Corruption. Politicians in the deep pockets of the fossil fuel industry; standing on the brink of an entirely new era, and too cowardly and self-serving to bring it about. Fuck them. If I shout loud enough maybe China will hear me; and then they'll have no choice. — karl stone

:ok:

It isn't that they are so much opposed to geo-thermal as they are opposed to risking their economies, as currently operated. This is not a mistaken danger. A sudden switch away from fossil fuels to any other system could not be done overnight, and the transition is more likely to be wrenching and wrecking rather than smooth and pleasant--whether the destination is geothermal, hydrogen, photovoltaic, wind, or hydro. — Bitter Crank

People do not do a lot of things they should and could do, whether that is giving up tobacco, exercising more, avoiding war, or demanding magma wells NOW. — Bitter Crank

The pivotal concept here is "laziness". As we get older we get set in our ways, happy to relax, live off our investments, and just sort of enjoy the luxury which the hard work of our younger days has providing for us. The prolonging of one's life becomes the principal focus. It's natural that older people get lazier, as the body gets weaker. And western society is generally governed by the elders, now the baby-boomers. At this age, they have not the motivation and ambition required for radical change. The governing class, in a word, are lazy, this renders them as incapable of effecting significant change.

...

The most I'm asking of the ruling classes is the stroke of a pen when they ought. — karl stone

It appears you're not very well informed as to how democratic governments proceed. Everything must be discussed, studied, debated, studied again, discussed, voted on, studied again, debated again, voted on again, ad nauseam. It is not just a matter of the supreme ruler signing off on some peon's proposal.

...

I'm a philosopher too, and I consider myself a peon. So no insult was intended. Philosophers with grand ideas are not given much esteem in our society. Now, if you were a scientist, you might give them something to discuss, study, debate, study again, discuss, vote on, study again, debate again, vote on again, ad nauseam.

...

Iceland already receives a large portion of its energy from geothermal sources. Wikipedia says:

"Five major geothermal power plants exist in Iceland, which produce approximately 26.2% (2010)[2] of the nation's electricity. In addition, geothermal heating meets the heating and hot water requirements of approximately 87% of all buildings in Iceland."

...

Sure, but it's a different technology. Iceland's geothermal is hydrothermal; energy drawn from underground bodies of hot water. — karl stone

Water is an efficient way to move energy through the ground.

...

I would think that the fact that water boils, therefore greatly expands, at a relatively low temperature, would be a great benefit, even though such expansion might appear to be a little bit more risky. It's really not more risky because we have all the technology required to contain steam pressure. And, harnessing energy always involves some risk.

Gas provides a better way to transport energy, like a heat pump. Also, there's a substantial distance to cover, and velocity is more important to energy transport than mass. This is the system we already have naturally in the atmosphere, water evapourates, and releases its energy into the atmosphere when it condenses. We just need to set up a multitude of similar (contained) systems in the ground.

The extreme temperatures you speak of, are the true causes of the greater risk. This would require a much greater depth in the earth, and significantly stronger transport materials. Lower temperatures and higher velocity is obviously the more practical choice.

....

If the idea is to transport heat from the depths to the surface, then water/steam is probably the most feasible. If the idea is to convert the heat to some other form of energy, like electricity, at the source, then transmit that energy to the surface, this is a much more difficult problem. You would need a thermoelectric generator which created a very high voltage, to be able to efficiently transfer substantial electrical energy to the surface. I don't think the technology is available.

In order to maintain the relatively high standard of living for some people, many other people have to live a relatively low standard. So that's not really a solution.
— baker
Why?

Prosperity isn't fixed. It's not a game of someone wins, others loose.

For example, take all the Americans of 2022. Compare them with all the Americans of 1822.

How will you argue that compared to two hundred years ago, only some Americans have become more prosperous, but others have it worse than in 1822. — ssu

Queen Victoria didn't have internet access. I guess she wasn't particularly prosperous.

You're looking at prosperity in absolute terms. I think this is problematic, because prosperity then gets to be defined by some arbitrary standard that depends solely on "how far people dare to dream".

Prosperity isn't fixed. It's not a game of someone wins, others loose.

Yet the _relative_ difference between the rich and the poor is the same, regardless of which time period you observe.

It is a solution.

The real question is how to get there.

The scarcity of natural resources puts a limit to human expansion. If natural resources would be unlimited and easy enough to obtain, then the process of growth as has been taking place for the past two hundred years or so could continue, and your "solution" could come true. As things stand, it can't.

Yet this simple fact will hardly have any impact to some. Too many people are mesmerized with ideas that improvements happen only by basically stealing from others, that capitalism and the market mechanism are bad, because there are obvious problems and injustices around us. Hence throw everything out...at least at a theoretical level. Yet central planning and socialism without market mechanism hasn't worked. But who cares about history? — ssu

Well, some people think that.

Some of us are just digusted by living solely for the sake of living. All this eating, consuming, day in day out, getting nowehre, spinning around in a circle of consumption. This principle of consumption is the same, whether we're living a caveman lifestyle, or a post-industrial one.

The Luddite argument can be easily shown not to be true as the industrial revolution didn't bring us hoards of beggars roaming the countryside as there would be no work. — ssu

There would be countless beggars because there'd be no work for people, were it not that some people invented new desires to cater to, even raising them to the level of "needs". That's how new jobs were created and people weren't unemployed en masse.

Do you feel no compunction at inventing new desires, new "needs" even, just so that the business keeps going?

Samuel Johnson said, "Depend upon it, sir, when a man knows he is to be hanged in a fortnight, it concentrates his mind wonderfully." That lots of people know we are facing an existential threat hasn't done the trick of concentrating our minds. — Bitter Crank

Isn't self-confidence great!
Maybe if people learn to "believe in themselves" sufficiently, they can even live off of CO2!

You're looking at prosperity in absolute terms. I think this is problematic, because prosperity then gets to be defined by some arbitrary standard that depends solely on "how far people dare to dream". — baker

But prosperity is all about absolute terms. Do you have enough and good food? Good service and medical treatment. All those machines and opportunities to make things easy. That is the start point.

You are looking at a different problem, income and wealth inequality, not prosperity itself. We seem to forget that prosperity or povetry are indeed absolute. You can have absolute povetry: you own the dirty clothes you wear and nothing else. Is there that kind of povetry? Yes. But a lot less than before.

Yet the _relative_ difference between the rich and the poor is the same, regardless of which time period you observe. — baker

Then look at the poor people. And you can see that they are better in every country in the World than they were two or three hundred years ago. You simply cannot deny that.

The scarcity of natural resources puts a limit to human expansion. — baker

And that has been always the problem since the birth of our species. There hasn't been any time in history when natural resources were bountiful. They look only "untapped" for us as the technology wasn't there to for us to use them. Our technology that we have had made the limits of what are obtainable resources.

Some of us are just digusted by living solely for the sake of living. All this eating, consuming, day in day out, getting nowehre, spinning around in a circle of consumption. This principle of consumption is the same, whether we're living a caveman lifestyle, or a post-industrial one. — baker

Well, people who genuinely say that they are disgusted by living solely for the sake of living may have other problems. Just ask yourself, what do other animals do? Criticizing our materialism and consumerism is one thing. Criticizing living for the sake of living is another. Everything does spin around consumption: put a plant out of sunlight and look at the consequences. Perhaps people who are disgusted about consumption should simply for one day not eat anything and go to sleep hungry. The human body is perfectly adapted to be without food for a day (without water you will get a terrible headache). I think the vast majority don't have had that experience. Yet the experience of not having enough to eat and going to sleep hungry is a widely experienced feeling even today.

It is something that actually both you and me can possibly experience (not having enough food), if there's a war or similar breakdown in society.

But prosperity is all about absolute terms. Do you have enough and good food? Good service and medical treatment. All those machines and opportunities to make things easy. That is the start point.

You are looking at a different problem, income and wealth inequality, not prosperity itself. — ssu

Even two thousand years ago, and before that, they had the notion of "prosperity". They just didn't define it in terms of indoor plumbing, fancy kitchen appliances, or availability of top trauma surgeons who could sew back a detached limb.

Then look at the poor people. And you can see that they are better in every country in the World than they were two or three hundred years ago. You simply cannot deny that.

Irrelevant. Is the relative difference between the rich and the poor that makes the relevant difference.

In my native language, the offical, politically correct word for "being poor" literally means 'socially weak'.
What matters is that Tom has less than Harry. It doesn't matter how much each of them have per se, as long as the difference between them is big enough. Middleclass people are to the elite what beggars are to middleclass people.

And that has been always the problem since the birth of our species. There hasn't been any time in history when natural resources were bountiful. They look only "untapped" for us as the technology wasn't there to for us to use them. Our technology that we have had made the limits of what are obtainable resources.

Maybe some time (soon!) we can learn to eat plastic. Yay!

Well, people who genuinely say that they are disgusted by living solely for the sake of living may have other problems. Just ask yourself, what do other animals do?

For all our supposed superiority, we should do better than worms.

Even two thousand years ago, and before that, they had the notion of "prosperity". They just didn't define it in terms of indoor plumbing, fancy kitchen appliances, or availability of top trauma surgeons who could sew back a detached limb. — baker

Larger homes, more servants. Same issue.

Irrelevant. Is the relative difference between the rich and the poor that makes the relevant difference. — baker

So if everybody would have the living standards of what billionaires have, that would be irrelevant, if there would be those who have far better living standards than our present billionaires?

Well, I beg to differ. Eradicating absolute poverty is doable, quite possible and should what the World should strive for. And where the real work has to be done is in Africa. In fact things have improved in this view.



So @baker, you are simply talking about wealth inequality. That simply is different issue from wealth and prosperity itself.

Here's the problem:

If this year Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos decided to move into my neighborhood were I'm living, wealth inequality would skyrocket here. Yet what would be worse for me? They are not taking my money, I'm not worse in absolute terms, but I sure am worse in relative terms. Likely they would pay some meager tax to this society and they wouldn't present any problem.

You simply have to take both issues into focus, both absolute and relative. Because the fact is that societies have and can get more prosperous.

The real alarm bells should be rung when wealth inequality is rising and absolute poverty is either rising or keeping at the same level.

For all our supposed superiority, we should do better than worms. — baker

Maybe some time (soon!) we can learn to eat plastic. Yay! — baker

Ok, you are not serious.