<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:s="http://www.bnet.com/search" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"  xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
<channel>
    <title><![CDATA[Discussion on Invention may lead to greener power plants ]]></title>
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-5894]]></link>
    <atom:link rel="hub" type="application/rss+xml" href="http://pubsubhubbub.appspot.com/" />
    <atom:link rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" href="http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-5894/rss" />

    <description><![CDATA[]]></description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <lastBuildDate>2013-06-19T14:20:54-07:00</lastBuildDate>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Form of carbon fiber?]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-5894-40812]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[The only thing I can think of is that as the liquid drips it lays deposits that are akin to carbon stalactites.  The fluid is collected for reuse while the carbon is collected and processed for sale.Carbon fiber feed stock can be pricy so a cost effective solution could make the scrubbing a break even proposition.  A break even scrubbing operation would be an improvement over current scrubbing methods.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-5894-40812]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Hates Idiots]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Mon, 25 Apr 2011 12:30:18 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Not unlike algae fixation....]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-5894-40709]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[...which works on a small scale, but is difficult to scale and has a very pricey upcharge for the power user. I have not seen a single carbon sequestration method that doesn't have these downsides, and while it is laudable to continue the search and have these things on the shelf in case the price of fossil fuel energy skyrockets, making these technologies economical, I really think that low/no carbon solutions, including energy efficiency is a much more palatable path to take. After all, keeping the coal in the ground and using another energy source may prove to be the cheapest carbon sequestration strategy out there.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-5894-40709]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[klassman6]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Sat, 23 Apr 2011 09:59:28 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[The mystery output]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-5894-40712]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[If the resulting product can be used as a construction material, it makes me wonder if it's not limestone or some other carbonate. This could be used in concrete mixes. Since carbonates are fairly cheap already, by itself this process probably won't be economical, but I guess you have to add in carbon removal at some subsidized price.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-5894-40712]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[zackers]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Fri, 22 Apr 2011 16:32:41 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
    </channel>
</rss>

