No, this is ridiculous. If humans have to put in more energy than you get out of it, it’s just a transfer mechanism. What you’re saying is no different than claiming your outlet is an energy source.
Geothermal steam vs steam generated by burning coal is qualitatively different in multiple critical ways. Trying to muddy that is nothing more than pro-fossil fuel propaganda.
Fusion of atomic nuclei can't yet be done by humans at better than unity. Is fusion not a power source just because we can't do it yet? If so, the sun has news for you.
Steam generated by burning coal is in no way a clean energy source while steam generated by geo thermals is. It’s just boiled water either way. Take some time to consider why that difference is relevant.
Correct. And when heating the house i can decide between the energy source of steam or energy source of electricity.
It seems like a productive consideration for this discussion is a systems barrier. If you think in macro energy systems, everything would appear to be transport. In micro energy stems everything is sources.
The passage means that it's cleaner to burn the fuel once in a very efficient power plant than to have hundreds of smaller furnaces burn the same total amount of oil or coal. More complete combustion means better and cleaner energy. It also means there's no risk of carbon monoxide poisoning in those buildings.
> Steam is not a source of energy at all; it's a transfer medium.
By this argument, the fossil fuels you mentioned aren't an energy source either, but just a (very inefficient) transfer medium from hydrogen fusion in our sun into chlorophyll, then about 20 more steps and several million years.
If you can extract useful work from it, it's an energy source. Everything else is just a question of degree.