Let's make people put their property where their mouth is. At the end of thirty days of individual research, everyone has to choose: Stop petroleum hydrocarbon use or continue it. Then we continue it. If it turns out we were wrong, all those who chose to continue it forfeit all they own to those who chose to stop. If it turns out it was no big deal, all those who chose to stop it forfeit all they own to those who chose to continue. Or we could up the anti and kill the losers. Or, we could require the posting of bonds. Or we could require insurance and let the premiums set by the insurance companies based upon market assessment of the science determine which way we go.

Any of these would force an honest assessment of the science out into the daylight of the market where people would put up or shut up.

But this whole open conspiracy where we agree to do what we think might be wrong simply because we don't want others to tell us to stop what we are doing is just BS. It's gambling with our children's future and in the end we all get to say "oops! Sorry!" DOH!

:lol: — Xtrix

Such trenchant critique! Clearly you are an intellectual!

Any of these would force an honest assessment of the science out into the daylight of the market where people would put up or shut up. — James Riley

Put up or shut up on the question of whether to continue to use fossil fuels, or stop suddenly with no back up plan in place? That's not a choice. If the question, rather, were for science to put up or shut up on a viable alternative to fossil fuels, that might offer people a choice.

Magma energy is one potential, and I think promising source of high grade clean energy, in theory, more than adequate to replace fossil fuels. But even then, it wouldn't be either/or. Developing magma energy; it would take time to build capacity, and that might more be more possible, politically - if the energy produced were dedicated initially to carbon capture, desalination and irrigation, recycling.

Put up or shut up on the question of whether to continue to use fossil fuels, or stop suddenly with no back up plan in place? That's not a choice. If the question, rather, were for science to put up or shut up on a viable alternative to fossil fuels, that might offer people a choice. — counterpunch

You didn't read. I said we'd continue on our merry way, not "stop suddenly."

But even if we did stop suddenly, that is a choice. History is replete with examples of sudden, uncontrollable change that we responded to. In fact, some of our best work comes out of exigency. Time-shmime. Cut off the petroleum tit and see how fast your magma or whatever the hell else gets done.

Regardless, that was not my proposal.

In fact, some of our best work comes out of exigency. — James Riley

There's exigency aplenty to come if we don't develop an adequate alternative to fossil fuels, you can bet your bottom dollar on that! Just been looking at a world temperature map. A million football fields...or whatever, in the US northwest and Canada on fire. Tip of what's left of the iceberg!

There's exigency aplenty to come if we don't develop an adequate alternative to fossil fuels, you can bet your bottom dollar on that! — counterpunch

You are correct, and I would bet my bottom dollar on that. I wish "the other side" would bet their bottom dollar on their position. But they won't be forced to do so. They will just shrug, and say "oops!" And future generations will forgive them, saying "Well, they didn't know any better back then." Thus, they have no incentive to change their minds. And I'm not talking about the big exec. I'm talking about the knuckle-dragging muscle truck moron rolling coal.

On the point of "knowing better", while I haven't vetted this, check it out, from 1912: https://www.businessinsider.com/newspaper-in-1912-linked-coal-to-climate-change-2018-8

On the point of "knowing better", while I haven't vetted this, check it out, from 1912: https://www.businessinsider.com/newspaper-in-1912-linked-coal-to-climate-change-2018-8 — James Riley

It's strange how age imparts credibility. Supercomputer generated climate models are a dime a dozen, but if the 1912 editor of the Commonwealth of Columbia Cryer said it, it must be true!

It is, he was right, but even so - there has to be a viable alternative. You can't blame people for operating rationally within the reality presented to them. Not even the:

knuckle-dragging muscle truck moron rolling coal. — James Riley

A viable alternative needs to be an attractive offer; it needs to solve problems, not create them - whereas, currently, everyone seems to believe sustainability necessarily implies huge social political and economic disruption. I don't believe that need be the case. Magma energy could be developed in parallel to fossil fuels, and be applied initially to carbon capture, desalination and irrigation, recycling - doing environmental good while building capacity to replace fossil fuels entirely. All smooth and orderly like; no pain, no blame!

It's strange how age imparts credibility. Supercomputer generated climate models are a dime a dozen, but if the 1912 editor of the Commonwealth of Columbia Cryer said it, it must be true! — counterpunch

Not strange at all. The "I told you so" aspect of it refutes the open conspiracy of ignorance and forgiveness. I think it's important for future generation to know we were lying sacks of shit when we pretended that we didn't know better. And when we pretended we were doing it "all for the children" (when we were really doing it for our own selfish selves, that next man-toy, vacation, McMansion, etc.).

You can't blame people for operating rationally within the reality presented to them. Not even the: — counterpunch

See, you are already making excuses for us. I can blame us for operating irrationally with the reality presented to us 100 year ago and every day since the 1960s. You see, it shouldn't take your johnny-come-lately computer models and science to make us do the right thing. Had we just been required to post a bond with our personal property, we wouldn't be here in a "too-late" status quo.

A viable alternative needs to be an attractive offer; — counterpunch

No, it does not need to be attractive. It needs to work. If that's magma, fine. I've got no truck with your magma gospel. Get out there and get it done. But in the mean time, people should be forced to own up to what they are doing.

Imagine if Big Tabaco had just been required to put up or shut up. All the champions of free market capitalism need to be forced to abide their own rules and quit socializing their costs. Want to pump a billion tons of shit in the air? Okay, pay everyone what they demand for their air in a negotiation. (I'm not selling.) Either that or keep your poison on your own property. And if we all agree to "look the other way" in an open conspiracy, because we all want to drive cars, then pay true cost of doing so. We are going to do that. And so are our kids.

Not strange at all. The "I told you so" aspect of it refutes the open conspiracy of ignorance and forgiveness. I think it's important for future generation to know we were lying sacks of shit when we pretended that we didn't know better. — James Riley

My assumptions are that we have to be right in relation to reality to survive and prosper. The best knowledge of reality we have is science. And if we acted rightly with regard to the science, we could overcome the climate and ecological crisis, survive and prosper long term.

The fear is that science as truth would be dictatorial; that because, and insofar as science is true it cannot be disagreed with. And therein lies an end to freedom. But I don't think that follows - because Hume was wrong. Reconciling the is and the ought is exactly what people do - what they're meant to do, such that the ideal human, if you like, is one that knows what's scientifically true and does what's morally right in terms of what's true.

That's not who we are by a long chalk; but we could acknowledge the principle, and on that basis, in face of a challenge the like of which we've never known - do the one thing that science says is absolutely necessary, and our generation will have done our job. We don't need to change everything, but we do need abundant clean energy to power carbon capture, and desalination and irrigation, just to get through the next decades of the coming century.

No, it does not need to be attractive. It needs to work. If that's magma, fine. I've got no truck with your magma gospel. Get out there and get it done. But in the mean time, people should be forced to own up to what they are doing. — James Riley

I get that you're angry, but it's not about blame for me. It's about the least disruptive adequate solution. It is about doing the right thing - and knowing it's the right thing, with the future of the species on the line. Fearless in establishing what's true; in practice, I'm not out looking for toes to step on. Developing magma energy on a monolithic scale may sound disruptive, but actually, it is a far less disruptive and more hopeful approach than windmills, brownouts, carbon taxes and the stranglehold of ongoing green regulation.

If that's magma, fine. I've got no truck with your magma gospel. Get out there and get it done. — James Riley

Right on. Unfortunately we're dealing with an utter crackpot and science ignoramus, so all that will get done is more trolling on the internet.

Magma energy is one potential, and I think promising source of high grade clean energy, in theory, more than adequate to replace fossil fuels. — counterpunch

Unlike , I do have truck with your Magma energy proposal.

There's a basic physical problem called the "recharge" rate, which reduces to simple geometry. To extract energy efficiently from rock, we don't dig down and then install a big metal plate as a single surface heat exchanger. Rather, we dig a bunch of tubes over a volume or then use natural occurring tubes of water in fissures and cracks that's is already down there.

Point is, this volume of rock will only heat back up as if it had a big surface plate heat exchanger below it. In terms of "renewable" it's this recharge rate below the volume of rock that matters, which is very low per square meter. The earth is efficient at trapping heat, that's why it's hot down there, but it doesn't produce much heat. This is the general problem of geothermal energy.

Now, exceptions like volcanoes, where energy gets out more efficiently and look more impressive, still have the basic problem of being recharged in energy and pressure overtime. In addition, volcanoes are in inconvenient locations, so even if the recharge rate was better than elsewhere, there's a large added cost of transporting the energy.

For instance, Iceland is a place where you can get a lot of geothermal energy, and they do make a lot pretty cheaply; so much that they have a big aluminum industry as processing aluminium takes a lot of electricity. However, they don't have so much that they could power all of Europe.

In general, Geothermal is, along with tidal, bio-energy, hydro, an energy source that is not globally applicable, there's just some impressive "sweet spots" (some bays, big forests, large rivers, Iceland). Those sweet spots aren't so great that you could transport energy all over the globe.

The globally applicable renewable energy source is the sun, with it's first derivative wind power (2% of sun energy is converted to wind energy ... but even then it's still localized in a "sweet spot" of higher latitudes, due to the Coriolis affect, and so, we only think of it as "on par" with solar energy because there's a lot of rich countries North, where there's lot's of clouds and good wind; and rich countries determine research and investment dollars). Point is, "recharge" rate of the sun is way higher than geothermal and there's no surface area to volume problem.

Not strange at all. The "I told you so" aspect of it refutes the open conspiracy of ignorance and forgiveness. I think it's important for future generation to know we were lying sacks of shit when we pretended that we didn't know better. And when we pretended we were doing it "all for the children" (when we were really doing it for our own selfish selves, that next man-toy, vacation, McMansion, etc.). — James Riley

20 years ago, leading up to the "Kyoto Protocol" I would say there was actually more concern and less denialism then there is now.

I would say "more concern" because there was simply less "big issues" back in the 90s to compete, such as the "big existential" of terrorism, new cold war, financial collapse, China, Trump, of course coronavirus today, and, ironically, weather catastrophes I would argue also take up this discursive concern space (the awareness climate change is a problem may increase, but the actual time and energy spent on climate change is still displaced by discussing the catastrophe in question, be it hurricane or wildfires or drought, and of course money on the symptom and not the cause).

The denialism industry back then was less robust than it is now. Back in the 90s, denialists still at least pretended to be "doing science", and they then they lost the scientific debate. "Pretending to do science" at least focuses on what the scientific issues are and people can decide what case is more credible. Likewise, "science based denialism" of the 90s still implicitly accepted the basic framework that if there was a problem, we'd have a moral onus to do something about it ... just, there isn't a problem. Since then, denialism has shifted to what I would call "moral denialism" which is far more effective. Moral denialism simply refutes, one way or another, the basic premise that "we should do something", even if there is a problem, which there isn't (and no moral onus to back that up, one has a right to believe anything) ... but even if there was a problem, we shouldn't do anything about it. True believers are beyond the reach of critical and factual debate, and, more importantly, these doctrines tip people in the middle towards apathy. I.e. it both fuels an insane cult while creating a powerful apologetics for the lazy moderates (who would otherwise want something to be done, maybe over a long period of time with little personal cost, but at least something that would actually work; such as had the movement in the 90s achieved something significant, instead of the weakly worded "suggestion" of the Kyoto protocol).

For instance, when I started to get environmentally aware and talk about issues, my father's extended family and acquaintances etc., all left or far left on social issues, would always joke "I'll be dead by then!" and then laugh about it, whenever the subject of climate change was brought up, by me or anyone. The moral denialism of moderates, fueled by a total misunderstanding of what exponential rise in fossil consumption means and the risks of that, was already germinating.

Denialists in the 90s at least pretended to be working in a sane intellectual framework, just claiming "the facts" aren't in yet (taking advantage of the general public's lack of risk analysis skills, in an otherwise coherent debate where arguing on the facts did move people's opinions).

The 90s itself, was an echo of the 70s, where the same environmentalism debate also occurred, due to the oil shocks and discovering how poisonous pesticides and the like are.

Anyways, just my perspective supporting your basic point that we did know, did nothing, and future generations will view the Westerners that caused this as worse than the Nazi's (who only tried to illegitimate a few group in one species, in a mad lust for power and greed, and not destroy most species, in a mad lust for power and greed).

Weather catastrophes are leading people, who live through them, to regret the inaction of the last 40 years, but I think we are definitely in the "too little too late" phase and the large scale catastrophe is now "baked in". Though this was obvious to me 15 years ago (after the "environmental movement" declared biofuels a success), and, looking at the computer models that were still pretty good back then for decision making purposes, looked at where on the globe would become uncomfortably hot and where would stay ok (both in terms of environment and political stability) for a long time. I couldn't afford to move to New Zealand, so I moved to Northern Europe. If you're going to be a climate refugee, I highly recommend doing so at least a decade in advance. What does my old network say now: "it's really hot".

On the question of "threat level".

Although I would agree climate change, in itself, isn't an existential threat to humans, it is through interaction with nuclear war systems and, now, also killer AI systems (assuming they get good enough that, if set to "kill all enemies" (if friend and enemy is even a stable definition to these machines through time), and then those people who pressed that button die, they would simply track down and kill everyone using the most creative, ingenious, and patient means possible, essentially guaranteed to succeed against dispersed populations regressing in technological capacity).

Point is, "recharge" rate of the sun is way higher than geothermal and there's no surface area to volume problem.

I was going to step in and make this point, you beat my to it.
We could easily produce sufficient energy from solar power and solar generation plants are being built, but probably not fast enough. Although it’s probably to late anyway, as the tipping points are already being triggered. Even if we do manage to reduce emissions significantly, the damage is already sufficient for civilisation collapse, as we have discussed before.

We could easily produce sufficient energy from solar power and solar generation plants are being built, but probably not fast enough. Although it’s probably to late anyway, as the tipping points are already being triggered. Even if we do manage to reduce emissions significantly, the damage is already sufficient for civilisation collapse, as we have discussed before. — Punshhh

We definitely agree on this.

Of course, from a purely engineering point of view, things could be radically changed and the result (still a pretty big catastrophe by any standard) still a lot better than otherwise.

However, the environmental movement of the "large scale" essentially doesn't exist anymore. The denialist industry won with the moral delialism in the exterior, as I explain at some length in my post above, but this geothermal debate is the denialism industry winning from within the climate movement

Promoting "niche" energy sources that have no global relevance consumes research, development and installation capital, while solving nothing. Environmentalists that don't bother with basic engineering principles, then spend time arguing about which of the irrelevant nice ideas (always in the future) are best, and declaring "small victories" along the way that are actually counter productive (and generate subsidies for the oil industry who own and promote these "clean" niches; subsidies that finance more denialism), while everyone else sees that "renewable energy" doesn't really work (doesn't actually displace fossil on a large scale).

It is also not just a question of energy source, but of organizing society to use those energy sources efficiently. Trying to keep a system (such as highways and personal vehicles) going that doesn't even use fossil fuels efficiently (but was invented precisely because fossil fuels starts in a super abundance and needs to be wasted on a large scale to profit), is just pure intellectual insanity.

Yet, decades after the "biofuels" revolution proved to be a total lure (which was obvious at the time to even the most cursory scrutiny), what's all the rage? Electric cars!!

There's a basic physical problem called the "recharge" rate, which reduces to simple geometry. To extract energy efficiently from rock, we don't dig down and then install a big metal plate as a single surface heat exchanger. Rather, we dig a bunch of tubes over a volume or then use natural occurring tubes of water in fissures and cracks that's is already down there. — boethius

I'm looking to drill through rock at temperatures of 700'C - close to magma chambers and subduction zones, line the bore holes with pipes and pump water through - producing contained superheated steam. The volume and temperature of the rock suggests there would be no recharge rate issue.

In addition, volcanoes are in inconvenient locations, so even if the recharge rate was better than elsewhere, there's a large added cost of transporting the energy. — boethius

I plan to convert electrical energy into liquified hydrogen fuel for transport. Liquified hydrogen gas contains 2.5 times the energy of petroleum per kilo - and we ship petroleum around the world.

In general, Geothermal is, along with tidal, bio-energy, hydro, an energy source that is not globally applicable, there's just some impressive "sweet spots" (some bays, big forests, large rivers, Iceland). Those sweet spots aren't so great that you could transport energy all over the globe. — boethius

It's difficult to generalise about geothermal energy because every geothermal energy source has different characteristics. Current extraction techniques are sub-optimal. The particular design, I've described here many times - was created with these problems in mind. There are over 500 volcanoes in the Pacific Ring of Fire alone, and 1500 globally, plus subduction zones - where large volumes of rock heated to very high temperatures, are within reach of modern drilling technologies.

Solar energy is weak and diffuse; it must be gathered from a large area and concentrated. An area of 225,000 square miles would need to be covered to meet current global energy demand from solar. Then, the same transport problem arises. How do you get that energy to where it is needed? Solar energy must be stored, for when the sun doesn't shine, which is around half the time. All sorts of toxic metals are used in production, to make solar panels, and after 25 years, solar needs replacing at similar cost, plus the cost of recycling.

I'm looking to drill through rock at temperatures of 700'C - close to magma chambers and subduction zones, line the bore holes with pipes and pump water through - producing contained superheated steam. The volume and temperature of the rock suggests there would be no recharge rate issue. — counterpunch

700 C rock isn't all that much energy; it sounds more impressive than it is. Heat capacity of rock isn't so high, and if we're talking super heated steam at 400 C, then there's only 300 C difference to work with.

To power a whole major country we're talking massive amount of rock, that costs money to put pipes through. If the heat extracted is equal to the recharge rate, no problem. However, even in incredibly convenient places for this technology, like iceland, the idea of powering a substantial part of Europe is just not remotely feasible.

Drilling pipe and circulating water is simply not all that hard, if this massive energy source was there, we'd be tapping it on a significant, and not niche, scale.

It's basic thermodynamics, very well understood, extremely low room for improvement of our heat engines (as you mention, steam is still a pretty solid choice of working fluid ... which is what was used at the very beginning of the aptly called steam age). This isn't something like nuclear fusion where we can always spectacular a breakthrough is possible.

Compared to our advancements in computing, heat engines have basically not advanced in a hundred years.

I plan to convert electrical energy into liquified hydrogen fuel for transport. Liquified hydrogen gas contains 2.5 times the energy of petroleum per kilo - and we ship petroleum around the world. — counterpunch

The problem this plan is:
- hydrogen is so small it seeps through materials, causing micro cracks; this isn't a problem if you need hydrogen and just a) tolerate leakage since the amount isn't a danger nor relevant economic loss b) replace the equipment when you need to, but is a problem if you want to build out a massive complex infrastructure of tanks, pipes, valves, gauges, etc. with high efficiency and low maintenance and few explosions.
- Even with the technical challenges resolved, the infrastructure involved is so massive that it would take decades to actually build.
- The only point of hydrogen infrastructure is to power personal vehicles and trucks ... but trains exist and can be built and powered by electricity far cheaper. I.e. even if it was doable, the basic justification doesn't exist, outside some niche applications that have no relevant to climate change.

It's difficult to generalise about geothermal energy because every geothermal energy source has different characteristics. Current extraction techniques are sub-optimal. The particular design, I've described here many times - was created with these problems in mind. There are over 500 volcanoes in the Pacific Ring of Fire alone, and 1500 globally, plus subduction zones - where large volumes of rock heated to very high temperatures, are within reach of modern drilling technologies. — counterpunch

Volcanoes are impressive as they release stored energy in a short amount of time. To power anything significant, we're talking about a massive continuous volcanic eruption; the earth doesn't recharge the magma chambers fast enough. Magma moves pretty slowly, significant pressure can be stored up over time, but release that pressure and it doesn't just flow out like a tap. The exceptions of super active volcanoes, are not impressive but really small, not regular Mount Saint Helen eruptions (which is impressive in terms of energy).

Solar energy is weak and diffuse; it must be gathered from a large area and concentrated. An area of 225,000 square miles would need to be covered to meet current global energy demand from solar. Then, the same transport problem arises. How do you get that energy to where it is needed? Solar energy must be stored, for when the sun doesn't shine, which is around half the time. All sorts of toxic metals are used in production, to make solar panels, and after 25 years, solar needs replacing at similar cost, plus the cost of recycling. — counterpunch

Incorrect. Geothermal has a transport problem because the "sweet spots" where it's economic are concentrated in very few locations (such as the 500 active volcanoes you mention), so, the energy is far from where people live and you'd need a massive and costly transport infrastructure even if the energy was there (which it isn't).

Solar, on the other hand, is diffuse but not in a bad way, it lands where people live.

Imagine you had the following:
- garden (powered by sunlight)
- energy (powered by sunlight)
- wood or bamboo construction material (powered by sunlight)
- ceramics (powered by sunlight)
- basic tool and machine shop, both in hour home and short distance in the community (powered by sunlight)
- the ability to recycle metals (powered by sunlight)

Then, ask yourself how much personal transport you would need.

Then ask yourself how much high volume transport infrastructure you would need. Certainly some inputs and trade are still needed for this local economic system to work ... but 10, 20, even 1 lane highways? Would they be needed?

If you actually calculate out how much energy is required to run this techno-peasant system, it's a small fraction of what is anyways required to grow food and materials. We grow food and materials (we mostly waste) in this way now, and with a lot of transport, mono-crop and rotting inefficiencies (with lot's of good land occupied by suburban sprawl accomplishing noting food wise), so, basically by definition, if you matched people to where food is currently grown, then matched solar technology (mainly solar thermal technology is needed in this system) to the enclosure of inefficiencies in the current system (roads, mono-crops, suburbia), etc. problem solved.

People can easily live in this semi-autonomous way right now, growing most of their food and making most of their capital equipment themselves, imagine if a large system to make it easy and efficient was in place? (a network of drones delivering materials and small things that do need a factory (like computer chips), local blacksmiths, and elevated bike and small vehicle paths connecting everywhere, and the Uber of helicopters if you need to go somewhere quickly, like to a hospital). Infrastructure that still enables high mobility and trade of dense quality (metals that can be recycled, "clean-room" electronics, medicines, machine tooling, and, of course, spice) could be insanely light compared to today's infrastructure, if bulky things (like food, wood, other plant fibers, and clay) are derived locally, and energy input (the sun) also derived locally.

If you've ever encountered this homesteading life, it's actually pretty lazy compared to most jobs in the capitalist system (especially low-paying jobs), and far more fulfilling. The homesteaders that work hard is because they make a point to do even more for themselves than is economically efficient in their system (to make a political point that it is possible to do it locally, leading by example, even if, right now, it would take less effort to trade for it), but even these hard working hippies would work a lot less hard if they had a network of craft-people and a light infrastructure of the kind I describe (to enable ethical and sustainable trade).

Why doesn't this happen if it's so lazy? Lot's of poor people try, but they can't buy the land necessary.

Why is land expensive? Because the private control of land is the foundation of capitalism. Had land remained a communal resource, where, of course, you just put a poor person in a "cottage" and at least they'll make enough food for themselves, maybe produce a soldier or two.

700 C rock isn't all that much energy; it sounds more impressive than it is. Heat capacity of rock isn't so high, and if we're talking super heated steam at 400 C, then there's only 300 C difference to work with.

To power a whole major country we're talking massive amount of rock, that costs money to put pipes through. If the heat extracted is equal to the recharge rate, no problem. However, even in incredibly convenient places for this technology, like iceland, the idea of powering a substantial part of Europe is just not remotely feasible. — boethius

Not feasible, why? You're not suggesting are you, that the energy is not there? There is an unimaginably massive amount of energy in the earth's interior. That so, it's a matter of the right technological approach to extracting that energy; and I agree that existing technological approaches are sub-optimal.

Geothermal refers to a great many technologies, and recharge rate refers to a form of geothermal wherein heat energy is harnessed from an underground body of hot water fed by convection. Only so much energy can be drawn; against the time it takes convection to heat the body of water. The technology I envisage is not remotely like that.

A cubic kilometer of rock heated to 700'C contains something like 420000000000 joules; a reservoir of energy fed by conduction from liquid magma at a higher temperature. Through this rock would be cut (perhaps) one meter diameter bore holes, containing pipes, containing water - which would be raised to the ambient temperature of the surroundings. Any replacement rate deficit of the environment surrounding the pipe would be immediately compensated for via conduction from an adjacent higher temperature energy source. The replacement rate issue refers to another form of geothermal; which is why I prefer the term magma energy.

the energy is far from where people live and you'd need a massive and costly transport infrastructure even if the energy was there (which it isn't). — boethius

You mean, like the transport infrastructure for coal, oil and gas? We manage to get that from A to B somehow, and I explained how I intend to distribute magma energy in the previous post. I said:

I plan to convert electrical energy into liquified hydrogen fuel for transport. Liquified hydrogen gas contains 2.5 times the energy of petroleum per kilo - and we ship petroleum around the world. — counterpunch

Why make the same point again?

Not feasible, why? You're not suggesting are you, that the energy is not there? There is an unimaginably massive amount of energy in the earth's interior. That so, it's a matter of the right technological approach to extracting that energy; and I agree that existing technological approaches are sub-optimal. — counterpunch

It's not about "sub optimal", it's about needing to drill a lot of pipe, and then cooling that volume of rock, which doesn't recharge at the same rate of depletion, requiring more drilling.

These processes are pretty close to optimal. There are basic physical limits to the efficiency of cleaving and lifting rock out of the ground, of heat engines. There's not some "drilling breakthrough" anyone is proposing to happen ... except for Elon Musk but that was walked back to "it's cheaper to drill smaller diameters! so we'll do that".

You mean, like the transport infrastructure for coal, oil and gas? We manage to get that from A to B somehow, and I explained how I intend to distribute magma energy in the previous post. I said: — counterpunch

We manage to get that from A to B by burning a lot of coal, oil and gas in both building up massive infrastructures and also to run them.

Why make the same point again? — counterpunch

Your point of shipping around petroleum (using petroleum) is not analogous to shipping around hydrogen.

First, technically, hydrogen is a lot more challenging (need to compress and freeze it, and much more difficult to store even compared other gases).

More importantly, hydrogen is not a cheap source of energy like petroleum (insofar as it's still in easy accessible locations in forms easy to process). Petroleum pays the energy cost itself to transport it as well as build the infrastructure. If you have a bunch of petroleum, you can always "get it somewhere" on the globe to sell it (the only wrinkle is if plenty other people have plenty petroleum too, so the margins are thin; solution: promote an insanely inefficient economy that wastes energy wantonly and also make both implicit and explicit cartels to control the price; both to extract profit sometimes with high prices as well as disrupt competing industries with super low prices sometimes).

Hydrogen needs to be made, which costs energy, as it's not a source, and that energy cost and the cost of infrastructure can easily exceed the costs of other sources of energy that are available at the location you want to sell in (like the sun shining there, or the wind blowing there, and just way cheaper than buying magma-to-hydrogen energy ). Hydrogen doesn't "pay" the energy cost to make and move it. Why your system doesn't exist, but solar and wind systems do; but they are most efficient locally, as, if you don't need to move energy, there's only an energy cost to doing so with no benefit (distributed system also has less, or no, systemic failure points, could be robust against Carington events, etc. etc.).

It's not about "sub optimal", it's about needing to drill a lot of pipe, and then cooling that volume of rock, which doesn't recharge at the same rate of depletion, requiring more drilling. — boethius

I understand the principle; but it doesn't apply. Underground water sources fed by convection can hold a limited amount of energy and take time to heat up; whereas conduction from a higher temperature energy source is a constant and vast pressure that would immediately compensate for the escape of heat via a bore hole.

These processes are pretty close to optimal. — boethius

What processes? In what way optimal? I also said previously, geothermal refers to a great many technologies. You've taken a problem with one form of geothermal and applied it incorrectly to the technology I propose, so that's just wrong.

Hydrogen needs to be made, which costs energy, as it's not a source, — boethius

When energy is converted from one form to another, it costs energy. That's correct. Hydrogen is not a source of energy, no. Hydrogen is a fuel; a means to store and transport energy. Less than 100% of the magma heat energy extracted will be stored as hydrogen. These are true physical facts. I know of, and account for these facts.

Hydrogen fuel is clean and versatile, and contains 2.5 times the energy of petroleum per kilo. There are very well understood issues with hydrogen embrittlement; hardly worth mentioning. And I'm not sure you get the point that shipping hydrogen would be 2.5 times more efficient, simply by weight.

Petroleum pays the energy cost itself to transport it — boethius

Petroleum is a refined product. It does not come out of the ground. Oil comes out of the ground, which then needs to be transported to where it is refined, and refined, before being distributed again as petroleum. All these processes imply energy costs. These are physical facts, but are not valid criticisms of hydrogen if fossil fuels are even less efficient by the same measure.

What processes? In what way optimal? I also said previously, geothermal refers to a great many technologies. You've taken a problem with one form of geothermal and applied it incorrectly to the technology I propose, so that's just wrong. — counterpunch

The problems I describe are inherent to the geothermal energy source, they apply to all implementations of geothermal energy.

For instance, all solar energy technologies won't work in a dark cave, for reasons to do with the characteristics of solar energy source, not the technology.

Petroleum is a refined product. — counterpunch

Really?

Petroleum, also called crude oil, is a fossil fuel. Like coal and natural gas, petroleum was formed from the remains of ancient marine organisms, such as plants, algae, and bacteria. — literally the first search engine result for the word 'petroleum'

All these processes imply energy costs. These are physical facts, but are not valid criticisms against hydrogen; if fossil fuels are even less efficient by the same measure. — counterpunch

Yes, my point is that petroleum pays that energy cost. So, if it is "on hand" (such as high quality, close to the surface, oil fields), then it easily pays the energy cost of it's transport.

Hydrogen is never "on hand" in a similar way, and so the situation is no analogous.

I just read a headline about "Moon Wobble", to occur in 2030. This will be the new punching bag for the deniers: "Ocean levels aren't rising due to hoax global warming; it's the result of perfectly natural "moon wobble. Calm down! I can continue to pump poison into the air. It's all good, you Chicken Littles."

I just read a headline about "Moon Wobble", to occur in 2030. This will be the new punching bag for the deniers: "Ocean levels aren't rising due to hoax global warming; it's the result of perfectly natural "moon wobble. Calm down! I can continue to pump poison into the air. It's all good, you Chicken Littles." — James Riley

I saw that too. Order is a phase in Chaos. Next up, the sun will now show us what it can really do! WTF?

Damn inconvenient moon wobble!

Let's make people put their property where their mouth is. — James Riley

I'm disappointed to discover that Google Images found NOT ONE photo of Terry Jones tucking into an Anglican cathedral. :rage:

The problems I describe are inherent to the geothermal energy source, they apply to all implementations of geothermal energy. — boethius

Whether you are right, (you are not right) or wrong - we are close to an impasse of direct and repeated contradiction. I can't explain why again, because I tried twice. Then again, they say third time's a charm.

Imagine a fire, and on that fire there's a pan containing water, and you dip your pipe in that water, and pass water through the pipe to extract energy from the body of water which consequently cools down. It takes time to heat up. And this is the replacement rate. It applies to hydrothermal energy.

Now imagine a pipe containing water inside the fire box of a steam engine. It is incidental to the heat of the fire how much water you pass through the pipe. No amount of water passed through the pipe will diminish the heat of the fire.

The same physics is obliquely relevant in calculating how much water, at what rate would pass through a pipe of what diameter for optimal steam pressure, to drive turbines, to generate electricity. But rock heated to 700'C by proximity to magma would not become depleted in the way a subterranean body of water does, and so replacement rate does not apply.

If you still don't get it, there's no need to contradict me again. Just say good chat, and I'll know what you mean!

Drilling 10,000 m deep geothermal wells
15 September 2010

It may be possible to collect geothermal energy from depths down to 10,000 m, according to Norwegian researchers.
Commonly used geothermal energy comes from a depth of 150-200 m where temperatures are around 6-8°C. Researchers at NTNU, University of Bergen, the Geological Survey of Norway (NGU) and SINTEF believe it is possible to drill down to 10,000 m where temperatures can reach at least 374°C and the water has a pressure of at least 220 bars.

“If we manage to produce this kind of energy it would clearly be a ‘moon landing’. This is one of the few sources of energy that we really have enough of. The only thing that we need is the technology to harvest it,” says Researchers at SINTEF Materials and Chemistry, Odd-Geir Lademo.

http://www.renewableenergyfocus.com/view/12469/drilling-10-000-m-deep-geothermal-wells/

Drilling 10,000 m deep geothermal wells
15 September 2010 — counterpunch

I have been reading these sorts of press releases for over 20 years.

"Moon landing" and "we just need to technology to harvest it".

People have even literally made press releases of harvesting the moon's orbital energy, and of course mining it for stuff ... if we only had the technology.

There's actually plenty of energy sources "we really have enough of": Quasars, stars in general, zero point energy.

The point of these press releases is to get some grants. Scientists are always like "peer review, evidence, skepticism" ... except when it comes to grant applications and the press releases that provide plausible reasoning (on part with any creationist) for spending public money on their project.

Meanwhile, solar energy, the energy source humanity has mostly used for it's entire history (to grow crops, trees, grow plankton for fish, and also heat most buildings most of the year), and has been pointed to as the obvious better source of energy than fossil with easily demonstrated calculations that don't change, has proven itself cost-effective (even against fossil fuels with subsidies and basically no "polluter pays" principles), and it wouldn't be all that complicated to replace fossil with solar energy on a global scale (indeed, the savings would be enormous, as all the various costs of the pollution are very real and paid somewhere, sometime, by somebody; indeed, all of us), not "if only we had the technology to harvest it"; we have the technology now.

The problem is not now, nor has ever been, a technological one. Had the "polluter pays" principle as has been referring to, been implemented; our climate change problem would not exist, and, by definition, it would not have cost us any money (as what the polluter is paying are real costs to the economy; so, making the polluter pay, by definition, doesn't harm the economy: just moves it in a more efficient direction of technologies with low real-costs, rather than simply low production production costs).

as what the polluter is paying are real costs — boethius

:100: Ten ring!

Every time I hear someone whining about the price of a gallon of gas I think about how shocked they'd be if true cost were charged. We are all subsidized by the Earth, future generations, people with asthma, and the list goes on and on.

Even if we all agree to this open conspiracy so we can drive, etc. you'd think the purveyors wouldn't balk at paying a modicum of taxes on their gargantuan profits so we could offset a fraction of the costs they socialize onto the backs of innocent third parties and the Earth. But no. They instead lobby for and receive additional subsidy from Uncle Sugar.

I have been reading these sorts of press releases for over 20 years. — boethius

There's actually plenty of energy sources "we really have enough of": — boethius

There really isn't though, and herein lies the point. We'd have to cover an area of 225,000 square miles with solar panels to meet current global energy demand. Sunlight is spread over a large area, and we cannot physically gather energy from the entire surface of the earth. But we could extract enough magma energy to meet and exceed current global energy demand because magma is a concentrated, high grade source of clean energy, and there's a lot of it.

Sunlight is spread over a large area, and we cannot physically gather energy from the entire surface of the earth. — counterpunch

We should not gather it all up when nature is doing it for us for free. She's been doing exactly that for millions of years. All that sun gathered up for photosynthesis, converted to protein steaks so we can sit around, burp, fart, fuck, craft, laugh, dance, science, innovate, and generally enjoy a garden Eden paradise. We have the technology now to make everyone live like kings, without all the negatives of tooth and claw that our forefathers had to deal with. The problem is, too many of us. That's on us. Everything we want is there for the asking. We are not as bright as we think we are when we think that we must continue to do what got us where we are because it worked so far.

Edjumacations is what we need. Fewer, smarter, wiser people.