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.