<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
<channel>
	<title><![CDATA[Grist - Comment Feed for Steven Chu&#8217;s stances on key energy issues: a primer for his confirmation hearing]]></title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.grist.org/rss/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<description>Grist Comment Feed</description>
	<language>en</language>
    
		<item>
            <title>Comment #1 by dobermanmacleod</title>
			<link>http://www.grist.org/article/Chu-lookin-at-me/</link>
			<pubDate>Mon, 12 Jan 2009 19:04:48 -0800</pubDate>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.grist.org/article/Chu-lookin-at-me/1</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>A note to Chu</strong></p><p>Any carbon diet strategy would be dependent upon clean coal: </p><p>
"The vast majority of new power stations in China and India will be coal-fired; not "may be coal-fired"; will be. So developing carbon capture and storage technology is not optional, it is literally of the essence." --"Breaking the Climate Deadlock," Tony Blair, June 26, 2008 </p><p>
But, Vaclav Smil, an energy expert at the University of Manitoba, has estimated that capturing and burying just 10 percent of the carbon dioxide emitted over a year from coal-fire plants at current rates would require moving volumes of compressed carbon dioxide greater than the total annual flow of oil worldwide -- a massive undertaking requiring decades and trillions of dollars. "Beware of the scale," he stressed."</p><p>
By the way:</p><p>
"Contrary to the conventional wisdom that China is outpacing the rest of the world in building coal plants, the International Energy Agency has projected that between 2011 and 2020 the OECD (most of Europe plus the &nbsp;U.S.), with 150 million fewer people than China, will build 10 percent more coal capacity than China (184 GW for the OECD vs. 168 GW for China)." --"Schwarzenegger's folly," Gristmill, 16 Oct 2008</p><p>
China is aiming to increase its coal production by about 30 percent by 2015 to meet its energy needs, the government has announced, in a move likely to fuel concerns over global warming. Beijing plans to increase annual output to more than 3.3 billion tonnes by 2015, said Hu Cunzhi, chief planner of the land and resources ministry, said on Wednesday. --AFP, 9 January 2009</p><p>
Finally:</p><p>
"We underestimated the risks ... we underestimated the damage associated with temperature increases ... and we underestimated the probabilities of temperature increases." &nbsp;-- Sir Nicholas Stern, author of "The Stern Report," April 17, 2008</p><p>
"Few seem to realise that the present IPCC models predict almost unanimously that by 2040 the average summer in Europe will be as hot as the summer of 2003 when over 30,000 died from heat. By then we may cool ourselves with air conditioning and learn to live in a climate no worse than that of Baghdad now. But without extensive irrigation the plants will die and both farming and natural ecosystems will be replaced by scrub and desert. What will there be to eat? The same dire changes will affect the rest of the world and I can envisage Americans migrating into Canada and the Chinese into Siberia but there may be little food for any of them." --Dr James Lovelock's lecture to the Royal Society, 29 Oct. '07</p><p>
If this material interests you, I can be reached at (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
//= 0; i=i-1){ 
if (l[i].substring(0, 1) == ' ') output += "&#"+unescape(l[i].substring(1))+";"; 
else output += unescape(l[i]);
}
document.getElementById('eeEncEmail_LA5W8LcH5c').innerHTML = output;
//]]>
</p><p>
"We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them." &nbsp;-- Albert Einstein </p>
			]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>A note to Chu</strong></p><p>Any carbon diet strategy would be dependent upon clean coal: </p><p>
"The vast majority of new power stations in China and India will be coal-fired; not "may be coal-fired"; will be. So developing carbon capture and storage technology is not optional, it is literally of the essence." --"Breaking the Climate Deadlock," Tony Blair, June 26, 2008 </p><p>
But, Vaclav Smil, an energy expert at the University of Manitoba, has estimated that capturing and burying just 10 percent of the carbon dioxide emitted over a year from coal-fire plants at current rates would require moving volumes of compressed carbon dioxide greater than the total annual flow of oil worldwide -- a massive undertaking requiring decades and trillions of dollars. "Beware of the scale," he stressed."</p><p>
By the way:</p><p>
"Contrary to the conventional wisdom that China is outpacing the rest of the world in building coal plants, the International Energy Agency has projected that between 2011 and 2020 the OECD (most of Europe plus the &nbsp;U.S.), with 150 million fewer people than China, will build 10 percent more coal capacity than China (184 GW for the OECD vs. 168 GW for China)." --"Schwarzenegger's folly," Gristmill, 16 Oct 2008</p><p>
China is aiming to increase its coal production by about 30 percent by 2015 to meet its energy needs, the government has announced, in a move likely to fuel concerns over global warming. Beijing plans to increase annual output to more than 3.3 billion tonnes by 2015, said Hu Cunzhi, chief planner of the land and resources ministry, said on Wednesday. --AFP, 9 January 2009</p><p>
Finally:</p><p>
"We underestimated the risks ... we underestimated the damage associated with temperature increases ... and we underestimated the probabilities of temperature increases." &nbsp;-- Sir Nicholas Stern, author of "The Stern Report," April 17, 2008</p><p>
"Few seem to realise that the present IPCC models predict almost unanimously that by 2040 the average summer in Europe will be as hot as the summer of 2003 when over 30,000 died from heat. By then we may cool ourselves with air conditioning and learn to live in a climate no worse than that of Baghdad now. But without extensive irrigation the plants will die and both farming and natural ecosystems will be replaced by scrub and desert. What will there be to eat? The same dire changes will affect the rest of the world and I can envisage Americans migrating into Canada and the Chinese into Siberia but there may be little food for any of them." --Dr James Lovelock's lecture to the Royal Society, 29 Oct. '07</p><p>
If this material interests you, I can be reached at (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
//= 0; i=i-1){ 
if (l[i].substring(0, 1) == ' ') output += "&#"+unescape(l[i].substring(1))+";"; 
else output += unescape(l[i]);
}
document.getElementById('eeEncEmail_LA5W8LcH5c').innerHTML = output;
//]]>
</p><p>
"We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them." &nbsp;-- Albert Einstein </p>
			]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
    
		<item>
            <title>Comment #2 by dobermanmacleod</title>
			<link>http://www.grist.org/article/Chu-lookin-at-me/</link>
			<pubDate>Mon, 12 Jan 2009 19:11:09 -0800</pubDate>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.grist.org/article/Chu-lookin-at-me/2</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>Sorry to double post, but...</strong></p><p>I believe I've found a way to immediately cool the Earth cheaply and simply, profitably turn CO2 from coal-fired plants into fuel, de-acidify the ocean with a practical mechancial method, and produce cheap, clean, and abundant power.</p><p>
If you doubt what I am saying, I would be glad to wager a small bet (terms upon agreement).</p>
			]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>Sorry to double post, but...</strong></p><p>I believe I've found a way to immediately cool the Earth cheaply and simply, profitably turn CO2 from coal-fired plants into fuel, de-acidify the ocean with a practical mechancial method, and produce cheap, clean, and abundant power.</p><p>
If you doubt what I am saying, I would be glad to wager a small bet (terms upon agreement).</p>
			]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
    
		<item>
            <title>Comment #3 by Curtis Moore</title>
			<link>http://www.grist.org/article/Chu-lookin-at-me/</link>
			<pubDate>Tue, 13 Jan 2009 04:02:33 -0800</pubDate>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.grist.org/article/Chu-lookin-at-me/3</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>Absolutely no need to wait for new technologies<p>Go with me to the Mojave Desert where solar thermal arrays generate enough electricity to supply the residential needs of a city the size of San Francisco. &nbsp;The first segment was built in 1885 and has been providing power with zero or near-zero air pollution since (<a href="http://www.nrel.gov/csp/troughnet/power_plant_data.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.nrel.gov/csp/troughnet/power_plant_data.html). &nbsp;Or let's hop on a plane to Stockholm, where the Vartan plant has been generating electricity from coal since about 1991 with roughly 92 percent efficiency, compared to about 34 percent for the average U.S. plant. &nbsp;Or to Tokyo where in 1989 Toyota executives showed me the AXV, a Corolla-sized car able to travel 100 miles on a gallon of fuel. &nbsp;Or to California where some Prius owners have converted their cars to plug-in hybrids that can that can travel 1,069 miles on 9.7 gallons of fuel.<br>
Ships at sea account for as much air pollution as the entire continents of either North America or Europe because they burn bunker fuel, which is so thick with carbon, sulfur and other contaminants that at room temperature it is solid. &nbsp;Switch those ships from bunker to fuels like distillate and slap pollution control devices on them, and the world's air pollution would be cut by roughly 12 percent. &nbsp;There are literally hundreds of on-the-shelf ways to eliminate the pollutants that cause global warming--and some of these have atmospheric lifetimes of a few minutes or a few days--so the cooling benefits would be virtually immediate. Plus, millions of lives would be saved.<br>
I've written two books on this subject--Green Gold: Japan, Germany and the Race for Environmental Technology in 1994--and most recently Saving Ourselves: How We Can and Why We're Not: The Roles of Corporate America and the Republican Party in Perpetuating Global Warming, which can be found at saving-ourselves.com (don't jump to the conclusion that I'm some rabid Democrat from La La land--I was Republican counsel to the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works for 11 years after working several years for Delaware Republican Bill Roth).<br>
We do not have the luxury of waiting. &nbsp;The planet is racing toward a dozen or so tipping points, beyond which it will be impossible to return to a livable climate. &nbsp;These, too, are explained at saving-ourselves.com.<br>
Industries, and companies like electric utilities and car makers, do not want this information known because they stand to make literally trillions of dollars selling reductions as part of a "cap and trade" system, an utterly bankrupt approach that has failed every time its been tried, but that should be the subject of another comment.<br>
</br></br></br></br></br></a></p></strong></p>
			]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>Absolutely no need to wait for new technologies<p>Go with me to the Mojave Desert where solar thermal arrays generate enough electricity to supply the residential needs of a city the size of San Francisco. &nbsp;The first segment was built in 1885 and has been providing power with zero or near-zero air pollution since (<a href="http://www.nrel.gov/csp/troughnet/power_plant_data.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.nrel.gov/csp/troughnet/power_plant_data.html). &nbsp;Or let's hop on a plane to Stockholm, where the Vartan plant has been generating electricity from coal since about 1991 with roughly 92 percent efficiency, compared to about 34 percent for the average U.S. plant. &nbsp;Or to Tokyo where in 1989 Toyota executives showed me the AXV, a Corolla-sized car able to travel 100 miles on a gallon of fuel. &nbsp;Or to California where some Prius owners have converted their cars to plug-in hybrids that can that can travel 1,069 miles on 9.7 gallons of fuel.<br>
Ships at sea account for as much air pollution as the entire continents of either North America or Europe because they burn bunker fuel, which is so thick with carbon, sulfur and other contaminants that at room temperature it is solid. &nbsp;Switch those ships from bunker to fuels like distillate and slap pollution control devices on them, and the world's air pollution would be cut by roughly 12 percent. &nbsp;There are literally hundreds of on-the-shelf ways to eliminate the pollutants that cause global warming--and some of these have atmospheric lifetimes of a few minutes or a few days--so the cooling benefits would be virtually immediate. Plus, millions of lives would be saved.<br>
I've written two books on this subject--Green Gold: Japan, Germany and the Race for Environmental Technology in 1994--and most recently Saving Ourselves: How We Can and Why We're Not: The Roles of Corporate America and the Republican Party in Perpetuating Global Warming, which can be found at saving-ourselves.com (don't jump to the conclusion that I'm some rabid Democrat from La La land--I was Republican counsel to the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works for 11 years after working several years for Delaware Republican Bill Roth).<br>
We do not have the luxury of waiting. &nbsp;The planet is racing toward a dozen or so tipping points, beyond which it will be impossible to return to a livable climate. &nbsp;These, too, are explained at saving-ourselves.com.<br>
Industries, and companies like electric utilities and car makers, do not want this information known because they stand to make literally trillions of dollars selling reductions as part of a "cap and trade" system, an utterly bankrupt approach that has failed every time its been tried, but that should be the subject of another comment.<br>
</br></br></br></br></br></a></p></strong></p>
			]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
    
		<item>
            <title>Comment #4 by CCC Web Editor</title>
			<link>http://www.grist.org/article/Chu-lookin-at-me/</link>
			<pubDate>Tue, 13 Jan 2009 18:41:58 -0800</pubDate>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.grist.org/article/Chu-lookin-at-me/4</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>More on Chu's Thoughts on Climate Change<p>Kate Sheppard mentioned that Steve Chu considers climate change one of the most pressing issues of our era. To get a comprehensive overview of Chu's position on climate change, read the interview published at the website of the Copenhagen Climate Council where he said that climate change threatens the planet with "sudden, unpredictable, and irreversible disaster." <a href="http://www.copenhagenclimatecouncil.com/get-informed/news/clear-and-present-danger-a-conversation-with-nobel-laureate-steve-chu-on-the-risks-of-climate-change.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.copenhagenclimatecouncil.com/get-informed/news ... <p>
And, for a more personal look at how Chu feels about the climate change threat, watch this video where he likens the danger of global warming to "Titanic the sequel":<br>
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zA10n3Mdwcs" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zA10n3Mdwcs </a></br></p></a></p></strong></p>
			]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>More on Chu's Thoughts on Climate Change<p>Kate Sheppard mentioned that Steve Chu considers climate change one of the most pressing issues of our era. To get a comprehensive overview of Chu's position on climate change, read the interview published at the website of the Copenhagen Climate Council where he said that climate change threatens the planet with "sudden, unpredictable, and irreversible disaster." <a href="http://www.copenhagenclimatecouncil.com/get-informed/news/clear-and-present-danger-a-conversation-with-nobel-laureate-steve-chu-on-the-risks-of-climate-change.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.copenhagenclimatecouncil.com/get-informed/news ... <p>
And, for a more personal look at how Chu feels about the climate change threat, watch this video where he likens the danger of global warming to "Titanic the sequel":<br>
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zA10n3Mdwcs" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zA10n3Mdwcs </a></br></p></a></p></strong></p>
			]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
    
		<item>
            <title>Comment #5 by anyone</title>
			<link>http://www.grist.org/article/Chu-lookin-at-me/</link>
			<pubDate>Mon, 19 Jan 2009 06:38:09 -0800</pubDate>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.grist.org/article/Chu-lookin-at-me/5</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>Keep in mind<p>According to the Department of Energy the costs of wind power are between 3 and 6.4 cents per kWh. Average capital costs of Windturbines are $1480/kW (2006).<br>
<a href="http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy07osti/41435.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy07osti/41435.pdf<p>
New nuclear has reached costs between 25 cents and 30 cents per kWh:<br>
<a href="http://climateprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/nuclear-costs-2009.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://climateprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/nuc ...<p>
The US installed 7500 MW of windpower in 2008 alone:<br>
<a href="http://strandedwind.org/node/212" rel="nofollow">http://strandedwind.org/node/212<p>
South dakota alone has enough wind to power half the US: <a href="http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2007/05/14/sdwind/" rel="nofollow">http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2007/05/14/s ...<p>
And interconnected Windfarms can provide baseload:<br>
<a href="http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/winds/aj07_jamc.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/winds/aj07_jamc.pdf<p>
In addition, as opposed to nuclear power, wind produces more power during day time, when electricity demand is at least doubled. <br>
<a href="http://www.windpower.org/en/tour/wres/variab.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.windpower.org/en/tour/wres/variab.htm<p>
Thinfilm photovoltaics will reach costs of below $1000/kW by 2010.<br>
<a href="http://guntherportfolio.blogspot.com/2007/09/oerlikon-solar-almost-at-work-ersol.html" rel="nofollow">http://guntherportfolio.blogspot.com/2007/09/oerlikon-sol ...<br>
120,000 km2 of the US is built. If only 10% of that area has roof area, that leads to a maximum solar flux of 12,000 GW or 1,200 GW at only 10% efficiency.<p>
Spain installed 2.5 GW of photovoltaics in 2008. 2.5 GW of PV in one single year. On the other hand the new nuclear power plant in Finnland is being built since 2005, won't be finished before 2012 and will have a cost overrun of at least 50%.<br>
<a href="http://www.solarserver.de/news/news-9915.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.solarserver.de/news/news-9915.html<p>
92 x 92 sq mi (or about 8% of Nevada) is enough to power the entire US with solar thermal alone. <br>
<a href="http://www.ausra.com/" rel="nofollow">http://www.ausra.com/<p>
HVDC can transmit power from coast to coast with losses of only 3% per 1000 km at costs of &#128;70/kW per 1000 km (transmission line only).<br>
<a href="http://www.abb.com/cawp/GAD02181/C1256D71001E0037C1256834003AF40D.aspx" rel="nofollow">http://www.abb.com/cawp/GAD02181/C1256D71001E0037C1256834 ...<br>
<a href="http://www.iset.uni-kassel.de/abt/w3-w/projekte/LowCostEuropElSup_revised_for_AKE_2006.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.iset.uni-kassel.de/abt/w3-w/projekte/LowCostEu ...<p>
China has 10 more solar thermal capacity than nuclear power capacity installed, because its cheaper to heat water on a roof than to waste expensive nuclear electricity in electric heaters.<br>
<a href="http://www.ren21.net/pdf/RE2007_Global_Status_Report.pdf" rel="nofollow" rel="nofollow">http://www.ren21.net/pdf/RE2007_Global_Status_Report.pdf<br>
Also, China currently installs almost 200 times more solar thermal capacity annually than the US.<br>
<a href="http://www.ren21.net/pdf/RE2007_Global_Status_Report.pdf" rel="nofollow" rel="nofollow">http://www.ren21.net/pdf/RE2007_Global_Status_Report.pdf<p>
Geothermal can provide 100GWe in the US and as opposed to nuclear power with little investment in R&amp;D according to MIT.<br>
<a href="http://geothermal.inel.gov/publications/future_of_geothermal_energy.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://geothermal.inel.gov/publications/future_of_geother ...<p>
Needless to say, that there is still <br>
biomass <a href="http://www.jenbacher.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.jenbacher.com<br>
wave <a href="http://www.pelamiswave.com/" rel="nofollow">http://www.pelamiswave.com/<br>
tidal <br>
small hydro <br>
and most importantly: Efficiency<p>
However, if no new nuclear power plants would be built, expensive government agencies such as IAEA and Euratom promoting nuclear energy, would not be needed anymore and leave many government-officials jobless.<br>
</br></p></br></br></br></a></br></a></br></p></a></br></p></a></br></br></a></br></p></a></br></a></br></p></a></br></p></a></br></p></br></a></br></p></a></br></p></a></br></p></a></p></a></br></p></a></br></p></a></br></p></strong></p>
			]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>Keep in mind<p>According to the Department of Energy the costs of wind power are between 3 and 6.4 cents per kWh. Average capital costs of Windturbines are $1480/kW (2006).<br>
<a href="http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy07osti/41435.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy07osti/41435.pdf<p>
New nuclear has reached costs between 25 cents and 30 cents per kWh:<br>
<a href="http://climateprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/nuclear-costs-2009.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://climateprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/nuc ...<p>
The US installed 7500 MW of windpower in 2008 alone:<br>
<a href="http://strandedwind.org/node/212" rel="nofollow">http://strandedwind.org/node/212<p>
South dakota alone has enough wind to power half the US: <a href="http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2007/05/14/sdwind/" rel="nofollow">http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2007/05/14/s ...<p>
And interconnected Windfarms can provide baseload:<br>
<a href="http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/winds/aj07_jamc.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/winds/aj07_jamc.pdf<p>
In addition, as opposed to nuclear power, wind produces more power during day time, when electricity demand is at least doubled. <br>
<a href="http://www.windpower.org/en/tour/wres/variab.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.windpower.org/en/tour/wres/variab.htm<p>
Thinfilm photovoltaics will reach costs of below $1000/kW by 2010.<br>
<a href="http://guntherportfolio.blogspot.com/2007/09/oerlikon-solar-almost-at-work-ersol.html" rel="nofollow">http://guntherportfolio.blogspot.com/2007/09/oerlikon-sol ...<br>
120,000 km2 of the US is built. If only 10% of that area has roof area, that leads to a maximum solar flux of 12,000 GW or 1,200 GW at only 10% efficiency.<p>
Spain installed 2.5 GW of photovoltaics in 2008. 2.5 GW of PV in one single year. On the other hand the new nuclear power plant in Finnland is being built since 2005, won't be finished before 2012 and will have a cost overrun of at least 50%.<br>
<a href="http://www.solarserver.de/news/news-9915.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.solarserver.de/news/news-9915.html<p>
92 x 92 sq mi (or about 8% of Nevada) is enough to power the entire US with solar thermal alone. <br>
<a href="http://www.ausra.com/" rel="nofollow">http://www.ausra.com/<p>
HVDC can transmit power from coast to coast with losses of only 3% per 1000 km at costs of &#128;70/kW per 1000 km (transmission line only).<br>
<a href="http://www.abb.com/cawp/GAD02181/C1256D71001E0037C1256834003AF40D.aspx" rel="nofollow">http://www.abb.com/cawp/GAD02181/C1256D71001E0037C1256834 ...<br>
<a href="http://www.iset.uni-kassel.de/abt/w3-w/projekte/LowCostEuropElSup_revised_for_AKE_2006.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.iset.uni-kassel.de/abt/w3-w/projekte/LowCostEu ...<p>
China has 10 more solar thermal capacity than nuclear power capacity installed, because its cheaper to heat water on a roof than to waste expensive nuclear electricity in electric heaters.<br>
<a href="http://www.ren21.net/pdf/RE2007_Global_Status_Report.pdf" rel="nofollow" rel="nofollow">http://www.ren21.net/pdf/RE2007_Global_Status_Report.pdf<br>
Also, China currently installs almost 200 times more solar thermal capacity annually than the US.<br>
<a href="http://www.ren21.net/pdf/RE2007_Global_Status_Report.pdf" rel="nofollow" rel="nofollow">http://www.ren21.net/pdf/RE2007_Global_Status_Report.pdf<p>
Geothermal can provide 100GWe in the US and as opposed to nuclear power with little investment in R&amp;D according to MIT.<br>
<a href="http://geothermal.inel.gov/publications/future_of_geothermal_energy.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://geothermal.inel.gov/publications/future_of_geother ...<p>
Needless to say, that there is still <br>
biomass <a href="http://www.jenbacher.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.jenbacher.com<br>
wave <a href="http://www.pelamiswave.com/" rel="nofollow">http://www.pelamiswave.com/<br>
tidal <br>
small hydro <br>
and most importantly: Efficiency<p>
However, if no new nuclear power plants would be built, expensive government agencies such as IAEA and Euratom promoting nuclear energy, would not be needed anymore and leave many government-officials jobless.<br>
</br></p></br></br></br></a></br></a></br></p></a></br></p></a></br></br></a></br></p></a></br></a></br></p></a></br></p></a></br></p></br></a></br></p></a></br></p></a></br></p></a></p></a></br></p></a></br></p></a></br></p></strong></p>
			]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
    
 </channel>
</rss>