Solving Climate Change.

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Vitruvius
Posts: 678
Joined: Mon May 10, 2021 9:46 am

Re: Solving Climate Change.

Post by Vitruvius »

Age wrote: Thu Jul 29, 2021 4:35 am Call 'me' whatever you like.
How can I pass up an opportunity like that? Brace yourself!
Age wrote: Thu Jul 29, 2021 4:35 am Okay. So, to you, human behavior does NOT cause 'climate change', and ONLY 'fossil fuel use' causes 'climate change'. To you, will 'magma fuel use' cause 'climate change', or is 'magma fuel use' a 'clean energy'?


The left wing approach to climate change blames everything on the end consumer - and so when you say human behaviour causes climate change, you imply the same thing: stop eating meat, stop flying, stop driving - to address climate change, and that's the wrong approach.

I call my approach "magma energy" to distinguish it from geothermal. It is slightly misleading, because you're right - you do not want to release magma. It's boiling hot, under enormous pressure, and contains lots of volatiles, including Co2. But then geothermal is also misleading because, most geothermal is actually hydrothermal - tapping into underground hot water. This has inherent limitations. Underground water can only hold so much energy, and so there's a limit to how much energy can be drawn over time. This is called the replacement rate. My approach is specifically designed to avoid this problem, and avoid causing geological instabilities. The energy I'm after is constant, clean and massive base load energy - and I believe there's a virtually limitless amount of such energy available, more than enough to replace fossil fuels. That so, people can continue to live free and prosper.
Age wrote: Thu Jul 29, 2021 4:35 am WHY would you "doubt it"? 'need', can NOT live without.
I said why later in the post, but of course - you didn't read my post before replying. You responded line by line - and understood nothing. And here's the proof:
Age wrote: Thu Jul 29, 2021 4:35 am AND, as I said earlier: 'One mistake with "your alternative" could release MORE CARBON into the atmosphere than using fossil fuels do, in the days when this is being written.'


I explained later in the post you're responding to, why this isn't an issue, but you haven't read that far yet. So you keep repeating points I've already addressed. So again, no - as I do not propose drilling directly into a magma chamber, just through the hot rock surrounding the magma chamber.
Age wrote: Thu Jul 29, 2021 4:35 am Would the term "magma energy" then be somewhat misleading? Also, is carbon dioxide from magma released through water or not? And, when does one KNOW EXACTLY where to stop drilling?
If you'd read my post first, understood it and replied afterwards, I wouldn't have to tell you again, yes, it's slightly misleading if you're a moron who doesn't take anything in, even after being told three times previously why it's magma energy, and not geothermal.

Water doesn't contain carbon. It's two hydrogen atoms and an oxygen atom. H2O! FFS! And Seismology - basically, the science of setting off a small explosion and listening to the echo to map underground structures.
Age wrote: Thu Jul 29, 2021 4:35 am LOL You completely and utterly MISSED the POINT.


Your point was trivial and stupid, so I ignored it! I considered explaining concisely why large human population centres - in which literally trillions of pounds, dollars and yuan have been invested, are more vulnerable to extreme weather than small bands of nomadic humans, but thought this so blatantly obvious it didn't need saying. But then you think water contains carbon, so - your point that humans have lived with floods, hurricanes and droughts for millions of years is noted.
Age wrote: Thu Jul 29, 2021 4:35 am As someone suggested earlier why not just go and do what you BELIEVE WHOLEHEARTEDLY will work, instead of just talking about it?
As I explained to that person, I don't have the money. If I had the money, I would. To do the job properly, I need about $10bn for the first five years, to build the working prototype. Then I'd need more money to scale up. It's not a lot of money in the grand scheme of things, when you consider the damage climate change causes, but it's way out of my reach. That's institutional investor money - governments, banks, major corporations.
Age wrote: Thu Jul 29, 2021 4:35 amWill YOUR WAY work for EVERY one, EQUALLY?
No. My intention is to sustain capitalism, and capitalism creates inequalities. Inequality is good - it means someone has succeeded in producing social goods. Equality is not something I value, because it's jealous of success, unjust, and does not work as a political and economic system. If a brain surgeon and a road sweeper get the same standard of living, why put in the hard work to become a brain surgeon? Communism has failed, repeatedly - and committed genocides that make Hitler look like an amateur murderous lunatic. Capitalism works, and based on limitless clean energy from magma - would make a paradise of the earth and take us to the stars.
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Solving Climate Change.

Post by Age »

Vitruvius wrote: Thu Jul 29, 2021 11:31 am
Age wrote: Thu Jul 29, 2021 4:35 am
Call 'me' whatever you like.
How can I pass up an opportunity like that? Brace yourself!
Age wrote: Thu Jul 29, 2021 4:35 am Okay. So, to you, human behavior does NOT cause 'climate change', and ONLY 'fossil fuel use' causes 'climate change'. To you, will 'magma fuel use' cause 'climate change', or is 'magma fuel use' a 'clean energy'?


The left wing approach to climate change blames everything on the end consumer - and so when you say human behaviour causes climate change, you imply the same thing: stop eating meat, stop flying, stop driving - to address climate change, and that's the wrong approach.
But I do NOT 'imply" ANY such things.

That I "imply" those things is of your OWN IMAGINATION and ASSUMPTION. So, ONCE AGAIN, you are completely and utterly Wrong.
Vitruvius wrote: Thu Jul 29, 2021 11:31 am I call my approach "magma energy" to distinguish it from geothermal. It is slightly misleading, because you're right - you do not want to release magma. It's boiling hot, under enormous pressure, and contains lots of volatiles, including Co2. But then geothermal is also misleading because, most geothermal is actually hydrothermal - tapping into underground hot water. This has inherent limitations. Underground water can only hold so much energy, and so there's a limit to how much energy can be drawn over time. This is called the replacement rate. My approach is specifically designed to avoid this problem, and avoid causing geological instabilities. The energy I'm after is constant, clean and massive base load energy - and I believe there's a virtually limitless amount of such energy available, more than enough to replace fossil fuels. That so, people can continue to live free and prosper.
How exactly does one drive motor vehicles or fly airplanes with the the "energy that you are after"?
Age wrote: Thu Jul 29, 2021 4:35 am WHY would you "doubt it"? 'need', can NOT live without.
I said why later in the post, but of course - you didn't read my post before replying. You responded line by line - and understood nothing. And here's the proof:

But your "later on" "why" was just ANOTHER ASSUMPTION, which was CLEARLY Wrong, ANYWAY.
Vitruvius wrote: Thu Jul 29, 2021 11:31 am
Age wrote: Thu Jul 29, 2021 4:35 am AND, as I said earlier: 'One mistake with "your alternative" could release MORE CARBON into the atmosphere than using fossil fuels do, in the days when this is being written.'


I explained later in the post you're responding to, why this isn't an issue, but you haven't read that far yet. So you keep repeating points I've already addressed. So again, no - as I do not propose drilling direly into a magma chamber, just through the hot rock surrounding the magma chamber.
I KNOW you said that. And it was because of EXACTLY what you did say that I said what I did. Which was; 'One mistake with "your alternative" could release MORE CARBON ...'.

I said this BECAUSE when would one KNOW, EXACTLY, when to STOP drilling?

And I NEVER said ANYWHERE about drilling directly into a magma chamber. So, who is NOT reading can be CLEARLY SEEN and PROVEN here now.
Vitruvius wrote: Thu Jul 29, 2021 11:31 am
Age wrote: Thu Jul 29, 2021 4:35 am Would the term "magma energy" then be somewhat misleading? Also, is carbon dioxide from magma released through water or not? And, when does one KNOW EXACTLY where to stop drilling?
If you'd read my post first, understood it and replied afterwards, I wouldn't have to tell you again, yes, it's slightly misleading to a moron who doesn't take anything in even after being told three times previously, why it's magma energy, and not geothermal.
LOL You answer AFTER I ask the questions, then ACCUSE me of NOT reading.

I ask those specific CLARIFYING QUESTIONS because of EXACTLY what you had previously written.
Vitruvius wrote: Thu Jul 29, 2021 11:31 am Water doesn't contain carbon. It's two hydrogen atoms and an oxygen atom. H2O! FFS! And Seismology - basically, the science of setting off a small explosion and listening to the echo to map underground structures.
Age wrote: Thu Jul 29, 2021 4:35 am LOL You completely and utterly MISSED the POINT.


Your point was trivial and stupid, so I ignored it!
But you ACTUALLY responded to what I wrote. You just MISSED the POINT in what I wrote.
Vitruvius wrote: Thu Jul 29, 2021 11:31 am I considered explaining concisely why large human population centres - in which literally trillions of pounds, dollars and yuan have been invested, are more vulnerable to extreme weather than small bands of nomadic humans, but thought this so blatantly obvious it didn't need saying. But then you think water contains carbon, so - your point that humans have lived with floods, hurricanes and droughts for millions of years is noted.
If carbon dioxide is NOT released through water from magma, then take that up with the sources that provide that information.

Oh, and by the way, I NEVER said humans have lived with "droughts" for millions of years.
Vitruvius wrote: Thu Jul 29, 2021 11:31 am
Age wrote: Thu Jul 29, 2021 4:35 am As someone suggested earlier why not just go and do what you BELIEVE WHOLEHEARTEDLY will work, instead of just talking about it?
As I explained to that person, I don't have the money. If I had the money, I would.
So, we are back to money, which is derived from the 'love of money', which is a Truly UNNECESSARY thing in Life.
Vitruvius wrote: Thu Jul 29, 2021 11:31 am To do the job properly, I need about $10bn for the first five years, to build the working prototype. Then I'd need more money to scale up. It's not a lot of money in the grand scheme of things, when you consider the damage climate change causes, but it's way out of my reach. That's institutional investor money - governments, banks, major corporations.
Who ALL want their money BACK, and then MORE. So, we are back to 'greed' just continually making the issue WORSE.
Vitruvius wrote: Thu Jul 29, 2021 11:31 am
Age wrote: Thu Jul 29, 2021 4:35 amWill YOUR WAY work for EVERY one, EQUALLY?
No.
So, just MORE GREED. Where some prosper while "others" suffer.
Vitruvius wrote: Thu Jul 29, 2021 11:31 am My intention is to sustain capitalism, and capitalism creates inequalities. Inequality is good - it means someone has succeeded in producing social goods. Equality is not something I value, because it's unjust, and does not work as a political and economic system.
LOL
LOL
LOL

So, we are back to the first question of yours, which I have ALREADY answered. The reason WHY 'you', adult human beings, in the days when this was written, had NOT YET solved 'climate change' is because of your greedy behaviors, which Truthfully are ONLY exasperating 'climate change', itself.
Vitruvius wrote: Thu Jul 29, 2021 11:31 am If a brain surgeon and a road sweeper get the same standard of living, why put in the hard work to become a brain surgeon?
What "hard work"?

Also, and by the way, there will ALWAYS be different people prepared to do different things to keep their community running along efficiently and smoothly.
Vitruvius wrote: Thu Jul 29, 2021 11:31 am Communism has failed, repeatedly - and committed genocides that make Hitler look like an amateur murderous lunatic. Capitalism works, and based on limitless clean energy from magma - would make a paradise of the earth and take us to the stars.
'Capitalism' "works" in relation to 'what', EXACTLY?

'Capitalism', or more correctly, 'greed', by the way, is what caused 'climate change' and is causing 'climate change' to get WORSE all the time.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8477
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Solving Climate Change.

Post by Sculptor »

Vitruvius wrote: Wed Jul 28, 2021 6:58 pm
Sculptor wrote: Wed Jul 28, 2021 4:23 pmIt's the AC that is causing it globally! When you cool down all that heat goes into the atmosphere.
If you ran AC from clean energy, the heat transfer alone would not be an issue globally. The chemical refrigerants used in AC systems can be a hazard. CFC's and whatnot, but that's hole in the ozone layer, not climate change per se. CFC's have been banned globally - which is kind of encouraging to those of us concerned with climate change, that global action was taken to solve an immediate threat. Limitless clean energy from magma could replace fossil fuels - and then, running the AC would not create carbon emissions. You could use it all day long, no problem.
DO you really think there is ultimately ANYTHING that could be called "clean" energy?
Vitruvius
Posts: 678
Joined: Mon May 10, 2021 9:46 am

Re: Solving Climate Change.

Post by Vitruvius »

Age wrote: Thu Jul 29, 2021 12:16 pm But I do NOT 'imply" ANY such things. That I "imply" those things is of your OWN IMAGINATION and ASSUMPTION. So, ONCE AGAIN, you are completely and utterly Wrong.
Are you aware that you're coming across as intellectually insecure - desperately trying to outdo someone who has studied a subject for years; failing miserably, and then getting angry about it? If you want to be understood better, write better - if you can! Try and be aware that, I'm not inside your head - aware of what your words mean to you. The reader only has your words to go on - as they appear on the page. So try saying the same thing in different ways, so that the reader can triangulate exactly what you mean - if exactitude is important to you. I'm not willing to be dragged into a discussion about the discussion, so - I'll leave it there. Thank you for your interest.
Last edited by Vitruvius on Thu Jul 29, 2021 1:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Vitruvius
Posts: 678
Joined: Mon May 10, 2021 9:46 am

Re: Solving Climate Change.

Post by Vitruvius »

Sculptor wrote: Thu Jul 29, 2021 12:38 pm DO you really think there is ultimately ANYTHING that could be called "clean" energy?
Clean energy is a term used to describe energy that doesn't produce greenhouse gases as a consequence of its generation, so yes! Admittedly, the infrastructure would need to be built with fossil fuels. It would require metals that need mining and processing, to say nothing of a million miles of plastic insulation for cables and the like. This is a big issue for wind and solar - because they cost a fortune to build, require a lot of rare and toxic metals, last around 25 years, are very difficult to recycle, and cannot ever replace fossil fuels. Magma energy can replace fossil fuels, and the core infrastructure - once built, will last a century. And when it does need replacing, can be replaced using clean energy to mine and process, manufacture and recycle - so ultimately, yes!
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8477
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Solving Climate Change.

Post by Sculptor »

Vitruvius wrote: Thu Jul 29, 2021 1:32 pm
Sculptor wrote: Thu Jul 29, 2021 12:38 pm DO you really think there is ultimately ANYTHING that could be called "clean" energy?
Clean energy is a term used to describe energy that doesn't produce greenhouse gases as a consequence of its generation, so yes!
That would be none.
Admittedly, the infrastructure would need to be built with fossil fuels. It would require metals that need mining and processing, to say nothing of a million miles of plastic insulation for cables and the like. This is a big issue for wind and solar - because they cost a fortune to build, require a lot of rare and toxic metals, last around 25 years, are very difficult to recycle, and cannot ever replace fossil fuels. Magma energy can replace fossil fuels, and the core infrastructure - once built, will last a century. And when it does need replacing, can be replaced using clean energy to mine and process, manufacture and recycle - so ultimately, yes!
SO tell me what energy source does not produce greenhouse gasses please.
simplicity
Posts: 750
Joined: Thu May 20, 2021 5:23 pm

Re: Solving Climate Change.

Post by simplicity »

Vitruvius wrote: Thu Jul 29, 2021 4:07 am
simplicity wrote: Thu Jul 29, 2021 3:24 am
You might wish to seek some help for your anger issues.

Good luck!
I'm not angry - I'm just disappointed.
Things are not going to go well on this board if you call people names and accuse them of being [fill in the blank]. Most people here [although quite diverse in their opinions] are respectful and polite. And after all, everybody has their own truth [I know, that subjective thing, but 1000 people seeing the same thing will have 1000 different opinions based on their previous experiences]. It's what makes this interesting!
Vitruvius
Posts: 678
Joined: Mon May 10, 2021 9:46 am

Re: Solving Climate Change.

Post by Vitruvius »

Sculptor wrote: Thu Jul 29, 2021 2:54 pm
Vitruvius wrote: Thu Jul 29, 2021 1:32 pm
Sculptor wrote: Thu Jul 29, 2021 12:38 pm DO you really think there is ultimately ANYTHING that could be called "clean" energy?
Clean energy is a term used to describe energy that doesn't produce greenhouse gases as a consequence of its generation, so yes!
That would be none.

Admittedly, the infrastructure would need to be built with fossil fuels. It would require metals that need mining and processing, to say nothing of a million miles of plastic insulation for cables and the like. This is a big issue for wind and solar - because they cost a fortune to build, require a lot of rare and toxic metals, last around 25 years, are very difficult to recycle, and cannot ever replace fossil fuels. Magma energy can replace fossil fuels, and the core infrastructure - once built, will last a century. And when it does need replacing, can be replaced using clean energy to mine and process, manufacture and recycle - so ultimately, yes!
SO tell me what energy source does not produce greenhouse gasses please.
If your point is that no form of energy is entirely "clean" end to end, then I wish you'd just make that point already! Because then I could go on to talk about 'overshoot day' which is the day of the year when it is claimed that human activities exceed the capacity of the earth to regenerate, such that we are operating at an environmental deficit. Thinking of it in these terms, it follows that no form of energy need be clean end to end - and the point you're not quite making, but clearly alluding to - is actually an unrealistic standard used to distract from the question of the optimal technological approach. Given the scale and nature of the threat I would argue for developing magma energy as a global good, for the purpose of overcoming climate change - rather than take home a basket of half assed yet hard to deliver promises from COP 26, I'd like to see governments commit instead to a technologically feasible - large scale project to develop a form of energy that will one day succeed fossil fuels. In the meantime sequester carbon, desalinate, irrigate and recycle, mitigating and adapting to climate change while building capacity - giving us time, and choice about how we transition. It avoids a lot of the dangers and conflicts of interest in the future - and might just be the shot in the arm the world needs right now!
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8477
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Solving Climate Change.

Post by Sculptor »

Vitruvius wrote: Thu Jul 29, 2021 5:26 pm
Sculptor wrote: Thu Jul 29, 2021 2:54 pm
Vitruvius wrote: Thu Jul 29, 2021 1:32 pm

Clean energy is a term used to describe energy that doesn't produce greenhouse gases as a consequence of its generation, so yes!
That would be none.

Admittedly, the infrastructure would need to be built with fossil fuels. It would require metals that need mining and processing, to say nothing of a million miles of plastic insulation for cables and the like. This is a big issue for wind and solar - because they cost a fortune to build, require a lot of rare and toxic metals, last around 25 years, are very difficult to recycle, and cannot ever replace fossil fuels. Magma energy can replace fossil fuels, and the core infrastructure - once built, will last a century. And when it does need replacing, can be replaced using clean energy to mine and process, manufacture and recycle - so ultimately, yes!
SO tell me what energy source does not produce greenhouse gasses please.
If your point is that no form of energy is entirely "clean" end to end, then I wish you'd just make that point already!
I already did.
Because then I could go on to talk about 'overshoot day' which is the day of the year when it is claimed that human activities exceed the capacity of the earth to regenerate, such that we are operating at an environmental deficit. Thinking of it in these terms, it follows that no form of energy need be clean end to end - and the point you're not quite making, but clearly alluding to - is actually an unrealistic standard used to distract from the question of the optimal technological approach.
No. THere is far too much pretedning with idiotic "carbon trading" and fasle targets. If we want to get serious we need to look at the entire impact of our civilisation.
Not just pretend that stuff is "clean" because nothing is.
Given the scale and nature of the threat I would argue for developing magma energy as a global good, for the purpose of overcoming climate change - rather than take home a basket of half assed yet hard to deliver promises from COP 26, I'd like to see governments commit instead to a technologically feasible - large scale project to develop a form of energy that will one day succeed fossil fuels. In the meantime sequester carbon, desalinate, irrigate and recycle, mitigating and adapting to climate change while building capacity - giving us time, and choice about how we transition. It avoids a lot of the dangers and conflicts of interest in the future - and might just be the shot in the arm the world needs right now!
I think a complete transformation of the global financial markets is going to have to be the first priority, else we are lost.
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Solving Climate Change.

Post by Age »

Vitruvius wrote: Thu Jul 29, 2021 1:14 pm
Age wrote: Thu Jul 29, 2021 12:16 pm But I do NOT 'imply" ANY such things. That I "imply" those things is of your OWN IMAGINATION and ASSUMPTION. So, ONCE AGAIN, you are completely and utterly Wrong.
Are you aware that you're coming across as intellectually insecure - desperately trying to outdo someone who has studied a subject for years; failing miserably, and then getting angry about it?
WHAT???

I am JUST informing you that what you ASSUMED I was doing was Wrong. That is ALL.

And for now;

If you are interpreting and assuming that I am "intellectually insecure" this is of absolutely NO concern to me.

I am NOT trying, desperately or any other way, to "outdo" you of ANY thing. So, I can NOT "fail" in regards to 'that'.

And, I am CERTAINLY NOT "angry" about ANY thing here.

So, ONCE AGAIN I have informed you that what you are now ASSUMING is ALSO Wrong.
Vitruvius wrote: Thu Jul 29, 2021 1:14 pm
If you want to be understood better, write better - if you can!
How does one learn how to write better, EXACTLY?
Vitruvius wrote: Thu Jul 29, 2021 1:14 pm Try and be aware that, I'm not inside your head - aware of what your words mean to you.
I KNOW.

This is something BEST REMEMBERED by EVERY one.
Vitruvius wrote: Thu Jul 29, 2021 1:14 pm The reader only has your words to go on - as they appear on the page.
OBVIOUSLY.
Vitruvius wrote: Thu Jul 29, 2021 1:14 pm So try saying the same thing in different ways, so that the reader can triangulate exactly what you mean - if exactitude is important to you.
Fair enough. But how about you trying your OWN advice here. Remember you are the one who just copied and pasted your OWN EXACT previous writings. And remember, if you are expecting ANY thing different by just doing the EXACT SAME thing over and over, what this is associated with.

Also NOTED is your REFUSAL to answer CLARIFYING QUESTIONS posed to you in regards to what you have ACTUALLY SAID here.

So, if exactitude is important to you, then I suggest you at least even attempt to answer the CLARIFYING QUESTIONS posed to you. Otherwise how do the readers gain CLARITY, from you? They are NOT inside your head, aware of what your words mean to you, et cetera, et cetera.

I asked you:
How exactly does one drive motor vehicles or fly airplanes with the the "energy that you are after"?

If you REFUSE to answer, or are INCAPABLE of answering, the CLARIFYING QUESTIONS posed to you, then the ONLY one who is FAILING here is 'you', "vitruvius".

Let us NOT FORGET that it was 'you', "vitruvius", who made the CLAIM:

The energy I'm after is constant, clean and massive base load energy - and I believe there's a virtually limitless amount of such energy available, more than enough to replace fossil fuels.

What I suggest is that you have ALL the EVIDENCE and PROOF that you will use to back up and support YOUR CLAIM FULLY, BEFORE you make the CLAIM public, in the first place. Understood?
Vitruvius wrote: Thu Jul 29, 2021 1:14 pm I'm not willing to be dragged into a discussion about the discussion, so - I'll leave it there. Thank you for your interest.
Okay. So if you do NOT bring into the discussion things about the discussion, then you will NOT be dragging "others" into the discussion about the discussion.
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Solving Climate Change.

Post by Age »

Vitruvius wrote: Wed Jul 28, 2021 6:58 pm
Sculptor wrote: Wed Jul 28, 2021 4:23 pmIt's the AC that is causing it globally! When you cool down all that heat goes into the atmosphere.
If you ran AC from clean energy, the heat transfer alone would not be an issue globally.
How many air conditioners were you thinking of when you wrote this?

And, are you really 'trying to' suggest here that if we, let us say, put a dome over a city for example, and if EVERY motor vehicle, house, factory, industrial complex, shop, and shopping mall within that dome turned on their air conditioners, then the "outside" of those human created things would NOT warm up the 'atmosphere' within that dome?

Now, times this by an EVER-increasing growing number of air conditioners globally, and do you still think running air conditioners from ANY source the heat transfer alone would NOT be an issue globally?

Obviously, there would have to become a 'tipping point' where there would enough air conditioners that heat transfer would be an issue.

The WHOLE POINT of the 'climate change' topic is whether human beings are creating a global warming occurrence outside of what would have been a 'normal' occurrence if human beings were NOT here, correct?

Also, let us NOT forget that if there were enough air conditioners running, which the heat transfer from them was warming up the atmosphere outside of the place where the air is being conditioned/cooled within, which is OBVIOUSLY EVERY one of them, then what would occur is EVERY one would turn their air conditioner to 'cooler' because it is getting warmer, outside. Which, in turn, increases the effect exponentially. And this is to NOT even mention the heat being released from the 'hot rocks', which could be called "magma energy".
Vitruvius wrote: Wed Jul 28, 2021 6:58 pm The chemical refrigerants used in AC systems can be a hazard. CFC's and whatnot, but that's hole in the ozone layer, not climate change per se. CFC's have been banned globally - which is kind of encouraging to those of us concerned with climate change, that global action was taken to solve an immediate threat. Limitless clean energy from magma could replace fossil fuels - and then, running the AC would not create carbon emissions. You could use it all day long, no problem.
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Solving Climate Change.

Post by Age »

Vitruvius wrote: Thu Jul 29, 2021 1:32 pm
Sculptor wrote: Thu Jul 29, 2021 12:38 pm DO you really think there is ultimately ANYTHING that could be called "clean" energy?
Clean energy is a term used to describe energy that doesn't produce greenhouse gases as a consequence of its generation, so yes! Admittedly, the infrastructure would need to be built with fossil fuels. It would require metals that need mining and processing, to say nothing of a million miles of plastic insulation for cables and the like. This is a big issue for wind and solar - because they cost a fortune to build,
ONCE AGAIN, and as I was saying, it ALL comes back to 'money', and thus ultimately 'greed', for 'you', human beings, in the days when this is being written.
Vitruvius wrote: Thu Jul 29, 2021 1:32 pm require a lot of rare and toxic metals, last around 25 years, are very difficult to recycle, and cannot ever replace fossil fuels. Magma energy can replace fossil fuels, and the core infrastructure - once built, will last a century.
LOL Is that all?
Vitruvius wrote: Thu Jul 29, 2021 1:32 pm And when it does need replacing, can be replaced using clean energy to mine and process, manufacture and recycle - so ultimately, yes!
So, your definition for 'clean energy' is an energy that does NOT produce greenhouse gases as a consequence of its generation, yet the heat, which you would have to use to generate the energy is coming from the source, which is releasing greenhouse gases through that actual heat, correct?

If no, then what is correct, EXACTLY?
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Solving Climate Change.

Post by Age »

Vitruvius wrote: Thu Jul 29, 2021 5:26 pm
Sculptor wrote: Thu Jul 29, 2021 2:54 pm
Vitruvius wrote: Thu Jul 29, 2021 1:32 pm

Clean energy is a term used to describe energy that doesn't produce greenhouse gases as a consequence of its generation, so yes!
That would be none.

Admittedly, the infrastructure would need to be built with fossil fuels. It would require metals that need mining and processing, to say nothing of a million miles of plastic insulation for cables and the like. This is a big issue for wind and solar - because they cost a fortune to build, require a lot of rare and toxic metals, last around 25 years, are very difficult to recycle, and cannot ever replace fossil fuels. Magma energy can replace fossil fuels, and the core infrastructure - once built, will last a century. And when it does need replacing, can be replaced using clean energy to mine and process, manufacture and recycle - so ultimately, yes!
SO tell me what energy source does not produce greenhouse gasses please.
If your point is that no form of energy is entirely "clean" end to end, then I wish you'd just make that point already! Because then I could go on to talk about 'overshoot day' which is the day of the year when it is claimed that human activities exceed the capacity of the earth to regenerate, such that we are operating at an environmental deficit. Thinking of it in these terms, it follows that no form of energy need be clean end to end - and the point you're not quite making, but clearly alluding to - is actually an unrealistic standard used to distract from the question of the optimal technological approach. Given the scale and nature of the threat I would argue for developing magma energy as a global good, for the purpose of overcoming climate change - rather than take home a basket of half assed yet hard to deliver promises from COP 26, I'd like to see governments commit instead to a technologically feasible - large scale project to develop a form of energy that will one day succeed fossil fuels.
Is there a human being, who does not make money off, and profit from, fossil fuels who does NOT want to see a change, for the better?

If yes, then tell us who they are, and find out if they would like to have a discussion or not?

Vitruvius wrote: Thu Jul 29, 2021 5:26 pm In the meantime sequester carbon, desalinate, irrigate and recycle, mitigating and adapting to climate change while building capacity - giving us time, and choice about how we transition. It avoids a lot of the dangers and conflicts of interest in the future - and might just be the shot in the arm the world needs right now!
But, as I have been saying, and POINTING OUT, because ALL of 'you', adult human beings, are 'greedy', in the days when this is being written, NOTHING of ANY real significance is going to CHANGE, for the better.

If NO one can make "a quick buck", as some say, out of 'magma energy', then NO one is even going to consider it an option. It REALLY is just that SIMPLE.
Vitruvius
Posts: 678
Joined: Mon May 10, 2021 9:46 am

Re: Solving Climate Change.

Post by Vitruvius »

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.
I suggested this approach in the hope the technology could be developed and applied without direct impact on the financial markets, but I suppose the very existence of a viable alternative puts the truth to fossil fuel futures. The problem of stranded assets was out there already - it's not something invented by proposing a viable alternate technology, and plan to transition. It was always the case that we will need to leave fossil fuels in the ground - but we haven't previously been required to set a definite or honest date on when that might be. Developing magma energy is in my view, a means to extend and cushion a transition that was either going occur anyway, or was the plan always to sail off the edge of the world frantically shovelling more brown coal into the boiler? How is that in anyone's interests?

The point I'm trying to make, however clumsily is that as big as this idea is - one thing that it is not is transformative, at least not up front or right away. I resent your attempt to tack on calls for sweeping changes I've deliberately tried to avoid - or rather, I'd ask that you explain how you think my proposal implies "a complete transformation of the financial markets"? That's not what I was going for at all. The whole idea of developing magma energy is tackling climate change without crippling society to save the world; attacking the climate and ecological crisis from the supply side, to support continued demand - in lieu of the capacity to sequester in future, carbon that emitted today, and tomorrow, and for some time to come. My argument was conceived around the idea of the least necessary disruption to, or intervention in the market - that's my big selling point, so no!
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8477
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Solving Climate Change.

Post by Sculptor »

Vitruvius wrote: Fri Jul 30, 2021 1:07 am
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.
I suggested this approach in the hope the technology could be developed and applied without direct impact on the financial markets, but I suppose the very existence of a viable alternative puts the truth to fossil fuel futures. The problem of stranded assets was out there already - it's not something invented by proposing a viable alternate technology, and plan to transition. It was always the case that we will need to leave fossil fuels in the ground - but we haven't previously been required to set a definite or honest date on when that might be. Developing magma energy is in my view, a means to extend and cushion a transition that was either going occur anyway, or was the plan always to sail off the edge of the world frantically shovelling more brown coal into the boiler? How is that in anyone's interests?
Without a massive change in the way money controls interests fossils fuels will always be mined and traded whilst they represent an immediately cheaper means of providing energy. This is not going to come from the libertarian West. The maybe a chance that a country that has the potential for a single minded ideologial interest could make that change. But that would mean such an entity would have to have global control of markets. Such an entity would have to put the interests of the ecological future above the interests of economics.

The point I'm trying to make, however clumsily is that as big as this idea is - one thing that it is not is transformative, at least not up front or right away. I resent your attempt to tack on calls for sweeping changes I've deliberately tried to avoid - or rather, I'd ask that you explain how you think my proposal implies "a complete transformation of the financial markets"? That's not what I was going for at all.
You can "resent" all you like. You are just in denial of the massive changes that are going to have to be made.
The whole idea of developing magma energy is tackling climate change without crippling society to save the world; attacking the climate and ecological crisis from the supply side, to support continued demand - in lieu of the capacity to sequester in future, carbon that emitted today, and tomorrow, and for some time to come. My argument was conceived around the idea of the least necessary disruption to, or intervention in the market - that's my big selling point, so no!
WHy would anyone buy-in to your "magma energy" WTFTI, when they can make cash from fossil fuel, or loot the public purse of governments willing to tax the people on hare-brained schemes designed to look green to appease the voters?
Post Reply