New Cleantech Technology News (Say What?)

Aside from the cleantech project, cleantech policy, cleantech consumer product round-ups I’m in the midst of finishing, here’s a round-up of some of the latest news on new cleantech technology:

1. Wind Energy Forecasting Technology Saves Millions of Dollars a Year

“The National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) has developed a highly detailed wind energy forecasting system with Xcel Energy, enabling the utility to capture energy from turbines far more effectively and at lower cost,” the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research reports. “The system, which Xcel Energy formally took over last month, saves ratepayers several million dollars yearly.”

Basically, the new technology gives wind forecasts that are 35% more accurate. This allows the utility to power down costly coal and natural gas power plants more often. In 2010, the technology reportedly saved Xcel Energy $6 million.

The technology is used in Colorado, Minnesota, New Mexico, Texas, and Wisconsin.

2. Gamesa Wind Turbine Setting Records in Spain

“Gamesa’s new 4.5 megawatt G128 has posted a new record at a test field in Jaulin near Zaragosa, Spain,” Renewables International reports. “On November 7, it generated 97.34 megawatt-hours in a single day with 100 percent availability.” Since the start of 2011, this prototype wind turbine has fed over six gigawatt-hours to the Spanish grid. “With a rotor diameter of 128 meters and an output of 4.5 megawatts, the new G128 has a 120 meter tower and rotor blades whose diameter exceeds 62.5 meters.”

3. Shakeup in Grid Storage Technology Market, 5 Leaders Revealed

OK, grid storage is probably not something most of you go to sleep thinking about, but it’s important, and there’s a lot going on in this field.

The new Lux Research Grid Storage Tracker reveals that the lineup of leading emerging energy storage suppliers is indeed seeing a significant shake-up. Japanese molten salt battery producer NGK Insulators has historically dominated the grid storage market for emerging technologies (excluding pumped hydro, compressed air, and traditional lead-acid batteries). After capturing over 76% of the total market at the end of 2010, NGK’s market share plummeted to just 53% of operating grid storage projects as of September 30th of this year, according to Lux Research’s Grid Storage Tracker.

2011 Installed Grid Storage
Market Leaders

NGK’s monopoly withered and allowed other players with a variety of technologies to make waves into the grid storage market, including Xtreme Power’s advanced lead acid battery, Beacon Power’s flywheels (although Beacon’s share will drop after filing Chapter 11 last week), and lithium ion batteries from International Battery and A123 Systems. The strong traction of these players resulted in a 56% increase in the number of installed megawatts in 2011 over 2010. Based upon announced and ongoing projects, NGK’s market share will sharply drop by the end of 2012 with A123 Systems capturing nearly one quarter of the market.

4. Virtual Power Plants to Boom

Confused? Read on…

Growing investments in distributed energy resources – renewable distributed energy generation, demand response (DR), energy storage, and plug-in electric vehicles (PEVs) – will require new business and technology platforms to manage the increased level of diversity and complexity in the delivery of electricity to customers.The increasing variability of both generation (from solar and wind) and loads (due to DR and PEVs) will also require more sophisticated and decentralized decision making. As a result of all of these factors, interest in virtual power plants (VPPs) is gaining significant momentum within the industry. According to a new report from Pike Research, VPP capacity will increase by 65% between 2011 and 2017, rising from 55.6 gigawatts (GW) to 91.7 GW worldwide during that period. A more aggressive growth forecast scenario contemplates that, under certain conditions, the capacity growth could be as high as 126% during the same forecast horizon.

“Virtual power plants essentially represent an ‘Internet of Energy’, tapping existing grid networks to tailor electricity supply and demand services for a customer,” says senior analyst Peter Asmus. “They maximize value for both the end user and distribution utility, primarily through software innovations.”

5. 2011 Clean Energy Challenge Finalists Getting Funding

It’s a long road to commercialization, and many don’t make it, but here are some that might:

… several inaugural Clean Energy Challenge finalists have secured more than $9 million in venture funding, expanded operations and furthered the commercialization of new clean energy technology following their participation in the 2011 business competition.

The top prize winner, Clean Urban Energy (CUE), recently closed a $7 million A-round led by Battery Ventures, a Challenge judge. CUE has also hired 10 full-time employees since its win.

NextGen Solar, the second place winner, is currently completing development of its first functional prototype. The company also presented at the prestigious national Renewable Energy Laboratory Growth forum and was a semi-finalist at the Cleantech Open.

Other notable achievements include:

Thermal Conservation Technologies was among ten companies invited to present at CTSI Defense Energy Challenge. It hired Dr. Pratek Gupta as its first full-time employee, charged with completing the company’s prototype.Intelligent Generation: Presented at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory Industry Growth forum and launched a two-phased pilot project with ComEd and PJM.Power2Switch: Hired three full-time employees and launched a new website with energy consumption and analytics functionality.Agentis: Has a live product with more than 78,000 users and is embarking on multiple pilot projects with large utilities.Root3 Technologies: Is conducting a pilot project with the University of Chicago and negotiating an exclusive technology license with Stanford University.Sun Phocus Technologies: Is now generating revenue, conducting two pilot projects, and has partnered with an Israeli manufacturer identified by the Clean Energy Trust.

6. University of Ottawa Students Design New Wind Turbine

“Over at the University of Ottawa, a group of students and professors who dub themselves the ‘Green Engineers‘ have come up with… a wind turbine with two sets of blades each spinning in opposite directions,” Tyler Hamilton of the Toronto Star reports.

They call it the contra-rotating small wind energy converter. Wind tunnel tests on a prototype have shown that the design is up to 40 per cent more efficient and far less noisy than a conventional single-rotor system.

The benefits of having contra-rotating blades are well known. In fact, the design has existed for more than a century and is widely used, for example, in propeller systems of submarine torpedoes. The concept is also used in airplane and boat propulsion systems, not to mention those remote-controlled toy helicopters you can fly inside your house.

Riadh Habash, professor of technology and engineering at the University of Ottawa, says his team decided three years to apply the same approach to wind turbines and are encouraged so far with the results — so much so that they’re busy building a second prototype that will be mounted next summer atop a building on the Ottawa U campus.

Why is having two blade systems spinning in opposite directions more efficient?

When the wind blows into a conventional three-bladed, single-rotor wind turbine less than 40 per cent of its energy is converted into electricity. The rest escapes, much of it in the air wake that’s created behind the blades. That wake spins in the opposite direction (i.e. counter-clockwise) to those blades.

If a second rotor with another set of blades is right behind the first rotor, and if it is designed to also spin counter-clockwise, it can capture energy from that wake. The end result is a turbine system that harnesses much more energy from the initial flow of wind.

Experiments to date also suggest that a turbine with such a design can operate at lower wind speeds, allowing it to tap into a broader range of wind resources.

The turbine is, apparently, also quieter.

7. Vehicle to Grid Technology to Boom

“Vehicle to grid (V2G) technologies, over time, will represent a more and more favorable alternative to investing in new power generation assets,” according to a news release earlier this week. “By 2017, according to a new report from Pike Research, approximately 90,000 light-duty vehicles and an additional 1,500 medium/heavy duty trucks will be enabled with V2G technologies, creating a strong foundation for V2G-based demand response, vehicle to building, frequency regulation, and other ancillary service applications.”

“V2G technologies are currently in the early pilot phase, with much work left to do before they will be ready for full commercialization,” says research director John Gartner. “The earliest adopters will be fleet operators and large consumers of energy where vehicles have established schedules for being plugged in. As the sector develops, V2G will be utilized for an increasing array of grid support services.”

8. Ground-Based Wind Turbine

Next-Gen Wind reports:

“Based off the current patents, NGW created a completely novel ground based wind energy super turbine that can increase wind velocity by 79 percent and produce nearly 2x the energy of a traditional wind tower turbine unit with the same swept area (see data Figure 2). NGW’s super turbine increases the velocity of the wind as it travels through the patented funnel shaped wind collection unit. More specifically, the funnel shaped wind ‘collector’ is increasing volume density of the air mass which is then forced through a smaller tunnel where the multi-blade wind energy collection rotors and generators are located. The resulting concentration allows for optimal generating wind velocities, and provides the opportunity to harvest a larger fraction of the kinetic wind energy passing through the system, when compared to a traditional tower-based wind turbine platform.”

9. GE: Hybrid Gas-Solar-Wind Power Plant is the Answer

“General Electric is pinning its hopes on a new hybrid gas and solar energy generator to help drive down the high cost of solar thermal energy and reduce the need for extra power plants to back up intermittent wind power,” Business Green reports.

“The company last week received approval from the Turkish government to nearly double the output of the world’s first Integrated Renewables Combined-Cycle plant from 570 megawatts (MW) to 1,080MW, and hopes the expanded facility can provide a template for other low carbon energy projects around the world.”

10. High-Rise Rooftops Can be Wind Farms, Too

“Eastern Wind Power (EWP) is a Cambridge, Mass.-based startup that has developed a 50-kilowatt (kW) vertical-axis wind turbine (VAWT) called the Sky Farm,” EarthTechling reports. “The VAWT is designed specifically to be mounted on the roofs of high-rise buildings. The company has partnered with Siemens to develop its small wind generator and inverter system. The company erected its first prototype Sky Farm at the Martha’s Vineyard Airport in 2010. The turbine is now grid-connected, and producing power for the airport.”

The electric current

In Erenovable continue marking some of the key concepts necessary to understand how electricity..In this case we will make sure to clarify a concept which, while use you on a daily basis, we do not always understand completely: the current electric.

At the beginning of the 19th century, was one of the great advances on the way to the electric power generation. It was invented by Alessandro Volta: the stack. This revolutionary object was the first electrochemical device that could be used as a source of electricity, able to deliver energy in a continuous and stable.

From there, the electrical phenomena research advanced rapidly. Some of the most important postulates that could establish were:

the electric charge is in more or less linked nature in the structure of materials, i.e. with greater or lesser ability to move in response to its interaction with electric fields..the negative charge residing on the electrons is, more often, is free, for example in metals. in them, some of the electrons have a degree of freedom like the molecules in a gaseous state. Their movement is erratic, and in gas, not a net sense of movement can be recognized.

Following this series of laws, you could discover that when you install a field within a metallic conductor, particles tend to follow preferably the signal from the field and can then be a sense of movement in their movements. This is what we call electric current.

Like most of the drivers of electric circuits are metallic, it is necessary to be in them the sense real or physical movement of the electrons against the electric field.

In the electrolyte or gaseous conductors, the charge carriers can also be positive, so that their displacement is contrary to the previous.

For simplicity, establishing a conventional sense of the current movement and is the positive charge carriers, i.e. in favour of the electric field.

Do do is defined as the electrical current to the ratio between the NET burden ? q that crosses a certain section of the driver per unit time? t. In symbols:

The unit of electric current is the ampere (A) that corresponds to a constant current which a load of a coulomb is going through any normal section of the driver by every second.

Its name was chosen in homage to the contributions of the French André Marie Ampère (1775-1836), who at the beginning of the 19th century established the principles of electrodynamics, relating the concepts of electricity and electrical potential, and also made other important contributions in the theory of electricity and magnetism.

Still learning more about the theory of electricity in these special items:

New Research Shows United States' Accessible Geothermal Energy is Enormous

A recent study performed by Southern Methodist University (SMU) shows the technical power potential of enhanced geothermal systems is immense.

Through its research, SMU was able to create the most data rich map of U.S. geothermal resources to date. According to the thermal data, the United States houses more than 2,980,295 megawatts of geothermal energy that could be harnessed using EGS and other advanced geothermal technologies.

It comes as no surprise that the majority of the capacity is located in the western half of the country. Nevada and Idaho each hold the most potential, while Montana, New Mexico, Arizona, Utah, and Colorado each house significant resources.

In America's renewable energy sector, geothermal has been much slower in developing itself compared to the solar and wind industries. According to the U.S. Geothermal Energy Association there was 3,086 MW of installed geothermal power in America in 2010. This pales in comparison to installed wind and solar power. For example, as of June 2011 there was 42,432 MW of wind power in America.

There are several reasons for the slow development of the industry. A major contributing force, however, is technology. In 2009, EGS burst on to the scene as an advanced technology which would allow geothermal energy to be tapped at a groundbreaking rate. Both the public and private sector pumped money into EGS projects, but to date these projects appear to have raised more questions than solutions.

California-based advanced geothermal developer AltaRock has abandoned a project after it ran into drilling problems. EGS projects have also come into question about whether or not they induce earthquakes as a result of seismic shifts created by their drilling.

Nevertheless, geothermal energy offers an incredible baseload clean energy option as it does not rely on intermittent catalysts like sunshine or wind. Corporate giant Google, Inc. remains one of the biggest private-sector proponents of EGS technology. The company has invested nearly $11 million to help advance enhanced geothermal systems.

The Future of Global Climate Policy: Taking Stock of Our Climate Outlook (Part 1)

Significantly limiting humanity’s impact on the global climate is quite simply an enormous task. Unfortunately, thanks to budget austerity and federal gridlock, any hope of implementing sweeping U.S. climate/energy policy has been optimistically pushed back to 2013 or beyond (though some incremental improvement is possible). And even the most hopeful observers of the recent global climate negotiations in Durban find little real progress towards reducing emissions. Now more than ever, it is time to take a hard look at where we stand and figure out how to match our policies to our climate goals.




Amongst climate scientists and advocates of climate policy, a growing recognition is taking hold that the current trajectory of global emissions will almost certainly lead us to a world of dangerous climate change impacts. For some, this means coming to terms with the fact that holding total global warming to less than 2°C, a commonly adopted “line in the sand” drawn by many climate advocates, has become nigh-impossible.

As a number of scientific articles have shown, most recently by Kevin Anderson and Alice Bows in the Journal of the Royal Society, limiting the world to 2°C warming most likely requires peaking total global carbon emissions in the next 5-10 years followed by immediate reductions to near-zero by 2050 (see Anderson and Bows emission trajectory options here, via David Roberts, and by David Hone here).

It is now fairly obvious that the lack of global progress on decarbonization has likely pushed this timetable out of reach, prompting some recent soul searching amongst many climate advocates (the two of us included).

Is this realization a game changer for climate policy? Yes and no.

That 2°C constituted a clear threshold below which global warming would be “acceptable” and “safe” and above which it was “dangerous” was always a fairly arbitrary conceit. While climate science can effectively inform us about the range of possible consequences of a warming world, there is a large amount of irresolvable uncertainty inherent in climate forecasting. From the basic sensitivity of atmospheric temperature to CO2 on through to efforts to predict regional-scale impacts, a chain of “error bars” multiply to give us a fairly uncertain picture of our future warming world. And of course, what constitutes “dangerous” climate change was always a human value judgment, not a matter of precise science.

In the face of such inherent uncertainty, drawing “bright line” thresholds of “safe” versus “dangerous” warming has always been a fraught exercise, an effort to grasp for certainty in an uncertain world. Instead, we are now, as we have always been, left to act in spite of and indeed because of this inherent uncertainty.

We have long ago learned enough from climate science to know that global greenhouse gas emissions must be reduced as quickly as possible and that climate change presents a clear threat. Damaging climate impacts are likely already occurring even at today’s 0.8°C warming, and each degree of greater warming will intensify future impacts. Greenhouse gases must therefore be reduced as quickly as possible.

Hurtling towards a 2°C warmer world does little to change this fundamental calculus. After all, many climate advocates have variously selected 350 PPM or 1.5°C as their “bright line” goal (outcomes we’ve long since overshot), and yet the core calculus for these advocates is again the same: we must nonetheless still strive to reduce emissions as quickly as possible. And even those who see 2°C as a now-impossible goal must recognize that each 10th of a degree of eventual warming after that point matters a great deal. There is much that can still be done to reduce future climate impacts, and those efforts will depend far more on how quickly we can accelerate declines in the carbon intensity of the global economy than on what target we pick today for eventual warming. In any case, we must reduce emissions as quickly as possible.

At the same time, the widespread recognition that we are now firmly on a path towards “dangerous” warming should change one fundamental concept: while many climate advocates have operated under the assumption that we could hold future warming to “safe levels,” and thus must focus principally on “mitigating” climate change by driving emissions reductions, others have long argued that we must simultaneously begin to prepare for a warming world and significant impacts already in store. We must begin to “adapt” or build “resilience” to climate and weather extremes, the proposition goes, in order to minimize the damage wrought by future warming.

For a long time, those arguing for proactive adaptation were ignored or relegated to the sidelines of global climate discussions. In the worst cases, those arguing for adaptation efforts were treated as dangerous influences out to a fear that belief that the world could “adapt” to climate impacts could undermine the motives for mitigation. (In recent years, this attitude has thankfully begun to shift.)

Now, all climate advocates should be clear: dangerous warming is coming, if not already here today. No longer can climate adaptation and resilience be treated as secondary priorities. To do so would be morally reprehensible, equivalent to willfully neglecting preparations for a storm we all know is coming.

While climate science is most uncertain when it comes to the regional-scale impacts we care most about, we have a fair idea of the range of likely impacts in store for us now. The best estimates indicate that our current emissions trajectory poses a significant risk of eliminating many unique ecosystems including coral reefs, large swaths of forests, small island communities, and arctic habitat. Extreme weather events like floods, heat waves, droughts, and wildfires will become much more frequent and have greater regional impacts throughout the world. Agricultural yields may be strained. Specific populations, such as those less economically developed or in lower-lying regions will be at a very high risk of impact and hundreds of millions of people will potentially be adversely affected by events like coastal flooding, saltwater infiltration into agricultural lands, and sea level rise. Climate models also point to a more-likely-than-not probability that even greater impacts will result from feedback mechanisms such as permafrost and ice sheet melting beginning or accelerating, unleashing further warming.

In other words, our future holds a much different climate and world, as we’ve simply waited too long to mitigate away all potential impacts. One might call this an inconvenient truth. And it means we must proactively prepare for this warming world as best we can. It is time to build climate resilience.

So what does our current climate outlook look like? It means first, we must redouble efforts to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions (and other climate destabilizing forces) as quickly as possible, and second, we must proactively prepare for a warming world.

The key questions are thus: how do we cut emissions as quickly as possible? And how do we build resilience to a changing climate?

In a series of posts, we will take up each of these questions. We will first consider whether the “brutal logic” of our current climate trajectory demands voluntary economic contraction, at least in the rich nations, as Grist.org’s David Roberts contends. Second, we will argue that successfully accelerating energy innovation to reduce the costs of low-carbon energy technologies is the key to accelerating how quickly we can reduce CO2 emissions. The pace of innovation matters far more than efforts to boost public support for climate mitigation, we will contend, even though such efforts are also important. Third, we will present a case for a proactive climate resilience effort, an effort that must take its place amongst our core climate policy efforts. And finally, we will discuss strategies to reduce forces other than CO2 that are potent contributors to global warming, yet can be reduced quickly and with significant near-term benefits while buying the world time to reduce CO2 emissions.

Stay tuned…

View the original article here

What is Alternative Energy?

Alternative energy is sweeping the nation, and the world, as today's biggest environmental topic. Alternative energy topics no longer revolve around nuclear energy for electricity, but also include the use of products such as Ethanol in cars. It is important to learn what alternative energy is, how it works, and the different types to stay on top of environmental legislations and presidential campaign policy, and to make the best choices for your home and family.

Basic Definition

Alternative energy is the process of energy being formed from sources that do not harm the environment or deplete the Earth's natural resources. So, polluting and wasteful forms of energy producing, such as coal and nuclear, do not fit with the definition of what an alternative energy source is.

Renewable energy is a class of alternative energy that uses natural resources such as geothermal heat, tides, sunlight, and wind, which are naturally replenished through the earth and sun and never run out. About 13 percent of the world's energy comes from renewable energy. Renewable energy is what many call not very reliable because of its dependence on nature, but if one uses a combination of renewable energy sources, it can be every bit as reliable as traditional energy sources.

Kinds Of Alternatives

When people first really started talking about alternative forms of energy, they never could have realized how many would come about. What is alternative energy, today? Here is a short list of all the latest forms:

Hydro Power - Hydro power is formed by small water generators called micro-hydro turbines that are set into flowing water's stream.
Solar Power - Solar power is made by converting sunlight into electricity using cells made from silicon, which, when exposed to sunlight, creates and electric charge.
Wind Power - Wind power is created by a turbine on a tall tower using the wind to kinetically make electricity.
Ethanol - Ethanol is an alternative fuel to replace gasoline, made from ethyl alcohol, a common alcohol made from corn or wheat.
Biodiesel - Biodiesel is an alternative fuel for petroleum diesel and is produced from vegetable oils and animal fats.
Hydrogen - What this alternative energy is is the most abundant element in the universe and can be produced from fossil fuels, biomass, or by electrolyzing water.

As you can see, there are many alternative energy sources out there. What they can be used for is just about as limitless as traditional forms of energy.

Capture and storage of carbon

We are aware of the harmful effects of the carbon in our atmosphere. Climate change is the worst effect of these harmful emissions. The main question is how long will take to express its gravest consequences?.

For the moment, there is a significant growth in the production of renewable energy. But also keep moving forward in the construction of power plants and refineries.

At the moment the only possible remedy that occurs for the mitigation of energy based on fossil fuels is the system called capture and carbon storage (CSS, towards its acronym in English).

A system of capture and storage of carbon has the function of trapping carbon dioxide emitted from power plants and storing it underground. The benefit of this system is that the stored CO2 does not affect the atmosphere. Therefore, this method could be used long term to reduce global warming and its resulting climatic changes.

I.e. technology to capture carbon functions as a magnet that retains the element of the carbon of the emitted gases . In some ways, it could be said that this is something similar to the simple process of photosynthesis, in which the plants store carbon for growth taking what the CO2.

The carbon dioxide emitted by coal power plants or other industries becomes the first liquid carbon dioxide , to overlook a plant liquefaction. It then passes through pipes interned deep in the Earth's crust. This is then how he is achieved by reducing the percentage of content of CO2 in the air.

Of course, it is not all so simple or so perfect. There are some problems inherent in the capture and storage of carbon. In the first place cannot be guaranteed completely safe CO2 buried in the ground, there are environmental risks to take into account the possibility of leakage, contamination of groundwater or the triggering of earthquakes.

On the other hand, the cost behind this technology is very high. For example, an investment of $ 20 billion would be required to establish a central coal with a team to capture carbon. And the cost of the pipelines would be close to $1.7 million per kilometre.

Without a doubt the sequestration of carbon is a beneficial to reduce the content of CO2 in the atmosphere. Estimates show that about 3 billion tons of CO2 storage in the Earth's crust. Several sites have been found with capacity to accommodate a large number of gas without raising any risk - apparently.

There are some projects in Norway and Algeria are carried out. But this is not enough, we need some 3400 projects to contain the great pollution that currently causes the emission of carbon.

Paises Productores de Energia Eolica

En esta carrera por ofrecer una mayor cantidad de energía eléctrica a una población determinada, millones y millones de euros son invertidos para seguir profundizando y ampliando los denominados parques eólicos, con el emplazamiento de una gran cantidad de Turbinas Eólicas y siendo un ejemplo para otros países, por lo que a continuación desarrollaremos los cinco países que más producción de esta energía poseen.

Este país asiático es el mayor productor de Energía Eólica en el mundo, contando con una producción total de 45 GW de electricidad provenientes de sus 80 granjas eólicas distribuidas a lo largo del país, aunque se ha comunicado que comenzará a progresar hasta poder alcanzar la meta de los 100 GW para el 2015, y luego cumplir con toda la demanda del país para el año 2030, lo cual será sumamente ayudado por la distribución geográfica del país.

El segundo país productor de Energía Eólica en el mundo cuenta con una producción total de 43 GW de energía provenientes de su distribución de 101 Parques Eólicos, lo cual si bien es bastante, no alcanza prácticamente en nada para cubrir la demanda energética del país, ya que es uno de los países que más consume en el mundo.

Cuenta con uno de los mayores productores de turbinas eólicas del mundo, la firma GE Energy, además de contar con la granja eólica más grande del mundo, Roscoe Wind Farm, que cuenta con 627 turbinas eólicas emplazadas en su terreno, con una capacidad total de 781 MW y proveyendo electricidad a 260.000 hogares en Texas.

El último lugar del podio le corresponde a Alemania, con una capacidad de 28 GW de Energía, que permiten cubrir el 9% de la demanda energética del país, contando con el emplazamiento de unas 21607 turbinas eólicas, con planificación de seguir incrementándose con el correr del tiempo.

Cuenta además con la Turbina Eólica Más Grande del Mundo, bautizada bajo el nombre de Enercon E-126 y contando con un rotor de 126 metros de diámetro, la cual permite generar unos 7 MW de Energía Eléctrica.

La Energía Eólica cubre tan solo el 16% de la demanda eléctrica española, con una producción total de 21 GW y siendo la tercer fuente energética del país, con planificación de que siga incrementándose su utilización y que sea protagonista de la producción energética del país en no muchos años.

La mayoría de las turbinas eólicas han sido emplazadas en regiones montañosas, además de contar con una numerosa cantidad de industrias que exportan equipamiento para Granjas Eólicas.

El quinto lugar es ocupado por India, que tiene una producción de Energía Eólica que permite alcanzar los 14 GW de Energía, cubriendo tan solo el 1.6% de la demanda energética, contando con la granja más grande del continente, Muppandal, localizada en Tamil Naddu.

La mayoría de las Turbinas Eólicas son de propiedad privada, emplazadas y utilizadas por distintas compañías para uso personal, localizadas principalmente en zonas agricultoras y montañosas, debido a que por sus características geográficas, gran parte del país no es apto para este medio energético.