Solving Climate Change.

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

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

Re: Solving Climate Change.

Post by Vitruvius »

Sculptor wrote: Fri Jul 30, 2021 11:33 am 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.
You seem to understand the nature of the Gordian knot of energy, climate, money and politics, and it is quite the tangle! That's why I argue that magma energy needs to be developed as a global good. This would be governments opting to develop magma energy specifically to tackle climate change, by providing the energy to sequester carbon, desalinate, irrigate, recycle - on a global scale. It would not be - at least not right away, a competitor to fossil fuels. Hopefully, in this way - the conflict of interest can be sidestepped.
Sculptor wrote: Fri Jul 30, 2021 11:33 am You can "resent" all you like. You are just in denial of the massive changes that are going to have to be made.
I'm certainly attempting to form a plan that truncates the massive changes that need to be made, because they are an obstacle. I'm not in denial, but I am trying to decouple up front infrastructure costs from environmental benefits; for example - the UK is planning to phase out petrol powered cars from 2030. There are approximately 30 million cars on the roads, and approximately 10,000 charging points. You see the problem!

Quite aside from suddenly sourcing transport energy from the national grid, that's a lot of infrastructure that needs to be built up front - before so much as a whiff of carbon is prevented. That's far worse in terms you consider prohibitive of my approach, and yet it's happening - sort of, in a haphazard way. It may be counter intuitive to suggest there's an easier way that will also be more effective - but that's precisely what I am suggesting; cutting the Gordian Knot with magma energy - developed outside the energy market as an intergovernmental approach to tackling climate change. It will buy us time, give us the energy to mitigate and adapt to climate change - and so not require trashing wholesale social and industrial infrastructure to achieve environmental benefits.
Sculptor wrote: Fri Jul 30, 2021 11:33 am 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?
I sympathise with your assessment of the current situation, but maintain you don't quite appreciate (yet) why developing magma energy is the right answer, or how - the way in which I suggest it is developed avoids many of these problems. You do know these people; politicians, bankers, businessmen - are human beings? They are acting on climate and the environment insofar as they can. I see windmills popping up along the coast, plans for electric vehicles, insultation in lofts, energy rating stickers and all sorts of things. The will to address this issue clearly exists in spite of capitalist economic interest. All I'm suggesting is channelling that willingness into what I believe would be a more effective, less disruptive approach - that hasn't previously been considered because it lies outside the national and capitalist economic ideological framework of decision making, and is not premised upon the mistaken assumption of a limit to resources.
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 2:03 pm
Sculptor wrote: Fri Jul 30, 2021 11:33 am 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.
You seem to understand the nature of the Gordian knot of energy, climate, money and politics, and it is quite the tangle! That's why I argue that magma energy needs to be developed as a global good. This would be governments opting to develop magma energy specifically to tackle climate change, by providing the energy to sequester carbon, desalinate, irrigate, recycle - on a global scale. It would not be - at least not right away, a competitor to fossil fuels. Hopefully, in this way - the conflict of interest can be sidestepped.
Sculptor wrote: Fri Jul 30, 2021 11:33 am You can "resent" all you like. You are just in denial of the massive changes that are going to have to be made.
I'm certainly attempting to form a plan that truncates the massive changes that need to be made, because they are an obstacle. I'm not in denial, but I am trying to decouple up front infrastructure costs from environmental benefits; for example - the UK is planning to phase out petrol powered cars from 2030. There are approximately 30 million cars on the roads, and approximately 10,000 charging points. You see the problem!
Indeed, and whose to say what the cost of the rare metals required to produce electric car batteries will be in nine years time? I imagine that in eight years time there will be w rush to buy the last tranche of patrol cars and the second hand car market will keep them on the road for a long time. On the other hand the long promised but never seen "oil running out" might have happened by then.
Current means (no pun intended) os charging is still too slow, the tech is going to have to change and the infrastructure is going to require goverment investment. Sadly there is just so much corrumption in the UK, as the covid crisis has shown, that I doubt this is going to be smooth or economic.

Quite aside from suddenly sourcing transport energy from the national grid, that's a lot of infrastructure that needs to be built up front - before so much as a whiff of carbon is prevented. That's far worse in terms you consider prohibitive of my approach, and yet it's happening - sort of, in a haphazard way. It may be counter intuitive to suggest there's an easier way that will also be more effective - but that's precisely what I am suggesting; cutting the Gordian Knot with magma energy - developed outside the energy market as an intergovernmental approach to tackling climate change. It will buy us time, give us the energy to mitigate and adapt to climate change - and so not require trashing wholesale social and industrial infrastructure to achieve environmental benefits.
Sculptor wrote: Fri Jul 30, 2021 11:33 am 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?
I sympathise with your assessment of the current situation, but maintain you don't quite appreciate (yet) why developing magma energy is the right answer, or how - the way in which I suggest it is developed avoids many of these problems. You do know these people; politicians, bankers, businessmen - are human beings? They are acting on climate and the environment insofar as they can. I see windmills popping up along the coast, plans for electric vehicles, insultation in lofts, energy rating stickers and all sorts of things. The will to address this issue clearly exists in spite of capitalist economic interest. All I'm suggesting is channelling that willingness into what I believe would be a more effective, less disruptive approach - that hasn't previously been considered because it lies outside the national and capitalist economic ideological framework of decision making, and is not premised upon the mistaken assumption of a limit to resources.
I know what OTEC is and geothermal energy. I've not heard of "magma energy". Heat exchange systems are well understood, but no one is running about promoting the idea.
Vitruvius
Posts: 678
Joined: Mon May 10, 2021 9:46 am

Re: Solving Climate Change.

Post by Vitruvius »

Sculptor wrote: Fri Jul 30, 2021 3:20 pm Indeed, and whose to say what the cost of the rare metals required to produce electric car batteries will be in nine years time? I imagine that in eight years time there will be w rush to buy the last tranche of patrol cars and the second hand car market will keep them on the road for a long time. On the other hand the long promised but never seen "oil running out" might have happened by then. Current means (no pun intended) os charging is still too slow, the tech is going to have to change and the infrastructure is going to require goverment investment. Sadly there is just so much corrumption in the UK, as the covid crisis has shown, that I doubt this is going to be smooth or economic.
I've often wondered why batteries are not designed to be removable, interchangeable, and charged at the filling station? Pull in, old battery out, new one in - and away you go. Instead they're built into the car - take 12 hours to charge, and when the battery dies the whole car needs replacing. Fast charge the battery and you half the life of the car.

I wouldn't use batteries at all. I'd keep petrol powered vehicles on the road a little longer while developing magma energy that would be distributed as hydrogen fuel - sold through filling stations. Another benefit is that, it wouldn't require a complete retooling of automotive manufacturing to build hydrogen internal combustion engines (HICE) like those in the BMW Hydrogen 7:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_Hydrogen_7
Sculptor wrote: Fri Jul 30, 2021 3:20 pm I know what OTEC is and geothermal energy. I've not heard of "magma energy". Heat exchange systems are well understood, but no one is running about promoting the idea.
I'm at a loss to explain it myself. It follows quite obviously from the geophysics of the earth - that there's a massive source of high grade clean energy beneath our feet, and it's the only source of clean energy large enough to replace fossil fuels outright. We need that energy - and I think we can reach it; because, think about mining - as the larger, richer and shallower deposits are mined out, it takes more and more energy to produce the same amount of gold. Are wind and solar going to provide that energy? No - but along with batteries, wind and solar will create insatiable demand for rare and toxic metals - which is why batteries and solar panels are so very difficult to recycle. I can only hope they realise that this is not joined up thinking, and opt for a different approach.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6207
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Solving Climate Change.

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Vitruvius wrote: Fri Jul 30, 2021 8:11 pm I'm at a loss to explain it myself. It follows quite obviously from the geophysics of the earth - that there's a massive source of high grade clean energy beneath our feet, and it's the only source of clean energy large enough to replace fossil fuels outright. We need that energy - and I think we can reach it; because, think about mining - as the larger, richer and shallower deposits are mined out, it takes more and more energy to produce the same amount of gold. Are wind and solar going to provide that energy? No - but along with batteries, wind and solar will create insatiable demand for rare and toxic metals - which is why batteries and solar panels are so very difficult to recycle. I can only hope they realise that this is not joined up thinking, and opt for a different approach.
Just out of curiosity, what do you think are the 5 most pressing engineering challenges your plan faces, and how do you think you can solve them?
Vitruvius
Posts: 678
Joined: Mon May 10, 2021 9:46 am

Re: Solving Climate Change.

Post by Vitruvius »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Fri Jul 30, 2021 9:47 pm Just out of curiosity, what do you think are the 5 most pressing engineering challenges your plan faces, and how do you think you can solve them?

Great question. Thanks.

As you know the plan is to tap into the heat energy of magma, to produce dry super heated steam, to drive turbines, to produce electricity. The first challenge is the geology - locating high temperature rock at a reachable depth.

The second is drilling through high temperature rock - and I believe the technology already exists to drill within a pocket of inert gas coolant.

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.

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!
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6207
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Solving Climate Change.

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Vitruvius wrote: Sat Jul 31, 2021 1:22 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Fri Jul 30, 2021 9:47 pm Just out of curiosity, what do you think are the 5 most pressing engineering challenges your plan faces, and how do you think you can solve them?

Great question. Thanks.

As you know the plan is to tap into the heat energy of magma, to produce dry super heated steam, to drive turbines, to produce electricity. The first challenge is the geology - locating high temperature rock at a reachable depth.
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.
Vitruvius
Posts: 678
Joined: Mon May 10, 2021 9:46 am

Re: Solving Climate Change.

Post by Vitruvius »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Sat Jul 31, 2021 2:36 am It has to be stable too.

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. I don't see how explaining at great length, why this comment or that isn't a pertinent warning about how it probably won't work, and or will likely blow up in my face, would be useful - or credible at this early stage.
Vitruvius
Posts: 678
Joined: Mon May 10, 2021 9:46 am

Re: Solving Climate Change.

Post by Vitruvius »

Fair comment, but I've already levelled the same accusation at wind and solar - that they are, in relation to the threat, a great greenwashed white elephant that'll leave Springfield in ruins. I've been pretty up front about my state of knowledge; I've read, thought and written a lot about it, but that's as much as I can do to realise - what I consider the most likely candidate for an alternative to fossil fuels, without money to do actual research.

I have to say I would do it if I had the money, because I've got to stand by my ideas when someone says, "stop talking about it and go do it." In the unlikely event someone gave me a big pile of cash, the first person I'd hire would be someone with a proven track record in project management, and then other people with all sorts of specialist knowledge and skills I don't have.

I merely set out to demonstrate that it's possible for humankind to survive into the long term future; and it turns out it is, but what's more, it's possible to prosper. I believe that magma energy has such enormous potential that it can transcend the limits to growth assumption underlining all current thinking, technologies and policy approaches to sustainability; and that our thinking is disguising the main chance - hidden in a blind spot by limits to growth, national political perspectives and a sub rosa religious disdain for science. Looking first instead to the bald geophysics of the planet, and considering our prospects as a species, if magma energy has the potential I think it does - and we had endless amounts of energy to spend, our future could be both prosperous and sustainable long term. I have to point out that possibility now, while it remains an option.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6207
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Solving Climate Change.

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Vitruvius wrote: Sat Jul 31, 2021 8:49 pm
Fair comment, but I've already levelled the same accusation at wind and solar - that they are, in relation to the threat, a great greenwashed white elephant that'll leave Springfield in ruins. I've been pretty up front about my state of knowledge; I've read, thought and written a lot about it, but that's as much as I can do to realise - what I consider the most likely candidate for an alternative to fossil fuels, without money to do actual research.
When you were asked for some extra details, you gave the me the "good question" move prior to throwing out your list of technical issues that you have thought about, followed by the "I can answer those questions but I won't" move when it got tricky. Watch the video to see the flim-flam artist try both those moves on Lisa.
Vitruvius wrote: Sat Jul 31, 2021 8:49 pm I have to say I would do it if I had the money, because I've got to stand by my ideas when someone says, "stop talking about it and go do it." In the unlikely event someone gave me a big pile of cash, the first person I'd hire would be someone with a proven track record in project management, and then other people with all sorts of specialist knowledge and skills I don't have.
Which specailist skills and knowledge DO you have?

A refrigerator repair man could tell you that you can't cool down a drill head in an ultra hot environment with nothing but a pocket of inert gas, he would know that you need to circulate the gas to remove the heat from the system. A kitchenware salesman could tell you what to expect from the water going down the pipe as it is subjected to the heat that those nobodies in the boring geothermal world capture long before it arrives at depths where you wish to release it as steam, assuming he sells pressure cookers.
Vitruvius wrote: Sat Jul 31, 2021 8:49 pm I merely set out to demonstrate that it's possible for humankind to survive into the long term future; and it turns out it is, but what's more, it's possible to prosper. I believe that magma energy has such enormous potential that it can transcend the limits to growth assumption underlining all current thinking, technologies and policy approaches to sustainability; and that our thinking is disguising the main chance - hidden in a blind spot by limits to growth, national political perspectives and a sub rosa religious disdain for science. Looking first instead to the bald geophysics of the planet, and considering our prospects as a species, if magma energy has the potential I think it does - and we had endless amounts of energy to spend, our future could be both prosperous and sustainable long term. I have to point out that possibility now, while it remains an option.
Yeah, the thing is it sure looks like you've picked your ideal sci-fi solution and then subjected it to a lower standard of testing than you apply to wind and solar and so on.
Vitruvius
Posts: 678
Joined: Mon May 10, 2021 9:46 am

Re: Solving Climate Change.

Post by Vitruvius »

Vitruvius wrote: Sat Jul 31, 2021 8:49 pmFair comment, but I've already levelled the same accusation at wind and solar - that they are, in relation to the threat, a great greenwashed white elephant that'll leave Springfield in ruins. I've been pretty up front about my state of knowledge; I've read, thought and written a lot about it, but that's as much as I can do to realise - what I consider the most likely candidate for an alternative to fossil fuels, without money to do actual research.
FlashDangerpants wrote: Sat Jul 31, 2021 9:58 pmWhen you were asked for some extra details, you gave the me the "good question" move prior to throwing out your list of technical issues that you have thought about, followed by the "I can answer those questions but I won't" move when it got tricky. Watch the video to see the flim-flam artist try both those moves on Lisa.
I answered as I saw fit. If it doesn't satisfy you - well tough! I'm quite happy with my posts so far, in that they address a very difficult subject honestly and hopefully. I've tried to set out my reasoning clearly, and acknowledged my limitations. I don't what more you could ask.

Vitruvius wrote: Sat Jul 31, 2021 8:49 pm I have to say I would do it if I had the money, because I've got to stand by my ideas when someone says, "stop talking about it and go do it." In the unlikely event someone gave me a big pile of cash, the first person I'd hire would be someone with a proven track record in project management, and then other people with all sorts of specialist knowledge and skills I don't have.
FlashDangerpants wrote: Sat Jul 31, 2021 4:09 pmWhich specailist skills and knowledge DO you have?
Is this an interview?
FlashDangerpants wrote: Sat Jul 31, 2021 9:58 pmA refrigerator repair man could tell you that you can't cool down a drill head in an ultra hot environment with nothing but a pocket of inert gas, he would know that you need to circulate the gas to remove the heat from the system. A kitchenware salesman could tell you what to expect from the water going down the pipe as it is subjected to the heat that those nobodies in the boring geothermal world capture long before it arrives at depths where you wish to release it as steam, assuming he sells pressure cookers.
Thanks for your engineering insights. They really are not at all useful at this stage. I assume that's the intent!
Vitruvius wrote: Sat Jul 31, 2021 8:49 pm I merely set out to demonstrate that it's possible for humankind to survive into the long term future; and it turns out it is, but what's more, it's possible to prosper. I believe that magma energy has such enormous potential that it can transcend the limits to growth assumption underlining all current thinking, technologies and policy approaches to sustainability; and that our thinking is disguising the main chance - hidden in a blind spot by limits to growth, national political perspectives and a sub rosa religious disdain for science. Looking first instead to the bald geophysics of the planet, and considering our prospects as a species, if magma energy has the potential I think it does - and we had endless amounts of energy to spend, our future could be both prosperous and sustainable long term. I have to point out that possibility now, while it remains an option.
FlashDangerpants wrote: Sat Jul 31, 2021 9:58 pmYeah, the thing is it sure looks like you've picked your ideal sci-fi solution and then subjected it to a lower standard of testing than you apply to wind and solar and so on.
Thank you for your opinion. Nice talking with you! Bye!
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6207
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Solving Climate Change.

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Vitruvius wrote: Sat Jul 31, 2021 11:43 pm Thanks for your engineering insights. They really are not at all useful at this stage. I assume that's the intent!
Are you at anything that deserves to be called a stage as such? You came up with a vision of doing something everyone else thinks is impossible, and then you don't seem to have progressed with that impossibility bit. Instead you've opted to just ignore it and declared yourself the sage of the volcano powered future.
Vitruvius
Posts: 678
Joined: Mon May 10, 2021 9:46 am

Re: Solving Climate Change.

Post by Vitruvius »

Vitruvius wrote: Sat Jul 31, 2021 11:43 pm
Thanks for your engineering insights. They really are not at all useful at this stage. I assume that's the intent!
FlashDangerpants wrote: Sat Jul 31, 2021 11:49 pmAre you at anything that deserves to be called a stage as such? You came up with a vision of doing something everyone else thinks is impossible, and then you don't seem to have progressed with that impossibility bit. Instead you've opted to just ignore it and declared yourself the sage of the volcano powered future.
You don't think the question of whether sustainability is possible - is a reasonable question to ask? I'd have thought philosophy would be all over it. Insofar as I've been able to tell - 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?
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6207
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Solving Climate Change.

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Vitruvius wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 12:20 am
Vitruvius wrote: Sat Jul 31, 2021 11:43 pm
Thanks for your engineering insights. They really are not at all useful at this stage. I assume that's the intent!
FlashDangerpants wrote: Sat Jul 31, 2021 11:49 pmAre you at anything that deserves to be called a stage as such? You came up with a vision of doing something everyone else thinks is impossible, and then you don't seem to have progressed with that impossibility bit. Instead you've opted to just ignore it and declared yourself the sage of the volcano powered future.
You don't think the question of whether sustainability is possible - is a reasonable question to ask? I'd have thought philosophy would be all over it. Insofar as I've been able to tell - 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?
It'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.

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

Re: Solving Climate Change.

Post by Vitruvius »

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.
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.

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.
Post Reply