<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Wind and CCS Stakeholders Go Head to Head Following Funding Fears</title>
	<atom:link href="http://energybusinessdaily.com/renewables/wind-and-ccs-stakeholders-go-head-to-head-following-funding-fears/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://energybusinessdaily.com/renewables/wind-and-ccs-stakeholders-go-head-to-head-following-funding-fears/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 10 Nov 2009 16:39:05 -0400</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=abc</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Jay Burch</title>
		<link>http://energybusinessdaily.com/renewables/wind-and-ccs-stakeholders-go-head-to-head-following-funding-fears/comment-page-1/#comment-1356</link>
		<dc:creator>Jay Burch</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 25 Jun 2009 18:48:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://energybusinessdaily.com/?p=2061#comment-1356</guid>
		<description>A nice CCS propoganda piece. 

It is debatable that coal + CCS is more economical than CSP+storage, geothermal power, or several other renewable technologies. Let&#039;s keep CCS R&amp;D going, and see what it really will cost before making any commitments on deployment. Claims by the coal industry of CCS are certainly not yet credible.

It is certainly debatable whether CCS is environmentally safe. Sequestration sinks are unknown. It seems inconceivable that oceans are a good dumping ground, given acidification concerns. It seems inconceivable that deep ground injection will not lead to leaks back out in some hundreds of years time frame, making that approach deeply questionable. 

Indeed, continue the reserach, but CCS is FAR from obvious as an answer.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A nice CCS propoganda piece. </p>
<p>It is debatable that coal + CCS is more economical than CSP+storage, geothermal power, or several other renewable technologies. Let&#8217;s keep CCS R&amp;D going, and see what it really will cost before making any commitments on deployment. Claims by the coal industry of CCS are certainly not yet credible.</p>
<p>It is certainly debatable whether CCS is environmentally safe. Sequestration sinks are unknown. It seems inconceivable that oceans are a good dumping ground, given acidification concerns. It seems inconceivable that deep ground injection will not lead to leaks back out in some hundreds of years time frame, making that approach deeply questionable. </p>
<p>Indeed, continue the reserach, but CCS is FAR from obvious as an answer.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Fred Pittenger</title>
		<link>http://energybusinessdaily.com/renewables/wind-and-ccs-stakeholders-go-head-to-head-following-funding-fears/comment-page-1/#comment-1351</link>
		<dc:creator>Fred Pittenger</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 25 Jun 2009 14:04:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://energybusinessdaily.com/?p=2061#comment-1351</guid>
		<description>Dependence on fossil fuels will persist until 2050. Indeed, it is estimated that oil, coal and natural gas will provide 80% of the world’s power demand in 2030, with gas and coal providing 50% of this. 

So in 2049, magically, ten bazillion new turbines will appear to get the job done.  Investment has to start now to transition in 2050.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Dependence on fossil fuels will persist until 2050. Indeed, it is estimated that oil, coal and natural gas will provide 80% of the world’s power demand in 2030, with gas and coal providing 50% of this. </p>
<p>So in 2049, magically, ten bazillion new turbines will appear to get the job done.  Investment has to start now to transition in 2050.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
