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

[Mercury]

In 1982, Nasa/Sandia Labs demonstrated experimentally, the technology to harness Magma Energy; saying:

Status of the Magma Energy Project
Dunn, J. C. (Sandia National Labs., Albuquerque, NM.)
Abstract
The current magma energy project is assessing the engineering feasibility of extracting thermal energy directly from crustal magma bodies. The estimated size of the U.S. resource (50,000 to 500,000 quads) suggests a considerable potential impact on future power generation. In a previous seven-year study, we concluded that there are no insurmountable barriers that would invalidate the magma energy concept. Several concepts for drilling, energy extraction, and materials survivability were successfully demonstrated in Kilauea Iki lava lake, Hawaii. 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.
Publication: Presented at the Symposium on Geothermal Energy, New Orleans, La., 10 Jan. 1988.


Current global energy demand is a mere 600 quads. Converted to base load electricity and clean burning hydrogen fuel, Magma Energy could not only supply human energy needs many times over, carbon free forever, but supply surplus energy to desalinate sea water, to irrigate wastelands, recycle all waste, and capture atmospheric carbon - allowing for continued economic growth into the long term future.

Otherwise, we face one of two, and likely both, very grim prospects. The first where we do nothing, and the latter, a tragedy that follows from a Limits to Growth approach, currently, almost universally assumed to be the only way to address the threat.

In the former scenario, it's likely the insurance industry would be the first to go. Faced with repeated and increasing claims for damage caused by fire and flood, it would become impossible to insure property. This would have enormous impacts on the real estate sector, which in turn would undermine the banking sector - and then all is lost. Without a means of exchange, world trade breaks down, wars break out over resources - billions starve and die. There's a general loss of containment in terms of chemical plants and nuclear power stations. A mass extinction event.

The latter scenario is little different, only it is induced by increasingly onerous taxation and regulations imposed on individuals and industry. In this scenario we are treated to the spectacle of a neo-communist state whose claim to legitimacy is protection of the environment from human needs and wants. The same collapse of the economy, breakdown of trade and wars over resources would occur, but the state would also devalue human life until warranted to commit genocide. A mass extinction event.

Magma Energy technology has not been developed and applied - and I'd like to discuss why that is. Possible explanations include a general disregard for science, entrenched fossil fuel interests, climate change denial, and/or Malthusian and Marxist presuppositions culminating in Meadows (et. al.) 1974 Limits to Growth thesis. There may be other psychological or philosophical explanations for why the seemingly vast opportunity of addressing the climate and ecological threat by supplying an over-abundance of clean energy from magma has not been grasped, even in face of dire threat. Let me know what you think.

[Mercury]

I guess everyone who has looked at this thinks nothing of the fact that humankind is threatened with climate and ecological disaster, nor anything of the fact earth is a big ball of molten rock containing all the energy we could ever need. Everyone who looked at this thought nothing of the fact Nasa/Sandia labs proved the technology to harness that energy 40 years ago, nor anything of the fact that research was ignored by left and right alike.

For a supposed bunch of thinkers, that's weird, right? The deafening silence. How strange. I'm not good with people. I don't know what this means, but I'm minded of that quote: "Hell is the impossibility of reason.' Turns out it's from Oliver Stone's Apocalypse Now. I wish it had been some long dead Greek guy, but no. Stone produces a quote like that, and then has the audacity to go on living - so it's like I'm a fan of his or something, if I think it's one hell of a quote! I'd rather become extinct!

[Sy Borg]

There's probably a few camps.

1. Those who figure that disaster will strike anyway, to some extent.

2. Those who will never give up the fight, idealistic and full of determined optimism.

3. Those who are angry about corporations, politicians or people in general and want to see the end of capitalism.

I'm in the first category. It'd be nice if more countries became pragmatic about nuclear energy, but that could be said about many issues. Since the US killed its hegemony with its Iraq escapades, global cooperation and security have diminished. Now there are fiercely competing just blocs, with varying stakes in the climate change issue. It's not a controllable situation, as far as I can tell.

[Mercury]

There's probably a few camps.

1. Those who figure that disaster will strike anyway, to some extent.

2. Those who will never give up the fight, idealistic and full of determined optimism.

3. Those who are angry about corporations, politicians or people in general and want to see the end of capitalism.

I'm in the first category. It'd be nice if more countries became pragmatic about nuclear energy, but that could be said about many issues. Since the US killed its hegemony with its Iraq escapades, global cooperation and security have diminished. Now there are fiercely competing just blocs, with varying stakes in the climate change issue. It's not a controllable situation, as far as I can tell.

Then perhaps this is a lament to missed opportunity. I'd still like to discuss that opportunity. And maybe it will turn out it wasn't missed after all. Disaster can still be avoided in theory, on paper. If we started now, if the world agreed to develop and apply Magma Energy technology, the disaster predicted before the end of this century could be much mitigated at least.

I have mixed feelings toward climate activists. I suppose almost all of them are entirely sincere, but they are mistaken to pursue a Limits to Growth approach. There is a better way. The sheer scale of Magma Energy implies sustainable prosperity: and one might have thought that would be an open door to push against, as opposed to winning widespread opposition to the idea of a totalitarian regime imposing poverty to reduce demand, in the name of all that is green and holy! I would love to win their ardent support, but they seem quite determinedly pessimistic.

Capitalism has prevailed as the only economic system that works. There are many criticisms one might level, not least the climate and ecological crisis. However, the externalities of capitalism can be internalised given the sheer scale of magma energy available. The technology has not been applied - and that makes me angry. But not such that I'd seek to dismantle the very systems necessary to develop and apply the technology to balance human and environmental needs. Capitalism has the knowledge, skills, resources, means of exchange, the industrial capacity to develop and apply magma energy technology - and magma energy can supply an abundance of clean energy necessary top desalinate, irrigate, recycle and capture carbon in order to internalise the externalities of capitalism.

Safe bet. You're backing the favourite there, no doubt. But nuclear isn't the answer, less yet wind and solar. The climate and ecological threat is a global problem, and we need a global approach - we also need certainty in the name of market stability. We need to negotiate political and economic interests in fossil fuels; nations dependent on fossil fuel revenues, and massive corporate interests need to be aligned. I think it's possible; global agreement to address the climate threat by the development of magma energy technology allows for a managed transition to somewhere better, and thereby, provides the surety to deal with the stranded assets issue.

I don't know if human beings can pull together to pull our collective backsides out of the fire. But if the climate crisis is to be mitigated, if people are genuinely pro-environment - and not just determined pessimists, then Sustainable Capitalist Prosperity based on an abundance of clean Magma/ electricity hydrogen energy is technologically possible, and in my view, the right approach and the right aim.

I've checked, and it does appear to be the right answer - right down to the philosophical roots. We don't need to go there to accept the rationale as a basis to do the existentially necessary minimum - plug into the planet, provide subsequent generations with the energy they will need to address this threat without sacrificing all that has been struggled for and achieved. Rather than less and worse, I believe we can do more and better. Or we could have done. How sad!

[Sy Borg]

Yep, my money is on the favourite. The idea of global cooperation ATM seems impossible. Every time one side makes concessions, the other takes advantage.

[Mercury]

Yep, my money is on the favourite. The idea of global cooperation ATM seems impossible. Every time one side makes concessions, the other takes advantage.

I agree. There is no right answer to the wrong question. Going forward along the wrong road, the right answer is ever more difficult to arrive at. It requires recognising our error; fundamentally, an epistemic error. We did not welcome, develop and integrate science as valid knowledge of Creation, but branded science something between heresy and a morally neutral tool. That was a mistake; fairly understandable in the historic context, but still - imagine a world in which science had been welcomed as the means to establish valid knowledge of Creation, pursued an integrated over centuries. Do you imagine human beings born into that world would be unwilling or incapable of plugging into the planet, and supplying the world with an over-abundance of clean energy? They would surely do so because it's the right answer given the simple facts. It's not who we are, nor whom I'm suggesting we might become overnight, but we can borrow from the ideal - steal fire from the Gods insofar as is necessary to address the existential threat.

[Sy Borg]

Yep, my money is on the favourite. The idea of global cooperation ATM seems impossible. Every time one side makes concessions, the other takes advantage.

I agree. There is no right answer to the wrong question. Going forward along the wrong road, the right answer is ever more difficult to arrive at. It requires recognising our error; fundamentally, an epistemic error. We did not welcome, develop and integrate science as valid knowledge of Creation, but branded science something between heresy and a morally neutral tool. That was a mistake; fairly understandable in the historic context, but still - imagine a world in which science had been welcomed as the means to establish valid knowledge of Creation, pursued an integrated over centuries. Do you imagine human beings born into that world would be unwilling or incapable of plugging into the planet, and supplying the world with an over-abundance of clean energy? They would surely do so because it's the right answer given the simple facts. It's not who we are, nor whom I'm suggesting we might become overnight, but we can borrow from the ideal - steal fire from the Gods insofar as is necessary to address the existential threat.

It's easy to be disillusioned with humans because we see the progress made by the best of us, and it's easy to forget the vast numbers of people who are a long way behind. The progress we see raises expectations, but it's miles from being universal.

I like to think that, if things could have been different, they would have been. All the various forces converged to bring us to where we are now - overpopulated, overconsuming, wasteful, variably rational and reasonable, and beset by a growing list of wicked problems.

At least Iceland has mostly geothermal energy, although I have the impression that they are riding a bucking bronco of geothermal activity that could throw them off at any time. They always seem to be one major eruption away from catastrophe.

[Mercury]

Yep, my money is on the favourite. The idea of global cooperation ATM seems impossible. Every time one side makes concessions, the other takes advantage.

I agree. There is no right answer to the wrong question. Going forward along the wrong road, the right answer is ever more difficult to arrive at. It requires recognising our error; fundamentally, an epistemic error. We did not welcome, develop and integrate science as valid knowledge of Creation, but branded science something between heresy and a morally neutral tool. That was a mistake; fairly understandable in the historic context, but still - imagine a world in which science had been welcomed as the means to establish valid knowledge of Creation, pursued an integrated over centuries. Do you imagine human beings born into that world would be unwilling or incapable of plugging into the planet, and supplying the world with an over-abundance of clean energy? They would surely do so because it's the right answer given the simple facts. It's not who we are, nor whom I'm suggesting we might become overnight, but we can borrow from the ideal - steal fire from the Gods insofar as is necessary to address the existential threat.

It's easy to be disillusioned with humans because we see the progress made by the best of us, and it's easy to forget the vast numbers of people who are a long way behind. The progress we see raises expectations, but it's miles from being universal.

I like to think that, if things could have been different, they would have been. All the various forces converged to bring us to where we are now - overpopulated, overconsuming, wasteful, variably rational and reasonable, and beset by a growing list of wicked problems.

At least Iceland has mostly geothermal energy, although I have the impression that they are riding a bucking bronco of geothermal activity that could throw them off at any time. They always seem to be one major eruption away from catastrophe.

Magma Energy is more than sufficient to extend capitalist prosperity to all. If the Sustainable Development Goals from 2000; already nearly a quarter century in the past, are still relevant, then supplying magma energy is the only way to bring 2 or 3 billion more people into first world markets. Calls for climate reparations are discharged by applying the energy technology to allow for progress. We need to finish what we started - not give in, and pay off the victims of our success.

It is significant that we are where we are in the course of an historic epistemic error. Were the climate and ecological disaster an inevitable consequence of the facts, then such a fatalistic attitude would be justified. But in fact, there's an eminently viable solution beneath our feet that, for whatever reasons - left and right alike have ignored for the past 40 years.
We can go deep into the weeds of the history, politics and philosophy of it, but it's somewhat of an aside to the fact that in reality; given no more that the 'is' of a scientific understanding of reality, and the 'ought' of human survival as a value, there is a way for humankind to survive and prosper. Maintaining we are righteous, and faced with this threat anyway, paints catastrophe as an inevitability, not the facts.

There are about 450 volcanoes in the Pacific Ring of Fire - I'd start there. We'd barely need to scrape the surface, according to Nasa/Sandia Labs, to meet global energy demand from the magma energy available. I get the impression, the impression we get from 40 years of ideologically motivated refusal to develop this monolithic energy source, is inherently biased. In 1982 Nasa/Sandia said: "There are no insurmountable obstacles that invalidate the magma energy concept' - and I think that research is more trustworthy than subsequent research, developed in an era of studious ignorance of the opportunity magma energy presents. Again, a fairly understandable position at the time - but the threat is now better understood and more immanent, it's worth re-examining.

Clean energy abundance as an approach to the climate and ecological threat, should at least be on the table, don't you agree?

[Mercury]

I'm getting blocked by youtube. I posted this:

"Net Zero is entirely the wrong approach to the climate and ecological challenge. We should be aiming to supply an abundance of clean energy. In 1982, Nasa/Sandia Labs demonstrated the technology to harness Magma Energy, saying: "The current magma energy project is assessing the engineering feasibility of extracting thermal energy directly from crustal magma bodies. The estimated size of the U.S. resource (50,000 to 500,000 quads) suggests a considerable potential impact on future power generation. In a previous seven-year study, we concluded that there are no insurmountable barriers that would invalidate the magma energy concept." Current global energy demand is a mere 600 quads. Converted to base load electricity and clean burning hydrogen fuel, Magma Energy can meet all our energy demands carbon free, plus supply surplus energy to desalinate, irrigate, recycle and capture carbon. It would not make for clean air right away, because it would take perhaps two decades to develop and apply the technology, and meanwhile we'd continue using fossil fuels - particularly for transportation. But thereafter, the transition would be an energy platform capable of supplying all our energy needs carbon free, including energy for transport.

Commented on EXPOSED: 100 Councils Signup!
3:33

...and mine is the only comment on the thread, that doesn't have any likes or any replies. None that I can see anyway. I refreshed the page, and thought I saw a red notification symbol out of the corner of my eye for a second, that then disappeared. I think it's called shadow banning. It's been going on a while - it's all similar comments on all climate related videos.

Coupled with the moderator approval required here - moving this subject from general philosophy to the "off-topic asides and philosophical jokes category" - my posts often sitting half a day waiting for approval, I'm feeling pretty damn unappreciated - and I have no idea why! This is a good idea, and it's the right idea at the right time.

I have to emotionally blackmail this forum for someone to bounce my ideas off. Thanks sy borg, btw - not that you agree with me, but that you don't, and you say why. That's so helpful. Otherwise it just looks like I'm ranting into the void! Like I am on youtube.

[Sy Borg]

Haha - I've spoken with the Void more often than with people. As a rule, it's more interested in what I have to say.

It's tricky. We ask China to build new renewable energy equipment for us because our own manufacturing industry shrunk o corporations could enjoy cheap labour, while pushing locals out of work. So China, always keen to do business, agrees to build the west's electric SUVs, solar panels, wind turbines and the like. In order to satisfy the extra demand, they build new coal-fired power stations.

The upshot? A ton of extra manufacturing work designed to reduce greenhouse gases is done, but it causes a net increase in CO2.

It really depends on the country. Some are well positioned to use geothermal. Some hydro. Some solar. Nuclear power looks to be the best option for nations low in natural energy generation potential. Given today's geopolitical situation, it would probably be wiser to build a number of smaller nuclear stations than large ones, which can be more easily targeted by those seeking to cause infrastructure damage.

As we can see, the countries most interested in geothermal are those near tectonic boundaries, with earthquakes and, sometimes, active volcanoes - US, Indonesia, Philippines, Turkey, New Zealand, Kenya, Mexico, Italy, Iceland.

https://www.thinkgeoenergy.com/thinkgeo ... -capacity/

[Mercury]

Haha - I've spoken with the Void more often than with people. As a rule, it's more interested in what I have to say.

It's tricky. We ask China to build new renewable energy equipment for us because our own manufacturing industry shrunk o corporations could enjoy cheap labour, while pushing locals out of work. So China, always keen to do business, agrees to build the west's electric SUVs, solar panels, wind turbines and the like. In order to satisfy the extra demand, they build new coal-fired power stations.

The upshot? A ton of extra manufacturing work designed to reduce greenhouse gases is done, but it causes a net increase in CO2.

It really depends on the country. Some are well positioned to use geothermal. Some hydro. Some solar. Nuclear power looks to be the best option for nations low in natural energy generation potential. Given today's geopolitical situation, it would probably be wiser to build a number of smaller nuclear stations than large ones, which can be more easily targeted by those seeking to cause infrastructure damage.

As we can see, the countries most interested in geothermal are those near tectonic boundaries, with earthquakes and, sometimes, active volcanoes - US, Indonesia, Philippines, Turkey, New Zealand, Kenya, Mexico, Italy, Iceland.

I've suggested Magma Energy as a global solution to a universal threat; because it will require a managed transition. As you said previously, there are markets and nations dependent on fossil fuel revenues that are going to need time to divest and diversify. Consequently however, geographic location is not important. Currently, we produce fossil fuels in one part of the world, and ship that energy to other places. If you look at a map of tectonic plate boundaries, there's nowhere a million miles from a potential magma energy source. Except maybe central Australia. Even then, they could be supplied with LH2 - liquid hydrogen, to burn in a power station, or hydrogen fuel cells - hell, even a regular diesel injection internal combustion engine will run on LH2, to produce electricity.

I must admit, I am at a loss with this modular nuclear reactors proposal. Are we supposing modular reactors won't need a million tons of concrete and steel shielding, because they're small? Are we supposing they wouldn't pose a security risk? Or that they wouldn't produce nuclear waste? That planning wouldn't be resisted by local communities? That it wouldn't need to be located close to water for cooling, and so on and on? I don't get it. I don't think nuclear is the answer, large or small.

In regards to the global threat, are we supposing poor countries will build numerous nuclear reactors? Or hundreds of thousands of windmills every 20 years? No. They'd continue using fossil fuels, rendered cheap and plentiful by rich countries turning to ...modular nuclear and/or wind, and the climate and ecological crisis will happen anyway. The IEA predict global energy demand will increase 50% in the next 30 years, with the larger part of that increased demand coming from developing countries. It is poor and populous countries like India, China, Africa that need sustainable pathways to economic development, because they are not going to remain poor, whatever they have to burn to get there.

[Sy Borg]

I appreciate your position, although your views on nuclear power are not reflective of today's nuclear technology and waste storage, which is vastly improved. Also, salt can be used instead of water as a coolant.

Fair points about developing countries. Nukes are not the answer for them. Rather, while they will intend to prosper, most will remain poor. By the time they sort out their corruption and societal divisions/civil wars enough to seriously invest in technology and energy, they will be impacted by extreme weather events.

This chart makes the issue clear: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Wor ... _315293089

I am not sure how that large baseload of fossil fuels can be replaced by renewables (just 6%) without significant disruptions. Of course, with intelligent and prudent management, it can be done but intelligent and prudent management is as rare as hen's teeth.

[Lagayascienza]

I imagine that part of the reason why Magma Energy has not been pursued in the past is because the big fossil fuel companies did not want it pursued. But I still wonder why, if Magma is an economically viable source of pollution-free energy, it is not now being pursued by the big energy companies. Big Oil and Coal know that they are dying industries unless they can diversify, so why are they not pursuing magma energy instead? They have the drilling/mining expertise. Is it because it is just not feasible on a large enough scale? I know small countries like Iceland and New Zealand use geothermal energy, but they have such resources close to the surface and thus easily exploitable. But no part of Australia is anywhere near a plate boundary. The closest would be New Zealand but that is in New Zealand's Exclusive Economic Zones and not Australia's. There is a plate boundary between Indonesia and Australia but that occurs at one of the world's deepest ocean trenches that is very seismically active and thus would be extremely difficult to access and use. Much of Africa and northern Eurasia are also a long way from such plate boundaries although there are a few continental hot spots in E Africa. But they are in poor countries who would have difficulty developing and exploiting them. Maybe it is these economic difficulties and the uneven extent of accessible magma resources that is the reason it is not currently being pursued in a big way. If that is so, then I think solar, wind, tidal etcetera are all going to have to be used to get control of GHG emissions. If there's still time. Geoengineering of the atmosphere would be a risky game. We're already nudging two degrees C above pre-industrial levels and approaching some tipping points that, if crossed, will see the climate flip in a big way to a new state over which we will have no control at whatsoever. So I'm all for magma energy. If it can be exploited quickly enough and to the extent that you believe it can be.

[Mercury]

I appreciate your position, although your views on nuclear power are not reflective of today's nuclear technology and waste storage, which is vastly improved. Also, salt can be used instead of water as a coolant.

Fair points about developing countries. Nukes are not the answer for them. Rather, while they will intend to prosper, most will remain poor. By the time they sort out their corruption and societal divisions/civil wars enough to seriously invest in technology and energy, they will be impacted by extreme weather events.

(chart deleted - no links)

I am not sure how that large baseload of fossil fuels can be replaced by renewables (just 6%) without significant disruptions. Of course, with intelligent and prudent management, it can be done but intelligent and prudent management is as rare as hen's teeth.

Do you work in the nuclear industry, or are you just a fan? It's odd how the issue we're trying to solve; global scale climate and ecological threat, is lost in your causal acceptance that nuclear is not the answer for developing countries - against what seems to be a suggestion rich countries spend money on nuclear anyway. Or is it a casual acceptance that humankind is doomed? I'm not getting where you are coming from. Surely you realise that if we don't solve climate change in India, Africa, China etc, then we don't solve climate in the world. I suppose that developed countries would apply Magma Energy technology, and ultimately, supply clean energy to developing countries. Existing electricity grids can be fuelled by hydrogen burnt in power stations; allowing pathways to sustainable development described in the Millennium Development Goals.

Again, global energy demand is around 600 quads. Nasa/Sandia estimated a minimum of 50,000 quads of magma energy just from the US alone. I don't know who produced the chart you posted, what its underlying assumptions are, nor what it supposedly makes clear. But Magma Energy has not been developed, it's not on that chart. There's some geothermal, but that's not magma energy. Generally, geothermal is actually hydrothermal energy - energy from underground bodies of hot water. Water imposes serious limitations in terms of a relatively low maximum temperature, and the replacement rate - the rate at which an underground body of water replaces the energy extracted to produce power. Magma Energy overcomes these limits in a very big way. It's also geothermal, but it's not the same technology.

The one thing I'd say in hopes of dispelling your various misconceptions is that developing Magma Energy, we'd be looking to meet and exceed global energy demand many times over - not just 6%, not just this one country and not another, but applying the technology to supply global energy demand from the only source large, constant, and of sufficiently high grade to do the job. If this seems crazy - good, because what seems sane is going to get us all killed. We cannot solve this problem acting in terms of the ideological dynamics that created it. Magma Energy is out of the box, blue sky thinking, a technology that's not within our ideological scope to develop, and that's exactly why it will work.

[Mercury]

I imagine that part of the reason why Magma Energy has not been pursued in the past is because the big fossil fuel companies did not want it pursued. But I still wonder why, if Magma is an economically viable source of pollution-free energy, it is not now being pursued by the big energy companies. Big Oil and Coal know that they are dying industries unless they can diversify, so why are they not pursuing magma energy instead? They have the drilling/mining expertise. Is it because it is just not feasible on a large enough scale? I know small countries like Iceland and New Zealand use geothermal energy, but they have such resources close to the surface and thus easily exploitable. But no part of Australia is anywhere near a plate boundary. The closest would be New Zealand but that is in New Zealand's Exclusive Economic Zones and not Australia's. There is a plate boundary between Indonesia and Australia but that occurs at one of the world's deepest ocean trenches that is very seismically active and thus would be extremely difficult to access and use. Much of Africa and northern Eurasia are also a long way from such plate boundaries although there are a few continental hot spots in E Africa. But they are in poor countries who would have difficulty developing and exploiting them. Maybe it is these economic difficulties and the uneven extent of accessible magma resources that is the reason it is not currently being pursued in a big way. If that is so, then I think solar, wind, tidal etcetera are all going to have to be used to get control of GHG emissions. If there's still time. Geoengineering of the atmosphere would be a risky game. We're already nudging two degrees C above pre-industrial levels and approaching some tipping points that, if crossed, will see the climate flip in a big way to a new state over which we will have no control at whatsoever. So I'm all for magma energy. If it can be exploited quickly enough and to the extent that you believe it can be.

I think Magma Energy can be developed over the next few decades, and applied in time to offer an alternate, and more than adequate clean energy platform around the same time - it's supposed, we'll reach Net Zero. 2050. If we consider that date the horizon for fossil fuels, then we have 25 years to develop Magma Energy, starting now! If we'd listened to Nasa/Sandia Labs, we'd have started 40 years ago. What is it they say about work expanding to fill the time available?
As for locations, I'd begin in the Pacific Ring of Fire. The magma chamber beneath a volcano is the most likely shallow source of magma; as opposed to tectonic plate boundaries. The technology will improve over time, but initially, I'd drill into the shoulders of the volcano, and insert a probe like device, attached to the surface with pipes; cold water down, high pressure steam up - a closed loop system that doesn't have the drawbacks of causing earthquakes or polluting groundwater.
But those are just my thoughts. Had Nasa/Sandia Labs research been pursued, we'd have a much better idea what we're looking at. They said it was viable 40 years ago. Drilling technology and materials science have come on leaps and bounds since then. I know of 'no insurmountable obstacle that would invalidate the magma energy concept.'
It doesn't matter where the energy produced is used. We already produce fossil fuels in one part of the world, and use them in another. I don't know why you assume magma energy has to be sourced locally. It won't go off! It can be delivered as LH2 in tanker ships (like the Susio Frontier) and burnt in power stations with relatively minor modifications to the furnace. The tankers can be fuelled with hydrogen, catalysed in fuel cells to drive an electric motor. Or otherwise, it's possible to use amonia as shipping fuel - NH3, hydrogen and nitrogen.
Thing is, it's all there - it's technologically possible, and we should be aiming to massively exceed current energy demand, not merely mitigate some small percentage of continued fossil fuel use, which is about all we can expect of wind and solar.