>>>>>Depends how you produce it. The way GW(2)B's administration wants to do it, it seems to be using, guess what, oil. On Iceland, they use thermal energy to produce electricity, and then use that to electrolyse water, with oxygen as a byproduct.
>>>>
>>>>Cool if you live in Iceland.
>>>
>>>Seems to me that's actually an important point. We're not going to solve the fossil fuel problem until we stop looking for a single solution and go after a variety of solutions that work in different situations and locales. The answer for heating homes is probably different than the answer for fueling cars, which may be different than the answer for providing light. And, as you pointed out, the answer for Iceland may be different than the answer for Spain, which may be different than the answer for Canada.
>>>
>>>Tamar
>>
>>The answer in Canada apparently, is to guzzle oil.
>
>Not only that... have you seen the energy it takes to make a barrel of oil sands crude?@#!$@#!$@
>
>Lots of water from local rivers combined with lots of fuel to heat the water to separate the sand from the oil. It's so big a use, with such environmental impact all by itself, that there's serious consideration of building a nuclear power plant to generate the steam and recover the water for re-use.
>
>I guess if oil went down to $3x. per barrel Fort McMurray would shut down.

Absolutely. The only reason they weren't sucking it up there when I was living in Alberta was because the price of oil made it uneconomic. It costs a lot to get that stuff out of the tar sands. Of course, now with Harper's decision that there will be no interference, regulation or monitoring of the tar sands projects, I guess there is no more problem as far as the oil industry is concerned. Carte blanche.