<?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">
<channel>
	<title><![CDATA[Grist - Comment Feed for Now that&#8217;s a 12-step program]]></title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.grist.org/rss/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<description>Grist Comment Feed</description>
	<language>en</language>
    
		<item>
            <title>Comment #1 by wiscidea</title>
			<link>http://www.grist.org/article/carbon-and-nuclear-free-america-possible-by-2050/</link>
			<pubDate>Wed, 01 Aug 2007 08:04:34 -0700</pubDate>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.grist.org/article/carbon-and-nuclear-free-america-possible-by-2050/1</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>So...</strong></p><p>You're saying there's will be a "technofix" available if we just tell people they can no longer emit CO2? Somehow, the problem will just magically go away shortly after we tell people to stop producing CO2? Gee. So simple.</p><p>
Perhaps the "integrated gasification combined cycle plants using biomass with a capacity to sequester the CO2" will save our asses. Any indication of what this "biomass" is, the scale of sequestration, and where we are going to dump it to keep it out of the atmosphere for several hundred years? I assume there must be several pilot plants operating right now if it is going to be used on a large scale within a couple decades.

<p>Forward!</p></p>
			]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>So...</strong></p><p>You're saying there's will be a "technofix" available if we just tell people they can no longer emit CO2? Somehow, the problem will just magically go away shortly after we tell people to stop producing CO2? Gee. So simple.</p><p>
Perhaps the "integrated gasification combined cycle plants using biomass with a capacity to sequester the CO2" will save our asses. Any indication of what this "biomass" is, the scale of sequestration, and where we are going to dump it to keep it out of the atmosphere for several hundred years? I assume there must be several pilot plants operating right now if it is going to be used on a large scale within a couple decades.

<p>Forward!</p></p>
			]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
    
		<item>
            <title>Comment #2 by wiscidea</title>
			<link>http://www.grist.org/article/carbon-and-nuclear-free-america-possible-by-2050/</link>
			<pubDate>Wed, 01 Aug 2007 08:06:22 -0700</pubDate>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.grist.org/article/carbon-and-nuclear-free-america-possible-by-2050/2</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>Didn't George Bush...</strong></p><p>..."consider seriously" capturing Bin Laden and, later, not invading Iraq?

<p>Forward!</p></p>
			]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>Didn't George Bush...</strong></p><p>..."consider seriously" capturing Bin Laden and, later, not invading Iraq?

<p>Forward!</p></p>
			]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
    
		<item>
            <title>Comment #3 by wayneluke</title>
			<link>http://www.grist.org/article/carbon-and-nuclear-free-america-possible-by-2050/</link>
			<pubDate>Wed, 01 Aug 2007 08:39:11 -0700</pubDate>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.grist.org/article/carbon-and-nuclear-free-america-possible-by-2050/3</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>Less than 18 months.</strong></p><p>Really, "King" George's reign is almost over. Studies like this would be of more benefit to those who will be taking up the challenge of correcting the last eight years and moving the United States forward instead of worrying about a lame duck presidency now.</p>
			]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>Less than 18 months.</strong></p><p>Really, "King" George's reign is almost over. Studies like this would be of more benefit to those who will be taking up the challenge of correcting the last eight years and moving the United States forward instead of worrying about a lame duck presidency now.</p>
			]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
    
		<item>
            <title>Comment #4 by Jon Rynn</title>
			<link>http://www.grist.org/article/carbon-and-nuclear-free-america-possible-by-2050/</link>
			<pubDate>Wed, 01 Aug 2007 09:21:56 -0700</pubDate>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.grist.org/article/carbon-and-nuclear-free-america-possible-by-2050/4</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>Not my favorite magic pony, JMG,</strong></p><p>particularly as the summary will not breathe a word about -- dare I mention it! -- public transit, mass transit, trains, you know, things that aren't cars.</p><p>
Also, it looks like they put more stock in biomass from algae -- at least they don't like food-derived ethanol -- that can also, by the way, generate hydrogen, then they do in wind and solar. &nbsp;Having said that, I will do my best to freely pick and choose from what looks like an interesting wealth of data, particularly on wind and power. &nbsp;Thanks for the lead!</p>
			]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>Not my favorite magic pony, JMG,</strong></p><p>particularly as the summary will not breathe a word about -- dare I mention it! -- public transit, mass transit, trains, you know, things that aren't cars.</p><p>
Also, it looks like they put more stock in biomass from algae -- at least they don't like food-derived ethanol -- that can also, by the way, generate hydrogen, then they do in wind and solar. &nbsp;Having said that, I will do my best to freely pick and choose from what looks like an interesting wealth of data, particularly on wind and power. &nbsp;Thanks for the lead!</p>
			]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
    
		<item>
            <title>Comment #5 by David Roberts</title>
			<link>http://www.grist.org/article/carbon-and-nuclear-free-america-possible-by-2050/</link>
			<pubDate>Wed, 01 Aug 2007 09:25:22 -0700</pubDate>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.grist.org/article/carbon-and-nuclear-free-america-possible-by-2050/5</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>The full report ...</strong></p><p>... is not on the website yet. I'll read it and report back once it's up.

<p>grist.org</p></p>
			]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>The full report ...</strong></p><p>... is not on the website yet. I'll read it and report back once it's up.

<p>grist.org</p></p>
			]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
    
		<item>
            <title>Comment #6 by texan77064</title>
			<link>http://www.grist.org/article/carbon-and-nuclear-free-america-possible-by-2050/</link>
			<pubDate>Wed, 01 Aug 2007 09:25:22 -0700</pubDate>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.grist.org/article/carbon-and-nuclear-free-america-possible-by-2050/6</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>Eliminate both CO2 emissions and nuclear power?</strong></p><p>I would seriously doubt anyone would believe this happening. The radioactive core is what keeps the center of the Earth warm. How natural is that? &nbsp;The French have been pushing their safer reactor design all over the globe. The path of least resistance is also the most economical. Money talks, BS walks.</p><p>
Do you know how much carbon dioxide is generated when smelting bauxite into aluminum? Then there is the electric power needed to electrify those refrigerator size blocks of carbon. But your still throwing those cans away. You need to feel some pain before it will matter.<br>
</br></p>
			]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>Eliminate both CO2 emissions and nuclear power?</strong></p><p>I would seriously doubt anyone would believe this happening. The radioactive core is what keeps the center of the Earth warm. How natural is that? &nbsp;The French have been pushing their safer reactor design all over the globe. The path of least resistance is also the most economical. Money talks, BS walks.</p><p>
Do you know how much carbon dioxide is generated when smelting bauxite into aluminum? Then there is the electric power needed to electrify those refrigerator size blocks of carbon. But your still throwing those cans away. You need to feel some pain before it will matter.<br>
</br></p>
			]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
    
		<item>
            <title>Comment #7 by sunflower</title>
			<link>http://www.grist.org/article/carbon-and-nuclear-free-america-possible-by-2050/</link>
			<pubDate>Wed, 01 Aug 2007 09:35:46 -0700</pubDate>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.grist.org/article/carbon-and-nuclear-free-america-possible-by-2050/7</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>Yes, I agree,  carbonless does not cost more</strong></p><p></p>
			]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>Yes, I agree,  carbonless does not cost more</strong></p><p></p>
			]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
    
 </channel>
</rss>