Yeah. :roll: You're an idiot. — James Riley

I have a fairly good idea of my own intellectual abilities, and I'm far from idiocy. For example, I know there isn't time to reduce population by means other than murder within the timeframe climate change allows for. So it would be pretty fucking stupid of me to suggest population reduction as a solution. And then worse if I got all pissy about it!

Cool, I wasn't aware as I'm only familiar with the oil and gas industry. That's pretty interesting. You should work out the numbers boethius has asked for. How much square meters of rock do you need and what will be the recharge rate. Then you also need to prove it's an economical viable option aside from some obvious engineering challenges of operating equipment under high pressure and high temperatures with moving parts. Generally, engineers aren't happy with both high pressure and high temperature. — Benkei

I'm only going to say this one more time before I get very pissed off. Recharge rate applies to hydrothermal - a form of geothermal that draws heat from underground water. Water is a poor conductor of heat. It takes time to heat up - so there's only so much energy that can be drawn from it, over time.

Recharge rate is not an issue where there is conduction through rock, from a higher temperature energy source. Rock is a good conductor of heat. Any energy you take out of heated rock will immediately be replaced from the higher temperature region adjacent. It's the second law of thermodynamics. Heat always moves from hotter to cooler regions, and passes easily through stone. This is why magma energy is a better term than geothermal.

It's not possible to work out the numbers boethius demanded without doing physical research at a specific location, but clearly, drilling at high temperatures and pressures is possible, and there are millions of cubic meters of rock heated to 700'C. This temperature is desirable because it allows for dry superheated steam - making the most of the thermal expansion properties of water, so to create greater pressure to drive turbines.

I'm beginning to see why people think you are flakey. I didn't say anything about murder. I didn't say you were unrealistic. I don't want to engage with you any more. — James Riley

I thoroughly endorse your plan of not talking to me anymore. But before you go, please explain how you would go about de-populating the planet:

We should put the pyramid back right side up and have about 500k to 1m people on the planet... — James Riley

...without murdering anyone?

I didn't say anything about murder. — James Riley

Unless you have wishes left over, you are clearly suggesting mass murder.

Indeed. Despite it being explained to you over and over again. I guess some people just need to believe they have a secret that solves the world's problems, despite knowing next to nothing about it. Oh well. — Xtrix

Despite what being explained to me over and over?

The key difference between us is, I hope humankind survives and prospers. And far from keeping it a secret - I seek to communicate my ideas.

I do believe magma energy is viable, and the only source of clean energy, large, high grade and close enough to meet and exceed global energy demand.

We need this energy if future generations are to have any chance at all of striking a balance between human and environmental welfare. I hope they can - but people like you, I can only conclude you want to see the world burn.

Here's 157 degrees celsius, our current record for drilling at high temperatures: — Benkei

That's not a record temperature.

World's hottest borehole nearly complete
By Rebecca Morelle
Science Correspondent, BBC News, Iceland
Published 14 December 2016

Geologists say they are close to creating the hottest borehole in the world. They are drilling into the heart of a volcano in the south-west of Iceland. They have told the BBC that they should reach 5km down, where temperatures are expected to exceed 500C (932F), in the next couple of weeks.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-38296251

And yeah, great fucking idea to drill close to areas proven to be under pressure (there are volcanoes) and fuck around with the structural integrity of the rock above it. And while we're at it, let's add water! That will definitely go well. — Benkei

Isn't it though!

You keep repeating this number as if it's some sort of problem for solar energy. Your 225 000 square miles is about 580 000 square kilometres. Surface area of earth is 510 000 000 square kilometres. — boethius

It's just to give an idea of how much solar you're talking about. And the sheer size of the thing is just the start of your problems. Solar only produces energy half the time, at best, and so that energy needs to be stored. Storage is expensive, both in terms of the infrastructure, and the energy cost of translating one form of energy into another. Transmitting energy from one place to another requires high voltages, and solar is low voltage - which is another huge energy cost. Solar panels are expensive, they last 20 years tops, and they're difficult or impossible to recycle because they contain toxic metals. Metals that have to be mined prior to manufacture.

Furthermore, by reducing and reversing large scale infrastructure (that not only occupies a lot of land in itself, such as those 20 lane highways, but also divides the ecosystem making it less efficient), would actually be a net-positive in terms of land bio efficiency (the ecosystems being the primary value of land). — boethius

You think we're going to rip up highways? How would your huge solar panel manufacturing plant get raw materials without roads? How will they distribute the finished product? Off road horse and cart? You cannot change everything, and you can't kill everyone. You want the least disruptive, most effective adequate intervention; and the most bang for your buck is magma energy.

Glad you realise you're an idiot then. — Benkei

I guess I must be. There's no other reasonable explanation. I must be too stupid to understand why a big ball of molten rock - 4000 miles deep and 26,000 miles around, isn't a viable source of energy for those living on the surface, particularly given the nature and scale of the threat from climate change. I'm such an idiot, it just seems obvious to me we'd want to tap into that energy, and I get frustrated that I cannot understand why no-one else wants that.

The geothermal claims were vague. References to magma are confusing with respect to geothermal energy. I'll remind everyone of the operating temperatures of drilling equipment and what happens when you open up a hole to something under tremendous pressure. — Benkei

It is kind of frustrating though, after repeatedly talking about drilling "close to magma chambers and subduction zones" to have you say I propose drilling into a magma chamber under pressure. Also, the melting point of carbon steel drilling equipment is around 1500 degrees centigrade; so drilling rock at 700'C is not going to melt the drill.

The geothermal claims were vague. References to magma are confusing with respect to geothermal energy. I'll remind everyone of the operating temperatures of drilling equipment and what happens when you open up a hole to something under tremendous pressure. — Benkei

Idiots are often easily confused, and I'm wondering if that might be the problem.

Over population is a real and horrible thing. It is morally repugnant and patently arrogant to think otherwise. All the clap-trap about what could be, but is not, is the proof of it. — James Riley

You want to murder most of the population of earth and you call me unrealistic because I want to drill to harness magma energy? I asked how you plan to accomplish this mega-genocide, and you've got nothing. People won't just sit around and be killed you know. WWII - the economies of nations were turned to the purposes of mass murder, and they hardly killed 100 million people.

"anyway i think an apt way to think about climate change is that there are 'no non-radical futures.' either we change everything or the earth changes everything for us. anyone selling you 'realistic' incremental change is performing the work of charlatans and denialists." roshan — James Riley

Limitless clean energy from magma is a radical future; and one that offers hope.

You are wrong. Over-population is a thing. — James Riley

No, it's really not a thing. Resources are ultimately a function of the energy available to create them. It's morally repugnant to consider people surplus; particularly given that, scientifically and technologically speaking, no-one need have a carbon footprint. Given a scientifically advised application of technology, starting with magma energy technology, to power carbon capture, desalination, irrigation and recycling, 10bn people can live well, and sustainably.

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. — James Riley

Over-population is not a thing. The misapplication of technology is a thing. If we applied the right technologies the world could easily sustain 8 billion people. We are 8 billion people. Thus, we need to apply the technologies necessary to sustain such numbers. Simple logic!

UN mid range projections suggest global population will level out at around 10-12 bn people by the end of the century; and those numbers can be sustained if we harness massive clean energy from magma - to capture carbon, desalinate, irrigate, recycle etc. We should do that. The alternatives are too terrible to contemplate.

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.

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/

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!

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.

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?

Shelves are tricky! Wait until you encounter drawers!

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.

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.

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!

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!

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.

:lol: — Xtrix

Such trenchant critique! Clearly you are an intellectual!

Just be happy with knowing that you've cracked the climate crisis -- I just hope humanity starts listening to your extraordinary solution! Well done! — Xtrix

Thanks. But credit should really go to Wilson Clark - who wrote an encyclopaedia of potential energy technologies published in 1972, entitled Energy for Survival - the alternative to extinction!

You offer to evidence, no research, and refuse even to provide a single link. — Xtrix

Evidence, to show what? What exactly is it that you want me to prove? What is it that you can't google for yourself?

So you've been "thinking about, reading about, and worrying about" this for 25 years, yet provide no references whatsoever? Interesting. — Xtrix

If I recommended a book, what are you going to do? Run out and buy it? Read it so we can discuss it? What the point?

No, it isn't. Because capitalism doesn't exist anywhere. What we have is a state-capitalist system, with massive state intervention on all levels. Subsidies, bailouts, a central bank, etc. etc. We have what boils down to a corporate welfare/socialist system. It's easy to see, when you look around. — Xtrix

All economies are mixed economies to a greater or lesser degree. That's true, but is that relevant to the question of whether we approach climate change back peddling, having less and paying more, and taxing the poor to supress demand, and failing to secure the future anyway, or by harnessing massive clean energy from magma and continuing to prosper?

The left have dominated environmentalism for decades; while admittedly, the right have buried their head in the sand, allowing a limits to resources, anti-capitalist narrative to go unchallenged. Everyone just assumes sustainability implies huge, across the board anti-capitalist sacrifice. I don't believe that's true; scientifically and technologically, it is not necessarily so. Besides, Malthus was wrong. We invented tractors and fertilizers, and food production hugely outpaced population growth. Climate change is the same sort of panic, but there is a glaring technological solution - if the technology to harness magma energy can be developed and applied we can transcend limits to growth. And we should.

I wasn't closely following the debate with the crackpot, — SophistiCat

Then let me bring you up to speed. I'm saying a left wing anti-capitalist green commie approach to sustainability is wrong, because the root problem is a mistaken relationship to science, and the consequent misapplication of technology. Applying the right technologies; starting with magma energy technology we could sustain capitalist growth going forward, and would not need to crush the poor with taxes - the rich will hardly notice. I'm actually quite surprised the left could advocate such a policy approach!

So is absolutely any source whatsoever according to your current usage of 'potentially', which seems to include anything anyone reckons. — Isaac

No. What you reckon is specifically excluded.

Why? — Isaac

For all sorts of reasons; where to begin. Capitalism works. Capitalism has the knowledge, technology and skills to develop and apply the technology. It is the prevailing economic paradigm, upon which billions of people depend for their supper! What do you mean, why?

And the equivalent costs for geothermal are...? Let me guess, you just reckon they'd be less. — Isaac

Infrastructure costs associated with a facility, drawing on magma heat energy to produce electricity are likely to be heavy up front, falling almost to zero thereafter. Once constructed - it would not cost much to run, and would outlast wind and solar, which needs replacing after 25 years. So, yes, it would be less expensive than solar. That said, I'm loathe to put a figure on how much energy can be extracted from magma, and so cannot give you an ROI or £/Kwh figure. I expect that would vary for each specific location this technology could be deployed, and relate to what heat could be reached at what depth, and so on. But I think it would be a better investment in the long term.

You're transparent. Ideological opposition to left wing politics (and therefore existing renewables by association) supported post hoc by a shambolic edifice of speculation. — Isaac

I am transparently opposed to a left wing approach to sustainability, you're right. I make no secret of that fact. I told you so in the previous post. I argue for an approach that can sustain capitalism going forward; an approach that does not imply an ongoing anti-capitalist stranglehold on civilisation, to no tangible or quantifiable end.

Albeit I argue for an approach based in science, that applies the necessary technologies first, because the physics cannot change - nonetheless, via the mechanisms, and in support of the prevailing capitalist economic system. We have to get there from here - not throw some huge ideological obstacle; i.e. tearing down capitalism, in the way of a sustainable future.

No, it can’t. I’ll present just as much evidence to support this claim as you have with yours: my gut feelings.

Just stop already. You don’t know what you’re talking about. You offer no evidence. You have no expertise. You admit there’s no research on this yet. So why continue on? The fact that you think you’re “really on to something” just sounds embarrassing.

I’m sure your heart is in the right place, but now you’re just sounding ridiculous. Your point has been made— move on. — Xtrix

Is it that - having me point out a possible, but seemingly unlikely means of securing a sustainable future implies horrors too terrible to contemplate? Because, if that's why you would rather not hear from me - I'd counter that's exactly why you need to listen. Sustainability is the biggest philosophical question we have ever faced, and your cowardly viciousness doesn't alter the fact I've been thinking about this, reading about it, and worrying for over 25 years. I know what I think about the most important philosophical question of our time, and what I think is at least interesting, but if you're not interested please feel free to go fuck yourself elsewhere!

But you've yet to demonstrate this. That you think it's possible without any expertise in the matter at all, is utterly irrelevant to the question of whether it is, in fact, possible. — Isaac

First, I said I'd demonstrated the rightfulness and trustworthiness of science as a rationale for the application of technology - not demonstrated that the extraction of heat energy from magma is possible. Second, if we only ever commented on things we were experts in, you'd be unable to speak at all, unless someone wanted advice on being insufferable!

Why? What's special about your guesswork that makes it worth thinking about? — Isaac

Many things, but if there were one indicator I'd point to, it's that I explain the problem and the solution in the same terms. That's when I really knew I was onto something.

No, you have to prove that it's technologically feasible to extract that heat without insurmountable consequential factors. — Isaac

At some stage, sure. But I don't see that happening here and now.

No, you're just declaring it to be the case without any evidence presented whatsoever. — Isaac

I haven't presented evidence to you, no. I don't intend to. I've told you that. People like you get a kick out of making other people jump through hoops, and I'm not here for your entertainment. So pour your incredible toxic scorn, but it remains, the earth is a big ball of molten rock, and we need that energy to tackle climate change. Wind and solar are weak and inconstant, while magma energy can give us vast, constant base load power.

As an illustration, let me ask you this. You seem opposed to solar power, yes? The sun provides 37 Petawatts of energy, our global needs only amount to about 4, so there's plenty of energy there to provide all our needs. so why oppose solar? Your oppose it on the grounds of the limitations of current technology, yet when it comes to your pet theory, you ignore limits of current technology and assume we'll find a way. — Isaac

I suppose I am opposed to solar, yes! But not for the reasons you might imagine. It's a matter of entrenching an approach to sustainability I don't believe can work. This is the dominant narrative in the field; the pessimistic Malthusian, limits to resources approach to sustainability. I think it's wrong, and can only lead to disaster.

We need more energy - not less; less reliable and more expensive energy. We need lots of reliable clean energy and magma is potentially, a high grade source of limitless base load power. We need that amount of energy to spend to attack the climate and ecological crisis from the supply side, and sustain capitalist growth - accounting for the externalities of capitalism by internalising them with magma energy, carbon capture, desalination, irrigation, recycling - rather than internalising them to the economy.

That so, solar is not the right technology. I have a solar powered calculator! I don't hate solar. But gathering a weak and inconstant form of energy from 225,000 square miles - just to meet current global energy demand; the staggering ongoing costs of constructing and maintaining such an array, and the question of recycling and replacing those panels after 25 years, to say nothing of the facilities required to store that energy, we be locked in and bankrupted, and have no more energy to spend than before. We need a way forward, and potentially, magma energy offers a better future.

You given nothing to indicate the underlined. Everything you say might be nonsense for all we know because you refuse to cite anything. — Isaac

What I propose hasn't been done. As far as I'm aware, the research doesn't exist. There is other research that is relevant in some respect, a piece of technology here, a geological fact there, but as far as I'm aware, there are no significant plans to plug into the planet at scale.

In any case, my contribution to the subject is not engineering expertise. It's philosophical. It's about the rightfulness and trustworthiness of science as a rationale for the application of technology - as demonstrated by the possibility of a prosperous sustainable future, against the likelihood of a grim march upon authoritarianism, poverty and oblivion.

What makes you think we'd be a) interested enough that your posts are worth your while writing yet b) not interested enough to read papers on the subject. You must have a very high opinion of yourself to consider you might hold our attention in a way no other source could. — Isaac

I hope I'm saying something others are not; something interesting and worthwhile thinking about. That's the best I can do. How long you can manage to focus is entirely your affair!

Because its a reasonable assumption. I really shouldn't have to explain this. — Isaac

So you are allowed reasonable assumptions, and I have to prove the earth is a big ball of molten rock?

To posit a world where no one but you has thought of a brilliant solution to global energy supply is a fantastic claim, definitely requires support. — Isaac

That's not what I'm saying though. I'm saying, using existing technologies it's possible for humankind to survive - and prosper. The future need not be a Malthusian nightmare. Because resources are ultimately a function of the energy available to create them, we could transcend limits to resources if we applied the right technologies, and could do so if we recognised a need to apply technology in relation to a scientific understanding of reality.

More of a view of Scientism than Science. — ssu

I don't wish to take on all the baggage of scientism, but but on this one key issue - science offers an objective rationale for the application of technologies, it is necessary to apply if humankind wishes to continue to exist, or at least keep that option open. In face of the threat of climate and ecological catastrophe there are things we need to do to survive, and magma energy is necessary to any conceivable future. At the very least, we need that energy to power carbon capture and storage, desalination and irrigation and recycling.

One day magma energy would replace fossil fuels, but that need not be immediately, and so huge socially transformative infrastructure costs would not be pre-requisite to; and standing in the way of environmental benefits. If the world got together and developed this technology as a global good, we could carry on much as we are, and attack the problem from the supply side - offsetting carbon produced today by investing in the capacity to sequester it tomorrow.

It makes sense on more levels than merely the scientific, even if it is necessary to look first to a scientific understanding of reality to see the real world possibility, beyond the ideological battlements.

Well good, but the rest of us aren't going to just take it on faith are we. — Isaac

If you refuse to value the opinion of someone who is clearly interested in, and knowledgeable about a subject then that's your too bad. I could, I suppose - produce a list of links you wouldn't even click on, never mind read - and allow you put me to work merely for your amusement. But I don't think so. I haven't seen any substance to your weirdly fierce opposition.

I presume people far more knowledgable than me have looked into it already. It's not the strategy I'm fiercely opposed to, it's the maniacal advocation of it without a shred of supporting evidence. — Isaac

You presume? Why not produce evidence? You demand evidence from me, while allowing yourself license to presume someone has already looked into it? With regard to magma energy, the basic technologies exist. The energy is there. The middle of the bridge is yet to be constructed, but I think it is possible.

It would certainly require specialist knowledge; for example, the question of how big a hole to drill is immensely complicated. Have you ever heard of Poiseuille’s Law? The materials science of pipes able to conduct heat, and withstand huge pressure is another area where specialist knowledge is indispensable. Dozens of other fields of specialist knowledge would need to be brought to bear - but the basic idea of harnessing the heat energy of the earth, at high temperatures and on a very large scale, is kinda obvious - and that's where I shine! Big ball of molten rock, d'uh!

Science is a method of study. — ssu

Science is also a body of knowledge; a worldview, to contrast with an ideological worldview.

Applying technology in accord with an ideological worldview is the cause of climate change. That's how we come within sight of species extinction; and it's why we have the knowledge and technology to solve climate change, but don't apply it.

Applying technology in accord with a scientific understanding of reality is the answer to climate change.

I understand your point, but just like with the discussion you have had with Xtrix about fusion energy where your opinion is just "I'm not optimistic", so too can it be that others are "not too optimistic" about geothermal as a silver bullet answer to everything (as it has high initial capital cost and with the present technology you don't find hot rocks everywhere). Yes, increasing geothermal energy production surely is one thing to do. — ssu

I didn't express my opinion on fusion. Not really. I said I'm not optimistic, but actually, I think it won't work, not profitably anyway. My hunch is that the enormous gravity of the sun overcomes the Exclusion Principle, allowing fusion to occur, and that a sustained, profitable fusion reaction cannot be maintained in earth gravity. The input of energy, to simulate that gravitational pressure - and to contain the superheated plasma, will always be greater than the energy produced. IMO.

In fact many renewables could make the claim to handle all our energy needs "if only" enough should be invested in them and the technology would be improved. But it simply won't happen like that: energy production methods will compete against each other on the market and the price mechanism will select the ones which will dominate the energy sector. — ssu

We are threatened with a global scale catastrophe, and that's a problem we cannot solve doing business as usual. Applying technologies for power and profit brings us to this impasse. We need to look beyond ourselves, and apply the right technology for the right reasons - and that's science, and magma energy technology.

Magma energy is the only very large source of constant, high grade renewable energy that can be rapidly and safely developed, and has the potential to replace fossil fuels entirely. I don't particularly enjoy attacking other forms of renewables, but I don't see any other technology doing more than take the edge off fossil fuel use and GHG emissions.

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. — Isaac

You just said:

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. — Isaac

For you, it's rhetorical. I express opinions that are justified with reference to research, and obviously so - but what I don't have is tens of billions in folding cash and a great big drill, or I'd prove my point empirically.

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. — Isaac

If you believe wind and solar can support our current levels of material consumption then you haven't done any research, or indeed, applied much in the way of reason. The UK alone would need something like 15,000 windmills, costing £250m each, producing 7 MW each, and even then, would have to store that energy or back it up with a fossil fuel generating capacity for when the wind stops blowing. Maintaining all those windmills - presumably at sea, is no small or inexpensive feat; and replacing them in 25 years at similar cost, does not constitute a cost effective means of producing an adequate amount of clean energy.

There are very good reasons to look for more substantial clean energy technologies; and magma is there - a huge source of clean energy seemingly within reach. I'm at a loss to understand your fierce opposition to that proposal. Can you see a reason it's impossible? Is the world not a big ball of molten rock?

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

Indeed.

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.

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.

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.

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!