra As A Company That Could Have A “Breakthrough Around Cost And Efficiency.” From an April 2009 San Jose Mercury News report:
Reuters: Venture Capitalists Point To Solyndra As One Of The Top 10 Companies “Ripest” To Go Public. Reuters reported in August 2009:
Market Conditions Shifted Significantly from 2009 to 2011. A Bloomberg News report noted that Solyndra had “advantages that were more important in 2009 when it received a $535 million U.S. loan guarantee to build a factory” than they are now, noting that the price of the silicon-based panels with which Solyndra was competing “has fallen 46 percent since then.” The article also quoted Julian Hawking of Abound Solar Inc., who stated: “When Solyndra started up it was a completely different time for the industry. Nobody expected the huge drop in polysilicon prices.” [Bloomberg, 9/14/11]
— J.K.F. & S.T.
Image Credit: energyNOW! Solyndra video
Posted: 20 Sep 2011 10:17 AM PDT
This came as a big, positive surprise to me — the German giant Siemens, which has built numerous nuclear power plants, has decided to completely ditch nuclear, meaning that it won’t be helping to build or finance any more nuclear power plants.
Of course, Siemens is following in the footsteps of its parent country, which decided this year to drop nuclear out of its energy mix within about 10 years.
On the stunning decision, Peter Löscher, the CEO of Siemens, told German media company Der Spiegel: ”The chapter for us is closed.” He also said that Siemens would focus a lot on renewable energy.
This just demonstrates to me the power of national policies like Germany’s to dump nuclear. I don’t think Siemens would have made this decision so soon if it weren’t for that. Löscher actually called Germany’s decision to phase out nuclear “the project of the century” and said that Siemens’ decision was a response to "the clear positioning of German society and politics for a pullout from nuclear energy." (Note that Siemens built all of Germany’s 17 nuclear power plants.)
However, it also shows what I’ve mentioned many times on here: nuclear, despite the nuclear industry hype, is probably on its way out. We’ve seen that trend for awhile and with the costs of nuclear rising and the costs of renewable energy dropping, it is no surprise.
Siemens had a joint venture in the works with Russian nuclear firm Rosatom that involved building, installing, and servicing nuclear projects there and in other countries. This joint venture has been dropped now.
Posted: 20 Sep 2011 09:35 AM PDT
By its very nature, an era of mobility is generating and abundance of mobile solar charging options. This is particularly true when it comes to smart phones.
Now for those on-the-goers who risk running out of the juice needed to be smart communicators, the Eton Mobius has been released, a solar charger and phone case designed for the popular iPhone 4.
The attractive-looking Eton Mobius provides users with a phone case, battery and solar panel on the back. When the phone is inside the case, a 30-pin connector can draw power from the charged battery.
According to Earth Techling, when fully charged, the 1800mAh lithium ion battery provides five hours of talk time, or up to 32 hours of audio playback, Eton says. Depending on conditions, estimates have each hour of direct sunlight providing around 25 minutes of talk time, Eton writes.
The phone does not need to be in the case for the battery to charge. The case can be left in the sun while the phone is used elsewhere. Just slip the phone in when you need a little more juice. It will retain its charge if the power switch is left in the off position. An array of LEDs lets the user know that power is or is not being transferred to the phone.
If there isn't any sun for solar charging, the battery can also be charged with a micro USB cable. The micro USB cable is not included with the package, however. On Amazon, the Mobius is available for $78.
Posted: 20 Sep 2011 07:48 AM PDT
Posted: 20 Sep 2011 07:44 AM PDT
Nobody likes to see $500 million in taxpayer funds lost. But as Congress investigates the loan guarantee given to the now-bankrupt solar manufacturer Solyndra, it's important to put the failed loan into historical context.
America spends a staggering amount on the military (see hereand chart to the right, which is NOT the Chart of the Day). Heck, the U.S. Military spends $20 billion a year just on air conditioning in Iraq and Afghanistan!
America has always backed ambitious military ventures — many of which have ended up as spectacular failures after sucking up tens of billions in taxpayer dollars. Political leaders accept these failures because advances in military technologies are deemed strategically important.
Clean energy plays an equally-important strategic role for our energy security, economic security, environmental security, and, most especially, national security. Unrestricted emissions of greenhouse gases are now the greatest preventable threat to the security of Americans. Yet the Solyndra failure is being used to label clean energy as a "pet" project of the Obama Administration. Some politicians are now threatening to derail an industry that every other country in the world sees as an important driver of economic growth.
Somehow, we can tolerate hundreds of billions of dollars in spending on military programs that may not produce results. But when a solar company goes bankrupt, the whole idea of making strategic investments in renewable energy is called into question. It doesn't make sense.
So where does the Solyndra loan guarantee match up with previous security programs? The chart of the day, created by Philip Bump, says it all:
The original source is what the NY Times called the Pentagon's "biggest boondoogles" [click on that link for details on each bar in the above chart].
This story was originally published at ClimateProgress.org and was cross-posted with permission.
Posted: 20 Sep 2011 03:31 AM PDT
The Solyndra investigation has brought loan guarantees out of the obscure world of political wonkery and into the living rooms of Americans around the country.
The problem is, many in the media are completely misrepresenting how the instrument works and who supports it. So we've put together a video primer on how loan guarantees work, posted below.
Some Republicans may want you to believe they don't support this Obama-era display of government largesse. But in fact, one of the loan guarantee programs for clean energy was signed into law by the Bush Administration. And what did the Bush folks have to say about it in 2007?
If that statement were made by the Obama Administration today, conservative politicians would be all over the airwaves complaining about government manipulation of markets. The fact is, loan guarantees have historically enjoyed bipartisan support — until it wasn't politically convenient to do so.
That includes Michigan Republican Fred Upton, chairman of the committee leading the investigation into the failed loan guarantee, who was an early backer of the policy. In 2007, he proposed adding $4 billion more to the loan guarantee program in order to help build new nuclear facilities around the country.
But speaking during a subcommittee hearing on Solyndra this week, Upton explained that he thinks they are "speculative":
"In this time of record debt, I question whether the government is qualified to act as a venture capitalist, picking winners and losers in speculative ventures and shelling out billions of taxpayer dollars to keep them afloat."
That's quite a bold statement considering that no nuclear facility would get built in this country if it weren't for loan guarantees and government-backed insurance. Yet Upton is one of the biggest supporters of nuclear in Congress. By comparison, even though the loan guarantee program is extremely important for helping the largest and most innovative renewable energy facilities get built, there's still plenty of activity taking place in that sector without the program.
It's time to set the record straight on loan guarantees. The Solyndra debacle has wrongly turned this financing mechanism into a political lightning rod. But we can't let that happen.
Below, Richard Caperton of the Center for American Progress explains why both parties have historically supported the policy — because it is not a direct government investment. A loan guarantee simply provides a financial backstop in case of default, which is good for raising financing for nuclear and renewable energy projects. Rather than picking winners and losers, the policy leverages private capital across a range of competing industries and technologies that are of strategic national interest.
We can't let the punditocracy hijack this program. If they're able to completely redefine what loan guarantees are, what else will they misconstrue?
Watch this 3-minute video, link to it, and send it along to anyone who may need a primer on how loan guarantees work. Perhaps you might know a reporter at Fox News …?
This story was originally published at ClimateProgress.org and was cross-posted with permission.
|You are subscribed to email updates from CleanTechnica |
To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now.
|Email delivery powered by Google|
|Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610|