<?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: Letter to the Editor: Stop Printing Talking Points</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.globalwarming.org/2012/02/09/letter-to-the-editor-stop-printing-talking-points/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.globalwarming.org/2012/02/09/letter-to-the-editor-stop-printing-talking-points/</link>
	<description>Climate Change News &#38; Analysis</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 15 May 2013 18:01:53 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: nofreewind</title>
		<link>http://www.globalwarming.org/2012/02/09/letter-to-the-editor-stop-printing-talking-points/comment-page-1/#comment-68249</link>
		<dc:creator>nofreewind</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 11 Feb 2012 01:44:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.globalwarming.org/?p=12963#comment-68249</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[So we are going to retire 2600 MW of coal plants and do what to replace that energy?  How about we simply put up 7,000 1.5 MW wind turbines that will have an average output of 25%?  Each one of those 7,000 turbines need about 75 acres of space.  That is about 500,000 acres which converts to 780 square miles of land.   Sure, this makes good sense.  Oh, I forgot one small detail.  We will still need the 2600 MW of coal or nat gas or nuclear, because because  much of the time the wind is either not blowing or hardly blowing.  And the wind blows more at night, when we don&#039;t even need it.  It blows less when we need it during those hot, still summer days or during a cold, cold front in the winter.  Never mind about the details.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>So we are going to retire 2600 MW of coal plants and do what to replace that energy?  How about we simply put up 7,000 1.5 MW wind turbines that will have an average output of 25%?  Each one of those 7,000 turbines need about 75 acres of space.  That is about 500,000 acres which converts to 780 square miles of land.   Sure, this makes good sense.  Oh, I forgot one small detail.  We will still need the 2600 MW of coal or nat gas or nuclear, because because  much of the time the wind is either not blowing or hardly blowing.  And the wind blows more at night, when we don&#8217;t even need it.  It blows less when we need it during those hot, still summer days or during a cold, cold front in the winter.  Never mind about the details.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Page Caching using disk: enhanced
Database Caching 11/19 queries in 0.014 seconds using disk: basic
Object Caching 228/257 objects using disk: basic

 Served from: www.globalwarming.org @ 2013-05-15 20:46:56 by W3 Total Cache --