" Jeanne Stockdale" wrote in message
...

"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...

"

In the ultimate future that is quite true. At some stage it will
become essential to cap the total human population. However, the
amount of energy available in fissile (and fusible) materials is
vastly in excess of that in the available fossil fuels.

Franz


In order to shorten the period within we can take advantage
of the
sun's energy, we should go down the road of directly extracting the
radiated
energy.

Sorry, but the meaning of that sentence escapes me entirely.


We have (more than ! ) an abundance of water and hydrogen
should be
easily extractable therefrom by heat from the sun.

There is no direct way of using solar heat to decompose water into
hydrogen and oxygen
Electrolysing water just to burn it again is not a *source* of any
energy whatsoever. It merely provides a method of storing and
transporting energy.

It's just a matter imho
of developing the technology to focus the energy appropriately.

What would this technology consist of?

Not
such a difficult concept when you remember setting fire to paper as
a kid
using a magnifying glass.
On combustion the residue is water if my O level Phys/Chem
memories
are correct.

Your memories of chenmistry are very badly flawed. Burning carbon
does not yield any water at all. It yields mainly CO2 under ideal
burning conditions. The CO2 is the ****** in the woodpile which we
are trying to get rid of.

Surely this would be less onerous than fission, fusion,
nuclear or
fossil burning

Fusion is as yet unproven.
Fission is fine. The only ****** in the woodpile is the anti-nuclear
lobby, which has its knickers quite seriously in a twist. Fission
stations pollute vastly less than coal, gas or oil stations do.

Franz