<?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 Science magazine weighs in]]></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 Biodiversivist</title>
			<link>http://www.grist.org/article/carbon-negative-biofuels/</link>
			<pubDate>Fri, 08 Dec 2006 11:11:12 -0800</pubDate>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.grist.org/article/carbon-negative-biofuels/1</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>I just read both articles<p>They didn't make it clear but it should apply to both types of production. The yeast eats starch (or sugars) and gives off ethanol as a waste product but eventually dies in its own waste. The idea is to give them greater tolerance to ethanol so they can survive to produce more of it. If successful, it will lower the cost of ethanol because you will get more ethanol from the same amount of yeast which will use less energy (which will also make it less carbon intensive).<p>
The difference between cellulosic and corn ethanol production is basically that corn starch is easy to turn into sugar but cellulose is not. But, once you get the sugar, both methods then use yeast to ferment the sugar (it eats the sugar and craps ethanol). This last part of the process is the same for both methods.

<p>In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Help acquire and protect ecological hotspots, give to a conservation organization: <a href="http://www.saveourbiodiversity.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.saveourbiodiversity.com</a></p></p></p></strong></p>
			]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>I just read both articles<p>They didn't make it clear but it should apply to both types of production. The yeast eats starch (or sugars) and gives off ethanol as a waste product but eventually dies in its own waste. The idea is to give them greater tolerance to ethanol so they can survive to produce more of it. If successful, it will lower the cost of ethanol because you will get more ethanol from the same amount of yeast which will use less energy (which will also make it less carbon intensive).<p>
The difference between cellulosic and corn ethanol production is basically that corn starch is easy to turn into sugar but cellulose is not. But, once you get the sugar, both methods then use yeast to ferment the sugar (it eats the sugar and craps ethanol). This last part of the process is the same for both methods.

<p>In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Help acquire and protect ecological hotspots, give to a conservation organization: <a href="http://www.saveourbiodiversity.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.saveourbiodiversity.com</a></p></p></p></strong></p>
			]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
    
		<item>
            <title>Comment #2 by Maywa Montenegro</title>
			<link>http://www.grist.org/article/carbon-negative-biofuels/</link>
			<pubDate>Fri, 08 Dec 2006 12:48:35 -0800</pubDate>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.grist.org/article/carbon-negative-biofuels/2</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>Science articles</strong></p><p>Thanks, BioD. That is what I figured. Nice to hear that you're already on top of these new research papers and that (from what I gather from your postings) we're on the same wavelength.</p>
			]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>Science articles</strong></p><p>Thanks, BioD. That is what I figured. Nice to hear that you're already on top of these new research papers and that (from what I gather from your postings) we're on the same wavelength.</p>
			]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
    
		<item>
            <title>Comment #3 by Biodiversivist</title>
			<link>http://www.grist.org/article/carbon-negative-biofuels/</link>
			<pubDate>Fri, 08 Dec 2006 14:34:23 -0800</pubDate>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.grist.org/article/carbon-negative-biofuels/3</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>Science sends an email<p>with a link to the online magazine for subscribers. I usually read it on line. I go &nbsp;narcoleptic when I try to read the paper version.

<p>In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Help acquire and protect ecological hotspots, give to a conservation organization: <a href="http://www.saveourbiodiversity.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.saveourbiodiversity.com</a></p></p></strong></p>
			]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>Science sends an email<p>with a link to the online magazine for subscribers. I usually read it on line. I go &nbsp;narcoleptic when I try to read the paper version.

<p>In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Help acquire and protect ecological hotspots, give to a conservation organization: <a href="http://www.saveourbiodiversity.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.saveourbiodiversity.com</a></p></p></strong></p>
			]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
    
		<item>
            <title>Comment #4 by Orfintain</title>
			<link>http://www.grist.org/article/carbon-negative-biofuels/</link>
			<pubDate>Sun, 17 Dec 2006 10:52:39 -0800</pubDate>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.grist.org/article/carbon-negative-biofuels/4</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>are you sure ?</strong></p><p>I'm was under the impression that prairie grasses are only useful as biomass for cellulosic ..I highly doubt grass has the same easily accessed sugar's that products like corn and sugar-cane have</p>
			]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>are you sure ?</strong></p><p>I'm was under the impression that prairie grasses are only useful as biomass for cellulosic ..I highly doubt grass has the same easily accessed sugar's that products like corn and sugar-cane have</p>
			]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
    
 </channel>
</rss>