Re: Unrenewable sun was "Hemel fuel depot explosion"
- From: David Friedman <ddfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 10:32:59 -0800
In article <dnhpek$l7c$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
jdnicoll@xxxxxxxxx (James Nicoll) wrote:
> In article <rIZmf.7427$Dk.4318@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> Cully_J <acarter@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >I'm glad you're okay, Neal,
> >
> >Your post got me thinking about future energy use. We're increasingly moving
> >towards more renewable energy sources; things like solar energy.
> >
> >I have this skiffy idea that we'll suddenly find out that the sun's rays are
> >actually nonrenewable.
>
> *blink*
>
> You think the sun isn't running down, just like the rest of
> the universe?
It's running down, but the rate at which it is running down doesn't
depend on whether we do or don't use its rays.
--
Remove NOPSAM to email
www.daviddfriedman.com
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Unrenewable sun was "Hemel fuel depot explosion"
- From: Bill Swears
- Re: Unrenewable sun was "Hemel fuel depot explosion"
- References:
- Hemel fuel depot explosion
- From: Neil Barnes
- Unrenewable sun was "Hemel fuel depot explosion"
- From: Cully_J
- Re: Unrenewable sun was "Hemel fuel depot explosion"
- From: James Nicoll
- Hemel fuel depot explosion
- Prev by Date: Re: Hemel fuel depot explosion
- Next by Date: Re: Unrenewable sun was "Hemel fuel depot explosion"
- Previous by thread: Re: Unrenewable sun was "Hemel fuel depot explosion"
- Next by thread: Re: Unrenewable sun was "Hemel fuel depot explosion"
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
