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: Sun Oct 03, 2021 1:07 am This will all depend on how, and when, you define what 'magma energy' and 'geothermal energy' are, to you.
We await your definitions.
Vitruvius wrote: Sun Oct 03, 2021 1:50 amIt's the difference between underground hot water, and underground molten rock. The energy in molten rock is far greater.
Age wrote: Sun Oct 03, 2021 3:32 amBut that rock is only used to be combined with cold water to just heat up the water anyway, in your 'magma energy' solution correct?
The idea I proposed, mirrored in the NASA documents, envisages circulating hot water through pipes, to produce steam, to drive turbines, to produce electricity. This is quite different from hydrothermal; and different even from IDDP in Iceland.
Age wrote: Sun Oct 03, 2021 3:32 amWe could instead, and actually have been for thousands of years, just use the underground, already, and naturally heated, water.
With underground hot water, there's a replacement rate problem. The body of water can only hold so much heat, and when it's removed it can become exhausted and take many years to recover. Magma energy does not have this problem.
And, let us not forget that molten rock contains carbon, and that it is carbon dioxide which is said to be creating the 'climate change', which is wanted to be 'solved' here, right?
I envisage no direct contact with, or release of magma. The rock surrounding a crustal magma body is hot enough; and because of the second law of thermodynamics, where energy moves from the higher temperature body to the lower temperature body, in proximity to a very high temperature source, cannot become depleted.
Now, to you the difference is; the energy in 'molten rock' is far greater than in underground hot water, BUT all your "magma energy solution" does is use hot rocks to heat up cold water. There is ALREADY exiting hot water, underground. And, the reason the water is ALREADY hot is because of the hot/molten rock nearby. Will you EVER listen to what ANY one "else" says about "your idea" and just CONSIDER 'that'? Or, is "your idea and solution" thee One and ONLY solution, and EVERY thing is NOT even worth considering?
In this case, the latter!
Vitruvius wrote: Sun Oct 03, 2021 1:50 am I would have thought was clear enough; and so I'm at a loss. How can I explain anything to you if you didn't pick up on that already?
Just because I ask you a CLARIFY QUESTION, or a few, I would NOT make ASSUMPTIONS, nor JUMP TO CONCLUSIONS, if I was you. You could be completely and utterly Wrong, ONCE AGAIN.
When was I completely and utterly wrong? I was unaware that NASA had conducted a seven year study back in the 1970's - but that study confirms everything I said about the potential of magma energy.
All you are really saying, in this thread, is that 'magma energy' will "solve climate change", AND, if ANY one does not accept this, then they do NOT care about the environment nor about future human beings. Which IS ACTUALLY as ABSURD as it sound.
You do seem to have an inability or unwillingness to integrate information. There's both more and less to this thread than that.
Age
Posts: 20194
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Solving Climate Change.

Post by Age »

Vitruvius wrote: Sun Oct 03, 2021 4:11 am
Age wrote: Sun Oct 03, 2021 1:07 am This will all depend on how, and when, you define what 'magma energy' and 'geothermal energy' are, to you.
We await your definitions.
Vitruvius wrote: Sun Oct 03, 2021 1:50 amIt's the difference between underground hot water, and underground molten rock. The energy in molten rock is far greater.
Age wrote: Sun Oct 03, 2021 3:32 amBut that rock is only used to be combined with cold water to just heat up the water anyway, in your 'magma energy' solution correct?
The idea I proposed, mirrored in the NASA documents, envisages circulating hot water through pipes, to produce steam, to drive turbines, to produce electricity.
And where do you get the "hot water" from?

Where you get "hot water" from is from pumping "cold water" through pipes.

If you were Honest, from the beginning, and responded to the points that were being expressed to you from "others", before, about ALL of the issues involved in "your proposed solution" energy source, then we all could have moved on, by now.

The reason WHY your proposed idea, which has been thought about way before you did, is NOT being used now is because of ALL of the issues, which are being POINTED OUT to you, but which you are continually 'trying to' AVOID.
Vitruvius wrote: Sun Oct 03, 2021 4:11 am This is quite different from hydrothermal; and different even from IDDP in Iceland.
Yes. And the reason WHY these energy sources are ALREADY being used is because they do NOT need all of the EXTRA costs "your idea" does.

Also, they are using the 'hot water' that ALREADY exists underground, instead of pumping 'cold water' in, to then 'heat it up'.
Vitruvius wrote: Sun Oct 03, 2021 4:11 am
Age wrote: Sun Oct 03, 2021 3:32 amWe could instead, and actually have been for thousands of years, just use the underground, already, and naturally heated, water.
With underground hot water, there's a replacement rate problem. The body of water can only hold so much heat, and when it's removed it can become exhausted and take many years to recover. Magma energy does not have this problem.
If you say so.

Does "magma energy" have ANY problems, to you?
Vitruvius wrote: Sun Oct 03, 2021 4:11 am
And, let us not forget that molten rock contains carbon, and that it is carbon dioxide which is said to be creating the 'climate change', which is wanted to be 'solved' here, right?
I envisage no direct contact with, or release of magma.
So, to you, do you envision the "drillers", who are drilling down through molten rock, somehow would know EXACTLY when to stop BEFORE they reach magma?

(This, of course, is even if human beings could make steel strong and hard enough to reach those levels.)
Vitruvius wrote: Sun Oct 03, 2021 4:11 am The rock surrounding a crustal magma body is hot enough; and because of the second law of thermodynamics, where energy moves from the higher temperature body to the lower temperature body, in proximity to a very high temperature source, cannot become depleted.
Now, to you the difference is; the energy in 'molten rock' is far greater than in underground hot water, BUT all your "magma energy solution" does is use hot rocks to heat up cold water. There is ALREADY exiting hot water, underground. And, the reason the water is ALREADY hot is because of the hot/molten rock nearby. Will you EVER listen to what ANY one "else" says about "your idea" and just CONSIDER 'that'? Or, is "your idea and solution" thee One and ONLY solution, and EVERY thing is NOT even worth considering?
In this case, the latter!
So, to you, EVERY thing, besides what you propose, is NOT even worth considering.

Now here we have a great EXAMPLE of just HOW MUCH one's BELIEFS WILL STOP and PREVENT a person from LOOKING AT ANY thing, besides its OWN views.
Vitruvius wrote: Sun Oct 03, 2021 4:11 am
Vitruvius wrote: Sun Oct 03, 2021 1:50 am I would have thought was clear enough; and so I'm at a loss. How can I explain anything to you if you didn't pick up on that already?
Just because I ask you a CLARIFY QUESTION, or a few, I would NOT make ASSUMPTIONS, nor JUMP TO CONCLUSIONS, if I was you. You could be completely and utterly Wrong, ONCE AGAIN.
When was I completely and utterly wrong?
Like just now.

And, just about EVERY other time you have made an ASSUMPTION about what I am saying, and meaning.
Vitruvius wrote: Sun Oct 03, 2021 4:11 am I was unaware that NASA had conducted a seven year study back in the 1970's - but that study confirms everything I said about the potential of magma energy.
Here is ANOTHER EXAMPLE of ANOTHER ASSUMPTION, of yours, about what I have been saying, and meaning, where you are completely and utterly Wrong.

What you said here has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AT ALL WHATSOEVER to do with ANY thing that I have said and meant.
Vitruvius wrote: Sun Oct 03, 2021 4:11 am
All you are really saying, in this thread, is that 'magma energy' will "solve climate change", AND, if ANY one does not accept this, then they do NOT care about the environment nor about future human beings. Which IS ACTUALLY as ABSURD as it sound.
You do seem to have an inability or unwillingness to integrate information. There's both more and less to this thread than that.
You have been CHALLENGED, by "others", in regards to YOUR CLAIMS and it is you who has FAILED to integrate with those CHALLENGES. Until you can, and will, do that, then EXPECT your "idea" to NEVER come to fruition. It, obviously, has NOT for a few decades now. Have you EVER wondered WHY?

If yes, then what conclusion did you arrive at?

Now, what information is there that you CLAIM I have an inability or unwillingness to "integrate"?

If you do NOT inform us of this, alleged, "information", then this says and shows far more about 'you' than 'me'.
Vitruvius
Posts: 678
Joined: Mon May 10, 2021 9:46 am

Re: Solving Climate Change.

Post by Vitruvius »

Age wrote: Sun Oct 03, 2021 1:07 am This will all depend on how, and when, you define what 'magma energy' and 'geothermal energy' are, to you.
We await your definitions.
Vitruvius wrote: Sun Oct 03, 2021 1:50 amIt's the difference between underground hot water, and underground molten rock. The energy in molten rock is far greater.
Age wrote: Sun Oct 03, 2021 3:32 amBut that rock is only used to be combined with cold water to just heat up the water anyway, in your 'magma energy' solution correct?
Vitruvius wrote: Sun Oct 03, 2021 4:11 amThe idea I proposed, mirrored in the NASA documents, envisages circulating hot water through pipes, to produce steam, to drive turbines, to produce electricity.
Age wrote: Sun Oct 03, 2021 4:36 amAnd where do you get the "hot water" from? Where you get "hot water" from is from pumping "cold water" through pipes.
Cold is not a thing. It is merely the absence of heat.
Age wrote: Sun Oct 03, 2021 4:36 amIf you were Honest, from the beginning, and responded to the points that were being expressed to you from "others", before, about ALL of the issues involved in "your proposed solution" energy source, then we all could have moved on, by now.
Honest? Okay, I'll be honest. I think you're stupid. And aggressive and unpleasant. How's that for honest? I think you're too stupid to comprehend even half of what you're told, and angrily project your confusion onto others. You have no business whatsoever on a philosophy forum, and I think you should log off, and go find something else to do, more in keeping with your limited intellectual abilities - like hold a door open.
Age
Posts: 20194
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Solving Climate Change.

Post by Age »

Vitruvius wrote: Sun Oct 03, 2021 5:04 am
Age wrote: Sun Oct 03, 2021 1:07 am This will all depend on how, and when, you define what 'magma energy' and 'geothermal energy' are, to you.
We await your definitions.
Vitruvius wrote: Sun Oct 03, 2021 1:50 amIt's the difference between underground hot water, and underground molten rock. The energy in molten rock is far greater.
Age wrote: Sun Oct 03, 2021 3:32 amBut that rock is only used to be combined with cold water to just heat up the water anyway, in your 'magma energy' solution correct?
Vitruvius wrote: Sun Oct 03, 2021 4:11 amThe idea I proposed, mirrored in the NASA documents, envisages circulating hot water through pipes, to produce steam, to drive turbines, to produce electricity.
Age wrote: Sun Oct 03, 2021 4:36 amAnd where do you get the "hot water" from? Where you get "hot water" from is from pumping "cold water" through pipes.
Cold is not a thing. It is merely the absence of heat.
LOL. Therefore, it could be said, and argued, heat is not a thing. It is merely the absence of coolness.
Vitruvius wrote: Sun Oct 03, 2021 5:04 am
Age wrote: Sun Oct 03, 2021 4:36 amIf you were Honest, from the beginning, and responded to the points that were being expressed to you from "others", before, about ALL of the issues involved in "your proposed solution" energy source, then we all could have moved on, by now.
Honest? Okay, I'll be honest. I think you're stupid.
Okay. But that STILL does NOT resolve the issues being POINTED OUT to you.
Vitruvius wrote: Sun Oct 03, 2021 5:04 am And aggressive and unpleasant.
LOL "aggresive".

How EXACTLY have I been "aggressive", to you?
Vitruvius wrote: Sun Oct 03, 2021 5:04 am How's that for honest?
If that is what you think, then that is, what 'it' is, which is PERFECTLY FINE with me. However, NONE of this is being Honest about the issues raised with "your idea" and with "magma energy" itself.

You have been DECEPTIVE and thus not Truly Honest in regards to you what you claim here.
Vitruvius wrote: Sun Oct 03, 2021 5:04 am I think you're too stupid to comprehend even half of what you're told, and angrily project your confusion onto others.
And, if you were Truly Honest you WILL provide some examples of this, alleged, behavior.
Vitruvius wrote: Sun Oct 03, 2021 5:04 am You have no business whatsoever on a philosophy forum, and I think you should log off, and go find something else to do, more in keeping with your limited intellectual abilities - like hold a door open.
So, as someone else has been say, you REALLY do BELIEVE that you are above "others", correct?

Even human beings who hold doors open can VERY EASILY and VERY SIMPLY work out HOW and WHY 'magma energy' will NEVER solve human created 'climate change'.
Vitruvius
Posts: 678
Joined: Mon May 10, 2021 9:46 am

Re: Solving Climate Change.

Post by Vitruvius »

Age wrote: Sun Oct 03, 2021 5:27 amEven human beings who hold doors open can VERY EASILY and VERY SIMPLY work out HOW and WHY 'magma energy' will NEVER solve human created 'climate change'.
Except, you don't - so maybe you're not capable of the doorstop gig either!
Age
Posts: 20194
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Solving Climate Change.

Post by Age »

Vitruvius wrote: Sun Oct 03, 2021 5:37 am
Age wrote: Sun Oct 03, 2021 5:27 amEven human beings who hold doors open can VERY EASILY and VERY SIMPLY work out HOW and WHY 'magma energy' will NEVER solve human created 'climate change'.
Except, you don't
But I CAN and HAVE worked out HOW and WHY 'magma energy' will NEVER solve human created 'climate change'. You can NOT work this out because you are just CLOSED.

The reason WHY human beings do NOT even use 'magma energy', in the days when this was being written, is because it is OBVIOUSLY to costly. And, their greed will NOT allow them to do 'that' what Truly BENEFITS them.

Also, even just wind and solar energy is FAR MORE 'limitless' AND 'clean' compared to what 'magma energy' is.
Vitruvius wrote: Sun Oct 03, 2021 5:37 am - so maybe you're not capable of the doorstop gig either!
This speaks for itself.

The ATTEMPTS at ridicule and put downs of "others", some human beings eventually end up resorting to when they are being challenged about their ideas and claims, but are completely and utterly INCAPABLE of backing up and supporting their ideas and claims, REVEALS more about their own insecurities and inadequacies, then ANY thing else.
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Solving Climate Change.

Post by Belinda »

Solving climate change is about facts not surmises.

https://www.balfourbeatty.com/media/295 ... es-web.pdf
Well known reputable commercial engineers promote an applied and workable geothermal energy system .
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Solving Climate Change.

Post by Belinda »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Sat Oct 02, 2021 9:53 pm
Belinda wrote: Sat Oct 02, 2021 8:59 pm
FlashDangerpants wrote: Sat Oct 02, 2021 8:03 pm
I admire the way that you try to find the best possible conversations to be had with these loons - that's why you are trying to chat about dream interpretation with that theory guy even while he gibbers and raves about a gang of paedophiles sabotaging his house with gasses. But this guy you are encouraging here is selling magic beans and I think you haven't quite grasped the absurdity of his offering. So let me help you out.

He is promising that he alone knows the solution to global warming, and it involves everyone else doing nothing while he deploys machines that he can't really describe, let alone design. Check his posts, it's all been about how special he is and how he alone has the vision necessary to save the world, except for the bits where he's taking offence if people don't think that just taking his word for it is sufficient and he should be able to explain some of the less promising details of his plan. He's a nutjob Belinda, he even has a whole boilerplate rant about Descartes which assumes the guy was secretly an empiricist. Encouraging his delusions doesn't help him.
Maybe you are right about "magic beans". I hope not. I am nothing like an expert but I am pretty sure they are getting geothermal energy in Iceland, and that scientists are working on geothermal energy. I hope to goodness it is true that the technology will work and be sustainable!
Geothermal energy production has large capital investment costs for exploration, drilling, and plant installation.
Furthermore, exploring and drilling for geothermal resources is risky and does not always yield profitable results. Much
of the geothermal industry relies on government support to overcome these costs and risks. For this reason, geothermal
power is economically unreliable. One of the most influential geothermal policies is the 2004 American New Jobs
Creation Act, which gives geothermal energy producers a production tax credit (PTC) of 2.3 cents per kilowatt-hour. The
Energy Policy Act of 2005 created additional tax incentives and loan guarantees. In 2013 alone, the geothermal industry
received $345 million in government funds. If the start up subsidies are left out of the cost-benefit analysis, geothermal
plants are a cost-efficient way to produce electricity because of its low fuel and operations and maintenance costs.
Geothermal energy is physically reliable because it is consistent, efficient, and can easily accommodate changes in
Institute of Political Economy, Utah State University. Lofthouse, Simmons, Yonk.
You are very badly missing out on the scope of what vitruvius is overpromising. He has a whole panacea that goes far in advance of mere geothermal energy. He's boasting that he can dig a fancy hole and then pour millions of gallons of seawater into it per (week, day, hour? Who knows? no precision is required when making this sort of bullshit promise) to irrigate deserts and remove all the excess carbon from the atmosphere and that it would be a mistake for you to change any part of your life to reduce your carbon footprint because he has the magic beans to fix everything for you.

The essential ingredient in magma energy that draws him to it is not the limitless energy bit; wind and solar and thorium reactors and wave energy and several other technologies offer that sort of claim too. The essential thing is that he has to be the lone voice calling out for it, and it has to be borderline miraculous. He's not doing this to be just one of the good guys, he's doing it to feed a fantasy about being the great saviour. It's bad for him.
If a topic interests me I don't write off contributors because they sometimes have some daft ideas of which being "the great saviour" may be one, for all that matters----not a lot considering that V is neither power -mad nor a Shakespeare of words. I like to try to enlarge on and elucidate ideas that interest me. Motivation is murky, and personality is not only publicly- viewable persona but also unspoken and often unacknowedged turning towards good.

Philosophy studies should come with the warning that studying philosophy can change people quite radically. It's not my business to warn Vitruvius or anyone else of this fact.

I am too gullible for my own welfare, and Vitruvius may not be a highly qualified engineer, or may be slighltly mad. These are not enough reason to not inquire further and to do so with enthusiasm.
Vitruvius
Posts: 678
Joined: Mon May 10, 2021 9:46 am

Re: Solving Climate Change.

Post by Vitruvius »

Age wrote: Sun Oct 03, 2021 6:21 amThe ATTEMPTS at ridicule and put downs of "others", some human beings eventually end up resorting to when they are being challenged about their ideas and claims, but are completely and utterly INCAPABLE of backing up and supporting their ideas and claims, REVEALS more about their own insecurities and inadequacies, then ANY thing else.
Don't kid yourself. You asked for honesty and you got it. There's no point explaining anything to you because you're not capable of understanding it. Case in point:

Cold is not a thing. It is merely the absence of heat.
Age wrote: Sun Oct 03, 2021 5:27 amLOL. Therefore, it could be said, and argued, heat is not a thing. It is merely the absence of coolness.
No. It's physical fact there's no such thing as cold. It's a very basic physical fact; and given this thread is talking about energy - are you're telling me, and NASA - that magma energy can't work, won't work, never gonna solve climate change etc, it's something you should know. I tell you, and you won't have it. Now I've got tell you again, and the responses get longer and longer and more dilute of content, because you're too stupid to understand anything that's said to you. You're fucking up my thread, and I'd like you to go away.
Vitruvius
Posts: 678
Joined: Mon May 10, 2021 9:46 am

Re: Solving Climate Change.

Post by Vitruvius »

Status of the Magma Energy Project
NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)
Dunn, J. C.
The current magma energy project is assessing the engineering feasibility of extracting thermal energy directly from crustal magma bodies. The estimated size of the U.S. resource (50,000 to 500,000 quads) suggests a considerable potential impact on future power generation. In a previous seven-year study, we concluded that there are no insurmountable barriers that would invalidate the magma energy concept. Several concepts for drilling, energy extraction, and materials survivability were successfully demonstrated in Kilauea Iki lava lake, Hawaii. The present program is addressing the engineering design problems associated with accessing magma bodies and extracting thermal energy for power generation. The normal stages for development of a geothermal resource are being investigated: exploration, drilling and completions, production, and surface power plant design. Current status of the engineering program and future plans are described.

https://www.science.gov/topicpages/m/ma ... gy+project

p.s. A quad is a quadrillion BTU. Global energy demand is approx 500 quad.

I suggest developing magma energy as a global good initially, with the energy used specifically for carbon capture, desalination, irrigation and recycling - while building capacity to transition from fossil fuels. This is an image of all the volcanoes in the Pacific Ring of Fire - and as you can see, geographically, they're everywhere.

Image
Age
Posts: 20194
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Solving Climate Change.

Post by Age »

Belinda wrote: Sun Oct 03, 2021 9:34 am Solving climate change is about facts not surmises.

https://www.balfourbeatty.com/media/295 ... es-web.pdf
Well known reputable commercial engineers promote an applied and workable geothermal energy system .
And, "well known reputable commercial engineers" from EVERY energy company, will promote an applied and workable suitable energy system, for their company. They are PAID by that company, so they will do just about ANY thing that they are TOLD to do. In fact, they HAVE TO DO what they are TOLD TO DO, otherwise they will not keep their job, obviously.

What appears to be completely and utterly IGNORED is the FACT that companies do NOT do what is GOOD and Right for human beings. They just do what they can get away with, to obtain MORE MONEY, without ever much regard for the DESTRUCTION and DEGRADATION of the ACTUAL planet that they NEED, in order to keep existing. This is because 'companies' do NOT have thoughts NOR feelings, and in fact are not even actual identities, themselves. Companies ONLY 'come into being' and exist solely because of 'the love of money' by their owners and creators.

ANY one who starts or owns a company that wants to promote and produce ANY energy source, including magma energy, ONLY does this because of the money that can be obtained by doing so, and NOT for ANY other reason.

Workable geothermal energy systems, or workable magma energy systems, or workable any other energy systems will NOT solve 'climate change'.

Only when 'greed' is removed from adult human beings, is when 'climate change' CAN and WILL BE 'solved'.
Age
Posts: 20194
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Solving Climate Change.

Post by Age »

Belinda wrote: Sun Oct 03, 2021 9:55 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Sat Oct 02, 2021 9:53 pm
Belinda wrote: Sat Oct 02, 2021 8:59 pm
Maybe you are right about "magic beans". I hope not. I am nothing like an expert but I am pretty sure they are getting geothermal energy in Iceland, and that scientists are working on geothermal energy. I hope to goodness it is true that the technology will work and be sustainable!



Institute of Political Economy, Utah State University. Lofthouse, Simmons, Yonk.
You are very badly missing out on the scope of what vitruvius is overpromising. He has a whole panacea that goes far in advance of mere geothermal energy. He's boasting that he can dig a fancy hole and then pour millions of gallons of seawater into it per (week, day, hour? Who knows? no precision is required when making this sort of bullshit promise) to irrigate deserts and remove all the excess carbon from the atmosphere and that it would be a mistake for you to change any part of your life to reduce your carbon footprint because he has the magic beans to fix everything for you.

The essential ingredient in magma energy that draws him to it is not the limitless energy bit; wind and solar and thorium reactors and wave energy and several other technologies offer that sort of claim too. The essential thing is that he has to be the lone voice calling out for it, and it has to be borderline miraculous. He's not doing this to be just one of the good guys, he's doing it to feed a fantasy about being the great saviour. It's bad for him.
If a topic interests me I don't write off contributors because they sometimes have some daft ideas of which being "the great saviour" may be one, for all that matters----not a lot considering that V is neither power -mad nor a Shakespeare of words. I like to try to enlarge on and elucidate ideas that interest me. Motivation is murky, and personality is not only publicly- viewable persona but also unspoken and often unacknowedged turning towards good.

Philosophy studies should come with the warning that studying philosophy can change people quite radically. It's not my business to warn Vitruvius or anyone else of this fact.

I am too gullible for my own welfare, and Vitruvius may not be a highly qualified engineer, or may be slighltly mad. These are not enough reason to not inquire further and to do so with enthusiasm.
But inquiring, and doing so with enthusiasm, is not the issue here. Obtaining clarity from "vitruvius's" ideas is the issue.

I enjoy inquiring into people's ideas, no matter how strange or mad they may seem to "others". I like to do this because sometimes the strangest ideas are the best or most accurate. But, the 'enthusiasm' soon wears off when the idea holder is NOT able to back up and support their claims.
Vitruvius
Posts: 678
Joined: Mon May 10, 2021 9:46 am

Re: Solving Climate Change.

Post by Vitruvius »

Status of the Magma Energy Project
NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)
Dunn, J. C.
The current magma energy project is assessing the engineering feasibility of extracting thermal energy directly from crustal magma bodies. The estimated size of the U.S. resource (50,000 to 500,000 quads) suggests a considerable potential impact on future power generation. In a previous seven-year study, we concluded that there are no insurmountable barriers that would invalidate the magma energy concept. Several concepts for drilling, energy extraction, and materials survivability were successfully demonstrated in Kilauea Iki lava lake, Hawaii. The present program is addressing the engineering design problems associated with accessing magma bodies and extracting thermal energy for power generation. The normal stages for development of a geothermal resource are being investigated: exploration, drilling and completions, production, and surface power plant design. Current status of the engineering program and future plans are described.

https://www.science.gov/topicpages/m/ma ... gy+project

p.s. A quad is a quadrillion BTU. Global energy demand is approx 500 quad.

I suggest developing magma energy as a global good initially, with the energy used specifically for carbon capture, desalination, irrigation and recycling - while building capacity to transition from fossil fuels. This is an image of all the volcanoes in the Pacific Ring of Fire - and as you can see, geographically, they're everywhere.

Image
Age
Posts: 20194
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Solving Climate Change.

Post by Age »

Vitruvius wrote: Sun Oct 03, 2021 10:30 am
Age wrote: Sun Oct 03, 2021 6:21 amThe ATTEMPTS at ridicule and put downs of "others", some human beings eventually end up resorting to when they are being challenged about their ideas and claims, but are completely and utterly INCAPABLE of backing up and supporting their ideas and claims, REVEALS more about their own insecurities and inadequacies, then ANY thing else.
Don't kid yourself. You asked for honesty and you got it.
LOL
LOL
LOL

The speed and ease at which these people turn to DEFLECTION is truly amazing.

in case you REALLY were NOT AWARE, I was talking about Honesty, from you, in regards to the questions posed to you, by me and "others", in regards to your idea/s and claim/s.

What you Honestly think of me or "others" NO one really cares about. And, if they do, then philosophy forums is REALLY NOT the right place for them.
Vitruvius wrote: Sun Oct 03, 2021 10:30 am There's no point explaining anything to you because you're not capable of understanding it. Case in point:

Cold is not a thing. It is merely the absence of heat.
Age wrote: Sun Oct 03, 2021 5:27 amLOL. Therefore, it could be said, and argued, heat is not a thing. It is merely the absence of coolness.
No. It's physical fact there's no such thing as cold.
And, if this is True, then there is no such thing as hot either.

But, if you BELIEVE there is, then explain HOW there can NOT be 'cold' but there can be 'hot'.

Also, just because you CLAIM some thing, then this does NOT mean that I am NOT CAPABLE of understanding 'it'. If I do NOT agree with 'it', or if I provide some thing that OPPOSES your 'thing', then that ALSO does NOT mean that I am NOT CAPABLE of understanding 'your thing', as well. For it might be PROVEN that it was you all along that was NOT understanding what was being said and taking place.

Now, let us see if you can explain HOW there is NO such thing as 'cold', but there is such a thing as 'hot'.

If you do not, then this REVEALS more about 'you' than 'me'.

Also, will you provide links to your, so called, "physical fact" here?

If yes, then GREAT.

But if no, then WHY NOT?
Vitruvius wrote: Sun Oct 03, 2021 10:30 am
It's a very basic physical fact;
Just saying, " 'it' is a physical fact ", and then re saying, " 'It' is a very basic physical fact ", does NOT, and I will repeat does NOT, make 'it' a fact NOR a physical fact.

Where is the ACTUAL PROOF that there is NO such thing as 'cold' BUT there is such a thing as 'hot'?
Vitruvius wrote: Sun Oct 03, 2021 10:30 am and given this thread is talking about energy - are you're telling me, and NASA - that magma energy can't work, won't work, never gonna solve climate change etc, it's something you should know.
I am TELLING you what I have been TELLING you. That is; magma energy is, probably, a much BETTER IDEA than coal, gas, and oil energy is. I have NEVER even thought that magma energy could not work, so I have CERTAINLY NOT ever said that it could not work. In fact I can see how it can VERY EASILY and VERY SIMPLY work. In fact, I SAW this BEFORE you ever brought this subject into this forum. So, I ALSO have, obviously, NEVER said that it would not work. I have, however, said that creating ANOTHER energy source, which only comes to fruition because of greed and the love of money by some people will NOT solve 'climate change'. I have been SAYING and TELLING YOU, OF COURSE, magma energy will produce far less carbon emissions than SOME other energy sources and so will reduce the effects on the climate like those sources of energy do.

Now, adding what you did onto the end of your sentence there was completely UNNECESSARY and just MORE PROOF of your condescending attitude towards "others", which has been POINTED OUT to you, by "another".
Vitruvius wrote: Sun Oct 03, 2021 10:30 am I tell you, and you won't have it. Now I've got tell you again, and the responses get longer and longer and more dilute of content, because you're too stupid to understand anything that's said to you. You're fucking up my thread, and I'd like you to go away.
LOL

This is YOUR ATTITUDE to discussions in your philosophy forums. What you say is irrefutably true, and if ANY disagrees or says otherwise, then they are stupid and ruining things for you.

Just so you are AWARE, saying and claiming, "magma energy will solve climate change" and "it is a physical fact that there is no such thing as 'cold' but there is such a thing as 'hot' " does NOT make what you say and claim true.

What makes what you say and claim true is ACTUAL PROOF.

And, when you START providing the ACTUAL PROOF for your claims, then you will STOP ruining your OWN threads.

You say, "I am too stupid to understand ANY thing that is said", BECAUSE you are INCAPABLE of backing up and supporting YOUR CLAIMS. Or, if you are ACTUALLY ABLE TO, you will NOT. For reasons known ONLY by you.
Vitruvius
Posts: 678
Joined: Mon May 10, 2021 9:46 am

Re: Solving Climate Change.

Post by Vitruvius »

Status of the Magma Energy Project
NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)
Dunn, J. C.
The current magma energy project is assessing the engineering feasibility of extracting thermal energy directly from crustal magma bodies. The estimated size of the U.S. resource (50,000 to 500,000 quads) suggests a considerable potential impact on future power generation. In a previous seven-year study, we concluded that there are no insurmountable barriers that would invalidate the magma energy concept. Several concepts for drilling, energy extraction, and materials survivability were successfully demonstrated in Kilauea Iki lava lake, Hawaii. The present program is addressing the engineering design problems associated with accessing magma bodies and extracting thermal energy for power generation. The normal stages for development of a geothermal resource are being investigated: exploration, drilling and completions, production, and surface power plant design. Current status of the engineering program and future plans are described.

https://www.science.gov/topicpages/m/ma ... gy+project

p.s. A quad is a quadrillion BTU. Global energy demand is approx 500 quad.

I suggest developing magma energy as a global good initially, with the energy used specifically for carbon capture, desalination, irrigation and recycling - while building capacity to transition from fossil fuels. This is an image of all the volcanoes in the Pacific Ring of Fire - and as you can see, geographically, they're everywhere.

Image
Post Reply