I've thinking about it some more, and perhaps I've been understating the importance of the US reducing its emissions a bit.

The US is still the most powerful country in the world. Even aside from its own contribution to emissions, it gives a signal to the rest of the world.... you can't really go demanding other nations to reduce their emissions if you have among the highest emissions per capita.

Edit: I accidentally messed up this post by editing it instead of replying in a new one, ooh well...

This make no sense at all, why are they doing this? Even if they don't give a damn about effects on climate change, you'd think they choose the cheaper option. — ChatteringMonkey

Cheaper to whom? Likely sooner or later the iron laws of free market capitalism will take charge, but the transit isn't usually so quick.

I assume that once they have a large coal power plant infrastructure and companies building the power plants, things go with the already input motion. And then there's the political aspects: Trump isn't the politician that wooed and will woo areas where coal mining is important.

Remember? Trump digs coal. Many other politicians do like the votes from coal producing areas too.


Turning around energy policy is easier said than done. And those countries that produce coal will surely look at it also as a security issue in times of war or sanctions etc. If you have domestic resources, they are better than resources that have to be bought on the global market.



Of course the writing is on the wall already. From this chart below the number of jobs in the coal mining sector has halved to 44 000 jobs. So no wonder those areas would be desperate for politicians promising a change.

Cheaper to whom? Likely sooner or later the iron laws of free market capitalism will take charge, but the transit isn't usually so quick.

I assume that once they have a large coal power plant infrastructure and companies building the power plants, things go with the already input motion. — ssu

Yes ok, that's along the lines of what I'd expect is happening. You've got the knowledge, the technology and the logistics already figured out and fine-tuned, the labour-force already trained, the connections for investments established etc etc... Renewables are maybe "cheaper" now in the abstract, if you'd have to start from nothing, but we're never actually starting from nothing.

Renewables are maybe "cheaper" now in the abstract, if you'd have to start from nothing, but we're never actually starting from nothing. — ChatteringMonkey

Yet that is the very promising aspect of this technological development: alternative renewables have come down dramatically in price. I think the reason is that enough players do notice the writing on the wall and understand that the dominance of the fossil fuels is going to diminish, hence there is a real competition for the new market shares.



Offshore wind turbines are huge, btw. And out of sight of the NIMBY types.

The US is still the most powerful country in the world. Even aside from its own contribution to emissions, it gives a signal to the rest of the world.... you can't really go demanding other nations to reduce their emissions if you have among the highest emissions per capita. — ChatteringMonkey

True, but there's no one to pressure the US, and it's not headed toward limiting emissions in any sort of meaningful way. The Democratic party is weak and the Republicans have become the alternate reality party. The US is going to be exporting stupid and crazy for the foreseeable future, until we have a system reset.

A disinterested view of the science seems to recommend we harness the massive heat energy of magma to produce limitless electrical power - to sustain civilisations carbon free, and to capture carbon, produce hydrogen fuel, desalinate and irrigate, and recycle!

Or we can continue to presume sustainability requires sacrifice - apply wholly inadequate technological solutions disguised as a 'diverse energy mix' - carbon tax this, stop that, have less and pay more, guilt trip the consumer, tax businesses into bankruptcy, and still not save the world!

I'm for the former!

From an energy theoretical point of view that might be true, but I suspect there are practical and technological reasons why it isn't used more as of now. I don't know enough about the technology to judge it myself, but I do know one of the research centres of my county has been trying to develop this for years now, with only moderate success. For instance they had some serious setback because drilling apparently caused seismic activity in the region. So sure, by all means why not use a virtually unlimited pool of energy, but you do have to have the technology working first.

The US is still the most powerful country in the world. Even aside from its own contribution to emissions, it gives a signal to the rest of the world.... you can't really go demanding other nations to reduce their emissions if you have among the highest emissions per capita.
— ChatteringMonkey

True, but there's no one to pressure the US, and it's not headed toward limiting emissions in any sort of meaningful way. The Democratic party is weak and the Republicans have become the alternate reality party. The US is going to be exporting stupid and crazy for the foreseeable future, until we have a system reset. — frank

That's a pity, because I really do think this is the most effective way to turn this around... if we had some of the world players committed to and actively pushing for reduction of emissions, the rest of the world could fall in line pretty quick.

That's a pity, because I really do think this is the most effective way to turn this around... if we had some of the world players committed to and actively pushing for reduction of emissions, the rest of the world could fall in line pretty quick. — ChatteringMonkey

But even if that happened, things could easily return to present level emissions in the next generation.

Short term doesn't mean much, does it?

That's a pity, because I really do think this is the most effective way to turn this around... if we had some of the world players committed to and actively pushing for reduction of emissions, the rest of the world could fall in line pretty quick.
— ChatteringMonkey

But even if that happened, things could easily return to present level emissions in the next generation.

Short term doesn't mean much, does it? — frank

Changing your energy supply systems is not that easy, as is illustrated by China building more coal plants despite renewable energy being cheaper than ever... So presumably once you have made the switch to reduce emissions, there'd be some inherent resistance to switching back to fossil fuels too. And I'd think some of the whole earth ecology point of view will stick in the consciousness of next generations, we just know more now about it than we used to... you typically don't unlearn these kind of things.

you typically don't unlearn these kind of things. — ChatteringMonkey

Unlearning happens. All it takes is a global crisis.

A disinterested view of the science seems to recommend we harness the massive heat energy of magma to produce limitless electrical power - to sustain civilisations carbon free, and to capture carbon, produce hydrogen fuel, desalinate and irrigate, and recycle — counterpunch

This is one option which has been used for years—nothing new. But we need more than geothermal. You have to have the right conditions for it to be viable. It may work well in Iceland or Hawaii, but it can’t work everywhere.

Wind, solar, hydro, and nuclear are all going to be necessary. Becoming dogmatic about one option, or treating it as a silver bullet, isn’t helpful.

Likely at the global scale, energy production will always be a "diverse mix", that's for sure.

In my view, geothermal has been used quite a long time in places with volcanic activity. How about in Finland, where there is a solid bedrock of stone with only ancient traces of past volcanic activity?

The use of geothermal energy in Finland is restricted to the utilization of ground heat with heat pumps. This is due to the geological conditions as Finland is a part of the Fennoscandian (or Baltic) Shield. The bedrock is Precambrian covered with a thin (<5 m) cover of Quaternary sediments. Topography is subdued and does not easily produce advective re-distribution of geothermal heat by groundwater circulation systems. Due to crystalline character of the bedrock, rock porosity and its water content are low. This practically excludes geothermal systems utilizing hot wet rock.

From an energy theoretical point of view that might be true, but I suspect there are practical and technological reasons why it isn't used more as of now. I don't know enough about the technology to judge it myself, but I do know one of the research centres of my county has been trying to develop this for years now, with only moderate success. For instance they had some serious setback because drilling apparently caused seismic activity in the region. So sure, by all means why not use a virtually unlimited pool of energy, but you do have to have the technology working first. — ChatteringMonkey

This is one option which has been used for years—nothing new. But we need more than geothermal. You have to have the right conditions for it to be viable. It may work well in Iceland or Hawaii, but it can’t work everywhere. Wind, solar, hydro, and nuclear are all going to be necessary. Becoming dogmatic about one option, or treating it as a silver bullet, isn’t helpful. — Xtrix

Likely at the global scale, energy production will always be a "diverse mix", that's for sure. In my view, geothermal has been used quite a long time in places with volcanic activity. How about in Finland, where there is a solid bedrock of stone with only ancient traces of past volcanic activity? — ssu

Those are reasonable concerns I'm in no position to refute empirically, but nonetheless, I think otherwise. The word 'geothermal' covers a lot of ground - pun intended. A wide range of technologies that draw heat from the ground, are described as geothermal. I prefer to use the term magma energy to describe a form of geothermal a little closer to the bone.

I think vast quantities of 'recoverable' geothermal heat can be harnessed by drilling close to magma chambers and subduction zones in the earth's crust. There must necessarily be mile after cubic mile of rock heated to hundreds of degrees centigrade, we could drill into, or through. I imagine two technologies:

drill a hole and insert a probe directly into the rock with pipes carrying water in and out;
or drill right through, line the borehole with pipes and pump water through.

In this way, produce steam to drive turbines, for endless quantities of carbon free electricity.

Of course, it will be difficult to do - a complex engineering challenge, but it is at least conceivably feasible. There is a vast source of energy there; large enough to make sense of our response to climate change. We need that energy. Are you saying it is technologically impossible to harness the heat energy of the planet on a large scale? I think otherwise.

I'm in no position to refute empirically, but nonetheless, I think otherwise. — counterpunch

Sums up your position pretty well. No empirical support whatsoever but repeating the same messianic sermon at every opportunity with a faux shock that anyone could be so crazy as to think otherwise.

Sums up your position pretty well. No empirical support whatsoever but repeating the same messianic sermon at every opportunity with a faux shock that anyone could be so crazy as to think otherwise. — Isaac

It's not an unreasonable question to ask - if it is possible that humankind might survive? Turns out it is possible - and here's how! What's messianic about that?

What's messianic about that? — counterpunch

Turns out it is possible - and here's how! — counterpunch

It's not an unreasonable question to ask - if it is possible that humankind might survive? Turns out it is possible - and here's how! What's messianic about that? — counterpunch

Yet what energy policies we choose on this planet is the aggregate sum of the various energy policies the nations states choose and what competition on the free market gives us. The fact is that energy production is such an existential question for our societies that it will be a question of national security to every country. They won't give up the independence to choose their energy production (they are called sovereigns for a reason).

There simply isn't one "logical" answer to this. "Science" doesn't give us one answer. As everybody has noticed, we here on this Planet do not decide these questions as one entity (or have them decided for us by one entity).

If there will be the technology that gives us cheaper geothermal energy anywhere, even in Finland, than by any other production means and this technology is available to everybody, then geothermal will surely dominate.

It's a similar question like if we get low price and highly efficient fusion power online, it will be the answer to a lot of our current problems. But there's that if: if it's price competitive.

I don't see it that way. I'm pointing toward a scientific understanding of reality as a trustworthy rationale for the application of technology - not to myself. I invite you to conclude that it is possible for humankind to survive - and then there will be two of us!

We just need fusion reactors. We'll have them eventually.

Yet what energy policies we choose on this planet is the aggregate sum of the various energy policies the nations states choose and what competition on the free market gives us. — ssu

Exactly! The problem lives in the real world. Energy policies are fashioned by sovereign nation states in service to their interests, and the sum of all national energy policies does not add up to a global energy policy rational to the climate change threat. Hence, we need a global approach to climate change.

The fact is that energy production is such an existential question for our societies that it will be a question of national security to every country. They won't give up the independence to choose their energy production (they are called sovereigns for a reason). — ssu

That wouldn't be necessary. Imagine a global effort to develop magma energy technology, and that energy applied initially to carbon capture and storage and desalination and irrigation - thus, mitigating climate change directly, and adapting to climate change due to occur. Energy generating capacity could be developed without disrupting energy markets - and used directly to achieve environmental benefits without imposition upon anyone.

There simply isn't one "logical" answer to this. As everybody has noticed, we here on this Planet do not decide these questions as one entity (or have them decided for us by one entity). — ssu

Unless you ask - is there a simple logical answer to this? And as it turns out, yes, there is! Assuming magma energy is there, and can be extracted - hydrogen fuel has 2.5 times more energy than petroleum per kilo. Shipping it around the world is already 2.5 times more efficient than shipping petroleum!

I invite you to conclude that it is possible for humankind to survive - and then there will be two of us! — counterpunch

What you or I believe is possible is of no relevance or consequence. Geothermal energy is an existent facet of energy science and engineering. There are already thousands of experts in the field. It's what they believe that is of relevance.

I could simply believe that CO2 emissions do not cause global climate change and so maintain the hope that we'll be fine without having to do anything at all. Such a belief would be irrelevant if the actual scientists studying the matter disagreed.

We just need fusion reactors. We'll have them eventually. — frank

There's a famous saying that fusion has been 5 years away for the past 30 years. And that was 20 years ago. It's still five years away. I'm not optimistic. Drilling for magma energy seems a lot more certain, and a less complicated source of energy.

What you or I believe is possible is of no relevance or consequence. — Isaac

Speak for yourself. Or what you say has a relevance and consequence for me - and is therefore paradoxical. It's simple logic.

Geothermal energy is an existent facet of energy science and engineering. There are already thousands of experts in the field. It's what they believe that is of relevance. — Isaac

That's what I am saying though.

I could simply believe that CO2 emissions do not cause global climate change and so maintain the hope that we'll be fine without having to do anything at all. Such a belief would be irrelevant if the actual scientists studying the matter disagreed. — Isaac

Could you? I could not simply believe that, because I don't believe it.

Nobody's been working on it.

Drilling for magma energy seems a lot more certain, and a less complicated source of energy. — counterpunch

I think the drill bits will melt before you get to the mantle.

Exactly! The problem lives in the real world. Energy policies are fashioned by sovereign nation states in service to their interests, and the sum of all national energy policies does not add up to a global energy policy rational to the climate change threat. Hence, we need a global approach to climate change. — counterpunch

Hence?

A global approach that is the sum of the most important nation states, perhaps 20 or so of the largest energy producers, that in aggregate tackles the crisis is what we should aim for. Actually what you said is the real answer: the sum of the largest national energy policies that does add up to tackle the climate change threat. And still those national energy policies will differ...as countries are in different environments. What works for Iceland might not exactly work for Finland. It's not realistic to think that somehow everybody will morph to being Borgs and get to the same conclusion as you have. And why cannot there be a multitude energy resources?

That wouldn't be necessary. Imagine a global effort to develop magma energy technology, and that energy applied initially to carbon capture and storage and desalination and irrigation - thus, mitigating climate change directly, and adapting to climate change due to occur. Energy generating capacity could be developed without disrupting energy markets - and used directly to achieve environmental benefits without imposition upon anyone. — counterpunch

I lost your logic here... Can you explain this better?

Unless you ask - is there a simple logical answer to this? And as it turns out, yes, there is! — counterpunch

There simply is no simple logical answer as this isn't just a "logical" question! Societies that have formed independent nation states is the reality that we live in. To assume it's "logical" to just rule them out not looking at the energy question from their own view isn't realistic. There's no golden bullet. That's just how we operate.

A global approach that is the sum of the most important nation states, perhaps 20 or so of the largest energy producers, that in aggregate tackles the crisis is what we should aim for. — ssu

I can maybe understand why you say so, but I think it would be better to develop magma energy as the global energy commons precisely because it would ultimately provide limitless clean energy. It would not do so immediately, but the potential is there, and quite that large. It would be better to develop that potential as a global response to climate change; to capture and store carbon, and desalinate and irrigate, and so mitigate and adapt to climate change, building capacity toward an eventual transition. This approach would be far less disruptive to energy markets; than the current approach which requires huge market disruption to achieve environmental benefits. With magma energy, that kind of up front sacrifice is not necessary, and I hope, that's what makes it possible.

Of course, it will be difficult to do - a complex engineering challenge, but it is at least conceivably feasible. There is a vast source of energy there; large enough to make sense of our response to climate change. We need that energy. Are you saying it is technologically impossible to harness the heat energy of the planet on a large scale? I think otherwise. — counterpunch

We do need that energy. But it won’t work everywhere, and the technology isn’t advanced yet. I’d love to see it work, and it’s important to talk about. We should be spending a good deal of money researching and developing this option.

But again—this is one option. It’s not a panacea.

Geothermal energy is an existent facet of energy science and engineering. There are already thousands of experts in the field. It's what they believe that is of relevance. — Isaac

Exactly right. I was thinking along similar lines.

There's a famous saying that fusion has been 5 years away for the past 30 years. And that was 20 years ago. It's still five years away. I'm not optimistic. Drilling for magma energy seems a lot more certain, and a less complicated source of energy. — counterpunch

Yes but you have no empirical basis for this. If it’s simply a gut feeling— who cares?

If you’re going to advocate as strongly as you have been for it, I’d expect you to know more about it and tell us where the research is at. You yourself admit that you haven’t really done that.

So what all this talk amounts to is strongly advocating for something you FEEL is potentially a great solution. Others may sincerely feel it’s nuclear energy. Or wind. Or solar. Or geoengineering.

Not very interesting or informative, unfortunately.

Geothermal energy is an existent facet of energy science and engineering. There are already thousands of experts in the field. It's what they believe that is of relevance. — Isaac


That's what I am saying though. — counterpunch

Well then present what they say.

I could simply believe that CO2 emissions do not cause global climate change and so maintain the hope that we'll be fine without having to do anything at all. Such a belief would be irrelevant if the actual scientists studying the matter disagreed. — Isaac


Could you? I could not simply believe that, because I don't believe it. — counterpunch

It was rhetorical. The point is that, as far as publicly debatable issues are concerned, unless we're going to have good ground for believing what we believe then there's no point in talking about it. It is the grounds we have for believing that are the substance of the discussion. If you just 'believe' that geothermal energy can support our current levels of material consumption then that's of no interest to a discussion community unless you have some ground to believe it which you can present.

Honestly, this seems like such a simple thing and yet absent in some substantial proportion of all the posts (across the forum, not just this thread). It's probably just me being old fashioned, but I'm not interested in what you believe, I'm interested in why you believe it.