The nuclear power sky is falling...

On Feb 20, 7:48*pm, (Wayne Throop) wrote:
::: 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.

You and other ZNRs get it, because you have no intentions of ever
allowing any change that puts your oligarch/Rothschild friends at
risk.

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

: Brad Guth
: Why yes indeed, we all know that you think everything is exactly
: perfect just the way it is

Apparently, for you it really *is* all the things you know that ain't so
that cause you such problems. Because I didn't say anything that even
remotely can be construed to mean that everything is perfect as it is.
And in fact I hold things are *not* perfect as they are.

I'm simply aware that your proposals aren't actually improvements,
and would rather see things which *would* actually be improvements.

On Feb 20, 10:19*pm, (Wayne Throop) wrote:
: Brad Guth
: Why yes indeed, we all know that you think everything is exactly
: perfect just the way it is

Apparently, for you it really *is* all the things you know that ain't so
that cause you such problems. *Because I didn't say anything that even
remotely can be construed to mean that everything is perfect as it is.
And in fact I hold things are *not* perfect as they are.

I'm simply aware that your proposals aren't actually improvements,
and would rather see things which *would* actually be improvements.

Your perpetual know-it-all basis of negativity and lack of
comprehension is noted, as is your pro-everything mainstream status
quo and forbid rock the boat policy that kinda sucks and blows unless
you're and oligarch or Rothschild.

You are old enough and supposedly having always been wise enough to
have had a good dozen do-overs. Thus far your trial and error upon
error methods haven't been what the rest of us need, and you still
don't seem to have a clue or even give a damn about making anything
new or improved come to past, because you're perfectly happy with most
everything just the way it is (aka screwed up, spendy as hell and
bloody).

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

: Brad Guth
: Your perpetual know-it-all basis of negativity

Anoher of those things you "know" that ain't so.
I don't know it all, didn't say I did.
And attempting accuracy is not negativity.

It's not "negative" to point out that something other than
geothermal (or selenethermal) power is a better idea.
In fact, quite the reverse; I'm saying something else is *better*.
Several something elses, in fact.

Same as back when you were touting the wonders of hydrogen peroxide
as a wonder-monopropellant that could solve all problems, and I
pointed out that other fuels are better.

You know. That I can do arithmetic.

Wayne Throop wrote:
: Doug Freyburger wrote:

: 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.

The list of geologically active places is a lot longer than that, like
several in California and other places near major faults and volcanos.
But yes those locations are a tiny fraction of the Earth's surface in
spite of the fact that the heat is there under everywhere.

On Feb 21, 10:10*am, Doug Freyburger wrote:
Wayne Throop wrote:
: Doug Freyburger wrote:

: 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.

The list of geologically active places is a lot longer than that, like
several in California and other places near major faults and volcanos.
But yes those locations are a tiny fraction of the Earth's surface in
spite of the fact that the heat is there under everywhere.

And that source of nearly renewable energy (worth 64+ TW) is leaking
out quite naturally in addition to the amounts artificially taken.

The moon's modest geothermal cache that’s worth perhaps as little as 8
TW is just for the local benefit of folks that’ll be living inside of
our extremely robust moon, that is 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 spoils processing improvements. Do the math on those
metallicity extractions, and it’s obvious where the greater future
wealth of mineral resources is going to be coming from. Actually,
future TBMs carving out 1e8 m3/day shouldn’t all that insurmountable,
as our experience and TBM technology greatly improves with time, and
closer to the halfway mark of 1.1e13 m3 removed, there should be a
full km3/day getting carved out and processed.

On the other hand, nothing that our resident FUD-masters and others of
their kind 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.

Perhaps as much as half of the global energy needs can be geothermal
derived, however even 10% would be a great help. The artificial
energy imbalance or AGW of Earth is supposedly worth .58 w/m2 as is
(42+ kw/person), and that estimate 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, so there’s really no need to drill into 30+ km worth of
the crust when locations offering less than 5 km exist (a few hot-
spots may offer access to geothermal at only 1 km).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_energy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_electricity
We’re only up to delivering 12 GWe and another 28 GW of hvac should
each easily 10 fold as other energy options get too spendy, unreliable
or just too toxic. Earth has 64 TW to offer, whereas most of that
energy is getting fission produced and another small percentage comes
from those perpetual tidal forces, plus of course from the formation
residual heat.

Personally, I tend to favor thorium fueled reactors, plus solar and
wind adding to the grid, plus providing viable methods of clean energy
and/or energy product storage for use on demand, such as creating as
much H2, O2 and especially H2O2 from whatever surplus energy can be
produced and safely stored for later use on demand.

Sadly, our Steven Chu (aka chief energy wizard of Oz) 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”

: Brad Guth
: And that source of nearly renewable energy (worth 64+ TW) is leaking
: out quite naturally in addition to the amounts artificially taken.

Which amounts to 1/8 watt per square meter. (And the estimates I see
are less than half of that; where did you get that number?)
As opposed to a few hundred watts per square meter for solar.

Or put another way, solar is 174 petawatts.
Even 64 terrawatts is puny in comparison.

: The moon's modest geothermal cache that's worth
: perhaps as little as 8 TW

I'd expect it'd be more like 1 TW at most. Where did you get your number?
And even if it were 8 TW, you'd get much more energy for much less
construction costs by using solar.

Suppose you have group A and group B, both aiming to provide a significant
amount of earth's power needs. Group A decides to build geothermal heat
exchangers, B decides to build solar panels (possibly thermal solar, to
keep costs down). Who's going to get more energy for less construction?
Who's going to run out of energy first? Basically, group A has to do
more than a hundred times as much construction for each watt, on average,
and will run out of room to build their exchangers with more than
a thousand times less energy online.

Now, which group are you going to invest in (if you had to invest in
one of the two)? I think the arithmetic makes it clear. Group A
has the short end of the stick.

On Feb 22, 11:52*am, (Wayne Throop) wrote:
: Brad Guth
: And that source of nearly renewable energy (worth 64+ TW) is leaking
: out quite naturally in addition to the amounts artificially taken.

Which amounts to 1/8 watt per square meter. *(And the estimates I see
are less than half of that; where did you get that number?)
Adding up all those natural geothermal vents, volcanoes and hot
springs, has to be added to the thermal upwelling of 96 to 128 mw/m2
as measured in the bedrock under a km of Antarctic ice.

As opposed to a few hundred watts per square meter for solar.

Solar influx is only going to penetrate a few meters, perhaps 0.1 km
at best.


Or put another way, solar is 174 petawatts.
Even 64 terrawatts is puny in comparison.
I've never discounted solar influx, all of which enters does a
99.9999% exit via nighttime


: The moon's modest geothermal cache that's worth
: perhaps as little as 8 TW

I'd expect it'd be more like 1 TW at most. *Where did you get your number?
Not from mainstream science.


And even if it were 8 TW, you'd get much more energy for much less
construction costs by using solar.
I certainly never said we wouldn't. Why are you being so naysay or
negative?

However, if you needed habitat nighttime heating for surviving on the
moon, as well as daytime HVAC; why the hell not utilize the local
geothermal resource?


Suppose you have group A and group B, both aiming to provide a significant
amount of earth's power needs. *Group A decides to build geothermal heat
exchangers, B decides to build solar panels (possibly thermal solar, to
keep costs down). *Who's going to get more energy for less construction?
Who's going to run out of energy first? *Basically, group A has to do
more than a hundred times as much construction for each watt, on average,
and will run out of room to build their exchangers with more than
a thousand times less energy online.
According to William Mook and myself, solar winds every time, except
for the "not in my back yard" policy that's insurmountable. Going
underground sort of gets us around the "not in my back yard" policy.
However, I've already stipulated my preference for thorium fueled
reactors.


Now, which group are you going to invest in (if you had to invest in
one of the two)? *I think the arithmetic makes it clear. *Group A
has the short end of the stick.

Why does our next generation of clean and renewable energy that's dirt
cheap and reliable, have to be the all or nothing of only one kind?

Why did you hate William Mook (aka Mokenergy)?

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

: Brad Guth
: Why are you being so naysay or negative?

Naysay? I said no such nay. I simly pointed at two numbers,
and noted that one is larger than the other. Specifically, you
get more energy for less effort with solar rather than geothermal.
That's on-average world-wide; obviously, there are places where
geothermal has an advantage. But on the scale of the global
energy budget,

I'm not telling you you should get more energy for less effort. Go right
ahead. More power to you. That's entirely up to you. No nay involved
at all. As long as you don't spend my money.

:: And even if it were 8 TW, you'd get much more energy for much less
:: construction costs by using solar.

: I certainly never said we wouldn't.

You said

:::: Perhaps as much as half of the global energy needs can be
:::: geothermal derived,
and
:::: The moon's modest geothermal cache that's worth perhaps as little
:::: as 8 TW is just for the local benefit of folks that'll be living

So you are advocating spending more and getting less.
Especially with a claim that half of the global energy budget could be
geothermal. Yes I suppose it *could* be, if you wanted to spend more
to get less. Which, again, you are perfectly free to do. Just not
with my money.

On Feb 22, 2:22*pm, (Wayne Throop) wrote:
: Brad Guth
: Why are you being so naysay or negative?

Naysay? *I said no such nay. *I simly pointed at two numbers,
and noted that one is larger than the other. *Specifically, you
get more energy for less effort with solar rather than geothermal.
That's on-average world-wide; obviously, there are places where
geothermal has an advantage. *But on the scale of the global
energy budget,

I'm not telling you you should get more energy for less effort. *Go right
ahead. *More power to you. *That's entirely up to you. *No nay involved
at all. *As long as you don't spend my money.

:: And even if it were 8 TW, you'd get much more energy for much less
:: construction costs by using solar.

: I certainly never said we wouldn't.

You said

:::: Perhaps as much as half of the global energy needs can be
:::: geothermal derived,
and
:::: The moon's modest geothermal cache that's worth perhaps as little
:::: as 8 TW is just for the local benefit of folks that'll be living

So you are advocating spending more and getting less.
Especially with a claim that half of the global energy budget could be
geothermal. *Yes I suppose it *could* be, if you wanted to spend more
to get less. *Which, again, you are perfectly free to do. *Just not
with my money.

A 10:1 investment payback related to commercially exploiting our moon
is hardly interpreted as a greater cost.

Your fuzzy math is truly funny.

Terrestrial geothermal energy is already a done deal, and it'll get
very big once hydrocarbons are costing us $10/gallon and we're
otherwise stuck with paying $1/kwhr from conventional nuclear that's
anything but cheap, failsafe or clean once their all-inclusive "birth
to grave" is taken into account.

Tell us why didn't you like William Mook (aka Mokenergy)?

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