<?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: Advanced Electricity Technologies Could Lower CO2 Control Costs By 50%</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.environmentalleader.com/2007/08/20/advanced-electricity-technologies-could-lower-co2-control-costs-by-50/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.environmentalleader.com/2007/08/20/advanced-electricity-technologies-could-lower-co2-control-costs-by-50/</link>
	<description>Environmental Leader</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 13 Feb 2012 17:25:03 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Shel Horowitz, Ethical Marketing Expert</title>
		<link>http://www.environmentalleader.com/2007/08/20/advanced-electricity-technologies-could-lower-co2-control-costs-by-50/comment-page-1/#comment-7566</link>
		<dc:creator>Shel Horowitz, Ethical Marketing Expert</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 24 Aug 2007 11:56:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.environmentalleader.com/2007/08/20/advanced-electricity-technologies-could-lower-co2-control-costs-by-50/#comment-7566</guid>
		<description>I am sorry, but inclusion of nuclear and coal in the mix casts serious doubt on your recommendations. I personally believe that conservation and radical re-engineering of many products can cut our energy uses 780 to 80 percent, but that big, centralized energy systems are first of all, inefficient by their nature, and second, in the cases of nuclear and coal, inherently dangerous. Solar, wind, geothermal, etc. are much more viable alternatives, and when combined with massive conservation and re-engineering, contain the key to long-term energy security.

I recommend reading Amory Lovins. Here&#039;s an introductory article to his work that I wrote a few years ago: http://www.frugalmarketing.com/dtb/amorylovins.shtml

Shel Horowitz, author, Principled Profit: Marketing That Puts People First</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I am sorry, but inclusion of nuclear and coal in the mix casts serious doubt on your recommendations. I personally believe that conservation and radical re-engineering of many products can cut our energy uses 780 to 80 percent, but that big, centralized energy systems are first of all, inefficient by their nature, and second, in the cases of nuclear and coal, inherently dangerous. Solar, wind, geothermal, etc. are much more viable alternatives, and when combined with massive conservation and re-engineering, contain the key to long-term energy security.</p>
<p>I recommend reading Amory Lovins. Here&#8217;s an introductory article to his work that I wrote a few years ago: <a href="http://www.frugalmarketing.com/dtb/amorylovins.shtml" rel="nofollow">http://www.frugalmarketing.com/dtb/amorylovins.shtml</a></p>
<p>Shel Horowitz, author, Principled Profit: Marketing That Puts People First</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: LEE LOE</title>
		<link>http://www.environmentalleader.com/2007/08/20/advanced-electricity-technologies-could-lower-co2-control-costs-by-50/comment-page-1/#comment-7469</link>
		<dc:creator>LEE LOE</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 23 Aug 2007 16:30:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.environmentalleader.com/2007/08/20/advanced-electricity-technologies-could-lower-co2-control-costs-by-50/#comment-7469</guid>
		<description>NO! No to nuclear, coal carbon capture and storage. The inclusion of these options casts doubts on much else that you advise.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>NO! No to nuclear, coal carbon capture and storage. The inclusion of these options casts doubts on much else that you advise.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

