<?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: Forget Tar Sands: Canada&#8217;s Geothermal Resources &gt;1 Million Times Electricity Consumption</title>
	<atom:link href="http://cleantechnica.com/2011/09/14/forget-tar-sands-canadas-geothermal-resources-1-million-times-electricity-consumption/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://cleantechnica.com/2011/09/14/forget-tar-sands-canadas-geothermal-resources-1-million-times-electricity-consumption/</link>
	<description>Clean Tech News &#38; Views: Solar Energy News. Wind Energy News. EV News. &#38; More.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 30 Dec 2014 02:37:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
		<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
		<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=4.0.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Paul</title>
		<link>http://cleantechnica.com/2011/09/14/forget-tar-sands-canadas-geothermal-resources-1-million-times-electricity-consumption/#comment-105569</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Paul]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 16 Oct 2011 18:05:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cleantechnica.com/?p=30415#comment-105569</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The report actually states &quot;Canada has significant potential for EGS development, as few as 100 projects could meet a significant fraction of Canada&#039;s base load energy needs.&quot; not 100%

Paul in Calgary ]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The report actually states &#8220;Canada has significant potential for EGS development, as few as 100 projects could meet a significant fraction of Canada&#8217;s base load energy needs.&#8221; not 100%</p>
<p>Paul in Calgary </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: T</title>
		<link>http://cleantechnica.com/2011/09/14/forget-tar-sands-canadas-geothermal-resources-1-million-times-electricity-consumption/#comment-104521</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[T]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 15 Sep 2011 09:14:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cleantechnica.com/?p=30415#comment-104521</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Thank you Bob, I was questioning the cost compared to the dam. The other nice thing is since the thermal spots are smaller in size and faster to put up to begin power the nation. While the dam will take time to construct and fill with water on a longer time scale before it start make power and generating its ROI.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thank you Bob, I was questioning the cost compared to the dam. The other nice thing is since the thermal spots are smaller in size and faster to put up to begin power the nation. While the dam will take time to construct and fill with water on a longer time scale before it start make power and generating its ROI.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anonymous</title>
		<link>http://cleantechnica.com/2011/09/14/forget-tar-sands-canadas-geothermal-resources-1-million-times-electricity-consumption/#comment-104507</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Anonymous]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 14 Sep 2011 18:38:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cleantechnica.com/?p=30415#comment-104507</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;The initial cost for the field and power plant is around $2500 per installed kW in the U.S.&quot;   That makes it $2,500,000 per mW.

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/geothermal/faqs.html

$7.9-billion, 1,100 megawatt Site C hydroelectric dam 

$2.75 billion for 1,100 megawatts of geothermal if the $2500/kW and my math are correct.

I does look like geothermal might have a higher operating cost per kWh than hydro might.  The link states $0.01 to $0.03/kWh.   I&#039;m finding operating costs of 0.4 cents to 0.85 cents/kWh for hydro.

Looks like geothermal is lower capex (as those in the game like to use for capital expense) and a little higher for opex (operating expense).

In terms of externalities such as damming rivers and flooding beautiful canyons, geothermal wins.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;The initial cost for the field and power plant is around $2500 per installed kW in the U.S.&#8221;   That makes it $2,500,000 per mW.</p>
<p><a href="http://www1.eere.energy.gov/geothermal/faqs.html" rel="nofollow">http://www1.eere.energy.gov/geothermal/faqs.html</a></p>
<p>$7.9-billion, 1,100 megawatt Site C hydroelectric dam </p>
<p>$2.75 billion for 1,100 megawatts of geothermal if the $2500/kW and my math are correct.</p>
<p>I does look like geothermal might have a higher operating cost per kWh than hydro might.  The link states $0.01 to $0.03/kWh.   I&#8217;m finding operating costs of 0.4 cents to 0.85 cents/kWh for hydro.</p>
<p>Looks like geothermal is lower capex (as those in the game like to use for capital expense) and a little higher for opex (operating expense).</p>
<p>In terms of externalities such as damming rivers and flooding beautiful canyons, geothermal wins.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anonymous</title>
		<link>http://cleantechnica.com/2011/09/14/forget-tar-sands-canadas-geothermal-resources-1-million-times-electricity-consumption/#comment-104505</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Anonymous]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 14 Sep 2011 18:21:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cleantechnica.com/?p=30415#comment-104505</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Cost comparisons to building the dam?

How about the cost of building a HVDC transmission line south to the US as opposed to building the tar pipeline?  Might there be clean money made selling electricity down here?]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Cost comparisons to building the dam?</p>
<p>How about the cost of building a HVDC transmission line south to the US as opposed to building the tar pipeline?  Might there be clean money made selling electricity down here?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anonymous</title>
		<link>http://cleantechnica.com/2011/09/14/forget-tar-sands-canadas-geothermal-resources-1-million-times-electricity-consumption/#comment-104503</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Anonymous]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 14 Sep 2011 18:04:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cleantechnica.com/?p=30415#comment-104503</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;Greed keeps the world the same.&quot;

Well said. I agree...]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Greed keeps the world the same.&#8221;</p>
<p>Well said. I agree&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: David in NYC</title>
		<link>http://cleantechnica.com/2011/09/14/forget-tar-sands-canadas-geothermal-resources-1-million-times-electricity-consumption/#comment-104499</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[David in NYC]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 14 Sep 2011 15:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cleantechnica.com/?p=30415#comment-104499</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Geothermal &amp; tidal energy truly will be the world&#039;s energy future.  There&#039;s simply so much of it that the fossil power elite won&#039;t be able to stop it.
Someday will find burning coal and oil as ridiculous as people use to burn whale oil and firewood.  
Greed keeps the world the same.
]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Geothermal &amp; tidal energy truly will be the world&#8217;s energy future.  There&#8217;s simply so much of it that the fossil power elite won&#8217;t be able to stop it.<br />
Someday will find burning coal and oil as ridiculous as people use to burn whale oil and firewood.<br />
Greed keeps the world the same.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
