Archive | November, 2010

Bizarre Insects Inspire Unintentionally Surreal Art

Tags: , , , ,

Bizarre Insects Inspire Unintentionally Surreal Art

Posted on 30 November 2010 by Sustainability Digest

alfred keller art photo Photo: MFN Berlin

In the first half of the last century, a German blacksmith named Alfred Keller began crafting some of the most surrealistic, alien-seeming sculptures the world had ever seen — delicate works which took months to complete. These incredible creations, meticulous in detail, rivaled even the most imaginative pieces from contemporary artists — but they weren’t inspired by some absinth-induced vision or fit of madness. Indeed, Keller’s mu…Read the full story on TreeHugger

Comments (0)

New Honda Fit EV likely to cost less than Nissan LEAF

Tags: , , , ,

New Honda Fit EV likely to cost less than Nissan LEAF

Posted on 30 November 2010 by Sustainability Digest

The New Honda Fit EV will go on sale for U.S. customers in 2012. By using the lighter Honda Fit platform, already in volume manufacturing, Honda could price the Fit EV at $29,900, less than the Nissan LEAF with a minimum price of $32,780. This new battery-electric car will be popular with current drivers of hot compact hatchbacks such as the Honda Fit, Toyota Yaris, Ford Fiesta, Chevy Cruze, and Mini-Cooper.

Comments (0)

Tags: , , , ,

How cleantech VCs are reacting to the broken venture model

Posted on 30 November 2010 by Sustainability Digest

In many of my recent conversations with colleagues, there's a recurring theme: As a group, these investors are increasingly convinced that the traditional venture capital investment model as applied to cleantech hasn't been working.

In part, this is because there's increasing conviction among VCs and LPs across sectors that the venture capital model overall is broken and needs re-invention.  And in part, this is because the exit window has been so tough to hit for so many venture-backed startups across all sectors, over the past decade. So it's not just a cleantech thing.

But even so, with some exceptions the overall body of cleantech VCs I speak with do recognize that there are differences in energy, water and materials markets that mean the mid-2000s Silicon Valley approach to cleantech venture capital doesn't work.  To recap some of these which we've previously discussed on this site:

1. The investment models have been too focused on and accepting of capital intensity, without already knowing where the capacity-buildout / project finance capital would come from.

2. There's been too many investments done at valuations that reflect unrealistic growth expectations, unrealistic visions of the endgame being some "winner take all" scenario, and unrealistic hopes for huge IPOs instead of the more likely M&A exit.

3. Too much of a focus on proprietary IP, when so much of that IP is just defending one particular way of producing a commodity.

4. Too much of a focus on the technology, and not enough on the management team's ability to out-execute other teams.

5. Too much focus on just a handful of subsectors (solar, biofuels, transportation, building energy efficiency), when cleantech is really more an overarching investment thesis about looming natural resource scarcity, and thus more broadly applicable to a wider variety of subsectors.

6. Too much capital put in too early in the lifecycle of the company.  Putting in a ton of capital after the science risk is removed, under the expectation that now it's off to the races… but then finding that the path of successful productization, scale manufacturing, and commercialization will take longer than expected, which can be deadly when the company has been put into a high cashburn situation.

For all of these reasons, VCs who have invested into the cleantech sector are now talking to me and to each other about hard lessons learned from the past 5 years of investing.

What's interesting right now, however, is to see how differently many of these investors are reacting to these lessons.  If you think about it, there are really four basic ways to react to the realization that the traditional venture model as applied to cleantech isn't working.

- You can continue to beat your head against the wall anyway.  And there are certainly numerous investors out there doing just that.  They may talk about doing things differently, but at the end of the day their investments in 2011 will look much like their investments in 2007.

- You can narrow down your view of cleantech so that you're only investing in the sectors that look very much like other sectors you're more used to.  For example, narrowing down to only investing in internet and electronics-based sectors within cleantech.  And there are many investors, predominantly among the generalist VCs who had dabbled in cleantech, who are doing exactly this.  They don't want to say they're abandoning cleantech, but they do say they're really focusing on familiar-looking areas. Which helps partially explain the current high level of interest in "energy efficiency" as a category, because so much of that is IT-based.  This makes a lot of sense, but is kind of where most of the herd is headed right now, and also it's a bit unclear still how a "Netscape Moment" can emerge out of these investment categories.

- You can run screaming for the hills and abandon the category altogether.  And this is definitely happening across the generalist venture landscape as well.  Rarely is it being done overtly, but in many cases it's been a quiet retreat as cleantech teams get purged from big-named generalist venture firms.  And it's happening to a lesser extent among LPs, although it's tough to tell how much of this is just due to a general pullback of LPs from venture capital altogether.  But the net result is the same — fewer specialist firms able to raise their next fund, and fewer cleantech specialists within generalist funds, so fewer cleantech venture investors overall.

- Or you can try to invent new approaches to venture-stage investing that would better apply to various categories and stages of cleantech investments.  This is where family offices and angels have the advantage of flexibility over institutional VCs and corporate VCs who have specific mandates and pre-approved investment strategies.  But even among these latter categories I'm hearing some interesting thinking from some of my cleantech investor colleagues out there.

All of the last three reactions have their merits, and I'm sure the first reaction has its defenders as well.  Nevertheless, I think there is a continuing shakeout happening among cleantech venture investors that will continue for some time forward.  And I think there will be a community of investors who redefine how they engage with cleantech so that it's really more about the core, familiar technology than about the market opportunity.

But I'm also excited to see what this fourth category, the re-inventors, will be coming up with and introducing over the next couple of years.  I've seen a few new ideas brought to my attention, but not one that I would say has obviously got it figured out yet, including my own nascent ideas for new approaches.  But I continue to be impressed with the level of thinking I see being applied to this challenge, and think we'll see some intriguingly different approaches being tried over the next year or so.  Some won't fly at all.  But some will.  And we'll look back on this 2009-2011 period as having been very formative for the next wave of cleantech "venture capital".

Comments (0)

Tags: , , , ,

Time To Buy Solar Stocks?

Posted on 29 November 2010 by Sustainability Digest

Tom Konrad CFA

Renewable Energy stocks have been suffering for over a year. but the
sector’s poster-child has also been the whipping boy.  While the
S&P 500 has risen 8% percent in 2010, the broader alternative
energy sector is down 10% and solar has fared even worse.  Solar
is down 27% for the year, with a 17% drop in the last 2 weeks (see
chart.)

TAN PBW SPX chart src="http://www.altenergystocks.com/archives/TAN%202010.png">

Ian Tharp – CIBC World Markets

These numbers were brought home to me by a presentation by style="font-weight: normal;"> Ian S. Tharp, CFA, an Executive
Director and Cleantech and Renewable Energy Analyst at CIBC World
Markets.  He was speaking at href="http://www.nyssa.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=calendar&template=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=18342">The
Future
of
Energy
Investing Conference last Thursday.  The
sharp down move in recent weeks made me wonder if this might be a sign
of capitulation.  I don’t follow the solar sector closely, but
given its historic volatility, I think there is a lot of potential for
astute traders to make money in the sector. 

I asked Mr. Tharp if he thought the sector showed signs of
bottoming.  He said “Yes” and gave the following reasons (some of
this may be slightly garbled because I’m working from memory)

  • 2010 installed capacity is double what it was in 2009.  This
    may not be what the industry hoped for, but it’s still impressive
    growth.
  • Silicon prices have stabilized.
  • Solar module prices have also stabilized.

With that background and current low prices for solar stocks, the stage
may be set for a strong rally.

The Motley Fool
href="http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2010/11/19/wall-street-is-wrong-about-solar.aspx">
Travis Holum at the Motley Fool also thinks Solar stocks are ready to
rally, and he quotes management of several solar companies as
evidence of continued strong demand:

  • First
    Solar
    (NASDAQ:
    class="qsAdd qs-source-isssitthv0000001">FSLR) said the
    majority of its production has already been sold for 2011.
  • href="http://www.altenergystocks.com/comm/content/ja-solar-holdings/">JA
    Solar
    (NASDAQ: class="qsAdd qs-source-isssitthv0000001">JASO) has
    agreements and received prepayments from customers for 1.2 GW of its
    1.35 GW to 1.45 GW of capacity for next year.
  • At href="http://www.altenergystocks.com/comm/content/sunpower/">Sunpower
    (NASDAQ: class="qsAdd qs-source-isssitthv0000001">SPWRA)
    the CEO Tom Werner says “demand is greater than the supply” and the
    North American commercial business is “70% booked for 2011.”
  • This week, href="http://www.altenergystocks.com/comm/content/suntech-power/">Suntech
    Power
    (NYSE: class="qsAdd qs-source-isssitthv0000001">STP) said
    analysis of customer demand saw “it was 30% above our ability to supply
    for the entire year.”
  • href="http://www.altenergystocks.com/comm/content/solarfun-power/">Solarfun
    (NASDAQ: class="qsAdd qs-source-isssitthv0000001">SOLF) sees
    “healthy market demand” going forward and is adding capacity
    accordingly.

It seems like there is a good case for a solar rally, so I sent off a
couple quick emails to a couple other solar stock experts, asking them
the same question. 

J Peter Lynch

J Peter Lynch is an investment banker with a focus on the solar sector
at Salem Financial, which he tracks closely.  He says:

I think solar stocks are poised at a critical point.  19 of the 22
stocks I follow have positive momentum (longer term indicator), 20 of
22 stocks have negative weekly momentum (short term indicator) and 21
of 22 stocks are oversold an average of 30.9%.  I think we may see
a short term bounce and possibly the continuation of the longer term
positive trend indicated by the overwhelming positive monthly momentum.

So the technicals seem good for a rally, although there’s some
question about how long it might endure.

Jeffrey Cianci

Jeffery Cianci is Chief Investment Officer at Green Science Partners, a
hedge fund that invests in both public stocks and private equity. 
I wrote about him in my href="http://www.altenergystocks.com/archives/2010/08/seven_greentech_experts_and_their_stock_picks.html">
roundup of the cleantech experts at the most recent San Francisco
MoneyShow.  Mr. Cianci uses a combination of fundamental and
technical
analysis, and clearly has a depth of understanding of the stocks he
trades.  He is more cautious:

I’m not sure if stocks have bottomed yet.  There needs to be some
constraint
on the building cycle.  Until then, with European problems
possibly limiting the demand side, as well as FIT [Feed-In-Tariff]
reductions, there
will be 2H11 oversupply worries, and may take time to disprove a
negative.  I would feel safer with the solar cap equipment names,
not as sensitive to pricing:  href="http://www.altenergystocks.com/comm/content/gtsolar/">GT Solar
[SOLR], href="http://www.altenergystocks.com/comm/content/amtech-systems/">Amtech
Systems
[ASYS], and href="http://www.altenergystocks.com/comm/content/strholdings/">STR
Holdings [STRI] the
faves, as well as solar inverters, href="http://www.altenergystocks.com/comm/content/powerone/">Power-One
[PWER] and href="http://www.altenergystocks.com/comm/content/satcon-technology/">SatCon
[SATC].  The ETF’s
are too concentrated on the module guys, so I would avoid them.

I found Mr. Cianci’s critique of the Solar ETFs ( href="http://www.altenergystocks.com/comm/content/claymore-mac-global-solar-index-etf/">TAN
and href="http://www.altenergystocks.com/comm/content/market-vectors-van-eck-global-solar-etf/">KWT)
particularly interesting because it parallels my own critique of the
general alternative energy ETFs: they tend to be over concentrated in
particular sectors.

Conclusion

I tend not to be a short term trader, and the opinions of the experts
above are mixed, with even the more bullish hedging their
opinions.  Based on the above, I’m not ready to jump into solar
stocks, but if I were, I’d be looking at the capital equipment
manufacturers Mr. Cianci likes.

DISCLOSURE: No Positions. style="font-style: italic;">


DISCLAIMER: The information and
trades provided here are for informational purposes only and are not a
solicitation to buy or sell any of these securities. Investing involves
substantial risk and you should evaluate your own risk levels before
you make any investment. Past results are not an indication of future
performance. Please take the time to read the
style="font-style: italic;"
href="http://www.altenergystocks.com/disclosures.html">full disclaimer
here.

Comments (0)

Getting Lucky With Water Technologies

Tags: , , , ,

Getting Lucky With Water Technologies

Posted on 29 November 2010 by Sustainability Digest

by Richard T. Stuebi For cleantech investors in the water space, one of the most attractive aspects of the water technology sector is that there’s a well-established set of well-heeled companies with strong interests in building their water businesses via acquisitions.  This list includes most prominently General Electric (NYSE: GE), Siemens (NYSE: SI), and Veolia (NYSE: VE):  multi-billion dollar [...]

Comments (0)

Will California Rush to Mine Gold Again?

Tags: , , , ,

Will California Rush to Mine Gold Again?

Posted on 28 November 2010 by Sustainability Digest

girl-panning-for-gold-photo.jpg
photo: goldrushfieldtrips.com

California has a history rich in gold, but despite sky high prices, the gold mining industry doesn’t seem positioned for a revival in the state. The price of gold is more than $1363 an ounce, causing some folks in areas near historic lodes to clamor for a renewed mining industry in California. But cultural attitudes have shifted, and residents concerned about the environmental impacts and effects on tourism seem more inclined to preserve mining as a relict of the past. …Read the full story on TreeHugger

Comments (0)

What’s Beyond Zero Emissions Vehicles?

Tags: , , , ,

What’s Beyond Zero Emissions Vehicles?

Posted on 28 November 2010 by admin

The automotive industry has invested billions in alternative fuel technology since that first Prius rolled off its assembly line. And these days a growing portion of that investment has been focused on zero emission technologies, such as battery electric vehicles (EVs) and hydrogen fuel cells. Yet as a professional tasked with commercializing the next generation [...]

Comments (0)

Tags: , , , ,

Can America Regain the Rare Earths Crown?

Posted on 28 November 2010 by Sustainability Digest

by Kidela Capital Group

A rare earth element is like air. It only seems to become
important when you are running out.

title="us-rare-earths-crown"
src="http://www.kidela.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/us-rare-earths-crown.jpg"
alt="Can America Regain the Rare Earth Emelents Crown?" width="252"
height="275">
With href="http://www.kidela.com/kidela/china-ree-policy">China
suddenly cutting back on exports while controlling 95 percent of the
world’s production of href="http://www.kidela.com/kidela/separating-rare-earth-elements">rare
earth elements,
the United States and other countries suddenly finds themselves
vulnerable. This vulnerability has to do with the stability of the
supply of these strategic commodities. Countries from around the world
have suddenly woken up to the realization that the future of their high
technology industries could be in the hands of one supplier – href="http://www.kidela.com/kidela/china-ree-export-restrictions">China.

In the USA, this realization comes at a time when the Obama
administration has committed the United States to replacing more than a
million gasoline powered cars with hybrid and electric cars by 2015.
These cars – referred to as “green” vehicles – use A LOT of rare earth
elements in their power trains. Reducing the US’s reliance on foreign
oil is one motivation for moving to green cars. However, given the
current situation, and unless alternative supply sources are found –
soon – it appears that the US might be replacing a dependence on one
commodity (oil) for reliance on a much more difficult to find and more
expensive one ( href="http://www.kidela.com/stans-energy-corp/introduction-to-rare-earth-elements-and-stans-energy-corporation">Rare
Earth Elements – REEs). And these REEs are almost exclusively href="http://www.realclearscience.com/articles/2010/10/29/the_looming_rare_earths_train_wreck_106226.html"
>available from its main trade rival.
Somewhat belatedly the USA has discovered the looming crisis in rare
earth availability and has only recently begun to look at securing
domestic supplies and rebuilding its supply chain.

“If we don’t think this through, we
could be trading a troubling dependence on Middle
Eastern oil for a troubling dependence on Chinese neodymium.”

href="http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/05/clean-energy-apos-s-dirty-little-secret/7377/"
>Irving Mintzer, Senior Adviser, Potomac Energy Fund

American rare earth dominance ends only recently

And yet, it didn’t have to be this way. Given href="http://www.kidela.com/kidela/middle-east-oil-china-rare-earths">China’s
near monopoly in rare earths production
it might come as a surprise to learn that the United States was the
world’s leading producer of rare earths as recently as 1995.

Until 1948, most of the world’s rare earths were mined in India and
Brazil. In the 1950s, South Africa assumed the status of world’s
leading rare earth source, but a single mine in the United States
eventually overtook South Africa’s production output. From the late
1950s, into the mid-1980s the Mountain Pass rare earth mine in
California was the world’s leading producer of REEs.

The deposits at Mountain Pass were discovered in 1950 by two
prospectors who found a radioactive outcrop and assumed they had
located a source of uranium. The prospectors were disappointed to learn
that their claim did not contain uranium but rather flouro-carbonate
bastnaesite. This mineral was completely worthless to them but was very
interesting to the US Geological Survey. The Geological Survey
undertook further surveys and discovered non-radioactive deposit of
bastnaesite. One of the two original prospectors who found the deposit
worked for MolyCorp (MCP) and
he persuaded the company to claim the land
although it didn’t exactly know what to do with its rare earth ore.
MolyCorp spent the next two decades developing a market for the rare
earth elements href="http://geology.csupomona.edu/drjessey/fieldtrips/mtp/mtnpass.htm"
>found in its mine: Cerium, lanthanum, samarium,
gadolinium, neodymium, praseodymium and europium.

Throughout the 1970s and 1980s, the Mountain Pass mine produced more
than 70 percent of the world’s supply of these valuable minerals. At
the peak of its operations, the mine produced 20,000 tonnes of rare
earth oxides a year.

However, during the mid-90’s commodity prices bottomed out and the
mine found it increasingly difficult to compete with cheaper Chinese
imported rare earths. In 1998, after hundreds of thousands of gallons
of water carrying radioactive waste spilled into and around Ivanpah Dry
Lake, the chemical processing at the mine was stopped and the mine shut
its doors. After the California mined closed, China assumed the mantle
of world leader in rare earth extraction.

Whether focusing on href="http://www.kidela.com/kidela/the-world-needs-rare-earth-elements">REEs
was a deliberate and clever trade strategy or a happy accident, China
now had firm control of the world supply of REEs. And while demand
remained stable and China exported its REEs at low price points, the US
became complacent. Remaining REE stockpiles around the country were
sold off and the US as a whole let the href="http://www.kidela.com/stans-energy-corp/rare-earth-element-ree-market">REE
market completely get away from them.

Scrambling to catch up

Fast forward to 2010, and we find that the demand for rare earths
has risen considerably given all of the recent discoveries of
additional technological uses for the minerals. Just as REE demand has
started to ramp up, China began to restrict exports. The US, like other
nations, is scrambling to react and get back in the game. However,
ramping up a dormant industry is costly and requires a great deal of
time. Obtaining a mining license and the associated environmental
permits can be described as a regulatory equivalent of a very long
cross country steeple chase.

“When you stop mining in this
country, as investment goes down, expertise
on cutting-edge technologies is exported as well.”

>Carol Raulston, National Mining Association.

Restarting a mine is no easy task. Environmental regulations in 2010
are considerably more stringent than they were back in the 1970s, costs
are multiples of what they were and there is also the challenge to find
the expertise needed to mine and process these elements.

While there may be a number of prospective rare earth element sites
around the world, the challenge mining companies have is that they have
to pay for and put the infrastructure and processes into place
necessary to mine and process them.

Until that time, relying solely on Chinese exports does not seem to
be an option for the US any longer. The supply chain for a number of
commercial and defense related industries has already begun to break
down. A Government Accountability Office (GAO) report from April 2010
identified four rare earth element shortages that have already caused
some kind of >weapon system production delay.

The US government is examining its options. Some of these include:
stockpiling REEs supplies, securing other suppliers from around the
world and allocating and redirecting REE purchases for defense and
national security purposes.

US mining industry lobbies for domestic support

Given its past dominance, it is argued the US has the reserves and
capacity to more than meet its domestic needs. Similar efforts have
been undertaken in Canada and Australia and both countries are in the
early stages of rebuilding the necessary infrastructure.

According to the U.S. Geological Survey, there are 13 million tons
of extractable rare earths in the United States, 5.4 million in
Australia, and 19 million in Russia and neighboring countries. In 2009,
China had 36 million tons.

The US mining industry is acutely aware of the challenges in
restarting the US rare earth industry including securing large amounts
of investment capital in this rough economic climate. Other challenges
include the need to develop and implement advanced mining techniques,
and the need to meet stringent environmental impact stipulations. There
is also a pressing need for greater domestic research and development
efforts related to href="http://csis.org/files/publication/101005_DIIG_Current_Issues_no22_Rare_earth_elements.pdf"
>refining techniques.
The process will be a long one and it is has been expected that the
return of the US REE industry to former levels will take a decade or
more.

“I would say conservatively the
earliest that we could open a mine has to be six to seven years.”

href="http://www.voanews.com/learningenglish/home/US-Mining-Companies-Show-New-Interest-in-Rare-Earths--105001229.html"
>Edward Cowle, President and CEO U.S. Rare Earths

Not your grandfather’s rare earth mine

MolyCorp’s rare-earth separation plant at Mountain Pass, resumed
operations in 2007. This year, MolyCorp began using stockpiled rock
that was mined under a previous permit and employed new separation
technologies. The company href="http://minerals.er.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/rare_earths/mcs-2010-raree.pdf"
>expects to sell 3,000 tons of rare earths in 2011 and
by 2012.
MolyCorp expects to eventually produce 20,000 tons a year, and produce
rare-earth products at half the cost of the Chinese. However, the
company cannot use the processes used in the mine’s heyday: processes
that are both economically and environmentally unsustainable. According
to the company, their new techniques are both more environmentally
sound and save money, techniques such as eliminating the production of
waste saltwater. MolyCorp will use a closed-loop system, converting the
waste back into the acids and bases required for separation and
eliminating the need to buy and transport dangerous chemicals. The
company will also install a natural-gas power co-generation facility on
site to cut energy costs.

“We want to be environmentally
superior, not just compliant.
We want to be sustainable and be here for a long time.”

href="http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/05/clean-energy-apos-s-dirty-little-secret/7377/"
>Mark Smith, CEO MolyCorp

MolyCorp is upbeat, but there are still challenges in getting the
mine up and running. Memories of the poor environmental record are long
and environmentalists state that they and the regulators will be
looking long and hard at their start up plans. There is also the key
problem that processing the raw product is a costly time consuming
exercise. MolyCorp claims it spends only about 10 percent of its budget
on actual mining. The big cost is in the process to chemically separate
the rare earths from the minerals that carry them. Rock is milled first
into gravel, then sand, and then must be separated by repetitive mixing
with solvents sometimes tens of thousands of times. Rare earth oxides
are useful in some industries, but items like magnets require pure
metals which requires even more processing and which can produce even
more environmentally hazardous by-products.

To help fund its quest to href="http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/26655/?p1=MstCom"
>reestablish a rare earth mining industry in the US,
MolyCorp
went public this year and has also appealed to the US
government for loan guarantees, and financial assistance for research
and development.

MolyCorp expects to reach its peak production capacity by producing
20,000 metric tons of cerium, lanthanum, praseodymium, and neodymium.
The mine will also produce small amounts of other critical rare earths
– samarium, europium, gadolinium, terbium, dysprosium, and erbium. This
production output may be enough to sustain many of the domestic needs
of the U.S. MolyCorp is also planning to href="http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/documents/rareearth.pdf"
>re-establish domestic supply chains by partnering with
domestic magnet producers.

The US mining industry is poised to ramp up its domestic rare earth
production but the question remains; can the US wait for the 10 to 15
years it will take to bring the rest of the REE industry fully online
in the US? Even with support from US lawmakers, will the broader
industry be able to be internationally competitive? The costs might be
too high for some in this industry. For example, Molycorp has to pay
some $2.4 million a year on environmental monitoring and compliance,
costs. Until monitoring and regulations to curb their negative
environmental impacts take effect in China, Chinese companies do not
have these same cost burdens.

Much is riding on how the US weathers the next couple of years. Get
it wrong and it could prove to be very rough going. Get it right, and
the vast majority of people will never know they almost ran out of
vital commodities that are at the very heart of the technology that
keeps the world humming and their homeland safe. As we type this, there
are many dedicated and talented people who are taking great strides to
rebuild their country’s href="http://www.kidela.com/stans-energy-corp/video-stans-energy-infrastructure">REE
infrastructure and knowledge base in hopes of once again becoming a
world leader in href="http://www.kidela.com/stans-energy-corp/rare-earth-element-ree-market">REE
production.

Disclosure: No Positions.

href="http://www.kidela.com/">Kidela Capital Group Inc. is a
diversified research, consulting, communications and investor relations
firm. We are dedicated to assisting early to mid-stage companies
achieve their goals by delivering a range of innovative and effective
value added services.

style="font-weight: bold;">Related articles:

href="http://www.altenergystocks.com/archives/2010/09/rareearths1.html">Will
Rare Earths Cripple the Green Economy? Part 1 and href="http://www.altenergystocks.com/archives/2010/09/rareearths1.html">Part
2 (Eamon Keane, September 2010)
href="http://www.altenergystocks.com/archives/2009/08/rarer_rare_earths_are_not_going_to_sink_the_wind_power_sector.html">Rarer
Rare Earths Are Not Going To Sink The Wind Power Sector (Charles
Morand, Aug 2009)

Comments (0)

Two New Cancer Studies Point to Seaweed and Sunlight For Prevention

Tags: , , , ,

Two New Cancer Studies Point to Seaweed and Sunlight For Prevention

Posted on 28 November 2010 by Sustainability Digest

sunlight seaweed cancer prevention health photo
Photo: FearfulStills

Recent University of South Carolina (USC) studies have outlined two important tools in cancer prevention. The studies, which were carried out at USC’s Arnold School of Health and the South Carolina Cancer Center, found that seaweed and sunlight both had a huge impact on cancer prevention, according to The State. …Read the full story on TreeHugger

Comments (0)

Ionize Away Them Thar Spots and Stains

Tags: , , , ,

Ionize Away Them Thar Spots and Stains

Posted on 27 November 2010 by Sustainability Digest

We’ve carried a wide range of San Francisco based Orbeco’s Ion based cleaning supplies for a long time, and are just about the only place on the web you can get them!  It’s a long time favorite of our hospitality small business customers. Name: Guy de Lacrose, COO Company: Orbeco, Inc. The Orbeco Story The [...]

Comments (0)

Advertise Here
Advertise Here

Most Popular Articles

  • N/A

RELATED SITES