<?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: New Study on Material Constraints of Concentrating Solar Thermal Power (Finding: Not a Problem)</title>
	<atom:link href="http://cleantechnica.com/2012/07/02/new-study-on-material-constraints-of-concentrating-solar-thermal-power-not-a-problem/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://cleantechnica.com/2012/07/02/new-study-on-material-constraints-of-concentrating-solar-thermal-power-not-a-problem/</link>
	<description>Clean Tech News &#38; Views: Solar Energy News. Wind Energy News. EV News. &#38; More.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 30 Dec 2014 08:17:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
		<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
		<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=4.0.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bob_Wallace</title>
		<link>http://cleantechnica.com/2012/07/02/new-study-on-material-constraints-of-concentrating-solar-thermal-power-not-a-problem/#comment-207867</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Bob_Wallace]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 05 Feb 2014 02:26:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cleantechnica.com/?p=39694#comment-207867</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I have no idea what you&#039;re saying.  


Wind can only do &lt;6%?  What does that mean?]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I have no idea what you&#8217;re saying.  </p>
<p>Wind can only do &lt;6%?  What does that mean?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rowan</title>
		<link>http://cleantechnica.com/2012/07/02/new-study-on-material-constraints-of-concentrating-solar-thermal-power-not-a-problem/#comment-207864</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Rowan]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 05 Feb 2014 02:06:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cleantechnica.com/?p=39694#comment-207864</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I wonder why they only did the calculation for 5% of global energy use? Is that because they presume the rest will continue to come from other sources. Wind can only do &lt;6%. The world&#039;s biomass would last 26mins at current consumption rates. Uranium reserves 42 days. Or maybe food is the constraint so we won&#039;t need as much?]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I wonder why they only did the calculation for 5% of global energy use? Is that because they presume the rest will continue to come from other sources. Wind can only do &lt;6%. The world&#039;s biomass would last 26mins at current consumption rates. Uranium reserves 42 days. Or maybe food is the constraint so we won&#039;t need as much?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
