"Big oil" didn't come into existence because people wanted a petroleum-based economy. It was driven into existence by capitalists (like Rockefeller) who found there was a market for grease and kerosene, and soon gasoline. What started out as a small business turned into a gigantic industry upon which the present economy was built and came to depend. Before oil there was coal, steel, and railroads which drove the economy.

Capital isn't directed into geothermal energy because it would compete with the sunk investments in petroleum (the whole vast infrastructure).

"The people" would be as happy with geothermal energy as they have been with fossil fuel-based energy (probably happier), BUT "the people" do not have the financial, technical, and organizational capacity to bring an industry into existence. Why not?

Well, start with cost. It takes a large capital investment to drill and capture geothermal heat. Then more capital is needed to build a generating plant. More capital still is needed to set up distribution lines for the electricity. Capital comes from the pool of cash held by banks and various investment firms, who already have a huge stake in fossil/wind/solar energy. It takes decades to pay off the necessary loans to build.

The upshot of this is that investment decisions are top-down, not bottom up. Starting any new industry, or changing an old one, requires the backing of capital. I don't like it, but that's the way it is.

So, it doesn't matter to "the people" that there is clean, 'infinite' geothermal energy waiting to be tapped. "The people" don't get a vote on where capitalists invest their money.

It is really just one more tragedy of the commons where "the people" get shafted or neglected by the lords and masters of the economy.

Allow me to expatiate a bit more on the tragedy.

"The people" -- everyone pretty much everywhere -- is a captive of the larger economic system in which they operate. Billions of people recognize global warming as a threat to themselves, their families, their communities, and their futures. Still, the people desire to better their material circumstances, and this usually requires drinking from the common cup of fossil fuels and allied industries.

The decision to shift from 1 billion internal combustion engine automobiles to 1 billion battery operated autos was made in a few dozen board rooms far away from the people. And even if every corporate interest voted "Yea" for this shift, it isn't going to happen overnight.

Geothermal energy is a solution to several major problems just as very good public transit is a solution. So again, why not?

Take public transit. Where the economic commitment is extremely high for concrete highways, rubber tires, and individually operated vehicles, there is one extremely good reason to not invest in trains, buses, light rail, trolleys, etc.: the loss of the captive market. (In the United States -- a very large place -- there is no easy alternative to the automobile, except in selected sections of dense urban areas.)

Once upon an ancient time ending around 1955-1965, many American cities had good public transit systems (generally street cars and inter-urban light rail) plus many heavy-rail passenger trains between many cities. The street cars and the passenger trains didn't go out of business for lack of use: it was another decision made in several board rooms.

I happen to prefer all-cotton clothing. I don't want elastane added to my my denim blue jeans and cotton shirts. What do I find? Virtually every clothing maker now uses between 1% and 20% elastane in their clothing. Polyester shirts have dominated the shirt market since the 1970s. The decision to change the fabric content is another board-room level decision. A lot of changes in life come about that way.

Don't "the people" have a say in all this? To a large extent, no. We don't have a say. We want clean geothermal generated energy? Well, too bad. You're not going to get it until we the capital investment banks decide it's worth a lot to us.

Theoretically, "The People" have a say. We can organize our inchoate power and force changes we desire. But there is a very wide gap between what is theoretically possible and what is practically doable.

In the 1960s into the 1970s there were huge nationwide demonstrations against the war in Vietnam. Did these demonstrations force the Nixon administration to withdraw the troops? No, it did not. Did demonstrations force utilities to install solar and wind power? No. It was the falling price of wind and solar, compared to coal, that led to the windmills and solar farms. Etc. Etc. Etc.

Capital isn't directed into geothermal energy because it would compete with the sunk investments in petroleum (the whole vast infrastructure). — BC

That makes no sense. Capitalism isn't a single entity; it is any number of rationally self interested actors in competition, and it surely has to be cheaper to produce electricity from geothermal heat than it is from oil, gas or coal in many places further west.

It takes a large capital investment to drill and capture geothermal heat. Then more capital is needed to build a generating plant. — BC

Or, you already have a generating plant and are spending half your profits buying coal to keep it running; when you could drill a geothermal well and save yourself the cost of the coal. Why hasn't that happened?

To some degree it has, of course. The US is the largest geothermal energy producer in the world. But geothermal energy still only accounts for less than 1% of US energy production, when according to Nasa/Sandia Labs there's several thousand percent available. Hundreds of times world energy demand.

I get there are allied industries and entrenched technologies; the petrochemical industry, and the internal combustion engine being only the most obvious. But things change - and sometimes quite rapidly. There's a famous image comparing 5th Avenue in New York in 1900 and 1913; imagine all the allied industries that kept all those horses in shoes, tack and hay - gone in little more than a decade. Capitalism is progressive and destructive. It doesn't care about those who lose out because a cheaper source, method or product came along.

Or it shouldn't, if indeed it is a free market.

It doesn't care about those who lose out because a cheaper source, method or product came along. — karl stone

It cares a great deal if it is their ox that is getting gored.

Capitalism isn't a single entity; it is any number of rationally self interested actors in competition — karl stone

In an ideal capitalist economy, there would be independent capitalists and industrialists in competition. we do not have an ideal capitalist economy.

What we have are a set of interlocked banks, investment companies, and corporations. For instance, Autos, chemicals, and large banks are likely to have shared boards of directors, shared stock holdings, and shared ownership. Many institutions (retirement funds, endowment funds, insurance companies, etc.) own large stakes in capitalist organizations. Never mind individuals who own bits and pieces. They don't have a significant vote.

The point is, capitalists have both shared and conflicting interests. True, geothermal generation would be cheaper. However, J P Morgan may be reluctant to threaten coal or natural gas interests in which it has a large stake. Consolidated Edison may be reluctant to build new generation when it has major debts on existing plant. Wells Fargo Bank may be unwilling to lend the money to build new facilities when it hasn't recouped costs from huge fires.

Lots of good things--important and necessary--do not get done BECAUSE those who have great wealth (banks, corporations, individuals, investments funds, etc.) don't care; they have other concerns.

I'm not an apologist for capitalism; I'm a socialist of the dispossess the possessors variety. I'm only trying to provide an explanation for what you consider mysterious behavior. "Capital" and "Capitalists" are rational in textbooks. In reality, not so much.

It cares a great deal if it is their ox that is getting gored. — BC

I cannot argue with that direct contradiction without a great deal of research and data.

In an ideal capitalist economy, there would be independent capitalists and industrialists in competition. we do not have an ideal capitalist economy. — BC

ditto

What we have are a set of interlocked banks, investment companies, and corporations. For instance, Autos, chemicals, and large banks are likely to have shared boards of directors, shared stock holdings, and shared ownership. — BC

If you say so.

The point is, capitalists have both shared and conflicting interests. True, geothermal generation would be cheaper. However, J P Morgan may be reluctant to threaten coal or natural gas interests in which it has a large stake. — BC

It's an hypothesis, and I understand your argument, but I don't buy it - because it's not possible that one part of umbrella group of companies can organise it's business such that it doesn't bankrupt a different part of the same group.
Middle managers are tasked with producing efficiently, lowering costs and increasing profits - and insofar as they succeed or fail, the consequences of that relative to another company within the same group are just not within their control. To extend that idea across an entire national economy - cannot be how things really are.

I mentioned earlier, the 1970 Geothermal Steam Act; and I think the leasing arrangements acted as a disincentive to geothermal energy research and production, but that's the level we're talking about. It has to be government resting its giant thumb on the scale in favour of fossil fuels. The conspiracy cannot be at boardroom level.

If you say so. — karl stone

I am, of course, quoting other people--like G. Peter Domhoff, author of "Who Rules America". Professor Domhoff teaches at University of California, Santa Cruz. "Who Rules America" was updated in 2023. But surely you are aware of the concentration of power in the United States and elsewhere? It isn't a very well-kept secret, really.

However, the organization of power isn't within the scope of geothermal energy, even if it is a deep topic.

You should write Donald Trump a letter. He likes the expression, "drill, baby, drill", and geothermal energy does require drilling, maybe with a more certain pay-off than drilling for oil. Maybe you can deflect him from drilling for oil to drilling for magma,

President Donald J. Trump,

First of all congratulations, on, well, everything.

Everything you're doing is just so great.

I'm sure you're absolutely right that climate change is a hoax.

Even so, you could own all those commie scientists for good, and secure your place in history as a titan of industry; a visionary greater than the late great JD Rockefeller and JP Getty combined - if you announced a plan to power the United States of America and the world, with limitless clean energy from high temperature geothermal.

According to Nasa/Sandia Labs in 1982, the energy is there in great abundance, and the technology to produce it was within reach 40 years ago.

It's a deep state scandal we don't have it already.

How could Bill Clinton's Vice President, Al Gore - not have known about Magma Energy?

Save the world, Sir. Save America from the commies using climate change to attack capitalism.

President Trump, creates a whole new era for humankind.

Sincerely, etc.

That’s funny.

I suggest adding that he is so handsome he is the only reason any sane guy might want to identify as a woman.

And Cc. Putin in the letter suggesting a partnership startup.

President Trump's best friend Vlad is a problem, because, while the US is a big fossil fuel energy producer, the US would not need to divest and diversify between now and 2050 half as much as Russia would need to.
Russia is very much dependent on fossil fuel revenues and would be all veto and thumbs down were this a vote in the UN.
Fortunately, President Trump doesn't give two shakes of a lamb's tail for votes in the UN!

We've considered why right winged interests would not enthusiastically embrace Magma Energy; now let's consider why left winged - supposed environmentalists would still be pushing a Limits to Growth policy proscription 40 years after Nasa/Sandia Labs demonstration of the potential for boundless clean energy from high temperature geothermal.

It might be noted that Meadows and Meadows, 1974 The Limits to Growth - was quite authoritative in its day, coming as it did from a group of computer scientists at MIT, and feeding into a conservationist environmental movement. Save the Whale! etc. Leaning, if not explicitly upon Malthusian logic - (proven wrong by 200 years of technological advance that promoted food production far ahead of population growth) the idea of finite resources being used up had an internally logical appeal.

Insofar as it appealed also to a Marxist anti-capitalist sensibility, it served as a staunch critique of capitalism at a time when the genocidal horrors of 20th century communism had as yet, barely come to light. Little wonder then, Limits to Growth became unquestionable on the left; even while, from 1982 onward - the environmental value of boundless clean energy from high temperature geothermal should have been obvious.

These remarks; insofar as they might provide some insight, do not adequately answer the question of how the environmental left found themselves in a conspiracy of opposition; offering one of two juxtaposed false narratives - Limits to Growth relative to climate denialism. An impasse characteristic of the Cold War era! Because scientifically, it's inexplicable that The Limits to Growth was not refuted by Nasa/Sandia Labs findings, and the impasse broken, such that the environmental debate took place between continuing with fossil fuels, and a practically limitless constant clean energy alternative!