Re: Solving Climate Change.
Posted: Thu Jul 29, 2021 11:31 am
How can I pass up an opportunity like that? Brace yourself!
The left wing approach to climate change blames everything on the end consumer - and so when you say human behaviour causes climate change, you imply the same thing: stop eating meat, stop flying, stop driving - to address climate change, and that's the wrong approach.
I call my approach "magma energy" to distinguish it from geothermal. It is slightly misleading, because you're right - you do not want to release magma. It's boiling hot, under enormous pressure, and contains lots of volatiles, including Co2. But then geothermal is also misleading because, most geothermal is actually hydrothermal - tapping into underground hot water. This has inherent limitations. Underground water can only hold so much energy, and so there's a limit to how much energy can be drawn over time. This is called the replacement rate. My approach is specifically designed to avoid this problem, and avoid causing geological instabilities. The energy I'm after is constant, clean and massive base load energy - and I believe there's a virtually limitless amount of such energy available, more than enough to replace fossil fuels. That so, people can continue to live free and prosper.
I said why later in the post, but of course - you didn't read my post before replying. You responded line by line - and understood nothing. And here's the proof:
I explained later in the post you're responding to, why this isn't an issue, but you haven't read that far yet. So you keep repeating points I've already addressed. So again, no - as I do not propose drilling directly into a magma chamber, just through the hot rock surrounding the magma chamber.
If you'd read my post first, understood it and replied afterwards, I wouldn't have to tell you again, yes, it's slightly misleading if you're a moron who doesn't take anything in, even after being told three times previously why it's magma energy, and not geothermal.
Water doesn't contain carbon. It's two hydrogen atoms and an oxygen atom. H2O! FFS! And Seismology - basically, the science of setting off a small explosion and listening to the echo to map underground structures.
Your point was trivial and stupid, so I ignored it! I considered explaining concisely why large human population centres - in which literally trillions of pounds, dollars and yuan have been invested, are more vulnerable to extreme weather than small bands of nomadic humans, but thought this so blatantly obvious it didn't need saying. But then you think water contains carbon, so - your point that humans have lived with floods, hurricanes and droughts for millions of years is noted.
As I explained to that person, I don't have the money. If I had the money, I would. To do the job properly, I need about $10bn for the first five years, to build the working prototype. Then I'd need more money to scale up. It's not a lot of money in the grand scheme of things, when you consider the damage climate change causes, but it's way out of my reach. That's institutional investor money - governments, banks, major corporations.
No. My intention is to sustain capitalism, and capitalism creates inequalities. Inequality is good - it means someone has succeeded in producing social goods. Equality is not something I value, because it's jealous of success, unjust, and does not work as a political and economic system. If a brain surgeon and a road sweeper get the same standard of living, why put in the hard work to become a brain surgeon? Communism has failed, repeatedly - and committed genocides that make Hitler look like an amateur murderous lunatic. Capitalism works, and based on limitless clean energy from magma - would make a paradise of the earth and take us to the stars.