<?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: T. Boone&#039;s &#039;Pickens Plan&#039;: Spin the wind turbine</title>
	<atom:link href="http://cleantechnica.com/2008/07/14/t-boones-pickens-plan-spin-the-wind-turbine/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://cleantechnica.com/2008/07/14/t-boones-pickens-plan-spin-the-wind-turbine/</link>
	<description>Clean Tech News &#38; Views: Solar Energy News. Wind Energy News. EV News. &#38; More.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 13:53:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
<xhtml:meta xmlns:xhtml="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" name="robots" content="noindex" />
	<item>
		<title>By: jimmie</title>
		<link>http://cleantechnica.com/2008/07/14/t-boones-pickens-plan-spin-the-wind-turbine/#comment-1914</link>
		<dc:creator>jimmie</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 13 Sep 2008 03:08:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cleantechnica.com/?p=682#comment-1914</guid>
		<description>i agree with you 1000% lets drill for ever!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>i agree with you 1000% lets drill for ever!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: jimmie</title>
		<link>http://cleantechnica.com/2008/07/14/t-boones-pickens-plan-spin-the-wind-turbine/#comment-18172</link>
		<dc:creator>jimmie</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 13 Sep 2008 03:08:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cleantechnica.com/?p=682#comment-18172</guid>
		<description>i agree with you 1000% lets drill for ever!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>i agree with you 1000% lets drill for ever!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Allen</title>
		<link>http://cleantechnica.com/2008/07/14/t-boones-pickens-plan-spin-the-wind-turbine/#comment-1913</link>
		<dc:creator>Allen</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 13 Aug 2008 15:05:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cleantechnica.com/?p=682#comment-1913</guid>
		<description>Why hasn&#039;t anyone mentioned T-boon&#039;s plan for compressed natural gas cars? This is where he will make any money if that is his goal. Let&#039;s not forget that we live in a capitalist society. Now to the problems with that part of the plan COST of distribution system (most likely on the back of the tax payer) and the cost of conversion on the vehicles to use the fuel. Same with yuckanol (ethanol) If the true goal is to decrease foreign oil use then there are far better off the shelf systems availible for electricity production. Capstone Micro Turbines are just one example. Nevada solar one 300 acres $266M for 64MW(continuous)-75MW(peek) = $4.156M per MW (Based on continuous output)

Capstone Micro Turbine less than one acre $1400 per KW = $1.4M per MW (The same continuous output for $175M less) And there is money to be made here too look at the stock price for Capstone. Cheap now and by using the cost compairson to convince people to buy more the stock will go up. Simple faster than any other option. Oh yea they don&#039;t have to be conected to the grid that is ageing and in constant need of maintenance.

And as far as fuels for our vehicles go Butanol is the better choice for fermented fuel for the end user, because there is no need to modify or purchase a new vehicle to use it. As far as production numbers go from fermentation it matches yuckanol and one process also produces hydrogen as a byproduct thus making it even more energy productive than fermented yuckanol. If they made Butanol in 1916 by mistake since they were after acetone to make gun powder and the Butanol was a waste product then we darn sure can make it now, with all the tech advances we make in everything els, we can&#039;t seem to make advances in efficency? LS9 and algae &quot;bio crude&quot; are better still than butanol. If all the money were to be concentrated on the best soulition then it will become a reality faster. America is smart enough to figure that out... or is it? Doesn&#039;t seem so when one looks at all the yuckanol plants being built.(At best some of them aren&#039;t useing corn.) Why? Look at every time there is a budget deficit in government what is among the first thing to be cut? Education. I say the first thing that should be cut is the pay for the crooks we elect to represent us. Pay them based on performance. Put them on Social Security and see how fast it gets fixed. Make them use medicare and see how fast that gets fixed. And please pass a law that says if someone in the meida points out a problem and critices a potential soulition then they have to also give a better soulition other wise they just need to shut their hole.

One last question I have is how does 3% of the total CO2 on earth make such a big impact on the warming of the planet?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Why hasn&#8217;t anyone mentioned T-boon&#8217;s plan for compressed natural gas cars? This is where he will make any money if that is his goal. Let&#8217;s not forget that we live in a capitalist society. Now to the problems with that part of the plan COST of distribution system (most likely on the back of the tax payer) and the cost of conversion on the vehicles to use the fuel. Same with yuckanol (ethanol) If the true goal is to decrease foreign oil use then there are far better off the shelf systems availible for electricity production. Capstone Micro Turbines are just one example. Nevada solar one 300 acres $266M for 64MW(continuous)-75MW(peek) = $4.156M per MW (Based on continuous output)</p>
<p>Capstone Micro Turbine less than one acre $1400 per KW = $1.4M per MW (The same continuous output for $175M less) And there is money to be made here too look at the stock price for Capstone. Cheap now and by using the cost compairson to convince people to buy more the stock will go up. Simple faster than any other option. Oh yea they don&#8217;t have to be conected to the grid that is ageing and in constant need of maintenance.</p>
<p>And as far as fuels for our vehicles go Butanol is the better choice for fermented fuel for the end user, because there is no need to modify or purchase a new vehicle to use it. As far as production numbers go from fermentation it matches yuckanol and one process also produces hydrogen as a byproduct thus making it even more energy productive than fermented yuckanol. If they made Butanol in 1916 by mistake since they were after acetone to make gun powder and the Butanol was a waste product then we darn sure can make it now, with all the tech advances we make in everything els, we can&#8217;t seem to make advances in efficency? LS9 and algae &#8220;bio crude&#8221; are better still than butanol. If all the money were to be concentrated on the best soulition then it will become a reality faster. America is smart enough to figure that out&#8230; or is it? Doesn&#8217;t seem so when one looks at all the yuckanol plants being built.(At best some of them aren&#8217;t useing corn.) Why? Look at every time there is a budget deficit in government what is among the first thing to be cut? Education. I say the first thing that should be cut is the pay for the crooks we elect to represent us. Pay them based on performance. Put them on Social Security and see how fast it gets fixed. Make them use medicare and see how fast that gets fixed. And please pass a law that says if someone in the meida points out a problem and critices a potential soulition then they have to also give a better soulition other wise they just need to shut their hole.</p>
<p>One last question I have is how does 3% of the total CO2 on earth make such a big impact on the warming of the planet?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Allen</title>
		<link>http://cleantechnica.com/2008/07/14/t-boones-pickens-plan-spin-the-wind-turbine/#comment-18171</link>
		<dc:creator>Allen</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 13 Aug 2008 15:05:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cleantechnica.com/?p=682#comment-18171</guid>
		<description>Why hasn&#039;t anyone mentioned T-boon&#039;s plan for compressed natural gas cars? This is where he will make any money if that is his goal. Let&#039;s not forget that we live in a capitalist society. Now to the problems with that part of the plan COST of distribution system (most likely on the back of the tax payer) and the cost of conversion on the vehicles to use the fuel. Same with yuckanol (ethanol) If the true goal is to decrease foreign oil use then there are far better off the shelf systems availible for electricity production. Capstone Micro Turbines are just one example. Nevada solar one 300 acres $266M for 64MW(continuous)-75MW(peek) = $4.156M per MW (Based on continuous output)

Capstone Micro Turbine less than one acre $1400 per KW = $1.4M per MW (The same continuous output for $175M less) And there is money to be made here too look at the stock price for Capstone. Cheap now and by using the cost compairson to convince people to buy more the stock will go up. Simple faster than any other option. Oh yea they don&#039;t have to be conected to the grid that is ageing and in constant need of maintenance.

And as far as fuels for our vehicles go Butanol is the better choice for fermented fuel for the end user, because there is no need to modify or purchase a new vehicle to use it. As far as production numbers go from fermentation it matches yuckanol and one process also produces hydrogen as a byproduct thus making it even more energy productive than fermented yuckanol. If they made Butanol in 1916 by mistake since they were after acetone to make gun powder and the Butanol was a waste product then we darn sure can make it now, with all the tech advances we make in everything els, we can&#039;t seem to make advances in efficency? LS9 and algae &quot;bio crude&quot; are better still than butanol. If all the money were to be concentrated on the best soulition then it will become a reality faster. America is smart enough to figure that out... or is it? Doesn&#039;t seem so when one looks at all the yuckanol plants being built.(At best some of them aren&#039;t useing corn.) Why? Look at every time there is a budget deficit in government what is among the first thing to be cut? Education. I say the first thing that should be cut is the pay for the crooks we elect to represent us. Pay them based on performance. Put them on Social Security and see how fast it gets fixed. Make them use medicare and see how fast that gets fixed. And please pass a law that says if someone in the meida points out a problem and critices a potential soulition then they have to also give a better soulition other wise they just need to shut their hole.

One last question I have is how does 3% of the total CO2 on earth make such a big impact on the warming of the planet?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Why hasn&#8217;t anyone mentioned T-boon&#8217;s plan for compressed natural gas cars? This is where he will make any money if that is his goal. Let&#8217;s not forget that we live in a capitalist society. Now to the problems with that part of the plan COST of distribution system (most likely on the back of the tax payer) and the cost of conversion on the vehicles to use the fuel. Same with yuckanol (ethanol) If the true goal is to decrease foreign oil use then there are far better off the shelf systems availible for electricity production. Capstone Micro Turbines are just one example. Nevada solar one 300 acres $266M for 64MW(continuous)-75MW(peek) = $4.156M per MW (Based on continuous output)</p>
<p>Capstone Micro Turbine less than one acre $1400 per KW = $1.4M per MW (The same continuous output for $175M less) And there is money to be made here too look at the stock price for Capstone. Cheap now and by using the cost compairson to convince people to buy more the stock will go up. Simple faster than any other option. Oh yea they don&#8217;t have to be conected to the grid that is ageing and in constant need of maintenance.</p>
<p>And as far as fuels for our vehicles go Butanol is the better choice for fermented fuel for the end user, because there is no need to modify or purchase a new vehicle to use it. As far as production numbers go from fermentation it matches yuckanol and one process also produces hydrogen as a byproduct thus making it even more energy productive than fermented yuckanol. If they made Butanol in 1916 by mistake since they were after acetone to make gun powder and the Butanol was a waste product then we darn sure can make it now, with all the tech advances we make in everything els, we can&#8217;t seem to make advances in efficency? LS9 and algae &#8220;bio crude&#8221; are better still than butanol. If all the money were to be concentrated on the best soulition then it will become a reality faster. America is smart enough to figure that out&#8230; or is it? Doesn&#8217;t seem so when one looks at all the yuckanol plants being built.(At best some of them aren&#8217;t useing corn.) Why? Look at every time there is a budget deficit in government what is among the first thing to be cut? Education. I say the first thing that should be cut is the pay for the crooks we elect to represent us. Pay them based on performance. Put them on Social Security and see how fast it gets fixed. Make them use medicare and see how fast that gets fixed. And please pass a law that says if someone in the meida points out a problem and critices a potential soulition then they have to also give a better soulition other wise they just need to shut their hole.</p>
<p>One last question I have is how does 3% of the total CO2 on earth make such a big impact on the warming of the planet?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: John C. Randolph</title>
		<link>http://cleantechnica.com/2008/07/14/t-boones-pickens-plan-spin-the-wind-turbine/#comment-1912</link>
		<dc:creator>John C. Randolph</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 01 Aug 2008 18:57:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cleantechnica.com/?p=682#comment-1912</guid>
		<description>It seems that some people here regard personal financial gain as a bad thing.  If Pickens can make another billion dollars selling something for which people willingly part with their money, good for him.



-jcr</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It seems that some people here regard personal financial gain as a bad thing.  If Pickens can make another billion dollars selling something for which people willingly part with their money, good for him.</p>
<p>-jcr</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: John C. Randolph</title>
		<link>http://cleantechnica.com/2008/07/14/t-boones-pickens-plan-spin-the-wind-turbine/#comment-18170</link>
		<dc:creator>John C. Randolph</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 01 Aug 2008 18:57:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cleantechnica.com/?p=682#comment-18170</guid>
		<description>It seems that some people here regard personal financial gain as a bad thing.  If Pickens can make another billion dollars selling something for which people willingly part with their money, good for him.



-jcr</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It seems that some people here regard personal financial gain as a bad thing.  If Pickens can make another billion dollars selling something for which people willingly part with their money, good for him.</p>
<p>-jcr</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Susan</title>
		<link>http://cleantechnica.com/2008/07/14/t-boones-pickens-plan-spin-the-wind-turbine/#comment-1911</link>
		<dc:creator>Susan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 18 Jul 2008 22:42:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cleantechnica.com/?p=682#comment-1911</guid>
		<description>Go Casey, I think you&#039;re right on about T. Boone Pickens.  I think this guy is 80 and has achieved all he needs to in terms of material wealth.  He is now in a position of truly making a difference.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Go Casey, I think you&#8217;re right on about T. Boone Pickens.  I think this guy is 80 and has achieved all he needs to in terms of material wealth.  He is now in a position of truly making a difference.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Susan</title>
		<link>http://cleantechnica.com/2008/07/14/t-boones-pickens-plan-spin-the-wind-turbine/#comment-18169</link>
		<dc:creator>Susan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 18 Jul 2008 22:42:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cleantechnica.com/?p=682#comment-18169</guid>
		<description>Go Casey, I think you&#039;re right on about T. Boone Pickens.  I think this guy is 80 and has achieved all he needs to in terms of material wealth.  He is now in a position of truly making a difference.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Go Casey, I think you&#8217;re right on about T. Boone Pickens.  I think this guy is 80 and has achieved all he needs to in terms of material wealth.  He is now in a position of truly making a difference.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rod Adams</title>
		<link>http://cleantechnica.com/2008/07/14/t-boones-pickens-plan-spin-the-wind-turbine/#comment-1910</link>
		<dc:creator>Rod Adams</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 Jul 2008 00:09:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cleantechnica.com/?p=682#comment-1910</guid>
		<description>I find it interesting when people keep asserting that manufacturing and erecting thousands of wind turbines in remote areas will be a faster solution to reducing greenhouse gases than building nuclear power plants.



For some reason, the historical fact that the US managed to build 112 nuclear power plants in the short period from 1970-1990 escapes people. The other piece that really escapes them is the fact that the 104 nuclear power plants that continue to operate today produce more than 800 terrawatt-hours of electricity each year. That electricity has an economic value of between $40 and $80 billion at current electricity prices.



As an interesting side note - the entire US grid produced only about 650 terrawatt-hours in 1960.



It has nothing to do with the quantity of the subsidies - which stopped in about 1990, by the way. It has everything to do with the fact that uranium fission is a reliable source of emissions free heat that can be converted into massive quantities of electricity that is available 24 x 7 x 365 x 0.9.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I find it interesting when people keep asserting that manufacturing and erecting thousands of wind turbines in remote areas will be a faster solution to reducing greenhouse gases than building nuclear power plants.</p>
<p>For some reason, the historical fact that the US managed to build 112 nuclear power plants in the short period from 1970-1990 escapes people. The other piece that really escapes them is the fact that the 104 nuclear power plants that continue to operate today produce more than 800 terrawatt-hours of electricity each year. That electricity has an economic value of between $40 and $80 billion at current electricity prices.</p>
<p>As an interesting side note &#8211; the entire US grid produced only about 650 terrawatt-hours in 1960.</p>
<p>It has nothing to do with the quantity of the subsidies &#8211; which stopped in about 1990, by the way. It has everything to do with the fact that uranium fission is a reliable source of emissions free heat that can be converted into massive quantities of electricity that is available 24 x 7 x 365 x 0.9.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rod Adams</title>
		<link>http://cleantechnica.com/2008/07/14/t-boones-pickens-plan-spin-the-wind-turbine/#comment-18168</link>
		<dc:creator>Rod Adams</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 Jul 2008 00:09:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cleantechnica.com/?p=682#comment-18168</guid>
		<description>I find it interesting when people keep asserting that manufacturing and erecting thousands of wind turbines in remote areas will be a faster solution to reducing greenhouse gases than building nuclear power plants.



For some reason, the historical fact that the US managed to build 112 nuclear power plants in the short period from 1970-1990 escapes people. The other piece that really escapes them is the fact that the 104 nuclear power plants that continue to operate today produce more than 800 terrawatt-hours of electricity each year. That electricity has an economic value of between $40 and $80 billion at current electricity prices.



As an interesting side note - the entire US grid produced only about 650 terrawatt-hours in 1960.



It has nothing to do with the quantity of the subsidies - which stopped in about 1990, by the way. It has everything to do with the fact that uranium fission is a reliable source of emissions free heat that can be converted into massive quantities of electricity that is available 24 x 7 x 365 x 0.9.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I find it interesting when people keep asserting that manufacturing and erecting thousands of wind turbines in remote areas will be a faster solution to reducing greenhouse gases than building nuclear power plants.</p>
<p>For some reason, the historical fact that the US managed to build 112 nuclear power plants in the short period from 1970-1990 escapes people. The other piece that really escapes them is the fact that the 104 nuclear power plants that continue to operate today produce more than 800 terrawatt-hours of electricity each year. That electricity has an economic value of between $40 and $80 billion at current electricity prices.</p>
<p>As an interesting side note &#8211; the entire US grid produced only about 650 terrawatt-hours in 1960.</p>
<p>It has nothing to do with the quantity of the subsidies &#8211; which stopped in about 1990, by the way. It has everything to do with the fact that uranium fission is a reliable source of emissions free heat that can be converted into massive quantities of electricity that is available 24 x 7 x 365 x 0.9.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

