7 ms·

I think the article was quite fine, compared to the average pop science article. And by all practical means, savely tapping into the earths heat, would indeed

I think the article was quite fine, compared to the average pop science article. And by all practical means, savely tapping into the earths heat, would indeed mean unlimited energy for our needs (there is a LOT of heat down there). We also say solar is renewable, even though the sun does not last forever. But within our frame of reference - it does. I am just sceptical, that we can indeed use that energy savely on a global scale, without causing massive side effects like earth quakes, as the core of the earth is hardly understood. But this is, what this research is about, so I think it is exciting and about time, someone makes that experiment.

ekianjo 3y ago
> our needs (there is a LOT of heat down there). We also say solar is renewable, even though the sun does not last forever. But within our frame of reference - it does. Photovoltaic cells surely dont last as long as the sun...
- ben_w 3y ago
  Cells don't need to, as they can be… "renewed", you might say.
  - ekianjo 3y ago
    They don't get to be renewed with zero pollution.
    - ben_w 3y ago
      All life processes produce waste that is dangerous to that which created it, yet we do not call photosynthesis "non renewable" despite oxygen being toxic to obligate anaerobes. Likewise while PV has non-zero impact, the impact is sufficiently small and of a nature that basically doesn't matter. Fossil fuels are about a hundred times more polluting than volcanoes[0][1], so a factor of about one hundred in reduced emissions per unit of useful output compared to setting things on fire takes you down to the environmental impact of one part of geology. [0] at least the CO2 is, but what matters for PV is everything else except the CO2 because in a world powered by renewables all the energy used in production doesn't produce CO2 in the first place; volcanoes do also release sulphur compounds etc. [1] there is a certain degree of irony that one of the memes used by climate change deniers is to precisely invert this ratio.
- hutzlibu 3y ago
  Well, probably nothing we build will. And probably nothing we say will last forever, actually last forever. We still use the word forever and other unprecise terms in common language. I also hate it at times, how unprecise (and wrong) normal language is. But I have given up on the habit of getting mad about it and rather go with the intent and not about the single words. So no one meant literally indefinite energy here, it was meant, "potentially way more energy, than we currently need". And this is correct.
- _fizz_buzz_ 3y ago
  Context is always important. As an EE, I quite often approximate 1s with infinity e.g. this capacitor will have zero charge as t approaches infinity which I can assume is definitely after 1s. Not sure if all EEs think about it that way, but this actually kind of what we are doing.
WarOnPrivacy 3y ago
> I am just skeptical, that we can indeed use that energy safely on a global scale, without causing massive side effects like earth quakes, as the core of the earth is hardly understood I think we understand the broad numbers pretty well. We're looking to exploit energy and maybe chemistry at a tiny part of the top of many, many deep miles of ever-moving magma. (and all of that thousands of miles from the core). Compared to our atmosphere - which is frighteningly thin, complex and highly evolved/sensitive - the mantle is primal and utterly massive.
- hutzlibu 3y ago
  We already caused earthquakes because of fracking and conventional geothermal plants and there is only little energy captured. Allmost everything that is scaled up massivly in reality, comes with its own problems. Burning some coal? Not a problem. But allmost every human burning coal on a massive scale? That is bad. Same principle could apply with taking energy from the crust. There are forces at play, we simply do not understand yet. "The team will also measure the temperature gradient as the solid rock transitions into magma. One of the big surprises of the earlier, unexpected encounter between drill and magma chamber at the site was how rapidly that occurs. “The theory was that you would go through solid rock and into what is called the brittle-ductile boundary, where the rock would be starting to get a little bit softer and more elastic because of the heat,” says Ingólfsson. That was expected to occur over hundreds of metres, but, with Krafla, it was just a few."
trompetenaccoun 3y ago
>I think the article was quite fine Yes but based on what you write, you don't know much about geophysics. Sorry to be so blunt but that's just the sort of audience these articles are aimed at. They don't even explain how it would be done, it's like writing an article about how scientists plan to go to Mars in two years. Complete fantasy but the problem is people never do follow-up research on all the bs articles they read on a daily basis, and thus never realize how many lies and exaggerations they're being fed.
- hutzlibu 3y ago
  "Yes but based on what you write, you don't know much about geophysics." Never claimed I did. But you apparently claim you know more and that this article and the scientists are BS, but I just read a generic rant from you and nothing concrete. "it's like writing an article about how scientists plan to go to Mars in two years" I am not aware of any scientists who did that. If you are talking about Mars One and co., there were no scientists involved. And this is what I read in the article about what they are planning - and yes to me it sounds like solid basic research. No promise about clean and easy energy in 5 years for everyone, but reason to do basic research that has not been done before: "“I and some other scientists who deal with volcanoes were just amazed that somebody had actually drilled in the magma, and got samples of magma,” says Eichelberger. It later transpired that similar accidental encounters had happened twice before, once in the Menengai caldera in Kenya and also at a volcano called Kīlauea in Hawaii. This was proof that it was both possible and safe to drill into magma without causing an eruption." "The first goal of KMT is to drill into the magma and make scientific discoveries. Starting in 2026, the project will break ground close to the original borehole and drill towards the chamber. It will take around two months to get there, progressing laboriously through the volcanic rocks until the drill hits pay dirt. First and foremost, the researchers want to build their fundamental understanding of magma and the chambers that hold it. “We don’t have any direct knowledge of what magma chambers look like, which is crucial in understanding volcanoes of course,” says Paolo Papale at Italy’s National Institute of Geophysics and Volcanology in Pisa. The little we do know largely comes from studying lava. But lava and magma aren’t the same. A lot of gas is released as molten rock comes to the surface and is then exposed to the atmosphere as lava, both of which change its chemical composition. “Being able to go into the crust and sample magma would give us huge knowledge,” says Ingólfsson." They say they don't know much, but that they want to find out. "and thus never realize how many lies and exaggerations they're being fed." So where are the "lies and exaggerations"?

ekianjo 3y ago

> our needs (there is a LOT of heat down there). We also say solar is renewable, even though the sun does not last forever. But within our frame of reference - it does. Photovoltaic cells surely dont last as long as the sun...

ben_w 3y ago
Cells don't need to, as they can be… "renewed", you might say.
- ekianjo 3y ago
  They don't get to be renewed with zero pollution.
  - ben_w 3y ago
    All life processes produce waste that is dangerous to that which created it, yet we do not call photosynthesis "non renewable" despite oxygen being toxic to obligate anaerobes. Likewise while PV has non-zero impact, the impact is sufficiently small and of a nature that basically doesn't matter. Fossil fuels are about a hundred times more polluting than volcanoes[0][1], so a factor of about one hundred in reduced emissions per unit of useful output compared to setting things on fire takes you down to the environmental impact of one part of geology. [0] at least the CO2 is, but what matters for PV is everything else except the CO2 because in a world powered by renewables all the energy used in production doesn't produce CO2 in the first place; volcanoes do also release sulphur compounds etc. [1] there is a certain degree of irony that one of the memes used by climate change deniers is to precisely invert this ratio.
hutzlibu 3y ago
Well, probably nothing we build will. And probably nothing we say will last forever, actually last forever. We still use the word forever and other unprecise terms in common language. I also hate it at times, how unprecise (and wrong) normal language is. But I have given up on the habit of getting mad about it and rather go with the intent and not about the single words. So no one meant literally indefinite energy here, it was meant, "potentially way more energy, than we currently need". And this is correct.
_fizz_buzz_ 3y ago
Context is always important. As an EE, I quite often approximate 1s with infinity e.g. this capacitor will have zero charge as t approaches infinity which I can assume is definitely after 1s. Not sure if all EEs think about it that way, but this actually kind of what we are doing.

WarOnPrivacy 3y ago

> I am just skeptical, that we can indeed use that energy safely on a global scale, without causing massive side effects like earth quakes, as the core of the earth is hardly understood I think we understand the broad numbers pretty well. We're looking to exploit energy and maybe chemistry at a tiny part of the top of many, many deep miles of ever-moving magma. (and all of that thousands of miles from the core). Compared to our atmosphere - which is frighteningly thin, complex and highly evolved/sensitive - the mantle is primal and utterly massive.

hutzlibu 3y ago
We already caused earthquakes because of fracking and conventional geothermal plants and there is only little energy captured. Allmost everything that is scaled up massivly in reality, comes with its own problems. Burning some coal? Not a problem. But allmost every human burning coal on a massive scale? That is bad. Same principle could apply with taking energy from the crust. There are forces at play, we simply do not understand yet. "The team will also measure the temperature gradient as the solid rock transitions into magma. One of the big surprises of the earlier, unexpected encounter between drill and magma chamber at the site was how rapidly that occurs. “The theory was that you would go through solid rock and into what is called the brittle-ductile boundary, where the rock would be starting to get a little bit softer and more elastic because of the heat,” says Ingólfsson. That was expected to occur over hundreds of metres, but, with Krafla, it was just a few."

trompetenaccoun 3y ago

>I think the article was quite fine Yes but based on what you write, you don't know much about geophysics. Sorry to be so blunt but that's just the sort of audience these articles are aimed at. They don't even explain how it would be done, it's like writing an article about how scientists plan to go to Mars in two years. Complete fantasy but the problem is people never do follow-up research on all the bs articles they read on a daily basis, and thus never realize how many lies and exaggerations they're being fed.

hutzlibu 3y ago
"Yes but based on what you write, you don't know much about geophysics." Never claimed I did. But you apparently claim you know more and that this article and the scientists are BS, but I just read a generic rant from you and nothing concrete. "it's like writing an article about how scientists plan to go to Mars in two years" I am not aware of any scientists who did that. If you are talking about Mars One and co., there were no scientists involved. And this is what I read in the article about what they are planning - and yes to me it sounds like solid basic research. No promise about clean and easy energy in 5 years for everyone, but reason to do basic research that has not been done before: "“I and some other scientists who deal with volcanoes were just amazed that somebody had actually drilled in the magma, and got samples of magma,” says Eichelberger. It later transpired that similar accidental encounters had happened twice before, once in the Menengai caldera in Kenya and also at a volcano called Kīlauea in Hawaii. This was proof that it was both possible and safe to drill into magma without causing an eruption." "The first goal of KMT is to drill into the magma and make scientific discoveries. Starting in 2026, the project will break ground close to the original borehole and drill towards the chamber. It will take around two months to get there, progressing laboriously through the volcanic rocks until the drill hits pay dirt. First and foremost, the researchers want to build their fundamental understanding of magma and the chambers that hold it. “We don’t have any direct knowledge of what magma chambers look like, which is crucial in understanding volcanoes of course,” says Paolo Papale at Italy’s National Institute of Geophysics and Volcanology in Pisa. The little we do know largely comes from studying lava. But lava and magma aren’t the same. A lot of gas is released as molten rock comes to the surface and is then exposed to the atmosphere as lava, both of which change its chemical composition. “Being able to go into the crust and sample magma would give us huge knowledge,” says Ingólfsson." They say they don't know much, but that they want to find out. "and thus never realize how many lies and exaggerations they're being fed." So where are the "lies and exaggerations"?