IKEA comes to us wind market with largest renewable energy investment so far

New Hampshire, USA-IKEA is at it again. In an effort, their goal to produce more renewable energy than it, until 2020 to reach consumed the retail giant announced yesterday that it has acquired the 98-MW-Hoopeston-wind farm in Illinois. Its first wind-project investment in the United States and the largest investment in renewable energy around the world marked this purchase. IKEA will have the wind park and American developers Apex clean energy will manage the project.

View the original article here

Like many electricity does A market need?

Del Mar, population ~4,100, is an affluent beach city just north of San Diego. Solana Beach, also on the ocean and just north of Del Mar has ~12,000 residents. Carmel Valley is a master-planned adjoining community with a population of ~40,000. Can Del Mar, Solana Beach, and Carmel Valley each have their own micro-electric utility (MEU), providing cleaner, cheaper, and more reliable power than the current San Diego Gas and Electric (SDG&E)? Can Carmel Valley have four or five MEUs, and the city of San Diego one hundred?

Maybe Mumbai, India can support five hundred or one thousand MEUs.

Microgrids are scalable, and relatively new in consumer applications; we don’t really know what the optimum population each microgrid serves is. The question is: How small can an economically viable electric utility be? Can the electricity business be in thousands of private, entrepreneurial hands, and not with monopolistic, state-run or regulated enterprises?

Electricity: No Longer a Natural Monopoly

Electricity services from today’s few giant, mostly coal-based and regulated power companies have worked well for over one hundred years. The utilities owe their existence in their present form to several increasingly invalid assumptions, principally that the electricity business is a natural monopoly.

The electricity business until recently consisted of “natural monopolies arise where the largest supplier … has an overwhelming cost advantage over … competitors; this tends to be the case in industries where fixed costs predominate, creating economies of scale that are large in relation to the size of the market, as is the case in water and electricity services.”

But this is no longer the case. Technological advance has rendered the “natural monopoly” model obsolete. With microgrids, we can have electricity at today’s costs from small, community-sized infrastructure. Dadar Electric, named after a locality in Mumbai, can compete with Maharashtra State Electricity Board, and Del Mar Electric with SDG&E.

Looking back one hundred years at a clean slate, and given technology trajectories, we would not build the electricity infrastructure of today. We would build thousands of MEUs, each linked to the others like a swarm of bubbles. Only the benefits of incumbency — “lock in” — keep the utilities the way they are. Markets find a way to “right size” such anomalies; though the transformation can take long.

For those who think the utilities are powerful and entrenched, consider: In November 2013, Berlin had a referendum to “municipalize” their electric utility by wresting it away from Vattenfall, a multi-national utility company. That vote narrowly failed, for now.

With microgrids:

Electricity can be produced less expensively than through traditional fossil fuel fed large generation plants,Power generated locally is consumed locally. It is cleaner since microgrids use solar, micro-wind, batteries, fuel cells, and diesel or bio-diesel based generation, optimized to meet local demand. They do not incur transmission costs,Standalone existence for a utility is possible; macrogrid connectivity is optional.Relative economics improves with advancing technologies, and also since the existing utilities will become progressively less competitive when emissions are priced, inevitably, by a carbon tax.
How Many MEUs Can the US Support?

Rand McNally defined U.S. markets as 493 Basic Trading Areas (BTA) that were auctioned for mobile telephone services in the mid 1990s. If each BTA had 10 MEUs, it would total ~5,000, depending on the demographics of individual markets. In other words, a MEU would be available for every ~ 65,000 people.

Consider a university of 15,000 students with faculty, staff, and related businesses, totaling ~60,000 people dependent on the university. Can a university campus be served by a MEU?

Markets may be defined in other ways, by municipalities, for instance. For example, the Sacramento Municipal Utility District, SMUD serves a population of 475,000. By the foregoing argument, Sacramento can have 8 MEUs. Could San Francisco have about 15, and could Portland support 10?

Can supermarkets and their population served be used as a proxy for microgrids? The U.S. has over 37,000 supermarkets of median size 46,000 sq. ft. each, that is, one for every 8,000 people. If that number is optimal for a MEU, the US can support close to 40,000 standalone MEUs.

India: The Blessings of a Creaky Infrastructure

India comprises 28 states and seven union territories, sub-divided into 640 districts; each district is centered at a city or town. Some districts are large and are divided into smaller geographies called tehsils or talukas. The districts and the talukas can be candidates for several MEUs. How many?

The average district has ~1.3 million rural people. If each micro-electric utility serves 5,000 people – greater population density, lower wages compared to the U.S., and therefore smaller population for viable economics – then each district can support ~260 MEUs, and rural India can support around 170,000.

The number of MEUs can be derived in other ways. According to the 2011 census of India, 69 percent of Indians, around 835 million people, live in the country’s 641,000 villages. The village size varies; 4,000 villages have a population of over 10,000, while 236,000 villages have a population of less than 500. Let us assume that these latter quarter million very small villages are served only with standalone solar power with panels on rooftops, and the homes are not wired into a distribution network of a MEU.

Let us focus on the relatively larger ~400,000 villages. If every two villages have at least one micro-electric utility, say, managed by an entrepreneur under the direction of the village panchayat, India will contain approximately 200,000 MEUs. But some villages may be large enough to support more than one utility. The point is: it is conceivable for India to have quarter million new MEUs.

Micro-electric Utilities as Economic Stimulus

While 300+ million Indians struggle without electricity, and the rest with shortages, MEUs represent a major entrepreneurial opportunity for Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs). MEUs can help eliminate electricity shortages and contribute to 100 percent electrification while stimulating the economy.

Can a community own its own electrical cabling, and bring in contract micro-grid electricity suppliers who offer the desired level of service? If a supplier fails to meet desired criteria, the community can switch to a new provider. Such community decisions are possible with MEUs.

Technological advancements and business logic lead us to electricity provision methods that are cheap, reliable, secure from cyber attacks, environmentally sound, and compatible with local management control.

MEUs are a compelling value proposition – substantially lower costs, unmatched features, novel services, plus other benefits of microgrids. Where reliable infrastructure exists, why fix something that’s not broken?

Currently, MEUs in the U.S. are for jails, military bases, and university campuses. But to go beyond niches, the place for MEU experimentation is rural India, where the need is basic, affordability is rising, infrastructure is inadequate, reliability is poor, expectations are high, and consumer appliance demand is soaring.

For standalone and grid-connected next generation electricity solutions, the microgrid economic modeling, optimization, prototype development, and the establishment of value propositions should occur in India. Its poor infrastructure offers greenfield deployment opportunities; the U.S. requires substitution, which is much harder.

View the original article here

Are Electric Vehicles Already Halfway to Market Dominance?

Electric vehicles have been all the rage in the last few years, but those who have studied EVs and their history know that this isn’t the first go-round at the rodeo for this “new” technology. In fact, EVs were the most popular type of vehicle at the dawn of the vehicle era. In 1899, more EVs were sold than gasoline-powered cars. Albeit, the numbers were small (about 1,500 EVs were sold in that year) but nonetheless EVs were the dominant technology for at least a decade. And then Mr. Ford came along with his Model T and ensured the ascendancy of petroleum-powered cars for the next century.

There were a number of fits and starts in the EV industry, every couple of decades, but at no point were EVs anywhere near as dominant as they were at the dawn of the transportation revolution. Most adults living now are aware of GM’s EV1 and the tawdry history of that vehicle in the 1990s. There was even a movie made about it: Who Killed the Electric Car?

It seems, however, that this latest phase in the development of EVs is likely to be more than a blip in automotive history. EVs have come on strong in the last three years, with dozens of EV designs either on the market today or soon to be. And sales are picking up quickly, albeit from a very modest starting point.

Norway is leading the world in terms of EV sales. In November, EV market share reached a staggering 12 percent. California has reached about 1.2 percent of all cars sold and comprises about one-third of U.S. EV sales.

In terms of the US as a whole, we are fast approaching 1 percent of all sales coming from EVs (pure battery electrics, BEVs, and plug-in hybrid electrics, PHEVs, but excluding hybrid car sales). EVs will comprise about 2/3 of a percent for all light duty car sales in the U.S. in 2013. We’ll easily pass 1 percent in 2014. One percent is still very small — way too small — but it turns out that reaching 1 percent is a really important milestone. In fact, the game may be won when 1 percent is reached.

Huh?

Ray Kurzweil, an American inventor and entrepreneur, discovered the Law of Accelerating Returns by studying numerous technology adoption curves. The classic example concerns computing power. Moore’s Law holds that computing power will double about every two years for the same cost. Sixty years after Gordon Moore, Intel’s former CEO, made this observation, the law holds true, though we’re actually doubling now about every year. Kurzweil discovered, however, that Moore’s Law is just the latest paradigm keeping a much longer trend going, as Figure 1 shows.

Figure 1. Kurzweil on the five paradigms of increasing computing power.

So how can 1 percent of all EV sales suggest in any way that we’re on the road to a world dominated by EVs? Here’s why: 1 percent is halfway between nothing and 100 percent — in terms of doublings. That is, there are seven doublings from the start of growth to 1 percent and seven doublings from 1 to 100 percent. One double is two, which doubled is four, etc.

Kurzweil’s best example of the counterintuitive nature of his law is the Human Genome Project. This was a government-funded effort to decode the entire human genome in about fifteen years. Well, halfway through the project the effort was only at about 1 percent completion. Many observers wrote off the effort as a failure that couldn’t possibly reach its goal. Kurzweil, however, wrote at the time that the game was won because 1 percent was halfway to 100 percent in the terms that actually mattered: the rate of improvement in sequencing technology.

And he was right. The Human Genome Project finished slightly early and helped to bring down the costs of genome sequencing technologies by orders of magnitude, as well as dramatic reductions in the time it takes for sequencing. We can now pay about $1,000 to sequence our own genome in a matter of days.

Applying the Law of Accelerating Returns to EVs

Back to EVs, it seems incredible but the following is a mathematically true statement: if customers continue to buy EVs at the same rate of growth as we’ve seen in the last two years all cars sold in 2020 will be EVs. This is because seven years is seven doublings and seven doublings from 1 percent gets us past 100 percent. Of course, the “if” in my statement is the key. No one should reasonably expect that we’ll see 100 percent rates of growth in EV sales every year through 2020 — we won’t. This rate will surely slow down substantially as various obstacles present themselves. But even if the rate of growth averages “only” 50 percent each year, we would reach 100 percent of all sales by 2026. This won’t happen either, but it is reasonable to expect that a very substantial percentage of all cars sold will be EVs by the mid-2020s. Figure 1 shows the result of various average growth rates over time. Even at 20 percent annual growth EVs comprise almost half of all cars sold by 2034.

Barriers to Adoption

The Law of Accelerating Returns isn’t really a law, of course. There’s nothing inevitable about technology development or adoption curves. If there was, the Betamax video player would be in every household today. While Kurzweil’s data shows that many technologies do follow the traditional S-shaped development curve and continuously improve, the fact remains that the vast majority of new technologies and new ideas don’t become ubiquitous.

So the hard question is: why do some technologies become ubiquitous and some not? And in the case of EVs, are we on the road to ubiquity or are there a number of roadblocks preventing a future in which every garage or street curb has an EV keeping it company?

There are a number of obvious obstacles right now that are keeping sales figures in the low single digits in the U.S., including, among others: 1) lack of widespread awareness about the availability and benefits of EVs; 2) high upfront cost of EVs, driven primarily by battery costs; 3) range anxiety due to insufficiently widespread public charging stations and similar concerns about the speed or cost of charging; 4) grid integration issues arising from so many EVs (though research has already found that the existing US grid could accommodate, primarily through night-time charging, a heckuva lot of EVs); 5) tough competition from other types of vehicles.

I’m going to focus in the rest of this essay on what is probably the most difficult obstacle to overcome, battery costs, because the solution is not simply a matter of throwing money at the problem.

Kurzweil’s Law is a technology improvement law, rather than a technology adoption law, so it’s not directly applicable to adoption rates for EVs. However, it’s indirectly applicable because the adoption rate of EVs is highly dependent on technology improvement; specifically, the rate of improvement of the most expensive (by far) component of EVs — the battery.

Battery costs are already falling rapidly with increased deployment of EVs and other uses for battery technologies. A recent report from McKinsey & Company projected “dramatically” falling prices for batteries by 2020 — to around $200 per kilowatt hour, and $160 by 2025, down from $500-600 at the time the report was written in 2012, and down from about $1,200 in 2009. A 2013 report from Navigant Consulting agrees in general with the McKinsey team, projecting $180 by 2020, down from $500 now.

Navigant also projects a more than ten-fold increase in EV battery production by 2020. If we see the same price drop in this area that we have seen with respect to solar panels — a 20 percent drop with every doubling of production — we can expect a bit more than three 20 percent price drops before 2020. This amounts to a net cost reduction of about 55 percent — less than the drops projected by Navigant and McKinsey, but definitely in the same ballpark. This quick calculation gives a little more confidence that these companies’ projections aren’t outlandish.

The battery price reductions bring the cost premium of an EV to only about $2,000 by 2020, when compared to a comparable conventional auto. This premium can quickly be made back with fuel savings, due to the cost of electricity being so much lower than the cost of gasoline, so the total cost of ownership of EVs will at that point be far less than for conventional vehicles.

In sum, while we may not be on the road to an inevitable “EV in every garage” future just yet, due to a number of persistent obstacles, it seems that we are indeed on the cusp of such inevitability. “Just” seven more doublings and all cars sold will be EVs.

View the original article here

Energy market uncertainty boiling up in Texas

To resolve the problem, the Commission of Texas (PUCT) public utility has a set of rules, the increase in the maximum amount, the market pricing pays scenarios for power during the shortages include the system-wide offer CAP (SWOC) adopt - called. On August 1, 2012 the SWOC for the second time this year charged and now sits at $4,500 per megawatt-hour (MWh). While some concerns this could be centered to market manipulation, the PUC appear aims to improve "price signals investment forward for new speaker generation". In fact, ERCOT published analysis on the impact of the rule changes on speaker net margins (PNMs) in 2011. As shown below PNMs would have improved 42% in the year 2011 in the new rule changes, which was currently in force ($ 4,500 / MWh SWOC).

Given the difficulties in forecasting of futures spot market prices and market behaviour, is wide disagreement on the rules proposed levels and implications. Commissioner Anderson shows map against increasing the SWOC fires again so soon after it a recent report by the Brattle Group was found during that ERCOT would still "several thousand megawatts [demand response] under a $9,000 cap price need."

Although constructing discussions of big market a challenge could changes could discourage investment due to uncertainty, overlooking ERCOT the construct of the market itself. The construct of "just energy" pays only resources for the energy and costs services that they provide, not installed capacity, makes it difficult for investors to calculate the bankability of such assets, rarely called according to Midwest ISO discussion paper on the adequacy of the resource for the Midwest ISO energy market.

Earlier comments filed, who with the PUCT the multi-state energy company Exelon suggested, "there is no perfect adjustment to the energy market [because it] is inherently short term and volatile and creation of investment is generally long-term and capital-intensive."

Former DOE Secretary Susan Tierney believes that markets the capacity make more sense. In a recent keynote address at the Gulf Coast power Association she noticed "a competitive market allows determining the capacity as efficiently as possible... and allows time for the winner of the auction capacity online to bring their resources." She went on to say: "A market capacity... can induce distributed generation."

But what markets such as ERCOT with "just energy"? Can they promote not distributed generation (DG)?

Only energy markets prefer clearly attributable to shareholders makes the spot prices explode. But the uncertainty of this occurrence favours a more risk-averse--and therefore more protracted--investment strategy that may include the development of small, scalable, load following solar generation. As evidenced by the lack of speaker dangerous fumes in ERCOT market uncertainty is antithesis to the long-term, capital intensive projects.

Especially should follow the unintended market the PUCT of new rules will not be ignored. To improve the intention may be speaker net margins, though, the rules could actually encourage more demand-side circumcision instead at the end. Which means that flexibility is key. Who can most effectively to predict or react fastest to the new rules are those ensure itself a beautiful Texas size payday.

This article appeared originally at the NREL renewable energy finance and was republished with permission.

View the original article here

Report: U.S. solar market spiked heel in the second quarter of 2012

The U.S. solar industry notched its second best quarter in history with 742 megawatt solar cells installed in the second quarter of 2012.
Credit card: Social security

The U.S. solare industry notched its second best quarter in history, installation of 742 MW of solar power in the second quarter of 2012, according to a report by the solar energy industries Association (SEIA). A record 477 MW of program installations helped to expand the US solar market by 45% compared with the first quarter of 2012 and 116% in the same period in the year 2011.

Eight States utility registered installations of 10 megawatts or more: Arizona, California, Illinois, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina and Texas. The US residential solar market of incremental, installation of 98.2 MW grew in the fourth consecutive quarter. California, Arizona and New Jersey led residential installations at national level.

The latest U.S. solar market insight report from the industry group and GTM research that has the United States now 5,700 MW of installed capacity solar - enough to more than 940,000 households makes. The report notes that the market is still influenced by the last two quarters of the year 2012 and forecasts total 3,200 MW be installed PV this year to 71% on 2011 buzz. See press release SEIA.

View the original article here

Energy market uncertainty boiling up in Texas

To resolve the problem, Commission of Texas (PUCT) has a set of rules, the increase in the maximum amount, the market of public utility pricing pays scenarios for power during shortages include the system-wide offer CAP (SWOC) adopted - called. On August 1, 2012 the SWOC for the second time this year raised and now sits at the $4,500 per megawatt-hour (MWh). While some concerns this could lead, centered to market manipulation, the PUC will appear goals to improve will "signals for new Peaker generation investment forward". In fact, ERCOT published analysis on the impact of rule changes on Peaker net margins (PNMs) in 2011. As shown below PNMs would have improved 42% in the year 2011 in the new rule changes, which was currently in force ($ 4,500 / MWh SWOC).

Given the difficulties in forecasting of future scenarios spot market prices and market behaviour, is great disagreement on both of the rules proposed level and implications. Commissioner Anderson shows map against increasing the SWOC fires again so soon after it a recent report by the Brattle Group was found while ERCOT would still "several thousand megawatts [demand response] under a $9,000 cap price need."

Although discussion of the large market construct a challenge for ERCOT the construct of the market itself could changes could discourage investment because of insecurity. The construct "just energy" pays only resources for the energy and related services that they deliver, not installed capacity, makes it difficult for investors to calculate the bankability of such assets, rarely shouting adequacy for the Midwest ISO energy market according to Midwest ISO discussion paper resource.

Previous comments stored with the PUCT of the proposed multi-state energy company Exelon, "there is no perfect adaptation to the only energy market [because it] is inherently short-term and volatile and preparation of the investment is generally long term and capital intensive."

Former DOE Secretary Susan Tierney believes that markets the capacity make more sense. In a recent keynote address on the Gulf Coast power Association she noticed "a competitive market enables the determination of the capacity as efficiently as possible... and is the winner of the auction for capacity, to bring their resources online." She went on to say: "A market capacity... can induce distributed generation."

But what markets such as ERCOT with "just energy"? Can they promote not distributed generation (DG)?

Only energy markets prefer clearly redistribution makes with the spot prices explode. But the uncertainty of this occurrence favours a more risk-averse - and therefore longer-lasting - investment strategy that may include the development of small, scalable, load following solar generation. As evidenced by the lack of Peaker dangerous fumes in ERCOT market uncertainty is antithesis to the long-term, capital intensive projects.

In particular should follow the unintended market the PUCT of new rules are not ignored. To improve the intention might be Peaker net margins, although the rules could encourage actually circumcision instead more demand at the end. Which means that flexibility is key. Who will be the most effective way to predict or react fastest to the new rules are those ensure themselves a beautiful Texas size payday.

This article was published originally at the NREL renewable energy finance and was republished with permission.

View the original article here

Foreign Dominance of U.S. Clean Energy Market Spells Trouble for America

New Hampshire, USA -- If you are a small player in the U.S. clean energy market, you are having a harder and harder time finding capital to continue to fund your business, despite that fact that your domestic market is seen as the one with the largest potential for growth. So what do you do? According to Third Way, a political think tank, you look to foreign investors.

"The auto industry went down this same path. Are we going to let history repeat itself?"
-- excerpt from a new report, Fire Sale: The End of American Ownership of Clean Energy

In its latest report, Fire Sale: The End of American Ownership of Clean Energy, the self-proclaimed "moderate" organization points out that American investment in clean energy is at an all time low, all the while foreign investment in the new energy economy is increasing. The government has curtailed its investment in the sector. In its report, Third Way points out, “by 2014, federal clean tech investment is expected to drop 75%, from $44.3 billion in 2009 to $11.0 billion.” The organization expects the government’s dwindling support to lead to decreased private sector support of renewable energy as well. And this lack of support is happening despite the fact that the clean energy industry has been one of the fastest growing industries in the U.S. for the past few years.

According to Third Way, Congress’ view that private sector funding will be enough to create a vibrant new industry “ignores history.” It writes, “when the opportunities and/or risks are perceived to be in the national inter­est, the federal government has supported numerous industries and individual companies for centuries. As far back as 1789, the government imposed tariffs on coal imported from Great Britain in order to give domestic producers a competi­tive advantage in a developing domestic market.”

The report then points to the billions of dollars that the U.S. government has offered to oil, gas and nuclear companies, vastly greater than the level of support offered to renewables.

Some staggering investment numbers are put forth in the report; foreign countries are increasing their levels of investment for renewables at huge rates:

The United Kingdom has established a ?15 billion Green Bank.The China Development Bank has made available $32 billion in low-interest credit facilities to Chinese solar and wind companies.Saudi Arabia wants to raise $109 billion for its solar industry.Indonesia out­paced the rest of the world with a massive 521 percent growth rate in 2011. India was the second fastest growing clean energy market in the world in 2011, rising 52 percent to $10.2 billion.
Further, foreign countries are investing here in the U.S. Of the 26 banks that were actively investing in clean energy in America in 2010, only six of them were U.S. based. However, what concerns Third Way the most is not that foreign countries are increasingly investing in clean energy, both in their own countries and in America; in fact, this is seen as a vote of confidence for the U.S. market, not to mention the whole industry. What is worrisome is that it appears as though the outsiders are seeing a gold mine in the U.S. clean energy economy while the American Congress sits idly by doing nothing, says Third Way.

“A Congress apparently blind to the emergence of a clean and renewable energy sector in the U.S. is about to turn over the keys to this critical industry to others. The auto industry went down this same path. Are we going to let history repeat itself?”

View the original article here

Second phase of fair market valuation completed

{"s": "wnd.v, wndef.pk", "k": "a00, a50, b00, b60, c10, g00, h00, l10, p20, t10, v00", "o": "","j": ""} Press release Source: Western wind energy on Friday May 27, 2010, 9:02 am EDT Toronto Stock Exchange (venture) symbol: "WND"
Issued and outstanding: 58,710,383

VANCOUVER, 27 May 2011/PRNewswire-FirstCall / - Western wind energy Corp. ("Western wind") is pleased to announce that the second phase of the process evaluation in accordance with the substantial issuer bid, which is complete. Western wind under recommendation of one of their creditors, employs worldwide renowned DAI management consultants, Inc. ("DAI") a three-part review of all the assets of the company, financial and physical implementation. The first phase of a comprehensive assessment of project of Windstar was 120 MW in Tehachapi, California as the expected trade date is. This assessment leads equity value for Western wind, $ 206.8 million net.

The second phase includes three projects: first, the existing 10.5-megawatt Kingman is built project, in which all turbines are now completely. The second project is the existing 30-megawatt producing Mesa and the third is the 30-megawatt Yabucoa solar project, which was granted a power purchase agreement.

The net equity position for Western wind on these three (3) projects is US$ 152.8 million.

The net equity is $ 359.6 million for Western wind on the first two (2) phases. There are 58,710,383 shares issued and outstanding.

The final report on the remaining assets will be available soon. The delay with regard to the second phase by the extra time was needed, all costs relating to the project of Yabucoa in Puerto Rico fully evaluate caused.

Jeff Ciachurski, CEO of Western wind energy is called "We are delighted, that engaged the services of the DAI." "DAI is a world class guest energy company by authorities, banks, utilities and independent power companies for their comprehensive understanding of the entire spectrum of the energy business is perfect."

The Western wind Board of Directors, management team and employees are prohibited participate and sell in each potential share of share buy-back program.

About DAI management consultants, Inc.

Founded in 1987, DAI is a consulting company, specialized assessment and risk management services in the areas of power and energy infrastructure. DAI includes a comprehensive suite of analytical services of addressing technical, legal, and economic issues that directly affect power and energy projects. Clients of DAI have the United States Internal Revenue Service, large public and private utilities, financial institutions and independent power producers contain.

About Western wind energy Corp.

Western wind is a mid-tier vertically integrated renewable energy production company, the net capacity currently has over 100% direct ownership, of 500 wind turbines and 165 MW production or in the construction, and a 311 MW priority further extension development assets in the California-Arizona and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. In addition, the company of a 1,300 MW California development has initiative.

Western wind is in the business the have and the acquisition of land sites, generation assets and technology for the production of electricity from wind and solar energy. Administration of the Western wind includes people involved in the operations and ownership of the utility-scale wind energy facilities in California since 1981.

FOR THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS

"Signs"

Jeffrey j. Ciachurski
Chief Executive Officer

Neither the TSX Venture Exchange nor its regulation service provider assumes (such as in the policies of the TSX Venture Exchange is defined) responsibility for the adequacy or accuracy of this release.

Certain statements in this press release constitute "forward-looking statements" under the securities laws, the known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors can distinguish the actual results from any future results, performance or achievements expressed or implied by such statements. Words such as "expects", "expected", "intend", "Projects", "Plans", "is", "believes", "seeks", "estimates", "should", "May", "could" and variations of such words and similar expressions are intended to identify such forward-looking statements. Such statements in this press release include, but are not limited to the company's use of the proceeds from the offer. These statements are based on current expectations of management and beliefs and actual events or results may differ significantly. There are many factors, which could cause that actual events or the express or implied by such forward-looking statements from future results expressed or implied by such statements differ. Factors include, but is not limited to, the company's ability to profitably use countries that are as planned and discussed other factors in the company's annual report and annual information in the company's 20F, the annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and securities regulators in Canada. Forward-looking statements are based on current expectations and the company assumes no obligation to update such information accordingly higher events or developments, where legally required.

"Western wind energy Corp. approved company 50 ® in 2010 as a TSX Venture." "TSX Venture 50 is a trademark of TSX Inc. and is used under license."

View the original article here