Sorry about the "Reply to" problem, Mike. Mike Carrell wrote: > > As I understand it, extracting shale oil takes immense amounts of water > which is thereby polluted. Am I out of date, or do you have a source of > water to suggest that can be so wasted? And, is the energy extraction > process itself energy efficient? > Fission Nuclear Heat and Electricity for shale oil extraction and inter basin water transport from Lake Powell or The Great Salt Lake plus CO2 is viable if the price is right.
> > Wyoming-Montana Coal, Methane Hydrates off the coast of > > North Carolina, Tar Sands Etc. will boost the global warming to > > the point that the need won't exist, and Mills and Hot-Cold Fusion folks > > will be saying, "Don't Panic,We're Almost There". :-( > > You are painting the nightmare of the hot fusion claims, which went on for > decades. Nothing we can do will change the processes already set in motion > toward global warming to the extent that it is due to man's activities. That > is done. What can be done is cope with the consequences and change course > for the future. Of course. > > Cold fusion is not ready from prime time, although the best researchers have > attracted some private investment. Because of the patent problem, that work > is going on without publicity. As far as BLP is concerned, it is much better > organized and may be close to hatching. So are the frogs that can jump out of the Grand Canyon. :-) > > Does Fred have an alternative? > Not as workable as the plans hatched in secret by the DOE-Energy Empire. :-) Fred > > Mike Carrell >
