<?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: What If The West End Were The Green End?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://brokensidewalk.com/2009/04/28/what-if-the-west-end-were-the-green-end/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://brokensidewalk.com/2009/04/28/what-if-the-west-end-were-the-green-end/</link>
	<description>Covering Louisville Neighborhoods</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 14 Mar 2010 06:09:29 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: BS Admin</title>
		<link>http://brokensidewalk.com/2009/04/28/what-if-the-west-end-were-the-green-end/comment-page-1/#comment-6814</link>
		<dc:creator>BS Admin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 29 Apr 2009 16:13:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://brokensidewalk.com/?p=4529#comment-6814</guid>
		<description>The numbers from the Chicago plan do seem high, but efficiency gains for solar apparently don&#039;t really start until you reach 250MW. If you compare the numbers to prices of coal power plants, it&#039;s still higher but closer for $/MW.

&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
A &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jsonline.com/business/29482814.html rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;proposed plant in Wisconsin&lt;/a&gt; last year was estimated at over $1.1 billion for 300MW and could serve 150,000 houses (500/MW). That&#039;s $3.7mil/MW compared to $6mil/MW in Chicago. Per house, it&#039;s $7,333, but if you calculate 500 houses/MW, the Chicago solar plan is $12,000 per house (not sure if they are equal exchanges).  It&#039;s getting cheaper, too (in Spain, a built-up solar infrastructure will make &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.edn.com/article/CA6432171.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;coal and solar costs about the same&lt;/a&gt; by next year).

&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
The bigger issue, though, is the buzz of large scale investment in a sustainable way of life. If Louisville could find its own way to create that excitement while spurring reinvestment in our centrally located neighborhoods, we could only stand to benefit.

&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
In regards to the photo, it wasn&#039;t meant to reference a brownfield site as its caption indicates. I was looking for the portion of the Rohm &amp; Haas plant that is being dismantled, but alas much of Rubbertown looks the same.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The numbers from the Chicago plan do seem high, but efficiency gains for solar apparently don&#8217;t really start until you reach 250MW. If you compare the numbers to prices of coal power plants, it&#8217;s still higher but closer for $/MW.</p>
<p>A <a href="http://www.jsonline.com/business/29482814.html rel="nofollow">proposed plant in Wisconsin</a> last year was estimated at over $1.1 billion for 300MW and could serve 150,000 houses (500/MW). That&#8217;s $3.7mil/MW compared to $6mil/MW in Chicago. Per house, it&#8217;s $7,333, but if you calculate 500 houses/MW, the Chicago solar plan is $12,000 per house (not sure if they are equal exchanges).  It&#8217;s getting cheaper, too (in Spain, a built-up solar infrastructure will make <a href="http://www.edn.com/article/CA6432171.html" rel="nofollow">coal and solar costs about the same</a> by next year).</p>
<p>The bigger issue, though, is the buzz of large scale investment in a sustainable way of life. If Louisville could find its own way to create that excitement while spurring reinvestment in our centrally located neighborhoods, we could only stand to benefit.</p>
<p>In regards to the photo, it wasn&#8217;t meant to reference a brownfield site as its caption indicates. I was looking for the portion of the Rohm &#038; Haas plant that is being dismantled, but alas much of Rubbertown looks the same.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dave</title>
		<link>http://brokensidewalk.com/2009/04/28/what-if-the-west-end-were-the-green-end/comment-page-1/#comment-6812</link>
		<dc:creator>Dave</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 29 Apr 2009 15:05:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://brokensidewalk.com/?p=4529#comment-6812</guid>
		<description>I don&#039;t get it. People who dog the economics never talk about war economics, big business profit economics, somewhere, some place, someone better spend something on a new way that doesn&#039;t leave so many people out in the cold.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I don&#8217;t get it. People who dog the economics never talk about war economics, big business profit economics, somewhere, some place, someone better spend something on a new way that doesn&#8217;t leave so many people out in the cold.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mark</title>
		<link>http://brokensidewalk.com/2009/04/28/what-if-the-west-end-were-the-green-end/comment-page-1/#comment-6782</link>
		<dc:creator>Mark</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 29 Apr 2009 03:20:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://brokensidewalk.com/?p=4529#comment-6782</guid>
		<description>This is a good investment?  The cost breaks down to $40,000 to provide electricity for one home!  That certainly doesn&#039;t sound like a very good use of tax money.  When we look for new &quot;Green&quot; sources for power we need to also ensure that the sources are economically feasible.  Also 39 acres is a very large area for such a minimal amount of power, imagine how big the area would have to be to generate a significant quantity of power.

By the way, the site shown at the top of the article is not a brownfield site but rather is a plant that is still in operation.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This is a good investment?  The cost breaks down to $40,000 to provide electricity for one home!  That certainly doesn&#8217;t sound like a very good use of tax money.  When we look for new &#8220;Green&#8221; sources for power we need to also ensure that the sources are economically feasible.  Also 39 acres is a very large area for such a minimal amount of power, imagine how big the area would have to be to generate a significant quantity of power.</p>
<p>By the way, the site shown at the top of the article is not a brownfield site but rather is a plant that is still in operation.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
