<?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: NREL Lends Legitimacy to Life-Cycle Assessment of Coal v Renewables</title>
	<atom:link href="http://cleantechnica.com/2012/05/07/nrel-lends-legitimacy-to-life-cycle-assessment-of-coal-v-renewables/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://cleantechnica.com/2012/05/07/nrel-lends-legitimacy-to-life-cycle-assessment-of-coal-v-renewables/</link>
	<description>Clean Tech News &#38; Views: Solar Energy News. Wind Energy News. EV News. &#38; More.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 30 Dec 2014 12:29:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
		<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
		<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=4.0.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anti-Wind Propaganda Plot Exposed by DeSmogBlog</title>
		<link>http://cleantechnica.com/2012/05/07/nrel-lends-legitimacy-to-life-cycle-assessment-of-coal-v-renewables/#comment-120550</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Anti-Wind Propaganda Plot Exposed by DeSmogBlog]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 May 2012 22:15:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cleantechnica.com/?p=37745#comment-120550</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] wind power (or &#8220;puff power&#8221; as they suggest rebranding it) as unpopular as coal is, by funding scientific studies that: &#8220;Cause the targeted audience to change its opinion and action based on the [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] wind power (or &#8220;puff power&#8221; as they suggest rebranding it) as unpopular as coal is, by funding scientific studies that: &#8220;Cause the targeted audience to change its opinion and action based on the [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Susan Kraemer</title>
		<link>http://cleantechnica.com/2012/05/07/nrel-lends-legitimacy-to-life-cycle-assessment-of-coal-v-renewables/#comment-120474</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Susan Kraemer]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 May 2012 04:48:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cleantechnica.com/?p=37745#comment-120474</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Bill, you should have done this piece! My mistake, fixing:
Here is all the supporting info for coal: 

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/store/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2012.00465.x/asset/supinfo/JIEC_465_sm_suppmat.pdf?v=1&amp;s=0cf2d763dec24aad5cbcff347c8a1b91b93034b1

You are right, the averages do in fact look more like the 1,000 grams per kWh that you see at wikipedia, not 100 grams. Have no idea how I got such a low number.

(Interesting that coal mine methane is a deal at just 63 grams per kWh - I had no idea.)
]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Bill, you should have done this piece! My mistake, fixing:<br />
Here is all the supporting info for coal: </p>
<p><a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/store/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2012.00465.x/asset/supinfo/JIEC_465_sm_suppmat.pdf?v=1&#038;s=0cf2d763dec24aad5cbcff347c8a1b91b93034b1" rel="nofollow">http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/store/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2012.00465.x/asset/supinfo/JIEC_465_sm_suppmat.pdf?v=1&#038;s=0cf2d763dec24aad5cbcff347c8a1b91b93034b1</a></p>
<p>You are right, the averages do in fact look more like the 1,000 grams per kWh that you see at wikipedia, not 100 grams. Have no idea how I got such a low number.</p>
<p>(Interesting that coal mine methane is a deal at just 63 grams per kWh &#8211; I had no idea.)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bill_Woods</title>
		<link>http://cleantechnica.com/2012/05/07/nrel-lends-legitimacy-to-life-cycle-assessment-of-coal-v-renewables/#comment-120458</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Bill_Woods]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 08 May 2012 23:29:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cleantechnica.com/?p=37745#comment-120458</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;Wind and solar generate about 5 grams to coal’s 100 grams of CO2 to generate 1 kilowatt hour of energy.&quot;

Both these numbers seem low, but the coal figure is &lt;i&gt;very&lt;/i&gt; low -- did you mean 1000 g/kW-h?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparisons_of_life-cycle_greenhouse-gas_emissions]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Wind and solar generate about 5 grams to coal’s 100 grams of CO2 to generate 1 kilowatt hour of energy.&#8221;</p>
<p>Both these numbers seem low, but the coal figure is <i>very</i> low &#8212; did you mean 1000 g/kW-h?<br />
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparisons_of_life-cycle_greenhouse-gas_emissions" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparisons_of_life-cycle_greenhouse-gas_emissions</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Susan Kraemer</title>
		<link>http://cleantechnica.com/2012/05/07/nrel-lends-legitimacy-to-life-cycle-assessment-of-coal-v-renewables/#comment-120456</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Susan Kraemer]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 08 May 2012 23:03:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cleantechnica.com/?p=37745#comment-120456</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[You are right, that was one terrible math typo. Thank you so much for catching it Bill. In fact it is 20 times as much - solar and wind were 95 % less.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You are right, that was one terrible math typo. Thank you so much for catching it Bill. In fact it is 20 times as much &#8211; solar and wind were 95 % less.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Susan Kraemer</title>
		<link>http://cleantechnica.com/2012/05/07/nrel-lends-legitimacy-to-life-cycle-assessment-of-coal-v-renewables/#comment-120454</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Susan Kraemer]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 08 May 2012 22:55:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cleantechnica.com/?p=37745#comment-120454</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Oh, very good point. Yes, that is what I meant. Jeez!]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Oh, very good point. Yes, that is what I meant. Jeez!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bill_Woods</title>
		<link>http://cleantechnica.com/2012/05/07/nrel-lends-legitimacy-to-life-cycle-assessment-of-coal-v-renewables/#comment-120440</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Bill_Woods]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 08 May 2012 20:03:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cleantechnica.com/?p=37745#comment-120440</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;... burning coal generates 95% more greenhouse gases than construction projects that generate energy such as solar or wind farms.&quot;

Coal only generates about twice as much? That&#039;s not very impressive. Perhaps you meant wind or solar generate 95% &lt;i&gt;less&lt;/i&gt; than coal? (I.e. coal generates 20 times more?) 

The figures I recall are that fossil fuel emissions are in the 100s of grams of CO2 per kilowatt-hour, while clean-energy emissions are in the 10s. ]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;&#8230; burning coal generates 95% more greenhouse gases than construction projects that generate energy such as solar or wind farms.&#8221;</p>
<p>Coal only generates about twice as much? That&#8217;s not very impressive. Perhaps you meant wind or solar generate 95% <i>less</i> than coal? (I.e. coal generates 20 times more?) </p>
<p>The figures I recall are that fossil fuel emissions are in the 100s of grams of CO2 per kilowatt-hour, while clean-energy emissions are in the 10s. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
