We SO need a change in leadership.

.

 

.

 

.

 

Because you are claiming such odd things as "fact" such as the "continent sinking thousands of feet" that I don't think it credible!

Icarus

 

.

 

.

 

The Republicans have set us back to the Dark Ages for the past eight years. And during the 90s, they made life miserable for Clinton and impeded legislation--except for balancing the budget. Too bad they flip-flopped on that with Bush.

Clinton was remiss in not trying to raise mpg standards, but there was no chance of getting anything environmental through the Republican congress. Most Republican politicians are waiting for Divine Intervention to save the planet.

 

.

 

Bush would go along with drilling to the earth’s core and stealing heat energy. As long as you stop and get some oil along the way! I'm not going to debate this cooling argument because I have no knowledge on this subject.(Although, when you release heat from something warm it does tend to get cooler over time) But I do understand this, America is not in the business of forward thinking and planning at this time. We will not see large scale solar or wind farms until they are cost effective. ie NOW! Even then it will be an uphill battle. Think about this, Republicans are not sold on global warming yet. I bet you 1 million greenbacks that they would buy into global cooling if we tried to do this geothermal power thingy.

And gimmie my new GI Bill!!!

 

We're not going to cool the earth's core with geothermal. First, we won't extract enough energy to do. Second, we're not drilling anywhere near deep enough. Thirdly, the thermal conductivity of rock is pathetic. If anything, we'd cool the source rock down and the wells would stop producing.

The continents won't sink because they are, in essence, scum floating of the top of a lake. The mantle rock is considerably denser than continental crust. The plants can't sink. Cooling the crust down to abosolute zero (throwing physics out the window here for a second) woudn't make the crust sink. That's like saying that water floating on a pool of mercury would sink if it became ice. Nonsense.

Yes I went to college. Yes I have a degree in Geology.

Now, back to reality. The 90 million is for advanced geothermal. Iceland is like the Saudi Arabia (to use that well worn expression) of geothermal. They don't even have to try. I think this research money is for developing lower grade geothermal assets, which are for more commonly encountered. MIT has done a lot of research into this sort of thing, but it's still in its infancy. There is a small geothermal plant somewhere in alaska that is using medium grade source rock, but they used to have to buy diesel to make electricity, so it made economic sense in that case. The idea is to move that sort of thing into the mainstream by making it more economical.

 

WOW!!!!!!!! There are some intelligent people on this site after all! Ones who aren't just espousing personal FEELINGS but real facts.

 

.

 

First, obviously, the BLM is only interested in helping out the oil and gas industry. Congress needs to make sure that the solar plants help fund salaries and benefits for BLM employees. That would help get them built.

Second, why should we be surprised that we have to start from scratch on geothermal power? The Corps of Engineers has refused to talk with anyone from the Netherlands about levees and other flood control methods since Katrina. How much do you think the Dutch might know about protecting New Orleans?

On the other hand, geothermal power is needed to insure that "intermittent" power sources like wind and solar power are supplemented? Obviously, someone hasn't been to the Plains states recently, or to the Mojave Desert anytime recently.

 

I can hardly believe it,,,,A Citation! Even on from a respected source!

What I did not see in the report was any mention of the continents sinking as a result of tapping quantities of geothermal energy. I still consider the amount of energy that we would reasonably be able to tap would be insignificant.

Icarus

 

.

 

We don't disagree on the principal (ple?) that what ever we do should be environmentally benign, but and this is a big but... the problems facing the world with oil depleting/Co2 emissions are so significant, they must be confronted NOW. I am a huge advocate of solar, and in fact live off grid much of the year with solar panels powering my world. But to get past what we know we need to get past we MUST explore all alternatives.

As to the volume of heat taken out relative to the volume of oil in the last century. Aside from the apples to oranges comparisons, consider the huge volume of oil take in the last 200 years. I have no idea of the volume, but I would be surprised if it would fill lake Erie for example. We haven't had devastating collapses of geology as a result. Take a similar amount of heat over a similar amount of time, and I conclude the results would be be similar and ergo no significant hazzard.

I think we can agree to disagree on this one.

Icarus

PS. Your citation assures me and I would guess others that you are not a whacko! I would suggest on this forum at least, you consider citation when you present what can only be considered an outside the main argument, if you expect people to understand and learn.