<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	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/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Salon.com > Solar Power</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.salon.com/topic/solar_power/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.salon.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 24 May 2013 01:55:23 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Could New York run on renewable energy alone?</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2013/04/21/can_an_entire_state_run_on_renewable_energy_alone_partner/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2013/04/21/can_an_entire_state_run_on_renewable_energy_alone_partner/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 21 Apr 2013 12:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Social]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Technology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Scientific American]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Environmentalism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fossil fuels]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wind energy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Solar Power]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mark jacobson]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Science]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sustainability]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.railrode.net/?p=13276751</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[An expert explains how the state can reduce its power demand -- and its reliance on fossil fuels]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.scientificamerican.com/page.cfm?section=rss"><img style="margin: 0 10px 0 0;" src="http://media.salon.com/2012/08/image002.jpeg" alt="Scientific American" align="left" /></a><br /> Three times now, <a href="http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/">Mark Jacobson</a> has gone out on the same limb. In 2009 he and co-author Mark Delucchi published <a href="http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=a-path-to-sustainable-energy-by-2030">a cover story</a> in Scientific American that showed how the entire world could get all of its energy — fuel as well as electricity — from wind, <a href="http://www.scientificamerican.com/topic.cfm?id=water">water</a> and solar sources by 2030. No coal or oil, no nuclear or natural gas. The tale sounded infeasible — except that Jacobson, from Stanford University, and Delucchi, from the University of California, Davis, calculated just how many hydroelectric dams, wave-energy systems, wind turbines, <a href="http://www.scientificamerican.com/topic.cfm?id=solar-power">solar power</a> <a href="http://www.scientificamerican.com/topic.cfm?id=plants">plants</a> and rooftop photovoltaic installations the world would need to run itself completely on renewable energy.The article sparked <a href="http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=a-path-to-sustainable-energy-by-2030">a spirited debate</a> on our web site, and it also sparked a larger debate between forward-looking energy planners and those who would rather preserve the status quo. The duo went on to publish a detailed study in the journal Energy Policy that also called out numbers for a U.S. strategy. Two weeks ago Jacobson and a larger team, including Delucchi, did it again. This time Jacobson showed in much finer detail how New York state’s residential, <a href="http://www.scientificamerican.com/topic.cfm?id=transportation">transportation</a>, industrial, and heating and cooling sectors could all be powered by wind, water and sun, or “WWS,” as he calls it. His mix: 40 percent offshore wind (12,700 turbines), 10 percent onshore wind (4,020 turbines), 10 percent concentrated solar panels (387 power plants), 10 percent photovoltaic cells (828 facilities), 6 percent residential solar (five million rooftops), 12 percent government and commercial solar (500,000 rooftops), 5 percent geothermal (36 plants), 5.5 percent hydroelectric (6.6 large facilities), 1 percent tidal energy (2,600 turbines) and 0.5 percent wave energy (1,910 devices). In the process, New York would reduce power demand by 37 percent, largely because the new energy sources are more efficient than the old ones. And because no <a href="http://www.scientificamerican.com/topic.cfm?id=fossil-fuels">fossil fuels</a> would have to be purchased or burned, consumer costs would be similar to what they are today, and the state would eliminate a huge portion of its carbon dioxide emissions.<img src="http://www.scientificamerican.com/media/inline/how-to-power-the-world_sidebar.jpg" />New York state could end fossil fuel use and generate all of its energy from wind, water and solar power, according to Mark Jacobson. Image: Graphic by Karl BurkartOnce again, reaction was swift. The New York Times heralded the study as scientifically groundbreaking and practically impossible. But this time Jacobson, a professor of civil and environmental engineering, is digging in. He took his analysis a step further and found a surprising way to sell his plan. And he’s close to finishing a similar study for California, which will lend more depth to his vision. I asked Jacobson why he’s out to change the world, how he answers his critics and what it will take for his plans to get traction in government.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/04/21/can_an_entire_state_run_on_renewable_energy_alone_partner/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2013/04/21/can_an_entire_state_run_on_renewable_energy_alone_partner/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>12</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Private equity investor: &#8220;We didn&#8217;t build that&#8221;</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/12/28/private_equity_investor_we_didnt_build_that/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/12/28/private_equity_investor_we_didnt_build_that/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 28 Dec 2012 13:52:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Technology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Business]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Venture Capital]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Warburg Pincus]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Solar Power]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Batteries]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=13156427</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A leading technology investor says his success depended on government funding]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>William H. Janeway, a managing director at the private equity firm Warburg Pincus, contributed an <a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-janeway-innovation-govt-investment-20121227,0,7793938.story">essay</a> to the Los Angeles Times today explaining that "At every stage, the innovation economy depends on sources of funding decoupled from concern for economic return." He means the government:</p><blockquote><p>Why has it been in the world of information technology and, secondarily, biomedicine that venture capitalists have been successful? In brief: Only in these sectors did the state invest at sufficient scale in scientific research and in its translation to working technology. In over 40 years as a working venture capitalist, I learned that my colleagues and I and the entrepreneurs whom we backed were all dancing on a platform constructed by the federal government.</p> <p>Let's focus on information and communications technology. National funding of the basic research that enabled the IT revolution was overwhelmingly provided by the <a id="ORGOV000094164" title="U.S. Department of Defense" href="http://www.latimes.com/topic/unrest-conflicts-war/defense/u.s.-department-of-defense-ORGOV000094164.topic">Defense Department</a>. The Soviet threat, crystallized in the years after 1945 and amplified by the <a id="EVHST000190" title="Korean War (1950-1953)" href="http://www.latimes.com/topic/unrest-conflicts-war/armed-conflicts/korean-war-%281950-1953%29-EVHST000190.topic">Korean War</a> in 1950 and the launch of Sputnik in 1957, was the context for the <a id="ORGOV000021106" title="U.S. Military" href="http://www.latimes.com/topic/unrest-conflicts-war/defense/u.s.-military-ORGOV000021106.topic">U.S. military's</a> massive commitment to renewing its wartime role as the principal financier of technical research and the principal customer for the products that generated.</p></blockquote><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/12/28/private_equity_investor_we_didnt_build_that/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/12/28/private_equity_investor_we_didnt_build_that/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The new Solyndra</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/10/16/the_new_solyndra/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/10/16/the_new_solyndra/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 16 Oct 2012 20:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Business]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[A123 Systems]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Solar Power]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Presidential Debates]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2012 Elections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Stimulus]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Solyndra]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[industrial policy]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=13042313</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A bankrupt battery manufacturer is sure to be a topic in tonight's debate. Here's why Obama shouldn't be afraid]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>President Obama better be prepared to deliver an aggressive defense of his signature "green jobs" energy policy initiative tonight. On Tuesday morning, A123 Systems, a manufacturer of electric car batteries that received a sizable grant from the Obama stimulus, <a href="http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/2012/10/16/battery-maker-files-for-bankruptcy-protection/tcwHIy9oxASiZGOWAuCLUJ/story.html">filed for bankruptcy.</a> The Romney camp, <a href="http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/262287-romney-gop-pounce-as-white-house-backed-auto-battery-maker-goes-bankrupt">reported the Hill,</a> wasted no time painting the troubled company as a new <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solyndra">Solyndra</a>.</p><blockquote><p>"A123’s bankruptcy is yet another failure for the President’s disastrous strategy of gambling away billions of taxpayer dollars on a strategy of government-led growth that simply does not work,” said Andrea Saul, a spokeswoman for Mitt Romney.</p></blockquote><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/10/16/the_new_solyndra/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/10/16/the_new_solyndra/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>10</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
