<?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: Time of Day Pricing in Texas</title>
	<atom:link href="http://cleantechnica.com/2011/12/27/time-of-day-pricing-in-texas/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://cleantechnica.com/2011/12/27/time-of-day-pricing-in-texas/</link>
	<description>Clean Tech News &#38; Views: Solar Energy News. Wind Energy News. EV News. &#38; More.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 30 Dec 2014 17:59:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
		<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
		<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=4.0.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anonymous</title>
		<link>http://cleantechnica.com/2011/12/27/time-of-day-pricing-in-texas/#comment-110210</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Anonymous]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 Dec 2011 08:10:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cleantechnica.com/?p=33279#comment-110210</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Nothing can be counted on to &quot; ensure 60Hz and the correct voltage at all times. &quot;

Nuclear, coal, whatever - it&#039;s going to be down some of the time.  Utility grid operators deal with abrupt changes in supply and demand all the time. 
Right now when the wind is up grid managers can cut back on natural gas, coal or hydro.  Later we&#039;ll likely have lots of storage to fill in the gaps, but we&#039;re a long way from needing storage right now.  There&#039;s plenty fossil fuel generation to shut off.  And there are promising battery technologies moving into the manufacturing phase.  Zinc-air and sodium-ion batteries look promising for grid use.  They use low cost materials and are easy to manufacture.

Nuclear is expensive, takes a long time to build, and we have no idea what to do with the millions of tons of hazardous waste we&#039;ve got now.

Here&#039;s what National Geographic tells us about the huge amount of problematic &#039;stuff&#039; we already have.  Gifts for those who follow us.... 
&quot;What&#039;s to be done with 52,000 tons (47,000 metric tons) of dangerously radioactive spent fuel from commercial and defense nuclear reactors? With 91 million gallons (345 million liters) of high-level waste left over from plutonium processing, scores of tons of plutonium, more than half a million
tons of depleted uranium, millions of cubic feet of contaminated tools,
metal scraps, clothing, oils, solvents, and other waste? And with some 265
million tons (240 million metric tons) of tailings from milling uranium
ore—less than half stabilized—littering landscapes? &quot;

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0207/feature1/index.html]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Nothing can be counted on to &#8221; ensure 60Hz and the correct voltage at all times. &#8221;</p>
<p>Nuclear, coal, whatever &#8211; it&#8217;s going to be down some of the time.  Utility grid operators deal with abrupt changes in supply and demand all the time.<br />
Right now when the wind is up grid managers can cut back on natural gas, coal or hydro.  Later we&#8217;ll likely have lots of storage to fill in the gaps, but we&#8217;re a long way from needing storage right now.  There&#8217;s plenty fossil fuel generation to shut off.  And there are promising battery technologies moving into the manufacturing phase.  Zinc-air and sodium-ion batteries look promising for grid use.  They use low cost materials and are easy to manufacture.</p>
<p>Nuclear is expensive, takes a long time to build, and we have no idea what to do with the millions of tons of hazardous waste we&#8217;ve got now.</p>
<p>Here&#8217;s what National Geographic tells us about the huge amount of problematic &#8216;stuff&#8217; we already have.  Gifts for those who follow us&#8230;.<br />
&#8220;What&#8217;s to be done with 52,000 tons (47,000 metric tons) of dangerously radioactive spent fuel from commercial and defense nuclear reactors? With 91 million gallons (345 million liters) of high-level waste left over from plutonium processing, scores of tons of plutonium, more than half a million<br />
tons of depleted uranium, millions of cubic feet of contaminated tools,<br />
metal scraps, clothing, oils, solvents, and other waste? And with some 265<br />
million tons (240 million metric tons) of tailings from milling uranium<br />
ore—less than half stabilized—littering landscapes? &#8221;</p>
<p><a href="http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0207/feature1/index.html" rel="nofollow">http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0207/feature1/index.html</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tomctheman</title>
		<link>http://cleantechnica.com/2011/12/27/time-of-day-pricing-in-texas/#comment-110208</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Tomctheman]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 Dec 2011 07:44:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cleantechnica.com/?p=33279#comment-110208</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[What makes the energy during the night?  Wind is still intermittent and can&#039;t be counted on to ensure 60Hz and the correct voltage at all times.  I agree that wind and solar must be integral to the energy portfolio, but you still need plants that can be relied on at all times.  Considering the pollution from coal and, although to a lesser degree, from natural gas it seems that nuclear is a good bet.  ]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What makes the energy during the night?  Wind is still intermittent and can&#8217;t be counted on to ensure 60Hz and the correct voltage at all times.  I agree that wind and solar must be integral to the energy portfolio, but you still need plants that can be relied on at all times.  Considering the pollution from coal and, although to a lesser degree, from natural gas it seems that nuclear is a good bet.  </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anonymous</title>
		<link>http://cleantechnica.com/2011/12/27/time-of-day-pricing-in-texas/#comment-110138</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Anonymous]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 Dec 2011 02:11:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cleantechnica.com/?p=33279#comment-110138</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The price of electricity, overall drops.

It drops because utility companies won&#039;t have to call on gas peaker plants or buy expensive power from further away.

And it drops because they can use more cheap wind power.



(Peak, not peek.....)]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The price of electricity, overall drops.</p>
<p>It drops because utility companies won&#8217;t have to call on gas peaker plants or buy expensive power from further away.</p>
<p>And it drops because they can use more cheap wind power.</p>
<p>(Peak, not peek&#8230;..)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Seamus Dubh</title>
		<link>http://cleantechnica.com/2011/12/27/time-of-day-pricing-in-texas/#comment-110135</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Seamus Dubh]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 27 Dec 2011 23:36:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cleantechnica.com/?p=33279#comment-110135</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[So tell me what happens when people shift there lives to this off peek time frame enough that their collective energy usage becomes equal to if not higher than the original peek time frame?]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>So tell me what happens when people shift there lives to this off peek time frame enough that their collective energy usage becomes equal to if not higher than the original peek time frame?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
