What's not technically positive about relocating our moon to Earth's L1

One nifty and clean energy resource alternative has to do with our
moon, in part by eventually relocating that physically dark and
somewhat salty big old thing out to Earth's L1, and the next
requirement is for us to fully utilize the LSE-CM/ISS and of its
tether dipole element that can technically reach as close as you'd
like to Earth (just short of a few fail-safe km worth of coming into
direct contact).

Willie Moo / William Mook:
A detailed analysis of the power flows in Earth's biosphere came up
with the following;

50,000 TW - direct solar
320 TW - hydrological cycle (including winds)
40 TW - photosynthesis (all life)
10 TW - human industry (2005)

Once again, your CIA WorldFactBook "detailed analysis" is simply being
way too conservative, and your human energy consumption (if all
inclusive) is off by at least 50% (I'd go as far as humans being
worthy of 20 TW).

On behalf of the raw 'energy in' simply has to equal 'energy out', or
else Earth explodes. Your CIA WorldFactBook doesn't even take the
horrific influx or clean through and through energy worth of solar and
moon gravity issues into account. Doesn't the complex Earth/moon/sun
tidal force of such interactive gravity account for anything within
that good old mainstream conditional physics book of Mook?

You good folks do realize that the all-inclusive volumetric worth of
Earth (including its extremely wet and sooty atmosphere) is 98.5%
fluid to those multibody forces of gravity, don't you.
- Brad Guth -