<?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: Tidal Power at Center of 50-Billion Pound Thames Hub Regional Redevelopment Plan</title>
	<atom:link href="http://cleantechnica.com/2011/11/03/tidal-power-at-center-of-50-billion-pound-thames-hub-regional-redevelopment-plan/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://cleantechnica.com/2011/11/03/tidal-power-at-center-of-50-billion-pound-thames-hub-regional-redevelopment-plan/</link>
	<description>Clean Tech News &#38; Views: Solar Energy News. Wind Energy News. EV News. &#38; More.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 29 Dec 2014 06:32:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
		<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
		<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=4.0.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Gill Moore</title>
		<link>http://cleantechnica.com/2011/11/03/tidal-power-at-center-of-50-billion-pound-thames-hub-regional-redevelopment-plan/#comment-107232</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Gill Moore]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 11 Nov 2011 20:14:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cleantechnica.com/?p=31881#comment-107232</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This &quot;sophisticated doodle&quot; is not supported by the UK government or the aviation industry. It is not a proposal by the UK government or even commissioned by the UK government. It is merely a self-funded, self-promoting study by Foster + Partners. The fanciful imaginings of Lord Foster or as the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds so succinctly puts it &quot;... the glossy and lavishly illustrated concept that exists only to waste scarce time and resources countering the benefits with a sober assessment of the costs.&quot; Too dangerous because of bird-strike! Economically, environmentally and ecologically it is a complete non-starter.
Friends of the North Kent Marshes]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This &#8220;sophisticated doodle&#8221; is not supported by the UK government or the aviation industry. It is not a proposal by the UK government or even commissioned by the UK government. It is merely a self-funded, self-promoting study by Foster + Partners. The fanciful imaginings of Lord Foster or as the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds so succinctly puts it &#8220;&#8230; the glossy and lavishly illustrated concept that exists only to waste scarce time and resources countering the benefits with a sober assessment of the costs.&#8221; Too dangerous because of bird-strike! Economically, environmentally and ecologically it is a complete non-starter.<br />
Friends of the North Kent Marshes</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Gill Moore</title>
		<link>http://cleantechnica.com/2011/11/03/tidal-power-at-center-of-50-billion-pound-thames-hub-regional-redevelopment-plan/#comment-107231</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Gill Moore]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 11 Nov 2011 20:11:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cleantechnica.com/?p=31881#comment-107231</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Alongside the RSPB and a broad coalition of millions, we are wholly opposed to the construction of an airport anywhere in the Thames Estuary because of the immense damage it would cause to the area’s internationally important wildlife and the wider environment. The whole issue was exhaustively investigated between 2002 and 2005 in the Government’s Aviation White Paper. ALL the key players, including the aviation industry, contributed. The idea of an airport in the Thames Estuary was conclusively ruled out and upheld by the High Court. In addition to the unprecedented environmental damage and the resulting massive legal implications, the investigation found that an estuary airport did not make sense economically, would not meet the requirements of the aviation industry and presented a significantly higher risk of ‘bird strike’ than at any other major airport in the UK. It would potentially be the single biggest piece of environmental vandalism ever perpetrated in the UK.
Friends of the North Kent Marshes]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Alongside the RSPB and a broad coalition of millions, we are wholly opposed to the construction of an airport anywhere in the Thames Estuary because of the immense damage it would cause to the area’s internationally important wildlife and the wider environment. The whole issue was exhaustively investigated between 2002 and 2005 in the Government’s Aviation White Paper. ALL the key players, including the aviation industry, contributed. The idea of an airport in the Thames Estuary was conclusively ruled out and upheld by the High Court. In addition to the unprecedented environmental damage and the resulting massive legal implications, the investigation found that an estuary airport did not make sense economically, would not meet the requirements of the aviation industry and presented a significantly higher risk of ‘bird strike’ than at any other major airport in the UK. It would potentially be the single biggest piece of environmental vandalism ever perpetrated in the UK.<br />
Friends of the North Kent Marshes</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Foster + Partners, Halcrow and Volterra Propose Tidal Power Arrays (UK) &#62;&#62; Offshore Wind</title>
		<link>http://cleantechnica.com/2011/11/03/tidal-power-at-center-of-50-billion-pound-thames-hub-regional-redevelopment-plan/#comment-106641</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Foster + Partners, Halcrow and Volterra Propose Tidal Power Arrays (UK) &#62;&#62; Offshore Wind]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 Nov 2011 15:05:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cleantechnica.com/?p=31881#comment-106641</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] By Andrew Burger (cleantechnica) [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] By Andrew Burger (cleantechnica) [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
