--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" <r...@...> wrote: > > http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/07/opinion/07friedman.html?emc=eta1 >
Wonderful and inspiring. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. My favorite line from the article: "If this works," said Khosla, "coal-fired power would become more than 100 percent clean. Not only would it not emit any CO2, but by producing clean water and cement as a byproduct it would also be taking all of the CO2 that goes into making those products out of the atmosphere." Now, as you know, I don't buy into any of the CO2 hooey. Indeed, I even feel that putting CO2 into the atmosphere has some good effects. But if someone comes up with something like this then who can complain? I suspect that the same process can be used for the tar sands in Alberta. I keep reminding people here that the tar sands in Alberta have more oil than Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the U.S., Iran, and Iraq have in proven reserves combined. But it is expensive and takes a lot of carbon burning to produce. If this technology can be used with the tar sands then 100% of oil can be gotten domestically. I know, I know: Canada is a foreign country. Yeah, technically. But it's Canada and most Americans actually think it's like Puerto Rico any way: some sort of territory owned by Americans but not quite a state. And if Quebec separates -- which could very well happen -- then Canada will disintegrate soon afterwards and Alberta -- the more American-friendly of the 10 provinces -- could very well join the U.S. And then we'd have clean oil for the next 100 years, all obtained domestically.
