if we agree with the Solar System origination from a dissection of the
(original-bigger) Sun, even the geothermic is "solar" energy. Well, 'wind'
definitely is, hydro indirectly.

We need lots more of usable energy for humankind's survival - to save
energy <G>
and I am an advocate of the geothermal, transforming the (oil-wells in
exhaustion) into
steam-production by lowering the level into 'hot' depth and pumping down
desalinated water in a double conduit where the overheated steam can come
up into turbines (all figured within today's circumstances). It will save
profits to the oil magnets and is a pretty constant - hard-to-reduce
source. Sea-based hydro is another good option.
Just let's forget about coal, oil, nuke: coal and oil should be used as a
staple for chemicals (only), nuke should NOT be used as fission-process. It
is suicidal.
Any additional thoughts?
John M

I have one objection to present terrestrial usage of solar energy: the
(NOW!) existing
technical level requires costly maintenance. I consider it temporary.

On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 7:19 PM, meekerdb <> wrote:

>  ??? Who asked you to?  I guess you're unaware that hydroelectric
> generators depend on solar energy?  And that the energy in coal and oil
> came from the Sun.  And that it's not an either-or choice.  And that the
> Sun shines all the time, just not on your spot?  And that energy can be
> stored? I assume you're switching to nuclear.
> Brent
> On 1/12/2013 2:35 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
> The unpredictability of solar energy
>  truncated

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at

Reply via email to