Comment: Is there a point to your comment?

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Perhaps there is a reason? (see in situ)

Is there a point to your comment?

You state they are the same thing and then seem to insinuate there is some difference. The only difference is that power is the use of energy over time. Like "gallons" and "gallons per minute", they refer to different actionable measurements of the same thing.

So, taking your last 5 words as key, one would assume you think power is available via a tunnel without considering how much energy is involved. Doing that, a tunnel sounds like a great idea but the total energy loss due to friction means it is no better than running a train around the surface of the Earth. Not only that, but the increase in speed caused by the tunnel effect means that much more loss will occur in a tunnel than on the surface meaning it will be much, much harder to get back to the surface than it was to simply avoid the tunnel. Hardly worth considering such a loss (increasing the energy needed) when it also requires so many unknowns in digging the tunnel as well.

So, back to my point. The total energy needed over time AND power needed at any one instant is increased by using a tunnel HOWEVER it would be a moot point either way if people stopped listening to a) media crowned energy experts and b) crackpot junk science snake oil salesmen. In short, there are genuine renewable solutions that don't attempt to defy the laws of physics, offer many benefits with no compromises and do it all for less money than we're spending today. Unfortunately, everyone everywhere seems to be siding with A or B above.

You shouldn't assume that others don't choose their words carefully.