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 <lizj...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 3 March 2014 13:06, John Mikes <jami...@gmail.com> 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. > 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
