No that's right, and we have no obligation to take your word on it. — ChatteringMonkey

You claim without evidence that solar power can solve climate change; and you demand I produce evidence to prove it cannot? Isn't it your obligation to prove it can? I'm not interested in solar. I'm interested in magma. You're interested in solar? You prove it! And while you're at it, can you explain to the people of Gwent why they ought to pave over 'the welsh amazon' with solar panels!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-wales-57179848

What is tedious in the extreme is your supposition that one solution will solve the issue.

When faced with a complex problem, should one just decide that because a solution works in one place it will work everywhere, or should one try a range of solutions, and choose the best one for each situation? We have abundant sunshine in Australia, but the magma is unusually deep because of the age of the continent.

Assuming that your solution is the right one for everyone is imperialism.

Basically, it's not rational.

We all know the ball of heat that is the Earth’s magma is freaking tiny compared to the ball of heat that is the sun. However, the magma is a lot freaking closer. Then again, there is quite the crust between us and it, while there is mere empty space between us and the sun. We have to work to get to the magma up, whereas the sun pours down whether we want it or not. Both have to be captured. Balancing it all out, which one is “more”, which one is less subject to man’s fucking it up, and which one is easier?
Which one is proven? Which one has been ignored by real scientists? Asking for myself.

On the "fucking it up" question, I find myself in that odd place of feelingstupidly ridiculous to think we could ever jeopardize the earth by tapping it’s inner heat. I mean, it’s so large and endless. It’s not like we could ever mess up the dynamo. Like the five billion carrier pigeons; there is no way a bunch of idiots with black powder muzzle-loaders could ever possibly wipe them out. There is no way humans could ever possibly affect the climate. It’s just too damn big. There is no way we could ever trash outer space. Talk about endless cubic miles! Oh, wait.

However, the magma is a lot freaking closer. — James Riley

The sunlight is on my roof.

So, no, it isn't.

All the continents are the same age. They're made of granite and they sort of float on top of the mantle like marshmallows in hot chocolate.

The mantle has hot spots in it. Continents (or sea floor) will bulge and buckle as they pass over hot spots. This causes island chains like Hawaii, strings of volcanoes, or continental rifts.

What is tedious in the extreme is your supposition that one solution will solve the issue. — Banno

Not immediately, but there's more than adequate energy to meet and exceed current global energy demand in the molten interior of the earth. It would take time to develop that capacity, but eventually I expect it would succeed fossil fuels, and is sufficient to be the sole source of energy we rely on. That would be the ultimate aim, but I don't envisage it being developed and employed in the way you suggest.

I haven't talked about this often, because it's way beyond my pay grade, but the potential of the technology - the sheer volume of energy that could ultimately become available, allows for considerable discretion going forward, in how soon we'd need to replace critical and expensive parts of the infrastructure. There would be the potential to offset carbon produced today, in the capacity to sequester it tomorrow - in turn suggesting this technology be developed a global good, and when it does eventually enter the market, perhaps a sectoral approach might be possible, where high energy industries are transferred to renewable energy. There's no need to compete directly with fossil fuels right away, and thus - it's false charge you lay at my feet. What's tedious is your refusal to understand.

When faced with a complex problem, should one just decide that because a solution works in one place it will work everywhere, or should one try a range of solutions, and choose the best one for each situation? We have abundant sunshine in Australia, but the magma is unusually deep because of the age of the continent. Assuming that your solution is the right one for everyone is imperialism. Basically, it's not rational. — Banno

Australia exports about 350 million tonnes of coal per year to Asia - so yeah, you've got lot's of sunshine you! You've got so much sunshine you're bursting into flames!

Assuming that your solution is the right one for everyone is imperialism. Basically, it's not rational. — Banno

It's not an assumption; it's a consequence of the nature of the threat we face, and what I believe is the only adequate solution. Magma energy can solve climate change, and thereafter, could succeed fossil fuels, and ultimately, we could transcend limits to resources. It's that possibility that makes it the right answer for everyone, eventually - not because 'one size fits all' is my rule of thumb!

However, the magma is a lot freaking closer.
— James Riley

The sunlight is on my roof.

So, no, it isn't. — Banno

Let me slow it down for you:

"We all know the ball of heat that is the Earth’s magma is freaking tiny compared to the ball of heat that is the sun. However, the magma is a lot freaking closer. [It is. WAY closer. Like 94.5m miles closer] Then again, there is quite the crust between us and it, while there is mere empty space between us and the sun. We have to work to get to the magma up, whereas the sun pours down [Doh!] . . ."

:razz:

Australia exports about 350 million tonnes of coal per year to Asia - so yeah, you've got lot's of sunshine you! You've got so much sunshine you're bursting into flames! — counterpunch

True but irrelevant.

The critique I offered is based on the logic of your proposal: that one solution will work for all. It's wrong.

...

True but irrelevant. — Banno

It's entirely relevant. Asia will build more coal fired power stations to support growing prosperity, but is unlikely to apply the technology to produce clean energy. Large parts of the planet simply can't afford it. Developing magma energy as a global good would allow us to attack climate change directly, and sequester carbon - building capacity to take over from fossil fuels eventually.

A coal fired power station does not require a huge amount of modification to burn hydrogen instead. Energy is transmitted using the existing energy infrastructure. So - in theory, magma energy would allow for the largest populations on earth, India and China, and poorer parts of the world to "go green" without massive and costly infrastructure changes. If then you said - Australia has loads of sunshine, then yeah, sure! As you prefer.

Again, my point is that there are other solutions, that may work as well or better, and yet you obsess with one.

And when this is pointed out, you have doubled down.

You don't see this as a problem. I'm worried for you.

Again, my point is that there are other solutions, that may work as well or better, and yet you obsess with one.

And when this is pointed out, you have doubled down.

You don't see this as a problem. I'm worried for you. — Banno

I'm touched, and curious as to what these other solutions are, that may work as well or better!

See if you can list them for yourself. Consider it a first step towards your redemption.

Be your own devil's advocate.

Wind, solar, hydro, nuclear. All excellent options, all getting easier and cheaper and more efficient as time goes on. Solar and wind are now cheaper than fossil fuels. This, along with reforestation, carbon capture, etc., will all be needed to solve the crisis. This is straight out of the IPCC. Or we can instead take seriously the rantings of a crackpot on the internet, with his silver bullet. To me the choice is clear.

Oh, you should have waited for Counterpunch... now all that will happen is that he will again list all the reasons he says they will not work.

Terrible coincidence -- I hadn't even seen your post. Apologies.

Oh, sure. Coincidence. A likely story. :wink:

I'm wondering if you are happy with Counterpunch obsessing on your thread - it keeps it on the top of the discussions list, after all - or if you would prefer a different discussion.

See if you can list them for yourself. Consider it a first step towards your redemption. Be your own devil's advocate. — Banno

Okay. We could capture an asteroid with a high copper content, and build a huge copper ring in space, and set it spinning within the magnetic fields of the earth to generate current. It's an idea I came up with in relation to the perpetual motion machine challenge - which, arguably, I won. Point being, if you think I haven't considered it, you're probably wrong, and after all due consideration I think magma - hydrogen is the best bet.

if you think I haven't considered it, you're probably wrong, and after all due consideration I think magma - hydrogen is the best bet. — counterpunch

Really? Hadn't noticed. :roll:

Think I'll repeat my contribution, just to get it out from under the magma obsession.

When faced with a complex problem the rational thing to do is to try a range of solutions, and choose the best one for each situation.

Let a thousand flowers bloom.

Think I'll repeat my contribution, just to get it out from under the magma obsession.

When faced with a complex problem the rational thing to do is to try a range of solutions, and choose the best one for each situation.

Let a thousand flowers bloom. — Banno

Great. Let's leave it there. Thanks for the discussion.

Incidentally, while Australia is a huge exporter of coal, and doing it's best to warm the world during these cold winter months, we also have a growing small-scale solar boom. Despite our neolithic federal government, there is a groundswell of support for energy alternatives.

Let's leave it there. — counterpunch

I hope that you can.

I'm wondering if you are happy with Counterpunch obsessing on your thread - it keeps it on the top of the discussions list, after all - or if you would prefer a different discussion. — Banno

I don't consider this my thread, in this case. Just a general discussion. If he wants to make a fool of himself, that's his business.

Once systems get overwhelmed, they collapse. Has happened to previous civilizations, can happen to ours. — boethius

And the civilizations you are referring to? Seems to me the civilizations in history were far more fragile to collapse.

I don't think population matters much. — boethius

I disagree.

Population growth is the natural reason for economic growth and demand growth. If populations are stable or decreasing, that is a huge issue on this issue. You don't have only decrease in use because of technological advancement, but also due to demand decrease. That is a huge issue. Besides, earlier population growth was seen as the primary reason for doom, starting from Malthus, which isn't something unimportant now.

Japan has a decreasing population. Notice what has happened to it's need of energy:

However, in the equation of Impact = Population x Technology x Affluence; it's the technology and affluence that can be changed significantly in relatively short periods of time — boethius

Technology has always been the real factor that the doomsayers have gotten wrong. The typical disaster-in-the-near-future predictions have simply ignored how technology can change the situation and also how markets adapt. And affluence? This isn't a simple thing. The naive idea would be to think that a more affluent economy would have a bigger impact. This actually doesn't go that way: the more affluent society can take into consideration environmental issues and ecological issues far better than a poorer one. Just compare West European policies and practices to let's say those in poorer countries. I think it was Jared Diamond who noticed that the biggest environmental crisis tend to happen in the poorest countries.

I didn't raise economics to discuss whether my economic position is correct, merely to point out your representation of my position was false. One point though : It's funny to see how you consider aspects, such as shareholders and capital rates of return, as inherent to capitalism. They're not. They're fictions introduced by law. Earliest corporations only got limited liability for capital providers because they invested in something worthwhile to the public that they would benefit from themselves (for instance merchants building a bridge increasing commerce). Profit was expressly forbidden and when the goal was completed the corporation was dissolved. Laws allowing corporations to be for-profit and exist in perpetuity are distortions to market structures and not inherent to a capitalist system. So, one again too many assumptions about what I mean, what capitalism is and in general another demonstration of a lack of knowledge and context. It makes me wonder what you do for a living if you have such little historic and economic knowledge.

Aldo zero point energy is real just as real as geothermal. NASA had been working on a quantum vacuum fluctuation engine and published their results. It works. Breaks some fundamental physical laws but quantum effects have been known to screw with that before.

Capitalism: an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.

Laws allowing corporations to be for-profit and exist in perpetuity are distortions to market structures and not inherent to a capitalist system. — Benkei

Oh. It looked like he was objecting to the profit part. Yes, you don't need corporations for capitalism.

quantum vacuum fluctuation engine — Benkei

It's not a source of energy. It's a means to produce thrust without propellant.

"According to the team, the electromagnetic drive, or EmDrive, converts electricity into thrust simply by bouncing around microwaves in a closed cavity. In theory, such a lightweight engine could one day send a spacecraft to Mars in just 70 days."

It is still necessary to produce the electricity; and almost certainly, the whole things is less thermodynamically efficient than a steam train. i.e. costs of lot of energy, to produce a tiny amount of thrust. Probably in the region of 1.2 millinewtons per kilowatt of energy! It's great for space travel. Mini nuke generators can produce plenty of energy, spent through such an engine - you can have thrust without lugging around tons of propellant. That's a huge advantage, but it's not a source of energy, and not relevant to solving climate change.

It's funny to see how you consider aspects, such as shareholders and capital rates of return, as inherent to capitalism. They're not. They're fictions introduced by law. Earliest corporations only got limited liability for capital providers because they invested in something worthwhile to the public that they would benefit from themselves (for instance merchants building a bridge increasing commerce). — Benkei

Okay, but the nature of capitalism has changed fundamentally, since around 1900 - when they introduced things like pensions and unemployment insurance, while at the same time industry began to produce consumer goods. If you don't like it, blame Marx' critique - to which capitalism responded by creating an interest in people's general prosperity, and we now have consumer capitalism. Just off the top of my head, it would seem to me consumer capitalism multiplies exponentially the liabilities to which shareholders might become subject through investment; so there's no valid inference from the fact LLC's only existed for occasional and philanthropic purposes way back when.

It makes me wonder what you do for a living if you have such little historic and economic knowledge. — Benkei

Corporate law is a huge and complex area of specialist knowledge; why would I happen know about it? If you know something interesting about it; more interesting than the fact that at some unspecified time in the past there were no LLC's - do share, but don't hold my feet to your fire!

I didn't raise economics to discuss whether my economic position is correct, merely to point out your representation of my position was false. — Benkei

This position?

Finally, "sustaining capitalism" is an utter shit goal. It is and always has been about people, not some system or ideology. People first, system second. Whatever system creates the best world for people is the one we should implement. It isn't capitalism despite the many good things it has brought when the excesses it's been causing since the 90s wasn't a problem yet. — Benkei

Or when you said:

I'm against the current type of capitalism, I think it's implementation, especially when the corporation was introduced, has and will lead to untold misery. I'm not against "free" markets as we understand them in mixed economies but against the idiotic laissez-faire nonsense. I am against societies that are diminishing people, resources and everything else into their monetary value. I'm against the concentration of power that comes along with it, I'm against the asymmetry that arises from all these effects resulting in a split between "capitalists" and "labourers" and rich vs. poor. — Benkei

Or, was it when you said:

The "goodwill" of a company is generated by its labourers so I believe one solution could be (if we must have corporations) is to introduce a dynamic equity system where labourers, over time, become majority shareholders as opposed to those providing capital. — Benkei

Because these are three different positions. Or one lying ass commie!

p.s. Where's Aldo?