Obamot wrote:Yes but now it looks like I pushed you to the splits ...
not really.
This sentence does not mean anything. Ru told me it was “expensive”, I proved it wasn't. Just because they don't do it (and they do ...) doesn't mean it's expensive .... Paralogism ...
it may also suggest that your "proof" is a bit rotten too ...
In short, a few reasons:
I'm not talking about petroleum, petroleum is hardly used for electricity any more. What is used is: coal, gas, nuclear power, hydraulics, and a little PV and wind power. We do not really see why thermodynamic solar energy would be discarded if it is not expensive.
DA3F3BE3-ABF2-4D23-BADE-49F13A1B67B2.jpegABC2019 wrote:- It costs zero ore and ...
that's joke ... you make a thermodynamic power station with wood and leaves yourself?
I was telling you about the fuel. Or there, the whole industry must stop ... You will have to occupy people
don't worry, when there is more oil, there will be work, just for food ...
ABC2019 wrote:- 80% of the energy received is convertible into directly usable energy.
ooh there ... no Carnot output in your plant? what's your hot spring and cold spring temperature?
Where did you see that I was talking about “yield”, this is downstream, in fact thermodynamic solar energy is 30% no more, since I have already said it (while nuclear .... but ok, let's talk about something else)
ah, "% of the energy received is convertible into energy that can be directly exploited", isn't that a return for you?
ABC2019 wrote:If you think it would be expensive, name an energy source that would be affordable in comparison ...?!?!?
And who wouldn't produce Co2 ...?!?!?
there is not any. That's why we continue to produce CO2 precisely ...
Yes, solar ...
it's crazy that there is only here that it is known anyway ....