If this is the case, mhaze...

//JD plays the "I know you are but what am I" card. I used to do that as well... //

...then why am I able to make the same point by wording it entirely differently?
___

Nice try, mhaze.

But the Black Knight didn’t “win,” he just pretended his missing arms and legs weren’t gone. The parallel here is obvious: calling yourself victorious while ignoring coal utilisation, carbon intensity, and renewable growth isn’t analysis, it’s theatre.

In the end, you’re not disproving the sketch - you’re reenacting it.
___

Because it isn’t about substance for you, mhaze, it’s about deflection.

Steam is one method, not the definition of energy.
John Daysh,
It's the only clean one !

Wind and solar are clean energy, and they’re the fastest-growing sources worldwide.

Keep telling yourself that ! Then go & see the kids in the filthy mines & the underpaid in the solar factories & see if they agree with you.

Steam is just a medium, Indyvidual.

//It’s the only clean one!//

Coal, gas, nuclear, geothermal, solar thermal all use it. Calling it “the only clean one” doesn’t make sense.

//Go see the kids in the filthy mines & the underpaid in the solar factories…//

Yes, child labour in cobalt supply chains is a serious problem - and it’s being tackled through recycling, substitution, and traceable sourcing.

But let’s not pretend coal, oil, and gas are innocent. They carved their industries in an era when environmental and labour abuses were shrugged off as the cost of progress. Whole towns were sacrificed to black lung, mine collapses, child labour, and toxic rivers, and nobody expected those supply chains to be “clean,” so they never had to be.

Clean energy is different. It entered the market with sustainability as its core promise, so it’s held to a higher bar. And unlike fossil fuels, fixing its supply chains actually pays off, because once a panel or turbine is built, it runs for decades without further extraction. Fossil fuels never get that clean slate - the mine-to-smokestack damage repeats with every tonne and every barrel.

Nobody ever demanded coal or oil clean up their act. The damage is treated as the price of doing business. Nor does anyone expect them to. They're held to different standards - as you and mhaze have clearly demonstrated in this thread.

Thanks for the opportunity to point out this moral and ethical difference between the two sectors.

By your own standard, fossil fuels are the villain - not renewables. Somehow I don't think you'll be so concerned about child labour or filthy mines anymore, though.

Coal, gas, nuclear, geothermal, solar thermal all use it.
John Daysh,
Yes, but that's what you et al are against hence your pushing for alternative which it actually is not.

child labour in cobalt supply chains is a serious problem - and it’s being tackled through recycling, substitution, and traceable sourcing.
Really ? Not pushed as much as the highly profitable but ineffective filthy alternative energy rort though !

Wrong way around, Indyvidual.

//Yes, but that’s what you et al are against hence your pushing for alternative which it actually is not.//

Steam isn’t an “alternative” at all. Again, it’s just a medium.

Renewables that use steam (solar thermal, geothermal) aren’t somehow disqualified, and wind/solar PV generate directly without it. The “alternative” is the fuel, not the physics.

Theoretically, wind and solar could be rigged up to boil water and spin a turbine, but that would just add steps and make them less efficient.

//Not pushed as much as the highly profitable but ineffective filthy alternative energy rort though!//

Backwards again.

Fossil fuels got a century of free passes while their supply chains chewed through people and landscapes with barely a question. Renewables face far more scrutiny from day one because:

- they’re marketed as clean, so people expect higher standards, and
- they threaten vested interests who have every motive to magnify their flaws.

That’s why you see child-labour campaigns in cobalt mining and recycling programs for panels and batteries, but you can’t name a single global campaign that ever forced coal or oil to clean up their act.

So if your real concern is miners and supply chains, you’d want more renewables, not fewer - because at least they can be cleaned up.

Fossil fuels never will.

G'day John,

Just on steam, in my engineering learning days, I recall when talking about steam and indicated power, the class lecturer as a side question asked; What do you think the IP for a steam locomotive is? Around the class, 50%, 30%, 20% 15%, 60% maybe! Nah... said the lecturer ITS 4%!

Those were the good old days. I recall a chemistry lecturer, he liked a beer, and after class we would adjourn to the local for some practical chemistry. There, after a few schooners of practical taste testing, our teacher would say, "You know fellas, alcohol and water are almost the same thing...its just that alcohol has a bit of carbon in the mix." Hummm! but the affect is not quite the same.