Solving Climate Change.

[FlashDangerpants]

And here you project clearly false humility by being "merely" the vessel through which the wisdom of the future is brought to us mere moderns (well actually that's how Age describes it when he does the same thing).

I have NEVER described 'it' that way.

Only because you lack the language skills to do so, consider that a donation. Beyond that, you still have to get through about 500 more posts before I bother with you again don't you?

[Age]

And here you project clearly false humility by being "merely" the vessel through which the wisdom of the future is brought to us mere moderns (well actually that's how Age describes it when he does the same thing).

I have NEVER described 'it' that way.

You lack the language skills to do so.

LOL

So, VERY contradictory, you CLAIM that I "describe it that way", but also, "lack the language skills to describe it that way".

The amount of times you have CONTRADICTED "yourself" when 'trying to' back down and "rationalize" your previous claims is extremely humorous to observe.

Beyond that, you still have to get through about 500 more posts before I bother with you again don't you?

LOL

You said something similar LAST TIME, but OBVIOUSLY you CONTRADICTED that, AS WELL.

[Age]

And here you project clearly false humility by being "merely" the vessel through which the wisdom of the future is brought to us mere moderns (well actually that's how Age describes it when he does the same thing).

I have NEVER described 'it' that way.

Only because you lack the language skills to do so, consider that a donation. Beyond that, you still have to get through about 500 more posts before I bother with you again don't you?

Your newly added, "consider that a donation", only makes YOUR CONTRADICTION, MORE humorous.

[Vitruvius]

Vitruvius wrote: ↑Sat Oct 02, 2021 8:58 am
But I looked, and I read this - and went to bed chewing on it; and in the morning - this morning, I woke with understanding as clear as day, explaining this apparent insanity. They are actively pursuing the prophecy of Armageddon as described in Revelations; while simultaneously building windmills and solar panels as if to claim their prints are not on the murder weapon.

Re-read those words. Is there nothing in them that strikes you as wildly irrational?

Magma energy is there, and can be harnessed.

And HOW MUCH carbon is released during the harness process?

None.

I explained earlier, I thought this solution existed in a blind spot because of left wing anti capitalist environmentalism since the 1960's - coupled with climate change denial on the right. I was wrong in that, they have known since the 1980's there's limitless clean energy available from magma; like they knew about climate change, when they started fracking.

WHY do you keep using the word "limitless"?
Are you under some sort of illusion that there is a "limitless" amount of magma in earth's crust?

I don't mean the earth contains infinite energy, if that's what you're asking.

The Earth is a big ball of molten rock, 4000 miles deep. It is 4.5 billion years old, and the crust is 5-50km thick. Further, half the energy produced by the earth is radiogenic - produced by the decay of radioactive elements - as opposed to primordial heat energy. The sun will explode in around 5 billion years; such that - no matter how much energy we draw from the earth, it will never run out. i.e. a limitless source of energy.

Tell me, why raise such a pedantic objection?

If you can tell me how to explain that in rational terms, I'm all ears. I'm pointing toward a subconscious influence; a secret desire to nudge God's elbow on the end of days thing! Religious fatalism that excludes belief in a prosperous sustainable future.

When you come up with a real, actual idea for a truly 'prosperous sustainable future', then you might be listened to. Until then what you are proposing here is just MORE of what is actually causing and creating human made 'climate change'.

What do you propose instead? That 8 billion people return to a rural way of life, bartering chickens for twine? There's not enough arable land for 8 billion small holders, even if that's what we wanted - which I can assure you, we don't. Or is it genocide you're proposing instead? What's your alternative to producing clean energy to support civilisation?

[Vitruvius]

Vitruvius wrote: ↑Sat Oct 02, 2021 8:58 am
But I looked, and I read this - and went to bed chewing on it; and in the morning - this morning, I woke with understanding as clear as day, explaining this apparent insanity. They are actively pursuing the prophecy of Armageddon as described in Revelations; while simultaneously building windmills and solar panels as if to claim their prints are not on the murder weapon.

Re-read those words. Is there nothing in them that strikes you as wildly irrational?

Magma energy is there, and can be harnessed. I explained earlier, I thought this solution existed in a blind spot because of left wing anti capitalist environmentalism since the 1960's - coupled with climate change denial on the right. I was wrong in that, they have known since the 1980's there's limitless clean energy available from magma; like they knew about climate change, when they started fracking. If you can tell me how to explain that in rational terms, I'm all ears. I'm pointing toward a subconscious influence; a secret desire to nudge God's elbow on the end of days thing! Religious fatalism that excludes belief in a prosperous sustainable future.

So ... none of that strikes you as overblown? The Revelations bit that still doesn't really make any sense. The whole thing about what a mistake it is to judge others as if they could match your level of reason. Describing yourself as the "bridge to the future"...

Have you noticed in science fiction, there's always an apocalypse that wipes the slate clean, before the new sci fi future is built? This gap is known as 'the bridge to the future.' It's a literary device to get the author from here, to there - without having to account for how we get there. I did not describe myself as the bridge to the future - but in similarly metaphorical terms, as a sign post, pointing the way to the bridge to the future.

I'm quite sure I didn't say 'others cannot match my level of reason.' Those are your words, you're trying to put in my mouth. I was talking about religious conceptualisation; both historic, and present day, and how that affects appreciation of science. In my philosophy science is valid knowledge of reality. In others, science is a mere tool to be used or disregarded - as religious, political and economic ideological motives dictate.

A scientific understanding of reality allows for a prosperous sustainable future. It is the way. I'm pointing that out.

[FlashDangerpants]

I am most disappointed in myself; that I did not realise right away - that I had judged others by my own standards of reason.

Ahem

[Vitruvius]

I am most disappointed in myself; that I did not realise right away - that I had judged others by my own standards of reason.

Ahem

I can see how you could misconstrue it; if you are determined to take offence to me personally - which it seems you are. I make no apology for your determination to disparage me, but to my mind, all that says is that others reason in different terms. Terms that don't allow for a prosperous sustainable future!

[FlashDangerpants]

I am most disappointed in myself; that I did not realise right away - that I had judged others by my own standards of reason.

Ahem

I can see how you could misconstrue it; if you are determined to take offence to me personally - which it seems you are. I make no apology for your determination to disparage me, but to my mind, all that says is that others reason in different terms. Terms that don't allow for a prosperous sustainable future!

And you want that one to be interpreted as humble?

[Age]

Vitruvius wrote: ↑Sat Oct 02, 2021 8:58 am
But I looked, and I read this - and went to bed chewing on it; and in the morning - this morning, I woke with understanding as clear as day, explaining this apparent insanity. They are actively pursuing the prophecy of Armageddon as described in Revelations; while simultaneously building windmills and solar panels as if to claim their prints are not on the murder weapon.

Re-read those words. Is there nothing in them that strikes you as wildly irrational?

Magma energy is there, and can be harnessed.

And HOW MUCH carbon is released during the harness process?

None.

BUT, let us NOT forget that magma contains carbon dioxide. So, in the harnessing of magma energy there is obviously the possibility that carbon dioxide could be released into the atmosphere, and so contributing further to human made 'climate change'.

I explained earlier, I thought this solution existed in a blind spot because of left wing anti capitalist environmentalism since the 1960's - coupled with climate change denial on the right. I was wrong in that, they have known since the 1980's there's limitless clean energy available from magma; like they knew about climate change, when they started fracking.

WHY do you keep using the word "limitless"?
Are you under some sort of illusion that there is a "limitless" amount of magma in earth's crust?

I don't mean the earth contains infinite energy, if that's what you're asking. [/quote]

Well the word 'limitless' is synonymous with 'infinite'.

The Earth is a big ball of molten rock, 4000 miles deep. It is 4.5 billion years old, and the crust is 5-50km thick. Further, half the energy produced by the earth is radiogenic - produced by the decay of radioactive elements - as opposed to primordial heat energy. The sun will explode in around 5 billion years; such that - no matter how much energy we draw from the earth, it will never run out. i.e. a limitless source of energy.

So, if we use this way of looking at "limitless energy", then solar and wind are "limitless energy", they are ALSO 'clean', and do NOT pose the possible risk of releasing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, either.

Tell me, why raise such a pedantic objection?

'pedantic' is relative.

The reason why I raised what I did was to show that magma energy is really not 'limitless', nor actually, really "clean".

And so we can move onto the energy, which is actually 'clean', far more 'abundant', and which will become common place, soon enough, and can actually make the others redundant.

If you can tell me how to explain that in rational terms, I'm all ears. I'm pointing toward a subconscious influence; a secret desire to nudge God's elbow on the end of days thing! Religious fatalism that excludes belief in a prosperous sustainable future.

When you come up with a real, actual idea for a truly 'prosperous sustainable future', then you might be listened to. Until then what you are proposing here is just MORE of what is actually causing and creating human made 'climate change'.

What do you propose instead? That 8 billion people return to a rural way of life, bartering chickens for twine? [/quote]

NO.

There's not enough arable land for 8 billion small holders, even if that's what we wanted - which I can assure you, we don't.

Considering what my ACTUAL answer IS, which is NOT what you ASSUMED, what you said here is just moot. Just like what you have said in reply to your OWN other Wrong ASSUMPTIONS

Or is it genocide you're proposing instead?

NO.

What's your alternative to producing clean energy to support civilisation?

LOL
LOL
LOL

The ASSUMPTIONS are continuous, as well as being just Wrong.

[Age]

Vitruvius wrote: ↑Sat Oct 02, 2021 8:58 am
But I looked, and I read this - and went to bed chewing on it; and in the morning - this morning, I woke with understanding as clear as day, explaining this apparent insanity. They are actively pursuing the prophecy of Armageddon as described in Revelations; while simultaneously building windmills and solar panels as if to claim their prints are not on the murder weapon.

Re-read those words. Is there nothing in them that strikes you as wildly irrational?

Magma energy is there, and can be harnessed. I explained earlier, I thought this solution existed in a blind spot because of left wing anti capitalist environmentalism since the 1960's - coupled with climate change denial on the right. I was wrong in that, they have known since the 1980's there's limitless clean energy available from magma; like they knew about climate change, when they started fracking. If you can tell me how to explain that in rational terms, I'm all ears. I'm pointing toward a subconscious influence; a secret desire to nudge God's elbow on the end of days thing! Religious fatalism that excludes belief in a prosperous sustainable future.

So ... none of that strikes you as overblown? The Revelations bit that still doesn't really make any sense. The whole thing about what a mistake it is to judge others as if they could match your level of reason. Describing yourself as the "bridge to the future"...

Have you noticed in science fiction, there's always an apocalypse that wipes the slate clean, before the new sci fi future is built? This gap is known as 'the bridge to the future.' It's a literary device to get the author from here, to there - without having to account for how we get there. I did not describe myself as the bridge to the future - but in similarly metaphorical terms, as a sign post, pointing the way to the bridge to the future.

I'm quite sure I didn't say 'others cannot match my level of reason.' Those are your words, you're trying to put in my mouth. I was talking about religious conceptualisation; both historic, and present day, and how that affects appreciation of science. In my philosophy science is valid knowledge of reality. In others, science is a mere tool to be used or disregarded - as religious, political and economic ideological motives dictate.

"flashdangerpants" BELIEVES it knows more and better than most of the ones in this forum, so that is why it "sees" in "others" that this is what they are 'trying to' do also, which is obviously NOT always there.

A scientific understanding of reality allows for a prosperous sustainable future. It is the way. I'm pointing that out.

What is 'reality', and, what is a 'scientific understanding' of 'reality'?

From what I have observed a LOT of, so called, "scientists" are STILL 'trying to' work out what is ACTUALLY 'real', and STILL arguing about 'reality'.

[Vitruvius]

I am most disappointed in myself; that I did not realise right away - that I had judged others by my own standards of reason.

Ahem

I can see how you could misconstrue it; if you are determined to take offence to me personally - which it seems you are. I make no apology for your determination to disparage me, but to my mind, all that says is that others reason in different terms. Terms that don't allow for a prosperous sustainable future!

And you want that one to be interpreted as humble?

It doesn't make any difference to you how I want to be interpreted; but if you think I'm in this to big myself up, you're wrong. I'd honestly rather be done with this. There are other things I want to do before I die - than to ensure future generations at least have a chance at life. There's nothing heroic in that. Everyone should want that. There's an old Greek proverb about and old Greek planting tress in the shade of which he'll never sit - but the proverb isn't ...what great guy! It's 'society functions best when... old men plant tress in the shade of which they'll never sit.'

[Vitruvius]

The ASSUMPTIONS are continuous, as well as being just Wrong.

I'm sorry. Your posts do not meet the required minimum quality standard, and will not receive a reply. Thank you for your interest.

[Vitruvius]

1. 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

2. I characterized my discussions here as trying to force feed a viscous dog; and I was ... this close to being free of it!

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

I don't think you should give up posting about it, unless you find a more fertile ground to plant your case for magma (geothermal) energy. Is there a political party that actively supports your case? The Greens? Or is there a political party that actively is against Big Oil? It is counter productive to be hostile to conservationists. Few conservationists are Captain Swing.

There's a big climate change conference in November - and I'm hoping to put magma energy on that table. After that; one way or another, I'm done. Otherwise, I'll end up like Nietzsche - who wept publicly at seeing a horse whipped, had a mental breakdown - and died from nervous exhaustion. Or Darwin, who walked round and around his garden for 20 years, worrying himself sick over the implications of evolution for a religious society. I don't know if I have support; I'm doing this alone - not affiliated with anyone. I wish the facts spoke for themselves; unfortunately they don't!

The plan proposed was not 'actively against big oil.' Magma energy needs the energy companies on side, and the way I suggest magma energy is developed - (as a global good, specifically to tackle climate change through carbon sequestration, desalination, irrigation, recycling while building capacity) allows time for fossil fuel dependent economies to diversify - before a managed sectoral transition from fossil fuels. (cement, steel, aluminium, etc) It also divorces upfront infrastructure costs from loss of revenues; allowing the markets to divest safely. But when you pointed out they knew all along; that really threw a spanner in the works. Thanks for that; and I mean that both sarcastically and genuinely.

I said at the time, I don't know if this is good news or not. They knew 40 years ago there's limitless clean energy available from magma, and they knew about climate change, and decided fracking was a good idea - despite the earthquakes and the poisoned groundwater! It makes diplomacy that much more difficult; while simultaneously strengthening the case for magma energy. Also; must apologize to the neighbours for the screaming and shouting!

[Vitruvius]

...

[Belinda]

1. 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

2. I characterized my discussions here as trying to force feed a viscous dog; and I was ... this close to being free of it!

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

I don't think you should give up posting about it, unless you find a more fertile ground to plant your case for magma (geothermal) energy. Is there a political party that actively supports your case? The Greens? Or is there a political party that actively is against Big Oil? It is counter productive to be hostile to conservationists. Few conservationists are Captain Swing.

There's a big climate change conference in November - and I'm hoping to put magma energy on that table. After that; one way or another, I'm done. Otherwise, I'll end up like Nietzsche - who wept publicly at seeing a horse whipped, had a mental breakdown - and died from nervous exhaustion. Or Darwin, who walked round and around his garden for 20 years, worrying himself sick over the implications of evolution for a religious society. I don't know if I have support; I'm doing this alone - not affiliated with anyone. I wish the facts spoke for themselves; unfortunately they don't!

The plan proposed was not 'actively against big oil.' Magma energy needs the energy companies on side, and the way I suggest magma energy is developed - (as a global good, specifically to tackle climate change through carbon sequestration, desalination, irrigation, recycling while building capacity) allows time for fossil fuel dependent economies to diversify - before a managed sectoral transition from fossil fuels. (cement, steel, aluminium, etc) It also divorces upfront infrastructure costs from loss of revenues; allowing the markets to divest safely. But when you pointed out they knew all along; that really threw a spanner in the works. Thanks for that; and I mean that both sarcastically and genuinely.

I said at the time, I don't know if this is good news or not. They knew 40 years ago there's limitless clean energy available from magma, and they knew about climate change, and decided fracking was a good idea - despite the earthquakes and the poisoned groundwater! It makes diplomacy that much more difficult; while simultaneously strengthening the case for magma energy. Also; must apologize to the neighbours for the screaming and shouting!

I wish you well. Thank goodness for Nietzsche and Darwin.