Cool, I wasn't aware as I'm only familiar with the oil and gas industry. That's pretty interesting. You should work out the numbers boethius has asked for. How much square meters of rock do you need and what will be the recharge rate. Then you also need to prove it's an economical viable option aside from some obvious engineering challenges of operating equipment under high pressure and high temperatures with moving parts. Generally, engineers aren't happy with both high pressure and high temperature. — Benkei
Thermal conductivity of rocks falls usually in the range of 0.40–7.00 W m−1 K−1 [8]. Low values are characteristic for dry, not consolidated sedimentary rocks, as gravels and sands. Higher thermal conductivity values are for most sedimentary and metamorphic rocks, while very high are typical for felsic igneous rocks. Rocks with high quartz content (e.g. quartzite, sandstone), as well as water-saturated rocks, are the best heat conductors [9]. Balckwell and Steele [10] provide thermal conductivity values for sandstones in the range of 2.50–4.20 W m−1 K−1, for shale: 1.05–1.45 W m−1 K−1, and for claystone and siltstone: 0.80–1.25 W m−1 K−1. — Labus
Geothermal power requires no fuel; it is therefore immune to fuel cost fluctuations. However, capital costs tend to be high. Drilling accounts for over half the costs, and exploration of deep resources entails significant risks. A typical well doublet in Nevada can support 4.5 megawatts (MW) of electricity generation and costs about $10 million to drill, with a 20% failure rate.[23] In total, electrical station construction and well drilling costs about 2–5 million € per MW of electrical capacity, while the levelised energy cost is 0.04–0.10 € per kW·h.[10] Enhanced geothermal systems tend to be on the high side of these ranges, with capital costs above $4 million per MW and levelized costs above $0.054 per kW·h in 2007.[52]
Geothermal power is highly scalable: a small power station can supply a rural village, though initial capital costs can be high.[53]
The most developed geothermal field is the Geysers in California. In 2008, this field supported 15 stations, all owned by Calpine, with a total generating capacity of 725 MW.[38] — wiki
Recharge rate is not an issue where there is conduction through rock, from a higher temperature energy source. Rock is a good conductor of heat. Any energy you take out of heated rock will immediately be replaced from the higher temperature region adjacent. It's the second law of thermodynamics. Heat always moves from hotter to cooler regions, and passes easily through stone. — counterpunch
That's pretty much the climate debate since decades. — boethius
Unless you have wishes left over, you are clearly suggesting mass murder. — counterpunch
Yeah. :roll: You're an idiot. — James Riley
But what are you actually saying about what the models predict? — ChatteringMonkey
The non conservative models show stable states and tipping points, the holocene stable state we are leaving, and a new one we're heading to, several degrees higher (the anthropocene stable state let's say)? — ChatteringMonkey
- Is the implication then not that only reducing greenhouse gas-levels on a large scale, to maybe get back to holocene stable state, would have a tangible effect on climate, because anything less will just end us in the anthropocene stable state anyway? — ChatteringMonkey
I have a fairly good idea of my own intellectual abilities, and I'm far from idiocy. For example, I know there isn't time to reduce population by means other than murder within the timeframe climate change allows for. So it would be pretty fucking stupid of me to suggest it. And then worse if I got all pissy about it! — counterpunch
So the answer is "no." You don't have the intellectual horsepower to come up with something other than murder. — James Riley
If you're going to jump out of a building, it's still better to jump from a lower floor — boethius
It's your idea; you suggested population reduction - it's for you to say how you intend to achieve that. — counterpunch
The misapplication of technology is the problem. — counterpunch
Applying the right technologies 8-10bn people could survive and prosper long term - with very few government interventions in the market or civil sphere. — counterpunch
Well, it's never a guarantee, less fast you're going the more likely to survive.
However, in this analogy, the height is not yet guaranteed to be fatal. Right now it's comparable to just likely breaking a bone, nothing too "serious" (if we did everything we could do engineering wise to stop green house emissions, stop burning the Aamazon etc.).
However, although catastrophe is already "baked in", as I've mentioned by any standard of "catastrophe", there's really big variations. There's also natural variations that can work in our favour or not. — boethius
First of all, fuck 8-10 billion people. — James Riley
We have very different perspectives. I care about sustainability, but not because I conceive of nature as some romantic ideal - I put before human interests. — counterpunch
I'm trying to describe ways to secure a decent future with minimal disruption, — counterpunch
and you want to send out murder squads! — counterpunch
But purely based on those models we're going from on stable state to another right? That's what crossing those tipping points does, even if we stop emmissions, temperature keeps rising. — ChatteringMonkey
LOL! You're an idiot. — James Riley
What we haven't established is how you intend to reduce human population to under 1 million in time to save the planet. — counterpunch
If that's not a viable option - and clearly it isn't, — counterpunch
we have to do something else. — counterpunch
what I was talking about — counterpunch
I'd say that I have established it (I have) and you have not, but since you know what I'm thinking, then you must have established it too, right? — James Riley
But then I guess you proved you don't know what I'm thinking because you think I'm thinking murder. — James Riley
This proves that you don't know what you don't know. Teachable moment: From now on, don't tell other people what they are thinking. Ask instead. Doh! — James Riley
This does make a lot of sense, the models are only a rough approximation of an underlying reality afterall. We kindof know the rough ballpark of where, how and when things will go wrong, but there's still a lot of uncertainty about the specifics, and about what the interaction are between the moving parts. Nevertheless better save than sorry, I agree. — ChatteringMonkey
These kind of long term, high impact/uncertain probability risks are difficult to sell politically I suppose, because you do know the impact of the policy measures on your constituency typically. — ChatteringMonkey
Things do seem to be picking up traction now, technologically, economically and politically. — ChatteringMonkey
This is correct for most politicians, at any given time.
But the real question is why there isn't wide spread awareness and powerful movements, or then why the movements that do exist have so far failed. The denialist industry was and still is well funded, but it's not really a given they would win, and they've only really "won" in the US; here in Europe there's not really much climate denialism, but the policies are weak sauce; the "concerned" politicians of Europe never get together and do anything of significance.
I'm honestly not sure; it's not like the information is in secret books that an institution will systematically burn both the books and anyone possessing them. "Truth" seems to have gotten out far worse obstacles. — boethius
Although I hope so, and I've been working in the field for 20 years, I am more pessimistic as you may have gotten. — boethius
Near volcanoes it will therefore be high because that's igneous rock. Let's assume there's no temperature drop, how much rock do you need to power a city like New York? How many holes? — Benkei
How about the engineering part? What existing machines come close and how are you going to make them suitable for those environments? How much is it going to cost? Is it economically viable? How does it compare to other renewable energy sources? — Benkei
The problem is that at this stage you have an idea but no plan. — Benkei
But purely based on those models we're going from on stable state to another right? That's what crossing those tipping points does, even if we stop emmissions, temperature keeps rising. So then where do the variations come in is what I don't understand. Is it just a matter of slightly delaying the increase of temperature then, to buy more time until you get to the next stable state?
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.