<?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 Guess]]></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/legendary-climate-scientist-james-hansen-says/</link>
			<pubDate>Fri, 02 Mar 2007 11:32:14 -0800</pubDate>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.grist.org/article/legendary-climate-scientist-james-hansen-says/1</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>Well, what do you know<p>"Hansen proposes burning switchgrass for electrical power..." 

<p>In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. <a href="http://www.poisondarts.net" rel="nofollow">Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world</a></p></p></strong></p>
			]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>Well, what do you know<p>"Hansen proposes burning switchgrass for electrical power..." 

<p>In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. <a href="http://www.poisondarts.net" rel="nofollow">Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world</a></p></p></strong></p>
			]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
    
		<item>
            <title>Comment #2 by GreyFlcn</title>
			<link>http://www.grist.org/article/legendary-climate-scientist-james-hansen-says/</link>
			<pubDate>Fri, 02 Mar 2007 13:20:45 -0800</pubDate>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.grist.org/article/legendary-climate-scientist-james-hansen-says/2</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>I'd actually suggest<p>I'd actually suggest burning algae<p>
But not burning it.<p>
Either gasify it, and then use it inside an <br>
"Air Blown Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle" power plant (AB-IGCC) at 55% effeciency. &nbsp;Reduces water demand by 70%<br>
<a href="http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/coalpower/cctc/ccpi/pubs/Benefits%20of%20Southern%20Company.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/coalpower/cctc/ccpi/ ...<p>
Or better, and cheaper,<br>
Use it inside a direct carbon fuel cell.<br>
Which is essentually a perfected form of a molten carbonate fuel cell. &nbsp;The whole thing operates at 70-80% effeciency. &nbsp;And doesn't even need water.<br>
<a href="http://eed.llnl.gov/co2/7.php" rel="nofollow">http://eed.llnl.gov/co2/7.php<br>
<a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20060117160843/http://www-cms.llnl.gov/s-t/carbon_con_news.html" rel="nofollow">http://web.archive.org/web/20060117160843/http://www-cms. ...<br>
<a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20060525160802/http://www-cms.llnl.gov/s-t/carbon_con.html" rel="nofollow">http://web.archive.org/web/20060525160802/http://www-cms. ...<p>
Both technologies do emit carbon dioxide, but it's in a purified stream. &nbsp;Making it ideal for sequestration on the cheap. &nbsp;Or mitigation. &nbsp;Likely by doing something silly for instance, growing more algae :P<p>
_<p>
The real "problem" with both these technologies is that while they both can effeciently use biomass for electricity.<br>
They also can effeciently use coal. &nbsp;Any coal. &nbsp;Including the dirt cheap high sulfur coal.<p>
So we can build them.<br>
But making sure they select a specific fuel type,<br>
that will be the tricky part.</br></br></p></br></p></p></p></a></br></a></br></a></br></br></br></p></a></br></br></p></p></p></strong></p>
			]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>I'd actually suggest<p>I'd actually suggest burning algae<p>
But not burning it.<p>
Either gasify it, and then use it inside an <br>
"Air Blown Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle" power plant (AB-IGCC) at 55% effeciency. &nbsp;Reduces water demand by 70%<br>
<a href="http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/coalpower/cctc/ccpi/pubs/Benefits%20of%20Southern%20Company.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/coalpower/cctc/ccpi/ ...<p>
Or better, and cheaper,<br>
Use it inside a direct carbon fuel cell.<br>
Which is essentually a perfected form of a molten carbonate fuel cell. &nbsp;The whole thing operates at 70-80% effeciency. &nbsp;And doesn't even need water.<br>
<a href="http://eed.llnl.gov/co2/7.php" rel="nofollow">http://eed.llnl.gov/co2/7.php<br>
<a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20060117160843/http://www-cms.llnl.gov/s-t/carbon_con_news.html" rel="nofollow">http://web.archive.org/web/20060117160843/http://www-cms. ...<br>
<a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20060525160802/http://www-cms.llnl.gov/s-t/carbon_con.html" rel="nofollow">http://web.archive.org/web/20060525160802/http://www-cms. ...<p>
Both technologies do emit carbon dioxide, but it's in a purified stream. &nbsp;Making it ideal for sequestration on the cheap. &nbsp;Or mitigation. &nbsp;Likely by doing something silly for instance, growing more algae :P<p>
_<p>
The real "problem" with both these technologies is that while they both can effeciently use biomass for electricity.<br>
They also can effeciently use coal. &nbsp;Any coal. &nbsp;Including the dirt cheap high sulfur coal.<p>
So we can build them.<br>
But making sure they select a specific fuel type,<br>
that will be the tricky part.</br></br></p></br></p></p></p></a></br></a></br></a></br></br></br></p></a></br></br></p></p></p></strong></p>
			]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
    
		<item>
            <title>Comment #3 by caniscandida</title>
			<link>http://www.grist.org/article/legendary-climate-scientist-james-hansen-says/</link>
			<pubDate>Sat, 03 Mar 2007 01:47:52 -0800</pubDate>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.grist.org/article/legendary-climate-scientist-james-hansen-says/3</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>the enemies of the human race</strong></p><p>Coal may be one of them, but is, alas, hardly the only one.</p><p>
We might include in the list Luke Popovich, spokesman for the coal industry, whose venomous Parthian shot is allowed to close the linked article.

<p>Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!</p></p>
			]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>the enemies of the human race</strong></p><p>Coal may be one of them, but is, alas, hardly the only one.</p><p>
We might include in the list Luke Popovich, spokesman for the coal industry, whose venomous Parthian shot is allowed to close the linked article.

<p>Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!</p></p>
			]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
    
 </channel>
</rss>