In article ,
Jo Schaper wrote:
Scott Nudds wrote:

"Jo Schaper" wrote

Ok, smart fellow. What is the answer if it isn't burning something?
Don't say solar. Something burns to generate solar.


Nothing burns to generate the sun's energy output Jo. There ain't no
oxygen in space for one thing, and secondly no chemical reaction could
continue with such vigour, as is seen with the sun, for 4.5 billion years.

You have a rather narrow definition of burning. I did not say
'oxidation' which would be the case. One gas is consumed in the
manfacture of another gas. Energy is released. Hence, burning.

And no you don't have to feed me the solar gas reactions. I first put
them in a research paper in 7th grade.



Actually the only thing I can think of is nukes, but in order to build
those really cool nuke plants, someone has to burn the limestone to make
cement. Which causes CO2 pollution.


Sorry, the limestone isn't burned either. It's simply dehydrated.

Oh? Have you ever been to cement plant and seen one run? Limestone is
not 'simply dehydrated' to make cement. A hell of a lot of energy is
consumed in the cement making process.

Energy efficiency is the fastest and most economical source of energy.
Nuclear is a distant second, and this even though it is heavily subsidized
by government.


Which was my point in the second email to Mr. Elfritz.

Burning means combustion. My freshmen students sometimes say "the sample was
burned" when they mean it was "heated." I correct them for that.