<?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: Hydro Power; the end or here to stay?</title>
	<atom:link href="https://www.lauritzen.biz/blog/?feed=rss2&#038;p=40" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://www.lauritzen.biz/blog/?p=40</link>
	<description>Bringing new ideas to renewable energy</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 23 Nov 2017 17:22:22 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.39</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: mogens</title>
		<link>https://www.lauritzen.biz/blog/?p=40#comment-10</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[mogens]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 29 Sep 2014 00:00:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lauritzen.biz/blog/?p=40#comment-10</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Yep, you are absolutely right. Regarding California installed hydro capacity; it&#039;s interesting to note that given unlimited water supply, we have enough turbine capacity to provide 50% of annual California electricity usage.

Solar is still an expensive option at the wholesale level, but has tremendous potential. If you were to plaster a app 600 square mile (20 x 30 miles, 30 x 50km) area with today&#039;s standard PV panels, you would on an annual basis generate enough energy to meet the annual California electricity demands. Try to pencil out such a farm on a California map. It&#039;s insignificant. Clearly nobody would in his right mind consider that today, but it tells us of the solar PV potential. This is going to happen. Just let the technology mature.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yep, you are absolutely right. Regarding California installed hydro capacity; it&#8217;s interesting to note that given unlimited water supply, we have enough turbine capacity to provide 50% of annual California electricity usage.</p>
<p>Solar is still an expensive option at the wholesale level, but has tremendous potential. If you were to plaster a app 600 square mile (20 x 30 miles, 30 x 50km) area with today&#8217;s standard PV panels, you would on an annual basis generate enough energy to meet the annual California electricity demands. Try to pencil out such a farm on a California map. It&#8217;s insignificant. Clearly nobody would in his right mind consider that today, but it tells us of the solar PV potential. This is going to happen. Just let the technology mature.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Priscila</title>
		<link>https://www.lauritzen.biz/blog/?p=40#comment-8</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Priscila]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 28 Sep 2014 19:58:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lauritzen.biz/blog/?p=40#comment-8</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[All power sources have dacwbraks.  The two you mention, like nuclear, are relatively clean, which is a plus.Hydro is very cheap for the amount of energy we get, but our rivers are basically all dammed up already   there isn&#039;t a lot more hydropower we can get.Solar is one of the most expensive ways to generate electricity on a utility scale, but could be the cheapest way to generate electricity on a homeowner scale, at least for many urban homes.  Unless one has a stream running through their property to run a water wheel, or strong steady wind, the other choices for getting power are using a gas- or oil-powered generator, or buying retail electricity from the grid.  The generator will cost more per kWh over the life of the system, and the grid electricity could be more or less expensive, depending on where one lives.  At the moment, the grid is usually cheaper, but not in all parts of the country.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>All power sources have dacwbraks.  The two you mention, like nuclear, are relatively clean, which is a plus.Hydro is very cheap for the amount of energy we get, but our rivers are basically all dammed up already   there isn&#8217;t a lot more hydropower we can get.Solar is one of the most expensive ways to generate electricity on a utility scale, but could be the cheapest way to generate electricity on a homeowner scale, at least for many urban homes.  Unless one has a stream running through their property to run a water wheel, or strong steady wind, the other choices for getting power are using a gas- or oil-powered generator, or buying retail electricity from the grid.  The generator will cost more per kWh over the life of the system, and the grid electricity could be more or less expensive, depending on where one lives.  At the moment, the grid is usually cheaper, but not in all parts of the country.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
