You're focusing on the most expensive and least likely to be scalable in all areas. Why?

The science had only significantly changed with respect to ESG.

You're focusing on the most expensive and least likely to be scalable in all areas. Why? — Benkei

The short answer is, to solve the climate and ecological crisis.

A longer answer would reference the sheer scale of the energy available from UDGS; according to Nasa/Sandia Labs estimates - a minimum of 90 times current global energy demand just from the US alone. Remember, this is from 1982:

"The current magma energy project is assessing the engineering feasibility of extracting thermal energy directly from crustal magma bodies. The estimated size of the U.S. resource (50,000 to 500,000 quads) suggests a considerable potential impact on future power generation. In a previous seven-year study, we concluded that there are no insurmountable barriers that would invalidate the magma energy concept."

Current global energy demand is approximately 600 quads, so we'd barely need to scratch the surface of the energy available from UDGS to meet global energy demand carbon free forever. Crack this nut, and humankind is set. We can desalinate sea water to irrigate wastelands for agriculture and habitation - rather than burn the forest and deplete and pollute the rivers. We can recycle all our waste. We can extract carbon from the air.

Think in terms of the Kardashev scale! I want us to be a Type 1 civilisation. Why do you want a Type 0.35 civilisation?

...assessing the engineering feasibility... — karl stone

So, do you have any information on the results of that assessment?

The short answer is, to solve the climate and ecological crisis. — karl stone

The Eternal Return all over again, from about 3 years ago. I thought this horse had been beaten to death.

As for solving the climate and ecological crisis (one and the same): Those who can solve it (petroleum producers, refiners, and distributors; coal companies; car companies; Wall Street investment funds, capitalists ad nauseam) prefer to keep the profits and the doomed future they know.

I can't agree with them, but I can empathize with their stubborn death grip on fossil fuel: It has fueled a long and fantastic period of innovation, economic growth, and prosperity. How could all that good stuff be bad? Indeed, it is hard to imagine. Billions of people can't imagine it, while other billions of people can see fossil fuels as a losing proposition. There's no one, single alternative. Sure, tap geothermal power while we also tap wind power, solar power, nuclear power, wave power, hydropower, and REDUCE CONSUMPTION.

The radical shift from fossil fuel to everything else will be a hard wrenching change. It just isn't going to be a pleasant walk in the park. That's what scares people as much as the doom of global warming.

Having very large power plants introduces requirements on the grid that don't currently exist and require a disproportionate investment, where the power plant itself is already much more expensive. Just the lead time for transformers is currently 4+ years. It's therefore economically and logistically unsound to meet our immediate needs. It's much better to integrate such power plants into the existing grid, which is what makes ESG attractive.

We don't need to be a tier 1 civilisation to resolve the climate crisis.

The Eternal Return all over again, from about 3 years ago. I thought this horse had been beaten to death. — BC

Flogged to death is hardly a valid critique on a philosophy forum. If it weren't for rehashing Ancient Greek guys' musings, you'd have nothing to talk about. The boulder would return to the bottom of the hill and stay there! Because the universe is entropic - it requires the constant expenditure of effort/energy just to stand still.

There's no one, single alternative. — BC

I disagree, and more significantly, Nasa/Sandia Labs research disagrees with that assertion. There is a silver bullet - we can plug into the planet and power everything a hundred times over with constant clean energy from high temperature geothermal. In my view, it's the next logical step in a long series of energy revolutions in human history; from eating meat, discovering fire, the agricultural revolution, the discovery of fossil fuels, the industrial revolution - at each stage, the application of technology yielding more energy for less effort.

Wall Street investment funds, capitalists ad nauseam) prefer to keep the profits and the doomed future they know. — BC

I'm not sure that's true, but it is closer to the question I'm trying to get to grips with. Sure, we can suppose a right wing conspiracy of governments, financial markets and fossil fuel companies keep new entrants - namely Magma Energy, out of the market, but why have left wing environmentalists not demanded Magma Energy these past 40 years?

Arguably, Hardin's Tragedy of the Commons suggests capitalists; acting only in their rational self interest would exploit the common resource that is Magma Energy to the maximum degree; providing the world with abundant clean energy to power a prosperous AND sustainable future.

But more puzzling still is why left winged environmentalists have not demanded the development and application of Magma Energy technology at any time in the past 40 years? How have they convinced everyone we need to ...

...and REDUCE CONSUMPTION. — BC

...when it should be obvious that the resources available to a future powered by Magma Energy, would be as great again, as fossil fuels were an advantage over firewood and whale oil. Resources, including environmental resources - are not a finite amount being used up, but are a function of the energy available to produce them, and Earth is a big ball of molten rock!

...assessing the engineering feasibility...
— karl stone

So, do you have any information on the results of that assessment? — Wayfarer

Yes, sure.

https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/6588943

Having very large power plants introduces requirements on the grid that don't currently exist — Benkei

If only we'd started 40 years ago!

and require a disproportionate investment, — Benkei

compared to what?

where the power plant itself is already much more expensive. — Benkei

more expensive than what?

Just the lead time for transformers is currently 4+ years. — Benkei

Yeah, it's tripled since 2021, according to Bloomberg.

It's therefore economically and logistically unsound to meet our immediate needs. — Benkei

Solving the climate and ecological crisis is not an immediate need. It requires a little forethought, because only a functioning global economy can do this. If we think only in terms of the immediate, waiting until solving the climate crisis becomes an immediate need, it will be too late.

It's much better to integrate such power plants into the existing grid, which is what makes ESG attractive. — Benkei

So EGS doesn't require transformers?

compared to what? — karl stone

EGS.

more expensive than what? — karl stone

EGS.

Solving the climate and ecological crisis is not an immediate need. It requires a little forethought, because only a functioning global economy can do this. If we think only in terms of the immediate, waiting until solving the climate crisis becomes an immediate need, it will be too late. — karl stone

This is just handwaving. You remind me of counterpunch. Words devoid if basic facts. If you think this is the way forward, calculate it. I sincerely doubt the feasibility of going for the most expensive solution is workable. I've pointed to the one that is most likely to be feasible.

So EGS doesn't require transformers? — karl stone

If EGS works you can drop it anywhere into the existing grid and simply use existing transformers.

@Karl Stone

Having very large power plants introduces requirements on the grid that don't currently exist — Benkei

It is the case in parts of the US that any large expansion of electric production (thinking here of wind and solar) requires substantial improvements in regional and national grids which are difficult. Cost is one factor, but that is probably less important than animosity towards having the hardware of the grid marching across privately owned land.

I haven't conceded that Magma Energy is a more expensive approach than EGS. That's your claim. Please, show your workings.

You'd have to make a lot of assumptions - like how deep the supposed Magma Energy deposit is, how much energy it would produce, for how long, and what the market price is for that energy. What would be the point? Pick a number!
Expense is not the point at this stage; it's what would be achieved if the engineering challenge can be overcome. What you may not be aware of is that at 374'C water goes supercritical. It was a big thing in steam train design back in the day. It's like a spring hidden in the physics; an exponential increase in power for a marginal increase in temperature and/or the cost of reaching such temperatures.

The transformer thing is not a problem; the current four year wait is a consequence of the covid pandemic shutdown, against an increase in demand due to AI data centers. It's a temporary issue. Swing and a miss! But do keep trying!

It is the case in parts of the US that any large expansion of electric production (thinking here of wind and solar) requires substantial improvements in regional and national grids which are difficult. — BC

Quite right. Wind and solar are far worse than geothermal, because they're diffuse forms of energy - that need to be gathered from a large area, and concentrated. And because wind and solar are intermittent; the energy needs to be stored until needed, requiring even more energy infrastructure.

A 3.5 MW wind turbine contains about 4.5 tons of copper.
Solar requires at least 2.5 tons of copper per MW.

A study by the University of Michigan says we will need to mine more copper between 2018 and 2050 than has been produced in the whole of human history, just for the supposed green energy transition. Not including EV's and grid upgrades.

Magma Energy - electricity - hydrogen; not nearly so much copper. A hole in the ground does not sprawl across the countryside, and it produces more high grade energy than x number of windmills. It's constant energy so can provide base load power. And all this needs to be factored in to questions of cost.

The fact you haven't conceded it just shows how little you've actually looked into it. Not something to be proud of. And no, I don't need to make a lot of assumptions. Here's some facts.

Supercritical geothermal (SCGT) introduces several risks that are either absent or significantly less pronounced in Enhanced Geothermal Systems (EGS). There's:

1. Thermally induced seismicity and fault reactivation. The thermal gradients for EGS are far lower compared to SCGT.
2. Material challenges. SCGT requires drilling and equipment that has to withstand much higher temperatures and pressures. supercritical water is highly corrosive.
3. Risk of encountering magma or volcanic gases is much higher as well.
4. SCGT is very likely to reach depth where rock becomes ductile, making reservoir creation even more challenging.
5. The heat and pressure can lead to rapid changes in rock properties and permeability which creates risk of wellbore collapse, equipment failure and difficulties with reservoir management.

Each risk has to be managed and therefore increases costs and therefore USD per Mwh will increase. Many of these risks will cause production to stop if they materialise which has huge ramifications for access to energy.

Furthermore, EGS technology is designed to be deployed in a wide range of geological settings, not just areas with naturally occurring high-temperature hydrothermal systems. It works by artificially creating reservoirs in hot dry rock, which is abundant in many regions worldwide.

This makes EGS more geographically flexible and potentially scalable across many countries and regions, provided there is sufficient subsurface heat at accessible depths.

SCGT, on the other hand, requires access to much deeper and hotter subsurface resources, specifically targeting the supercritical water regime.

Such conditions are only found in certain volcanic or tectonically active regions, which are geographically limited compared to the broader applicability of EGS.

There are also several known benefits to decentralised energy production as compared to centralised, making EGS preferable as well.

- By relying on multiple, local sources, communities become less vulnerable to fuel supply disruptions, price spikes or geopolitical tensions.
- Power is generated closer to where it is used, reducing the energy lost during long-distance transmission, which is typically up to 8% in centralized systems.
- Decentralized systems make it easier and quicker to integrate.
- Local ownership and management of energy resources create jobs, stimulate local economies and give communities greater control over their energy supply.
- By reducing transmission and distribution costs and enabling local energy trading, decentralized models can lower energy bills, especially in remote regions.
- Microgrids and distributed systems can operate independently during grid outages, providing critical services with reliable power.

In summary, decentralized energy production improves reliability, resilience and sustainability.

SCGT has its place, if it becomes viable. For now it's in the pilot phase but in any case it will never work as the primary source of energy production due to the risks and limitations involved.

Draining energy directly out of the Earth, though? Gee, what could go wrong?

The fact you haven't conceded it just shows how little you've actually looked into it. — Benkei

Let's define 'it' here. 'It' - is the cost of developing Magma Energy versus Enhanced Geothermal Systems. You say Magma Energy is more expensive than EGS. That's your claim. Please show your workings. I say it's impossible to say that because I have researched it. Not because I haven't.

Magma Energy is generally deeper - but not always. It's certainly hotter - and this introduces risks/costs, but at the same time has a greater EROI. These are variables that will have different values at each and every location. A blanket generalisation - like the one you made, is simply not possible.

New Zealand is investing $60m in supercritical geothermal research. I would not suggest the UK do the same; at least not in the UK because the crust is much too thick. The Ascension Island, Tristan da Cunha, the Pitcairn Islands, Montserrat - are UK overseas territories with potential to develop Magma Energy.

LH2 can be produced either by thermolysis or electrolysis, and shipped in tankers like the Suzio Frontier; to run power stations, and as fuel for transport. Alternatively, heat batteries can store heat energy directly, and be shipped to UK ports, unloaded and plugged into the national grid from the harbour.

And you demand I estimate the cost of all this? All I can tell you is, if we don't solve climate change, the global economy will collapse - long before the planet becomes uninhabitable, and all will be lost. Repeated and increasing climate impacts will make insurance unaffordable, with knock on effects for real estate, that in turn will take down global banking.

It doesn't take much; Freddie and Fannie nearly collapsed the global economy. A ship got stuck in a canal, and again we were teetering on the brink. How much climate change disruption do you imagine the global economy can handle? And you talk about the most expensive solution?

Is EGS a solution? No!
But Magma Energy is!

Draining energy directly out of the Earth, though? Gee, what could go wrong? — Tzeentch

The quantity of energy humans require to meet all our needs is negligible relative to the total heat energy of the Earth.

Nasa/Sandia estimated a minimum of 50,000 quads of Magma Energy just from the US alone.
Current world energy demand is 600 quads.

The Earth itself is a big ball of molten rock, that's been radiating heat energy into space for 4.5bn years. The heat it contains is 50% primordial - left over from the formation of the Earth, and 50% radiogenic, from the decay of radioactive elements. It is 6000 miles deep and 26,000 miles around; with an average temperature of 2500'C. It will never run out - no matter how much we use.

Great.Show me the calculations.

Great.Show me the calculations. — Benkei

Provide funding, and I'll get right on it!

So you haven't done the calculations and have no clue what you're talking about. Excellent. Nice wasting time on you. Bye.

So you haven't done the calculations and have no clue what you're talking about. Excellent. Nice wasting time on you. Bye. — Benkei

Yes, sure. But before you go - can I just ask, why the negativity?

I mean, I'm describing what I think is a promising potential solution to the climate crisis; and one that allows for a prosperous and sustainable future. I'd like to know why you're opposed to that?

I've been promoting an energy abundance approach on climate change for some time, to people who are ostensibly concerned about climate change, yet to little or no avail. I have met with a lot of negativity that I simply don't understand.

Could you reflect on your motives?

I'm not negative. I simply don't have time for someone's myopic bullshit when I even spoonfeed him information to get a grip on reality.

I'm not negative. I simply don't have time for someone's myopic bullshit when I even spoonfeed him information to get a grip on reality. — Benkei

You didn't need to spoon-feed me anything. This is my topic. The question being, why, what, according to Nasa/Sandia Labs, is a promising approach to the climate and ecological crisis, has gone ignored for the past 40 years?

What you did was ignore my question, invent your own questions about the viability of Magma Energy to attack Magma Energy, and me. I'd say that's negative behaviour.

If you were pushed for time, why bother?

I'm not complaining, because as an interlocutor you have helped me explain what Magma Energy is, how I think it could be developed and how it would address the climate and ecological threat. I'm just trying to get some insight on the question this thread is about.

Why isn't this good news?

You didn't need to spoon-feed me anything. This is my topic. The question being, why, what, according to Nasa/Sandia Labs, is a promising approach to the climate and ecological crisis, has gone ignored for the past 40 years? — karl stone

I believe geothermal is promising, I believe EGS is much more promising that SCGT. I've laid out why. You've given me nothing in return other than repetitions devoid of thought, engagement with my points or facts. SCGT had to compete with other energy sources. It doesn't look like it can compete even with other applications of geothermal energy, which I've tried to discuss and you just repeatedly avoid or ignore. If you cannot engage with a person's post and devolve in repetition the only conclusion is you don't understand it.

I'm not negative about geothermal I'm negative about your ability to discuss the subject.

I believe geothermal is promising, I believe EGS is much more promising that SCGT. I've laid out why. — Benkei

Do you work for Nasa/Sandia Labs as a scientist? No!
Have you conducted a seven year long research program into the feasibility of Magma Energy? No!
Hmmm...then, whose opinions on the feasibility of Magma Energy should I trust?
The guys who put men on the moon, or those of a lunatic?

I don't give two speckled hens eggs for your opinions on geothermal; what I'd like to discuss, is why those ostensibly concerned with the climate - like Al Gore for instance, have never mentioned the prospect of limitless clean energy from high temperature geothermal?

Why instead have the environmental left terrorised generations with the existential dread and nihilistic despair of Limits to Growth? We have children throwing themselves into traffic to protest climate change. But not as many children as we might have had - because what's the point of having children?

I remember, in 1986, Dr Patrick Moore - co-founder of Greenpeace was drummed out of the organisation for daring to suggest we need nuclear energy. That isn't just something I've read about since. I was there. I couldn't contextualise it at the time, but his comments resonate now, when he said he left Greenpeace because it "took a sharp turn to the political left" and "evolved into an organization of extremism and politically motivated agendas."

That's what I'm asking about; not your opinions on one form of geothermal energy relative to another.

Remember this post? You started talking to me remember? I replied and asked why you're focusing on the least likely candidate to be widely available and is also the least mature technologically speaking. I just get dumb shit after that. So fuck you.

Remember this post? You started talking to me remember? I replied and asked why you're focusing on the least likely candidate to be widely available and is also the least mature technologically speaking. I just get dumb shit after that. So fuck you. — Benkei

This is off topic. Please address the question in the OP. Thanks.

Benefits of Geothermal in Minnesota:
Energy savings:
Geothermal systems can significantly reduce heating and cooling costs, sometimes by as much as 70% on heating and 50% on cooling compared to conventional systems. AI text

The projects I have seen here use shallow installations to dissipate heat in summer and and acquire heat in the winter. For instance, a Lutheran church within 2 miles of me uses shallow wells located under the church parking lot to cool and heat. A housing development project within 1/2 mile was / is slated to use geothermal for heating and cooling. ("was/is" because the post is from 2023 and I haven't seen much activity of any kind on this large lot as of 2025.)

Putting in underground pipes to circulate water should be relatively easy given the use of shallow horizontal drilling. A lot of this is done for cable, gas, and water lines. How deep? Don't know.

A heat-pump extracting heat from very cold air doesn't make a lot of sense; taking heat out of 50º water should work a lot better.

Extracting energy in this manner isn't likely to generate electricity. That's OK by me. Geothermal would reduce fossil fuel use significantly.

The projects I have seen here use shallow installations to dissipate heat in summer and acquire heat in the winter. For instance, a Lutheran church within 2 miles of me uses shallow wells located in the church parking lot to cool and heat. — BC

It's a really quite interesting physical principle; the heat difference engine. The temperature underground remains constant as the atmospheric temperature rises and falls below that value - such that in summer it gives you cool air, and in winter hot air! It's not going to power an AI data center, but you do have to admire the thermodynamics of Creation!

Not much in the way of high temperature geothermal resources in Minnesota, I'm afraid. But further West, toward the Pacific Ring of Fire, the geothermal heat map has a lot of deep red on it.

It's a wonder, a country driven by the Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism has managed to overlook such a massive free resource for so long. Hardin's Tragedy of the Commons suggests capitalists acting in their rational self interest would naturally exploit this common resource to the maximum degree.

I'm not sure if the leasing provisions in the Geothermal Steam Act of 1970, also known as Public Law 91-581, served as a disincentive to Magma Energy production, or if it was more of a superstitious inhibition against powering the world with Hell fire!

Not much in the way of high temperature geothermal resources in Minnesota — karl stone

Perhaps the "cold" areas like Minnesota are the result of the thick granite Laurentian Shield, part of the North American Craton. The Tower-Sudan underground iron mine in northern MN is 2300 feet deep, and is not warm.

Yellowstone would be a great place to operate geothermal plants, at least until the caldera blows up again. National park fans would probably object. No matter. There do seem to be a lot of hot spots in the western US.

Similar in the UK; 50 miles of cold hard rock - so no Magma Energy here either.
A place in Cornwall called the Eden Project, drilled down 5.3km, and only reached temperatures of 140'C. It's enough to heat their tropical greenhouses carbon free, but it's not going to provide base load power to cities.
The Western US; indeed, the entire western side of the American continent from Peru to Alaska is sat on the Pacific Ring of Fire. It really is a puzzle as to why this practically limitless clean energy source has not been developed.
I'm telling people about it, thinking it's great news for those capable of understanding it, and yet they seem incredibly determined to ignore it. I don't know why. They can't all be in the pockets of big oil, can they?