Originally Posted by Orius

The word "audacious" shows how objective the author of the article is.

10 years really isn't that practical, but the over all idea is a good one. I don't think the U.S. could replace its energy needs with those methods, but it could sure as hell help out. Even if those sources could produce 10% of the needed energy, then the extra supply of fossil fuels would lower prices. The supply of natural energy is never ending.

Too bad big oil would never let this happen.