Solar and wind power curtailments are rising in California

2020 U.S. Renewable Electricity Generation set a record as wind, solar, hydro, biomass, and geothermal produced 834 billion kWh, surpassing coal and nuclear, second only to natural gas in nationwide power output.

Key Points

The record year when renewables made 834 billion kWh, topping coal and nuclear in U.S. electricity.

✅ Renewables supplied 21% of U.S. electricity in 2020

✅ Coal output fell 20% y/y; nuclear slipped 2% on retirements

✅ EIA forecasts renewables rise in 2021-2022; coal rebounds

In 2020, renewable energy sources (including wind, hydroelectric, solar, biomass, and geothermal energy) generated a record 834 billion kilowatthours (kWh) of electricity, or about 21% of all the electricity generated in the United States. Only natural gas (1,617 billion kWh) produced more electricity than renewables in the United States in 2020. Renewables surpassed both nuclear (790 billion kWh) and coal (774 billion kWh) for the first time on record. This outcome in 2020 was due mostly to significantly less coal use in U.S. electricity generation and steadily increased use of wind and solar generation over time, amid declining consumption trends nationwide.

In 2020, U.S. electricity generation from coal in all sectors declined 20% from 2019, while renewables, including small-scale solar, increased 9%. Wind, currently the most prevalent source of renewable electricity in the United States, grew 14% in 2020 from 2019, and the EIA expects solar and wind to be larger sources in summer 2022, reflecting continued growth. Utility-scale solar generation (from projects greater than 1 megawatt) increased 26%, and small-scale solar, such as grid-connected rooftop solar panels, increased 19%, while early 2021 January power generation jumped year over year.

Coal-fired electricity generation in the United States peaked at 2,016 billion kWh in 2007 and much of that capacity has been replaced by or converted to natural gas-fired generation since then. Coal was the largest source of electricity in the United States until 2016, and 2020 was the first year that more electricity was generated by renewables and by nuclear power than by coal (according to our data series that dates back to 1949). Nuclear electric power declined 2% from 2019 to 2020 because several nuclear power plants retired and other nuclear plants experienced slightly more maintenance-related outages.

We expect coal-fired generation to increase in the United States during 2021 as natural gas prices continue to rise and as coal becomes more economically competitive. Based on forecasts in our Short-Term Energy Outlook (STEO), we expect coal-fired electricity generation in all sectors in 2021 to increase 18% from 2020 levels before falling 2% in 2022. We expect U.S. renewable generation across all sectors to increase 7% in 2021 and 10% in 2022, and in 2021, non-fossil fuel sources accounted for about 40% of U.S. electricity. As a result, we forecast coal will be the second-most prevalent electricity source in 2021, and renewables will be the second-most prevalent source in 2022. We expect nuclear electric power to decline 2% in 2021 and 3% in 2022 as operators retire several generators.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

EV charging anxiety reflects concerns beyond range anxiety, focusing on charging infrastructure, fast chargers, and network reliability during road trips, from Tesla Superchargers to Electrify America stations across highways in the United States.

Key Points

EV charging anxiety is worry about finding reliable fast chargers on public networks, not just limited range.

✅ Non-Tesla networks vary in uptime and plug-and-charge reliability.

✅ Charging deserts complicate route planning on long highway stretches.

✅ Sync stops: align rest breaks with fast chargers to save time.

With electric cars, people often talk about "range anxiety," and how cars with bigger batteries and longer driving ranges will alleviate that. I just drove an electric car from New York City to Atlanta, a distance of about 950 miles, and it taught me something important. The problem really isn't range anxiety. It's anxiety around finding a convenient and working chargers on America's still-challenged EV charging networks today.

Back in 2019, I drove a Tesla Model S Long Range from New York City to Atlanta. It was a mostly uneventful trip, thanks to Tesla's nicely organized and well maintained network of fast chargers that can fill the batteries with an 80% charge in a half hour or less. Since then, I've wanted to try that trip again with an electric car that wasn't a Tesla, one that wouldn't have Tesla's unified charging network to rely on.
I got my chance with a Mercedes-Benz EQS 450+, a car that is as close to a direct competitor to the Tesla Model S as any. And while I made it to Atlanta without major incident, I encountered glitchy chargers, called the charging network's customer service twice, and experienced some serious charging anxiety during a long stretch of the Carolinas.

Long range
The EPA estimated range for the Tesla I drove in 2019 was 370 miles, and Tesla's latest models can go even further.

The EQS 450+ is officially estimated to go 350 miles on a charge, but I beat that handily without even trying. When I got into the car, its internal displays showed a range estimate of 446 miles. On my trip, the car couldn't stretch its legs quite that far, because I was driving almost entirely on highways at fairly high speeds, but by my calculations, I could have gone between 370 and 390 miles on a charge.

I was going to drive over the George Washington Bridge then down through New Jersey, Delaware, Virginia then North Carolina and South Carolina. I figured three charging stops would be needed and, strictly speaking, that was correct. The driving route laid out by the car's navigation system included three charging stops, but the on-board computers tended push things to the limit. At each stop, the battery would be drained to a little over 10% or so. (I learned later this is a setting I could adjust to be more conservative if I'd wanted.)

But I've driven enough electric cars to have some concerns. I use public chargers fairly often, and I know they're imperfect, and we need to fix these problems to build confidence. Sometimes they aren't working as well as they should. Sometimes they're just plain broken. And even if the car's navigation system is telling you that a charger is "available," that can change at any moment. Someone else can pull into the charging spot just a few seconds before you get there.
I've learned to be flexible and not push things to the limit.

On the first day, when I planned to drive from New York to Richmond, Virginia, no charging stop was called for until Spotsylvania, Virginia, a distance of nearly 300 miles. By that point, I had 16% charge left in the car's batteries which, by the car's own calculation, would have taken me another 60 miles.

As I sat and worked inside the Spotsylvania Town Centre mall I realized I'd been dumb. I had already stopped twice, at rest stops in New Jersey and Delaware. The Delaware stop, at the Biden Welcome Center, had EV fast chargers, as the American EV boom accelerates nationwide. I could have used one even though the car's navigation didn't suggest it.

Stopping without charging was a lost opportunity and it cost me time. If I'm going to stop to recharge myself why not recharge the car, too?
But that's the thing, though. A car can be designed to go 350 miles or more before needing to park whereas human beings are not. Elementary school math will tell you that at highway speeds, that's nearly six hours of driving all at once. We need bathrooms, beverages, food, and to just get out and move around once in a while. Sure, it's physically possible to sit in a car for longer than that in one go, but most people in need of speed will take an airplane, and a driver of an EQS, with a starting price just north of $100,000, can almost certainly afford the ticket.

I stopped for a charge in Virginia but realized I could have stopped sooner. I encountered a lot of other electric cars on the trip, including this Hyundai Ioniq 5 charging next to the Mercedes.

I vowed not to make that strategic error again. I was going to take back control. On the second day, I decided, I would choose when I needed to stop, and would look for conveniently located fast chargers so both the EQS and I could get refreshed at once. The EQS's navigation screen pinpointed available charging locations and their maximum charging speeds, so, if I saw an available charger, I could poke on the icon with my finger and add it onto my route.

For my first stop after leaving Richmond, I pulled into a rest stop in Hillsborough, North Carolina. It was only about 160 miles south from my hotel and I still had half of a full charge.

I sipped coffee and answered some emails while I waited at a counter. I figured I would take as long as I wanted and leave when I was ready with whatever additional electricity the car had gained in that time. In all, I was there about 45 minutes, but at least 15 minutes of that was used trying to get the charger to work. One of the chargers was simply not working at all, and, at another one, a call to Electrify America customer service -- the EV charging company owned by Volkswagen that, by coincidence, operated all the chargers I used on the trip -- I got a successful charging session going at last. (It was unclear what the issue was.)

That was the last and only time I successfully matched my own need to stop with the car's. I left with my battery 91% charged and 358 miles of range showing on the display. I would only need to stop once more on way to Atlanta and not for a long time.

Charging deserts
Then I began to notice something. As I drove through North Carolina and then South Carolina, the little markers on the map screen indicating available chargers became fewer and fewer. During some fairly long stretches there were none showing at all, highlighting how better grid coordination could improve coverage.

It wasn't an immediate concern, though. The EQS's navigation wasn't calling for me to a charge up again until I'd nearly reached the Georgia border. By that point I would have about 11% of my battery charge remaining. But I was getting nervous. Given how far it was between chargers my whole plan of "recharging the car when I recharge myself" had already fallen apart, the much-touted electric-car revolution notwithstanding. I had to leave the highway once to find a gas station to use the restroom and buy an iced tea. A while later, I stopped for lunch, a big plate of "Lexington Style BBQ" with black eyed peas and collard greens in Lexington, North Carolina. None of that involved charging because there no chargers around.

Fortunately, a charger came into sight on my map while I still had 31% charge remaining. I decided I would protect myself by stopping early. After another call to Electrify America customer service, I was able to get a nice, high-powered charging session on the second charger I tried. After about an hour I was off again with a nearly full battery.

I drove the last 150 miles to Atlanta, crossing the state line through gorgeous wetlands and stopping at the Georgia Welcome Center, with hardly a thought about batteries or charging or range.

But I was driving $105,000 Mercedes. What if I'd been driving something that cost less and that, while still going farther than a human would want to drive at a stretch, wouldn't go far enough to make that trip as easily, a real concern for those deciding if it's time to buy an electric car today. Obviously, people do it. One thing that surprised me on this trip, compared to the one in 2019, was the variety of fully electric vehicles I saw driving the same highways. There were Chevrolet Bolts, Audi E-Trons, Porsche Taycans, Hyundai Ioniqs, Kia EV6s and at least one other Mercedes EQS.

Americans are taking their electric cars out onto the highways, as the age of electric cars gathers pace nationwide. But it's still not as easy as it ought to be.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Ontario Renewable Energy Procurement 2024 will see the IESO secure wind, solar, and hydro power to meet rising electricity demand, support transit electrification, bolster grid reliability, and serve manufacturing growth across the province.

Key Points

A provincial IESO initiative to add 2,000 MW of clean power and plan 3,000 MW more to meet rising demand.

✅ IESO to procure 2,000 MW from wind, solar, hydro

✅ Exploring 3,000 MW via upgrades and expansions

✅ Demand growth ~2% yearly; electrification and industry

After the Ford government terminated renewable energy contracts five years ago, despite warnings about wind project cancellation costs that year, Ontario's electricity operator, the Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO), is now planning to once again incorporate wind and solar initiatives to address the province's increasing power demands.

The IESO, responsible for managing the provincial power supply, is set to secure 2,000 megawatts of electricity from clean sources, which include wind, solar, and hydro power, as wind power competitiveness increases across Canada. Additionally, the IESO is exploring the possibilities of reacquiring, upgrading, or expanding existing facilities to generate an additional 3,000 MW of electricity in the future.

These new power procurement efforts in Ontario aim to meet the rising energy demand driven by transit electrification and large-scale manufacturing projects, even as national renewable growth projections were scaled back after Ontario scrapped its clean energy program, which are expected to exert greater pressure on the provincial grid.

The IESO projects a consistent growth in demand of approximately two percent per year over the next two decades. This growth has prompted the Ford government, amid debate over Ontario's electricity future in the province, to take proactive measures to prevent potential blackouts or disruptions for both residential and commercial consumers.

This renewed commitment to renewable energy represents a significant policy shift for Premier Doug Ford, reflecting his new stance on wind power over time, who had previously voiced strong opposition to wind turbines and pledged to dismantle all windmills in the province. In 2018, shortly after taking office, the government terminated 750 renewable energy contracts that had been signed by the previous Liberal government, incurring fees of $230 million for taxpayers.

At the time, the government cited reasons such as surplus electricity supply and increased costs for ratepayers as grounds for contract cancellations. Premier Ford expressed pride in the decision, echoing a proud of cancelling contracts stance, claiming that it saved taxpayers $790 million and eliminated what he viewed as detrimental wind turbines that had negatively impacted the province's energy landscape for 15 years.

The Ontario government's new wind and solar energy procurement initiatives are scheduled to commence in 2024, following a court ruling on a Cornwall wind farm that spotlighted cancellation decisions.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Tidal Energy harnesses ocean currents with tidal turbines to deliver predictable, renewable power. From Scotland's Orkney to New York's East River, clean baseload electricity complements wind and solar in decarbonizing grids.

Key Points

Tidal energy uses underwater turbines to capture predictable ocean currents, delivering reliable, low-carbon power.

✅ Predictable 2-way flows enable forecastable baseload

✅ Higher energy density than wind, slower flow speeds

✅ Costs remain high; scaling and deployment are challenging

As the world looks to curb climate change and reduce fossil fuel emissions, some companies are focusing on a relatively untapped but vast and abundant source of energy — tidal waves.

On opposite sides of the Atlantic, two firms are working to harness ocean currents in different ways to try to generate reliable clean energy.

Off the coast of Scotland, Orbital Marine Power operates what it says is the "most powerful tidal turbine in the world." The turbine is approximately the size of a passenger airplane and even looks similar, with its central platform floating on the water and two wings extending downwards on either side. At the ends of each wing, about 60 feet below the surface, are large rotors whose movement is dictated by the waves.

"The energy itself of tidal streams is familiar to people, it's kinetic energy, so it's not too dissimilar to something like wind," Andrew Scott, Orbital's CEO, told CNN Business. "The bits of technology that generate power look not too different to a wind turbine."

But there are some key differences to wind energy, primarily that waves are far more predictable than winds. The ebb and flow of tides rarely differs significantly and can be timed far more precisely.

Orbital Marine Power's floating turbines off the Scottish coast produce enough energy to power 2,000 homes a year, while another Scottish tidal project recently produced enough for nearly 4,000 homes.

Orbital Marine Power's floating turbines off the Scottish coast produce enough energy to power 2,000 homes a year.

"You can predict those motions years and decades [in] advance," Scott said. "But also from a direction perspective, they only really come from two directions and they're almost 180 degrees," he added, unlike wind turbines that must account for wind from several different directions at once.

Tidal waves are also capable of generating more energy than wind, Scott says.

"Seawater is 800 times the density of wind," he said. "So the flow speeds are far slower, but they generate far more energy."

The Orbital turbine, which is connected to the electricity grid in Scotland's Orkney, can produce up to two megawatts — enough to power 2,000 homes a year — according to the company.

Scott acknowledges that the technology isn't fully mainstream yet and some challenges remain including the high cost of the technology, but the reliability and potential of tidal energy could make it a useful tool in the fight against climate change, as projects like Sustainable Marine in Nova Scotia begin delivering power to the grid.

"It is becoming increasingly apparent that ... climate change is not going to be solved with one silver bullet," he said.

'Could be 24/7 power'
Around 3,000 miles away from Orbital's turbines, Verdant Power is using similar technology to generate power near Roosevelt Island in New York City's East River. Although not on the market yet, Verdant's turbines set up as part of a pilot project help supply electricity to New York's grid. But rather than float near the surface, they're mounted on a frame that's lowered to the bottom of the river.

"The best way to envision what Verdant Power's technology is, is to think of wind turbines underwater," the company's founder, Trey Taylor, told CNN Business. And river currents tend to provide the same advantages for energy generation as ocean currents, he explained (though the East River is also connected to the Atlantic).

"What's nice about our rivers and systems is that could be 24/7 power," he said, even as U.S. offshore wind aims to compete with gas. "Not to ding wind or solar, but the wind doesn't always blow and the sun doesn't always shine. But river currents, depending on the river, could be 24/7."

Verdant Power helps supply electricity to New York City
Over the course of eight months, Verdant has generated enough electricity to power roughly 60 homes — though Taylor says a full-fledged power plant built on its technology could generate enough for 6,000 homes. And by his estimate, the global capacity for tidal energy is enormous, with regions like the Bay of Fundy pursuing new attempts around Nova Scotia.

A costly technology
The biggest obstacle to reaching that goal at the moment is how expensive it is to set up and scale up tidal power systems.

"Generating electricity from ocean waves is not the challenge, the challenge is doing it in a cost-effective way that people are willing to pay for that competes with ... other sources of energy," said Jesse Roberts, Environmental Analysis Lead at the US government-affiliated Sandia National Laboratories. "The added cost of going out into the ocean and deploying in the ocean... that's very expensive to do," he added. According to 2019 figures from the US Department of Energy, the average commercial tidal energy project costs as much as $280 per megawatt hour. Wind energy, by comparison, currently costs roughly $20 per megawatt hour and is "one of the lowest-priced energy sources available today," with major additions like the UK's biggest offshore wind farm starting to supply the grid, according to the agency.

When operational, the Orbital turbine's wing blades drop below the surface of the water and generate power from ocean currents.

When operational, the Orbital turbine's wing blades drop below the surface of the water and generate power from ocean currents.

Roberts estimates that tidal energy is two or three decades behind wind energy in terms of adoption and scale.

The costs and challenges of operating underwater are something both Scott and Taylor acknowledge.
"Solar and wind are above ground. It's easy to work with stuff that you can see," Taylor said. "We're underwater, and it's probably easier to get a rocket to the moon than to get these to work underwater."
But the goal of tidal power is not so much to compete with those two energy sources as it is to grow the overall pie, alongside innovations such as gravity power that can help decarbonize grids.

"The low hanging fruit of solar and wind were quite obvious," Scott said. "But do they have to be the only solution? Is there room for other solutions? I think when the energy source is there, and you can develop technologies that can harness it, then absolutely."
 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

First Glasgow Electric Buses will transform the Caledonia depot with 160 charging points, zero-emission operations, grid upgrades, and rapid charging, supported by Transport Scotland funding and Alexander Dennis manufacturing for cleaner urban routes by 2023.

Key Points

Electric single-deckers at Caledonia depot with 160 chargers and upgrades, delivering zero-emission service by 2023

✅ 160 charging points; 4-hour rapid recharge capability

✅ Grid upgrades to power a fleet equal to a 10,000-person town

✅ Supported by Transport Scotland; built by Alexander Dennis

First Bus will install 160 charging points and replace half its fleet with electric buses at its Caledonia depot in Glasgow.

The programme is expected to be completed in 2023, similar to Metro Vancouver's battery-electric rollout milestones, with the first 22 buses arriving by autumn.

Charging the full fleet will use the same electricity as it takes to power a town of 10,000 people.

The scale of the project means changes are needed to the power grid, a challenge highlighted in global e-bus adoption analysis, to accommodate the extra demand.

First Glasgow managing director Andrew Jarvis told BBC Scotland: "We've got to play our part in society in changing how we all live and work. A big part of that is emissions from vehicles.

"Transport is stubbornly high in terms of emissions and bus companies need to play their part, and are playing their part, in that zero emission journey."

First Bus currently operates 337 buses out of its largest depot with another four sites across Glasgow.

The new buses will be built by Alexander Dennis at its manufacturing sites in Falkirk and Scarborough.

The transition requires a £35.6m investment by First with electric buses costing almost double the £225,000 bill for a single decker running on diesel.

But the company says maintenance and running costs, as seen in St. Albert's electric fleet results, are then much lower.

The buses can run on urban routes for 16 hours, similar to Edmonton's first e-bus performance, and be rapidly recharged in just four hours.

This is a big investment which the company wouldn't be able to achieve on its own.

Government grants only cover 75% of the difference between the price of a diesel and an electric bus, similar to support for B.C. electric school buses programmes, so it's still a good bit more expensive for them.

But they know they have to do it as a social responsibility, and large-scale initiatives like US school bus conversions show the direction of travel, and because the requirements for using Low Emissions Zones are likely to become stricter.

The SNP manifesto committed to electrifying half of Scotland's 4,000 or so buses within two years.

Some are questioning whether that's even achievable in the timescale, though TTC's large e-bus fleet offers lessons, given the electricity grid changes that would be necessary for charging.

But it's a commitment that environmental groups will certainly hold them to.

Transport Scotland is providing £28.1m of funding to First Bus as part of the Scottish government's commitment to electrify half of Scotland's buses in the first two years of the parliamentary term.

Net Zero Secretary Michael Matheson said: "It's absolute critical that we decarbonise our transport system and what we have set out are very ambitious plans of how we go about doing that.

"We've set out a target to make sure that we decarbonise as many of the bus fleets across Scotland as possible, at least half of it over the course of the next couple of years, and we'll set out our plans later on this year of how we'll drive that forward."

Transport is the single biggest source of greenhouse gas emissions in Scotland which are responsible for accelerating climate change.

In 2018 the sector was responsible for 31% of the country's net emissions.

Electric bus
First Glasgow has been trialling two electric buses since January 2020.

Driver Sally Smillie said they had gone down well with passengers because they were much quieter than diesel buses.

She added: "In the beginning it was strange for them not hearing them coming but they adapt very easily and they check now.

"It's a lot more comfortable. You're not feeling a gear change and the braking's smoother. I think they're great buses to drive."

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Canada Electricity Decarbonization Costs indicate challenging greenhouse gas reductions across a fragmented grid, with wind, solar, nuclear, and natural gas tradeoffs, significant GDP impacts, and Net Zero targets constrained by intermittency and limited interties.

Key Points

Costs to cut power CO2 via wind, solar, gas, and nuclear, considering grid limits, intermittency, and GDP impacts.

✅ Alberta model: eliminate coal; add wind, solar, gas; 26-40% CO2 cuts

✅ Nuclear option enables >75% cuts at higher but feasible system costs

✅ National costs 1-2% GDP; reserves, transmission, land, and waste not included

Along with many western developed countries, Canada has pledged to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 40–45 percent by 2030 from 2005 emissions levels, and to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050.

This is a huge challenge that, when considered on a global scale, will do little to stop climate change because emissions by developing countries are rising faster than emissions are being reduced in developed countries. Even so, the potential for achieving emissions reduction targets is extremely challenging as there are questions as to how and whether targets can be met and at what cost. Because electricity can be produced from any source of energy, including wind, solar, geothermal, tidal, and any combustible material, climate change policies have focused especially on nations’ electricity grids, and in Canada cleaning up electricity is viewed as critical to meeting climate pledges.

Canada’s electricity grid consists of ten separate provincial grids that are weakly connected by transmission interties to adjacent grids and, in some cases, to electricity systems in the United States. At times, these interties are helpful in addressing small imbalances between electricity supply and demand so as to prevent brownouts or even blackouts, and are a source of export revenue for provinces that have abundant hydroelectricity, such as British Columbia, Manitoba, and Quebec.

Due to generally low intertie capacities between provinces, electricity trade is generally a very small proportion of total generation, though electricity has been a national climate success in recent years. Essentially, provincial grids are stand alone, generating electricity to meet domestic demand (known as load) from the lowest cost local resources.

Because climate change policies have focused on electricity (viz., wind and solar energy, electric vehicles), and Canada will need more electricity to hit net-zero according to the IEA, this study employs information from the Alberta electricity system to provide an estimate of the possible costs of reducing national CO2 emissions related to power generation. The Alberta system serves as an excellent case study for examining the potential for eliminating fossil-fuel generation because of its large coal fleet, favourable solar irradiance, exceptional wind regimes, and potential for utilizing BC’s reservoirs for storage.

Using a model of the Alberta electricity system, we find that it is infeasible to rely solely on renewable sources of energy for 100 percent of power generation—the costs are prohibitive. Under perfect conditions, however, CO2 emissions from the Alberta grid can be reduced by 26 to 40 percent by eliminating coal and replacing it with renewable energy such as wind and solar, and gas, but by more than 75 percent if nuclear power is permitted. The associated costs are estimated to be some $1.4 billion per year to reduce emissions by at most 40 percent, or $1.9 billion annually to reduce emissions by 75 percent or more using nuclear power (an option not considered feasible at this time).

Based on cost estimates from Alberta, and Ontario’s experience with subsidies to renewable energy, and warnings that the switch from fossil fuels to electricity could cost about $1.4 trillion, the costs of relying on changes to electricity generation (essentially eliminating coal and replacing it with renewable energy sources and gas) to reduce national CO2 emissions by about 7.4 percent range from some $16.8 to $33.7 billion annually. This constitutes some 1–2 percent of Canada’s GDP.

The national estimates provided here are conservative, however. They are based on removing coal-fired power from power grids throughout Canada. We could not account for scenarios where the scale of intermittency turned out worse than indicated in our dataset—available wind and solar energy might be lower than indicated by the available data. To take this into account, a reserve market is required, but the costs of operating such a capacity market were not included in the estimates provided in this study. Also ignored are the costs associated with the value of land in other alternative uses, the need for added transmission lines, environmental and human health costs, and the life-cycle costs of using intermittent renewable sources of energy, including costs related to the disposal of hazardous wastes from solar panels and wind turbines.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News