🚀 go-pugleaf

"Greg Locock" <greglocock@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message 
news:Xns98A9E5F726E6777777777777777777777@211.29.133.50...
> "Landy" <none@nowhere.com> wrote in news:en59h3$rh0$1@news-
> 02.connect.com.au:
>
>>
>> "David Moss" <q0320811@mail.connect.usq.edu.au> wrote in message
>> news:MPG.2000942a106031ce98a258@news.bigpond.com...
>>> In article <en4jub$rl8$1@news-02.connect.com.au>, dontemailme@all.com
>>> writes...
>>>
>>>> So tell me what's wrong with this form of energy as an alternative to
>>>> coal?
>>>
>>> Isn't geothermal just another kind of nuclear energy?
>>>
>>
>> Well yes, but one is nuclear fission and the other is not.
>
>
> Nope. Both are fission. Like it or not.
>
> There's nothing really wrong with geothermal. If it is cost effectve, add
> it to the palette of alternatives. If not, not. But, conventional nuclear
> should also be on that pallette, as should small amounts of wind power, 
> and
> PV, once that becomes cost effective.
>
> Cheers
>
> Greg Locock

Greg,
You are only partly correct - a minor proportion of Uranium decays by 
spontaneous fission.
But the majority of heat produced by high-heat-production granites is 
produced by
other methods of decay  -  alpha decay, beta decay and electron capture - 
this includes most
Uranium decay and all Thorium and Potassium decay.

I suggest you go and read up on it before correcting others.
cheers
Bill