I don't think so.
Solar energy is a trivial form of commercial energy and quite obviously could never support even a fraction of the energy requirements of the City of New York. As it happens, I was in New York today and I saw zero solar steam generators. Why? Because there are none.
It would appear that you have never heard of the first law of thermodynamics. Since you apparently are unaware of this law, let me help you. According to Wikipedia - and yes it is
easy to look up the laws of thermodynamics if you know zero about them - the first law can be written like this: "The increase in the internal energy of a thermodynamic system is equal to the amount of heat energy added to the system minus the work done by the system on the surroundings."
This is just one way of stating this important
universal law.
In case you
still don't get it, this means that the heat in the steam came from somewhere. Where would place be? Well, it happens that on earth there are only a few sources of primary energy: Solar energy, fossil energy (which was originally solar energy), and nuclear energy. Nuclear energy is available in the form of geothermal energy and nuclear fission energy. Solar energy is usually transformed using solar PV cells (a trivial practice on earth), hydroelectric energy (a major practice on earth) and wind energy (still small but growing.)
Since it is necessary to give you
rudimentary lessons in physics, I might add that since solar energy is derived from
nuclear energy, there is actually only
one form of primary energy on earth.
So what's your guess about where the energy came from?
We know that it wasn't
nuclear steam, because if it were, you'd be all over it like a fly on shit. You would
never stop talking about this accident.
Ever.
But as it is, you declare this accident
trivial, so we immediately know that we can eliminate the possibility that nuclear energy was involved in any way.
It is not surprising that we have to cover such rudimentary points. I have always felt that you knew almost nothing about physics.
If I recall, just yesterday you were telling us that this steam accident in New York was different than the events because the accident in New York would have few economic implications.
I quote you directly:
The comparison is stupid because a major earthquake severely damaged and disabled the world's largest nuclear plant complex.
This accident - which is still being assessed - will cost TEPCO and TEPCO customers lots and lots of money (millions??? billions??? no one knows).
It has shaken the confidence of the Japanese people in their government and their plans to build more nuclear power plants.
The pipe burst in Manhattan is peanuts by comparison...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=104389&mesg_id=104425It seems that your knowledge of economics is comparable to your knowledge of the laws of thermodynamics in particular and physics in general.
In another thread, I offered a report that the implications of the New York accident will involve
trillions of dollars:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=104566&mesg_id=104566You couldn't care less.
Why couldn't you care less? Because you routinely exhibit selective attention and routinely apply criteria in a way that is arbitrary and hypocritical and is solely intended to support your irrational biases.