On 3 March 2014 13:06, John Mikes <[email protected]> wrote: > Dear Russell, > > please allow me to address your contribution after so much of emotionally > impaired and poorly adjusted hoopla > in this discussion. Let me join your considerate way - if I am capable of > - and speak about SOME details only. > I spent a lifetime in environmentally 'infected' science/technology R&D so > my conclusions are not just hot air - I hope. > > We are not ready to switch from the polluting practices into 'clean' (not > RENEWABLE, please) energy. JohnK's >
My apologies if you don't like "renewable" - obviously the Sun will run down eventually, and so on, but it seems like a reasonable term to use on the human scale. > remark on 'geotherm' are unfounded. The methods he visualizes are in the > obsolescence of one method. What I was > hintig at, is a lowered (deepened?) double-tube in types like ongoing oil > wells in a closed system, pumping down > ultrapure deionized water and letting up high pressure steam into > turbines. I have nothing against solar applications > with certain caveats I explained lately. Hydro-applications depend on the > subsistence of ground water (questioned > after the snowcaps melted away). > > Main point:* we will need a multiple production of energy *and are not > ready to choose what kind. > Maybe all of them? I consider the energy domain as 'second' - we still > manage as well as we can. > The first biggest concern is water, for* irrigation*, for *potable*(human - > animal) for > *industry* and *ENERGY purposes*. > There is plenty in the oceans (*ref: *Liz asking about a bigger energy > source nearby than the sun). Desalination to > different levels may take care of all the listed problems. > Yes, water is going to be a huge problem, indeed it already is in many parts of the world. Again I apologise for not highlighting this myself because it's a big concern. > > It is a question of willingness! as long as our well established > capitalists insist in reaping profits from existing plants, > (fossil that is). Their 'owned' governments will do nothing. It is (and > will be) a long struggle and a successful research. > This isn't completely true but it is about 90%. > Those people of goodwill who want to 'set' the problem by today's > knowledge/means are doing a disservice to all. > Well if us people of goodwill don't look at the problem using today's knowledge/means (and maybe try to envisage tomorrow's) who is going to do anything?! > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
