<?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: The Prius Deception &#8211; Part II</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.2-speed.com/2006/04/the-prius-deception-part-iia/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.2-speed.com/2006/04/the-prius-deception-part-iia/</link>
	<description>Entrepreneurial Leadership and Management . . . and Other Stuff</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 28 Jul 2010 04:28:24 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Will</title>
		<link>http://www.2-speed.com/2006/04/the-prius-deception-part-iia/#comment-176</link>
		<dc:creator>Will</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 25 Apr 2006 03:40:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.2-speed.com/2007/03/the-prius-deception-part-iia/#comment-176</guid>
		<description>28% would be a lot. &#160;I&#039;d be willing to bet, however, that adjusting the prices for many crop types above their current ridiculously low levels would have a big impact on the amount of land available for growing crops for fuel. &#160;Of course, these numbers assume that we are trying to replace ALL of the gasoline we are consuming (or at least 85% of it). &#160;I don&#039;t think that should be the goal of E85 use. &#160;It is just one weapon in an arsenal to reduce US dependence on foreign oil. &#160;The combination of the use of E85, diesel and electric motors - all technology available today - could make a major dent in our crystal meth-like addiction to middle eastern black crude. &#160;Total replacement of rotted animal guts will require new technologies or, G-d forbid, an actual reduction in energy consumption.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>28% would be a lot. &nbsp;I&#8217;d be willing to bet, however, that adjusting the prices for many crop types above their current ridiculously low levels would have a big impact on the amount of land available for growing crops for fuel. &nbsp;Of course, these numbers assume that we are trying to replace ALL of the gasoline we are consuming (or at least 85% of it). &nbsp;I don&#8217;t think that should be the goal of E85 use. &nbsp;It is just one weapon in an arsenal to reduce US dependence on foreign oil. &nbsp;The combination of the use of E85, diesel and electric motors &#8211; all technology available today &#8211; could make a major dent in our crystal meth-like addiction to middle eastern black crude. &nbsp;Total replacement of rotted animal guts will require new technologies or, G-d forbid, an actual reduction in energy consumption.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dave Jilk</title>
		<link>http://www.2-speed.com/2006/04/the-prius-deception-part-iia/#comment-177</link>
		<dc:creator>Dave Jilk</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 24 Apr 2006 17:50:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.2-speed.com/2007/03/the-prius-deception-part-iia/#comment-177</guid>
		<description>There is a lot of debate as to whether the net energy is really improved in ethanol, given the energy (and pollution) costs of growing and distilling the corn. &#160;Also, to replace gasoline would require that 28% of the U.S. land area be dedicated to this. &#160;The likely outcome would be more clearing of rainforests &#160;to grow these crops. It&#039;s further arguable whether this is really sustainable, since growing the crops needed for ethanol deplete the soil of specific nutrients. &#160;In all, it&#039;s not such a simple case, unless you&#039;re Archer Daniels Midland.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There is a lot of debate as to whether the net energy is really improved in ethanol, given the energy (and pollution) costs of growing and distilling the corn. &nbsp;Also, to replace gasoline would require that 28% of the U.S. land area be dedicated to this. &nbsp;The likely outcome would be more clearing of rainforests &nbsp;to grow these crops. It&#8217;s further arguable whether this is really sustainable, since growing the crops needed for ethanol deplete the soil of specific nutrients. &nbsp;In all, it&#8217;s not such a simple case, unless you&#8217;re Archer Daniels Midland.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
