<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!-- generator="FeedCreator 1.7.3" -->
<rss version="2.0">
	<channel>
		<title>Progress in Biofuels Production  </title>
		<description>Comments for Progress in Biofuels Production   at http://www.ecogeek.org , comment 1 to 2 out of 2 comments</description>
		<link>http://www.ecogeek.org</link>
		<lastBuildDate>Sat, 25 May 2013 13:09:41 +0100</lastBuildDate>
        <generator>FeedCreator 1.7.3</generator>
		<item>
			<title>Unfortunately, biofuels is going nowhere for a energy national solution</title>
			<link>http://www.ecogeek.org/biofuels/3812-progress-in-biofuels-production-#comment-47409</link>
			<description>John is correct when he says that that impressive gallons of biofuel would do nothing towards the overall fuel requirements for our current fleet.  I think that we should wait for the next solution, which could be different forms of energy production, like ColdFusion!:'( - Richard Fletcher</description>
			<pubDate>Wed, 10 Oct 2012 15:13:34 +0100</pubDate>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>More Information</title>
			<link>http://www.ecogeek.org/biofuels/3812-progress-in-biofuels-production-#comment-47323</link>
			<description>While the numbers can be impressively large-sounding, these still represent only a tiny percentage of the total amount of fuel that is consumed by motor vehicles annually. The output from a pilot plant may sound impressively large if thinking about the volume of fuel in comparison to one's individual use. But when considered against the millions of vehicles on the road, it is completely dwarfed by the volume of fuel consumed annually (or even just daily) across the nation for transportation.

How about including the actual percentage discussed in this paragraph?  In my opinion, having that information would make this a more complete article. - Jon</description>
			<pubDate>Wed, 26 Sep 2012 10:12:55 +0100</pubDate>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
