Philosophy Now Forum

Vitruvius wrote: ↑Sat Oct 02, 2021 4:19 pm

Vitruvius wrote: ↑Sat Oct 02, 2021 8:58 am I am most disappointed in myself; that I did not realise right away - that I had judged others by my own standards of reason.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Oct 02, 2021 1:22 pmAhem

Vitruvius wrote: ↑Sat Oct 02, 2021 1:35 pmI can see how you could misconstrue it; if you are determined to take offence to me personally - which it seems you are. I make no apology for your determination to disparage me, but to my mind, all that says is that others reason in different terms. Terms that don't allow for a prosperous sustainable future!

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Oct 02, 2021 1:45 pmAnd you want that one to be interpreted as humble?

It doesn't make any difference to you how I want to be interpreted; but if you think I'm in this to big myself up, you're wrong. I'd honestly rather be done with this. There are other things I want to do before I die - than to ensure future generations at least have a chance at life. There's nothing heroic in that. Everyone should want that. There's an old Greek proverb about and old Greek planting tress in the shade of which he'll never sit - but the proverb isn't ...what great guy! It's 'society functions best when... old men plant tress in the shade of which they'll never sit.'

I guess that messiah complex must be a heavy thing to carry around for 15 years.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Oct 02, 2021 7:27 pm

Vitruvius wrote: ↑Sat Oct 02, 2021 4:19 pm

Vitruvius wrote: ↑Sat Oct 02, 2021 8:58 am I am most disappointed in myself; that I did not realise right away - that I had judged others by my own standards of reason.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Oct 02, 2021 1:22 pmAhem

Vitruvius wrote: ↑Sat Oct 02, 2021 1:35 pmI can see how you could misconstrue it; if you are determined to take offence to me personally - which it seems you are. I make no apology for your determination to disparage me, but to my mind, all that says is that others reason in different terms. Terms that don't allow for a prosperous sustainable future!

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Oct 02, 2021 1:45 pmAnd you want that one to be interpreted as humble?

It doesn't make any difference to you how I want to be interpreted; but if you think I'm in this to big myself up, you're wrong. I'd honestly rather be done with this. There are other things I want to do before I die - than to ensure future generations at least have a chance at life. There's nothing heroic in that. Everyone should want that. There's an old Greek proverb about and old Greek planting tress in the shade of which he'll never sit - but the proverb isn't ...what great guy! It's 'society functions best when... old men plant tress in the shade of which they'll never sit.'

I guess that messiah complex must be a heavy thing to carry around for 15 years.

In these times either you are have a messiah complex or or you have an apathy complex.

Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Oct 02, 2021 7:42 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Oct 02, 2021 7:27 pm

Vitruvius wrote: ↑Sat Oct 02, 2021 4:19 pm







It doesn't make any difference to you how I want to be interpreted; but if you think I'm in this to big myself up, you're wrong. I'd honestly rather be done with this. There are other things I want to do before I die - than to ensure future generations at least have a chance at life. There's nothing heroic in that. Everyone should want that. There's an old Greek proverb about and old Greek planting tress in the shade of which he'll never sit - but the proverb isn't ...what great guy! It's 'society functions best when... old men plant tress in the shade of which they'll never sit.'

I guess that messiah complex must be a heavy thing to carry around for 15 years.

In these times either you are have a messiah complex or or you have an apathy complex.

I admire the way that you try to find the best possible conversations to be had with these loons - that's why you are trying to chat about dream interpretation with that theory guy even while he gibbers and raves about a gang of paedophiles sabotaging his house with gasses. But this guy you are encouraging here is selling magic beans and I think you haven't quite grasped the absurdity of his offering. So let me help you out.

He is promising that he alone knows the solution to global warming, and it involves everyone else doing nothing while he deploys machines that he can't really describe, let alone design. Check his posts, it's all been about how special he is and how he alone has the vision necessary to save the world, except for the bits where he's taking offence if people don't think that just taking his word for it is sufficient and he should be able to explain some of the less promising details of his plan. He's a nutjob Belinda, he even has a whole boilerplate rant about Descartes which assumes the guy was secretly an empiricist. Encouraging his delusions doesn't help him.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Oct 02, 2021 8:03 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Oct 02, 2021 7:42 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Oct 02, 2021 7:27 pm
I guess that messiah complex must be a heavy thing to carry around for 15 years.

In these times either you are have a messiah complex or or you have an apathy complex.

I admire the way that you try to find the best possible conversations to be had with these loons - that's why you are trying to chat about dream interpretation with that theory guy even while he gibbers and raves about a gang of paedophiles sabotaging his house with gasses. But this guy you are encouraging here is selling magic beans and I think you haven't quite grasped the absurdity of his offering. So let me help you out.

He is promising that he alone knows the solution to global warming, and it involves everyone else doing nothing while he deploys machines that he can't really describe, let alone design. Check his posts, it's all been about how special he is and how he alone has the vision necessary to save the world, except for the bits where he's taking offence if people don't think that just taking his word for it is sufficient and he should be able to explain some of the less promising details of his plan. He's a nutjob Belinda, he even has a whole boilerplate rant about Descartes which assumes the guy was secretly an empiricist. Encouraging his delusions doesn't help him.

Maybe you are right about "magic beans". I hope not. I am nothing like an expert but I am pretty sure they are getting geothermal energy in Iceland, and that scientists are working on geothermal energy. I hope to goodness it is true that the technology will work and be sustainable!

Geothermal energy production has large capital investment costs for exploration, drilling, and plant installation.
Furthermore, exploring and drilling for geothermal resources is risky and does not always yield profitable results. Much
of the geothermal industry relies on government support to overcome these costs and risks. For this reason, geothermal
power is economically unreliable. One of the most influential geothermal policies is the 2004 American New Jobs
Creation Act, which gives geothermal energy producers a production tax credit (PTC) of 2.3 cents per kilowatt-hour. The
Energy Policy Act of 2005 created additional tax incentives and loan guarantees. In 2013 alone, the geothermal industry
received $345 million in government funds. If the start up subsidies are left out of the cost-benefit analysis, geothermal
plants are a cost-efficient way to produce electricity because of its low fuel and operations and maintenance costs.
Geothermal energy is physically reliable because it is consistent, efficient, and can easily accommodate changes in

Institute of Political Economy, Utah State University. Lofthouse, Simmons, Yonk.

Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Oct 02, 2021 8:59 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Oct 02, 2021 8:03 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Oct 02, 2021 7:42 pm
In these times either you are have a messiah complex or or you have an apathy complex.

I admire the way that you try to find the best possible conversations to be had with these loons - that's why you are trying to chat about dream interpretation with that theory guy even while he gibbers and raves about a gang of paedophiles sabotaging his house with gasses. But this guy you are encouraging here is selling magic beans and I think you haven't quite grasped the absurdity of his offering. So let me help you out.

He is promising that he alone knows the solution to global warming, and it involves everyone else doing nothing while he deploys machines that he can't really describe, let alone design. Check his posts, it's all been about how special he is and how he alone has the vision necessary to save the world, except for the bits where he's taking offence if people don't think that just taking his word for it is sufficient and he should be able to explain some of the less promising details of his plan. He's a nutjob Belinda, he even has a whole boilerplate rant about Descartes which assumes the guy was secretly an empiricist. Encouraging his delusions doesn't help him.

Maybe you are right about "magic beans". I hope not. I am nothing like an expert but I am pretty sure they are getting geothermal energy in Iceland, and that scientists are working on geothermal energy. I hope to goodness it is true that the technology will work and be sustainable!

Geothermal energy production has large capital investment costs for exploration, drilling, and plant installation.
Furthermore, exploring and drilling for geothermal resources is risky and does not always yield profitable results. Much
of the geothermal industry relies on government support to overcome these costs and risks. For this reason, geothermal
power is economically unreliable. One of the most influential geothermal policies is the 2004 American New Jobs
Creation Act, which gives geothermal energy producers a production tax credit (PTC) of 2.3 cents per kilowatt-hour. The
Energy Policy Act of 2005 created additional tax incentives and loan guarantees. In 2013 alone, the geothermal industry
received $345 million in government funds. If the start up subsidies are left out of the cost-benefit analysis, geothermal
plants are a cost-efficient way to produce electricity because of its low fuel and operations and maintenance costs.
Geothermal energy is physically reliable because it is consistent, efficient, and can easily accommodate changes in

Institute of Political Economy, Utah State University. Lofthouse, Simmons, Yonk.

You are very badly missing out on the scope of what vitruvius is overpromising. He has a whole panacea that goes far in advance of mere geothermal energy. He's boasting that he can dig a fancy hole and then pour millions of gallons of seawater into it per (week, day, hour? Who knows? no precision is required when making this sort of bullshit promise) to irrigate deserts and remove all the excess carbon from the atmosphere and that it would be a mistake for you to change any part of your life to reduce your carbon footprint because he has the magic beans to fix everything for you.

The essential ingredient in magma energy that draws him to it is not the limitless energy bit; wind and solar and thorium reactors and wave energy and several other technologies offer that sort of claim too. The essential thing is that he has to be the lone voice calling out for it, and it has to be borderline miraculous. He's not doing this to be just one of the good guys, he's doing it to feed a fantasy about being the great saviour. It's bad for him.

Vitruvius wrote: ↑Sat Oct 02, 2021 5:17 pm

Vitruvius wrote: ↑Sat Oct 02, 2021 9:29 am
1. Status of the Magma Energy Project
NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)
Dunn, J. C.
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. The present program is addressing the engineering design problems associated with accessing magma bodies and extracting thermal energy for power generation. The normal stages for development of a geothermal resource are being investigated: exploration, drilling and completions, production, and surface power plant design. Current status of the engineering program and future plans are described.

https://www.science.gov/topicpages/m/ma ... gy+project

2. I characterized my discussions here as trying to force feed a viscous dog; and I was ... this close to being free of it!

p.s. A quad is a quadrillion BTU. Global energy demand is approx 500 quad.

Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Oct 02, 2021 9:46 amI don't think you should give up posting about it, unless you find a more fertile ground to plant your case for magma (geothermal) energy. Is there a political party that actively supports your case? The Greens? Or is there a political party that actively is against Big Oil? It is counter productive to be hostile to conservationists. Few conservationists are Captain Swing.

There's a big climate change conference in November - and I'm hoping to put magma energy on that table. After that; one way or another, I'm done. Otherwise, I'll end up like Nietzsche - who wept publicly at seeing a horse whipped, had a mental breakdown - and died from nervous exhaustion. Or Darwin, who walked round and around his garden for 20 years, worrying himself sick over the implications of evolution for a religious society. I don't know if I have support; I'm doing this alone - not affiliated with anyone. I wish the facts spoke for themselves; unfortunately they don't!

The plan proposed was not 'actively against big oil.' Magma energy needs the energy companies on side, and the way I suggest magma energy is developed - (as a global good, specifically to tackle climate change through carbon sequestration, desalination, irrigation, recycling while building capacity) allows time for fossil fuel dependent economies to diversify - before a managed sectoral transition from fossil fuels. (cement, steel, aluminium, etc) It also divorces upfront infrastructure costs from loss of revenues; allowing the markets to divest safely. But when you pointed out they knew all along; that really threw a spanner in the works. Thanks for that; and I mean that both sarcastically and genuinely.

I said at the time, I don't know if this is good news or not. They knew 40 years ago there's limitless clean energy available from magma, and they knew about climate change, and decided fracking was a good idea - despite the earthquakes and the poisoned groundwater! It makes diplomacy that much more difficult; while simultaneously strengthening the case for magma energy. Also; must apologize to the neighbours for the screaming and shouting!

Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Oct 02, 2021 7:18 pmI wish you well. Thank goodness for Nietzsche and Darwin.

No worries. Thanks!
Apparently, the horse went on to front a successful haulage business - and had seventeen foals, one of which won the derby!
So, y'know, survival of the fittest!
In the white hot crucible of our pain we are purified!

Vitruvius wrote: ↑Sat Oct 02, 2021 4:25 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sat Oct 02, 2021 1:50 pm The ASSUMPTIONS are continuous, as well as being just Wrong.

I'm sorry. Your posts do not meet the required minimum quality standard, and will not receive a reply. Thank you for your interest.

LOL
LOL
LOL

You will not reply because you can not without contradicting "yourself".

Vitruvius wrote: ↑Sat Oct 02, 2021 5:17 pm

Vitruvius wrote: ↑Sat Oct 02, 2021 9:29 am
1. Status of the Magma Energy Project
NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)
Dunn, J. C.
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. The present program is addressing the engineering design problems associated with accessing magma bodies and extracting thermal energy for power generation. The normal stages for development of a geothermal resource are being investigated: exploration, drilling and completions, production, and surface power plant design. Current status of the engineering program and future plans are described.

https://www.science.gov/topicpages/m/ma ... gy+project

2. I characterized my discussions here as trying to force feed a viscous dog; and I was ... this close to being free of it!

p.s. A quad is a quadrillion BTU. Global energy demand is approx 500 quad.

Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Oct 02, 2021 9:46 amI don't think you should give up posting about it, unless you find a more fertile ground to plant your case for magma (geothermal) energy. Is there a political party that actively supports your case? The Greens? Or is there a political party that actively is against Big Oil? It is counter productive to be hostile to conservationists. Few conservationists are Captain Swing.

There's a big climate change conference in November - and I'm hoping to put magma energy on that table. After that; one way or another, I'm done. Otherwise, I'll end up like Nietzsche - who wept publicly at seeing a horse whipped, had a mental breakdown - and died from nervous exhaustion. Or Darwin, who walked round and around his garden for 20 years, worrying himself sick over the implications of evolution for a religious society. I don't know if I have support; I'm doing this alone - not affiliated with anyone. I wish the facts spoke for themselves; unfortunately they don't!

LOL

The idea of magma energy has been around for over 100 years. There are, however, reasons WHY it is not developed, as you wish it was.

In fact geothermal energy plants were being built over 100 years ago, and are still in existence today, when this is written, BUT, there are reasons WHY this energy source is not extended, in the way some wish.

Find out what those reasons ARE, then you will UNDERSTAND WHY what you WANT is NOT progressing the way you WANT.

Vitruvius wrote: ↑Sat Oct 02, 2021 5:17 pm The plan proposed was not 'actively against big oil.' Magma energy needs the energy companies on side, and the way I suggest magma energy is developed - (as a global good, specifically to tackle climate change through carbon sequestration, desalination, irrigation, recycling while building capacity) allows time for fossil fuel dependent economies to diversify - before a managed sectoral transition from fossil fuels. (cement, steel, aluminium, etc) It also divorces upfront infrastructure costs from loss of revenues; allowing the markets to divest safely. But when you pointed out they knew all along; that really threw a spanner in the works. Thanks for that; and I mean that both sarcastically and genuinely.

The reason WHY "energy companies' choose the energy they use is WHY what you want will NOT come to fruition.

This post is about 'solving climate change'. I have INFORMED you of how this is achieved, and will be accomplished. But, please REJECT thee ACTUAL solution, for as long as you like. It is you who is PROVING "them self" to be VERY HYPOCRITICAL and CONTRADICTORY here.

Vitruvius wrote: ↑Sat Oct 02, 2021 5:17 pm I said at the time, I don't know if this is good news or not. They knew 40 years ago there's limitless clean energy available from magma, and they knew about climate change, and decided fracking was a good idea - despite the earthquakes and the poisoned groundwater!

LOL

They have been using geothermal energy for over 100 years, but there are reasons WHY its development has NOT been progressing further.

Vitruvius wrote: ↑Sat Oct 02, 2021 5:17 pm It makes diplomacy that much more difficult; while simultaneously strengthening the case for magma energy. Also; must apologize to the neighbours for the screaming and shouting!

Now, if you REALLY want human beings to use 'magma energy', then FIRST find out WHY they do not use it, and THEN you will have the answer/s to what NEEDS to be CHANGED. Until then screaming and shouting, in a philosophy forum, or anywhere, will not get you what you WANT.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Oct 02, 2021 7:27 pmI guess that messiah complex must be a heavy thing to carry around for 15 years.

Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Oct 02, 2021 7:42 pmIn these times either you are have a messiah complex or or you have an apathy complex.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Oct 02, 2021 7:27 pm ... this guy you are encouraging here is selling magic beans and I think you haven't quite grasped the absurdity of his offering. So let me help you out. He is promising that he alone knows the solution to global warming, and it involves everyone else doing nothing while he deploys machines that he can't really describe, let alone design. Check his posts, it's all been about how special he is and how he alone has the vision necessary to save the world, except for the bits where he's taking offence if people don't think that just taking his word for it is sufficient and he should be able to explain some of the less promising details of his plan. He's a nutjob Belinda, he even has a whole boilerplate rant about Descartes which assumes the guy was secretly an empiricist. Encouraging his delusions doesn't help him.

What we see playing out here is the psychology of the bully upon detecting weakness in others. Immediately, the attack is refined and stepped up in hope of exacerbating and exploiting that weakness. Unfortunately, here the subject has failed to understand that he is not the cause of the distress, but in the grand scheme, does not even figure. He must figure; that's what the bully wants - to matter.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Oct 02, 2021 9:53 pmThe essential ingredient in magma energy that draws him to it is not the limitless energy bit; wind and solar and thorium reactors and wave energy and several other technologies offer that sort of claim too. The essential thing is that he has to be the lone voice calling out for it, and it has to be borderline miraculous. He's not doing this to be just one of the good guys, he's doing it to feed a fantasy about being the great saviour. It's bad for him.

Here we see the habitual return to his own vomit; because it once got a response. In this case, accusations of a messiah complex - repeated over and over again, despite being addressed and dismissed. To the psychology of the bully, addressing this was confirming that it causes distress - pain he seeks to worsen with repetition, because then he'll matter. What he is not prepared to do is experience any pain himself in order to matter; because to suffer is inherently weak in his view. Consequently, he does not progress beyond a psychology formed in the schoolyard. He is best avoided; but if that is unavoidable - and he will seek to be unavoidable, must always be guarded against. This avoidance by others sours all his social relationships and feeds back into his justification for causing others pain. Pity him! He is a miserable creature!

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Oct 02, 2021 8:03 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Oct 02, 2021 7:42 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Oct 02, 2021 7:27 pm
I guess that messiah complex must be a heavy thing to carry around for 15 years.

In these times either you are have a messiah complex or or you have an apathy complex.

I admire the way that you try to find the best possible conversations to be had with these loons - that's why you are trying to chat about dream interpretation with that theory guy even while he gibbers and raves about a gang of paedophiles sabotaging his house with gasses. But this guy you are encouraging here is selling magic beans and I think you haven't quite grasped the absurdity of his offering. So let me help you out.

He is promising that he alone knows the solution to global warming, and it involves everyone else doing nothing while he deploys machines that he can't really describe, let alone design. Check his posts, it's all been about how special he is and how he alone has the vision necessary to save the world, except for the bits where he's taking offence if people don't think that just taking his word for it is sufficient and he should be able to explain some of the less promising details of his plan. He's a nutjob Belinda, he even has a whole boilerplate rant about Descartes which assumes the guy was secretly an empiricist. Encouraging his delusions doesn't help him.

OF COURSE using magma (geothermal) energy is BETTER for the environment than using coal, gas, and oil is. But, drilling holes at those depths, laying pipes for the lengths needed, both towards, and away, from the drill sites, building the pumps to supply the water needed, as well as building all of the turbine plants that are needed is just way to costly. And this is without adding on the points "flashdangerpants" has already expressed. Let alone finding enough water supply to make all of this work.

Also, WHY pump water all of those distances when water just running down a mountain can be harnessed and turned into energy, all freely with just 'limitless' and 'clean' gravity?

And, WHY NOT just harness the energy from water itself and the already naturally occurring 'limitless' and 'clean' tidal movement?

Both of these ideas just need a turbine plant constructed ONLY. Magma energy needs so many other things.

WHY magma energy is NOT being, currently, used is because it is just 'to costly'. Adult human beings, who are the ones who create energy plants, are driven by 'the love of money' MORE than they are driven by ' the love of life and "others" '.

It is all VERY SIMPLE, REALLY.

Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Oct 02, 2021 8:59 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Oct 02, 2021 8:03 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Oct 02, 2021 7:42 pm
In these times either you are have a messiah complex or or you have an apathy complex.

I admire the way that you try to find the best possible conversations to be had with these loons - that's why you are trying to chat about dream interpretation with that theory guy even while he gibbers and raves about a gang of paedophiles sabotaging his house with gasses. But this guy you are encouraging here is selling magic beans and I think you haven't quite grasped the absurdity of his offering. So let me help you out.

He is promising that he alone knows the solution to global warming, and it involves everyone else doing nothing while he deploys machines that he can't really describe, let alone design. Check his posts, it's all been about how special he is and how he alone has the vision necessary to save the world, except for the bits where he's taking offence if people don't think that just taking his word for it is sufficient and he should be able to explain some of the less promising details of his plan. He's a nutjob Belinda, he even has a whole boilerplate rant about Descartes which assumes the guy was secretly an empiricist. Encouraging his delusions doesn't help him.

Maybe you are right about "magic beans". I hope not. I am nothing like an expert but I am pretty sure they are getting geothermal energy in Iceland, and that scientists are working on geothermal energy. I hope to goodness it is true that the technology will work and be sustainable!

Geothermal energy has been working for many years, and it is far more sustainable than some other energy sources are. But running a city from geothermal energy when the city is hundreds of miles from an easy to access geothermal area is a very costly exercise.

In countries where they use geothermal energy there are sometimes energy sources rising directly next to houses, where access and cost is relatively next to nothing. In fact, it can be said that geothermal energy has been used for thousands of years, completely cost free. Harnessing untouched human made energy to cook, clean, and stay warm was, and still is, used for absolutely no monetary cost at all. But this only happens in very remote places where it is easily accessible. Magma (geothermal) energy is NOT an energy source available for everyone nor everywhere.

Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Oct 02, 2021 8:59 pm

Geothermal energy production has large capital investment costs for exploration, drilling, and plant installation.
Furthermore, exploring and drilling for geothermal resources is risky and does not always yield profitable results. Much
of the geothermal industry relies on government support to overcome these costs and risks. For this reason, geothermal
power is economically unreliable. One of the most influential geothermal policies is the 2004 American New Jobs
Creation Act, which gives geothermal energy producers a production tax credit (PTC) of 2.3 cents per kilowatt-hour. The
Energy Policy Act of 2005 created additional tax incentives and loan guarantees. In 2013 alone, the geothermal industry
received $345 million in government funds. If the start up subsidies are left out of the cost-benefit analysis, geothermal
plants are a cost-efficient way to produce electricity because of its low fuel and operations and maintenance costs.
Geothermal energy is physically reliable because it is consistent, efficient, and can easily accommodate changes in

Institute of Political Economy, Utah State University. Lofthouse, Simmons, Yonk.

Vitruvius wrote: ↑Sat Oct 02, 2021 5:17 pm

Vitruvius wrote: ↑Sat Oct 02, 2021 9:29 am
1. Status of the Magma Energy Project
NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)
Dunn, J. C.
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. The present program is addressing the engineering design problems associated with accessing magma bodies and extracting thermal energy for power generation. The normal stages for development of a geothermal resource are being investigated: exploration, drilling and completions, production, and surface power plant design. Current status of the engineering program and future plans are described.

https://www.science.gov/topicpages/m/ma ... gy+project

2. I characterized my discussions here as trying to force feed a viscous dog; and I was ... this close to being free of it!

p.s. A quad is a quadrillion BTU. Global energy demand is approx 500 quad.

Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Oct 02, 2021 9:46 amI don't think you should give up posting about it, unless you find a more fertile ground to plant your case for magma (geothermal) energy. Is there a political party that actively supports your case? The Greens? Or is there a political party that actively is against Big Oil? It is counter productive to be hostile to conservationists. Few conservationists are Captain Swing.

There's a big climate change conference in November - and I'm hoping to put magma energy on that table. After that; one way or another, I'm done. Otherwise, I'll end up like Nietzsche - who wept publicly at seeing a horse whipped, had a mental breakdown - and died from nervous exhaustion. Or Darwin, who walked round and around his garden for 20 years, worrying himself sick over the implications of evolution for a religious society. I don't know if I have support; I'm doing this alone - not affiliated with anyone. I wish the facts spoke for themselves; unfortunately they don't!

Age wrote: ↑Sat Oct 02, 2021 11:22 pmLOL

The idea of magma energy has been around for over 100 years. There are, however, reasons WHY it is not developed, as you wish it was.

In fact geothermal energy plants were being built over 100 years ago, and are still in existence today, when this is written, BUT, there are reasons WHY this energy source is not extended, in the way some wish.

Find out what those reasons ARE, then you will UNDERSTAND WHY what you WANT is NOT progressing the way you WANT.

Are you sure you're not confusing geothermal energy with magma energy? Because geothermal (as hydrothermal energy) has been producing electrical power for over 100 years at Larderello in Italy. That's true; and geothermal in general has been used much longer than that if you look at the Roman baths, fed by hot springs in Bath, England.

Magma energy is a very specific form of geothermal energy, and I think you are failing to appreciate the distinctions. If you read the link, or indeed, any of this thread, you'll note that the report talks about crustal magma bodies; I described as magma chambers and subduction zones. Not hot water, but molten rock.

Vitruvius wrote: ↑Sat Oct 02, 2021 5:17 pm The plan proposed was not 'actively against big oil.' Magma energy needs the energy companies on side, and the way I suggest magma energy is developed - (as a global good, specifically to tackle climate change through carbon sequestration, desalination, irrigation, recycling while building capacity) allows time for fossil fuel dependent economies to diversify - before a managed sectoral transition from fossil fuels. (cement, steel, aluminium, etc) It also divorces upfront infrastructure costs from loss of revenues; allowing the markets to divest safely. But when you pointed out they knew all along; that really threw a spanner in the works. Thanks for that; and I mean that both sarcastically and genuinely.

Age wrote: ↑Sat Oct 02, 2021 11:22 pmThe reason WHY "energy companies' choose the energy they use is WHY what you want will NOT come to fruition. This post is about 'solving climate change'. I have INFORMED you of how this is achieved, and will be accomplished. But, please REJECT thee ACTUAL solution, for as long as you like. It is you who is PROVING "them self" to be VERY HYPOCRITICAL and CONTRADICTORY here.

I don't think it likely that humankind will stop loving money. Nor are you willing to explain what you propose instead. To my mind, the only realistic solution is one that supports continued growth and increased prosperity - and I see no contradiction between that and sustainability. Indeed, that's the subject of this thread - solving climate change in a way that does not undermine prosperity, but allows for a positive, forward facing balance between sustainability and human welfare, very much in our favour.

Vitruvius wrote: ↑Sat Oct 02, 2021 5:17 pm I said at the time, I don't know if this is good news or not. They knew 40 years ago there's limitless clean energy available from magma, and they knew about climate change, and decided fracking was a good idea - despite the earthquakes and the poisoned groundwater!

Age wrote: ↑Sat Oct 02, 2021 11:22 pmLOL. They have been using geothermal energy for over 100 years, but there are reasons WHY its development has NOT been progressing further.

In 1890, about the time the Larderello power plant was being built in Italy, a Danish teacher named Paul La Cour built a wind powered electrolyser, that passed an electric current through "an aqueous solution of sodium hydroxide" (sea water) to produce hydrogen gas, he used to heat and light the high school where he worked. There's nothing inevitable about fossil fuels.

Vitruvius wrote: ↑Sat Oct 02, 2021 5:17 pm It makes diplomacy that much more difficult; while simultaneously strengthening the case for magma energy. Also; must apologize to the neighbours for the screaming and shouting!

Age wrote: ↑Sat Oct 02, 2021 11:22 pmNow, if you REALLY want human beings to use 'magma energy', then FIRST find out WHY they do not use it, and THEN you will have the answer/s to what NEEDS to be CHANGED. Until then screaming and shouting, in a philosophy forum, or anywhere, will not get you what you WANT.

Thank you for your advice. I'm sure it will prove very useful in future...if there is one!

Vitruvius wrote: ↑Sun Oct 03, 2021 12:16 am

Vitruvius wrote: ↑Sat Oct 02, 2021 5:17 pm

Vitruvius wrote: ↑Sat Oct 02, 2021 9:29 am
1. Status of the Magma Energy Project
NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)
Dunn, J. C.
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. The present program is addressing the engineering design problems associated with accessing magma bodies and extracting thermal energy for power generation. The normal stages for development of a geothermal resource are being investigated: exploration, drilling and completions, production, and surface power plant design. Current status of the engineering program and future plans are described.

https://www.science.gov/topicpages/m/ma ... gy+project

2. I characterized my discussions here as trying to force feed a viscous dog; and I was ... this close to being free of it!

p.s. A quad is a quadrillion BTU. Global energy demand is approx 500 quad.

Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Oct 02, 2021 9:46 amI don't think you should give up posting about it, unless you find a more fertile ground to plant your case for magma (geothermal) energy. Is there a political party that actively supports your case? The Greens? Or is there a political party that actively is against Big Oil? It is counter productive to be hostile to conservationists. Few conservationists are Captain Swing.

There's a big climate change conference in November - and I'm hoping to put magma energy on that table. After that; one way or another, I'm done. Otherwise, I'll end up like Nietzsche - who wept publicly at seeing a horse whipped, had a mental breakdown - and died from nervous exhaustion. Or Darwin, who walked round and around his garden for 20 years, worrying himself sick over the implications of evolution for a religious society. I don't know if I have support; I'm doing this alone - not affiliated with anyone. I wish the facts spoke for themselves; unfortunately they don't!

Age wrote: ↑Sat Oct 02, 2021 11:22 pmLOL

The idea of magma energy has been around for over 100 years. There are, however, reasons WHY it is not developed, as you wish it was.

In fact geothermal energy plants were being built over 100 years ago, and are still in existence today, when this is written, BUT, there are reasons WHY this energy source is not extended, in the way some wish.

Find out what those reasons ARE, then you will UNDERSTAND WHY what you WANT is NOT progressing the way you WANT.

Are you sure you're not confusing geothermal energy with magma energy?

This will all depend on how, and when, you define what 'magma energy' and 'geothermal energy' are, to you.

We await your definitions.

Vitruvius wrote: ↑Sun Oct 03, 2021 12:16 am Because geothermal (as hydrothermal energy) has been producing electrical power for over 100 years at Larderello in Italy.

That's true; and geothermal in general has been used much longer than that if you look at the Roman baths, fed by hot springs in Bath, England.

And other places.

Vitruvius wrote: ↑Sun Oct 03, 2021 12:16 am Magma energy is a very specific form of geothermal energy, and I think you are failing to appreciate the distinctions.

And what, exactly, are those 'distinctions', which you think I am failing to appreciate?

We now also await those 'distinctions'.

Vitruvius wrote: ↑Sun Oct 03, 2021 12:16 am If you read the link, or indeed, any of this thread, you'll note that the report talks about crustal magma bodies; I described as magma chambers and subduction zones. Not hot water, but molten rock.

Okay. But I have read this thread, and I, and "others", have been pointing out, to you, that drilling into hot rock, finding enough water, building pumps, and pipelines, to pump all the water needed into those holes, and then building the turbine plants to harness the hot gas, and then building the infrastructure needed in order to send the electricity all the way back to where is actually needed is a very costly exercise.

Also, this is said without mentioning all of the needed material to construct all of the above, and of the risk of releasing more carbon dioxide while just drilling through molten rock.

Vitruvius wrote: ↑Sun Oct 03, 2021 12:16 am

Vitruvius wrote: ↑Sat Oct 02, 2021 5:17 pm The plan proposed was not 'actively against big oil.' Magma energy needs the energy companies on side, and the way I suggest magma energy is developed - (as a global good, specifically to tackle climate change through carbon sequestration, desalination, irrigation, recycling while building capacity) allows time for fossil fuel dependent economies to diversify - before a managed sectoral transition from fossil fuels. (cement, steel, aluminium, etc) It also divorces upfront infrastructure costs from loss of revenues; allowing the markets to divest safely. But when you pointed out they knew all along; that really threw a spanner in the works. Thanks for that; and I mean that both sarcastically and genuinely.

Age wrote: ↑Sat Oct 02, 2021 11:22 pmThe reason WHY "energy companies' choose the energy they use is WHY what you want will NOT come to fruition. This post is about 'solving climate change'. I have INFORMED you of how this is achieved, and will be accomplished. But, please REJECT thee ACTUAL solution, for as long as you like. It is you who is PROVING "them self" to be VERY HYPOCRITICAL and CONTRADICTORY here.

I don't think it likely that humankind will stop loving money.

We do NOT care what you think, or do not think, is true. What we REALLY care about is what is ACTUALLY True. There can be a BIG DIFFERENCE between what 'you', people 'think' is true and what IS ACTUALLY True.

Also, human beings previously did NOT love money, and only learned to start loving money. So, human beings can ACTUALLY learn to, once more, NOT love money, AGAIN.

In fact, when human beings learn the reason WHEN and WHY they began to start loving money, then they will Truly WANT to STOP loving money, AGAIN, and start wanting to NEVER love money, EVER AGAIN.

Vitruvius wrote: ↑Sun Oct 03, 2021 12:16 am Nor are you willing to explain what you propose instead.

Here is ANOTHER Wrong ASSUMPTION.

I have been willing to explain what I propose instead and have ACTUALLY BEGUN to explain, as can be CLEARLY SEEN and PROVEN above. I am just waiting for those who are OPEN and CURIOS.

After all they are the ONLY ones who would be, and are, Truly interested in learning more and/or anew.

Vitruvius wrote: ↑Sun Oct 03, 2021 12:16 am To my mind, the only realistic solution is one that supports continued growth and increased prosperity - and I see no contradiction between that and sustainability.

Fair enough. You are absolutely FREE to think and see things anyway you like and desire.

Just be forewarned of what 'increased prosperity', for some, will lead to.

But the evidence AND proof of what 'increased prosperity', for some, ACTUALLY leads to, can be CLEARLY SEEN, in the days when you are writing this.

Which, do NOT forget, is what you want to see CHANGED.

Vitruvius wrote: ↑Sun Oct 03, 2021 12:16 am Indeed, that's the subject of this thread - solving climate change in a way that does not undermine prosperity, but allows for a positive, forward facing balance between sustainability and human welfare, very much in our favour.

LOL

The ONLY words I can see in the 'subject of this thread' line is; 'Solving Climate Change'.

The rest of those words remained in your own head. Which, by the way, thank you for now finally sharing those words and views, as this explains a LOT about HOW and WHY you are SO CLOSED to what has been been POINTED OUT, to you.

Vitruvius wrote: ↑Sun Oct 03, 2021 12:16 am

Vitruvius wrote: ↑Sat Oct 02, 2021 5:17 pm I said at the time, I don't know if this is good news or not. They knew 40 years ago there's limitless clean energy available from magma, and they knew about climate change, and decided fracking was a good idea - despite the earthquakes and the poisoned groundwater!

Age wrote: ↑Sat Oct 02, 2021 11:22 pmLOL. They have been using geothermal energy for over 100 years, but there are reasons WHY its development has NOT been progressing further.

In 1890, about the time the Larderello power plant was being built in Italy, a Danish teacher named Paul La Cour built a wind powered electrolyser, that passed an electric current through "an aqueous solution of sodium hydroxide" (sea water) to produce hydrogen gas, he used to heat and light the high school where he worked. There's nothing inevitable about fossil fuels.

Reading words, and then just repeating them, sometimes just does not say much, nor ANY thing, at all.

Vitruvius wrote: ↑Sun Oct 03, 2021 12:16 am

Vitruvius wrote: ↑Sat Oct 02, 2021 5:17 pm It makes diplomacy that much more difficult; while simultaneously strengthening the case for magma energy. Also; must apologize to the neighbours for the screaming and shouting!

Age wrote: ↑Sat Oct 02, 2021 11:22 pmNow, if you REALLY want human beings to use 'magma energy', then FIRST find out WHY they do not use it, and THEN you will have the answer/s to what NEEDS to be CHANGED. Until then screaming and shouting, in a philosophy forum, or anywhere, will not get you what you WANT.

Thank you for your advice. I'm sure it will prove very useful in future...

Vitruvius wrote: ↑Sun Oct 03, 2021 12:16 am if there is one!

LOL You say this as though if we do not use magma energy, then there will be NO future.

'Magma energy' will NOT, and I will repeat will NOT, solve 'climate change'.

Producing, and obtaining, 'magma energy' is just ANOTHER source and way adding onto the already human made 'climate change'.

Age wrote: ↑Sun Oct 03, 2021 1:07 am This will all depend on how, and when, you define what 'magma energy' and 'geothermal energy' are, to you.
We await your definitions.

It's the difference between underground hot water, and underground molten rock. The energy in molten rock is far greater.

I would have thought was clear enough; and so I'm at a loss. How can I explain anything to you if you didn't pick up on that already? Have you looked at the pictures?

Vitruvius wrote: ↑Sun Oct 03, 2021 1:50 am

Age wrote: ↑Sun Oct 03, 2021 1:07 am This will all depend on how, and when, you define what 'magma energy' and 'geothermal energy' are, to you.
We await your definitions.

It's the difference between underground hot water, and underground molten rock. The energy in molten rock is far greater.

But that rock is only used to be combined with cold water to just heat up the water anyway, in your 'magma energy' solution correct?

We could instead, and actually have been for thousands of years, just use the underground, already, and naturally heated, water.

And, let us not forget that molten rock contains carbon, and that it is carbon dioxide which is said to be creating the 'climate change', which is wanted to be 'solved' here, right?

Now, to you the difference is; the energy in 'molten rock' is far greater than in underground hot water, BUT all your "magma energy solution" does is use hot rocks to heat up cold water. There is ALREADY exiting hot water, underground.

And, the reason the water is ALREADY hot is because of the hot/molten rock nearby.

Will you EVER listen to what ANY one "else" says about "your idea" and just CONSIDER 'that'? Or, is "your idea and solution" thee One and ONLY solution, and EVERY thing is NOT even worth considering?

Vitruvius wrote: ↑Sun Oct 03, 2021 1:50 am I would have thought was clear enough; and so I'm at a loss. How can I explain anything to you if you didn't pick up on that already?

Just because I ask you a CLARIFY QUESTION, or a few, I would NOT make ASSUMPTIONS, nor JUMP TO CONCLUSIONS, if I was you. You could be completely and utterly Wrong, ONCE AGAIN.

All you are really saying, in this thread, is that 'magma energy' will "solve climate change", AND, if ANY one does not accept this, then they do NOT care about the environment nor about future human beings.

Which IS ACTUALLY as ABSURD as it sound.

Vitruvius wrote: ↑Sun Oct 03, 2021 1:50 am Have you looked at the pictures?

Not this one.

And, pictures do NOT necessarily inform me of how you define things and/or make distinctions between things.