On Jul 20, 3:37*pm, wrote:
"HeyBub" writes:
wrote:

I suppose CO2 emissions could be important, but it seems to me, having
a power source that doesn't run out seems pretty strategic to me.
The rest of the page deals with CO2.

I don't know about you, but I LIKE power sources that don't pollute.
I'm willing to pay a little more just for that benefit.

You're presuming that CO2 is a pollutant.

No.

Were it not for CO2, there wouldn't be any plants. With no plants, there
would be no cattle. With no cattle, there'd be no food. We'd starve.

If you know of a combustion process that produces only CO2 I'd like
to know about it. *I didn't say CO2, I said pollution.

But the real issue is being prepared for the future.

We're hearing all this crazy deficit talk as if we're creating a
problem for our children. *I think using up resources on the only
planet we have is much more important.

We're NOT using up resources. More precisely, we're using resources but
we're accessing more than we're using. Today, there is five times the known
reserves of natural gas than there was just five years ago.

Look up the Simon-Ehrlich wager in which a doom-sayer* wagered $10,000 with
a more pragmatic scientist over whether the scarcity of ten commodities
(picked by Ehrlich) would cost more (and therefore be harder to find) in ten
years. Ehrlich lost.

It's ridiculous to think we can take tungsten, helium, iron, copper,
tin, lithium, etc out of the ground and scatter them through landfills
without using them up.

Yes, with advances in technology we can dig deeper and extract more.
To think that this can go on forever is wishful thinking.

Mining landfills is in our future. *It won't be pretty.

For plastics too I reckon.