Solving Climate Change.

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6264
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Solving Climate Change.

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Vitruvius wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 10:45 am
Vitruvius wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 12:20 am it looks possible to me to tap into what must necessarily be billions of cubic meters of rock heated to very temperatures by proximity to magma - and that would provide energy on the scale needed to adequately address climate change. Massive, constant, base load clean energy. It's there if we can get at it - why do you say it's impossible?
FlashDangerpants wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 1:21 amIt's harldy the only optionthat offers more energy than we can conceivably use though is it? There is more than we can use by far from each of wind, wave, solar, nuclear and probably others. So you are offering a false dichotomy there from the off.
There is more solar, wind and wave power than we could use - in theory, but you have to consider the infrastructure necessary to harness it. You could build a huge solar array in the middle of the Sahara, but how do you get the energy to where it's needed?

To transmit electrical energy along a cable you need to step up the voltage, and this costs energy, to push it along the cable, at a further cost of around 10% per 1000 km. Similarly there's plenty of wind and wave power, but you need a lot of infrastructure to gather it from a large area, and lots more infrastructure to translate it into a useful form, and get it to where it's needed.

Magma is more akin to nuclear - in that it's base load energy at source, so now we've just got to figure out whether it's more cost effective to drill a hole through hot rock, or build a giant toxic teakettle inside a steel and concrete bunker! It's not a false dichotomy if you look closer. Magma energy has definite advantages - assuming suddenly, that it is possible.
I'm not entirely sure how your points are supposed to relate to each other there. Any unbiased observe would just note that you are weighing known and quatifiable challenges for technologies in the real world against unknown and unquantified challenges for a fantasy project.

You can easily search for power loss per 1000 km of high voltage direct current by the way, it's listed at 3.5%, and AC at 6.5. I don't raise this to accuse you of fiddling the figures so much as to show what I mean by quantifiable. Maybe materials science will step in with an accessible superconductor one day, but until that day, 3.5% per 1000 km seems like a surmountable problem anyway.

Vitruvius wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 10:45 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 1:21 am You have no idea how to dig the hole you are sort of describing, to a depth you only sort of indicate, with a width of.... some wideness I guess ... You have little idea of what engineering challenges await, and you only want to be told about the ones that seem a bit easy. You obviously have no design. It seems as if you think you really just need a couple of very deep tubes with one to pour water down and one to bring steam up, and if there's any problem with that you're sure it's a simple thing to fix if you can just talk someone smart enough into fixing it for you.
I have given some thought to the subject, but don't want to play this game. I don't have the relevant experience to speak authoritatively about drilling or geophysics, and you and I wailing on each other with a series of hastily googled half comprehended facts, doesn't appeal. I have said several times previously that the idea would be to contain the evaporate within pipes - not just pour water into a hole in the ground. I've also previously described two design ideas - for descriptive purposes, labelled 'plug in' and 'drill through.'

The 'plug-in' design is one hole drilled directly into the rock, and a probe inserted, trailing pipes carrying cool water in and hot steam out.

The 'drill-through' design is a bore hole struck through a mountain - pump water in one end, harness the jet of superheated steam coming out the other.
If you don't want to play that game then what is everyone else supposed to do? Are we required to just humour and indulge you?

We see people with impractical projects to change the world all the time. Age is convinced he speaks on behalf of some ultimate reality and brings the wisdom that will save the Earth. Someone perfectly sane told me here that space mining for platinum would safeguard humanity's future against some catastrophe, I forget which. We had a dude who tried to launch his own special political party to utilise the power of corruption and multi level marketing to fix .... just all of the problems.

I've already been told I am not "open and curious enough" to understand more mad-bastard schemes than you can shake a stick at. They always want cheerleaders instead of critics, but the scheme usually needs to be a bit less mad before that's on the cards.
Vitruvius wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 10:45 am I've given it this much thought to assess whether it is technologically feasible - and I think it is; in relation to questions of political philosophy - which is where I entered into this. I have given the engineering side of the proposal about as much scrutiny as can be expected of a political philosopher; in support of the assertion that limits to growth is factually incorrect, and a wrongful assumption on which to base approaches to sustainability.
If you want to approach this as philosophy, you can make a thought experiment out of your magma energy thing no problem. We're quite used to impractical thought experiments where dumb things happen. In a famous one astronauts go to a new planet and find it's exactly the same as Earth except that they have no words for mind or any mind contents. In another you get told all about the planet you are about to be born in before you go there. The second most pointless one has some girl brought up in a black and white room reading about colours for the first half of her life, somebody would intervene on ethical grounds of you tried that irl, but hopefully the sanme is true of the worst one, where a psychopath ties people to tram rails and makes an idiot choose who dies.

For such excercises we never worry if they are realistic and achievable because they are never designed to be, and that is never the point.
Vitruvius
Posts: 678
Joined: Mon May 10, 2021 9:46 am

Re: Solving Climate Change.

Post by Vitruvius »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 3:15 pmI'm not entirely sure how your points are supposed to relate to each other there.
Really? I'm surprised. Your comprehension until now has been nothing short of prescient!
FlashDangerpants wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 3:15 pmAny unbiased observe would just note that you are weighing known and quatifiable challenges for technologies in the real world against unknown and unquantified challenges for a fantasy project.
A hypercritical unbiased observer maybe!
FlashDangerpants wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 3:15 pm You can easily search for power loss per 1000 km of high voltage direct current by the way, it's listed at 3.5%, and AC at 6.5. I don't raise this to accuse you of fiddling the figures so much as to show what I mean by quantifiable. Maybe materials science will step in with an accessible superconductor one day, but until that day, 3.5% per 1000 km seems like a surmountable problem anyway.
Okay, well you need a solar array of 225,000 square miles to meet current global energy demand. Solar panels last 25 years. Transmission costs aside, do you think you could finish building such an array before the first panels you installed needed replacing? How will you recycle them, and how will you produce more energy than you currently command from this source?
FlashDangerpants wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 3:15 pm If you don't want to play that game then what is everyone else supposed to do? Are we required to just humour and indulge you?
If you could just chip in with the occasional "Do go on" that'd be great. The odd "you're amazing" wouldn't go amiss either! But you do you!
FlashDangerpants wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 3:15 pm We see people with impractical projects to change the world all the time. Age is convinced he speaks on behalf of some ultimate reality and brings the wisdom that will save the Earth. Someone perfectly sane told me here that space mining for platinum would safeguard humanity's future against some catastrophe, I forget which. We had a dude who tried to launch his own special political party to utilise the power of corruption and multi level marketing to fix .... just all of the problems.
Impractical in what sense? Before you answer, consider that in order to produce fossil fuels, they build rigs at sea, and drill miles into the sea bed, for a toxic liquid that needs to be shipped and refined and shipped again, before it's where it's needed in a form that's useful. I expect I could adopt a credulous tone - dripping with sarcasm, and describe fossil fuel production in terms you wouldn't believe possible. How's about you cut the rhetoric and at least recognise that it would be desirable (if possible) to harness magma energy?
FlashDangerpants wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 3:15 pm I've already been told I am not "open and curious enough" to understand more mad-bastard schemes than you can shake a stick at. They always want cheerleaders instead of critics, but the scheme usually needs to be a bit less mad before that's on the cards.
I think it's good you're amusing yourself. Not amusing me much, but at least one of us is enjoying themselves!
FlashDangerpants wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 3:15 pm If you want to approach this as philosophy, you can make a thought experiment out of your magma energy thing no problem. We're quite used to impractical thought experiments where dumb things happen. In a famous one astronauts go to a new planet and find it's exactly the same as Earth except that they have no words for mind or any mind contents. In another you get told all about the planet you are about to be born in before you go there. The second most pointless one has some girl brought up in a black and white room reading about colours for the first half of her life, somebody would intervene on ethical grounds of you tried that irl, but hopefully the sanme is true of the worst one, where a psychopath ties people to tram rails and makes an idiot choose who dies.


You have no basis for such condescension toward me, or this proposal. In my considered opinion, it is a practical possibility, and furthermore, it's the right approach and best bet for a sustainable future.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6264
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Solving Climate Change.

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Vitruvius wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 4:18 pm
FlashDangerpants wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 3:15 pmI'm not entirely sure how your points are supposed to relate to each other there.
Really? I'm surprised. Your comprehension until now has been nothing short of prescient!
FlashDangerpants wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 3:15 pmAny unbiased observe would just note that you are weighing known and quatifiable challenges for technologies in the real world against unknown and unquantified challenges for a fantasy project.
A hypercritical unbiased observer maybe!
FlashDangerpants wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 3:15 pm You can easily search for power loss per 1000 km of high voltage direct current by the way, it's listed at 3.5%, and AC at 6.5. I don't raise this to accuse you of fiddling the figures so much as to show what I mean by quantifiable. Maybe materials science will step in with an accessible superconductor one day, but until that day, 3.5% per 1000 km seems like a surmountable problem anyway.
Okay, well you need a solar array of 225,000 square miles to meet current global energy demand. Solar panels last 25 years. Transmission costs aside, do you think you could finish building such an array before the first panels you installed needed replacing? How will you recycle them, and how will you produce more energy than you currently command from this source?
What you did there was reinforce two of my primary points in one shot. In the first case you are very clearly subjecting the technologies you don't like to harsher tests than the one you do like.

Secondly, look at those numbers you were able to assemble, now assemble similar for your thing. You can't even tell us how deep or wide your hole needs to be dug. Let alone how many of them are to be built, or how much water they would consume, or what the pipes will be made of, let alone what internal pressures those pipes need to withstand.

Vitruvius wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 4:18 pm
FlashDangerpants wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 3:15 pm If you don't want to play that game then what is everyone else supposed to do? Are we required to just humour and indulge you?
If you could just chip in with the occasional "Do go on" that'd be great. The odd "you're amazing" wouldn't go amiss either! But you do you!
FlashDangerpants wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 3:15 pm We see people with impractical projects to change the world all the time. Age is convinced he speaks on behalf of some ultimate reality and brings the wisdom that will save the Earth. Someone perfectly sane told me here that space mining for platinum would safeguard humanity's future against some catastrophe, I forget which. We had a dude who tried to launch his own special political party to utilise the power of corruption and multi level marketing to fix .... just all of the problems.
Impractical in what sense? Before you answer, consider that in order to produce fossil fuels, they build rigs at sea, and drill miles into the sea bed, for a toxic liquid that needs to be shipped and refined and shipped again, before it's where it's needed in a form that's useful. I expect I could adopt a credulous tone - dripping with sarcasm, and describe fossil fuel production in terms you wouldn't believe possible. How's about you cut the rhetoric and at least recognise that it would be desirable (if possible) to harness magma energy?
Yeah, that trick works as lon as you ignore a couple of facts. One is that oil drilling deep beneath the ocean works pretty well with existing technology and you, know designs that exist and materials that are real, shit like that. The other is that none of the people who design that stuff seem to want to get into magma drilling for some reason. Assuming you aren't a conspiracy nut, the fact that what you describe is an order of magnitude beyond their capabilities and they're the best experts in the world might suggest that the task is a very very difficult one.

Sure I can say " to harness magma energy". I can also say it would be nice to have a pet unicorn.
Vitruvius wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 4:18 pm
FlashDangerpants wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 3:15 pm I've already been told I am not "open and curious enough" to understand more mad-bastard schemes than you can shake a stick at. They always want cheerleaders instead of critics, but the scheme usually needs to be a bit less mad before that's on the cards.
I think it's good you're amusing yourself. Not amusing me much, but at least one of us is enjoying themselves!
FlashDangerpants wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 3:15 pm If you want to approach this as philosophy, you can make a thought experiment out of your magma energy thing no problem. We're quite used to impractical thought experiments where dumb things happen. In a famous one astronauts go to a new planet and find it's exactly the same as Earth except that they have no words for mind or any mind contents. In another you get told all about the planet you are about to be born in before you go there. The second most pointless one has some girl brought up in a black and white room reading about colours for the first half of her life, somebody would intervene on ethical grounds of you tried that irl, but hopefully the sanme is true of the worst one, where a psychopath ties people to tram rails and makes an idiot choose who dies.


You have no basis for such condescension toward me, or this proposal. In my considered opinion, it is a practical possibility, and furthermore, it's the right approach and best bet for a sustainable future.
You pulled the good-question and the i-can-anser-that-but-i-won't moves. You don't get to whine about condescension.
Vitruvius
Posts: 678
Joined: Mon May 10, 2021 9:46 am

Re: Solving Climate Change.

Post by Vitruvius »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 6:04 pm What you did there was reinforce two of my primary points in one shot. In the first case you are very clearly subjecting the technologies you don't like to harsher tests than the one you do like. Secondly, look at those numbers you were able to assemble, now assemble similar for your thing. You can't even tell us how deep or wide your hole needs to be dug. Let alone how many of them are to be built, or how much water they would consume, or what the pipes will be made of, let alone what internal pressures those pipes need to withstand.
You are totally shameless - asking me what I think are the biggest engineering challenges, and then using my answers against me - like they were your criticisms I've failed to answer.
FlashDangerpants wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 6:04 pmYeah, that trick works as lon as you ignore a couple of facts.
The only trickery here is yours.
FlashDangerpants wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 6:04 pm One is that oil drilling deep beneath the ocean works pretty well with existing technology and you, know designs that exist and materials that are real, shit like that. The other is that none of the people who design that stuff seem to want to get into magma drilling for some reason. Assuming you aren't a conspiracy nut, the fact that what you describe is an order of magnitude beyond their capabilities and they're the best experts in the world might suggest that the task is a very very difficult one. Sure I can say " to harness magma energy". I can also say it would be nice to have a pet unicorn.
One is that tying a flint to a stick works pretty well with the exiting technology and you, know designs that exist and materials and shit like that. The other is that none of the people who design that stuff seem to want to get into bronze for some reason. Assuming you aren't a conspiracy nut, the fact that what you describe is an order of magnitude beyond their capabilities and they're the best experts in the world might suggest that the task is a very very difficult one. Sure I can say "make axes of metal". I can also say it would be nice to have a pet unicorn.
FlashDangerpants wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 6:04 pm You pulled the good-question and the i-can-anser-that-but-i-won't moves. You don't get to whine about condescension.
I have not pulled any 'moves.' I have been entirely forthright and honest. I resent the continued suggestion that I am seeking to deceive. As implications of dishonesty are the basis of your condescension, I have every right to complain. There are important aspects of all this your continued eulogising on the limits of my engineering expertise is preventing from being discussed, so if that's all you have to say - thanks for your interest!
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8529
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Solving Climate Change.

Post by Sculptor »

Can you describe is basic form what is Magma Energy?
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6264
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Solving Climate Change.

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Vitruvius wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 10:00 pm
FlashDangerpants wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 6:04 pm What you did there was reinforce two of my primary points in one shot. In the first case you are very clearly subjecting the technologies you don't like to harsher tests than the one you do like. Secondly, look at those numbers you were able to assemble, now assemble similar for your thing. You can't even tell us how deep or wide your hole needs to be dug. Let alone how many of them are to be built, or how much water they would consume, or what the pipes will be made of, let alone what internal pressures those pipes need to withstand.
You are totally shameless - asking me what I think are the biggest engineering challenges, and then using my answers against me - like they were your criticisms I've failed to answer.
That's a non-sequitur. I was drawing attention to the fact you assert competing tech is fatally flawed on the basis of smaller issues than are faced by your own, and that you are apparently oblivious to your own motivated reasoning.

Vitruvius wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 10:00 pm
FlashDangerpants wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 6:04 pmYeah, that trick works as lon as you ignore a couple of facts.
The only trickery here is yours.
Trying to make this stuff personal hasn't worked for the other people who tried it.

Vitruvius wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 10:00 pm
FlashDangerpants wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 6:04 pm One is that oil drilling deep beneath the ocean works pretty well with existing technology and you, know designs that exist and materials that are real, shit like that. The other is that none of the people who design that stuff seem to want to get into magma drilling for some reason. Assuming you aren't a conspiracy nut, the fact that what you describe is an order of magnitude beyond their capabilities and they're the best experts in the world might suggest that the task is a very very difficult one. Sure I can say " to harness magma energy". I can also say it would be nice to have a pet unicorn.
One is that tying a flint to a stick works pretty well with the exiting technology and you, know designs that exist and materials and shit like that. The other is that none of the people who design that stuff seem to want to get into bronze for some reason. Assuming you aren't a conspiracy nut, the fact that what you describe is an order of magnitude beyond their capabilities and they're the best experts in the world might suggest that the task is a very very difficult one. Sure I can say "make axes of metal". I can also say it would be nice to have a pet unicorn.
I see what you're trying to do, but it fails for exactly the same reasons as the previous effort to do the same thing.

Vitruvius wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 10:00 pm
FlashDangerpants wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 6:04 pm You pulled the good-question and the i-can-anser-that-but-i-won't moves. You don't get to whine about condescension.
I have not pulled any 'moves.' I have been entirely forthright and honest. I resent the continued suggestion that I am seeking to deceive. As implications of dishonesty are the basis of your condescension, I have every right to complain. There are important aspects of all this your continued eulogising on the limits of my engineering expertise is preventing from being discussed, so if that's all you have to say - thanks for your interest!
You wrote.... "Thanks for your observations, but you haven't quite understood what I'm proposing. Some of your remarks are way off. Others I've already considered." Instead of addressing criticism. Which was condescending, and not a forthright answer.
Vitruvius
Posts: 678
Joined: Mon May 10, 2021 9:46 am

Re: Solving Climate Change.

Post by Vitruvius »

Sculptor wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 10:42 pmCan you describe is basic form what is Magma Energy?
Gladly. The term 'magma energy' is used to distinguish this method from other forms of geothermal, but it doesn't mean tapping directly into magma. Rather, the idea describes a plan to drill hot rock close to magma chambers and subduction zones, to access temperatures upwards of 700'C at a reachable depth.

The idea is to drill a hole into (plug-in design) or through (drill through design) - very hot rock, line the bore hole with pipes, and pump water through - creating enormous pressures to drive turbines to produce electricity.

This electricity will be converted into hydrogen fuel by electrolysis for distribution, due to the specific, remote geographical locations suited to magma energy production - it's the most economical way to get the energy to where it's needed.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8529
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Solving Climate Change.

Post by Sculptor »

Vitruvius wrote: Mon Aug 02, 2021 9:56 am
Sculptor wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 10:42 pmCan you describe is basic form what is Magma Energy?
Gladly. The term 'magma energy' is used to distinguish this method from other forms of geothermal, but it doesn't mean tapping directly into magma. Rather, the idea describes a plan to drill hot rock close to magma chambers and subduction zones, to access temperatures upwards of 700'C at a reachable depth.

The idea is to drill a hole into (plug-in design) or through (drill through design) - very hot rock, line the bore hole with pipes, and pump water through - creating enormous pressures to drive turbines to produce electricity.

This electricity will be converted into hydrogen fuel by electrolysis for distribution, due to the specific, remote geographical locations suited to magma energy production - it's the most economical way to get the energy to where it's needed.
Presumably the heat exchange is based on a liquid perhaps more sophisticated than water?
Drilling is costly and the depth would make that prohibitive
Since the actual heat is a function of the depth due to pressure, the more heat you need to deeper you have to go; the more depth you have the more robust would have to be your equipment.
How wide are the bores proposed?
How deep?
What is the fluid exchange substance?
I would imagine tha, depending on the choice of liquid you would not have to go very deep to get sufficient thermanl differential to some sort of turbine.
Why would the loci have to be "remote"?
Is there any practical demonstrations of this yet?
Vitruvius
Posts: 678
Joined: Mon May 10, 2021 9:46 am

Re: Solving Climate Change.

Post by Vitruvius »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 11:04 pmThat's a non-sequitur. I was drawing attention to the fact you assert competing tech is fatally flawed on the basis of smaller issues than are faced by your own, and that you are apparently oblivious to your own motivated reasoning.
Let's consider the misunderstandings in this short sentence alone. First, there aren't competing technologies, because the technology I describe doesn't yet exist. Second, I've already expressed the hope governments would develop magma energy as a global good - specifically to address climate change. So, even if it did exist, it would not be in competition. Third, wind and solar are inconstant and diffuse forms of energy, and so it's perfectly reasonable to point that magma energy would be constant, high grade energy. This is not double standards, or motivated reasoning. Now, that's just one sentence, and it's such a tangle of miscomprehension - it would take a small army of round the clock tutors, many years to fix. What follows is your second post on this subject and it's just as loaded with half grasped ideas. I was astonished by the length of it, and found it difficult to understand - because it's not what I'm talking about, and simply impossible to respond to, except to say this:

"Thanks for your observations, but you haven't quite understood what I'm proposing. Some of your remarks are way off. Others I've already considered."

"It has to be stable too. You need to drill a vertical pipe that will remain straight over a period of I think you have said 100 years, and that is going to be several kilometers deep? Most of the places where the magma is close to the surface are too seismically active for that, even before you start exploding vast quantities of water deep beneath the ground.

Given that you want to harness the power of capitalism to unleash the power of the volcano, you need to raise what sounds like many billions of dollars for your project, and if the capitalism talk was for real, that means raising the money from the markets. But the people who buy those bonds are insurance companies looking for a very reliable income over many decades. Not the guys to buy a fragile hole in an earthquake zone that might last 10 years or 100 and nobody can say for sure.

Vitruvius wrote: ↑Sat Jul 31, 2021 1:22 am
The second is drilling through high temperature rock - and I believe the technology already exists to drill within a pocket of inert gas coolant.
I think there may be additional challenges with that. If we consider the length of your exhaust pipe (not sure how long that is, but it's pretty damn long) and then its diameter, there's an internal volume that must amount to something in the order of fucktons. IT sounds like you hope to pour cold water into this hole from one pipe, and then have that water sublimated directly to super hot steam in sufficient quantity to fill the other pipe so fully that it exits at very high pressure.

That imposes certain conditions. Your hole is only deep enough once you are able to pour a certain amount of water, the sort of amount we might measure in olympic swimming pools per hour, and not lose any significant portion of its local heat. As you drill towards that zone, you will create friction and if you don't cart all your excess heat away, your drill is going to break long before you reach your destination. You can't just drop a bucket of dry ice down the hole to help with this - your inert gasses all expand just as the water vapour does unless you contain them with some enormous pressure somehow. It's not obvious how you could have a pocket of inert gas that worked the way you describe, instead you would end up needing to pipe astonishing quantities of something like liquid nitrogen, and then just venting the explosive output just as you later would do with the steam. But it would probably blow your hole up.

Vitruvius wrote: ↑Sat Jul 31, 2021 1:22 am
Third is the pipes - the idea is to line the bore holes with pipes, and pump liquid through. On the inside, the pipes need to be super smooth else condensation forms, lowering the pressure of the steam. That's a materials science question - I don't know the answer to.

Then there are all sorts of questions that follow from these answers, about the diameter of the bore hole, the flow of the pipe, the conduction of energy through the pipe into the evaporate, the temperature of the rock and the pressure of the steam - none of which I can answer.
If you don't want the pipes to crack, they will need to be very thoroughly encased because the pressure on the inside will be tremendous. the one venting the steam is going to get scoured from the inside though, so you need a mechanism to strip it out and replace it no matter what it's made of. It might only last days and then be offline for months while you bore it out and put a new pipe in. How pure will the water be that you feed into this machine?

Vitruvius wrote: ↑Sat Jul 31, 2021 1:22 am
Ultimately, every magma-thermal energy source will have unique characteristics, and methods and techniques to exploit magma-thermal energy would develop from the practice, and improve over time, increasing the potential of the technology. So, learn by doing - against the certainty there's an endless lake of fire down there!

It seems odd to me that you have been describing other low carbon sources as supremely flawed in this thread, when the technological barriers they face seem to be at least as surmountable as the the ones in your project, which you are kind just assuming are mere bagatelles.

I'm not even sure you've really thought through how difficult it might be in real life to deliver the water to the place you want it to go. There are probably valves involved, operating in very challenging circumstances where faulty units can't be replaced, but where the costs of installing redundant systems would greatly increase the size of the hole you needed to dig."


If you are offended, I'm sorry, but that was way too much, way too soon.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6264
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Solving Climate Change.

Post by FlashDangerpants »

You have a simple descriptive tension in your story and you are going to extravagant lengths not to recognise it. But it's really very simple and very obvious. So pay attention because everybody can see it.

You are describing this magma energy source as something that is totally acheivable, a foregone conlcusion that the engineering challenges can be overcome, just a small matter of project planning a little light materials science. And you are saying it's unfair, too soon, to ask questions about the geology, hydrodynamics, thermodynamics, design ...

For that alone you need to pick a lane. Either your tech claim is wildly ambitious, it's too soon to say what methods might make it workable. Or it's quite acheivable and you can say what methods are involved.

Meanwhile you are describing solar, wind, wave etc as some sort of hoodoo bullshit of failure. Two of them work and are commercially viable, but you don't like them much so you overdescribe their problems such as the need to overdeploy them (as if you won't have massive energy losses within your magma plan). But solar and wind can be incrementally improved, as can the power grid to distribute them, and it's always windy or sunny in lots of places at once. New end user batteries are already in development that don't use poisonous materials, new solar panels too and flow batteries for distribution are all on the way without any paradigm shift being required.

That's a second descriptive tension you impose quite wilfully of overlooking the shortcomings and risks of your own project while grandstanding about those of the others.

They are competing tech, they are there to solve the same pollution problems as yours is supposed to. That was a foolish objection.
Vitruvius
Posts: 678
Joined: Mon May 10, 2021 9:46 am

Re: Solving Climate Change.

Post by Vitruvius »

Sculptor wrote: Mon Aug 02, 2021 11:20 am Presumably the heat exchange is based on a liquid perhaps more sophisticated than water?
This isn't a heat exchange system. It's an option, but I hope not. I'd like to use water - more particularly, sea water, because there's plenty of it, and I'd like to condense the steam to produce fresh water, and salt, and use excess heat to extract carbon; then fix carbon as Na2CO3 for reinjection, sequestering carbon combined with salt.

Sculptor wrote: Mon Aug 02, 2021 11:20 amDrilling is costly and the depth would make that prohibitive.


We can't afford not to. Also, I don't suggest developing this as a commercial venture. In face of the threat of climate change, I suggest developing magma energy as a global good specifically to address climate change, and so while technological feasibility is a primary consideration, the costs involved - shared by the world, are virtually irrelevant.
Sculptor wrote: Mon Aug 02, 2021 11:20 amSince the actual heat is a function of the depth due to pressure, the more heat you need to deeper you have to go; the more depth you have the more robust would have to be your equipment.


Not necessarily. There are places where very high temperatures can be reached at fairly shallow depths; and that's the place to start. As the technology developed, I imagine we'd be able to dig deeper, and access even higher temperatures, and I'm sure that would imply greater demands upon the equipment. I need temperatures of 700'C to produce dry superheated steam - to get the most energy from steam pressure, but nothing I've proposed approaches the melting point of carbon steel - which is around 1800'C.
Sculptor wrote: Mon Aug 02, 2021 11:20 amHow wide are the bores proposed?


I can't say. Have you ever heard of Poiseuille’s Law? Now, conflate that with the laws of thermodynamics, and you get an idea of how complicated a question that is - even in principle, and it only gets more complex when applied to a specific location with unique energy characteristics.
Sculptor wrote: Mon Aug 02, 2021 11:20 amHow deep?
Can't say.
Sculptor wrote: Mon Aug 02, 2021 11:20 amWhat is the fluid exchange substance?
There is no fluid exchange substance. This system I've described works on high pressure steam directly driving generating turbines.
Sculptor wrote: Mon Aug 02, 2021 11:20 amI would imagine that, depending on the choice of liquid you would not have to go very deep to get sufficient thermanl differential to some sort of turbine.
If I were using heat differentials, or heat exchange - that might be the case. Kudos for looking into geothermal energy, but there are distinct differences between the approach I propose and currently existing methods, many of the drawbacks of which I'm seeking to account for.
Sculptor wrote: Mon Aug 02, 2021 11:20 amWhy would the loci have to be "remote"?
Not everywhere has a volcano on the doorstep, so - remote in that sense, and also, safety concerns. I'm looking first to the 450 volcanoes in the Pacific Ring of Fire - then there's about 130 in Iceland, 170 in the US and so on. This is a technology that will develop as it progresses, and will get safer, but it just makes sense to start out somewhere remote.
Sculptor wrote: Mon Aug 02, 2021 11:20 amIs there any practical demonstrations of this yet?
Depends what you mean. There are geothermal energy plants in operation. The US produces 3,450 MW of geothermal energy per year. (3.5 nuclear power stations worth.) But that's small fry when you consider the potential of the source. I think the IDDP project in Iceland is the kind of thing you're describing. What I want to do is very different - and that's why I call it magma energy, and not geothermal. The key difference is that in my design, the liquid (evaporate) is contained; turning into dry superheated steam within a pipe, producing enormous steam pressure - to drive turbines. There is not heat exchange between two liquids with different boiling points.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8529
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Solving Climate Change.

Post by Sculptor »

Vitruvius wrote: Mon Aug 02, 2021 1:03 pm
Sculptor wrote: Mon Aug 02, 2021 11:20 am Presumably the heat exchange is based on a liquid perhaps more sophisticated than water?
This isn't a heat exchange system. It's an option, but I hope not. I'd like to use water - more particularly, sea water, because there's plenty of it, and I'd like to condense the steam to produce fresh water, and salt, and use excess heat to extract carbon; then fix carbon as Na2CO3 for reinjection, sequestering carbon combined with salt.
Of course it is a heat exchange system!
Sea water is corrosive. SO that would be a bad option. THe system should not need to "use" any water since the system should recycle it rather than vent water.
What would you want to throw away water? You want to conservet the heat rather than punp it into the atmosphere.
I'm sure there must be so many better choices that water any way.

Sculptor wrote: Mon Aug 02, 2021 11:20 amDrilling is costly and the depth would make that prohibitive.


We can't afford not to.
That is such a bad answer
Also, I don't suggest developing this as a commercial venture. In face of the threat of climate change, I suggest developing magma energy as a global good specifically to address climate change, and so while technological feasibility is a primary consideration, the costs involved - shared by the world, are virtually irrelevant.
If it aint' commercail it will never happen
Sculptor wrote: Mon Aug 02, 2021 11:20 amSince the actual heat is a function of the depth due to pressure, the more heat you need to deeper you have to go; the more depth you have the more robust would have to be your equipment.


Not necessarily.
Yes, necessariy. Your deep pies will be under crushing perssure, the deeper the more crushing - this is basic science.
There are places where very high temperatures can be reached at fairly shallow depths; and that's the place to start.
That's all very well for Iceland, who already do plenty of geothermal energy. But the problem with expensie systems near volcanoes is that digging into the earth allows volcanoes to VENT. And that means destruction of your equipment.
As the technology developed, I imagine we'd be able to dig deeper, and access even higher temperatures, and I'm sure that would imply greater demands upon the equipment. I need temperatures of 700'C to produce dry superheated steam - to get the most energy from steam pressure, but nothing I've proposed approaches the melting point of carbon steel - which is around 1800'C.
LOL. And what are you going to make your pipes from?? Magical fairy dust?
Sculptor wrote: Mon Aug 02, 2021 11:20 amHow wide are the bores proposed?


I can't say. Have you ever heard of Poiseuille’s Law? Now, conflate that with the laws of thermodynamics, and you get an idea of how complicated a question that is - even in principle, and it only gets more complex when applied to a specific location with unique energy characteristics.
Yes, so I thought. You do not really have a clear idea of how all this works.
Sculptor wrote: Mon Aug 02, 2021 11:20 amHow deep?
Can't say.
Sculptor wrote: Mon Aug 02, 2021 11:20 amWhat is the fluid exchange substance?
There is no fluid exchange substance. This system I've described works on high pressure steam directly driving generating turbines.
Head SLAP
Sculptor wrote: Mon Aug 02, 2021 11:20 amI would imagine that, depending on the choice of liquid you would not have to go very deep to get sufficient thermanl differential to some sort of turbine.
If I were using heat differentials, or heat exchange - that might be the case. Kudos for looking into geothermal energy, but there are distinct differences between the approach I propose and currently existing methods, many of the drawbacks of which I'm seeking to account for.
Sculptor wrote: Mon Aug 02, 2021 11:20 amWhy would the loci have to be "remote"?
Not everywhere has a volcano on the doorstep, so - remote in that sense, and also, safety concerns. I'm looking first to the 450 volcanoes in the Pacific Ring of Fire - then there's about 130 in Iceland, 170 in the US and so on. This is a technology that will develop as it progresses, and will get safer, but it just makes sense to start out somewhere remote.
Sculptor wrote: Mon Aug 02, 2021 11:20 amIs there any practical demonstrations of this yet?
Depends what you mean. There are geothermal energy plants in operation. The US produces 3,450 MW of geothermal energy per year. (3.5 nuclear power stations worth.) But that's small fry when you consider the potential of the source. I think the IDDP project in Iceland is the kind of thing you're describing. What I want to do is very different - and that's why I call it magma energy, and not geothermal. The key difference is that in my design, the liquid (evaporate) is contained; turning into dry superheated steam within a pipe, producing enormous steam pressure - to drive turbines. There is not heat exchange between two liquids with different boiling points.
You are clueless.
Please acquaint yourself with the relevant information.
It seems at the momet you have some vauge idea of drilling a hole of unknown depth and unknown bore, chucking water down the hole and expecting to catch the steam to run a turbine.
Good luck with that.
Vitruvius
Posts: 678
Joined: Mon May 10, 2021 9:46 am

Re: Solving Climate Change.

Post by Vitruvius »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Mon Aug 02, 2021 12:59 pm Either your tech claim is wildly ambitious, it's too soon to say what methods might make it workable. Or it's quite acheivable and you can say what methods are involved.
It's a wildly ambitious idea I think is technologically feasible, and necessary to adequately address climate change.
FlashDangerpants wrote: Mon Aug 02, 2021 12:59 pm You are describing this magma energy source as something that is totally acheivable, a foregone conlcusion that the engineering challenges can be overcome, just a small matter of project planning a little light materials science. And you are saying it's unfair, too soon, to ask questions about the geology, hydrodynamics, thermodynamics, design ... Meanwhile you are describing solar, wind, wave etc as some sort of hoodoo bullshit of failure.
If wind and solar were adequate to address climate change, I wouldn't waste my time with magma energy.
FlashDangerpants wrote: Mon Aug 02, 2021 12:59 pm Two of them work and are commercially viable,
But are inadequate to address climate change.
FlashDangerpants wrote: Mon Aug 02, 2021 12:59 pm but you don't like them much so you overdescribe their problems such as the need to overdeploy them (as if you won't have massive energy losses within your magma plan). But solar and wind can be incrementally improved, as can the power grid to distribute them, and it's always windy or sunny in lots of places at once. New end user batteries are already in development that don't use poisonous materials, new solar panels too and flow batteries for distribution are all on the way without any paradigm shift being required.
I like wind and solar just fine, for what they are suited to - small scale, off grid energy production. If the question were: "How can I power my caravan in the bush?" - I'd definitely be looking to wind or solar. But I'm asking "What form of energy can replace fossil fuels?" and wind and solar cannot. Reliance on wind and solar as a response to climate change therefore, not only implies the ongoing need for fossil fuel back-up generating capacity, but that we can never overcome the limits to growth implied by fossil fuels, and can only be forced backward down a bottleneck of ever tightening regulation. If you're not getting this then you are missing the whole point - magma energy (I believe) is adequate to replace fossil fuels, and so does not require a "pay more, have less, tax this, stop that" - approach to sustainability imposed on the population by governments, while still burning coal, oil and gas.
Vitruvius
Posts: 678
Joined: Mon May 10, 2021 9:46 am

Re: Solving Climate Change.

Post by Vitruvius »

Sculptor wrote: Mon Aug 02, 2021 1:32 pm You are clueless. Please acquaint yourself with the relevant information. It seems at the momet you have some vauge idea of drilling a hole of unknown depth and unknown bore, chucking water down the hole and expecting to catch the steam to run a turbine. Good luck with that.
Ah, I see you've read my proposal. Thank you. Good luck to you too!

What a nice man!


p.s. Would you care to say a little more about your desire to "completely transform global financial markets" - if only to give some idea of what you consider credible or desirable!

Sculptor wrote: Thu Jul 29, 2021 7:43 pmI think a complete transformation of the global financial markets is going to have to be the first priority, else we are lost.
What are you going to transform them into?

A chicken?
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6264
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Solving Climate Change.

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Vitruvius wrote: Mon Aug 02, 2021 1:58 pm
FlashDangerpants wrote: Mon Aug 02, 2021 12:59 pm Either your tech claim is wildly ambitious, it's too soon to say what methods might make it workable. Or it's quite acheivable and you can say what methods are involved.
It's a wildly ambitious idea I think is technologically feasible, and necessary to adequately address climate change.
Okay then. So you can describe how you can make it feasible without wishful thinking or batting aside questions with comments like "I've already thought about that".

Sculptor is right though, this additiona of sea water means your exhaust pipe is going to be blasted with a quite satanic mix of salt and steam that will wear it away. So you need to demonstrate some sort of regular maintenance to replace those pipes, the location seems daunting though. Are you sure all the salt will even come out with the steam, these pipes won't be easy to clean either. Cold seawater is why wave energy is so difficult, red hot seawater is odd.
Vitruvius wrote: Mon Aug 02, 2021 1:58 pm
FlashDangerpants wrote: Mon Aug 02, 2021 12:59 pm You are describing this magma energy source as something that is totally acheivable, a foregone conlcusion that the engineering challenges can be overcome, just a small matter of project planning a little light materials science. And you are saying it's unfair, too soon, to ask questions about the geology, hydrodynamics, thermodynamics, design ... Meanwhile you are describing solar, wind, wave etc as some sort of hoodoo bullshit of failure.
If wind and solar were adequate to address climate change, I wouldn't waste my time with magma energy.
They're progressing rather nicely though, and can do so via incremental change. You need an as yet unknowable number of new technologies, fail in any one of them and your project goes nowhere.
Vitruvius wrote: Mon Aug 02, 2021 1:58 pm
FlashDangerpants wrote: Mon Aug 02, 2021 12:59 pm Two of them work and are commercially viable,
But are inadequate to address climate change.
But they both have the virtue of limitless energy from a pollution free source. The only thing your magma dream has that they don't is that you like one and you don't like the other. If you approached wind energy with the same pangalossian enthusiasm you reserve for this communist-volcano-irrigation tech of yours, you would say that is the cure for global warming.
Vitruvius wrote: Mon Aug 02, 2021 1:58 pm
FlashDangerpants wrote: Mon Aug 02, 2021 12:59 pm but you don't like them much so you overdescribe their problems such as the need to overdeploy them (as if you won't have massive energy losses within your magma plan). But solar and wind can be incrementally improved, as can the power grid to distribute them, and it's always windy or sunny in lots of places at once. New end user batteries are already in development that don't use poisonous materials, new solar panels too and flow batteries for distribution are all on the way without any paradigm shift being required.
I like wind and solar just fine, for what they are suited to - small scale, off grid energy production. If the question were: "How can I power my caravan in the bush?" - I'd definitely be looking to wind or solar. But I'm asking "What form of energy can replace fossil fuels?" and wind and solar cannot. Reliance on wind and solar as a response to climate change therefore, not only implies the ongoing need for fossil fuel back-up generating capacity, but that we can never overcome the limits to growth implied by fossil fuels, and can only be forced backward down a bottleneck of ever tightening regulation. If you're not getting this then you are missing the whole point - magma energy (I believe) is adequate to replace fossil fuels, and so does not require a "pay more, have less, tax this, stop that" - approach to sustainability imposed on the population by governments, while still burning coal, oil and gas.
That's very dramatic, but we can end fossil fuel usage by developing a handful of technologies, and we have candidates for most them under development at competing institutions. If you are really into campaigning against carbon, I would suggest getting behind the carbon tax proposals which are less awe-inducing and sci-fi, but tangible, and would actually address the problem.
Post Reply