<?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: No More Renewable Energy Incentives</title>
	<atom:link href="http://thegreenlightdistrikt.com/2010/04/27/no-more-renewable-energy-incentives/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://thegreenlightdistrikt.com/2010/04/27/no-more-renewable-energy-incentives/</link>
	<description>All Things Boston + Clean Tech + Innovation. Events, Resources, Industry Insiders</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 05 Apr 2012 14:01:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jesse</title>
		<link>http://thegreenlightdistrikt.com/2010/04/27/no-more-renewable-energy-incentives/comment-page-1/#comment-171</link>
		<dc:creator>Jesse</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 27 Apr 2010 13:48:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thegreenlightdistrikt.com/?p=838#comment-171</guid>
		<description>not sure if it&#039;s so simple as &quot;500% more&quot; since they&#039;re probably referring to a volume number. Let&#039;s say renewables received 5 billion in subsidies, meaning fossile fuels received approximately 25 billion over the same time period, or about 5 x as much. Since renewables make up such a small proportion of our energy portfolio, we find that renewables are actually receiving quite a bit more per MW than fossil fuels. I find that this way of looking at the numbers can fall short in a deep discussion. 

What I find more compelling? The fact that fossil fuels have been heavily subsidized for many decades, while renewables are becoming competitive (w/o a price on carbon!) after less than a decade of heavy subsidization.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>not sure if it&#8217;s so simple as &#8220;500% more&#8221; since they&#8217;re probably referring to a volume number. Let&#8217;s say renewables received 5 billion in subsidies, meaning fossile fuels received approximately 25 billion over the same time period, or about 5 x as much. Since renewables make up such a small proportion of our energy portfolio, we find that renewables are actually receiving quite a bit more per MW than fossil fuels. I find that this way of looking at the numbers can fall short in a deep discussion. </p>
<p>What I find more compelling? The fact that fossil fuels have been heavily subsidized for many decades, while renewables are becoming competitive (w/o a price on carbon!) after less than a decade of heavy subsidization.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tweets that mention No More Renewable Energy Incentives — The Green Light Distrikt -- Topsy.com</title>
		<link>http://thegreenlightdistrikt.com/2010/04/27/no-more-renewable-energy-incentives/comment-page-1/#comment-170</link>
		<dc:creator>Tweets that mention No More Renewable Energy Incentives — The Green Light Distrikt -- Topsy.com</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 27 Apr 2010 10:07:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thegreenlightdistrikt.com/?p=838#comment-170</guid>
		<description>[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Christopher Williams, Chris Williams. Chris Williams said: No More Renewable Energy Incentives! Do you agree? http://bit.ly/d1YUZR [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Christopher Williams, Chris Williams. Chris Williams said: No More Renewable Energy Incentives! Do you agree? <a href="http://bit.ly/d1YUZR" rel="nofollow">http://bit.ly/d1YUZR</a> [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

