Brent: if we agree with the Solar System origination from a dissection of the (original-bigger) Sun, even the geothermic is "solar" energy. Well, 'wind' definitely is, hydro indirectly.
We need lots more of usable energy for humankind's survival - to save energy <G> and I am an advocate of the geothermal, transforming the (oil-wells in exhaustion) into steam-production by lowering the level into 'hot' depth and pumping down desalinated water in a double conduit where the overheated steam can come up into turbines (all figured within today's circumstances). It will save profits to the oil magnets and is a pretty constant - hard-to-reduce source. Sea-based hydro is another good option. Just let's forget about coal, oil, nuke: coal and oil should be used as a staple for chemicals (only), nuke should NOT be used as fission-process. It is suicidal. Any additional thoughts? John M I have one objection to present terrestrial usage of solar energy: the (NOW!) existing technical level requires costly maintenance. I consider it temporary. On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 7:19 PM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote: > ??? Who asked you to? I guess you're unaware that hydroelectric > generators depend on solar energy? And that the energy in coal and oil > came from the Sun. And that it's not an either-or choice. And that the > Sun shines all the time, just not on your spot? And that energy can be > stored? I assume you're switching to nuclear. > > Brent > > On 1/12/2013 2:35 AM, Roger Clough wrote: > > The unpredictability of solar energy > truncated > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
