<?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: Joule Biotech Sun-Powered Fuel &#8211; Biofuel vs Solar PV</title>
	<atom:link href="http://cleantechnica.com/2009/08/17/joule-biotech-comes-out-of-stealth-%E2%80%93-but-is-it-really-that-new/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://cleantechnica.com/2009/08/17/joule-biotech-comes-out-of-stealth-%e2%80%93-but-is-it-really-that-new/</link>
	<description>Clean Tech News &#38; Views: Solar Energy News. Wind Energy News. EV News. &#38; More.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 30 Dec 2014 14:56:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
		<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
		<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=4.0.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Paul</title>
		<link>http://cleantechnica.com/2009/08/17/joule-biotech-comes-out-of-stealth-%e2%80%93-but-is-it-really-that-new/#comment-6522</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Paul]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 18 Aug 2009 20:35:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cleantechnica.com/?p=3110#comment-6522</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I agree, it is carbon neutral. But I have heard of some talk of algae projects to take up CO2 from coal power station stacks. So I am not sure if the very fact that it doesnt go straight up into the atmosphere, but goes into a fuel first, the use of which off-sets some gasoline use, maybe there is some grounds for a credit. I dont know.

I agree with you re combustion engines. If the whole purpose of biofuels is to allow us to cling onto an 19th century technology, then what&#039;s the point. For aviation though, there will never be a battery powered 747, and the weight of a hydrogen tank makes that look unattractive for aviation as well. With electric powered cars though, you have to be careful that we are not just replacing one inefficient technology with another. An internal combustion engine is about 35% efficient, (tank to wheels) but a coal power burning generating station is also about 35% efficient at converting the energy in coal into electricity. So the &#039;well to wheels&#039; comparison for a gasoline powered car Vs an electric powered car, where the electricity comes from burning fossil fuels, may not be that much better at all. However, once you go electric, you can generate the electricity from a wide variety of sources.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I agree, it is carbon neutral. But I have heard of some talk of algae projects to take up CO2 from coal power station stacks. So I am not sure if the very fact that it doesnt go straight up into the atmosphere, but goes into a fuel first, the use of which off-sets some gasoline use, maybe there is some grounds for a credit. I dont know.</p>
<p>I agree with you re combustion engines. If the whole purpose of biofuels is to allow us to cling onto an 19th century technology, then what&#8217;s the point. For aviation though, there will never be a battery powered 747, and the weight of a hydrogen tank makes that look unattractive for aviation as well. With electric powered cars though, you have to be careful that we are not just replacing one inefficient technology with another. An internal combustion engine is about 35% efficient, (tank to wheels) but a coal power burning generating station is also about 35% efficient at converting the energy in coal into electricity. So the &#8216;well to wheels&#8217; comparison for a gasoline powered car Vs an electric powered car, where the electricity comes from burning fossil fuels, may not be that much better at all. However, once you go electric, you can generate the electricity from a wide variety of sources.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Paul</title>
		<link>http://cleantechnica.com/2009/08/17/joule-biotech-comes-out-of-stealth-%e2%80%93-but-is-it-really-that-new/#comment-23888</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Paul]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 18 Aug 2009 20:35:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cleantechnica.com/?p=3110#comment-23888</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I agree, it is carbon neutral. But I have heard of some talk of algae projects to take up CO2 from coal power station stacks. So I am not sure if the very fact that it doesnt go straight up into the atmosphere, but goes into a fuel first, the use of which off-sets some gasoline use, maybe there is some grounds for a credit. I dont know.

I agree with you re combustion engines. If the whole purpose of biofuels is to allow us to cling onto an 19th century technology, then what&#039;s the point. For aviation though, there will never be a battery powered 747, and the weight of a hydrogen tank makes that look unattractive for aviation as well. With electric powered cars though, you have to be careful that we are not just replacing one inefficient technology with another. An internal combustion engine is about 35% efficient, (tank to wheels) but a coal power burning generating station is also about 35% efficient at converting the energy in coal into electricity. So the &#039;well to wheels&#039; comparison for a gasoline powered car Vs an electric powered car, where the electricity comes from burning fossil fuels, may not be that much better at all. However, once you go electric, you can generate the electricity from a wide variety of sources.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I agree, it is carbon neutral. But I have heard of some talk of algae projects to take up CO2 from coal power station stacks. So I am not sure if the very fact that it doesnt go straight up into the atmosphere, but goes into a fuel first, the use of which off-sets some gasoline use, maybe there is some grounds for a credit. I dont know.</p>
<p>I agree with you re combustion engines. If the whole purpose of biofuels is to allow us to cling onto an 19th century technology, then what&#8217;s the point. For aviation though, there will never be a battery powered 747, and the weight of a hydrogen tank makes that look unattractive for aviation as well. With electric powered cars though, you have to be careful that we are not just replacing one inefficient technology with another. An internal combustion engine is about 35% efficient, (tank to wheels) but a coal power burning generating station is also about 35% efficient at converting the energy in coal into electricity. So the &#8216;well to wheels&#8217; comparison for a gasoline powered car Vs an electric powered car, where the electricity comes from burning fossil fuels, may not be that much better at all. However, once you go electric, you can generate the electricity from a wide variety of sources.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jacob</title>
		<link>http://cleantechnica.com/2009/08/17/joule-biotech-comes-out-of-stealth-%e2%80%93-but-is-it-really-that-new/#comment-6521</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Jacob]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 18 Aug 2009 17:09:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cleantechnica.com/?p=3110#comment-6521</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[who cares if it takes in CO2, it&#039;s a neutral function since you will burn it in the utilization of the fuel. If we want to eliminate all the negative effects of burning fossil fuels then we need to find a way to supercede combustion engines...they&#039;re not even very efficient at converting energy into kinetic energy.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>who cares if it takes in CO2, it&#8217;s a neutral function since you will burn it in the utilization of the fuel. If we want to eliminate all the negative effects of burning fossil fuels then we need to find a way to supercede combustion engines&#8230;they&#8217;re not even very efficient at converting energy into kinetic energy.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jacob</title>
		<link>http://cleantechnica.com/2009/08/17/joule-biotech-comes-out-of-stealth-%e2%80%93-but-is-it-really-that-new/#comment-23887</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Jacob]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 18 Aug 2009 17:09:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cleantechnica.com/?p=3110#comment-23887</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[who cares if it takes in CO2, it&#039;s a neutral function since you will burn it in the utilization of the fuel. If we want to eliminate all the negative effects of burning fossil fuels then we need to find a way to supercede combustion engines...they&#039;re not even very efficient at converting energy into kinetic energy.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>who cares if it takes in CO2, it&#8217;s a neutral function since you will burn it in the utilization of the fuel. If we want to eliminate all the negative effects of burning fossil fuels then we need to find a way to supercede combustion engines&#8230;they&#8217;re not even very efficient at converting energy into kinetic energy.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
