Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Sy Borg]

An example of a country ill suited to geothermal energy would be Australia. It's simply not volcanic. You would need to drill holes almost as deep as the 12km Kola Superdeep Borehole in northern Russia.

Australia is surrounded to the North and East by volcanoes in the Pacific Ring of Fire. They have 150 dormant domestic volcanoes worth investigating. Volcanoes often have a magma chamber beneath, such that useful temperatures can be reached at depths as shallow as 1-3 km. Have a glance at a map of the Pacific Ring of Fire, and you'll see Australia has potential geothermal energy resources from here to Woolloomoloo.

Underwater volcanoes present their own problem. The US tried drilling a deep hole in water when competing with the USSR in trying to dig the deepest hole. The project failed. The logistics of drilling very deep into the ocean bed (and in international waters or waters belonging to other nations) are huge.

Also, when a volcano becomes active, that will not augur well for local geothermal projects. I would not trust it as baseload but it no doubt has a place in the energy mix, especially in nations with easier access to hotspots.

Under what ...errr, volcanoes? They're volcanic islands. Zoom in! Now zoom out again and you see the potential. The Pacific Ring of Fire starts in Australia, reaches all the way up over the roof of the pacific, right down to South America. 450 volcanoes to start with. There's another 1100 volcanoes worldwide. And then there are subduction zones all over the Earth, where one continental plate is pushed beneath another, I'm guessing would become viable as the technology matures. But all that so, Nasa/Sandia say there's a minimum of 85 times global energy demand available from magma just in the US alone. We'd barely need to scrape the surface of the magma energy available to meet global demand, ten times over, carbon free forever.

I think it likely Nasa/Sandia Labs, three years after putting men on the moon, can be considered reputable, but trust isn't the issue. The potential must be explored in face of either fossil fuel powered climate disaster, or a limits to growth policy tragedy. Or more likely, both!

However, the islands in the Ring of Fire belong to PNG and Indonesia. They are not Australian and, since we are not China, we can't just charge in and take the resources for ourselves.

None of the ring that is in the ocean is accessible. Active volcanoes are not suitable because they can wipe out the infrastructure and inactive ones requires more highly expensive drilling. As I say, some places are well suited to geothermal and other places are better suited to other forms of energy generation.

[Mercury]

My response hasn't even been approved by the moderators and you're having another go? You are burying my post behind yours, so it's not responded to! It happened once and I let it go, but now you're making a practice of it.

I am not aware of any rule that states on cannot add to a post if it has not yet been responded to by one's interlocuter. However, since it bothers you, and since your posts have to be ok'd from above, I will wait for your next post before responding again, despite having much more to say on the matter, particularly WRT your demonization of environmentalists.

It's the Golden Rule - do unto others. You can't imagine the frustration I feel having my posts sat awaiting approval, visible to me - but with a strap line that says: 'Your posts are not visible to other users until approved by moderators.' And I cannot sign up for a premium membership because paypal requires a telephone number, and I have no phone. No pool, no pets. I ain't got not cigarettes. A veritable Diogenes me!

I would note that you still haven't actually responded to my post. I make some very good points, that preempt many of the points you make. Or would have preempted your points were my posts not delayed - and for random periods of time. Sometimes not long. Other times, half a day or more. It does interrupt the flow of the conversation you have been good enough to offer me, and it's not fair to put that on you - to ask you to wait when you have something to say. But you have plenty going on I notice, and this is my magnum opus.

The one point that comes across from your post, in contradiction of previous statements you've made, is that you absolutely are out to scorn magma energy. Your comments in red are incredibly scornful. I can only suppose you don't appreciate that good scientific papers are always understated; aimed at communicating minimum assumptions as a matter of epistemic virtue.

You say: “Show promise”. Well, that’s hardly a royal flush or a lay-down misere. There is obviously much more work that would need to be done to demonstrate that this would be technically and economically feasible even on a local, much less world-wide scale."

But look at how this is expressed: "The estimated size of the U.S. resource (50,000 to 500,000 quads) suggests a considerable potential impact on future power generation."

Global energy demand today is only 600 quads. Minimum, that's 85 times global energy demand just from the US alone. And they say 'considerable impact.' Yeah, like Chixilub was a considerable impact. Terms like 'monolithic' and 'limitless' spring to my mind. But good scientists are conservative creatures, and I'm not sure you appreciate that. (If only Galileo had been a little more conservative, we might not be in this mess!)

That aside, I wanted to add that it's really not my purpose to attack environmentalists whose piety in their environmental concerns is beyond question. I share those concerns, but differ on the means to achieve the end. And to some degree, what that end looks like. But I want a liveable planet for humans and nature. I just don't accept that's best achieved by a strategy of poverty. I think it's best achieved by supplying boundless clean energy, and using that energy to internalise the externalities of capitalism - powering desalination, irrigation, recycling and carbon capture, as well as meeting human energy needs, including the burgeoning needs of developing countries, who will otherwise use fossil fuels to power their development.

Building windmills in the west will be an exercise in futility if three billion people in India and China burn coal to fuel their increasingly rapid development. And they will, because allow me to assure you, poverty sucks - even relative poverty within a wealthy society, sucks. They have absolute poverty, but they won't have it for long, and who can blame them?

[Mercury]

An example of a country ill suited to geothermal energy would be Australia. It's simply not volcanic. You would need to drill holes almost as deep as the 12km Kola Superdeep Borehole in northern Russia.

Australia is surrounded to the North and East by volcanoes in the Pacific Ring of Fire. They have 150 dormant domestic volcanoes worth investigating. Volcanoes often have a magma chamber beneath, such that useful temperatures can be reached at depths as shallow as 1-3 km. Have a glance at a map of the Pacific Ring of Fire, and you'll see Australia has potential geothermal energy resources from here to Woolloomoloo.

Underwater volcanoes present their own problem. The US tried drilling a deep hole in water when competing with the USSR in trying to dig the deepest hole. The project failed. The logistics of drilling very deep into the ocean bed (and in international waters or waters belonging to other nations) are huge.

Also, when a volcano becomes active, that will not augur well for local geothermal projects. I would not trust it as baseload but it no doubt has a place in the energy mix, especially in nations with easier access to hotspots.

Under what ...errr, volcanoes? They're volcanic islands. Zoom in! Now zoom out again and you see the potential. The Pacific Ring of Fire starts in Australia, reaches all the way up over the roof of the pacific, right down to South America. 450 volcanoes to start with. There's another 1100 volcanoes worldwide. And then there are subduction zones all over the Earth, where one continental plate is pushed beneath another, I'm guessing would become viable as the technology matures. But all that so, Nasa/Sandia say there's a minimum of 85 times global energy demand available from magma just in the US alone. We'd barely need to scrape the surface of the magma energy available to meet global demand, ten times over, carbon free forever.

I think it likely Nasa/Sandia Labs, three years after putting men on the moon, can be considered reputable, but trust isn't the issue. The potential must be explored in face of either fossil fuel powered climate disaster, or a limits to growth policy tragedy. Or more likely, both!

However, the islands in the Ring of Fire belong to PNG and Indonesia. They are not Australian and, since we are not China, we can't just charge in and take the resources for ourselves.

None of the ring that is in the ocean is accessible. Active volcanoes are not suitable because they can wipe out the infrastructure and inactive ones requires more highly expensive drilling. As I say, some places are well suited to geothermal and other places are better suited to other forms of energy generation.

Perhaps I should be talking to China then! What do you think? Do you think they would be more interested than the West in developing a source of limitless clean energy? They might, given they have around 1.5 billion people, and are developing quite rapidly. I think Magma Energy needs to be developed at the UN, COP, WEF level - as a global response to the climate and ecological crisis. Also, I think we have a responsibility given the Industrial Revolution started in the UK, and changed the way of the world.

I often think about the Amish at this point; a religious/rural community of people who forego modern technology, as an example of the way of life modernity displaced. I prefer modernity, don't get me wrong - but it might be argued their way of life is sustainable, and therein lies the responsibility we own. Also, I don't think there's enough land for everyone to live as the Amish do. As retreat to the rural idyll is not possible for 8 billion people, we have to sustain modernity. And boundless clean energy from magma would go a long way toward that end.

I suppose it's fair to give you the pleasure of forcing me to admit my ignorance, but I'm merely disagreeing with the assertion Australia has no geothermal sources. The world has geothermal sources though, right? Earth. Big ball of molten rock. Radiating massive amounts of energy for 4.5bn years, from long before nations even existed. Earth will continue radiating energy for another 5bn years, until consumed by our sun. I'm not an expert geologist, less yet volcanologist - who surely, would be the best people to ask about whether this or that nations' volcanic features are suitable for energy production. Are you a volcanologist? I read politics at university - and from political theory, developed an interest in philosophy.

From my perspective, assuming Nasa/Sandia are in the ballpark of correct in their projections, I think it's possible to transcend the climate and ecological bottleneck, and provide for a long and prosperous sustainable future. Quite how that's achieved, like from where magma energy is best sourced, is for experts in other disciplines.

[Sy Borg]

You can drill 4kms down in central Australia for some geothermal resources. Good luck getting the energy to major population centres.

As for the north, Australia can't just take PNG and Indonesian resources. They are not Australia resources.

It's not enough to say that we live on a ball of magma with almost limitless energy, just as it's not enough to say that that ball of magma is being bombarded by the Sun's almost-endless energy. It must be obtained, contained and transported. Who should do it?

Since I am not the ruler of Australia, I have no influence on the matter. Entrepreneurs need to see a potential profit to invest. If you are dirty on entrepreneurs' decisions, then you need to make your own pile and make your own decisions. Either that, or you need to find a way to influence potential entrepreneurs that investing in geothermal will provide a better return than their current projects.

[Mercury]

You can drill 4kms down in central Australia for some geothermal resources. Good luck getting the energy to major population centres.

As for the north, Australia can't just take PNG and Indonesian resources. They are not Australia resources.

It's not enough to say that we live on a ball of magma with almost limitless energy, just as it's not enough to say that that ball of magma is being bombarded by the Sun's almost-endless energy. It must be obtained, contained and transported. Who should do it?

Since I am not the ruler of Australia, I have no influence on the matter. Entrepreneurs need to see a potential profit to invest. If you are dirty on entrepreneurs' decisions, then you need to make your own pile and make your own decisions. Either that, or you need to find a way to influence potential entrepreneurs that investing in geothermal will provide a better return than their current projects.

Again, I think this needs to be developed globally, at the UN, COP, WEF level. Funding would be raised at the international level, and I suppose companies would bid for contracts. I'd further suppose the location of geothermal sources would factor into the decision of how contracts were awarded. But I see it as necessary to the equitable distribution of energy - as base load electricity and/or hydrogen fuel, that magma energy is developed as a cooperative response to the global climate and ecological threat.

It should be borne in mind that, for the first decade, magma energy would be directed toward mitigating climate change - powering desalination, irrigation, recycling and carbon capture while building capacity, and even then, I imagine magma energy fed into the global economy from the supply side - big industrial energy users first. A sectoral approach - so whole industrial sectors like steel, concrete, chemicals, would be transitioned at the same time to avoid national competition issues blocking progress. This would have the advantage of distributing magma energy, for domestic electricity production, and hydrogen as transport fuel - without disrupting markets, and in preparation for a Net Zero horizon.

Where there's cause, I suppose countries could become early adopters. The whole thing is quite flexible, but will need to be carefully managed because nations, markets and industries dependent on fossil fuel revenues will need support to divest and diversify. One of the major unresolved problems is the stranded assets issue. We all know we need to leave fossil fuels in the ground, but I wonder if that means foregoing their value? I think stranded fossil fuel assets can be mortgaged at some percentage of their market value, and left in the ground - if there's a magma energy alternative. There may come a time, in 10,000 years perhaps, we need to warm the climate!

[Lagayascienza]

Mercury, you point to the following passage:
“The estimated size of the U.S. resource (50,000 to 500,000 quads) suggests a considerable potential impact on future power generation."

I’m in no position to, and never have, disputed those estimates. But that is not what is in question. The question is whether the resource will be developed. That is where my doubts lie.

You repeatedly make the bizarre accusation that I am in thrall to some weird, Malthusian conspiracy directed by your boogey-man the “environmental left” whose goal is to destroy civilisation. Your accusation is nonsense and I resent it. I’m not going to get into a tit-for-tat about it and will simply ask that you stop it. I have no affiliation with any such group. I’ve never heard of such a group. I don’t believe such a group exists. If you think it does exist, then please contact them and ask why they have ignored the magma study. Let us know how you go.

For the record, I have never said that magma energy should be “off the table”. If energy from magma can contribute to reducing fossil fuel use and bringing down GHG emissions, then, as I have said on several occasions, I am all for it. I have, however, pointed out that, at best, it will likely only be practical on a limited, local scale where shallow magma is easily accessible. There are vast stretches within continents where magma is not accessible because there are no volcanoes and the continental crust is 10 – 70kms thick. Further, I have pointed to risks in relying on volcanoes around the ring of fire – this is the most seismically active area on earth and so would be unreliable for baseload as Sy Borg mentioned – earthquakes, eruptions, tsunamis are a fact of life on the ring of fire. The energy companies and their insurers won’t want their massively expensive infrastructure destroyed. Furthermore, you say the magma study proves that magma can power the world. But the study never said that. Moreover, it was just a study. It has not proved feasible in practice. There is not, as far as I’ve been able to ascertain, a single example of energy from magma providing baseload power to even a small village. Why do you think that is? Of course, you will again want blame the lack of development of magma energy on the “ environmental left” boogey-man. But do you really believe that? Do you have evidence that they (whoever “they” are) have ever opposed energy from magma? I can’t find any. Can you point me to any published material by this group to that effect? You say “they” have ignored the magma study. I don’t think that would be true even if “they” existed. Most people who have concerns about the environment have probably, like me, never heard of the magma study. It’s over 40 years old and I only knew about it from you. If environmentalists knew about the study and believed it could contribute to bringing down GHG emissions then they would have been plugging for it just as they are plugging for other clean, renewable energy sources.

I don’t know why, but you consistently refuse to explain why, if magma energy is the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, it is not being exploited by the energy companies. I actually believe in capitalism – if there is an opportunity for profit from supplying magma energy, the free market will ensure the resource is developed. Why isn’t magma energy being developed? The energy companies either don’t know about the magma study (unlikely), or they do know about it and have not pursued it. If the latter is the case, then I suspect there are four main reasons behind the unwillingness to pursue it. The first is that they are heavily invested in keeping fossil fuels flowing because they make so much money from them. Secondly, they don’t want competition from other energy sources that would detract from their large capital investment in fossil fuels. Thirdly, the capital investment in magma energy, if it proved feasible on the scale you imagine, would be immense. Fourthly, it is possible that the energy companies do not, for geophysical reasons, see magma energy as a viable resource. I suspect that all four of these reasons may be at play.

It will not be some imaginary leftist conspiracy that stops magma energy. The environmental left will not be the ones with the capital needed to develop magma energy. And they would be powerless to stop energy companies investing in it if those companies thought there was money to be made from it. Moreover, governments would encourage those companies to so invest so that the profits could be taxed. If you believe that magma energy can save the world, and if you care about getting it pursued, you need to be getting the energy companies interested in it. They are the only ones who will be able to develop it. But, at the end of the day, those companies may decide not to develop it. I have provided a number of reasons why that might be the case.

[Lagayascienza]

This might be slightly off topic but, just out of interest, I had a look at geothermal resources in Australia. Geothermal is different to energy from magma in that it draws energy from water in contact with hot rock at several hundred degrees C (not molten magma) at around 4klm deep or less. There are lots of areas in central Australia that have such deep hot rock. Lots of projects have started but, unfortunately, not a single one has proved economically viable and they have all been abandoned. The problem has been getting the energy across the vastness of Australian desert to the big cities on the coast. I imagine that if we had accessible magma anywhere is Australia the same problem would present. But we don't have accessible magma because there are no volcanoes in Australia. There are a few small, old dormant ones on the southern border between the states of Victoria and South Australia which I know quite well, but they have been inactive for thousands of years and so probably have no easily accessible magma reserves. So the closest active magma reserves to the big cities of Australia would be in New Zealand. But they don't belong to us and, if they could be developed, New Zealand, which, even though it already has a mature hydrothermal industry, would want them. That leaves Indonesia. But the volcanoes there are many thousands of kms from Australian population centers and they belong to Indonesia which, I understand, has, like NZ, already developed hydrothermal energy rather than magma energy. So even countries who have accessible magma have chosen not to pursue it but have instead developed hydrothermal resources. These hydrothermal power plants are not actually on volcanoes so are not subject to disruption or damage from continuous tremors that occur on active volcanoes or form volcanic eruptions. This leads me to think that it is probably for geophysical reasons that shallow magma on volcanoes is not being developed. It's just too risky. A lot depends on the type of volcano in question. On Hawaii for example the volcanoes are the massive shield variety that have gentle slopes and exude fluid lava slowly. I can imagine magma being exploited there. However, most volcanoes are not like that. The type of volcanoes that occur in Indonesia and other places on the Ring of Fire are mostly the steep-sided strato-volcanoes that erupt violently with hot gasses, ash, pumice. These are very dangerous and would be no no place to site expensive infrastructure. So, I think this problem of risk, rather than any stifling of progress by any group, right or left, is the problem that is preventing the development of magma energy. If it were doable, I think that, like hydrothermal, it would be being developed.

[Mercury]

Mercury, you point to the following passage:
“The estimated size of the U.S. resource (50,000 to 500,000 quads) suggests a considerable potential impact on future power generation."

I’m in no position to, and never have, disputed those estimates. But that is not what is in question. The question is whether the resource will be developed. That is where my doubts lie. You repeatedly make the bizarre accusation that I am in thrall to some weird, Malthusian conspiracy directed by your boogey-man the “environmental left” whose goal is to destroy civilisation. Your accusation is nonsense and I resent it.

Is that because you resent nonsense, or resent me for making a nonsense of your beliefs? Please, tell me more of your resentment.

I’m not going to get into a tit-for-tat about it and will simply ask that you stop it.

Stop what exactly?

I have no affiliation with any such group. I’ve never heard of such a group. I don’t believe such a group exists. If you think it does exist, then please contact them and ask why they have ignored the magma study. Let us know how you go.

Did you not cite the Club of Rome? Did you not insist there are Limits to Growth? Did you not say that all their wildest dreams came true?

For the record, I have never said that magma energy should be “off the table”.

You do know this is a philosophy forum, that we are talking here about political theory, with regard to magma energy and the prospect of a prosperous and sustainable future, and not merely your opinion?

If energy from magma can contribute to reducing fossil fuel use and bringing down GHG emissions, then, as I have said on several occasions, I am all for it. I have, however, pointed out that, at best, it will likely only be practical on a limited, local scale where shallow magma is easily accessible.

On what basis do you say so?

There are vast stretches within continents where magma is not accessible because there are no volcanoes and the continental crust is 10 – 70kms thick. Further, I have pointed to risks in relying on volcanoes around the ring of fire – this is the most seismically active area on earth and so would be unreliable for baseload as Sy Borg mentioned – earthquakes, eruptions, tsunamis are a fact of life on the ring of fire. The energy companies and their insurers won’t want their massively expensive infrastructure destroyed.

In this passage you presume to speak for governments, geologists, insurance risk assessors, energy companies, electrical engineers - all without a scrap of evidence. Either you are some renaissance man, genius, and jack of all trades, or have more neck than a herd of giraffes.

Furthermore, you say the magma study proves that magma can power the world. But the study never said that. Moreover, it was just a study. It has not proved feasible in practice. There is not, as far as I’ve been able to ascertain, a single example of energy from magma providing baseload power to even a small village. Why do you think that is?

That is a good question, but as you refuse to acknowledge the existence of the Club of Rome you cited earlier, or Limits to Growth thinking, and insist that I stop the nonsense of supposing their existence, or is it criticising their ideas, I'm going to find it very difficult to answer this question. All I can say is that in 1982, Nasa/Sandia Labs showed it was possible, and drilling technology and materials science have come on leaps and bounds since then.

Of course, you will again want blame the lack of development of magma energy on the “ environmental left” boogey-man. But do you really believe that? Do you have evidence that they (whoever “they” are) have ever opposed energy from magma? I can’t find any.

As you ask directly, yes, I believe that magma energy fell between the two stools of climate change denial on the right, and limits to growth on the left; both of them putting their political interests ahead of people and the planet.

Can you point me to any published material by this group to that effect? You say “they” have ignored the magma study. I don’t think that would be true even if “they” existed. Most people who have concerns about the environment have probably, like me, never heard of the magma study. It’s over 40 years old and I only knew about it from you. If environmentalists knew about the study and believed it could contribute to bringing down GHG emissions then they would have been plugging for it just as they are plugging for other clean, renewable energy sources.

The Limits to Growth
The Club of Rome stimulated considerable public attention with the first report to the club, The Limits to Growth. Published in 1972, its computer simulations suggested that economic growth could not continue indefinitely because of resource depletion. The 1973 oil crisis increased public concern about this problem. The report went on to sell 30 million copies in more than 30 languages, making it the best-selling environmental book in history.
The Club of Rome garnered "serious criticism" in 2016 after promoting the idea of a one-child policy for industrialized countries, in its pamphlet titled "Reinventing Prosperity".
In contrast, John Scales Avery, a member of Nobel Peace Prize (1995) winning group associated with the Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs, supported the basic thesis of The Limits to Growth by stating, "Although the specific predictions of resource availability in [The] Limits to Growth lacked accuracy, its basic thesis – that unlimited economic growth on a finite planet is impossible – was indisputably correct."

I cannot provide evidence of the negative; only that the Club of Rome you cited earlier persist in Limits to Growth thinking that should have been refuted by Nasa/Sandia's 1982 demonstration of magma energy. Magma Energy is not finite in any practical sense, though neither is it infinite in an absolute sense. It's merely inconceivably massive; all the energy we could ever use and more. Applied intelligently, it can balance human and environmental welfare, very much in our favour, providing for prosperity into the indefinite future.

I don’t know why, but you consistently refuse to explain why, if magma energy is the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, it is not being exploited by the energy companies. I actually believe in capitalism – if there is an opportunity for profit from supplying magma energy, the free market will ensure the resource is developed.

When you say you believe in capitalism, is it that you believe capitalism exists? I ask because of the whole Club of Rome thing; where you cite them one minute, deny they exist the next, defend limits to growth, and then deny you said any such thing. For the record, I too think there is a thing called capitalism.

Why isn’t magma energy being developed? The energy companies either don’t know about the magma study (unlikely), or they do know about it and have not pursued it. If the latter is the case, then I suspect there are four main reasons behind the unwillingness to pursue it. The first is that they are heavily invested in keeping fossil fuels flowing because they make so much money from them. Secondly, they don’t want competition from other energy sources that would detract from their large capital investment in fossil fuels. Thirdly, the capital investment in magma energy, if it proved feasible on the scale you imagine, would be immense. Fourthly, it is possible that the energy companies do not, for geophysical reasons, see magma energy as a viable resource. I suspect that all four of these reasons may be at play.

At last, you answered your own question. I assume you find your own answers satisfactory, so I'll not dispute them. It's not the answer I'd give, but clearly you don't think my study of these issues is worth a brass dime. You don't think Nasa/Sandia Labs opinions are more worthy than yours.

It will not be some imaginary leftist conspiracy that stops magma energy. The environmental left will not be the ones with the capital needed to develop magma energy. And they would be powerless to stop energy companies investing in it if those companies thought there was money to be made from it. Moreover, governments would encourage those companies to so invest so that the profits could be taxed. If you believe that magma energy can save the world, and if you care about getting it pursued, you need to be getting the energy companies interested in it. They are the only ones who will be able to develop it. But, at the end of the day, those companies may decide not to develop it. I have provided a number of reasons why that might be the case.

Your logic is irrefutable! Now on to your second post while three of mine still languish, invisible in the limbo of moderator approval. After I asked you to wait for my response, and you said you would, you had to have another go. How utterly charming! You really are a pip!

[Mercury]

This might be slightly off topic but, just out of interest, I had a look at geothermal resources in Australia. Geothermal is different to energy from magma in that it draws energy from water in contact with hot rock at several hundred degrees C (not molten magma) at around 4klm deep or less. There are lots of areas in central Australia that have such deep hot rock. Lots of projects have started but, unfortunately, not a single one has proved economically viable and they have all been abandoned. The problem has been getting the energy across the vastness of Australian desert to the big cities on the coast. I imagine that if we had accessible magma anywhere is Australia the same problem would present. But we don't have accessible magma because there are no volcanoes in Australia. There are a few small, old dormant ones on the southern border between the states of Victoria and South Australia which I know quite well, but they have been inactive for thousands of years and so probably have no easily accessible magma reserves. So the closest active magma reserves to the big cities of Australia would be in New Zealand. But they don't belong to us and, if they could be developed, New Zealand, which, even though it already has a mature hydrothermal industry, would want them. That leaves Indonesia. But the volcanoes there are many thousands of kms from Australian population centers and they belong to Indonesia which, I understand, has, like NZ, already developed hydrothermal energy rather than magma energy. So even countries who have accessible magma have chosen not to pursue it but have instead developed hydrothermal resources. These hydrothermal power plants are not actually on volcanoes so are not subject to disruption or damage from continuous tremors that occur on active volcanoes or form volcanic eruptions. This leads me to think that it is probably for geophysical reasons that shallow magma on volcanoes is not being developed. It's just too risky. A lot depends on the type of volcano in question. On Hawaii for example the volcanoes are the massive shield variety that have gentle slopes and exude fluid lava slowly. I can imagine magma being exploited there. However, most volcanoes are not like that. The type of volcanoes that occur in Indonesia and other places on the Ring of Fire are mostly the steep-sided strato-volcanoes that erupt violently with hot gasses, ash, pumice. These are very dangerous and would be no no place to site expensive infrastructure. So, I think this problem of risk, rather than any stifling of progress by any group, right or left, is the problem that is preventing the development of magma energy. If it were doable, I think that, like hydrothermal, it would be being developed.

There's no such thing as Australia. It's a hologram, as proven conclusively by the flat earth society! Even if there were, why would anyone go there? How could people live in a country that was all deserts, poison snakes and spiders as big as a plate? The duck-billed platypus - half mammal, half bird, half fish. The Kangeroo, an animal that has a pocket, but arms too short to reach it. It's obviously made up! And so is Australia. The whole thing is ridiculous!

[Sy Borg]

This might be slightly off topic but, just out of interest, I had a look at geothermal resources in Australia. Geothermal is different to energy from magma in that it draws energy from water in contact with hot rock at several hundred degrees C (not molten magma) at around 4klm deep or less. There are lots of areas in central Australia that have such deep hot rock. Lots of projects have started but, unfortunately, not a single one has proved economically viable and they have all been abandoned. The problem has been getting the energy across the vastness of Australian desert to the big cities on the coast. I imagine that if we had accessible magma anywhere is Australia the same problem would present. But we don't have accessible magma because there are no volcanoes in Australia. There are a few small, old dormant ones on the southern border between the states of Victoria and South Australia which I know quite well, but they have been inactive for thousands of years and so probably have no easily accessible magma reserves. So the closest active magma reserves to the big cities of Australia would be in New Zealand. But they don't belong to us and, if they could be developed, New Zealand, which, even though it already has a mature hydrothermal industry, would want them. That leaves Indonesia. But the volcanoes there are many thousands of kms from Australian population centers and they belong to Indonesia which, I understand, has, like NZ, already developed hydrothermal energy rather than magma energy. So even countries who have accessible magma have chosen not to pursue it but have instead developed hydrothermal resources. These hydrothermal power plants are not actually on volcanoes so are not subject to disruption or damage from continuous tremors that occur on active volcanoes or form volcanic eruptions. This leads me to think that it is probably for geophysical reasons that shallow magma on volcanoes is not being developed. It's just too risky. A lot depends on the type of volcano in question. On Hawaii for example the volcanoes are the massive shield variety that have gentle slopes and exude fluid lava slowly. I can imagine magma being exploited there. However, most volcanoes are not like that. The type of volcanoes that occur in Indonesia and other places on the Ring of Fire are mostly the steep-sided strato-volcanoes that erupt violently with hot gasses, ash, pumice. These are very dangerous and would be no no place to site expensive infrastructure. So, I think this problem of risk, rather than any stifling of progress by any group, right or left, is the problem that is preventing the development of magma energy. If it were doable, I think that, like hydrothermal, it would be being developed.

There's no such thing as Australia. It's a hologram, as proven conclusively by the flat earth society! Even if there were, why would anyone go there? How could people live in a country that was all deserts, poison snakes and spiders as big as a plate? The duck-billed platypus - half mammal, half bird, half fish. The Kangeroo, an animal that has a pocket, but arms too short to reach it. It's obviously made up! And so is Australia. The whole thing is ridiculous!

Ah, you have uncovered our secret! Why do you think I am called Sy Borg? I am obviously not real, a virtual cipher in The Machine.

Why do I always bang on about digitisation of consciousness, mmm? Because I, and all other Australians, are virtual beings. I've been giving hints for years, but no one picked it up. How else could Australians enjoy such a good lifestyle when the whole world knows we are dorky and gormless yokels? We have digital resources. None of it is physically real. We live in silent fear that our Reptilian overlords will upgrade our server.

[Lagayascienza]

Hilarious! Both of you.

[Mercury]

Speaking of hilarious delusions, I saw this story on BBC news today.

Nuclear fusion: new record brings dream of clean energy closer
Published
14 hours ago

By Esme Stallard
Climate and science reporter, BBC News

Nuclear fusion has produced more energy than ever before in an experiment, bringing the world a step closer to the dream of limitless, clean power.

The new world record has been set at the UK-based JET laboratory. Nuclear fusion is the process that powers stars. Scientists believe it could produce vast amounts of energy without heating up our atmosphere. European scientists working at the site said "we have achieved things we've never done before". The result came from the lab's final experiment after more than 40 years of fusion research...

"In order for the atoms to fuse together on Earth, we need temperatures ten times hotter than the Sun - around 100 million celsius, and we need a high enough density of the atoms and for a long enough time," she explained. The experiments produced 69 megajoules of energy over five seconds. That is only enough energy for four to five hot baths - so not a lot. It is clear we are still a long way off from nuclear fusion power plants, but with every experiment it is bringing us one step closer.

....

40 years! The same amount of time they've been studiously ignoring Magma Energy, they've been pumping billions into fusion that cannot possibly work to produce a sustained fusion reaction, or surplus of useful power. It's physically impossible. A perpetual motion machine. Fusion only works in the sun because gravity packs hydrogen atoms so tightly together that one instance of fusion increases the statistical probability of further instances of fusion in the surrounding material. On earth, every instance of fusion is forced by the input of energy, and does not increase the probability of further instances of fusion - so you don't get a sustained fusion reaction. You have to keep pumping in energy to force each instance of fusion to occur. When measured against the energy out, and converted back into useful power, this must always occur at a deficit.

"The dream of limitless clean power." It's like they're trolling me. Is this because I said Dr Who is sickening woke propaganda; almost as sickening as a BBC royal correspondents' breathless fawning? Or is it because I said, selling BBC programs all around the world and privatising the profits through the production company is defrauding the license fee payer? It really baffles me how everything else in the country - gas, electricity, trains, water, phones, social housing, everything has been sold out from under us, but the BBC still taxes every household in the country directly.

I can only suppose it enables them, whoever 'they' are, to keep tight control of the narrative - in order to prevent someone like me going on telly and pointing out earth is a big ball of molten rock, Nasa/Sandia Labs said 40 years ago, could in fact supply the world with limitless clean energy! Before climate change sets the sky on fire!

We're lying ourselves to death, we're lying ourselves to death, telling lies is so very much fun, I'm telling one with my very last breath!
Altogether now!
We're lying ourselves to death, we're lying ourselves to death...
Hilarious!

[Lagayascienza]

This will probably be another waste of time, but I shall try, nonetheless.

I have never denied the existence of the Club of Rome (CoR). What I dispute is the nonsense that it is at the centre of some eco-nazi-enviro-left conspiracy to undermine the Scania/NASA magma study and destroy civilisation.

You, again, provide no evidence that CoR has opposed the magma study. You keep banging on about the evil CoR, but its predictions about environmental catastrophe have, as you well know, proven correct. And if CoR thought tapping into volcanoes was the answer to our climate emergency, then I don't see why it wouldn't be backing it to the hilt. After all, they care about the planet.

You ask on what basis I assert that magma energy will likely only be practical, if at all, on a limited, local scale where shallow magma is easily accessible. My assessment is on the basis that the small, 40-year-old magma study by scandia/NASA was just that - a small study. It was not a practical demonstration of power generation nor a proof of concept in economic terms. My assessment is also on the basis that not even a single tiny hamlet has yet been powered by magma. And I doubt very much that one ever will be – at least, not in the foreseeable future. If it were profitably doable, it would be being done. Energy companies, with the backing of governments who would be be able to tax it, would be pursuing it. They are not.

Governments, geologists, insurance risk assessors, energy companies, electrical engineers do not need me to speak for them. And I have not done so. The market has done that. That is the capitalism I believe in. If magma energy can be profitably developed, it will be. You can continue to eulogise the small Scandia/NASA study. But, apparently, no one else, least of all the energy companies, seems interested. I have provided some reasons why that might be so. I’m sorry if that pisses you off. It cannot be helped. I must speak the truth as I see it.

In respect of your complaint about my posting before you have responded. There is nothing wrong with anyone adding to a post before a response is provided. And it is not my fault that your posts need to be approved. Moreover, my last post provided new information that I hoped you would find relevant to the question of why magma energy is not being pursued. In particular, it spoke to the fact that countries on the Ring of Fire such as NZ, Indonesia and the Philippines, and others elsewhere such as Iceland, have developed and, and are further pursuing, hydrothermal generation (also driven by volcanic energy), the infrastructure for which can be place safely distant from dangerous volcanoes. This would not be the case with direct magma tapping on volcanoes. This seems like a very sensible approach to me. The risk to infrastructure and to workers of tapping directly into volcanoes is probably prohibitive and would likely make energy thus generated economically unviable.

Finally, I hope the hydrothermal and geothermal projects I've mentioned will, along with wind, solar and other clean renewables (and magma if it were feasible) continue to grow and play their part in curtailing the use of fossil fuels and thereby reducing GHG emissions and forestalling an irreversible climate meltdown that would displace 100s of millions of people and ruin economies. That, after all, is what is important, no?

[Mercury]

This will probably be another waste of time, but I shall try, nonetheless.

I have never denied the existence of the Club of Rome (CoR). What I dispute is the nonsense that it is at the centre of some eco-nazi-enviro-left conspiracy to undermine the Scania/NASA magma study and destroy civilisation.

You, again, provide no evidence that CoR has opposed the magma study. You keep banging on about the evil CoR, but its predictions about environmental catastrophe have, as you well know, proven correct. And if CoR thought tapping into volcanoes was the answer to our climate emergency, then I don't see why it wouldn't be backing it to the hilt. After all, they care about the planet.

My friend, you are an example of the problem. You believe things that are not true, and refuse to believe things that are - and I can't talk you out of it. I've tried, at great length, and yet you persist, arguing for an approach that will not work to achieve sustainability, but does imply massive demand side impositions on businesses and individuals - while the fossil fuel companies continue making vast profits from oil and gas.

You don't seem to understand a limits to growth approach very well, while I have studied this issue for many years from a political theory perspective, and even then, I don't consider myself to have greater knowledge or intelligence than the Nasa/Sandia Labs experts who demonstrated this technology in 1982.

You ask on what basis I assert that magma energy will likely only be practical, if at all, on a limited, local scale where shallow magma is easily accessible. My assessment is on the basis that the small, 40-year-old magma study by scandia/NASA was just that - a small study. It was not a practical demonstration of power generation nor a proof of concept in economic terms. My assessment is also on the basis that not even a single tiny hamlet has yet been powered by magma. And I doubt very much that one ever will be – at least, not in the foreseeable future. If it were profitably doable, it would be being done. Energy companies, with the backing of governments who would be be able to tax it, would be pursuing it. They are not.

Your ad hoc rule of thumb reasoning, that because it's not being done, that must imply it's not viable or profitable has been repeated ad infinitum, even as I try to explain my reading of the history - and the political interests, both left and right that conspired to exclude magma energy from consideration. It just doesn't sink in, and you seem unable to admit ignorance by asking questions about what you don't understand.

Governments, geologists, insurance risk assessors, energy companies, electrical engineers do not need me to speak for them. And I have not done so. The market has done that. That is the capitalism I believe in. If magma energy can be profitably developed, it will be. You can continue to eulogise the small Scandia/NASA study. But, apparently, no one else, least of all the energy companies, seems interested. I have provided some reasons why that might be so. I’m sorry if that pisses you off. It cannot be helped. I must speak the truth as I see it.

You accept, I suppose that earth is a big ball of molten rock? You accept that if, as Nasa/Sandia Labs suggest, it is possible to harness that energy, it would allow for a very different approach to the climate and ecological crisis?
No! You do not. You persist in rubbishing the study like you know better than Nasa/Sandia Labs, and then apply your ad hoc rule of thumb, capitalism is always right reasoning - even after I've gone to great lengths to explain why governments and energy companies, acting like cartels, might seek to exclude this technology from the market.

In respect of your complaint about my posting before you have responded. There is nothing wrong with anyone adding to a post before a response is provided. And it is not my fault that your posts need to be approved. Moreover, my last post provided new information that I hoped you would find relevant to the question of why magma energy is not being pursued. In particular, it spoke to the fact that countries on the Ring of Fire such as NZ, Indonesia and the Philippines, and others elsewhere such as Iceland, have developed and, and are further pursuing, hydrothermal generation (also driven by volcanic energy), the infrastructure for which can be place safely distant from dangerous volcanoes. This would not be the case with direct magma tapping on volcanoes. This seems like a very sensible approach to me. The risk to infrastructure and to workers of tapping directly into volcanoes is probably prohibitive and would likely make energy thus generated economically unviable.

My complaint is not about you posting two posts. It's about my post - awaiting approval, going ignored. I wanted you to read and respond to my post because I was stupid enough to think I could change your mind; that my arguments will have an effect on you. I now realise this is not the case; that it's impossible to inform you of anything, even while I know this subject a lot better than you do, you don't think so, and won't be told otherwise.

Finally, I hope the hydrothermal and geothermal projects I've mentioned will, along with wind, solar and other clean renewables (and magma if it were feasible) continue to grow and play their part in curtailing the use of fossil fuels and thereby reducing GHG emissions and forestalling an irreversible climate meltdown that would displace 100s of millions of people and ruin economies. That, after all, is what is important, no?

No. That's not what's important, because no admixture of wind and solar can meet current energy demand, less yet increased energy demand over the next 30 years. We need massive amounts of clean energy to solve the challenges we face, and as I'm sure you're aware, earth is a big ball of molten rock. I would explain further, but the one thing you got right is this:

"This will probably be another waste of time"

Unless you are able to learn from those who know better than you, then yes, it's a waste of time. If you don't read and respond to my posts, but spam the thread with posts while mine are in limbo, it's a waste of time. Your inability to admit ignorance by asking questions makes this a waste of time. It's the one thing you're right about, and you see how I acknowledge that you're right, and am able to admit my previous error! That's called learning!

[Lagayascienza]

QED, I'd say.

You persist in not addressing my points WRT the difficulties and risks involved in plugging into magma on volatile volcanoes. You are determined to continue down the magma energy rabbit hole. Well, I am not here to stop you. All I want is clean, reliable, baseload power, the reduction in GHG emissions to save the climate, AND economic growth. That is all I care about.

What is clear to anyone who has cared to look honestly into this problem, is that saving the climate AND economic growth are both possible with proven, ready-to-go technologies. You refuse to even consider that possibility because, as you have made clear, you don't like the look of windmills, which are already part of the landscape and energy mix, and you don't like the look of power lines. Well, boohoo! That's too bad for you. Your aesthetic sentiments are irrelevant. Others love windmills and we are, all of us, long used to powerlines. The windmills are already pumping out power, hydrothermal is providing baseload power to countries on the Ring of Fire , and rooftops the world over are being covered in solar panels. And the power lines to distribute that power are already there. All that is required is greater uptake of these proven technologies, upgrading the existing grid, and more battery storage. Your aesthetic sentiments are of supreme disinterest to people concerned about the climate catastrophe that now confronts us.

What reasonable people are now concerned with is saving 100s of millions of people from displacement and death, and the economic disaster inherent in a climate meltdown that would ensue with the business-as-usual scenario that you seem to favor. Climate scientists are unanimous in telling us that we must not go down that path. I believe them. You don't. You firmly believe it is the eco-nazi-enviro-left who are lying. That being so, you are beyond help.

What is indisputable is that we are nudging 2 degrees C of warming already. The small, outdated magma study that has won your heart never promised anything. And not a watt of electricity has been generated from magma. Even if drilling millions of holes in the sides of dangerous volcanoes on the Ring of Fire were geophysically practicable, which it clearly is not, the study did not show that it would provide an economically feasible source of baseload power to even a village, let alone for the entire world. Again, if it were feasible, our capitalist friends in the energy industry would be pursuing it already, and governments would subsidizing it so they could tax it and be able to say that they saved the climate. Well, none of them are doing any of this. And that is because it is pie-in-the-sky.

Magma energy is not going to save us environmentally or economically. When you first brought is up here I thought, mmm, maybe. Having looked into it, I conclude that it is, at best, wooly thinking. You do not want to accept this. That is a problem that only you can deal with.