4 ms·
Not guaranteeing I got these conversions correct, but I believe the rough estimate for the thermal energy of the Earth is on the order of 10^31 Joules.[0] while
by lkbm 2y ago
Not guaranteeing I got these conversions correct, but I believe the rough estimate for the thermal energy of the Earth is on the order of 10^31 Joules.[0] while the rough estimate for human energy use is 10^20 Joules per year.[0]
So if we switched to 100% geothermal (a few orders of magnitude more than we're actually discussing using), we'd be using on the order of a hundred trillionth of the energy per year?
[0] https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/51920/amount-of-thermal-energy-in-the-earth https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/51920/amount-of-...
[1] https://ourworldindata.org/energy-production-consumption https://ourworldindata.org/energy-production-consumption
- Tadpole9181 2y agoThis also ignores that the Earth already has a flux of 50TW per year, so it's only an increase of about 40% (and even less, when you consider that intentional extraction would slow the flux of all surface area above it). Not only that, but Earth's internal heat is being renewed constantly via things like radioactive isotopes and tidal forces.
- giantg2 2y agoSo what happens if we slow that flux? That's spread across the globe. What's the impact if those numbers are localized? Radioactivity and tidal forces create a fixed amount a heat and that heat dissipates at a given rate, right? So what happens if we change that rate of dissipation/extraction? The point is, it's all handwavy. Seems familiar to just about everything we've done before - fossil fuels, plastics, PFAS...
- Tadpole9181 2y agoYou do know we actively use geothermal plants right now, right? It has almost no effect? Let alone compared to the effect of climate change. The biggest concerns are specific techniques for pumping water, which (sometimes) can cause small earthquakes.
- giantg2 2y agoYou seem to be missing the point.