StratoSolar
+1 408 821 7036
  • Home
  • Technology
    • Key Enabling Insights
    • PV Generation Platforms
    • Gravity Energy Storage
    • Communications Platform
    • Proven Technologies
    • Example Complete Energy Solution for the UK
    • Common Concerns >
      • Airspace
      • Hurricanes
      • FAQ
    • Gallery of Images >
      • Platform Shadow Videos
      • Japan Energy Solution Map
      • 2050 World Energy Sankey Diagram
      • 2050 Synthetic Fuel solution
      • 2050 Electricity solution
      • Climate Change Videos
  • Benefits
    • Low Cost Generation
    • Low Cost Energy Storage
    • Cost Reduction Roadmap
    • Sustainable and Scale-able
    • Zero Carbon
    • Energy Security
  • Contact Us
  • Blog
  • Login
    • Presentations
    • Gallery >
      • PV Documents >
        • PV Big Picture policy level document
        • PV California deployment
        • PV Japan deployment
        • PV UK deployment
        • Wind and Buoyancy Forces
  • Related Sites
  • Solve for x Videos

California wildfire effect on Solar electricity generation.

1/25/2021

Comments

 
Picture
In my previous post I estimated the frequency per year of long duration solar intermittency events in California versus their length in days. This assumed the events were mostly clouds from winter storms. In recent years California wildfires have become more frequent and of greater magnitude. The summer of 2020 had significant smoke from wildfires that lasted  over several months. The graph above shows the significant impact this had on STATEWIDE  solar electricity generation. 

Smoke significantly reduced overall generation, but the biggest issue is not the average reduction but the multi day peak reductions. Some of these were over 50% for several days measured over the entire state. This gap in generation from intermittency was covered by natural gas generation, but in the near future, when solar is the dominant form of generation and gas has been reduced or eliminated this will cause blackouts and severe disruption.

Facing up to this reality will mean keeping natural gas in the short term and massively overbuilding wind, out of state solar and long distance transmission in the long term. As I discussed in a previous post this can be simply and accurately modelled by reducing the capacity factor and estimating the resulting higher cost of electricity to consumers. The electricity cost will be several multiples of today's cost of electricity. 

Combine this high cost with the increased demand for electricity from an economy with electrified car transportation and electrified heat pump domestic and commercial heating and you have a severe economic problem that even rich California will not be able to afford. Californian’s spend about 10% of GDP on all energy today. An electrified California with intermittent wind, solar and batteries will have to spend a lot more of its GDP on electricity. I cannot see how adjusting to even 20% of GDP will be politically acceptable, and more than 20% may be necessary.

This gets me to my usual final word. Stratosolar electricity would cost LESS than today's electricity and an affordable smaller fraction of GDP. It is economically viable. Ground based intermittent solar is not.

By Edmund Kelly

Comments

Visualizing long term solar intermittency.

11/18/2020

Comments

 
Picture
The goal of 100% renewable energy from intermittent wind, solar and battery technology is firmly established in California and Germany. These are the leaders that generally determine where the US and Europe are headed. The 100% goal was established by environmentalists and academics who back the achievability of 100% renewable energy with studies based on elaborate simulations. 

The trouble with elaborate simulations is that their assumptions are opaque. Most simulate generation and consumption but assume transmission that connects the two. Intermittent generation is simulated using a limited history. The combination of these assumptions assume massive transmission over unrealistic long distances and omits rare extreme events.

The graph above shows approximate yearly solar intermittency data for events affecting the entire state of California. The horizontal axis represents the duration in days of outages. The vertical axis represents the number of outages. The first data point on the left shows 20 outage events of duration one day. The point on the extreme right shows one event lasting around forty days every 150 years. The point crossing the horizontal axis shows one event lasting four days. On average events exceeding four days occur with rapidly decreasing frequency and are unlikely in any given year.

These intermittency events mostly occur due to winter storms. The worst storm recorded in California occurred in the winter of 1861/1862 when it rained for 40 straight days. The geological record shows that storms of this magnitude occur around every 150 years. The phenomenon driving these events are known as atmospheric rivers which transfer tropical moisture in quantities exceeding the flow of the Mississippi and which occur randomly. Other points on the graph come from recorded storm events, mostly atmospheric river events of shorter duration. 

Current solar tries to deal with these events through storage and excess generation and distribution. To simply supply nighttime electricity without consideration of outages takes about 25% of peak DC generation capacity. So 1 GW of generation needs approximately 250MW (2.5GWh) of battery storage. To cover outages of one day adds double this storage requirement (500MW). Four days adds 8X etc. Both solar and battery costs are heading for the magical $1/W and will probably go lower over time. 

As I have covered in prior posts, as we increase solar, wind and storage capacity, capacity factor falls and electricity price rises. Four days of backup triples the cost of electricity from generation alone. More storage costs more. It is clear that covering longer duration outages is economically very painful. Building storage that only gets used once a decade seems folly. At that duration it is hard to trust that storage would still work. Forty days is even worse. However that forty day outage can occur in any year, and when it happens electricity will be desperately needed. 

California could build excess generation capacity in neighboring states and build long distance transmission. Both of these are expensive and outage events can exceed the boundaries of California. This with some storage would possibly work but at a similar overall cost to building storage. 

Other parts of the US and Europe would have possibly worse long duration outage events. They generally are farther north and have worse winter weather than California. The graph details would vary but the overall curve is the same,  frequent short events and increasingly rare long events.

When we compare this solar energy situation with a Stratosolar solution, the long duration outage problem simply disappears. Stratosolar simply needs nighttime storage for a complete dispatchable non interrupted solution. As battery technology becomes viable, Stratosolar can use this and it also has the option to develop gravity energy storage. The cost of Stratosolar generated electricity with around $1/W for solar PV and batteries is considerably lower than today’s fossil fuel cost of electricity. Solar would be viable in the cloudy north. No geographical dependency.

By Edmund Kelly

​
Comments

Report analyzing California 2050 zero CO2 emissions goal

8/30/2020

Comments

 
Over many blog posts I have used California and Germany as the leading examples of large economies investing heavily in reducing their CO2 emissions. They provide the evidence that current renewable energy from wind and solar raises the cost of electricity in a predictable manner. Capacity factor falls with increasing capacity. There is a lot of politics around energy in California, but despite this there is serious analysis. This report from E3, a respected California based analysis firm is a recent example.Long-Run Resource Adequacy under Deep Decarbonization Pathways for California 

​This report covers reducing all sources of CO2, not just electricity generation. It uses detailed modelling of future demand based on increased electrification and future alternative energy electricity supply based on reducing CO2 emissions to zero by 2050. It also models the intermittent nature of wind and solar using long term historical data. The report represents the work of many analysts over a long time and is based on tools developed over many years.

Most people won’t read such a long report. Its conclusions are broadly in line with our simpler analysis. They modelled future scenarios based on California’s political consensus. It includes no nuclear and no new large hydro including pumped storage. It mainly relies on wind, solar and battery storage. 

They modeled solutions based on keeping a large part of current natural gas capacity as a backup and other solutions that instead increased battery storage. As with any reasonable analysis that realistically models renewable intermittency they find that the increased battery storage approach very rapidly rises to unrealistic high costs of electricity. The natural gas solution only adds a little CO2 and by 2050 it is unlikely that all sectors will reduce CO2 to zero either. It's the pragmatic solution. 

They project electricity prices rising significantly despite reducing costs for wind, solar and batteries. The cost estimates are the weakest part of the report. Additional costs for transmission and distribution are not considered and they will be significant. 

This report is inline with Stratosolars assessment. Current renewables will lead to significantly higher electricity costs and the demand for 100% renewables only damages the pragmatic “good” by demanding the unobtainable “best”. 

Because of its three times higher capacity factor and no long term intermittency, Stratosolar would be a vastly superior solution to what this report indicates is California's likely energy future. California is rich. Most other economies, particularly in the developing world cannot afford the California solution. California may not be able to afford the California solution.

By Edmund Kelly

Comments

The song remains the same. Investment stagnant.

7/24/2020

Comments

 
Picture
The latest BNEF report on world clean energy investment shows investment declining 12% for the first half of 2020. With the continuing coronavirus epidemic it's likely that the second half will be no better. This article summarizes the report. This continues the stagnant level of clean energy investment that has persisted since 2011. As the graph shows, a  trend in recent years has been an overall increase in wind energy investment and a decline in solar energy investment. Also costs have fallen and the same dollars are buying more generation capacity.
As we have covered in prior blog posts, the generation purchased with this level of investment, while substantial, is insufficient to have a meaningful effect on CO2 emissions before 2050. This stagnant level of investment despite falling costs of generation clearly demonstrates that there is no market force driving growing investment and the market is still propped up by subsidies. Subsidies are fickle and each major geography has waxed and waned with markets declining and growing in a way that has coincidentally maintained a fairly constant level of investment worldwide.

The hard truth that current wind and solar are not succeeding and will not succeed is still in complete denial from academics and environmentalists whose overwhelming desire for a solution blinds them to the plain evidence of failure that this stagnant investment illustrates.

​By Edmund Kelly



Comments

Renewable energy pragmatists versus idealists

6/20/2020

Comments

 
Covid-19 has had us in lockdown since March. Slowly we are starting to surface, but early signs of an upsurge in the US States that are opening up are not encouraging. Work however  is continuing.

Back in August 2017 I wrote
this post on the debate between idealistic 100% renewables advocates from academia and more realistic engineering based renewable energy pragmatists.

This new study (downloadable from here) is from the pragmatic side and continues the debate. 

While being more pragmatic, the report is still largely from academia and is weak on the economic costs. The report covers electricity generation for the US. The key difference with the 100% renewables approach is the willingness to include existing nuclear and large hydro in the mix and reduce the goal to 95% renewables by continuing to include natural gas. They propose to up the rate of deployment of wind and solar and add long distance transmission.

All of this is eminently reasonable, but a realistic analysis based on capacity factors would show that solutions like this will raise the cost of electricity significantly more than they estimate. For the US a doubling or tripling of the cost of electricity is probably feasible except for the current toxic political environment. Perhaps a post Covid, post Trump political environment might be more accepting of tackling climate change?

This kind of plan is possible for the rich nations of the world with an existing electricity supply that is being augmented by renewables investment. Developing nations have to provide all new infrastructure so the capital costs are higher as the investment for natural gas backup generation and transmission are additional new costs. 

Electricity generation is only a part of a clean energy solution. Transportation is as big if not bigger. A mass adoption of electric cars would have a significant impact on CO2 emissions.It is increasingly plausible that electric cars could be the majority by 2035. Electrification of transportation combined with incremental electricity plans like this could significantly reduce the rich world’s CO2 emissions.

However the developing world is where all the growth in world energy use is coming from. The rich world high energy cost solution would significantly depress their economic growth potential. Historically this has been an insurmountable obstacle. 

Realistically, current partisan politics in the US also make high cost solutions unlikely and resistance in Europe is also growing. This gets us back to the central issue of economics. A renewable energy replacement for fossil fuels has to be lower cost to gain acceptance. Current renewable energy is more expensive despite efforts to portray it as lower cost by focusing on a narrow view of LCOE. Those who portray it as lower cost are reducing their credibility and threaten the long term viability of renewable energy.

The Stratosolar approach could realistically provide a cheaper renewable energy solution acceptable to the developing world.

By Edmund Kelly


​
Comments

2019 clean energy investment and CO2 emissions are flat

2/13/2020

Comments

 
Picture
Bloomberg has published their data for renewable energy investment for 2019. This link is to an overview article.

The graph above shows the overall 2019 renewable energy capacity investment and its history since 2004. 2019 ended up level with 2018 which extended the flat trend since 2011, to nine years. 2019 was initially looking to be a down year because of severe cutbacks in China, but it was rescued in Q4 by the US which saw a 28% gain over 2018 to a $55.5B total. This was driven by bringing forward projects to benefit from expiring subsidies. Next year will probably be a down year as subsidies decline. Investment in China, Europe, Japan, India and  Australia all declined over 2018. 

While overall investment was flat, the capacity it purchased grew 20GW (12.5%) to 180GW as prices for wind and solar fell. The average $/W is now $1.57/W. In a normal market declining prices should see increasing spending. Prices have declined over 100% over the last nine years but spending has stayed flat. 

There is no shortage of demand for clean cheap electricity. The only explanation is that despite the amazing drop, prices are still too high and the only thing sustaining demand is still the need for subsidies. This is borne out by the observation that in every market across the world when subsidies are reduced the market shrinks. In 2019  this was obvious as China reduced subsidies and investment shrank. 2019 solar investment in China was one third of 2017 investment. The imminent expiry of US subsidies caused US investment to increase. Germany, once the premier investor in renewable energy now only invests a small fraction of past investment after subsidies were withdrawn. 

This is just further evidence that we are not on a path to reduce CO2 emissions with current renewable wind and solar energy. The issue is the price of electricity is too high. In addition, as I pointed out in previous posts, even as the cost of capacity falls, additional new costs necessary to grow intermittent capacity keep electricity prices increasing. The optimism driven from the ever decreasing cost of renewable energy capacity is understandable but it is not borne out by the evidence. For renewables to compete with fossil fuels prices have to fall considerably not just for generation but also for storage and transmission. Storage is not yet viable, never mind low cost and transmission costs are rising with NIMBY regulatory forces and the need to bury transmission lines.

The expectation that we are on a path to 100% renewable energy is also clearly not borne out by the evidence of constantly increasing levels of atmospheric CO2. The graph below is the latest data for energy related Gigatons of CO2 emissions from the IEA. The overall trend is ever upward. Advanced economies are reducing emissions but the rest of the world is larger by far and increasing faster than the advanced economies are decreasing. 
Picture
Stratosolar can make today's solar energy technology an economically viable replacement for fossil fuel generation for the rest of the world that cannot afford the expensive energy of advanced economies.

​By Edmund Kelly
Comments

End of year 2019 and the decade.

12/31/2019

Comments

 
As we come to the end of the year 2019 (and the decade) the most sobering thing is the solid lack of progress in clean energy deployment and CO2 reduction. The thing that best exemplifies the lack of progress is the low, stagnant level of investment in clean energy. As I have discussed in many blog posts over the years, investment in clean energy has been relatively stable at about $250B/Y for most of the decade since 2011. As we close out 2019 and the decade, investment is actually down substantially. This is largely due to China restructuring their clean energy subsidy regime. This low world investment in clean energy regime shows no sign of improving and at this level is insufficient to even cap yearly CO2 emissions which continue to grow every year.

There has been substantial progress in reducing the cost of generation from wind and solar which has produced a false optimism among clean energy advocates that envisage a 100% clean energy world by 2050. When we are only adding a small amount of intermittent clean energy the additional costs are easy to ignore. However as I pointed out in recent blog posts, as the amount of intermittent clean energy added rises, the cost of electricity also rises for very predictable capacity factor reduction reasons. This is solid real world data from Germany and California.

So we have real world data on stagnant investment and real data on rising cost impediments to large scale intermittent clean energy deployment. The optimism of the potential for 100% renewables is sustained by theoretical academic models and simulations. In simulations there is a wide latitude for assumptions all of which may seem technically plausible but lack verification of practicality and defined paths to deployment at scale. One of the most elaborate of these models comes from Mark Jacobsen et al at Stanford. They recently released an update “Impacts of Green New Deal Energy Plans on Grid Stability, Costs, Jobs, Health, and Climate in 143 Countries”.

This report is full of data and inspires confidence in its vision. This is the curse of clean energy: the promise of light at the end of the tunnel and a brave new world opening up. Unfortunately the stagnant investment and real electricity price data do not match the vision.  

A Stratosolar solution does not require the myriad of complex adaptations to make intermittency practical that are used in these models. It has one big risk factor to demonstrate practicality. How long must we continue down a path that is demonstrably failing before we explore alternatives that can be proven cheaply and if proven can deliver limitless cheap clean energy.

​By Edmund Kelly


Comments

The true cost of intermittent renewable energy

11/8/2019

Comments

 
It is becoming an accepted part of the current energy/climate narrative that renewable energy electricity generation from solar and wind has become economically competitive with fossil fuel generation. So if this is true why are renewables not growing and supplanting fossil fuels? Because wind and solar are relatively new and only account for a small part of overall generation there is little data to inform the debate which largely relies on theoretical solutions with lots of assumptions. Rather than a bottom up theoretical model that tries to estimate and sum unknown costs there is a simpler macro level approach that uses real total system data, does not make lots of assumptions and inherently includes all costs. 

The price of electricity is determined by the overall cost of generation, transmission, distribution operation and maintenance. Most of the cost is capital cost. Utilities use the revenue from selling electricity to repay the loans used to build the capacity. Revenue to pay capital costs is heavily dependant on capacity factor, the ratio of average output to nameplate peak output. 

There are two large markets, Germany and California where there is significant renewable generation in the region of 20% to 30%. Both markets are representative of the overall market and have historical data on overall generation capacity, actual generation and average price of electricity to customers. Dividing overall generation by overall generation capacity gives overall capacity factor. The graphs below show the resulting capacity factor along with the average electricity price to customers for both markets. 

​
Picture
Picture
The historical data is on the left and projected capacity factor and price are on the right. Both markets show the same behavior. Capacity factor has fallen as renewable generation was added and existing generation was still needed as backup. As capacity factor has fallen electricity price rose. A simple model that calculates the price as a constant for each market divided by the capacity factor closely matches the price rise curve.  

As California capacity factor has fallen from 41% in 2000 to 29% today, price has risen from $0.10/kWh to $0.16/kWh, a 60% increase. The US national average  electricity price has remained constant at around $0.10/kWh. California has expensive electricity by US standards. Projecting forward to full renewable energy, capacity factor falls from 29% to 13% as generation capacity,storage capacity and transmission capacity are added and legacy fossil fuel capacity cannot be retired because of long duration intermittency. This results in electricity price rising to over $0.32/kWh, over three times the price for US regions without renewable energy. 

Over a similar period, as German capacity factor fell from 57% to 33%, the electricity price rose from 16 cents to 29 cents. Projecting forward, capacity factor falls to 13% as price rises to over 70 cents, over four times its price in 2000. German capacity factor is better than California mainly because California has a lot more hydro-electricity which has a low capacity factor and very high multi year intermittency due to droughts. The German price is higher than California because of high taxes and the use of feed in tariffs paid by electricity customers to subsidize renewables.   

So despite lower generation costs for renewables, the price of electricity is rising because of the rising overall capital costs needed to accommodate them in the grid. The costs are high and already are getting pushback in Germany. Germany's renewable energy growth has slowed and along with resistance to higher prices, NIMBY forces that object to windmills and transmission lines have curtailed growth. High prices in California are not raising political headwinds yet but as prices continue their inexorable rise it  is likely that there will be political pushback. Nobody is telling customers that the price for electricity will at least double as we try to meet our 100% renewables goal.

High electricity prices have economic consequences if your competitors have prices one third your level. California is rich, but the bulk of the world building new electricity generation is poor and developing. They cannot burden their economy with such high priced electricity. Current intermittent wind and solar cannot escape this increasing price. 

An acceptable renewable energy solution needs a lower price than fossil fuels.  That is where Stratosolar comes in. Without long term intermittency Stratosolar can eliminate the legacy generation and its high capacity factor provides much cheaper generation. The following graph shows price trends for a stratosolar solution for California. Prices stabilize at around $0.15/kWh while capacity factor grows and the legacy generation is phased out. Then capacity factor stabilizes at around 50% and prices fall to around $0.08/kWh. Stratosolar cost of generation is low but this price includes generation, transmission, distribution, storage and operational costs for California.

​
Picture
The contrast is stark. With current wind and solar, prices will rise continuously for the foreseeable future. With Stratosolar prices will cease growing and fall below current levels for fossil fuels. This economic story is not understood or accepted but the evidence from Germany and California is there for all to see. A solution that imposes economic hardship on those least likely to afford or accept it is doomed to failure no matter how noble the cause. 

By 
Edmund Kelly

​
Comments

solar intermittency is a fatal flaw

10/6/2019

Comments

 
Picture
Two clean energy narratives have become common refrains. One, that 100% renewables is achievable today and two, that wind and solar generation are cheaper than coal generation. However, we see that world CO2 emissions continue to grow every year and clean energy investment has been stagnant at around $300B/year since 2011. Investment is actually falling substantially in 2019 as China, the largest investor by far is pulling back its subsidy regime. These two narratives do not add up. If solar and wind are cheaper, why are we not switching over? Is it a great conspiracy by the coal, oil and gas industries?

​The answer is that neither assertion is what it seems on the surface. It is true that wind and solar generation can have a lower levelized cost of generation (LCOE) than coal generation. However the two forms of generation are not equivalent. Coal generation can be turned on when there is demand. Wind and solar generation only happen when the sun is shining or the wind is blowing and only sometimes lines up with demand. The world operates on energy on demand. 

As I have written in previous posts, the two large economies with the most clean energy (Germany and California) are facing the problems of intermittent clean energy as it becomes a larger percentage of the total. Energy storage needs to be added to combat intermittency. This exposes the 100% renewables assertion. The 100% renewables goal is aspirational based on continued technological development, not proven available storage technologies. It also either ignores cost or assumes very optimistic cost estimates. 

Numbers do not clearly represent the nature of the problem with intermittent energy sources which is not visible from simple average energy numbers. A graphical illustration shows the problem better.

The graphs above show hourly direct solar insolation in W/m2 for two example US locations, (China Lake CA on top and  Oak Ridge TN below) for the months of January and June 2000. The data is from the National Solar Radiation Database 1991–2010. China Lake is in the Mojave desert in California and is among the best solar resources in the US. Oak Ridge is in Tennessee in the US south and is representative of more average US insolation. Any two locations in the US would show the same general intermittency.

The yellow lines are terrestrial insolation and the blue lines are StratoSolar. Stratosolar is constant during daylight and zero at night.  Terrestrial is far smaller than Stratosolar and far more variable during daylight. The database covers hundreds of locations throughout the US for over a decade. These graphs are only a snapshot of two locations to graphically illustrate the problems with terrestrial solar and the benefits of Stratosolar.  

Because there is so much data it is very uncommon to show this data graphically. It is usually reduced to daily, monthly or yearly averages. Unfortunately averages do not show the high variability of terrestrial solar and there is no convenient number that captures this variability.  January and June are chosen to show the worst and best months. Both locations show reduced insolation and higher variability in January.  As the graphs show, even the Mojave desert, one of the best locations in the world has significant variability that even with far beyond daily storage will have power outages. Oak Ridge is more representative of average locations in the US. Here the intermittency in both summer and winter is far beyond what daily storage can handle. Even three days storage would not guarantee the reliability of power. 

These graphs illustrate the advantages of Stratosolar. The amount of storage to guarantee stable electricity supply is totally predictable. Stratosolar with daily storage is as reliable a source of electricity as coal or natural gas. Stratosolar gravity energy storage is far cheaper than batteries. Also Stratosolar gathers far more energy than terrestrial solar, about 3X at Oak Ridge. These advantages add up to far cheaper electricity than terrestrial solar AND fossil fuels. 

Intermittency is the Achilles heel of renewable energy that is only slowly being acknowledged. Stratosolar solves that problem and is far cheaper to boot.

​By Edmund Kelly
Comments

Renewable energy problems in Germany.

9/16/2019

Comments

 
Michael Schellenberger is a pro nuclear environmentalist. He writes about the impracticality of renewables and the practicality of nuclear as an alternative. In this article in Forbes he has picked up on a report on renewable energy in Germany by McKinsey, a respected research and analysis firm. The report points out the lack of progress on CO2 reduction and the daunting problems that lie ahead for increasing German renewable energy adoption. It does not have an agenda other than analyzing the situation. The report does not advocate for alternatives. 

Reports like this should be taken seriously but In our highly politicized world the various camps will either ignore it as its conclusions  conflict with their aspirations or use it to advocate for their preferred alternative like burning fossil fuels or switching to nuclear. 

Stratosolar is different than nuclear in that it lacks an advocacy group promoting its benefits. Unfortunately for nuclear, despite significant advocacy support it has lost broad political credibility and is in decline. Stratosolar is simply solar without the problems. It should be attracting support but it lacks credibility without a working proof of practicality. Unfortunately proof of practicality needs financial support which depends on proof of practicality.  

By Edmund Kelly

Comments
<<Previous

    Ed Kelly

    President of StratoSolar

    View my profile on LinkedIn

    Archives

    January 2021
    November 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    February 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    June 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    April 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013
    August 2013
    July 2013
    June 2013
    May 2013
    April 2013
    March 2013
    January 2013
    December 2012
    November 2012
    October 2012
    September 2012
    August 2012
    July 2012
    June 2012
    May 2012
    April 2012
    March 2012
    February 2012
    December 2011
    November 2011
    October 2011
    September 2011
    August 2011
    July 2011
    June 2011
    May 2011
    November 2010

    Categories

    All
    All Energy
    Alternative Energy
    Bill Gates
    China
    Desalination
    Developing World
    Energy
    Energy Investment
    Energy Policy
    Germany
    Helium
    Japan Energy Pv
    Land Use
    O3B
    Pv
    PV Bubble
    Pv Subsidies
    Stratosolar
    Us Subsidies
    Wireless Communications

    RSS Feed

 © 2021 StratoSolar Inc. All rights reserved. ​618 S. 8th Street, Suite 400B, Richmond, CA 94804
Contact Us