Magma Energy forever!
In 1982, Nasa/Sandia Labs demonstrated the feasibility of producing practically limitless quantities of constant clean energy from high temperature geothermal.
40 years later, the technology has not been developed or applied, or even mentioned by supposed environmentalists - from Al Gore through to Greta Thunberg.
I'd like to discuss why this might be.
There are obvious political and financial interests in fossil fuels - but why should that deter environmentalists from demanding clean energy abundance?
Environmentalism has a basis in Marxism and anti-capitalist degrowth, but scientists are supposed to be objective with regards to facts - that still the question remains why Nasa/Sandia Labs findings did not refute The Limits to Growth (Meadows, 1974).
Further possibilities revolve around Freud's death drive and all sorts of Shoppenheuer. Are we only pretending to want to solve climate change?
If anyone has any thoughts please, feel free to share, because I am utterly flummoxed!
40 years later, the technology has not been developed or applied, or even mentioned by supposed environmentalists - from Al Gore through to Greta Thunberg.
I'd like to discuss why this might be.
There are obvious political and financial interests in fossil fuels - but why should that deter environmentalists from demanding clean energy abundance?
Environmentalism has a basis in Marxism and anti-capitalist degrowth, but scientists are supposed to be objective with regards to facts - that still the question remains why Nasa/Sandia Labs findings did not refute The Limits to Growth (Meadows, 1974).
Further possibilities revolve around Freud's death drive and all sorts of Shoppenheuer. Are we only pretending to want to solve climate change?
If anyone has any thoughts please, feel free to share, because I am utterly flummoxed!
Comments (70)
Freud's death drive, proposed in "Beyond the Pleasure Principle," is a drive towards a return to the inorganic, a state of non-existence. It is seen as a force that can manifest as aggression, self-destruction, and a compulsion to repeat traumatic experiences.
Schopenhauer's Pessimism:
Schopenhauer's philosophy is rooted in a pessimistic view of life, arguing that existence is inherently fraught with suffering and that the will to live is a source of suffering. According to Schopenhauer, the "will" is a driving force that leads to dissatisfaction and ultimately, the realization that life is a tragic farce.
Uh, no. It has a basis in realizing that the physical world is finite and if you rob it beyond it's ability to regenerate itself you'll stave not only yourself but those around you and plunge whatever society into darkness, chaos, unrest, and eventual non-existence. See Easter Island. It's basic mathematics and mainstream science.
So right off the bat, no, that's just not correct. Please refine your topic and discussion to something remotely legible to sane people. Thank you. Just one TPF member's opinion, of course. No holds barred seeing you are of posting seniority (somewhat) and are no stranger to this forum.
What any of this has to do with either Freud or Schopenhauer is beyond me, though.
So you are saying Limits to Growth is true? Because, to my way of thinking - resources are a function of the energy available to produce them, and Earth is a big ball of molten rock.
Had we developed the technology to extract practically limitless quantities of constant clean energy from high temperature geothermal, we could meet all our energy needs carbon free, plus, we could desalinate sea water to irrigate wastelands, and so protect forests and rivers from overuse. We can recycle all waste and capture carbon. We can mine the ocean floor for metals, and so on - such that I see no Limits to Growth in the foreseeable future. Do you? And if so, what are they?
I'm informing you (to no avail, no doubt, so mostly other interlocutors) the sentence of yours I quoted is inaccurate and nothing more.
I was referring to publication of this paper in 1982:
"Status of the Magma Energy Project
Dunn, J. C. (Sandia National Labs., Albuquerque, NM.)
Abstract
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."
50,000 quads - the minimum Nasa/Sandia estimate is available just from the US alone, is approximately 90 times current world energy demand.
The implication is, that we would barely need to scratch the surface of the energy available to meet global energy demand carbon free. And there would be massive potential for growth thereafter.
Today, geothermal provides less than 1% of global energy. My question is why?
I think it is true, that while right wing interests abdicated into climate denial - left wing interests promoted a limits to growth approach to climate change, manifesting today in wind, solar, carbon taxes, veganism, and degrowth policies demanded by environmental campaigners.
If I'm wrong, just explain why you think that.
Your changing the topic that I was referring to.
My topic, based on your sentence of:
Quoting karl stone
In reality, caring for one's farmland and the land around them has been a concept that predates any of the terms you mention. That's a fact. So, I'm correct and you're not. I hate being that simple about things but yes, that's those are the relevant facts of this interaction and situation at hand as they stand and so happen to be.
Well Im not sure but pretty certain it aint due to Freudian repression. Probably more to do with cold hard economics.
Sure, maybe the current government or social zeitgeist is completely overlooking the true concept behind what environmentalism purports to look out for, as, people being people, modern governments being "of the people and (allegedly) for the people" might have completely hijacked or otherwise actively mislead and misrepresent such words and concepts to the highest degree. But that's not the point. The definition of the word and origin of the concept has nothing to do with politics or modern terms as the former predates the latter. Point blank. There's no argument of the contrary to be had. Respectfully.
Perhaps, mentioning farmland - you are referring, obliquely to Thomas Malthus, who in 1798, in his Essay On the Principles of Population, noted a disparity between the geometric rate of population growth (2,4,8,16,32 etc) and the arithmetic addition of agricultural land, one acre at a time. (1,2,3,4,5 etc.) He predicted people would necessarily starve. Only that didn't happen. People invented trains, tractors, refrigeration and fertilisers - multiplying food resources far ahead of population growth.
Similarly, I'm saying, we could apply Magma Energy technology, and overcome the supposed Limits to Growth bottleneck. You see Malthus was proven wrong by history, and so Meadows is wrong, and Limits to Growth is false!
Large-scale idealism, doo-goodery and politicial movements are virtually always corrupt, designed to get the gullible masses on board without ever actually delivering on anything they promise.
It's mass manipulation, nothing more.
Hostility? My friend and dear sir, who I would love to perhaps one day meet and talk life over tea and scones, may I be so bold as to remind the good sir: this is a debate forum. Ideas are on the chopping block, to be attacked with whatever logical rationale one's mind is able to produce. Why would you think yourself any different and take such normal mundane in these parts criticism and expected pattern of discussion as "hostile?": That my friend is the definition of bizarre.
Let us circle back. I had a disagreement with what I believed to be a cornerstone or "rudimentary assertion" of your argument, and I made such known. Do you not believe the statement I quoted is fundamental to your discussion or would you be able to accept that, whether it may be right or wrong, factual or not, there's a deeper argument to be had? 'Tis all I wish to know, I assure ye. :grin:
I explained what Freud's death drive is above. "..a drive towards a return to the inorganic, a state of non-existence."
It's my last resort explanation of why we have not developed Magma Energy, 40 years after it was proven viable by Nasa/Sandia Labs. Maybe we don't want an answer, because subconsciously we yearn for all this to end.
I don't think the individual should be able to make that determination for the human species, because individuals pass away while the species is renewed in successive generations. You may be bored to death, but they will experience the world anew.
It could be something as simple as failure to appreciate that Magma Energy is a specific type of geothermal energy, operating at much higher temperatures than any other form of geothermal currently in use.
I don't think it's economics per se; at least not honest economics. It could be fossil fuel cartels are keeping new entrants out of the market, but that still doesn't explain environmentalists ignoring Magma Energy all this time. You see how I don;t have an answer that fits! That's what I'm getting at. I've considered flat earth and/or simulation theory - because this really doesn't make sense!
I am genuine in my environmental concerns, as I'm sure are other people.
Are you saying that everyone who is genuine is stupid, and the smart ones are corrupt?
If there's corruption money going around, where's my cut?
No-one's offered me sack loads of cash to stop talking about Magma Energy.
Yet no-one talks about it, 40 years after Nasa/Sandia Labs published their findings - offering the world near limitless clean energy.
If it were that simple, I wouldn't still be scratching my head!
There's a genuine mystery here.
My assertion that 'environmentalism is based in Marxism and anti-capitalist degrowth' is slightly inaccurate. I might have said 'environmental protest' instead; but I wasn't attempting to be exact. Merely to sketch a problem. Surely, you cannot deny that the environmental cause has been taken up by the radical left as a critique of capitalism? Or that their policy proscription is communistic in character??
I don't buy that any more or less than you buy my doom monkey hypothesis!
It is wholly, completely, and utterly inaccurate. A literal work of fiction and unfortunate delusion, for any who would partake such falsehood as fact. The concept that understanding the finite nature of this world and that it should be protected, predates any of the terms mentioned. Do you really think knowledge of the land and advocating for protection of one's productive capacity only came about in the 16th or 18th century?
Sure, during that time many societies were under strict rule, often kingdoms, which discouraged such free radical thought. So, coincidentally, such thoughts were not recorded or mainstream. Perhaps in that aspect there is some rationale to indirectly justify beliefs to the contrary. But not absolutely.
Quoting karl stone
As I've said multiple times, people have a tendency to "take up" anything that seems common sense to proliferate insanity and nonsense. Whether or not a just cause or fundamental ideal is currently or actively controlled, in a certain area, land, or territory, by people who could care less about the actual cause is not the issue. I mean, sure, it's a grave concern. But now we're changing the topic. Yet again. If you wish to make a topic about "are things intrinsic to human existence, whatever they may be, being used by those who have an agenda that is not about what they purport" or even simpler: "are people liars?", Sure. That's fine. And you should make a new thread on that. Meanwhile, we're discussing the current topic at hand as you've written it currently.
You can trace the modern environmental movement back to Grey Owl - who was in fact an Englishman named Archibald Stansfeld Belaney (September 18, 1888 April 13, 1938). He pretended to be a ... native american ...for want of a better term.
"His views on wilderness conservation, expressed in numerous articles, books, lectures and films, reached audiences beyond the borders of Canada, bringing attention to the negative impact of exploiting nature and the urgent need to develop respect for the natural world."
I've also discussed Thomas Malthus on Population above, that was 1798. I don;t think you can go back further than that, and find the same concerns as those expressed in the modern environmental movement.
Meadows 1974, The Limits to Growth - is explicitly anti-capitalist, if not explicitly pro-Marxist.
Limits to Growth has been taken up by those of a Marxist persuasion, as a critique of capitalism. Unfortunately, it's come to be almost universally accepted. Indeed, you began stating the same idea as an absolute fact.
Quoting Outlander
That's wrong, if Nasa/Sandia Labs findings are right.
What in the actual !@#$ does that have to do with anything? You don't have to think you're going to die if you don't do something to realize it might be of benefit to society and help men live better lives. Caring about what is vs. what could be transcends into several debates. "Leave well enough alone", "don't fix what ain't broke", etc. are some simplified examples.
This is where myself and other rational and educated folk might disagree. What proof do you have? That's simply where such written record post royal era becomes part of written history. What of it? Have you no concept of what monarchy is? No, of course not. It's quite clear.
Let me say this to you. Are we so positive you're not politically entranced to the point of denying yourself, and a result the fine viewers and spectators of this excellent arena, a larger, more important debate of self-control, restraint, and responsibility?
The top finds some grift that can be sold to the people under the guise of benevolence, moral uprightness, etc. Sometimes we call that grift 'government', sometimes we call it 'religion', sometimes we call it 'political activism', etc.
Quoting karl stone
I think it's generally pretty naive to think that the people at the top maintain any moral integrity. The ideas can be good, but the top is virtually always corrupt (making the movements pointless at best, or counterproductive at worst).
Quoting karl stone
I can't look in your head, obviously, but usually 'the cut' is being told stories that one likes to hear from a place of authority. That's apparently some form of psychological heroin that the masses find impossible to resist.
It "has to do" with the concept of Limits to Growth, and your assertion that it's true, and my argument that it's false. I'm saying that Nasa/Sandia Labs 1982 proof of Magma Energy should have refuted Meadows 1974, The Limits to Growth. Environmental debate should have been between continued use of fossil fuels and abundant clean energy from Magma. Not, as it currently is, between continued use of fossil fuels - and grim, green poverty veganism and wind. We should be looking toward a prosperous AND sustainable future - not either one or the other.
I don't know how monarchy got dragged into this; I said post industrial era. I have some ideas of what monarchy is - I live in England. To me, monarchy is the least worst answer to the Head of State problem, but that's not relevant to this discussion.
On self-control, restraint, and responsibility, I think governments and industry are better placed than I am to take effective action. What can I do? Go without? I'm doing a fair bit of that already!
What can they do? They can build a Magma Energy platform sufficient to global energy demand by 2050, looking toward clean energy abundance by the end of the century. Instead, they're fracking with one hand and carbon taxing with the other; while having us on with Limits to Growth as a reason we need to pay more, have less, stop this and tax that.
You express some interesting ideas, but I still can't accept the idea that the reason Magma Energy has never been mentioned by the environmental movement, is that it's corrupt.
For the vast majority of people who take part, there's very little reward, and often substantial costs to doing so. There's no power to speak of. It would be a very strange psychopath who thought, I'm attracted to power - I know, I'll join the Green Party!
I'm sorry if this reply is less than adequate. I have to go now. I look forward to speaking with you all again soon. Like tomorrow, or maybe later today.
Still not commercially viable but could be. See https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2023/754200/IPOL_BRI(2023)754200_EN.pdf
Thanks again for the information. EGS is one approach, a technology akin to fracking for geothermal heat - but Nasa/Sandia Labs Magma Energy Project findings from 1982, are more consistent with mention of Ultra deep geothermal systems.
According to the IEA:
Sustainable Development scenario, global geothermal power is expected to triple from 92 TWh in 2019 to 282 TWh in 2030, but still remaining less than 1% of global energy demand in 2030.
Novel technologies, not yet commercially available, allow for the production of geothermal energy from
deep-seated or low permeability resources. They include, among others:
Ultra deep geothermal systems - characterised by typical drill depths of more than 5km and extremely
high temperatures reaching 500 °C. Under such conditions, water becomes supercritical;
Supercritical geothermal systems - characterised by very high temperatures and water (or other fluids)
in supercritical state (at least 374°C and 221 bar). Due to their operating temperatures, they have very
high productivity and their operation is technologically challenging (corrosive fluids, etc.);
A materials science problem with an answer:
P91 and P92 are advanced grades of Cr-Mo-V steels developed for high-temperature applications in power plants for applications like steam pipes and superheater components. They are designed to withstand high temperatures and pressures, specifically in the range of 580650°C.
P92 is an improved version of P91, offering enhanced creep resistance and corrosion resistance due to its unique chemical composition, including 1.8% tungsten, 0.6% molybdenum, and 0.005% boron. While P92 is more expensive, it can be used with a thinner wall thickness compared to P91 for the same operating conditions.
Dont tell me that, thats five in the last three months! And theyre $13 million a piece. You gotta do better!
Look its hot down there even without the gas explosions and plate fractures. It's like trying to tap into hell."
"Hey boss, we've melted another Tokomak - and they're $20bn a piece. You've got to do better!"
Don't worry about it. There's no amount of money the government won't throw at fusion, even though it hasn't produced a single erg of surplus energy in the past 50 years!
The science had only significantly changed with respect to ESG.
The short answer is, to solve the climate and ecological crisis.
A longer answer would reference the sheer scale of the energy available from UDGS; according to Nasa/Sandia Labs estimates - a minimum of 90 times current global energy demand just from the US alone. Remember, this is from 1982:
"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."
Current global energy demand is approximately 600 quads, so we'd barely need to scratch the surface of the energy available from UDGS to meet global energy demand carbon free forever. Crack this nut, and humankind is set. We can desalinate sea water to irrigate wastelands for agriculture and habitation - rather than burn the forest and deplete and pollute the rivers. We can recycle all our waste. We can extract carbon from the air.
Think in terms of the Kardashev scale! I want us to be a Type 1 civilisation. Why do you want a Type 0.35 civilisation?
So, do you have any information on the results of that assessment?
The Eternal Return all over again, from about 3 years ago. I thought this horse had been beaten to death.
As for solving the climate and ecological crisis (one and the same): Those who can solve it (petroleum producers, refiners, and distributors; coal companies; car companies; Wall Street investment funds, capitalists ad nauseam) prefer to keep the profits and the doomed future they know.
I can't agree with them, but I can empathize with their stubborn death grip on fossil fuel: It has fueled a long and fantastic period of innovation, economic growth, and prosperity. How could all that good stuff be bad? Indeed, it is hard to imagine. Billions of people can't imagine it, while other billions of people can see fossil fuels as a losing proposition. There's no one, single alternative. Sure, tap geothermal power while we also tap wind power, solar power, nuclear power, wave power, hydropower, and REDUCE CONSUMPTION.
The radical shift from fossil fuel to everything else will be a hard wrenching change. It just isn't going to be a pleasant walk in the park. That's what scares people as much as the doom of global warming.
We don't need to be a tier 1 civilisation to resolve the climate crisis.
Flogged to death is hardly a valid critique on a philosophy forum. If it weren't for rehashing Ancient Greek guys' musings, you'd have nothing to talk about. The boulder would return to the bottom of the hill and stay there! Because the universe is entropic - it requires the constant expenditure of effort/energy just to stand still.
Quoting BC
I disagree, and more significantly, Nasa/Sandia Labs research disagrees with that assertion. There is a silver bullet - we can plug into the planet and power everything a hundred times over with constant clean energy from high temperature geothermal. In my view, it's the next logical step in a long series of energy revolutions in human history; from eating meat, discovering fire, the agricultural revolution, the discovery of fossil fuels, the industrial revolution - at each stage, the application of technology yielding more energy for less effort.
Quoting BC
I'm not sure that's true, but it is closer to the question I'm trying to get to grips with. Sure, we can suppose a right wing conspiracy of governments, financial markets and fossil fuel companies keep new entrants - namely Magma Energy, out of the market, but why have left wing environmentalists not demanded Magma Energy these past 40 years?
Arguably, Hardin's Tragedy of the Commons suggests capitalists; acting only in their rational self interest would exploit the common resource that is Magma Energy to the maximum degree; providing the world with abundant clean energy to power a prosperous AND sustainable future.
But more puzzling still is why left winged environmentalists have not demanded the development and application of Magma Energy technology at any time in the past 40 years? How have they convinced everyone we need to ...
Quoting BC
...when it should be obvious that the resources available to a future powered by Magma Energy, would be as great again, as fossil fuels were an advantage over firewood and whale oil. Resources, including environmental resources - are not a finite amount being used up, but are a function of the energy available to produce them, and Earth is a big ball of molten rock!
Yes, sure.
https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/6588943
If only we'd started 40 years ago!
Quoting Benkei
compared to what?
Quoting Benkei
more expensive than what?
Quoting Benkei
Yeah, it's tripled since 2021, according to Bloomberg.
Quoting Benkei
Solving the climate and ecological crisis is not an immediate need. It requires a little forethought, because only a functioning global economy can do this. If we think only in terms of the immediate, waiting until solving the climate crisis becomes an immediate need, it will be too late.
Quoting Benkei
So EGS doesn't require transformers?
EGS.
Quoting karl stone
EGS.
Quoting karl stone
This is just handwaving. You remind me of counterpunch. Words devoid if basic facts. If you think this is the way forward, calculate it. I sincerely doubt the feasibility of going for the most expensive solution is workable. I've pointed to the one that is most likely to be feasible.
Quoting karl stone
If EGS works you can drop it anywhere into the existing grid and simply use existing transformers.
It is the case in parts of the US that any large expansion of electric production (thinking here of wind and solar) requires substantial improvements in regional and national grids which are difficult. Cost is one factor, but that is probably less important than animosity towards having the hardware of the grid marching across privately owned land.
You'd have to make a lot of assumptions - like how deep the supposed Magma Energy deposit is, how much energy it would produce, for how long, and what the market price is for that energy. What would be the point? Pick a number!
Expense is not the point at this stage; it's what would be achieved if the engineering challenge can be overcome. What you may not be aware of is that at 374'C water goes supercritical. It was a big thing in steam train design back in the day. It's like a spring hidden in the physics; an exponential increase in power for a marginal increase in temperature and/or the cost of reaching such temperatures.
The transformer thing is not a problem; the current four year wait is a consequence of the covid pandemic shutdown, against an increase in demand due to AI data centers. It's a temporary issue. Swing and a miss! But do keep trying!
Quite right. Wind and solar are far worse than geothermal, because they're diffuse forms of energy - that need to be gathered from a large area, and concentrated. And because wind and solar are intermittent; the energy needs to be stored until needed, requiring even more energy infrastructure.
A 3.5 MW wind turbine contains about 4.5 tons of copper.
Solar requires at least 2.5 tons of copper per MW.
A study by the University of Michigan says we will need to mine more copper between 2018 and 2050 than has been produced in the whole of human history, just for the supposed green energy transition. Not including EV's and grid upgrades.
Magma Energy - electricity - hydrogen; not nearly so much copper. A hole in the ground does not sprawl across the countryside, and it produces more high grade energy than x number of windmills. It's constant energy so can provide base load power. And all this needs to be factored in to questions of cost.
Supercritical geothermal (SCGT) introduces several risks that are either absent or significantly less pronounced in Enhanced Geothermal Systems (EGS). There's:
1. Thermally induced seismicity and fault reactivation. The thermal gradients for EGS are far lower compared to SCGT.
2. Material challenges. SCGT requires drilling and equipment that has to withstand much higher temperatures and pressures. supercritical water is highly corrosive.
3. Risk of encountering magma or volcanic gases is much higher as well.
4. SCGT is very likely to reach depth where rock becomes ductile, making reservoir creation even more challenging.
5. The heat and pressure can lead to rapid changes in rock properties and permeability which creates risk of wellbore collapse, equipment failure and difficulties with reservoir management.
Each risk has to be managed and therefore increases costs and therefore USD per Mwh will increase. Many of these risks will cause production to stop if they materialise which has huge ramifications for access to energy.
Furthermore, EGS technology is designed to be deployed in a wide range of geological settings, not just areas with naturally occurring high-temperature hydrothermal systems. It works by artificially creating reservoirs in hot dry rock, which is abundant in many regions worldwide.
This makes EGS more geographically flexible and potentially scalable across many countries and regions, provided there is sufficient subsurface heat at accessible depths.
SCGT, on the other hand, requires access to much deeper and hotter subsurface resources, specifically targeting the supercritical water regime.
Such conditions are only found in certain volcanic or tectonically active regions, which are geographically limited compared to the broader applicability of EGS.
There are also several known benefits to decentralised energy production as compared to centralised, making EGS preferable as well.
- By relying on multiple, local sources, communities become less vulnerable to fuel supply disruptions, price spikes or geopolitical tensions.
- Power is generated closer to where it is used, reducing the energy lost during long-distance transmission, which is typically up to 8% in centralized systems.
- Decentralized systems make it easier and quicker to integrate.
- Local ownership and management of energy resources create jobs, stimulate local economies and give communities greater control over their energy supply.
- By reducing transmission and distribution costs and enabling local energy trading, decentralized models can lower energy bills, especially in remote regions.
- Microgrids and distributed systems can operate independently during grid outages, providing critical services with reliable power.
In summary, decentralized energy production improves reliability, resilience and sustainability.
SCGT has its place, if it becomes viable. For now it's in the pilot phase but in any case it will never work as the primary source of energy production due to the risks and limitations involved.
Let's define 'it' here. 'It' - is the cost of developing Magma Energy versus Enhanced Geothermal Systems. You say Magma Energy is more expensive than EGS. That's your claim. Please show your workings. I say it's impossible to say that because I have researched it. Not because I haven't.
Magma Energy is generally deeper - but not always. It's certainly hotter - and this introduces risks/costs, but at the same time has a greater EROI. These are variables that will have different values at each and every location. A blanket generalisation - like the one you made, is simply not possible.
New Zealand is investing $60m in supercritical geothermal research. I would not suggest the UK do the same; at least not in the UK because the crust is much too thick. The Ascension Island, Tristan da Cunha, the Pitcairn Islands, Montserrat - are UK overseas territories with potential to develop Magma Energy.
LH2 can be produced either by thermolysis or electrolysis, and shipped in tankers like the Suzio Frontier; to run power stations, and as fuel for transport. Alternatively, heat batteries can store heat energy directly, and be shipped to UK ports, unloaded and plugged into the national grid from the harbour.
And you demand I estimate the cost of all this? All I can tell you is, if we don't solve climate change, the global economy will collapse - long before the planet becomes uninhabitable, and all will be lost. Repeated and increasing climate impacts will make insurance unaffordable, with knock on effects for real estate, that in turn will take down global banking.
It doesn't take much; Freddie and Fannie nearly collapsed the global economy. A ship got stuck in a canal, and again we were teetering on the brink. How much climate change disruption do you imagine the global economy can handle? And you talk about the most expensive solution?
Is EGS a solution? No!
But Magma Energy is!
The quantity of energy humans require to meet all our needs is negligible relative to the total heat energy of the Earth.
Nasa/Sandia estimated a minimum of 50,000 quads of Magma Energy just from the US alone.
Current world energy demand is 600 quads.
The Earth itself is a big ball of molten rock, that's been radiating heat energy into space for 4.5bn years. The heat it contains is 50% primordial - left over from the formation of the Earth, and 50% radiogenic, from the decay of radioactive elements. It is 6000 miles deep and 26,000 miles around; with an average temperature of 2500'C. It will never run out - no matter how much we use.
Quoting Benkei
Provide funding, and I'll get right on it!
Yes, sure. But before you go - can I just ask, why the negativity?
I mean, I'm describing what I think is a promising potential solution to the climate crisis; and one that allows for a prosperous and sustainable future. I'd like to know why you're opposed to that?
I've been promoting an energy abundance approach on climate change for some time, to people who are ostensibly concerned about climate change, yet to little or no avail. I have met with a lot of negativity that I simply don't understand.
Could you reflect on your motives?
You didn't need to spoon-feed me anything. This is my topic. The question being, why, what, according to Nasa/Sandia Labs, is a promising approach to the climate and ecological crisis, has gone ignored for the past 40 years?
What you did was ignore my question, invent your own questions about the viability of Magma Energy to attack Magma Energy, and me. I'd say that's negative behaviour.
If you were pushed for time, why bother?
I'm not complaining, because as an interlocutor you have helped me explain what Magma Energy is, how I think it could be developed and how it would address the climate and ecological threat. I'm just trying to get some insight on the question this thread is about.
Why isn't this good news?
I believe geothermal is promising, I believe EGS is much more promising that SCGT. I've laid out why. You've given me nothing in return other than repetitions devoid of thought, engagement with my points or facts. SCGT had to compete with other energy sources. It doesn't look like it can compete even with other applications of geothermal energy, which I've tried to discuss and you just repeatedly avoid or ignore. If you cannot engage with a person's post and devolve in repetition the only conclusion is you don't understand it.
I'm not negative about geothermal I'm negative about your ability to discuss the subject.
Quoting Benkei
Do you work for Nasa/Sandia Labs as a scientist? No!
Have you conducted a seven year long research program into the feasibility of Magma Energy? No!
Hmmm...then, whose opinions on the feasibility of Magma Energy should I trust?
The guys who put men on the moon, or those of a lunatic?
I don't give two speckled hens eggs for your opinions on geothermal; what I'd like to discuss, is why those ostensibly concerned with the climate - like Al Gore for instance, have never mentioned the prospect of limitless clean energy from high temperature geothermal?
Why instead have the environmental left terrorised generations with the existential dread and nihilistic despair of Limits to Growth? We have children throwing themselves into traffic to protest climate change. But not as many children as we might have had - because what's the point of having children?
I remember, in 1986, Dr Patrick Moore - co-founder of Greenpeace was drummed out of the organisation for daring to suggest we need nuclear energy. That isn't just something I've read about since. I was there. I couldn't contextualise it at the time, but his comments resonate now, when he said he left Greenpeace because it "took a sharp turn to the political left" and "evolved into an organization of extremism and politically motivated agendas."
That's what I'm asking about; not your opinions on one form of geothermal energy relative to another.
This is off topic. Please address the question in the OP. Thanks.
The projects I have seen here use shallow installations to dissipate heat in summer and and acquire heat in the winter. For instance, a Lutheran church within 2 miles of me uses shallow wells located under the church parking lot to cool and heat. A housing development project within 1/2 mile was / is slated to use geothermal for heating and cooling. ("was/is" because the post is from 2023 and I haven't seen much activity of any kind on this large lot as of 2025.)
Putting in underground pipes to circulate water should be relatively easy given the use of shallow horizontal drilling. A lot of this is done for cable, gas, and water lines. How deep? Don't know.
A heat-pump extracting heat from very cold air doesn't make a lot of sense; taking heat out of 50º water should work a lot better.
Extracting energy in this manner isn't likely to generate electricity. That's OK by me. Geothermal would reduce fossil fuel use significantly.
It's a really quite interesting physical principle; the heat difference engine. The temperature underground remains constant as the atmospheric temperature rises and falls below that value - such that in summer it gives you cool air, and in winter hot air! It's not going to power an AI data center, but you do have to admire the thermodynamics of Creation!
Not much in the way of high temperature geothermal resources in Minnesota, I'm afraid. But further West, toward the Pacific Ring of Fire, the geothermal heat map has a lot of deep red on it.
It's a wonder, a country driven by the Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism has managed to overlook such a massive free resource for so long. Hardin's Tragedy of the Commons suggests capitalists acting in their rational self interest would naturally exploit this common resource to the maximum degree.
I'm not sure if the leasing provisions in the Geothermal Steam Act of 1970, also known as Public Law 91-581, served as a disincentive to Magma Energy production, or if it was more of a superstitious inhibition against powering the world with Hell fire!
Perhaps the "cold" areas like Minnesota are the result of the thick granite Laurentian Shield, part of the North American Craton. The Tower-Sudan underground iron mine in northern MN is 2300 feet deep, and is not warm.
Yellowstone would be a great place to operate geothermal plants, at least until the caldera blows up again. National park fans would probably object. No matter. There do seem to be a lot of hot spots in the western US.
A place in Cornwall called the Eden Project, drilled down 5.3km, and only reached temperatures of 140'C. It's enough to heat their tropical greenhouses carbon free, but it's not going to provide base load power to cities.
The Western US; indeed, the entire western side of the American continent from Peru to Alaska is sat on the Pacific Ring of Fire. It really is a puzzle as to why this practically limitless clean energy source has not been developed.
I'm telling people about it, thinking it's great news for those capable of understanding it, and yet they seem incredibly determined to ignore it. I don't know why. They can't all be in the pockets of big oil, can they?
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.
"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.
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.
Quoting 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 cares a great deal if it is their ox that is getting gored.
Quoting 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.
I cannot argue with that direct contradiction without a great deal of research and data.
Quoting BC
ditto
Quoting BC
If you say so.
Quoting 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.
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,
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.
Thats 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!
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!