<?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 Renewables industry fears for future if Senate doesn&#8217;t extend tax credits]]></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 Jonas</title>
			<link>http://www.grist.org/article/renewed-anxiety/</link>
			<pubDate>Tue, 10 Jun 2008 12:03:28 -0700</pubDate>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.grist.org/article/renewed-anxiety/1</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>Subsidies pay themselves back</strong></p><p>The only renewable energy technology currently capable of surviving without subsidies is biomass. </p><p>
But no matter where you get the money from needed to finance the subsidies for other, less commercially viable renewables, giving credits or feed-in tariffs really results in a boost to the industry which pays itself back very rapidly.</p><p>
The German government just recently renewed subsidies for renewables (low amount needed for biomass, higher for wind, very high for solar), but this time was already capable of putting a phase-out mechanism into it. </p><p>
Meanwhile, the huge number of jobs this sector has created has already paid back the subsidies of the past (more than 400,000 green jobs today; extrapolate this to the U.S. and you'd have 1.6 million new jobs...). The R&amp;D in renewables has made big progress in Germany (see REpower or biogas), and foreign investments have received a boost.</p><p>
Subsidies, if clearly tied to a mechanism for their re-evaluation and phase-out, do make sense here. </p>
			]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>Subsidies pay themselves back</strong></p><p>The only renewable energy technology currently capable of surviving without subsidies is biomass. </p><p>
But no matter where you get the money from needed to finance the subsidies for other, less commercially viable renewables, giving credits or feed-in tariffs really results in a boost to the industry which pays itself back very rapidly.</p><p>
The German government just recently renewed subsidies for renewables (low amount needed for biomass, higher for wind, very high for solar), but this time was already capable of putting a phase-out mechanism into it. </p><p>
Meanwhile, the huge number of jobs this sector has created has already paid back the subsidies of the past (more than 400,000 green jobs today; extrapolate this to the U.S. and you'd have 1.6 million new jobs...). The R&amp;D in renewables has made big progress in Germany (see REpower or biogas), and foreign investments have received a boost.</p><p>
Subsidies, if clearly tied to a mechanism for their re-evaluation and phase-out, do make sense here. </p>
			]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
    
		<item>
            <title>Comment #2 by seattlegrister</title>
			<link>http://www.grist.org/article/renewed-anxiety/</link>
			<pubDate>Fri, 13 Jun 2008 02:56:55 -0700</pubDate>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.grist.org/article/renewed-anxiety/2</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>Solar Power derailed in Oregon by Pacific Corp<p>For all of the talk re: supporting solar, Pacific Corp (owned by Berkshire Hathaway - Warren Buffet) is trying to block $100 million of investment this year alone. &nbsp;Unbelievable!<p>
Not sure what their angle is, but I don't know why this isn't getting more attention.<p>
Here's an article in the Oregonian:<p>
<a href="http://www.oregonlive.com/environment/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/news/1213241104179110.xml&amp;coll=7&amp;thispage=1" rel="nofollow">http://www.oregonlive.com/environment/oregonian/index.ssf ...<p>
And in Portland's weekly:<p>
<a href="http://wweek.com/editorial/3431/11084/" rel="nofollow">http://wweek.com/editorial/3431/11084/

<p>Yours truly,
SMC</p></a></p></p></a></p></p></p></p></strong></p>
			]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>Solar Power derailed in Oregon by Pacific Corp<p>For all of the talk re: supporting solar, Pacific Corp (owned by Berkshire Hathaway - Warren Buffet) is trying to block $100 million of investment this year alone. &nbsp;Unbelievable!<p>
Not sure what their angle is, but I don't know why this isn't getting more attention.<p>
Here's an article in the Oregonian:<p>
<a href="http://www.oregonlive.com/environment/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/news/1213241104179110.xml&amp;coll=7&amp;thispage=1" rel="nofollow">http://www.oregonlive.com/environment/oregonian/index.ssf ...<p>
And in Portland's weekly:<p>
<a href="http://wweek.com/editorial/3431/11084/" rel="nofollow">http://wweek.com/editorial/3431/11084/

<p>Yours truly,
SMC</p></a></p></p></a></p></p></p></p></strong></p>
			]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
    
 </channel>
</rss>