<?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: Not just for Treehuggers:  France to Spend $2.2 Billion on Electric Car Charging Stations; Does Peeing Before Boarding an Airplane Really Save Carbon Emissions?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://climateprogress.org/2009/10/12/treehugger-news/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://climateprogress.org/2009/10/12/treehugger-news/</link>
	<description>The Latest on Climate Science, Solutions, and Politics</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 21 Mar 2010 23:26:17 -0400</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Lloyd Apter</title>
		<link>http://climateprogress.org/2009/10/12/treehugger-news/#comment-158141</link>
		<dc:creator>Lloyd Apter</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 13 Oct 2009 22:18:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://climateprogress.org/?p=12512#comment-158141</guid>
		<description>My father in-law reminded me the other day that about 100 years ago in Britian people were very worried about the situation that horses’ were badly polluting the streets of London and the gasoline motor vehicle was seen then as a clean solution to their problem.

What is exciting is the opportunity to change the way the system works.  Replacing one technology with another has been done many times before.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>My father in-law reminded me the other day that about 100 years ago in Britian people were very worried about the situation that horses’ were badly polluting the streets of London and the gasoline motor vehicle was seen then as a clean solution to their problem.</p>
<p>What is exciting is the opportunity to change the way the system works.  Replacing one technology with another has been done many times before.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Doug</title>
		<link>http://climateprogress.org/2009/10/12/treehugger-news/#comment-157281</link>
		<dc:creator>Doug</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 13 Oct 2009 00:09:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://climateprogress.org/?p=12512#comment-157281</guid>
		<description>&quot;Electric cars and charging stations go together, but there’s a kind of chicken &amp; egg problem; who’s going to build charging stations along highways and public roads if there are no electric cars, and who’s going to buy a electric car if there are no charging stations?&quot;

This kind of thinking irritates me.  It completely ignores the impact of plug-in hybrids: there will be no such barrier to many, many early buyers, who will do fine with just their own electrical outlet at home.  Once enough people start buying these hybrids, there will be demand for plug-in points at workplaces and apartment buildings -- anywhere cars will normally be parked for multiple hours at a time.  I don&#039;t see &quot;charging stations&quot; along highways, or any setup mimicking today&#039;s gas stations, as ever being anything more than a niche industry.

Though I&#039;ll agree that the French approach will kick-start the process into pure electric cars faster than would be the case otherwise.  Interestingly, if it succeeds in driving battery development, it might be more towards &lt;i&gt;cheaper&lt;/i&gt; batteries than towards higher power densities.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Electric cars and charging stations go together, but there’s a kind of chicken &amp; egg problem; who’s going to build charging stations along highways and public roads if there are no electric cars, and who’s going to buy a electric car if there are no charging stations?&#8221;</p>
<p>This kind of thinking irritates me.  It completely ignores the impact of plug-in hybrids: there will be no such barrier to many, many early buyers, who will do fine with just their own electrical outlet at home.  Once enough people start buying these hybrids, there will be demand for plug-in points at workplaces and apartment buildings &#8212; anywhere cars will normally be parked for multiple hours at a time.  I don&#8217;t see &#8220;charging stations&#8221; along highways, or any setup mimicking today&#8217;s gas stations, as ever being anything more than a niche industry.</p>
<p>Though I&#8217;ll agree that the French approach will kick-start the process into pure electric cars faster than would be the case otherwise.  Interestingly, if it succeeds in driving battery development, it might be more towards <i>cheaper</i> batteries than towards higher power densities.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: paulm</title>
		<link>http://climateprogress.org/2009/10/12/treehugger-news/#comment-157156</link>
		<dc:creator>paulm</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 12 Oct 2009 22:42:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://climateprogress.org/?p=12512#comment-157156</guid>
		<description>Airline industry will soon be toast unless they can go solar.

A lightweight solar-powered plane has smashed the official world record for the longest-duration unmanned flight. 
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/sci/tech/6916309.stm</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Airline industry will soon be toast unless they can go solar.</p>
<p>A lightweight solar-powered plane has smashed the official world record for the longest-duration unmanned flight.<br />
<a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/sci/tech/6916309.stm" rel="nofollow">http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/sci/tech/6916309.stm</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Sasparilla</title>
		<link>http://climateprogress.org/2009/10/12/treehugger-news/#comment-157127</link>
		<dc:creator>Sasparilla</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 12 Oct 2009 22:15:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://climateprogress.org/?p=12512#comment-157127</guid>
		<description>Just have to comment about the restroom before flying thing...its a good idea so you don&#039;t have to contend with the onboard restroom, but as far as the airlines are concerned...I seriously doubt they&#039;re looking at it from a greenhouse gas emission perspective - though they may spin it that way.  More likely if they can reduce the amount of restroom breaks needed, they could remove a lavatory from the aircraft and put a couple of seats there (most new aircraft allow this flexibility of lavatory adding/subtracting/placement) or not service the system as often (and so not have to pay as many people to do that).  Just my $0.02...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Just have to comment about the restroom before flying thing&#8230;its a good idea so you don&#8217;t have to contend with the onboard restroom, but as far as the airlines are concerned&#8230;I seriously doubt they&#8217;re looking at it from a greenhouse gas emission perspective &#8211; though they may spin it that way.  More likely if they can reduce the amount of restroom breaks needed, they could remove a lavatory from the aircraft and put a couple of seats there (most new aircraft allow this flexibility of lavatory adding/subtracting/placement) or not service the system as often (and so not have to pay as many people to do that).  Just my $0.02&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rockfish</title>
		<link>http://climateprogress.org/2009/10/12/treehugger-news/#comment-157051</link>
		<dc:creator>Rockfish</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 12 Oct 2009 21:15:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://climateprogress.org/?p=12512#comment-157051</guid>
		<description>Please please please don&#039;t post their endless reports about furniture made from recycled skateboard decks!

The problem with feeding that firehouse is that TH doesn&#039;t edit anything!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Please please please don&#8217;t post their endless reports about furniture made from recycled skateboard decks!</p>
<p>The problem with feeding that firehouse is that TH doesn&#8217;t edit anything!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: MarkB</title>
		<link>http://climateprogress.org/2009/10/12/treehugger-news/#comment-157028</link>
		<dc:creator>MarkB</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 12 Oct 2009 20:07:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://climateprogress.org/?p=12512#comment-157028</guid>
		<description>&quot;Does Peeing Before Boarding an Airplane Really Save Carbon Emissions?&quot;

Funny question.  I don&#039;t know if it saves much, but it seems like a good idea.  It&#039;s better than trying to pee later.  First, if you&#039;re not in the aisle seat, you have to bother your neighbor or neighbors to get up.  This assumes you&#039;ve waited for the food cart to clear the aisle and that the &quot;fasten seat belt&quot; sign is off.  Then you have to often wait in line standing up to use the bathroom (everyone else has presumably waited until the above conditions have been met so a line has developed).  When it&#039;s your turn, you have to cram yourself into a tiny restroom and balance yourself if there is any turbulence, also taking on the risk of a rare more serious bump.  Then you have to wash your hands by repeatedly pressing down on the faucet handle (which only stays down for a few seconds) in between getting soap and rubbing your hands together.  When you leave, hopefully the food cart isn&#039;t there blocking you.  When you return to your seat, unless you have the aisle seat, you have to once again trouble the person(s) sitting next to you to stand up.  All this trouble might have been averted if you used the restroom before boarding the plane, which I think most people have figured out is common sense to do.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Does Peeing Before Boarding an Airplane Really Save Carbon Emissions?&#8221;</p>
<p>Funny question.  I don&#8217;t know if it saves much, but it seems like a good idea.  It&#8217;s better than trying to pee later.  First, if you&#8217;re not in the aisle seat, you have to bother your neighbor or neighbors to get up.  This assumes you&#8217;ve waited for the food cart to clear the aisle and that the &#8220;fasten seat belt&#8221; sign is off.  Then you have to often wait in line standing up to use the bathroom (everyone else has presumably waited until the above conditions have been met so a line has developed).  When it&#8217;s your turn, you have to cram yourself into a tiny restroom and balance yourself if there is any turbulence, also taking on the risk of a rare more serious bump.  Then you have to wash your hands by repeatedly pressing down on the faucet handle (which only stays down for a few seconds) in between getting soap and rubbing your hands together.  When you leave, hopefully the food cart isn&#8217;t there blocking you.  When you return to your seat, unless you have the aisle seat, you have to once again trouble the person(s) sitting next to you to stand up.  All this trouble might have been averted if you used the restroom before boarding the plane, which I think most people have figured out is common sense to do.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Leland Palmer</title>
		<link>http://climateprogress.org/2009/10/12/treehugger-news/#comment-157025</link>
		<dc:creator>Leland Palmer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 12 Oct 2009 20:03:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://climateprogress.org/?p=12512#comment-157025</guid>
		<description>The coal plant burning sorghum and switchgrass story is just the tip of the iceberg, for bio-energy, of course. What we need to do, on an emergency basis, is transform coal fired power plants to carbon negative power plants, by combining biomass or biochar fuel with carbon capture and storage. So, it&#039;s a good idea, but this application of it neglects its true potential.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bio-energy_with_carbon_capture_and_storage 

Tip to coal fired power producers:

If your coal fired power plant is located on a major river for cooling water, and most are, then planting your co-firing biomass upstream on the river provides easy, economical transport of biomass to your coal plant. 

In this case, the Big Cajun II power plant is located on the Mississippi river, and has extensive coal barge facilities and a conveyor belt leading from it&#039;s dock to its coal stockpile. All of this is visible on Google Earth, especially if you visit the CARMA (Carbon Monitoring for Action) website and download their power plant tracking .kml database into Google Earth. So, adding biomass offloading facilities should be easy.

Biochar, produced from any plant material including switchgrass and sorghum anywhere upstream of Louisiana on the Mississippi river or its tributaries, could be burned as a 100% replacement for coal in this power plant, making it carbon neutral. Biochar is as transportable, storage stable, and energy dense as coal. Biomass is generally slightly cheaper than coal, with transport costs dominating. Biochar can be produced from biomass by an exothermic carbonization process that can also pay for itself by sale of electricity produced by burning combustible gases from the carbonization process.

This power plant produces about 14 million tons of CO2 per year, so just making it carbon neutral would be somewhat significant. Of course, to really make a dent in CO2 emissions, we would have to do the same thing to most coal fired power plants in the U.S., especially those located along major navigable rivers, with sufficient biomass or biochar sources, or areas for biomass plantations, located upstream. 

Converting it to an enhanced efficiency power oxyfuel/CCS power plant with an added topping cycle is also possible, and the resulting CO2 could be deep injected into deep saline aquifers under the power plant. Deep saline aquifers under Louisiana have an estimated CO2 storage capacity, according to the NatCarb database, of 400 billion tons to 1.6 trillion tons of CO2.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The coal plant burning sorghum and switchgrass story is just the tip of the iceberg, for bio-energy, of course. What we need to do, on an emergency basis, is transform coal fired power plants to carbon negative power plants, by combining biomass or biochar fuel with carbon capture and storage. So, it&#8217;s a good idea, but this application of it neglects its true potential.</p>
<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bio-energy_with_carbon_capture_and_storage" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/<span style="font-size: 1px;"> </span>wiki/<span style="font-size: 1px;"> </span>Bio-energy_with_carbon_capture_and_storage</a> </p>
<p>Tip to coal fired power producers:</p>
<p>If your coal fired power plant is located on a major river for cooling water, and most are, then planting your co-firing biomass upstream on the river provides easy, economical transport of biomass to your coal plant. </p>
<p>In this case, the Big Cajun II power plant is located on the Mississippi river, and has extensive coal barge facilities and a conveyor belt leading from it&#8217;s dock to its coal stockpile. All of this is visible on Google Earth, especially if you visit the CARMA (Carbon Monitoring for Action) website and download their power plant tracking .kml database into Google Earth. So, adding biomass offloading facilities should be easy.</p>
<p>Biochar, produced from any plant material including switchgrass and sorghum anywhere upstream of Louisiana on the Mississippi river or its tributaries, could be burned as a 100% replacement for coal in this power plant, making it carbon neutral. Biochar is as transportable, storage stable, and energy dense as coal. Biomass is generally slightly cheaper than coal, with transport costs dominating. Biochar can be produced from biomass by an exothermic carbonization process that can also pay for itself by sale of electricity produced by burning combustible gases from the carbonization process.</p>
<p>This power plant produces about 14 million tons of CO2 per year, so just making it carbon neutral would be somewhat significant. Of course, to really make a dent in CO2 emissions, we would have to do the same thing to most coal fired power plants in the U.S., especially those located along major navigable rivers, with sufficient biomass or biochar sources, or areas for biomass plantations, located upstream. </p>
<p>Converting it to an enhanced efficiency power oxyfuel/CCS power plant with an added topping cycle is also possible, and the resulting CO2 could be deep injected into deep saline aquifers under the power plant. Deep saline aquifers under Louisiana have an estimated CO2 storage capacity, according to the NatCarb database, of 400 billion tons to 1.6 trillion tons of CO2.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
