My statement was just a general observation of today's technology. I'd seriously question if it's worth keeping the option open for generation of hydrocarbons from carbon dioxide and water without utilising plants, though. It would require another energy source, which again implies that humanity has already found substitutes for hydrocarbons.
Even when using plants, ie. the so-called "biofuel", the yield far too low to be commercially viable with today's technology. I'd argue it's not environmentally viable either, but I don't really know much about the environmental consequences of biofuel. But it's hard to predict. "Constantly moving, the future is" as Master Yoda said. :-) Jostein 2007/6/13, Bob Blakely <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Yet. > > I say this because history has shown me that every time some expert or > pundant says something can't be done, some ingenious fool who was never > educated in the "cant's" of this world up and does it! > > The above is not about the world's resources or any other part of the > discussion. It's about assuming there's something permanent about the word > "can't". > > Regards, > Bob Blakely > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > "A mother takes twenty years to make a man of her boy, > and another woman makes a fool of him in twenty minutes." > - Robert Frost > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "AlunFoto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > I'd say it's a bigger fallacy to equate all the world's resources to > > the situation for five specific metals. > > > > For example, humans can't regenerate fossil fuels from its waste products. > > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > -- http://www.alunfoto.no/galleri/ http://alunfoto.blogspot.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
