The nuclear power sky is falling...

On Feb 20, 7:36*am, (Wayne Throop) wrote:
: Brad Guth
: Obviously you and your blood-sucking ZNR oligarch/Rothschild friends
: do not want anything to ever change away from consuming your spendy
: hydrocarbons and conventional uranium/MOX fueled reactors

You couldn't get that from anything I've said, so you must be halucinating
again. *By all means, spend all the money you want on geothermal.
Just so long as it's your money and those you can persuade fair and
square, rather than mine. *Just don't expect to sell me the idea that
geothermal can significantly contribute to the global energy budget,
because after all, I can do arithmetic.

: Even the geothermal cache within our moon

Oh, now you're just being silly.

The moon's geothermal cache is just for the local benefit of folks
living inside of our extremely robust moon, after the TBMs have
managed to carve out and the other equipment removes and processes a
portion of the 0.0001% (2.2e13 m3) to start with. The removing of 1e7
m3/day is only going to take 2.2 million days (6027 years) if there
were no TBM upgrades or processing improvements. Do the math on those
metallicity extractions, and it’s obvious where the greater future
wealth of resources is going to be coming from. Actually 1e8 m3/day
shouldn’t all that insurmountable, as experience and TBM technology
greatly improves with time, and closer to the halfway mark there
should be a full km3/day carved out and processed.

On the other hand, nothing that you have ever suggested is of any
threat to the oligarch/Rothschild status quo, of their Big Energy
Cabal and/or their global insider trading and banking mafia doing
exactly as they damn well please.

The artificial energy imbalance of Earth is supposedly worth .58 w/m2
as is (42+ kw/person), and that has almost nothing to do with the
slight amount of artificial geothermal extraction that's currently
taken. New and improved methods of geothermal energy could operate at
60% efficiency, or roughly three times all-inclusive better than
typical fission produced energy (that is if you truly understand what
"all-inclusive" means). Geothermal wells can be installed just about
anywhere, although thin crust areas are certainly available and easily
accessible.

Personally I tend to favor thorium fueled reactors, plus solar and
wind adding to the grid plus providing other viable methods of clean
energy and/or energy product storage for use on demand.

Sadly, our Steven Chu should have stepped aside as of day one, because
his personal think-tank was running on vapors to start with.

http://groups.google.com/groups/search
http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

Wayne Throop wrote:

Indeed. Geothermal is several orders of magnitude less energy-dense
per collector area on world-wide average than solar, and considerably
less energy-dense than hydroelectric. It's not even in the same ballpark
as fission of any kind. Not even on the same continent as the ballpark.
...
None of which means somebody who *does* happen to live on a hot spot
should turn up their nose at the free steam. Because hey, free steam.
But it certainly isn't going to tip the global energy balance.

Geothermal is literally everywhere on the planet if you drill deep
enough. And that's the rub. The energy cost of drilling a geothermal
plant in most geographies approaches the lifetime energy output of the
plant. It too much like synthesizing gasoline from CO2 in the air
without chlorophyl to do it with solar energy. You can make an
unlimited amount of gasoline from the CO2 in the air but the energy cost
says it will never be economical if you draw the energy for it off the
grid.

On Feb 20, 12:14*pm, Doug Freyburger wrote:
Wayne Throop wrote:

Indeed. *Geothermal is several orders of magnitude less energy-dense
per collector area on world-wide average than solar, and considerably
less energy-dense than hydroelectric. *It's not even in the same ballpark
as fission of any kind. *Not even on the same continent as the ballpark.
...
None of which means somebody who *does* happen to live on a hot spot
should turn up their nose at the free steam. *Because hey, free steam..
But it certainly isn't going to tip the global energy balance.

Geothermal is literally everywhere on the planet if you drill deep
enough. *And that's the rub. *The energy cost of drilling a geothermal
plant in most geographies approaches the lifetime energy output of the
plant. *It too much like synthesizing gasoline from CO2 in the air
without chlorophyl to do it with solar energy. *You can make an
unlimited amount of gasoline from the CO2 in the air but the energy cost
says it will never be economical if you draw the energy for it off the
grid.

But some of our geothermal energy is clearly fission, and another good
portion is tidal, both of which are essentially renewables for the
foreseeable future, which might not even have to last all that long if
we can manage to get WW3 and WW4 under our belts. The residual core
heat alone (without fission or tidal) if we can manage to extract 0.1%/
year would literally burn us out of this place we call Earth. Perhaps
at most we could extract .0001%/year, and call it good, because we'd
have more energy than we'd know what to do with.

http://groups.google.com/groups/search
http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

: Brad Guth
: The moon's geothermal cache

You're still being silly.

: Doug Freyburger
: Geothermal is literally everywhere on the planet if you drill deep
: enough. And that's the rub. The energy cost of drilling a geothermal
: plant in most geographies approaches the lifetime energy output of the
: plant.

And, the more you expose magma to heat exchangers to remove the heat,
the more stone you make, and the less heat you get out. You have to
choose one of the spots that magma is naturally convecting up into to
have any chance of making it workable. Ie, you have to be on iceland,
to a first approximation. Geothermal could be done in Yellowstone.
Or Hawaii. Maybe a handful of other places. Everywhere else, solar is
better simply due to the energy per square foot of real estate you can
get out of it.

On Feb 20, 2:07*pm, (Wayne Throop) wrote:
: Doug Freyburger
: Geothermal is literally everywhere on the planet if you drill deep
: enough. *And that's the rub. *The energy cost of drilling a geothermal
: plant in most geographies approaches the lifetime energy output of the
: plant.

And, the more you expose magma to heat exchangers to remove the heat,
the more stone you make, and the less heat you get out. *You have to
choose one of the spots that magma is naturally convecting up into to
have any chance of making it workable. *Ie, you have to be on iceland,
to a first approximation. *Geothermal could be done in Yellowstone.
Or Hawaii. *Maybe a handful of other places. *Everywhere else, solar is
better simply due to the energy per square foot of real estate you can
get out of it.

Toss a little thorium down the hole and it'll never cool off.

How about we drill and drill and then use our spent uranium and hotter
MOX to keep each geothermal well as molten as you like.

We'd call this geothermal spiking instead of fracking.

http://groups.google.com/groups/search
http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

On Feb 20, 2:06*pm, (Wayne Throop) wrote:
: Brad Guth
: The moon's geothermal cache

You're still being silly.

Not really. I'm dead serious about investing a hundred billion per
month until the job is mostly done.

At first having a thousand TBMs, each excavating 1e3m3/day, eventually
improved and advanced to cutting out 1e4 m3/day. Once operating below
the thick crust of mostly fused paramagnetic basalt, that rate of
excavation should easily double again.

http://groups.google.com/groups/search
http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

::: The moon's geothermal cache

:: You're still being silly.

: Brad Guth
: Not really.

Yes. Really.

: I'm dead serious about investing a hundred billion per month until the
: job is mostly done.

Good for you. If that's the rat-hole you want to shovel your money down,
more power to you. Long as you don't use my money.

: At first having a thousand TBMs, each excavating 1e3m3/day, eventually
: improved and advanced to cutting out 1e4 m3/day. Once operating below
: the thick crust of mostly fused paramagnetic basalt, that rate of
: excavation should easily double again.

All to get to a source of energy far more diffuse than the solar energy
freely available on the surface. But hey. Long as it's your money,
go for it. Luckily for me, it's unlikely you'll be able to persuade
any government or other entity with power of confication to use mine.
Or really, anybody who can do arithmetic.

:: Brad Guth
:: How about we drill and drill and then use our spent uranium and hotter
:: MOX to keep each geothermal well as molten as you like.

Riiiight. Spend a great deal of money and effort to make getting at
and using the heat from fission more difficult, with no compensating benefit.

Mind you, the old and very-likely-workable (for sufficiently surreal
values of "workable") design for a fusion powerplant springs to mind.
Set off small fusion devices in a large underground chamber. Repeat as
necessary. Heat exchanger in the walls. Sort of like the sessile version
of Orion. Of course in that case, there's a *reason* to inject the heat
into a hole in the ground; because there's currently no way to get fusion
to go slow on earth.

: Fred J. McCall
: You'd be better off just using that stuff in a reactor.

Yes, well duh.

On Feb 20, 7:55*pm, (Wayne Throop) wrote:
:: Brad Guth
:: How about we drill and drill and then use our spent uranium and hotter
:: MOX to keep each geothermal well as molten as you like.

Riiiight. *Spend a great deal of money and effort to make getting at
and using the heat from fission more difficult, with no compensating benefit.

Mind you, the old and very-likely-workable (for sufficiently surreal
values of "workable") design for a fusion powerplant springs to mind.
Set off small fusion devices in a large underground chamber. *Repeat as
necessary. *Heat exchanger in the walls. *Sort of like the sessile version
of Orion. *Of course in that case, there's a *reason* to inject the heat
into a hole in the ground; because there's currently no way to get fusion
to go slow on earth.

: Fred J. *McCall
: You'd be better off just using that stuff in a reactor.

Yes, well duh.

Why yes indeed, we all know that you think everything is exactly
perfect just the way it is, except we need to be consuming half again
as much hydrocarbons, and stockpiling as much spent uranium and MOX
fuel as possible, as well as provoking Muslims whenever possible and
otherwise promoting insider trading and secret deals that only benefit
the oligarch/Rothschilds. Did I leave anything out?

http://groups.google.com/groups/search
http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”