Small wind turbines are suddenly everywhere. Since I know too much, they are only green ornamentation, spinning more for show that energy. I'm reminded of the SNL set from the 90's with the large industrial fans spinning in the background. The math doesn't justify their installation today and it may never be a good investment.
-there is too much turbulence around buildings
-there power is equal to the square of the area of the turbine, so larger is way better
-then there is the problem of vibration, ice, strobing, noise and more...
the NYtimes covers all the bases and has a great quote from Jay Leno:
“People seem fascinated by the turbines,” Mr. Leno said. “You go, ‘Look! It’s spinning!’ ”
they may look good, but they just don't perform. electricity from rooftop turbines may cost $1.50 a kilowatt hour or more - compared to large wind electricity that can be less then $.10/kwh
unlike the metallic blue sheen of silicone pv panels, are pinwheels the new icon of green building?
“You can say, ‘That’s not a lot,’ or ‘Every bit helps,’ ” Mr. Leno said.
You might be able to correct me, treekiller, but isn't wind power (currently) the least efficient source of renewable energy? Even forgetting about $$$ for a moment.
I think there are some other exciting prospects on the horizon that hold a lot more potential, but aren't nearly as attention-whoring as having a turbine propped on your building.
Turbines are a good way for Architects to position their buidings as Green even if the Turbines are at most 1% of the puzzle. We are not simply selling Green as a utilitarian function, but as a look or "brand" if you will. Notwishstanding that small steps can lead to bigger things. If someone is willing to pay for it, and the turbine is integrated(not an afterthought) then I see it as something worthy
I still think conservation is the way to go, you can save energy and consequently, cash, by simply introducing energy reuse and conservation techniques into a building. ie. better insulation, reheaters, gray water systems etc.
Unfortunately the turbines are what ppl see and that's what the baboons in marketing think is important, perception.
overall economics on renewables vary depending on gov't subsides. for us in the architecture biz- most energy generation tech costs more $$ then clients want to spend. Even the old standby diesel gen set costs $10s for any significant output. compared to gas turbines or fuel cells, diesel is cheap, but low efficiency and has nasty emissions. Biogas/biomass fuels require more complicated plants and emission controls - but low cost fuel offsets this. Fuel cells and nasa quality PVs are the most expensive tech per sf to install. Cogen ups the efficiency of internal combustion/fuel cells to being the most competitive tech when costs justify a solid amount of power & heat.
wind turbines are cheap and oldschool tech that is becoming refined, but don't produce much zap at a small scale.
Solar thermal is the most efficient/$$$ of all renewable energy systems. so the first thing to add to ANY building are solar hot water panels/storage tanks.
if you had $10k to spend on generation, diesel is still the cheapest till you look at the fuel costs. wind/PVs shine with the free fuel. PVs have the lowest maintenance costs, just an occasional washdown. As to output, it depends on your location.
if you care about emissions, wind/PVs are the cleanest, then fuel cells, then gas turbines, and in the far far distance are the other fossil fuels, with coal/nuclear being the far worst by several orders of magnitude.
I'm in agreement. Projects in London are required to generate 10% of building power needs (i.e. not plug load), on-site, renewably. No building has managed this yet, yet the planning authorities want lip service paid to the 10% rule. Thus, we plan to spend £500,000 installing a wind turbine that will, at best projections, recoup £250/annum. This meagre gain will be wiped out by maintenance costs.
The Bahrain World Trade Centre (Atkins)
is alleged to be powering the turbines to make them spin.
treekiller, nice graphic it was very informative, I have to disagree with you about emissions from nuclear, the process itself is emission free, the only emissions come from mining the fuel and transporting it to plants as well as any spent fuel that comes out of the plants.
By comparison with nat gas and coal at the same power output level, nuclear emissions are significantly lower.
I was using emissions as shorthand for the broad lifecycle impact. yes, the actual generation of energy via nuclear reactors has minimal releases of toxic/damaging emissions. I think you can agree that used nuclear fuels are extremely toxic and dangerous. if they are not 'encapsulated' they become mobile, ie an emission. plus the uranium mining process, is a destructive process like most hardrock mining, that produces many emissions and intentional/unintentional releases and has poisoned many regions (including the colorado river watershed).
the materials used in fuel cells and solar panels are more benign - though not impact free. it has recently become known that nitrogen trifloride, used in the fabrication of semiconductors, is one of the most potent GHGs out there and not regulated by kyoto.
But we are not about to have BUILDING INTEGRATED NUCLEAR FISSION REACTORS as was fantasized about in the 50s. since cold fusion was a hoax, i doubt that we will have building integrated fusion either. Building destructive fusion/fission is available if you are a nuclear state, but not to average citizens.
im glad you mentioned the solar thermal systems. They are installing them on our projects this week and I have been talking to the installer, who is a 'green' builder. He says that PVs are basically crap and that you will never make you $$$ back off of them...you should just buy green energy from the power company if it is available or do a carbon offset.
The other thing that he said is that the bigger problem is properly constructing and insulating your projects. He builds all of his walls out of 2x8's with a 1/2" layer of rigid foam between the studs and the 1/2" plywood sheathing to prevent any thermal bridinging. he then insualtes the walls in R27 and the roof in R50. This, in conjuction with well made windows, basically requires very little energy to keep the house warm/cool.
so...it seems that every roof in the aeroturbine video (the things on that Murphy Jahn project) are typical membrane roofs...had green roofs been put on those projects instead of the turbines (probably the same amount of $$$), Im sure that the insulative / solar gain would have saved more $$$ that any electricity that the turbines could generate
the key to turbines is the radius or length of the blade. Hence, small turbines are therefore not that productive and real wind power generation requires large structures. The bahrain bldg by Atkins "supposedly" produces a fair amount of energy, I think I heard somewhere in the 10-15 percent range, when the wind conditions are ideal, however the size of those turbines are huge for a building, and to be honest they look ridiculous.
the thing about being 'green' these days is that everyone wants everyone else to see that they are 'green'...hence the wind turbines on the roofs, PVs on fascades, etc.
People wont spend the $$$ where it doesnt show, even if it is 'more green'
I think that the key is building buildings that REQUIRE LESS energy and then purchase 'clean' energy from the power companies. I am sure that hydroelectric has its problems, but so does the manufacturing of small wind turbines for indvidual buildings. There is an economy of scale (both financially and enviromentally) that these small energy production devices dont really address
treekiller,
buildings with integrated nuclear power may not be such an impossibility. We have nuclear powered subs and they're roughly the size of a large building. If there is a need someone will invent it, the entire nuclear process is very simple and can be compact, it may be possible to integrate a mini nuclear power plant into a building and have it operating for 50 years without the need to change anything.
but do we have enough fissionables for distributed reactors?
I mad an error in my initial posts of focusing on the ROI and money. the big negative about small wind is the LCA where they just don't generate enough zap to justify the embedded energy.
Oh, bird killing wind turbines is a fallacy. exponentially more birds die from crashing into windows, being fried by powerlines, or from anthropogenic toxins then will ever be hit by a turbine - even poorly located windmills in major migration routes. i'll see if I can find the study/link.
500 million to possibly over 1 billion birds are killed annually in the United States due to anthropogenic sources including collisions with human-made structures such as vehicles, buildings and windows, power lines, communication towers, and wind turbines; electrocutions; oil spills and other contaminants; pesticides; cat predation; and commercial fishing by-catch....
38 dead birds found while monitoring nocturnal migrants at a small sample of turbines. McCrary et al. (1983, 1984) estimated that 69 million birds pass through the Coachella Valley annually during migration; 32 million in the spring and 37 million in the fall. The 38 avian fatalities were comprised of 25 species, including 15 passerines, seven waterfowl, two shorebirds, and one raptor. Considering the high number of passerines migrating through the area relative to the number of passerine fatalities, the authors concluded that this level of mortality was biologically insignificant
(McCrary et al. 1986)
(and this is one of the oldest wind farms that utilizes turbines close to the ground and other obsolete design features)
to sum it up:
Buildings 550 million 58.2 percent
Power lines 130 million 13.7 percent
Cats 100 million 10.6 percent
Automobiles 80 million 8.5 percent
Pesticides 67 million 7.1 percent
Communications towers 6 4.5 million 0.5 percent Wind turbines 28.5 thousand <0.01 percent
Airplanes 25 thousand <0.01 percent
Other sources (oil spills, oil seeps, fishing by-catch, etc.) not calculated
Zig, what would be the advantage? The difficulty with nuclear power is with safe operation and waste disposal... why multiply that across thousands of buildings when you could concentrate large ones in locations with minimum impact, and feed buildings from the grid?
distributed power = more efficiency with the utilization of 'waste heat' and no transmission loss/embedded energy of the transmission infrastructure.
If we get rid of the electric grid, we can save 100 million+ birds/year! (ok, they don't distinguish between high-tension and local distribution lines)
Conclusion:
At present, it does not seem technically feasible or economically worthwhile to mount wind turbine on large commercial buildings as a means of providing significant renewable energy..
tree I'm not suggesting wind turbines on buildings are an imminent threat to bird populations (cuz then it wouldn't matter where the were)... or even that it's not a good idea, but currently the maintainence costs of wind turbines that high up in urban areas is prohibitive in areas with freezing weather (the turbine engines ice over) and they need to be used thoughtfully or could wind up as developer 'greenwash'. I have a close friend who works in the windfarm industry, and you can't fund ones on buildings in the market right now. Of course it should be pursued... but it's not as ready to go as it might seem... I guess I came across as more of a debbi downer than intended :/
thnx for the links too
the bird thing is just kinda funny - and what are you trying to say about my lady?
Write as specialist for noise reduction.
Idea is good, but realization cases not quiet. Will be better use many very small (no more 30-40sm (about 1ft) diameter of convectional rotors. In this case, will generate mor hi freq noise, which have frenel diffraction on architecture elements and, that important, more useable for noise reduction then low speed, big rotor.
At picture iat up of this page we can see attempt of solution the acoustic problem like this way.
In more cases vertical low speed rotor is more acceptable. Therefore they better work when wind have not allowed work conventional rotor systems. They very interested for buildings with attitude level more 25m. At these attitudes winds is more speedy then at 10m of level.
In Russia, beacause our companies will go to Nord, very actual use energy solution like this.
These solution have one, but grave disadvantage: the wind work cangeable, "tha energy banks" so
As alternative this emergy solution is capasity exceeds of energy by thermochemical atrificial photosyntesis. Up to 60% of efficiensy of process. If we use Stirling technologies we will approx 15-20% throuput efficiency coefficient. From solar energy to electrisity power by demand.
What I don't understand about ZGF's project is that they turbines seem to be last minute additions to the project with no attempt to address aerodynamics of the building. The prismatic shape of the building will create lots of turbulence, from the abrupt edges of the parapet, the sharp corners, and the balconies. there are some simple adjustments that could have been made to smooth the airflow and increase the turbine performance if they just thought about it at the beginning of the design process.
That's my thoughts on the 4 skystream turbines spec'd by ZGF- a $40k art installation - you'd get more energy (and peak energy at that) if they had installed photovoltaics!
they certainly are pretty - I really, really, want to like the idea of sticking turbines on buildings.
We built this website out of shared passions for the environment, science and wind turbine technology. Our goal is to deliver information for all interested parties in the growing field of renewable wind energy. By providing an ever growing directory of manufacturers, installers and technicians we seek to help bring the future of a cleaner energy source to more communities world-wide.
Apr 26, 10 10:11 am ·
·
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.
building integrated wind turbines
Small wind turbines are suddenly everywhere. Since I know too much, they are only green ornamentation, spinning more for show that energy. I'm reminded of the SNL set from the 90's with the large industrial fans spinning in the background. The math doesn't justify their installation today and it may never be a good investment.
-there is too much turbulence around buildings
-there power is equal to the square of the area of the turbine, so larger is way better
-then there is the problem of vibration, ice, strobing, noise and more...
the NYtimes covers all the bases and has a great quote from Jay Leno:
“People seem fascinated by the turbines,” Mr. Leno said. “You go, ‘Look! It’s spinning!’ ”
they may look good, but they just don't perform. electricity from rooftop turbines may cost $1.50 a kilowatt hour or more - compared to large wind electricity that can be less then $.10/kwh
unlike the metallic blue sheen of silicone pv panels, are pinwheels the new icon of green building?
“You can say, ‘That’s not a lot,’ or ‘Every bit helps,’ ” Mr. Leno said.
so what is it?
drill baby drill!
SOM's Pearl River tower features ducted turbines:
the idea is:
but this only works where there is a single wind direction and clear air to both the windward and leeward sides.
and don't even get me started by david fisher's farce.
I think SOM's ducted turbines has alot of promise. You can greatly increase the efficiency of a turbine by controlling the airflow around it.
I also think putting little windmills on your building as an afterthought to make it "green" is a load of horse shit.
covers BiWTs and the helical design to some extent including discussion about noise.
a good article about urban wind the engineer/the engineer2and the design of quiet revolution turbine
but are we integrating wind into buildings or just sticking turbines onto as an afterthought?
You might be able to correct me, treekiller, but isn't wind power (currently) the least efficient source of renewable energy? Even forgetting about $$$ for a moment.
I think there are some other exciting prospects on the horizon that hold a lot more potential, but aren't nearly as attention-whoring as having a turbine propped on your building.
Turbines are a good way for Architects to position their buidings as Green even if the Turbines are at most 1% of the puzzle. We are not simply selling Green as a utilitarian function, but as a look or "brand" if you will. Notwishstanding that small steps can lead to bigger things. If someone is willing to pay for it, and the turbine is integrated(not an afterthought) then I see it as something worthy
I still think conservation is the way to go, you can save energy and consequently, cash, by simply introducing energy reuse and conservation techniques into a building. ie. better insulation, reheaters, gray water systems etc.
Unfortunately the turbines are what ppl see and that's what the baboons in marketing think is important, perception.
overall economics on renewables vary depending on gov't subsides. for us in the architecture biz- most energy generation tech costs more $$ then clients want to spend. Even the old standby diesel gen set costs $10s for any significant output. compared to gas turbines or fuel cells, diesel is cheap, but low efficiency and has nasty emissions. Biogas/biomass fuels require more complicated plants and emission controls - but low cost fuel offsets this. Fuel cells and nasa quality PVs are the most expensive tech per sf to install. Cogen ups the efficiency of internal combustion/fuel cells to being the most competitive tech when costs justify a solid amount of power & heat.
wind turbines are cheap and oldschool tech that is becoming refined, but don't produce much zap at a small scale.
Solar thermal is the most efficient/$$$ of all renewable energy systems. so the first thing to add to ANY building are solar hot water panels/storage tanks.
if you had $10k to spend on generation, diesel is still the cheapest till you look at the fuel costs. wind/PVs shine with the free fuel. PVs have the lowest maintenance costs, just an occasional washdown. As to output, it depends on your location.
if you care about emissions, wind/PVs are the cleanest, then fuel cells, then gas turbines, and in the far far distance are the other fossil fuels, with coal/nuclear being the far worst by several orders of magnitude.
as a sucker for cool diagrams - energy sources in 2050
I'm in agreement. Projects in London are required to generate 10% of building power needs (i.e. not plug load), on-site, renewably. No building has managed this yet, yet the planning authorities want lip service paid to the 10% rule. Thus, we plan to spend £500,000 installing a wind turbine that will, at best projections, recoup £250/annum. This meagre gain will be wiped out by maintenance costs.
The Bahrain World Trade Centre (Atkins)
is alleged to be powering the turbines to make them spin.
treekiller, nice graphic it was very informative, I have to disagree with you about emissions from nuclear, the process itself is emission free, the only emissions come from mining the fuel and transporting it to plants as well as any spent fuel that comes out of the plants.
By comparison with nat gas and coal at the same power output level, nuclear emissions are significantly lower.
zig-
I was using emissions as shorthand for the broad lifecycle impact. yes, the actual generation of energy via nuclear reactors has minimal releases of toxic/damaging emissions. I think you can agree that used nuclear fuels are extremely toxic and dangerous. if they are not 'encapsulated' they become mobile, ie an emission. plus the uranium mining process, is a destructive process like most hardrock mining, that produces many emissions and intentional/unintentional releases and has poisoned many regions (including the colorado river watershed).
the materials used in fuel cells and solar panels are more benign - though not impact free. it has recently become known that nitrogen trifloride, used in the fabrication of semiconductors, is one of the most potent GHGs out there and not regulated by kyoto.
But we are not about to have BUILDING INTEGRATED NUCLEAR FISSION REACTORS as was fantasized about in the 50s. since cold fusion was a hoax, i doubt that we will have building integrated fusion either. Building destructive fusion/fission is available if you are a nuclear state, but not to average citizens.
TK
im glad you mentioned the solar thermal systems. They are installing them on our projects this week and I have been talking to the installer, who is a 'green' builder. He says that PVs are basically crap and that you will never make you $$$ back off of them...you should just buy green energy from the power company if it is available or do a carbon offset.
The other thing that he said is that the bigger problem is properly constructing and insulating your projects. He builds all of his walls out of 2x8's with a 1/2" layer of rigid foam between the studs and the 1/2" plywood sheathing to prevent any thermal bridinging. he then insualtes the walls in R27 and the roof in R50. This, in conjuction with well made windows, basically requires very little energy to keep the house warm/cool.
first it was cars...then web graphics*...and sometimes even both:
...but now buildings too?
can we please start living in a post pimp era?
--------------------------
*or maybe the web graphics preceded the car rims, anybody know the answer to this? i don't.
so...it seems that every roof in the aeroturbine video (the things on that Murphy Jahn project) are typical membrane roofs...had green roofs been put on those projects instead of the turbines (probably the same amount of $$$), Im sure that the insulative / solar gain would have saved more $$$ that any electricity that the turbines could generate
Spin, baby, Spin!
Integrated Wind Turbines = best excuse for compound curves ever.
i want those wheels on my civic.
just to interject...
where does this notion of saving money equate to less pollution?
it'd be ideal if they could do both, superinsulate and provide the capacity to incorporate energy producing implements.
also, even if you go w/ seattle city light's green power, isn't most of it from hydroelectric? hardly a "green" resource.
superinsulation works really well, and is a requisite for minergie/passivhaus
the key to turbines is the radius or length of the blade. Hence, small turbines are therefore not that productive and real wind power generation requires large structures. The bahrain bldg by Atkins "supposedly" produces a fair amount of energy, I think I heard somewhere in the 10-15 percent range, when the wind conditions are ideal, however the size of those turbines are huge for a building, and to be honest they look ridiculous.
the thing about being 'green' these days is that everyone wants everyone else to see that they are 'green'...hence the wind turbines on the roofs, PVs on fascades, etc.
People wont spend the $$$ where it doesnt show, even if it is 'more green'
I think that the key is building buildings that REQUIRE LESS energy and then purchase 'clean' energy from the power companies. I am sure that hydroelectric has its problems, but so does the manufacturing of small wind turbines for indvidual buildings. There is an economy of scale (both financially and enviromentally) that these small energy production devices dont really address
The whole environmental movement is a con.
Zoolander, that spinning isn't wind turbines ... it's the black helicopters! They're coming for you!
this reminds me of the 'millionaires burned in glass houses' thread from earlier.
also: wind turbines send ice schrapnel and dead birds hurling at passers-by.
its ironic that sky scrapers fight against wind loads but can't integrate them productively.
that's not to say ppl should stop trying.
treekiller,
buildings with integrated nuclear power may not be such an impossibility. We have nuclear powered subs and they're roughly the size of a large building. If there is a need someone will invent it, the entire nuclear process is very simple and can be compact, it may be possible to integrate a mini nuclear power plant into a building and have it operating for 50 years without the need to change anything.
but do we have enough fissionables for distributed reactors?
500 million to possibly over 1 billion birds are killed annually in the United States due to anthropogenic sources including collisions with human-made structures such as vehicles, buildings and windows, power lines, communication towers, and wind turbines; electrocutions; oil spills and other contaminants; pesticides; cat predation; and commercial fishing by-catch....I mad an error in my initial posts of focusing on the ROI and money. the big negative about small wind is the LCA where they just don't generate enough zap to justify the embedded energy.
Oh, bird killing wind turbines is a fallacy. exponentially more birds die from crashing into windows, being fried by powerlines, or from anthropogenic toxins then will ever be hit by a turbine - even poorly located windmills in major migration routes. i'll see if I can find the study/link.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-191. 2005
38 dead birds found while monitoring nocturnal migrants at a small sample of turbines. McCrary et al. (1983, 1984) estimated that 69 million birds pass through the Coachella Valley annually during migration; 32 million in the spring and 37 million in the fall. The 38 avian fatalities were comprised of 25 species, including 15 passerines, seven waterfowl, two shorebirds, and one raptor. Considering the high number of passerines migrating through the area relative to the number of passerine fatalities, the authors concluded that this level of mortality was biologically insignificant (McCrary et al. 1986)
(and this is one of the oldest wind farms that utilizes turbines close to the ground and other obsolete design features)
to sum it up:
Buildings 550 million 58.2 percent
Power lines 130 million 13.7 percent
Cats 100 million 10.6 percent
Automobiles 80 million 8.5 percent
Pesticides 67 million 7.1 percent
Communications towers 6 4.5 million 0.5 percent
Wind turbines 28.5 thousand <0.01 percent
Airplanes 25 thousand <0.01 percent
Other sources (oil spills, oil seeps, fishing by-catch, etc.) not calculated
Zig, what would be the advantage? The difficulty with nuclear power is with safe operation and waste disposal... why multiply that across thousands of buildings when you could concentrate large ones in locations with minimum impact, and feed buildings from the grid?
distributed power = more efficiency with the utilization of 'waste heat' and no transmission loss/embedded energy of the transmission infrastructure.
If we get rid of the electric grid, we can save 100 million+ birds/year! (ok, they don't distinguish between high-tension and local distribution lines)
Janosh, I dunno what the advantage would be I'm just speculating.
just came across this definitive davis langdon article from 2006:
Wind and the Global Warming Imperative.
Conclusion:
At present, it does not seem technically feasible or economically worthwhile to mount wind turbine on large commercial buildings as a means of providing significant renewable energy..
damn, case closed.
i think this girl has been reponsible for the deaths of more birds than any windmill...
mdler - ROLFLOL!!!
from 2005 - 118 pages of exhaustive comparisons and data
tree I'm not suggesting wind turbines on buildings are an imminent threat to bird populations (cuz then it wouldn't matter where the were)... or even that it's not a good idea, but currently the maintainence costs of wind turbines that high up in urban areas is prohibitive in areas with freezing weather (the turbine engines ice over) and they need to be used thoughtfully or could wind up as developer 'greenwash'. I have a close friend who works in the windfarm industry, and you can't fund ones on buildings in the market right now. Of course it should be pursued... but it's not as ready to go as it might seem... I guess I came across as more of a debbi downer than intended :/
thnx for the links too
the bird thing is just kinda funny - and what are you trying to say about my lady?
Write as specialist for noise reduction.
Idea is good, but realization cases not quiet. Will be better use many very small (no more 30-40sm (about 1ft) diameter of convectional rotors. In this case, will generate mor hi freq noise, which have frenel diffraction on architecture elements and, that important, more useable for noise reduction then low speed, big rotor.
At picture iat up of this page we can see attempt of solution the acoustic problem like this way.
In more cases vertical low speed rotor is more acceptable. Therefore they better work when wind have not allowed work conventional rotor systems. They very interested for buildings with attitude level more 25m. At these attitudes winds is more speedy then at 10m of level.
In Russia, beacause our companies will go to Nord, very actual use energy solution like this.
These solution have one, but grave disadvantage: the wind work cangeable, "tha energy banks" so
As alternative this emergy solution is capasity exceeds of energy by thermochemical atrificial photosyntesis. Up to 60% of efficiensy of process. If we use Stirling technologies we will approx 15-20% throuput efficiency coefficient. From solar energy to electrisity power by demand.
in the news.
What I don't understand about ZGF's project is that they turbines seem to be last minute additions to the project with no attempt to address aerodynamics of the building. The prismatic shape of the building will create lots of turbulence, from the abrupt edges of the parapet, the sharp corners, and the balconies. there are some simple adjustments that could have been made to smooth the airflow and increase the turbine performance if they just thought about it at the beginning of the design process.
"I call them 'kinetic sculptures,'" said Jerry Yudelson
That's my thoughts on the 4 skystream turbines spec'd by ZGF- a $40k art installation - you'd get more energy (and peak energy at that) if they had installed photovoltaics!
they certainly are pretty - I really, really, want to like the idea of sticking turbines on buildings.
Get Connected to The Wind Turbines Community!
We built this website out of shared passions for the environment, science and wind turbine technology. Our goal is to deliver information for all interested parties in the growing field of renewable wind energy. By providing an ever growing directory of manufacturers, installers and technicians we seek to help bring the future of a cleaner energy source to more communities world-wide.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.