LizR wrote 3-2-14: *(JM:*
> *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?! (L)* "Look at the problem" is quite diffeent from "*settling it* by today's knowledge & means. We may "anticipate" tomorrow's knowledge and means, but not without a grain of salt. JM On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 8:26 PM, LizR <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. > -- 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.
