5 ms·
What happens when everyone starts doing this? Won't this cool and solidify the earth's molten core? And what happens to the magnetosphere then? Edit: how does
by programmer_dude 9y ago
What happens when everyone starts doing this? Won't this cool and solidify the earth's molten core? And what happens to the magnetosphere then?
Edit: how does the size of the earth matter? The molten core is the (nuclear?) energy source. If you have done the math please share your work.
- discoursism 9y agoThe amount of time it would take is so vast that humanity would barely be recognizable to us before it would start becoming a problem. By then we could certainly edit our genes and preferences to be happy living under domes. Then we won't be bothered when the atmosphere is blown away by the solar wind. Or something. I mean it's such a phenomenal timescale that it's almost pointless to speculate.
- lucaspiller 9y agoI wonder if people felt the same when oil started to become popular in the late 1800s. The amount we use now, compared to then, would be completely unimaginable to them.
- GuiA 9y agoWe currently consume roughly 35 billion barrels a year. That’s about 5 barrels per human being on earth. Crazy, but certainly not completely disproportionate. If you had told a 1800 businessman that, I’m sure they would have had a lot of questions, but it’s not something beyond their imagination. I’m not sure what the math for the energy harvesting method described in this thread ends up being exactly like, but it seems that in order for it to have an effect you’d need to have something like every human consuming, on average, as much energy as all of humanity currently consumes. That starts stretching the imagination.
- thomastjeffery 9y agoThe Earth has a lot of oil, and all of it is in its crust. The entire Earth's crust makes up less than 1% of the Earth's volume. The Earth's mantle makes up about 84%.
- Someone 9y agoThe amount we knew to exist was unimagably lower at the time, and we were way worse at extracting it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil#Modeling_global_oil_production https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil#Modeling_global_oil_p...: ”In 1919, David White, chief geologist of the United States Geological Survey, wrote of US petroleum: "... the peak of production will soon be passed, possibly within 3 years."” The abstract of White’s paper (and its paywalled conten) are at http://papers.sae.org/190011/ http://papers.sae.org/190011/. It says: ”American oil companies must protect the future by acquiring great and widespread foreign oil concessions.” Is that prescient or did it drive policy? It also says: ”Oil in vast amounts can be artificially made from the great oil-shale deposits of the West, but the processes and prices necessary to commercial success remain to be determined, and the task of building up an oil-shale industry sufficient to meet a considerable part of the demand is enormous, requiring several years.”
- taneq 9y agoGood old static analysis. "Holding everything as constant, X will increase to Y causing Z ridiculous consequences." Cue that Time Magazine cover with the razor with dozens of blades.
- Viper007Bond 9y agoThe Earth is big. Like really, really big. Good luck trying to cool it down.
- axitanull 9y agoI'm not educated enough to speculate, but how is this different from the scale of global warming? As in, the earth is big, but we still manage to change our environment in such a short timescale. Will this another underestimation of our ability to screw ourselves?
- glandium 9y agoConsider the earth as an orange. Global warming is like barely touching its surface, and geothermic power is like barely scratching its surface.
- mikeash 9y agoGlobal warming happens because CO2 magnifies our energy input by orders of magnitude. The temperature change caused by the actual energy we use is completely negligible. The part that counts involves magnifying the sun’s influence. There’s no equivalent to that for geothermal power. The energy you extract is the energy that’s lost, and that’s it.
- pessimizer 9y agoThink of the Earth as an M&M the size of a apple. All of the "environment" is the candy shell. The chocolate is the hot part.
- thomastjeffery 9y agoTo make that more clear: The Earth's crust is less than 1% of the Earth's volume. The mantle is 84%.
- akhatri_aus 9y agoNot everyone can do it. Only countries on the edge of the continental shelf can do it cost effectively. Kenya is by the East African Rift. Similarly Iceland is on the edge of the plate. You can't do this easily if you're ontop of the craton for example.
- hinkley 9y agoLook up the diameter of the earth.
- taberiand 9y agoWe gain enough energy to jump start building a Dyson sphere?
- kwk1 9y agoLike the other people who have commented, my intuition says the extreme amounts of thermal energy stored in the earth combined with its colossal mass means it won't make any difference any time soon. I was curious, though, so I did the math. My very rough calculations, which are a huge underestimate, say that it would take over 900,000 years at current total human energy use to change the Earth's internal temperature a single degree. https://gist.github.com/kkremitzki/b7d0aa6ee8ed75e0c2afd8c07c264be9 https://gist.github.com/kkremitzki/b7d0aa6ee8ed75e0c2afd8c07...
- programmer_dude 9y agoWell done, thanks!
- Manglano 9y agoBear in mind that electricity has only been around as a resource for a little while, and civilization will necessarily reorganize to use less and less of it as time continues.
- cglace 9y agoI'm willing to bet the exact opposite will happen.
- dredmorbius 9y agoThe Jevons Paradox suggests precisely the opposite, so long as electricity becomes cheaper to consume. That is: the lower the cost of a thing, the greater the induced demand, and hence, the greater to total use. William Stanley Jevons, an engineer and economist, first observed this concerning coal, in the 1860s. You'll find this expressed in Jevons' preface to the 2nd edition of his book: A further class of opponents feel the growing power of coal, but repose upon the notion that economy in its use will rescue us. If coal become twice as dear as it is, but our engines are made to produce twice as much result with the same coal, the cost of steam-power will remain as before. These opponents, however, overlook two prime points of the subject. They forget that economy of fuel lead to a great increase of consumption, as shown in the chapter on the subject; and, secondly, they forget that other nations can use improved engines as well as ourselves, so that our comparative position will not be much improved. https://archive.org/stream/coalquestioninqu00jevo#page/n37/mode/2up https://archive.org/stream/coalquestioninqu00jevo#page/n37/m...
- sitharus 9y agoThe short answer is there's nothing humanity can do in the medium term - short of a breakthrough in physics - that could affect the earth's core. A quick check of Wikipedia gives this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_energy#Renewability_and_sustainability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_energy#Renewability... TLDR: The earth's core contains enough energy that (if 100% extracted) could power modern-day civilisation for 100 billion years. If we increased global power production 10 times and extracted all that from the core it would not have an effect before the sun dies in approximately 5 billion years time.
- yeukhon 9y agoIt is beyond my imagination why people would downvote you for asking a geniue question - most of us aren’t even geologists. Search doesn’t always lead us to an authoritative answer. Anyway, you did raise a good question, althoug focused on the core. I have a similar concern with the immediate extraction. We know that there is plenty of water underground we can relie on for many years - critical for drought seasons, but underground overuse (or called ungerground depletion) can lead to a number of environmental problems such as land subsidence. The extraction must be done at a reasonable depth below the surface, but what is the rate of the heat influx reaching this depth? Would we deplete this energy before wr can replenish? Is this even a concern? Furthermote, if you look at Wikipedia, there are a number of environment concerns. Although pollution is far less than what is generated by burning fossil fuel, nonetheless, careful design and location are required.
- fold_left 9y agoThis video helped me get an idea of just how vast it is https://youtu.be/OtsaySKol94 https://youtu.be/OtsaySKol94
- aquadrop 9y agoThis is 6 seconds video about coffee beans powering buses.
- mleonhard 9y agoHeat passes from the Earth's core through the mantle to the crust at 45 TW. That heat can be converted to usable energy (aka exergy) at 70% efficiency. So global geo-thermal energy production is limited to 32 TW. A given geo-thermal plant slowly cools the rock below it and produces less and less energy until it reaches equilibrium with the flow of heat energy into the rock it draws from. See page 20 of https://gcep.stanford.edu/pdfs/DyUMPHW1jsSmjoZfm2XEqg/1.3-Hermann.pdf https://gcep.stanford.edu/pdfs/DyUMPHW1jsSmjoZfm2XEqg/1.3-He... And https://gcep.stanford.edu/research/exergy/resourcechart.html https://gcep.stanford.edu/research/exergy/resourcechart.html Nuclear decay and fission produce 30 TW in the earth's core and 45 TW flow out to the crust, so the earth's core is gradually cooling. The core contains 1e31 J of energy and is currently cooling down at a rate of 15 TW = 1.5e13 W. A Joule is 1 Watt-second. Therefore the earth's core will take longer than 30 billion years (1e18 seconds) to cool down. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_energy#Renewability_and_sustainability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_energy#Renewability... And https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_law_of_cooling https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_law_of_cooling
- programmer_dude 9y ago> The core contains 1e31 J of energy What does that mean? Does it mean the core temp will drop to zero degree kelvin when 1e31 J is removed from it? Can we realistically bring the core temp down to absolute zero? I think you need a temperature difference between a "source" (here earth's core) and a "sink" (here surface of the earth (radiation), atmosphere (convection)) to drive any engine. So geothermal energy stops being useful when this difference is zero or less?
- AnkhMorporkian 9y agoNo, definitely not. It would reach the temperature of the other side of the heatsink, and since that's 30 billion years, the Earth will be long, long, LONG gone by then. Even if the sun doesn't engulf the earth, the lowest it could get would be the temperature of the CMB, which is about 3K. Granted, over a couple trillion years, that number would lower. Reaching absolute zero is pretty much one of the only few things that physicists consider impossible, along with exceeding light speed.
- MertsA 9y ago>how does the size of the earth matter? Because we are but a mote of dust in a tiny span of time. The earth has such a tremendous amount of volume that it's impossible for us to change it any significant amount. Look at global warming, We've been dumping gigatons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year for the last century. Even with all of the immensity of human activity we've changed the temperature of the atmosphere by less than a degree. Even that tiny temperature change from global warming is pretty much entirely from the release of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses and not the release of energy. The atmosphere is also just a tiny thin wisp of a shell around the planet. The amount of thermal energy we could ever hope to extract from the planet is too small to be considered a rounding error.