Posts

AET – Solar Hot Water

/0 Comments/in , /by

American Energy Technologies (AET) of Jacksonville, FL has been a leader in solar hot water heating systems since 1987. They now have two new products that represent a major advance in the state of the art in residential solar hot water. In addition, they are nearing the demonstration phase of a new high temperature solar collector suitable for power generation or process steam applications.

These two programs represent new technology and new business or investment opportunities. (Disclosure- I am a consultant for the company.)

I. Residential Solar Hot Water

“Sav’nSun” system is a pre-assembled system designed for easy retrofit installation. The system is freeze-proof, and features a smaller, more attractive solar collector that resembles a skylight on the roof.

“EagleSun” is designed specifically for new home construction – an attractive, economical, low-maintenance solar water heater that actually becomes part of the roof while the home is being built. Unlike a conventional thermosiphon system with its unsightly tank above the collector, the EagleSun appliance is fully integrated into the roof structure and presents a clean skylight appearance. Each system is factory pre-assembled making installation quick and easy. Unlike other ICS systems, EagleSun works in freezing and non-freezing conditions, and does not require a secondary tank and heating element , making it the first true solar appliance for the building industry in all regions of the country.

Both system use AETs’ proprietary Black Crystal selective coating ? which absorbs more energy in the day and loses less energy at night than conventional collector coatings. The Black Crystal coating, which is also non-toxic and environmentally friendly, was developed in cooperation with Sandia National Labs. See:
http://www.eren.doe.gov/sunlab/documents/techpapers/AbsrCoating.htm

These systems are enjoying a very positive response among builders. The company is seeking $1.5-$2.0 million for to ramp up commercialization, and is also interested in finding strategic partners.

II. Solar Thermal Electric

AET is also developing a high temperature solar collector (HTSC), suitable for process steam and electric power production, but without the limited applicability and high cost of concentrators and vacuum collectors. (A new separate company will be formed for this program.)

The HTSC is a flat plate (one-sun) collector. “One-sun” means there is no concentration of the sun’s energy. It can operate with diffuse light and has a wide acceptance angle. Until HTSC, vacuum tubes were the only one-sun technology with the ability to achieve sufficiently high temperatures for STE applications. U.S. Patent No. 5,653,222

The Jacksonville Electric Authority has determined that HTSC, if proven, would provide an attractive return for them, compared to the alternatives of PV, biomass, and fuel cell technologies. JEA is therefore working with AET to develop a combined cycle pilot project in 2001. If this proves successful, JEA is considering 100 MW of HTSC as part of a new 500 MW plant being planned. Such an installation would require HTSC array covering approximately 50 acres.

An initial outside investment $1.0 million is needed for development of a production model of the high temperature collector system and to support the pilot project in 2001.

~~~~

I can supply copies of brochures, studies and business plans for these two programs.

Contact:
Richard Squires, CEO
904.781.7000 x102 wrsquires@aol.com

http://www.aetsolar.com

World Commission on Dams

/0 Comments/in , /by

Even if you’re not connected in any way with large scale hydro around the world, this major report issued last week is significant. Imagine the boost to distributed generation and renewables if world opinion rallies against big dams.

The Commission has an extensive website of its own which has more than you’ll ever want to know, including the complete report available to download. http://www.dams.org/

The site has links to dozens of press accounts of the announcement last week. (I first heard about it in this week’s Economist.) Here is a good overview which arrived here today in an email newsletter. At least it could take your mind off Florida for a few minutes.

~~~~~~~~~~~
World Commission Takes Tough Stance on Dams

LONDON, England – Dams have made an important and significant contribution to human development but, in too many cases, the social and environmental costs have been unacceptable and often unnecessary, according to the final report of the World Commission on Dams (WCD).

Dams deliver significant development services in 140 countries and generate 19 percent of the world’s electricity, the WCD says in ‘Dams And Development: A New Framework for Decision-Making.’ The report was released today in London, with former South African President Nelson Mandela as the group’s spokesman.

Dams account for 12 to 16 percent of global food production, and 12 percent of large dams supply domestic and industrial water, as well as provide flood control services in 70 countries. However, they have also demonstrated a marked tendency towards schedule delays and cost overruns, and have led to the loss of forests and wildlife habitat and the loss of aquatic biodiversity of upstream and downstream fisheries, the report notes.

“Large dams display a high degree of variability in delivering predicted water and electricity services and related social benefits – with a considerable portion falling short of physical and economic targets,” while others continue to generate benefits after 40 years. The WCD also found that efforts to counter the ecosystem impact of large dams have met with limited success, and the “negative social impacts reflect a pervasive and systematic failure to assess and account for the range of potential negative impacts on displaced and resettled people as well as downstream communities.”

Some estimates suggest that as many as 80 million people have been displaced by dams around the world, while the livelihoods of many more who live downstream have been affected. Mitigation, compensation and resettlement programs are often inadequate, it notes.

The report authors claim the final document provides the most comprehensive and independent review of dams, and examines the technical and economic performance of dams, as well as their environmental and social performance, and assesses the potential alternatives to dams to offer insights into “one of the most of the controversial development debates of our time.” A number of environmentally and economically viable supply options are emerging, including wind and solar energy, but “obstacles such as market, institutional, intellectual and financial barriers limit the adoption rate” of other renewable energy alternatives, it explains.

The final report seeks to turn costly controversies into clear and productive consensus, and the WCD claims that it has brought together, for the first time, all parties in the increasingly confrontational debate about the role that 45,000 large dams have played in development around the world. The report is the result of two years of consultation in an “unprecedented global public policy process” that was signed unanimously.

“It is one thing to find fault with an existing system,” says Mandela. “It is another thing altogether, a more difficult task, to replace it with an approach that is better.”

The report proposes a framework for decision-making that moves beyond the simple tradeoffs of costs and benefits, to include a ‘rights and risks approach’ that recognises all legitimate stakeholders in the negotiation of choices. It proposes a set of core values, strategic priorities, and practical criteria and guidelines to govern future water and energy resources development, and challenges governments and other parties to change the way they view energy and water resources development.

“It means nothing to build billion-dollar dams if your monuments alienate the weak,” says WCD chairman Kader Asmal. “It means nothing to stop all dams if your protests only entrench poverty. But show me a clear and sustainable way to provide food, energy, stability and running water for those who most need it — that means something. And that we have done.”

The WCD conducted detailed reviews of large dams in the United States, Turkey, Norway, Zambia, Thailand, Pakistan, Brazil and South Africa, and surveyed 125 large dams and reviews on environmental and economic issues. It recommends 26 guidelines for review and approval of dam projects at five key stages.

“The WCD urges governments, NGOs, businesses, professional associations, aid agencies, utilities and affected peoples to practice what we preach because we preach only what we have practised ourselves,” concludes Asmal. “We listened to all sides. We reviewed alternatives. We balanced ideal against possible and made our decision to sign this report with confidence. We exclude only one development option: inaction. The cost of conflict is too high.”

“Dams offer huge benefits but sometimes at a large cost,” says James Wolfensohn, president of the World Bank, which funds less than 1 percent of dam projects in the world. “Our involvement in large dams has been decreasing and is focusing more on financing dam rehabilitation and safety and much less on financing new dams.”

Until 1985, the World Bank financed 3 percent of new dams. There are 800,000 dams around the world, of which approximately 45,000 are categorized as large or higher than 15 m. The industry is estimated to be worth $42 billion.

CEC Energy Innovations ’99 Conference

/0 Comments/in , /by

CEC Energy Innovations ’99 Conference
October 25-27, 1999, San Diego

The agenda alone fills 4 pages (see UFTO Note 24 October 99), so this note will cover some general themes and highlights. The original conference brochure is available online in pdf format, and Powerpoint presentations from the conference will be made available there in the near future: http://www.energy.ca.gov/research/PIER/EI99

I will be glad to provide additional contacts and information on any area of partcu lar interest.

————————————————————–
Our last major coverage of PIER appears in:
UFTO Note, 23 Nov 1998, “CURC Annual Conf. 11/98”
http://www.ufto.com/clients-only/uftonoteslist.html {password required}

————————————————————–

— Keynotes and Guest Speakers

– State Senator Debra Bowen (keynote) — California is still learning about life under restructuring. Concerns that G&T investment is insufficient. Legislative push for expedited siting, but supply side not the only answer–demand side measures cheaper and faster. Consumers get no price signal about time of use – need to “de-insulate” them from real costs.

– State Assemblyman Roderick Wright (keynote) — from poorest district in California. Dubious about restructuring bill (AB1890), as it addressed none of the root causes of high energy prices–though that was the primary motive in the first place. If taxpayer money is used for R&D or other energy programs, he needs to balance that against other needs, and be assured that his constituents actually benefit.

– Bill Reichert (luncheon speaker) .. from garage.com, a prominent Silicon Valley incubator of startups .. presented some hard truths about venture capital and technology business.

– Karl Rabago (banquet speaker), now with the Rocky Mountain Institute, recounted the message contained in Amory Lovin’s new book “Natural Capitalism”, which sees the mainstreaming of sustainability, eco-commerce, waste elimination, etc. as having a historical significance comparable to the Industrial Revolution.
http://www.naturalcapitalism.org/

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

— Public Interest Energy Research (PIER) Program

“The Nation’s Most Comprehensive Ratepayer-funded Public Interest Energy Research Program” is gradually maturing, as the transition projects are wrapping up (close-out funding of projects that IOU’s had in place prior to restructuring), and the various programs establish their goals and directions.

Provides funding to public and private entities for research, development and demonstration activities that advance science and technology not adequately provided for by competitive or deregulated markets. Funding is available for environmentally preferred advanced generation, renewables, end-use efficiency, environmental research and strategic research.
http://www.energy.ca.gov/research/index.html

PIER Program Manager:
Ron Kukulka, 916-654-4185, rkukulka@energy.state.ca.us

PIER is organized into 6 Areas, each with a designated manager.

– Renewables
George Simons, 916-654-4659, gsimons@energy.state.ca.us

– Environmentally-Preferred Advanced Generation (EPAG)
Mike Batham, 916-654-4548, mbatham@energy.state.ca.us

– Residential and Commercial Buildings
Nancy Jenkins, 916-654-4739, njenkins@energy.state.ca.us

– Industrial / Agricultural / Water
Ben Mehta, 916-654-4044, bmehta@energy.state.ca.us

– Energy-Related Environmental
Kelly Birkinshaw, 916-654-4542, kbirkins@energy.state.ca.us

– Strategic Science and Technology
Tom Tanton, 916-654-4930, ttanton@energy.state.ca.us

Each program briefly presented its 1999/2000 Funding Proposal, based on their respective Issues, Mission and Objectives, and indicated amounts going to sole source or collaboratives/interagency, to competitve RFPs, and to memberships (e.g. EPRI, GRI, etc.) In each area, with total budgets ranging from $9 to $15 Million, some contracts are already approved, some are in negotiations, and some have not yet been initiated.
(I have prepared Word docs with the details that were presented, adapted from files provided to me by PIER. They will be posted on the UFTO website. Let me know if you want them in the meantime.)

———
Energy Innovations Small Grant Program

This program provides grants of up to $75,000 to small businesses, academics, small non-profit organizations and individuals to prove the feasibility of research and development concepts relating to PIER objectives. It operates like the federal SBIR programs, but with a considerably faster solicitation and award cycle.

Philip Misemer, 916-654-4552 pmisemer@energy.state.ca.us
http://www.energy.ca.gov/research/innovations/index.html

– Synergy with other Programs
Calif Board for Energy Effic oversees $280M/year
[buydown of renewables implementation]
Calif Utility Research Council (future role is uncertain)
Calif PUC – Doesn’t have a role, and doing an excellent job at not
doing anything about R&D — Utilities haven’t requested in rates.
EPRI
GRI

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Transferable Knowledge from Other Forums (Tuesday)

– Lessons Learned in NREL Industry Growth Forums
Lawrence (Marty) Murphy, NREL,
303-275-3050 lawrence_murphy@nrel.gov
NREL periodical ly sponsors Industry Growth Forums, intended to help aspiring, start-up, or expanding renewable energy businesses. The next Forum will be held in early year 2000, in the Seattle area, and highlights will be provided here as details are defined. For more details on Forums as well as the many valuable lessons learned download the document, “NREL Industry Growth Forums Lessons Learned” June 1999, NREL/MP-720-25870 (PDF 369 KB).
http://www.nrel.gov/technologytransfer/pdfs/industry_growth.pdf

Also see:
http://www.nrel.gov/technologytransfer/bfpartners.html
http://www.nrel.gov/technologytransfer/resourceguide.html

– Where We Are and Where We’re Going
Janet Joseph, NYSERDA
518-862-1090 jj2@nyserda.org
Summarized the program, as the only other “public benefit” state level R&D program besides PIER.

– Gaining Market Acceptance of Innovative Technologies
Keith Davidson, Onsite Sycom Energy Corp.
760-710-1712 kdavidson@onsitesycom.com
A good overviewof “innovation” as the term applies to distributed generation and combined heat & power (CHP), with a review of Tecogen’s experience in the early ’80s.

– Building Bridges Connecting Research Results to Consumer Benefits
(Wednesday)

Mohawk Research Corp.
Marsha Rorke, 301-762-3171, mohawkresearch@email.msn.com
Sam Westbrook, 206-780-8269, kands@nwlink.com

Summarized in 20 minutes the contents of a 3-4 day workshop that Mohawk has given over 50 times to personnel at national labs and elsewhere who want to pursue commercialization of lab technology. Key points include recognition that various stages of a development or company require very different skill sets and kinds of people, and the entrepreneur should be clear on when he plans to pass the reins to others. Also, a “commercialization plan”, focused on what it is that you are going to make and sell, is different from the business plan, which comes later and says how you’re going to do it.

The workshop textbook is: “From Invention To Innovation,” 1999, DOE/GO-10099-810. For a copy, email Sally_Evans@nrel.gov (remember to include your mailing address.) Or call 202-586-1478 to receive a free copy as well as information on DOE’s Inventions and Innovations Programs.
An earlier (full text) version is available at:
http://iridium.nttc.edu/assist/inventions/inv2inn.html

Ken Gudger, Global Energy Partners
Jerome Foster, Pentech Energy Solutions
Jeff Colborn, Metallic Power, Inc.

Leadersof three startups, each at a different stage, spoke about their experiences and how they went about developing and pursuing their business plans. Some memorable phrases:
“Get a customer before you quit your day job.”
“Be sure the customer understands (what you’re selling), trusts
that you can deliver, and has the will to do his part.”
“As soon as you take a dollar from anybody, you’re working for them
[so don’t be so hung up about control].”
“Be honest about yourself, and what role is appropriate for you.”

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

PANEL SESSIONS
On the second day, pane l sessions were held in parallel for each of the PIER subject areas, so one had to choose which ones to go to. Many of the presentations will be put up on the PIER website in due course.

Morning — Renewables; EPAG; and Buildings
Afternoon — Food/Ag/Ind; Strategic; and Environment

Most of the panel presentations were reviews of completed or ongoing PIER-funded projects, or other related programs. There was also a poster exhibition with two dozen displays on other PIER sponsored work.

For details on all projects:
1998 Annual Report – PIER Program, P500-99-004, March 1999
http://www.energy.ca.gov/reports/500-99-004.html
(hardcopy also available)

=========

Panel I – Renewable Energy Technology

I.A. Making Renewables Cost-Competitive
Larry Berg, Larry Berg & Associates
Steve Gatto, BCI

I.B. Renewables as Distributed Generators
Merwin Brown, NREL
Thomas Hoff, Clean Power Research
Henry Zaininger, Zaininger Engineering

I.C. Non-energy Benefits of Renewables
Nancy Rader, Nancy Rader Renewable Energy Consulting
Dan Shugar, PowerLight Corp
Loyd Forest, TSS Consulting

=========

Panel II – EPAG for Distributed Generation (DG)

II.A. Energy Providers: Planning to Use EPAG in DG Applications?
Al Figueroa, San Diego Gas & Elec and CURC
Roland Risser, PG&E
David Berokoff, SoCalGas
Mike Burke, NewEnergy

II.B. What are the Future Product RD&D Needs for EPAG Mfgs.
George Wiltsee,* Capstone Turbine
Mark Skowronski, Allied Signal
Ron Wolk, Wolk Integrated Technical Services
Jim Schlatter, Catalytica

II.C. What are the Current and Planned R&D Programs in DG?
Andy Abele, S. Coast Air Qual Mgt District
Scott Samuelsen, National Fuel Cell Research Center, UC Irvine
Daniel Rastler,* EPRI
William Liss, GRI
Abbie Layne, U.S. DOE
[Adv Turb.; Indust Technol, etc. – Major workshop Nov.8-10]

=========

Panel III – Building End-Use Energy Efficiency

III.A. Technologies and Strategies for Buildings in Hot Inland Climates
Lance Elberling, PG&E
Randy Folts, Pulte Homes Corp
Malcolm Lewis, Constructive Technologies Group, Inc.

III.B. Drivers for Energy Efficiency
Cliff Federspiel, Center for the Built Environment, UC Berkeley
Doug Mahone, The Heschong Mahone Group
[Daylighting Improves Productivity]
Gregory Thomas, Gregory Thomas and Associates

III.C. How Energy Efficiency Can Affect Affordability and Property Value
Eric Haftner, ELH Development
[Comparative investment qualities of energy efficiency measures]
Rob Hammon, ComfortWise
Greg Watson, ICF Consulting
[Homeowners and Energy Efficiency: Rational?]

=========

Panel IV – Food/Agriculture/Industrial/Water Energy Efficiency

IV.A. Water: Issue of the New Millennium
Keith Carns, EPRI
Jeff DeZeller, Metropolitan Water District
Lory Larson, SoCalEdison
Greg Leslie, Orange County Water District

IV.B. Innovations in Food and AgriculturalProduction Systems
Ken Solomon, CalPoly San Luis Obispo Univ
Alan Pryor, SoilZONE Inc.
Dee Gram, R and E Enterprises
Sharon Shoemaker, Calif Inst Food & Agric Research (CIFAR), UCDavis

=========

Panel V – Strategic Research

V.A. Feet Firmly Planted on the Ground – Near Term Benefits
Joseph Eto, Lawrence Berkeley National Lab
Art Iverson, Spinel Power Technology
William “Woody” Savage, PG&E
V.B. Eyes on the Stars – Incorporating the Long View
Alexander Glass, Executive Director, BARTA
Dave Hawkins, Cal ISO
Dave Lema, Special Advisor to the Governor
Gail McCarthy, EPRI

=========

Panel VI – Energy-Related Environmental Research

VI.A. Solutions to Current/Expected Environmental Issues
Sonja Mahini, EPRI
Vince Mirabella, SoCalEdison
Don Rose, Sempra Energy
VI.B. A New Perspective: New Approaches to Issue Resolution
James Cole, Univ of Calif President’s Office
Paul Chu, PISCES, EPRI
Norman Miller, Lawrence Berkeley National Lab
Kelly Birkinshaw, CEC

Electrochemical Ozone Generator

/0 Comments/in , /by

Subject: UFTO Note – Electrochemical Ozone Generator
Date: Fri, 16 May 1997
From: Ed Beardsworth <edbeards@ufto.com>

————————————————————–
| ** UFTO ** Edward Beardsworth ** Consultant
| 951 Lincoln Ave. tel 415-328-5670
| Palo Alto CA 94301-3041 fax 415-328-5675
| http://www.ufto.com edbeards@ufto.com
————————————————————–

Electrochemical Ozone Generator

The usual method of producing ozone is by corona discharge in air. It requires auxiliary equipment to precondition the air (cooling to – 60 degrees C), it produces NOx and particulates, and it is limited to delivery of ozone at 2% concentration and atmospheric pressure. Despite these limitations, there is a rapidly growing use of ozone for laundries (hotels and hospitals especially), waste water treatment, and many other applications.

Lynntech, Inc, of College Station TX, is a multi-disciplinary technology development company established in 1990. To date, most of its revenues have come from SBIRs. The company has developed a range of new technologies which are in various stages of commercialization.

One of these new technologies is a patented electrochemical method of producing ozone, which overcomes many of the limitations described above. It introduces no impurities, requires no preparation of the air, and delivers ozone at 10-15% concentration at 30 psi or higher. Inherently simple with no moving parts, it can be scaled to very small sizes, allowing many new fields of use that aren’t practical with existing methods, including point of entry/use potable water treatment (e.g. bottled water production).

Lynntech is currently assembling pre-production units for testing by various customers. These cabinet-sized units will produce 5 pounds per day, and will be available in limited production quantities within a year. The company also has a one pound/day unit in prototype, and much smaller units are also envisioned. One patent is issued, and several more are pending.

The company is in the process of considering various options for business models to carry these developments forward, and would welcome discussions with interested parties.

Contact:

Stan Simpson, 409-693-0017, fax 409-764-7479

Capacitive Deionization licensed

/0 Comments/in , /by

Subject: UFTO Note — Capacitive Deionization licensed
Date: Thu, 06 Mar 1997
From: Ed Beardsworth

————————————————————–
| ** UFTO ** Edward Beardsworth ** Consultant
| 951 Lincoln Ave. tel 415-328-5670
| Palo Alto CA 94301-3041 fax 415-328-5675
| http://www.ufto.com edbeards@ufto.com
————————————————————–

Livermore has given a license for CDI to a small water company in Tucson, AZ who’ve formed a subsidiary, Terra Research Corp., to pursue applications. The parent company is publicly traded OTC – Far West Group, which does water drilling and pumping and supplies.

They are looking for partners and investment capital. I have a summary of their business plan they sent me, which I can provide by email, snail mail or fax.

Let me know if you want a copy, and if you’d like to talk to them.

————————————–
Here is the UFTO writeup about CDI, when Livermore first announced it:

> January 1995
>
> Desalination and Waste Water Treatment by Capacitive Deionization (CDI)
>
> On December 20, 1994, LLNL announced a new way to deionize water. The
> huge effective surface area of carbon aerogels makes feasible the
> straightforward and well known process of capacitive deionization.
> Water containing salts, heavy metals or even radioactive isotopes flows
> through a series of electrochemical cells. An electric potential is
> applied across the electrodes, which attract the charged ions.
>
> The electrodes are metal plates coated with the aerogel, the high
> surface area of which allows them to absorb large quantities of ions,
> which are released later into a small volume “rinse” stream. CDI offers
> significant benefits over traditional deionization processes, such as
> reverse osmosis, ion exchange or evaporation. These involve high energy
> use, reliance on acids and bases, production of corrosive secondary
> wastes, and use of troublesome membranes. Compared with traditional
> desalination techniques, CDI could reduce the energy requirement by as
> much as 100-1000 times.
>
> Potential applications include: treatment of boiler water in power
> plants, electric residential water softeners, desalination of sea water,
> waste water treatment (i.e. volume reduction, notably of radioactive
> wastewater, by a factor of 1000), and more.
>
> A desktop test unit has been operating at LLNL for some time. A patent
> was filed in May 1994. Aerojet may become a supplier of the aerogel
> material, based on its experience with silicon aerogels.

Electrotechnology Conference

/0 Comments/in , /by
TO: UFTO Members..
FROM: Ed Beardsworth
SUBJECT: ELECTROTECHNOLOGY CONFERENCE -APRIL 96 – FL
I’ll be out of town Dec 2-8, visiting Brookhaven, Savannah River, and several utilities. Meanwhile, the conference organizers need our input by Dec 8. I won’t be available to pass your ideas along, so go directly to them by fax or phone (and please send me a cc).
The conference that UFTO is cosponsoring is called:
BREAKTHROUGH TECHNOLOGIES CONFERENCE
April 24-26, 1996
TECO’s Elec Technology Resource Center TAMPA FL
and the Holiday Inn Tampa Busch Gardens
Utility Sponsors (to date)
Basin Electric, FP&L, KCP&L, SCE, TECO, Utilicorp, and Virginia Power
Federal Lab Sponsors:
Oak Ridge, Pacific Northwest, Sandia and Savannah River
Other Sponsors:
Elec. Council for the Economy, Electrotechnology Report,
Cambridge Reports, CHI Research, McGraw Hill Electrical World,
NTH Power, S East Resources Alliance, NIST-MEP, and UFTO (!!)
***IF YOU WANT TO RECONSIDER BECOMING A SPONSOR, CALL
MARK MILLS 301-718-9600
***
Ads will appear in Electrical World in January, highlighting
sponsors.
******************************************
WANTED: Session moderators. Must be generally knowledgeable about
****** the technology and able to summarize technologies covered and
coordinate discussion….
Topic areas (not session titles) include:
– Air Emission Technologies
– Entrepreneur’s Perspective -case studies and lessons learned
– Environmental Remediation Technologies
– Food Processing Technol
– Residential Technol
– Manufacturing Technol
– Medical Sector Technol
– Non-Road Transportation Technol.
– Process Industry Technol
– Water Related Technol
*********
WANTED #2 Ideas and leads for products, technologies or companies that
********* should be invited to to participate. Display space will be
available.
******
ACTION: Fax suggestions to Byrne Burns, 301-718-7806 or call him at 718-9600.
**************************