• On MovieTome: The 10 worst movies of 2009 so far!
June 7, 2009 9:00 PM PDT

Small wind turbine works at low wind speeds

by Martin LaMonica
  • Font size
  • Print
  • 52 comments

Homeowners this fall will be able to buy a wind turbine at hardware stores that tackles the small wind industry's bete noire: slow wind.

WindTronics, based in Muskegon, Mich., has developed a wind turbine sized for individual homes that it says can operate at speeds as low as 2 miles an hour.

It will be sold for $4,500 as the Honeywell Wind Turbine and distributed through Ace Hardware stores in the U.S. starting in October. WindTronics developed the turbine and licensed the technology to buildings systems giant Honeywell.

The fan-like turbine will generate 2,000 kilowatt-hours in a year for a home with a very good--called Class 4--wind resource, according to the company. That's between 15 and 20 percent of the annual electricity consumption for the average U.S. home.

Turning a turbine inside out: rather than having power generation occur at a gear box in the shaft, WindTronic's turbine has magnets at the edges of the fan to generate a current.

(Credit: WindTronics)

The turbine is rated at 2 kilowatts, but WindTronics executives say that most turbines' rated capacities--the amount of power they can produce at a given moment--are misleading.

"We say if a turbine only works between 8 and 25 miles per hour, you have a very limited range of operation," said Brian Levine, the vice president of business development at WindTronics, a division of EarthTronics. "Our device is rated to address a wider range at the low and high end."

The 95-pound turbine, which is 6 feet in diameter, can be mounted on rooftops, attached to chimneys, or put on a pole. The company hopes to sell the turbines through Ace Hardware stores or through contractors--who are needed for the installation--to homeowners or businesses.

Spinning magnets
With people seeking out alternative forms of power generation, there's been a surge in interest--and sales--in small wind turbines in the past year. But it's still not clear that these small wind turbines are cost-effective enough to be used beyond a niche of green-minded buyers.

Two studies--one in Massachusetts and one in the U.K.--discovered that many small wind turbines far underperformed manufacturers' specifications.

The tests found that people often chose locations that didn't have sufficient wind or obstructions that blocked wind. In most cases, turbine makers rate products assuming a very good wind resource--anywhere from 12 to 25 miles per hour.

By using a novel design, WindTronics' turbine can generate electricity between 2 miles per hour and 45 miles per hour, the company says.

Typically, turbines convert the mechanical energy of spinning blades to electricity with a gearbox and generator in the turbine's nacelle, the enclosure where the rotor's shaft is mounted.

WindTronic's turbine has small magnets at the tips of its fan blades. When they spin from the wind, equipment in the fan's housing captures the current produced.

The installation kit also comes with an inverter to convert the direct current to household alternating current and a "smart box," which regulates the flow of electricity and monitors wind speed. At 45 miles per hour, the unit turns itself sideways to avoid damage.

Levine, who said the turbine was originally developed for developing countries, said WindTronics expects it can produce 50,000 units in its first year. A number of utilities, including Duke Energy, are testing the turbine, he added.

He said that mounting the turbine on a house should not cause vibration because the unit is lighter than most turbines. The sound is rated at between 35 and 45 decibels, which is quieter than normal conversation, Levine said.

Right problem
There is a growing number of companies designing turbines to operate in less-than-ideal wind conditions. A wind map from the Department of Energy shows that most of the fair and good wind--class 3 and class 4--is in the plains states and on the coasts of the continental U.S.

One technique to squeeze more power from available wind is to concentrate the wind to increase the speed of the air going past rotor blades. OptiWind, FloDesign Wind Turbine, and Green Energy Tech are among the companies exploring that approach in small or mid-size turbines.

Other turbine manufacturers, like WindTronics, use permanent magnets in a direct drive design rather than gearboxes to generate electricity.

WindTronics has only built prototype systems, which it first showed at a hardware show last month. But if its turbines can operate in low wind with little vibration and sound, the company could make small wind turbines economically attractive to a much larger audience.

Martin LaMonica is a senior writer for CNET's Green Tech blog. He started at CNET News in 2002, covering IT and Web development. Before that, he was executive editor at IT publication InfoWorld. E-mail Martin.
Recent posts from Green Tech
Nissan says all-electric Leaf will compete on price
Wary green-tech venture investors shift gears
Start-up compresses air in tanks for energy storage
DOE technologist handicaps impact of carbon price
Start-ups partner on universal wireless charger
U.S. Army orders bridges made of recycled plastic
Powering cell phone towers with wind
Flywheels to buffer 20 megawatts on grid
Add a Comment (Log in or register) Showing 1 of 2 pages (52 Comments)
by derilium June 7, 2009 10:12 PM PDT
Sounds cool. I don't understand why magnets would be a better way to generate current though...
Reply to this comment
by valis June 7, 2009 10:55 PM PDT
magnets are THE way to generate current, read up before posting/ the difference here is that they have the magnets in the wings and not the shaft
by Seaspray0 June 8, 2009 9:24 AM PDT
In order to generate electricity, you need a rotating magnetic field. You can create that magnetic field through induction or permanent magnets. For wind generators, permanent magnets are more efficient and cost effective.
by Altotus June 7, 2009 10:27 PM PDT
Wonderful simplicity and light weight cheap construction Honeywell engineers know a winner when they see it.
Reply to this comment
by valis June 7, 2009 10:54 PM PDT
cheap??

this thing will never pay for itself, where do you get "cheap"?
by Perry_Clease June 8, 2009 7:32 AM PDT
"this thing will never pay for itself, where do you get "cheap"?"

It seems to be the case with many new products. I guess they want to recoup some R&D costs before a competitor gets in. Hopefully they will get the price down soon, but yeah at my age I would probably never see this thing pay for itself.
by WindEnergy7-com June 14, 2009 11:43 PM PDT
I particularly like the comment about "He said that mounting the turbine on a house should not cause vibration because the unit is lighter than most turbines." I design, develop, and manufacture home wind turbines for roof mount. Consider the weight vs the square feet and the amount of wind resistance. This thing will not hold up to high winds IMO.

Additionally, all the methods of roof mounted turbines prior to WindEnergy7 invention failed. Roof turbines can vibrate and make noise. The patent pending method and apparatus of WindEnergy7 has solved the way to do this right. Our turbines have a survival speed of over 130 mph. It will easily weigh 3 to 4 times this device and the weight is important. A real turbine that will last long enough to be worthwhile should have plenty of stainless steel, should be durable and heavy duty hardware ike the home wind turbines at WindEnergy7.com
by Altotus July 14, 2009 12:26 PM PDT
Cheap to manufacture not cheap to buy.
by valis June 7, 2009 10:51 PM PDT
hey, that;'s awesome. so... electricity costs me .09 cents per kwh.
this unit will, under best case scenario, produce 2000 kwh per year.
that means it will save me 2000*.09 in best case scenario per year.
which is 180.00 a year.
oookay... the unit costs 4500.00...
so... assuming it never breaks and never needs to be repaired or any maintenence done, and that rates stay where they are, this unit will pay for itself and therefore become worth the purchase in roughly 25 years.

... 25 years it'll be cost effective?

NEXT

these things need to be in the 500-1000 dollar range to even remotely be worth the purchase
Reply to this comment
by Bytrat June 8, 2009 2:34 AM PDT
Since when will electricity prices stay the same? I can foresee a future where our brown energy production plants will be charging the customers for every pound of greenhouse gas produced. No matter where the gasses ultimately end up, we will all be paying for thier production. Do you think the energy companies will eat the carbon "TAXES"? How much will be added to your bill, I don't know. But, investing in green energy production now will pay off in the future.
by dennisl59 June 8, 2009 4:59 AM PDT
I agree. It's all about ROI. Like Solar Cell Roof Panels, the product is TOO expensive. IMHO.
by demecles June 8, 2009 4:26 PM PDT
More than 25 years:
"The company hopes to sell the turbines through Ace Hardware stores or through contractors--who are needed for the installation--to homeowners or businesses."
Emphasis on contractors needed. Those guys aren't cheap. The installation and wiring might double the cost.
by callabreeze July 3, 2009 4:38 PM PDT
Check out this web site for affordable wind energy systems designed for residential use.

http://callabreeze.com/
by Altotus July 14, 2009 12:29 PM PDT
The return varies according to location and mounting but I think your about right on what the cost ought to be.
by kingsnoofer June 7, 2009 11:25 PM PDT
Instead of poking holes in the cost vs return argument, why not just acknowledge the purpose of the article? Yes it will take a long time to pay for itself. But in the mean-time wind and solar power innovations continue to lower the cost of the technology. Stop complaining about how much it is now and see the future when clean, renewable energy will be cheap and easy. This article is about a forward-thinking company finding a better, cheaper way to power our homes with a fully renewable resource. Bravo, WindTronics. Bravo.
Reply to this comment
by dennisl59 June 8, 2009 4:54 AM PDT
The Homeowners Associations across the country will DENY every single installation of these devices on the roofs of people who have homes in subdivisions. Wanna Bet?
Reply to this comment
by MD_Willington June 8, 2009 2:11 PM PDT
Don't need to bet, there have been several cases where people have installed or at least wanted to install a clothes line and the HOAs went nuclear; google "HOA denies clothesline"... However in Florida, the State has preemption over HOAs for things like clotheslines...
by mlamonica June 8, 2009 5:29 AM PDT
One thing to consider on cost is that there are state and federal incentives for renewable energy. Small wind turbine now get an uncapped 30 percent federal tax credit. State rebates/credits will vary, obviously.
Reply to this comment
by NocturnalCT June 8, 2009 6:51 AM PDT
Yes but for TRUE ROI you can not take these breaks into consideration. The problem is that when you spend $4500 (or whatever) on such a windmill this money goes into the pockets of the fine people that made it and their suppliers and the truck drivers and the store etc etc. Then then use that money to buy other things. Gas for their SUVs, flat screen TVs for at home, diamonds for the misses etc.

The only reason to buy a windmill like this is because you *like* to have one. It's not good for the environment. It's not green. Of course that doesn't mean you shouldn't buy one. Some people like to make a statement or simply think it looks cool. Others like the idea they have local power generation for when the power fails. To some that's worth the money and there's nothing wrong with that. It's not green though.

This windmill costs more energy to make then it will ever produce. Maybe if electricity prices double then it'll break even in less time but then we need to add interest rates for your investment and maintenance costs.

I'd love to see viable windmills but these aren't it.
by Sam Papelbon June 8, 2009 7:33 AM PDT
'cost-effectiveness' is really a concept that people need to stop obsessing over. who cares if it costs more money to put one up than you would save on your electricity bill? greedy people who are more interested in being rich than doing something good for the environment, that's who.
Reply to this comment
by MadLyb June 8, 2009 7:52 AM PDT
Ummmm...yeah.

So, spend way too much money on a product that probably doesn't offset the carbon cost of building, transporting, and marketing it.

Better idea, don't spend the money or spend it on some trees.

And let's be straight, the manufacturer is getting theirs from the sale of this product, so money *is* a factor.

You need to make a statement, fine, but don't even begin to pretend that buying the current crop of low scale wind solutions is actually helping the environment.
by tgrenier June 8, 2009 8:46 AM PDT
Who cares if cost more moeny than you're going to save!!?!?!?

I am not rich and care very much about the little money I do have. I CANNOT AFFORD TO BE GREEN until the price of the green option is at least closer to the brown option. Sorry I just don't have the cash to install an electricity maker at these prices.
by dennisl59 June 8, 2009 9:55 AM PDT
I pay about $120 a month on my electric bill. 4500/120=37.5 months,3.1 years. Reliable Delivery with Service Contract here in Round Rock Texas. So who has $4,500 just laying around to spend these days on a Gadget?
by demecles June 8, 2009 4:30 PM PDT
@Anon Article states 15 to 20 percent of average home electric bill could be replaced, so take $120 by .20 and recalculate.
by vitoav June 8, 2009 8:00 AM PDT
Don't forget federal tax credits (30%) + any other credit or grants you can get... Doesn't get you 100% there but makes a difference to the math on when the payoff is... Personally, I would like to see it generate more electricity for the effort of putting it in.
Reply to this comment
by ralfthedog June 8, 2009 9:07 AM PDT
1. Does the device generate a sin wave or square wave? I can see this messing with my UPSes.

2. Does it slice and dice birds? Yummy crunch birds are free food (I am such a dog.)

3. How does this device deal with ice? Ice storms knock out the power where I live every few years. sometimes for a week or two. If this device freezes up, it will be if little use for me (Other than when the power is knocked out by tornado or big thunderstorms. That happens several times a year but not as long.).

4. It would be nice if they also had a device that kicked in when the winds were above 45 MPH.
Reply to this comment
by Seaspray0 June 8, 2009 9:41 AM PDT
@ralfthedog. Most wind generators will generate 3 phase AC which gets converted to DC. The main reason for converting it to DC is because the frequency and amplitude of the output AC is not regulated (controlled by the wind speed). Once you have DC, you can store excess power in batteries (which won't do AC). An inverter converts the DC back to a regulated frequency and amplitude that is suitable for household devices. Overall power loss for all those conversions and battery storage is not as bad as it used to be (electronics are much bette these days) and can be up to 40% of the power generated by the windmill. Combining wind and solar power provides a more even distribution of power generation which reduces these losses. Bird kills have been overrated. Very few birds are killed by wind generators. You could increase the number of wind generators 100 fold and still have no significant number of bird kills. Ice can be an issue, just like it is for power lines. Most generators usually do not completely shut off at strong winds, most will turn the blades to provide less profile while still generating peak power. At extremely high winds (45mph), they usually turn to the point of stoppng the blades to prevent damage. Good luck with tornadoes. Putting a lightning arrestor on top helps prevent thunderstorm damage.
by Mergatroid Mania June 8, 2009 10:49 AM PDT
It's not going to generate either a square wave nor a sine wave. As the article states they include an inverter to convert the generated DC(most likely pulsating DC) to 120V AC for your house. After the conversion it will be a sin wave, otherwise there would be no point to converting it.

Check out how cheap it looks. If a bird was dumb enough to fly into this, the bird would likely slice and dice the fan blades.

I really doubt it would stand up to an ice storm, and I wouldn't be surprised to see it fall apart in a blizzard. If you look at the picture, the "fan blades" look like their made of cloth. There's no way in heck I would pay $4500 for a wind turbine with cloth fan blades. What are you going to do, take it down and replace the "blades" every few years? What are they going to charge for replacement blades, $100 each?
by xysticus June 16, 2009 5:24 PM PDT
"Bird kills have been overrated."

That is just a convenient assertion with no references to back it up. Here is just one recent article that actually measures bird kills:

K. Shawn Smallwood and Carl Thelander. 2008. Bird Mortality in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, California. Journal of Wildlife Management 72(1):215-223.

Of particular concern is the number of raptor deaths. Also, bats are subject to mortality from wind turbines. We shouldn't necessarily turn away from wind power as an option but I would hope that humans are wise and clever enough to design turbines that don't inadvertently become 'bird blenders'.
by Joe Real June 8, 2009 11:49 AM PDT
That is a very astounding out of the ordinary box thinking of where to put the magnets. It's really cool idea. Now it has been tremendously simplified, I can see that it has far fewer parts and more complex than a washing machine. So the material costs and assembly should be less than $150. If they can sell this thing for just the price of ordinary washing machines, like about $400, they would make a killing in terms of profit, and possibly mass adoption. But no, they want to be as greedy as anyone else, so this idea is doomed to failure. They are always thinking, hey, there's that government incentive, let's use that to mark up our already very profitable product!

Even for $1,000 , I'm not buying this product. For $4,500, this product will now just be a footnote in my archives of cool ideas that will fail.
Reply to this comment
by demecles June 8, 2009 4:32 PM PDT
Magnet placement is identical to that of the alternator in your car.
by scottthesculptor June 8, 2009 12:22 PM PDT
It's a bicycle wheel with slats added as blades!
looks like a DIY project - add some rare earth magnets and a ring of coils to a bicycle wheel.
+ a simple rectifier circuit.
maybe $200 in materials - retail.
Reply to this comment
by Altotus July 14, 2009 12:32 PM PDT
Thats exactly what I do like about it.
by krizhek June 8, 2009 12:32 PM PDT
Great, get one of these and always hear a quite whisper around your house. Bad for most time but great for holloween

/s
Reply to this comment
by ArtInvent June 8, 2009 12:39 PM PDT
Wake me up when this thing costs $1000. Small scale wind just isn't close to making any sense unless you live in wind-tunnel conditions in a pass or out in the desert somewhere. Maybe on a yacht. Definitely wake me up if I'm living on a yacht.

The thing may 'generate electricity' and 2mph but there's no physical way it generates MUCH electricity at such low speeds, so that's a red herring.

The reality is that small turbines need to be extremely inexpensive if they are ever going to actually make any sense at all. But it's pretty weird: these things are just fan blades and a very small generator. Why on earth would they cost $4500?
Reply to this comment
by carlhage June 8, 2009 1:15 PM PDT
While generating at 2mph might seem like a nice feature, remember that the power is proportional to the cube of wind speed, so the difference between 2mph and 16mph is 8*8*8=512 times the power. Then at 32mph, it is 4096 times the power. So slightly less windy areas (like close to the ground and near obstructions) make a huge difference in power output. Likewise, turbine power is proportional to the square of the rotor diameter, so a 10x larger diameter is 100 times more power, not including the increase due to higher wind speed at higher altitude. Thus except for isolated areas, I?m skeptical about the practicality of small wind power. It just seems hard to compete with large-scale wind power. Better to have one large turbine than hundreds of small ones. I was recently mountain biking near Freiburg, Germany at the base of a wind generator near the top of a ridge-- it supplied the (average/total) power needs for about 1000 homes. That isn't even a particularly windy area.
Reply to this comment
by utwitface June 8, 2009 1:42 PM PDT
Let's stop the undeducated comments and the "i could do it better" detractions. If it's all about cost, then the $1200 computer or big screen TV (wasting electricity 24/7) or $40,000 SUV you own...will never have an ROI. The goal for everyone should be to reduce their energy consumption....then find ways to generate alternative energy so we can stop pulling fossil fuels out of the ground. That 10 cents/kWh of electricity you pay now is already subsidized and will show it's true costs very soon, along with skyrocketing costs of natural gas, coal and petroleum production.
Reply to this comment
by demecles June 8, 2009 4:39 PM PDT
My plasma tv is rated for something like 75,000. That's a lot of entertainment. While it's hard to put a price on my well being, I think my ROI has been well covered.
As for your SUV, it transports you and your stuff from place to place. Your ROI is going to be based on how well it meets your needs (whether you actually need that size capability)
ROI is a critical metric when buying an item that produces power. If it will never pay for itself you might as well have bought a $4,500 weather vane.
by MD_Willington June 8, 2009 2:16 PM PDT
Looks like they took this one step further:

http://www.instructables.com/id/Ted-Baer_s-Bicycle-Wheel-Windmill/

Added some of the ideas behind this:

http://www.instructables.com/id/DIY-1000-watt-wind-turbine/

And now, you get the best of both for 4.5K...

Hmm, Honeywell must pay people to look at instructables...
Reply to this comment
by florenceit June 8, 2009 2:31 PM PDT
It needs to be more affordably priced. If I got this for my low wind site and only got what it makes from 10 mph winds then it would certainly never pay for itself before needing repair. VERY unlikely.

understand I am not a make it pay for itseff proponent and agree 100% with the previous poster, we need to do something different for energy even if it costs more.

nonetheless here in the northeast , $4500 worth of solar will go alot farther towards energy production than this unit would here (we have 1.9kh on our roof covering almost 100% of yearly usage.
Reply to this comment
by resonator80 June 8, 2009 6:43 PM PDT
This is a very impractical idea, as has amply been pointed out in a number of comments, the most important reason being that this system is extremely cost-ineffective.

Here is an additional point that the writer (and advertiser for the system) have not bothered to tell us. Wind Class 4 has an average wind speed of 12.2 mph at a **height of 10 m** (see http://www.bergey.com/Maps/Wind_Classes.htm ). So either you are going to have this thing on a tower or on your roof (with substantial wires connected to your house electrical supply).

The average residential neighborhood may have a lot of trees, and/or closely spaced houses, so that will cut down on wind speed. You can't have it closer to the ground than 10 m or or you are going to have less wind and generate a lot less electricity than advertised. And this is assuming that you even live in an area with wind class 4.

So it is going to cost a lot more than $4500 to install, and nobody has said anything about O&M.

I guess I am not surprised that the advertising material for this device (http://www.earthtronics.com/honeywell.aspx ) leaves out all these considerations, but it is very disappointing that the journalist author of this article, Mr. LaMonica, has bought into this story hook, line and sinker without a hint of skepticism about costs or other potential problems.

Unfortunately, this is the nature of a lot of writing about "green" technology. Such prevarication will end up producing a negative bias and reaction against efficient alternative energy.
Reply to this comment
by mlamonica June 9, 2009 7:47 AM PDT
Actually, I took pains to point out that low wind speed is a serious barrier to small wind turbines. What's notable about this turbine is that the manufacturer says it works at low wind speeds. That's not to say it make sense for everybody--nobody has the same idea of "cost effective."

Here are few more links (in the article, too) on the challenge of finding good windy sites for small turbines.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-10196182-54.html?tag=mncol;txt
http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-10157474-54.html?tag=mncol;txt
by resonator80 June 9, 2009 8:11 PM PDT
Dear Mr. Lamonica,

It is commendable that the Windtronics turbine works at low wind speeds. Your section regarding finding good windy sites implies that this turbine solves the problem of low wind speeds because it operates starting at 2 mph. Unfortunately, this is not true.

Since power is such a strong function of wind speed, operating at low speeds is not much help. If you look at the table on page 3 of the pdf article "Energy Generation Data" from their website, cutting off power at 12.2 mph (the average speed in class 4) and below only removes 100 kWh from the total of 2042 kWh for that calculation.

So not starting to generate electricity at 7.5 mph (big turbines) is not a big deal after all. A small decrease in average wind speed is much more important.

What you did not deal with, or even discuss, is the abysmal cost-effectiveness of this device. That is not honest reporting. I asked Windtronics about installation and it costs $500 to $1000 in addition to the $4500. (They also claim that there will be no maintenance costs(!))

The big turbine makers say that their installed capital cost is about $1,000/kW. Since their efficiency is generally about 25%, let's make that $4,000/kW.

This device supposedly produces 2000 kWh per year, which is an average of 228 W. So its cost is
$5,000/0.228 kW = $22,000/kW, i.e. 5 times as expensive as a big turbine.

You say "nobody has the same idea of 'cost effective'."

Here is what Earthtronics says:

"MONEY MATTERS. Most of the time, our first thought is "what will it cost," or "how much will I save?" When we create products that save our customers energy, we also save them money."

Not this time. But you didn't notice.

I was puzzled by the fact that this was a "Honeywell" wind turbine. Was it designed, developed, or tested by Honeywell, I asked Earthtronics? No, they said, Earthtronics simply paid Honeywell to use the Honeywell name.

Is that honest? I don't think so. Nor is your article, which does not serve well the cause of efficient, cost-effective alternative energy.
by resonator80 June 9, 2009 9:03 PM PDT
Correction: I misread the columns in the pdf.

If you cut off power generation at 7.77 mph or below, the total energy loss is 100 kWh out of 2000 kWh annually.

So not generating power below 7.5 mph is still not a significant loss.
by gormanwvzb June 18, 2009 7:35 PM PDT
This is great news. I read a very interesting article about the turbines, with an economic analysis of one user in a low-wind area (http://economicefficiency.blogspot.com/2009/06/is-wind-worth-it.html)

One of the key things that will make this thing fly is how big the subsidy is to buy and install it.

Good to hear its getting cheaper, may need to look into it.
Reply to this comment
by SolarBozo June 23, 2009 3:29 PM PDT
Basically, junk. Look at the cheezy support structure, just for example.

Also, the amount of energy goes up with the cube of wind velocity. At V cubed, 2 mph gives energy of 2 x 2 x 2. At 10 mph, 10 x 10 x 10,

So, if talking about watts, that is 8 vs. 1,000.

Hold on to your wallets, these guys are trying to reach into your pockets to take your money.
Reply to this comment
Showing 1 of 2 pages (52 Comments)
advertisement

A CNET Conversation with Eric Schmidt

CNET's Tom Krazit and Molly Wood sit down with Google CEO Eric Schmidt to discuss the future of Android, the Chrome OS, the problem of real-time search indexing, and more.

Verizon tests sending RIAA copyright notices

The No. 2 phone company, known for its reluctance to intervene in antipiracy cases, strikes an agreement to forward copyright notices on behalf of the music industry.

About Green Tech

Innovation in energy and environmental technologies is long overdue, in business and at home. Green-tech guru Martin LaMonica and other CNET writers serve up fresh clean-tech news and commentary.

Add this feed to your online news reader

Green Tech topics

advertisement
advertisement
Click Here

Inside CNET News

Scroll Left Scroll Right