Slashdot Mirror


Iceland Eyes Liquid Magma As Energy Source

An anonymous reader writes "Scientists in Iceland have been studying and utilizing the power of geothermal wells for years. In 2009 one such study hit a standstill when a group ran into magma halfway into their dig. The roadblock has become a blessing in disguise, as recent research has shown that the magma can act as a potent new source of geothermal energy powerful enough to heat 25,000 to 30,000 homes."

215 comments

  1. SGU Icarus Planet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Sci Fi comes true once again.

    1. Re:SGU Icarus Planet by Ark42 · · Score: 1

      I was thinking more like Volcano in New York or something equally as stupid.

    2. Re:SGU Icarus Planet by Jurily · · Score: 1

      The day after tomorrow?

    3. Re:SGU Icarus Planet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Sci Fi comes true once again.

      Actually the Icarus planet was filled with naquadria. However in SG:Atlantis they did blow up a planet from using too much geothermal.

    4. Re:SGU Icarus Planet by commodore6502 · · Score: 1

      >>>the Icarus planet was filled with naquadria. However in SG:Atlantis they did blow up a planet from using too much geothermal.

      I don't remember SGA's geothermal planet? It seems geothermal would COOL the planet into a cold rock like Pluto, rather than make it go boom. (shrug)

      But I do remember is SGU's first episode where the Stargate pulled so much energy dialing across ~1000 galaxies that it went "boom". That's a hell of a distance. The closest galaxy is ~2 million lightyears, so hopping 1000 galaxies would be ~2000 million LYs. In Star Trek terms, at top warp speed, that's 2,000,000 years of travel time to reach SGU's current position. Damn. (The Ancients, being bright persons, did it in only one-one hundredth of the time.)

      It's kinda sad that Reality imposes a 1 LY/year limit. Any intelligent race would be lucky just to reach the next star cluster - forget about visiting other galaxies.

      --
      Information wants to be expensive AND wants to be free. So you have Value vs. Cheap distribution fighting each other.
    5. Re:SGU Icarus Planet by SuricouRaven · · Score: 4, Funny

      This was an Ancient geothermal plant. The Ancients never met a technology they couldn't make explode, usually taking out at least a sizable chunk of planet.

    6. Re:SGU Icarus Planet by pwizard2 · · Score: 1

      But I do remember is SGU's first episode where the Stargate pulled so much energy dialing across ~1000 galaxies that it went "boom".

      Actually, it was the planet that blew up, not the gate. (draining huge amounts of raw energy from the core of an already unstable planet is bound to have serious consequences) The stargates themselves are nearly impossible to destroy, so the Icarus gate is probably still floating in the planetary debris field.

      --
      "It is a denial of justice not to stretch out a helping hand to the fallen; that is the common right of humanity."
    7. Re:SGU Icarus Planet by jcwayne · · Score: 1

      It's kinda sad that Reality imposes a 1 LY/year limit. Any intelligent race would be lucky just to reach the next star cluster - forget about visiting other galaxies.

      If a group of humans where willing and able to dedicate the time (decades of construction, centuries of travel) and money (hopefully <$1 trillion) to undertake a multi-generational ONE-WAY journey to the closest Earth-like planet we can find, I have no doubt that it could be done without FTL travel. Consider BSG, the only technology referenced (on the human side) that violated current scientific theory, allowing for standard bad-science in soft sci-fi, was the FTL drive. Sure they used a wonder fuel, as so much sci-fi does, but that's just a crutch the writers use to show a future (er... past) free from the bogeyman of nuclear power.

      --
      Failure to follow this advice may result in non-deterministic behavior.
    8. Re:SGU Icarus Planet by toastar · · Score: 1

      BSG shows a future free from "the bogeyman of nuclear power"???
      the whole show seems to be about nuking the robots ships?

    9. Re:SGU Icarus Planet by jcwayne · · Score: 1

      1. nuclear weapons != nuclear power
      2. While BSG spends lots of time building up the drama surrounding the possible, and actual, use of nukes, few are actually deployed by the humans.

      --
      Failure to follow this advice may result in non-deterministic behavior.
    10. Re:SGU Icarus Planet by marcosdumay · · Score: 1

      Just because we are restricted to move 1 light year on a year, it does not mean that we must take a year to reach a place that is one light year away. Reference frames are everything here, and the faster you move, the shorter the distance seems to you. When you are moving at light speed, the size of the Universe shrinks to zero.

      Just remember to never make that trip back. Some serious time will have passed here on Earth during a short trip.

    11. Re:SGU Icarus Planet by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      No, it isn't a long distance. SG's premise is that they are using wormholes. I don't recall them explaining exacty what the mechanism of the worm, but wormholes usually imply folding of space or some such things. If they are using a hole punched in a fold in space, it would have only had to travel a very short distance.

    12. Re:SGU Icarus Planet by jcwayne · · Score: 1

      You're correct, but I'm assuming that practical limitations would result in a craft that would tend to max out at ~0.75c. While the time dialation effect is certainly noticeable at that speed it's nothing like what you experience when you start to count the 9's (e.g. 0.9999c). I'd love to be proven wrong in my assumption some day and if there was a colony ship capable of >0.99c leaving tomorrow I'd jump at that chance to be on it.

      --
      Failure to follow this advice may result in non-deterministic behavior.
    13. Re:SGU Icarus Planet by Geotopia · · Score: 1

      The article says "that the magma can act as a potent new source of geothermal energy powerful enough to heat 25,000 to 30,000 homes"

      it neglected to mention that it's also powerful enough to vaporize 25,000 to 30,000 homes and their inhabitants. Hopefully science fiction won't come true!

      ("Volcano" with Tommy Lee Jones was a horrible film)

  2. Ya, it's hot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But it's a dry heat!!

  3. Profound by codepunk · · Score: 3, Funny

    How profound, we can heat water with magma.

    --


    Got Code?
    1. Re:Profound by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed. Dwarf Fortress taught me this years ago...

    2. Re:Profound by Mitchell314 · · Score: 1

      . . . or you can cool magma with water.

      --
      I read TFA and all I got was this lousy cookie
    3. Re:Profound by lennier · · Score: 4, Funny

      How profound, we can heat water with magma.

      How appropriate, you fight like a... volcano cow?

      --
      You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
    4. Re:Profound by dziban303 · · Score: 1

      Liquid magma, as opposed to solid magma?

  4. No way! by epp_b · · Score: 1

    You can convert heat into energy? Whodda thunk it?

    1. Re:No way! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thanked it years ago.

    2. Re:No way! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You can't convert heat into energy. Heat is already energy!
      You can only convert mass into energy.

      Car analogy:
      You can't convert an convertible car into an convertible car.
      You can convert some sedans into convertibles.

    3. Re:No way! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "You can't convert heat into energy. Heat is already energy!"

      Also you can't convert motion into energy. Motion is already energy.
      The same for motion into electricity, unpossible since both are already energy.
      Possible conclusion: you can't convert heat into electricity.
      But that doesn't sound quite right, does it?

    4. Re:No way! by Xacid · · Score: 1

      Ok, modify what the parent probably intended with "useful energy". A flowing river is in motion but isn't going to turn our tvs on. But convert that motion energy into electrical energy and then we can use it with our current infrastructure.

    5. Re:No way! by CapOblivious2010 · · Score: 2

      But convert that motion energy into electrical energy and then we can use it with our current infrastructure.

      Our "current" infrastructure? Hahahahaha

    6. Re:No way! by khallow · · Score: 1

      You can't convert heat into energy. Heat is already energy!

      That's odd. I come to the opposite conclusion. Namely, that you can do the conversion precisely because it is trivial.

    7. Re:No way! by shentino · · Score: 1

      A member of a superset cannot be converted into that superset, nor can a superset be converted into one of its members.

      YOu can, however, convert one member of a set into another member of the set.

      It's trying to make a redundant change. Without a difference between before and after, there is no delta.

      It's much the same as trying to stop a car that's already parked.

    8. Re:No way! by lennier · · Score: 2

      You can convert heat into energy? Whodda thunk it?

      Actually you can only convert heat into energy if you also have a source of cold.

      --
      You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
    9. Re:No way! by kwerle · · Score: 1

      You can convert heat into energy? Whodda thunk it?

      Actually you can only convert heat into energy if you also have a source of cold.

      Isn't heat a relative term, so isn't that implicit? Nobody said they would convert ambient into energy. I think that the term heat implies cold.

    10. Re:No way! by internettoughguy · · Score: 1

      You can convert heat into energy? Whodda thunk it?

      Actually you can only convert heat into energy if you also have a source of cold.

      That's a very bizarre way to phrase it, but yeah, we can retrieve energy from a heat difference, but not heat itself. I'm sure everyone has heard of entropy.

    11. Re:No way! by LongearedBat · · Score: 1

      Doesn't Iceland have plenty of cold? Even a hot day in the Sahara desert is cold in comparison to the temperature of magma.

    12. Re:No way! by camperdave · · Score: 1

      Yes, it's dead simple:
      *waives magic wand* Abracadabra - The heat is now energy.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    13. Re:No way! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And they have plenty of both.

    14. Re:No way! by ComputerGeek01 · · Score: 1

      Heat is energy? Really? Would that be kinetic or potential energy? One may assume potential until you realize *gasp* without a second part of that equation there is no differential. Nice try but try again.

    15. Re:No way! by Xacid · · Score: 1

      :)

  5. Also by zoomshorts · · Score: 0

    Volcanic eruptions, why invite disaster?

    1. Re:Also by $RANDOMLUSER · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Damn right! If man were meant to fly, he'd have wings!

      --
      No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
    2. Re:Also by M8e · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If buffalos were meant to fly, they would have buffalo wings.
      Man have buffalo wings, therefore man were meant to fly.
      QED

    3. Re:Also by PieSquared · · Score: 2
      --
      Does a line appended to your comment give your post meaning in and of itself, or only in relation to those without?
    4. Re:Also by shentino · · Score: 1

      And what, put the brilliant minds of the Wright brothers to waste?

      I could use the same argument for the human genius that let us invent an airplane and not need wings to fly.

  6. Pffft.... by webmistressrachel · · Score: 1

    This is old news ... didn't Prof. Farnsworth do this in Futurama, to bring back Fry's dog (i.e. use magma as a power source).

    </troll>

    --
    This tagline was transcoded to result in at least one smirk. If you experience failure to smirk, please consult your Gen
    1. Re:Pffft.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Professor!!..... Lava!!.... Hot!!

    2. Re:Pffft.... by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      That episode was very depressing.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
  7. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  8. What could possibly go wrong? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The extent which the human race extorts the earth sees no bounds!

    Does any one else see why this might be an issue? We are on a living planet.

    It seems all we want to do is extort whatever we can from it, what do we leave behind?

    Get away from your computer and go for a walk in nature, if you can find any semblance of it in your area. It wont be there much longer..

    1. Re:What could possibly go wrong? by werewolf1031 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      We are on a living planet.

      No, we're not. Stop it already with the "living planet" bullshit. The Earth is a geologically active lump of rock and metal, with a very thin layer of life on the crust. The planet itself is not alive in even the loosest scientific definition of "life".

    2. Re:What could possibly go wrong? by meerling · · Score: 1

      The planet isn't alive, the biosphere is, humans are part of the biosphere.

    3. Re:What could possibly go wrong? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's "exploiting", double retard.

  9. needed to head off next supervolcano? by bzipitidoo · · Score: 4, Interesting

    There are a few supervolcanoes around the world. Yellowstone has been going off about every 3/4 million years for around 20 milllion years, and it's due. Toba nearly wiped out humanity 75000 years ago. Can we do anything about it? Defuse them by sucking all the power out of them with geothermal energy extraction?

    --
    Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
    1. Re:needed to head off next supervolcano? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      $deepwater_horizonr=~s/oil/magma/g;

    2. Re:needed to head off next supervolcano? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Well, if you consider that the Pacific Ocean is unable to cool down Hawai and that isn't even a super volcano.

    3. Re:needed to head off next supervolcano? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There are a few supervolcanoes around the world. Yellowstone has been going off about every 3/4 million years for around 20 milllion years, and it's due. Toba nearly wiped out humanity 75000 years ago. Can we do anything about it? Defuse them by sucking all the power out of them with geothermal energy extraction?

      No. Luckily, we can't. Also worth noting that tidal power plants won't eliminate tsunamis, wind power won't prevent hurricanes and solar power isn't going to reduce skin cancer. And more importantly, if any of those were likely to have such drastic effects then it would be a really really Bad Thing to Do.

    4. Re:needed to head off next supervolcano? by onepoint · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I am no way near as smart as a volcanist ( sp?) but I would think that the concept would work as a power defuser ( as you mentioned ) but yet over time, you would create a champagne cork, it might pop when the earth choose to burp and there is not a flexible surface ( right now it's flexible but if you take the energy out of it, you would reduce it's flexibility.)

      --
      if you see me, smile and say hello.
    5. Re:needed to head off next supervolcano? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Exactly! The amount of energy we would have to extract would have to be ENORMOUS! All of humanities energy usage since the dawn of civilization would be insignificant in comparison. At the same time, there might be a lot of energy that can be extracted from Yellowstone but we would have to be careful.

    6. Re:needed to head off next supervolcano? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I am no way near as smart as a volcanist ( sp?)

      Vulcanologist.

    7. Re:needed to head off next supervolcano? by Gaygirlie · · Score: 1

      Defuse them by sucking all the power out of them with geothermal energy extraction?

      To do that they would have to somehow actively make the magma release more heat than it naturally does and that really isn't feasible, if even possible. You'd just be spending more energy than you would be able to "extract." Besides, if it was possible to start really sucking so much heat from the Earth's crust as to completely suck a supervolcano out we'd be cooling the whole Earth eventually and that would rather obviously not be a good idea.

    8. Re:needed to head off next supervolcano? by Yvan256 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Isn't that what they call archeologists on Vulcan? /duck

    9. Re:needed to head off next supervolcano? by JustNilt · · Score: 2

      *smack*

      You owe me a clean screen and keyboard. I'd JUST taken a drink of coffee. You have any idea how much my nasal passages hurt now?

      --
      You know the thing about UDP jokes? I don't care if you get it or not.
    10. Re:needed to head off next supervolcano? by Yvan256 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Was the coffee hot enough to be used as an energy source?

    11. Re:needed to head off next supervolcano? by JustNilt · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I was speaking to a real vulcanologist that works at Mt St Helens a while ago. The current thinking is it's not so much the heat energy alone as gas buildup that causes these massive eruptions. The heat is apparently a small part of it but the amount of gases dissolved in the material is what tends to make eruptions happen. When there's not enough gas in the material, it stops erupting, they now think.

      It sounds to me as though major eruptions are kind of like what happens when you shake a soda then pop the lid while the constant bubbling ones such as we see at St Helens lately is more like what happens when the carbonation just bubbles and your straw slowly climbs out of the glass. The conversation was one of those "well, duh!" moments to me that once you're told about it the whole thing makes so much more sense than before. When I said so, he laughed and said much the same thing happened to him when his colleague came up with it.

      --
      You know the thing about UDP jokes? I don't care if you get it or not.
    12. Re:needed to head off next supervolcano? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nah. That would be like making a cork unless you could cool the entire magma chamber of the supervolcano which is very unlikely.

      The explosion of a supervolcano is the result of enormous pressure going off at once. Gunpowder just makes a lot of smoke without containment and this is the same deal. A more likely solution would be to weaken the stone above the magma chamber, no idea how much, so that the stone providing the boom falls apart much quicker. You'd still get a boom but at least the damage would be lessened.

      Yes, that would be a LOT of stone to bore through but if the supervolcano goes off in a natural way then its good bye for a good chunk of the US. If there was a way to allow the pressurized lava to blow off somewhere safe then I'd go for that. Maybe drill a deep hole near the main chamber then set off a few nukes in the tunnel to break into the chamber. The nukes are far, far less of a hazard, believe me.

    13. Re:needed to head off next supervolcano? by lennier · · Score: 1

      Yellowstone has been going off about every 3/4 million years for around 20 milllion years, and it's due.

      Say what you will about the Precambrian, but at least they made the supervolcanoes run on time.

      --
      You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
    14. Re:needed to head off next supervolcano? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Vulcanologist is the word you were looking for.

    15. Re:needed to head off next supervolcano? by Pinky's+Brain · · Score: 1

      A coolant loop will conduct far more Watt for a given temperature gradient than the crust, the problem is the scale.

    16. Re:needed to head off next supervolcano? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In a word: no. There would be no way to extract that much heat in the short time frame immediately before an eruption. Volcanoes don't just stew away and randomly blow up. Typically an eruption represents the injection of a pulse of magma from deeper in the Earth's crust into an already-existing magma chamber at shallower depths. This "magma mixing" is thought to be responsible for some of the biggest eruptions. Even if you could hypothetically try to make a dent in the normal level of heat coming out of the system over a period of many years (I doubt it would work, but you could try), this would be utterly overwhelmed by the couple cubic kilometres of new magma that might be injected into the chamber just before a major eruption. There's no stopping that. In the largest eruptions it's energy on the order of a few nuclear bombs, albeit spread out over a period of days, weeks or months. Good luck trying to channel that somewhere other than the atmosphere and the surrounding terrain.

    17. Re:needed to head off next supervolcano? by ogl_codemonkey · · Score: 1

      The vulcans were to blame for Mt St Helens?

    18. Re:needed to head off next supervolcano? by d6 · · Score: 1

      why did mentos spring immediately to mind?

    19. Re:needed to head off next supervolcano? by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      How do you know it would be a bad thing to do? Yellowstone is like a small magma bulge coming to the surface. Why would it hurt to cool the bulge? (Please, no male anatomy jokes.)

    20. Re:needed to head off next supervolcano? by MrQuacker · · Score: 1

      Because its more akin to popping balloon.

    21. Re:needed to head off next supervolcano? by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · · Score: 1

      If we were talking about shallow geothermal fields, as opposed to supervolcano magma reservoirs, then it's a real concern. Geologist PÃll Stefansson in Iceland has been trying to get across to people that a typical geothermal area in Iceland might only last on the order of 50 years and would not re-warm on a human timescale.

    22. Re:needed to head off next supervolcano? by apostrophesemicolon · · Score: 1

      using geothermal energy extraction is just mooching little heat from the skin. Eruptions by supervolcanoes happen from deep down and made worse with small or blocked "spouts". To "defuse" volcanoes you'd have to drill large tunnels into their magma cores so the magma can be channeled out instead of bulging like week-old carbuncle.

    23. Re:needed to head off next supervolcano? by ElderKorean · · Score: 1

      why did mentos spring immediately to mind?

      Pumice is really good for that effect as well as it also has lots of nucleation sites.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumice

    24. Re:needed to head off next supervolcano? by Andy+Dodd · · Score: 1

      Which leads to my first thought as far as the "idea" presented above.

      By cooling some of the magma, it would be solidified into rock, making the rock cap above the magma chamber thicker. However I don't think it would be possible to cool ALL of the magma, plus there is the question of what happens when magma with very high gas content gets cooled.

      A possible outcome might be that an eruption is delayed, but when the cap finally gives way it will be MUCH worse because the pressures required to start an eruption might be much higher.

      --
      retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
    25. Re:needed to head off next supervolcano? by marcosdumay · · Score: 1

      Even cold cofee is an energy source. What do you drink? Decafeinnated?

    26. Re:needed to head off next supervolcano? by danbert8 · · Score: 1

      About 1 Calorie (1 kilocalorie) per fluid oz... Not a whole bunch there.

      --
      Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
  10. Stop cooling magma by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Please, stop cooling magma. No more viscous magna means no more earth magnetic field, hence no more magnetic shield, ie no more life.
    Please, don't dig for geothermic energy. Leave alone our earth kernel.

    1. Re:Stop cooling magma by $RANDOMLUSER · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Ironically, the MOTD at the bottom of this page is currently:

      "Consequences, Schmonsequences, as long as I'm rich." -- "Ali Baba Bunny" [1957, Chuck Jones]

      Meanwhile, try this thought experiment: throw an ice cube into a swimming pool full of boiling oatmeal and see how much the melting ice cube affects the temperature of the oatmeal. Now scale that up by a factor of, say, ten million.

      --
      No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
    2. Re:Stop cooling magma by peragrin · · Score: 2

      now drop ten thousand ice cubes into your pool and watch the temperature dip slightly.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    3. Re:Stop cooling magma by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      Is your pool the size of the Indian Ocean? If not you're still quite a few orders of magnitude low.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    4. Re:Stop cooling magma by InfiniteWisdom · · Score: 5, Informative

      Please, stop cooling magma. No more viscous magna means no more earth magnetic field, hence no more magnetic shield, ie no more life.
      Please, don't dig for geothermic energy. Leave alone our earth kernel.

      Now let's do some math.

      Mass of the earth: 5.9*10^24 kg. Apart from a very thin shell on top, most of that is at a couple of thousand degrees kelvin.
      Magma has a much higher specific heat, but let's be conservative and assume all of earth has the same specific heat as iron, or about 460 J/kg
      Cooling the earth by a single degree will release about 2.75*10^27 joules

      The total world energy consumption from all sources in 2008 was estimated at 4.75*10^20 joules.

      At that rate, cooling the interior of the earth by a single degree would power the entire world for 5,789,473 years.

      And that's assuming the earth doesn't continue to generate heat from radioactive decay, tidal forces, friction etc.

    5. Re:Stop cooling magma by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 1

      ...wait, and if the pool is the size of the Indian Ocean, a few thousand ice cubes will produce a noticeable temperature difference? You live in weird ways.

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    6. Re:Stop cooling magma by Black+Gold+Alchemist · · Score: 1

      Please, stop cooling magma

      Seriously, this is just not cool.

      --
      Responsibility is an addiction
      Virtue is a temptation
      Community is a cartel
    7. Re:Stop cooling magma by Lorien_the_first_one · · Score: 1

      Uh, thanks for the lucid clarification. :) For a moment there, I was genuinely worried about geothermal energy wonks cooling the earth's core.

      --
      The diversity and expression of human opinion is essential to human survival.
    8. Re:Stop cooling magma by InfiniteWisdom · · Score: 1

      Maybe you weren't (assuming you're the AC) but from looking at this thread lots of other people seem to think that's an actual concern.

    9. Re:Stop cooling magma by boristhespider · · Score: 0

      ^^ needs mod points

    10. Re:Stop cooling magma by contrapunctus · · Score: 2

      i thought radioactive decay was the source of the heat in the earth core, so the pool analogy doesn't work unless you add a heater.

    11. Re:Stop cooling magma by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Guddurn it! Keep that there pesky science out of this here argument!

    12. Re:Stop cooling magma by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      on top of the fact that magma close enough to the surface for us to meddle with is has basically left the core, and is no longer relevant to the magnetic field.

    13. Re:Stop cooling magma by Jappus · · Score: 1

      The total world energy consumption from all sources in 2008 was estimated at 4.75*10^20 joules.

      At that rate, cooling the interior of the earth by a single degree would power the entire world for 5,789,473 years.

      And that's assuming the earth doesn't continue to generate heat from radioactive decay, tidal forces, friction etc.

      But that's assuming human energy use will stay the same.

      Let's see. In 1859, the United States of America (just taking one country for simplicity) produced ~2000 (270 t) barrel of crude oil per year. As of 2010 said country has reserves left of around ~21*10^9 billion barrel = 21*10^18 barrels. So given these figures, you could live with those reserves for ~ 1*10^16 years.

      Just as a reminder, the age of the universe is estimated at 14 billion = 14*10^9 years. So, certainly the US-Americans are nowhere near close to using up their oil reserves. So it's an absolutely moot point to check Wikipedia for the number of years till the reserves are run dry. But just for the sake of completion:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves#Estimated_reserves_by_country

      WHAT? Just 8 years! How can this be? My numbers can absolutely not lie!

      See what you just conveniently forgot there? Always be aware of all the possible consequences and then act accordingly. I'm all for using geothermal energy, but as with everything, one should use one's brain before, while and also still after doing something.

    14. Re:Stop cooling magma by InfiniteWisdom · · Score: 1

      You do know that energy consumption goes beyond just oil, right?

    15. Re:Stop cooling magma by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "And that's assuming the earth doesn't continue to generate heat from radioactive decay, tidal forces, friction etc."

      As you allude to, it does do that to the tune of an estimated ~2/3 to 3/4 of the heat flux observed at the surface (i.e. most of the heat is being generated in situ mainly by radioactivity).

    16. Re:Stop cooling magma by Jappus · · Score: 1

      You do know that energy consumption goes beyond just oil, right?

      Sure. I merely tried to express in a parable, what I could've stated more bluntly as: Do the math again, and this time don't forget that consumption will not stay constant and may easily bridge the orders of magnitude that you described as insurmountable.

      In a way, your comment only raises further hints and concerns in that respect: We consume some resources like there's no tomorrow. And as hungry as our society is for oil, it is even hungrier for energy.

    17. Re:Stop cooling magma by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now here's a thought exercise:
      Given the average volume held in a swimming pool found in the southern U.S. and given the average size of an icecube made via icecube trays currently existing on the market, how many icecubes would it take to cool the pool down until the temperature of the previously boiling oatmeal becomes reasonably safe for Natalie Portman?

      Oh wait, somebody just said that it should be grits. So what's the difference now?

    18. Re:Stop cooling magma by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At that rate, cooling the interior of the earth by a single degree would power the entire world for 5,789,473 years.

      If you have cheap anything, people tend to come up with uses for it. (A good example is computer data storage.) And if life is made easy because of cheap energy, people tend to procreate. It is true that the energy intensive lifestyle of the first world has resulted in a temporary lowered average rate of reproduction. Rate of reproduction is a distribution though, and those who are naturally well adapted to modern life in terms of reproduction rate will soon outnumber those who would sooner get a vasectomy and play WoW all day.

      With cheap enough energy, you can make the desert bloom with desalinated water. You could have a virtually infinite population with high-rises full of people eating food grown via hydroponics. Hell, if the energy is cheap enough perhaps even give cattle hydroponically grown vegetable matter. Use steam to sterilize the faeces and recycle.

      When your 6 million year figure is down to the hundreds because it doesn't take into account population growth and energy budget creep, and you have an entrenched geothermal industry with massive budgets to throw at marketing, bribes and sundry dirty tricks, it is too late for "whoops".

    19. Re:Stop cooling magma by dbIII · · Score: 1

      That's more a source of heat in the crust apparently. A lot of potentially exploitable geothermal heat sources away from plate edges are due to radioactive decay of a lot of heavy metals. It apparently helps some continents float a bit - but get more detail from a real geophysicist not just an engineer that works with them.

    20. Re:Stop cooling magma by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unsustainable!

    21. Re:Stop cooling magma by nickdc · · Score: 1

      Please, stop cooling magma

      Seriously, this is just not cool.

      1400 degrees Celsius not cool to be precise....

    22. Re:Stop cooling magma by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It also assumes our energy needs/consumption would remain flat. There's also probably one million other issues with such a simplistic model.

    23. Re:Stop cooling magma by JamesP · · Score: 1

      You would probably need the water of the whole ocean to cool the earth's core... And even then!

      But maybe it the earth magnetic field is gone, everybody can take their fridge magnets and point them all in the same direction, problem solved!!!

      --
      how long until /. fixes commenting on Chrome?
    24. Re:Stop cooling magma by danbert8 · · Score: 1

      Yes, but if you cooled the entire earth by 1 degree... Where would that heat go? GLOBAL WARMING!!! The atmosphere would have to be a few thousand degrees when you are done extracting all that energy! It might even get hot enough that you couldn't extract any more energy from the magma. Thus geothermal is worse than oil and coal for the environment. (P.S. on a more serious note, what about all the trapped greenhouse gases in the magma? Where do they go?)

      --
      Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
    25. Re:Stop cooling magma by hesaigo999ca · · Score: 1

      On a serious note, before we start playing with digging up holes where magma could come out from (infinitely) and spew the crap all over us, could we not say....master solar and wind and and other safer alternatives first before we go this route...I mean, are we that starved that we are going after ALL options at once....someone even came up with the waves of the ocean creates energy enough to charge batteries with, so , I think we do not really need this tech just yet....

  11. The magma! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crack_in_the_World

    1. Re:The magma! by phrostie · · Score: 1

      cool link

    2. Re:The magma! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crack_in_the_World

      I hesitate clicking on this link, thinking it could be a picture of your mom.

  12. Dwarf fortress by fph+il+quozientatore · · Score: 1

    Duh, someone's been playing Dwarf Fortress for too long on that small island. Well, I guess there's not much else to do in the wintertime (disclaimer: it's below -10C where i live now, so I'd better not pull their leg like this).

    --
    My first program:

    Hell Segmentation fault

    1. Re:Dwarf fortress by Yvan256 · · Score: 1

      In Canada, we call -10C "spring".

  13. We're in a volcano by cultiv8 · · Score: 1

    (conversation between scientists in Iceland): You know, I've been a frickin' evil doctor for 30 frickin' years, OK? Cut me some frickin' slack. You forget, we're in a volcano. We're surrounded by liquid hot magma.

    --
    sysadmins and parents of newborns get the same amount of sleep.
  14. Cakes! by Alex+Belits · · Score: 1

    That will allow them to bake a lot of pretty cakes!

    --
    Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
    1. Re:Cakes! by dadelbunts · · Score: 1

      There is cake at the end. I promise.

    2. Re:Cakes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't be lazy you fucker.

    3. Re:Cakes! by Alex+Belits · · Score: 1

      Wrong cake.

      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
    4. Re:Cakes! by Alex+Belits · · Score: 1

      Right cake.

      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
    5. Re:Cakes! by Cwix · · Score: 1

      There was no cake, because of what you did to your companion cube.

      --
      You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
    6. Re:Cakes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It might not be a piece of cake to bake some pretty cakes with liquid hot magma.

    7. Re:Cakes! by mqduck · · Score: 1

      Why in the world did that become a meme?

      --
      Property is theft.
  15. Dinosaurs did it by S1ngularity · · Score: 1

    I think it's adapted from a really big Jello mold: http://muppet.wikia.com/wiki/Episode_215:_Power_Erupts

    1. Re:Dinosaurs did it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought I was the only one with this level of useless knowledge. And the WeSaySo Corporation would be ExxonMoble or BP in this case?

  16. Earthquakes by otis+wildflower · · Score: 2

    I guess Iceland's made its peace with geological instability (one would think you'd have to, by definition), but other geothermal efforts around the world are being halted or seriously delayed because of earthquakes they are believed to have caused:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/11/science/earth/11basel.html

    1. Re:Earthquakes by onepoint · · Score: 1

      I don't recall exactly, but did not Isaac Asimov talk about heat sinks very near volcanoes as a power source for a planet in the foundation series ?

      I am sure that Aurthur C. Clarke must have covered this topic at one point or another

      --
      if you see me, smile and say hello.
    2. Re:Earthquakes by Fnkmaster · · Score: 1

      I believe the issue with those projects relates to deep bedrock fracturing rather than energy extraction itself. Small mini-eathquakes have also been known to occur near fracturing efforts in the name of natural gas extraction, though those are mostly shallow enough that I don't think they caused effects like the geothermal project in Basel.

    3. Re:Earthquakes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I guess Iceland's made its peace with geological instability (one would think you'd have to, by definition), but other geothermal efforts around the world are being halted or seriously delayed because of earthquakes they are believed to have caused:

      http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/11/science/earth/11basel.html

      "Traditional" geothermal wells are those drilled into a geological formation that has water in "porous" formation(s) which allow extraction and re-injection to occur. The field is able to produce and sustain a natural flow of water through the formation under geologic pressure eg. Iceland, New Zealand, The Geysers CA. etc
      There is a development in recent years in countries that are not endowed with an abundance of geothermal producing zones to drill a well down to a non-porous hot zone, propagate fractures in the non-porous formations with high pressure, use seismic sensoring to track the direction of the fracturing and drill a second well to complete a loop for cold water to go down, heat up and return to surface. It is this experimental technique with the high pressure fracturing that has been blamed for seismic activity post drilling.
      Just don't want the traditional sustainable geothermal to get hit with FUD regarding the Hot Rock Swap

    4. Re:Earthquakes by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      Clarke had a liquid magma weapon in Earthlight.

  17. Prior art by cfc-12 · · Score: 2

    magma can act as a potent new source of geothermal energy powerful enough to heat 25,000 to 30,000 homes.

    Actually this has been known about for quite some time, particularly by the people who lived here, albeit briefly...

    1. Re:Prior art by Lorien_the_first_one · · Score: 1

      Ooops.

      --
      The diversity and expression of human opinion is essential to human survival.
  18. Liquid magma? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    As opposed to the solid or gaseous variety?

    Today's headline is brought to you by the Department of Redundancy Department.

    1. Re:Liquid magma? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gaseous magma.

    2. Re:Liquid magma? by gilbert644 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Iceland already produces energy by pumping water into the ground and on to very hot but still solid magma to produce steam energy. So the distinction matter since the reaction is very volatile if the 'rock' is still liquid.

    3. Re:Liquid magma? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Plasgma.

    4. Re:Liquid magma? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Opposed to liquid water, liquid salt and liquid ethane.

    5. Re:Liquid magma? by DRJlaw · · Score: 3, Informative

      As opposed to what? Solid magma is more commonly called "rock".

      magma
      n pl -mas, -mata
      1. (Physics / General Physics) a paste or suspension consisting of a finely divided solid dispersed in a liquid
      2. (Earth Sciences / Geological Science) hot molten rock, usually formed in the earth's upper mantle, some of which finds its way into the crust and onto the earth's surface, where it solidifies to form igneous rock

      Collins English Dictionary

      A plastic or paste. And, of course, you knew that magma could have a range of viscosity from cumbly-looking rhyolite-forming magmas ( Vesuvius, Krakatoa, Mount St. Helens) to fountain-like basalt forming lavas (Hawaiian volcanoes).

    6. Re:Liquid magma? by Nimey · · Score: 0

      Smegma.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    7. Re:Liquid magma? by werewolf1031 · · Score: 0

      Semantics. It's like arguing that no asteroid or meteor has ever struck the Earth because when an asteroid enters the Earth's atmosphere it becomes a meteor, and when the meteor reaches the ground it becomes a meteorite.

    8. Re:Liquid magma? by DRJlaw · · Score: 0

      Q: How much magma comes out of a volcano?

      Pretty much the same as the quantity of lava that "comes out" of a volcano. If I have 5 km^3 of magma under a volcanic structure, and 1 km^3 of lava emerges from the volcanic structure, then assuming that volume is conserved for sake of simplicity, 1 km^3 of magma "came out." After all, only 4 km^3 would remain.

      Of course, if we follow your implied definition, then no lava "comes out" of a volcano either. After all, there is no lava inside of the volcano, and your "gotcha" follow up factoid is thus equally flawed. Meanwhile, you risk being stoned by people who view speech and writing as communal forms of communication, rather than specialist-defined collections of absolute rules that must be followed without any deviation by the plebecite.

  19. Liquid magma? by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 5, Insightful

    As opposed to what? Solid magma is more commonly called "rock".

  20. Lighting with ava lamps? by clyde_cadiddlehopper · · Score: 1

    Sorry, I couldn't stop myself.

    --
    Obi-Wan: "I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror and were sudden
    1. Re:Lighting with ava lamps? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes you did.

  21. Re:Life Imitates Minecraft by Skidborg · · Score: 1

    Psh, Dwarf Fortress has been powering the world with magma long before Minecraft appeared on the scene, grasshopper.

    --
    Supporter of the +1 Over Dramatic mod option. In memory of apk.
  22. One Hot Pipe by b4upoo · · Score: 1

    The trick must be in keeping whatever gets close enough to the magma from melting. It will be quite a feat.

    1. Re: One Hot Pipe by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I imagine that you would have two somewhat vexing problems: One, as you note, temperatures high enough to melt rocks are pretty hard on most machinery. Two, while extremely hot, magma has a distinctly finite amount of energy available. Once you get serious about extracting heat, it will cool and solidify. Once solidified, it will be a mediocre conductor of heat. Thus, unless you want to get only toy amounts of energy out of the system, you will need a fairly large surface area exposed to the magma.

    2. Re: One Hot Pipe by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      Magma at these depths is not generally hot enough to melt steel.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    3. Re: One Hot Pipe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1
      Magma Temperatures:

      Temperatures of most magmas are in the range 700 C to 1300 C (or 1300 F to 2400 F)

      Various metal melting points (C):

      1. Stainless Steel 1363
      2. Steel-High Carbon 1353
      3. Medium Carbon 1427
      4. Low Carbon 1464
      5. Tungsten 3000
    4. Re: One Hot Pipe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It doesn't have to melt. The metal is still significantly less structurally sound and more prone to oxidization at those temperatures.

    5. Re: One Hot Pipe by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Instead it erodes the crap out of steel at high speed. It doesn't have to reach the melting point to start to dissolve the steel and wash it away.
      There's other stuff but it gets tricky which sometimes means expensive.

  23. And next.... by ducomputergeek · · Score: 0

    They will be demanding ONE MILLION DOLLARS...and sharks with freak'n laser beams...

    --
    "The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
  24. Breakthough? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This was done in Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri a decade ago. This isn't a breakthough, this is just "Thermal Boreholes" finally coming to fruition. Another concept inspired by computer games.

  25. Overheard at the dig site... by CyberDog3K · · Score: 2

    Professor! Lava! Hot!

  26. Energy consumption per home by ItsJustAPseudonym · · Score: 1

    The article says that the magma well could be used to produce 25 megawatts of power. My first (unconsidered) reaction was that more homes should be served by such a power system. Then I did the math, and I realized that 25,000 homes using 25 megawatts of power is just 1000 watts per home. That's less than the power consumed by a hair dryer. Plus, they're in Iceland, and they need to heat their homes. It's a pretty intimidating concept.

    1. Re:Energy consumption per home by JDevers · · Score: 2

      Home heating is supplied in the more traditional "really hot water" method...so electricity isn't needed for that. Still 1KW is NOT much power for a home unless there is a substantial reserve power system and the typical Iceland power user is somewhat miserly in the first place.

  27. It's all lava by currently_awake · · Score: 2, Informative

    All geothermal energy comes from lava, it's just a matter of how directly you tap the heat. Heat engines run more efficiently with a higher heat difference, but they have to be designed/constructed to -use- that higher heat. If you cool the lava it will solidify into rock, and your expensive lava to electric generator stops working till you drill down to lava again. A lava generator is cheaper to build but has a shorter life span.

    1. Re:It's all lava by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      Presuming of course, that the natural convection you create doesn't move the cooled but still-liquid lava away, replacing it with hotter, liquid lava from below.

      The trick is to limit your extraction to the quantity that can be replaced by natural convection/conduction processes, keeping your well nice and liquid.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
  28. Alex Trebek said it best... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are you Icelandic or retarded?

  29. also by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    it can power forges and smelters. expect iceland's metal barrel production to increase exponentially.

  30. Summary: by jovius · · Score: 1

    There's some steamy hot action going in Iceland where Mother Earth shows her finest. The Icelanders sure know of f-loving, it's a two-way action on a bed of pure lava. Get your drills ready it's time to go supercritical with magma e-lectric!

  31. Dwarf fortress? by Octopuscabbage · · Score: 1

    And then they will set up a masonry and make 50 beds. Then they will set up 100 stone fall traps around the entrance to their fortress. I don't know why they named it Iceland though, that has no anus in it.

  32. Anthropomorphizing by zoomshorts · · Score: 3, Insightful

    People who like to think they are 'green' , often try to imbue inanimate objects with living traits.
    It is pretty sad they have no real concepts about the most basic issues. Sure, there are some
    lifeforms on Earth, but that does not make the planet living, it is merely dynamic.

    1. Re:Anthropomorphizing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, this time I was modded down. I *am* amazed. Cut out the obscenity and my points were all valid.

    2. Re:Anthropomorphizing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Wow, this time I was modded down. I *am* amazed. Cut out the obscenity and my points were all valid.

      Posting anonymously because I'm the person who modded you down, and I knew damn well you'd complain about it and assume it was some pissed off "limp-wristed 'green' Apple owner".

      You *were* modded down because of the obscenity- or rather, because of the flamebait, homophobic, third-rate cliched strawman stereotype, troll-like bullshit you had in there.

      "Cut out the obscenity and".... well, it was your job to do that in the first place and you didn't, so tough.

      Irony is I partly agreed with what you were getting at and some of what Zoomshirts said, but whatever.

    3. Re:Anthropomorphizing by Slur · · Score: 1

      Happy to say, this particular 'green' credits a scientific grounding for his views. That, and the belief that "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure," or something to that effect.

      That said, I also am an active participant in human activities, so I have become familiar with the habit of using hyperbole or analogy without quite realizing it. So when I hear someone say the 'Earth is a living system' I know what they mean, even if I wouldn't say it quite that way myself. Then when I go on to reply to the person, instead of getting stuck on their verbiage, I am able to address the 'real substance' of what they are saying.

      So, you know, yeah, the earth has some lifeforms on its surface, and literally speaking it is not 'alive.' However, there are many instances where it makes sense to look at whole systems as having certain qualities. In this instance, the Earth does form a 'living system' whereas Venus does not. In fact the very atmosphere we breathe would not have enough Oxygen for us if not for lifeforms breaking down CO2. If we were to eliminate enough plants while keeping enough animals "Earth would die" in the sense that it would no longer be suitable for life.

      It is the overall conditions of the Earth that causes people to invoke 'Gaia,' which is just a shorthand for 'all that sustains life.'

      Frankly, I have a lot of respect for those people who feel an emotional, tangible, and personified connection to life and the Earth as a whole. They may be flaky and sentimental by some estimations, but at least they have not cut themselves off from the natural world.

      --
      -- thinkyhead software and media
    4. Re:Anthropomorphizing by internettoughguy · · Score: 2

      People who like to think they are 'green' , often try to imbue inanimate objects with living traits.
      It is pretty sad they have no real concepts about the most basic issues. Sure, there are some
      lifeforms on Earth, but that does not make the planet living, it is merely dynamic.

      People who I like to think are 'red' !(complimentary to green), often like to lump disparate opinions and people together into a group, this way they can attack the weakest opinion of said group. It's pretty sad that they would rather spend their time doing this than addressing the real concerns held by the rational members of said group. Sure there are some lifeforms on earth, but who gives a fuck, we'll just argue semantics.

    5. Re:Anthropomorphizing by internettoughguy · · Score: 2

      Frankly, I have a lot of respect for those people who feel an emotional, tangible, and personified connection to life and the Earth as a whole. They may be flaky and sentimental by some estimations, but at least they have not cut themselves off from the natural world.

      Exactly, a friend and I were discussing the merits of solar panels and he said: "but I'd rather not be at the mercy of nature", of course when I informed him that he already was, I was just getting semantic, but I can't help but feel that this is a very real perceptual disconnect that a lot of us (myself included) have developed, we feel that we have already moved beyond the "natural" world, and are no longer at it's "mercy". But we don't have too deeply to see that we are still and always will be sustained by (somewhat fragile) natural processes that are either impossible or difficult to control, direct or even predict.

    6. Re:Anthropomorphizing by internettoughguy · · Score: 1

      But we don't have * too deeply to see that we are still and always will be sustained by (somewhat fragile) natural processes that are either impossible or difficult to control, direct or even predict.

      * look

  33. Please check my logic by ddt · · Score: 0

    Tapping geothermal energy cools the earth's center faster, which slows magma rotation, which reduces the strength of the magnetic field protecting us from cosmic radiation, does it not? I'm sure this wouldn't bite us for many years, but this seems like a bad direction, just as using fossil fuels was.

    1. Re:Please check my logic by Arlet · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The human harvesting of geothermal energy is totally insignificant compared to natural cooling over the entire surface of the earth.

    2. Re:Please check my logic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      Unless they're drilling a hole >3000km deep to tap into the iron-nickel liquid core of the Earth where the Earth's magnetic field is generated, the effect will be irrelevant. And that's leaving aside the fact that it's technically impossible to drill to such depths (the deepest wells barely exceed 10km). Besides, at most you're slightly accelerating the natural process of water circulating in the crust and the normal process of the Earth cooling -- at one teeny-tiny spot compared to, say, the entire mid-oceanic ridge system, which is naturally pumping water through the crust in the vicinity of magma chambers all the time and has been for eons.

      Your logic is flawed because you have not considered scale. Total heat flux is estimated at 42TW, and there are ~40GW of geothermal heating and electricity generation. Even if we scaled up geothermal heating by a hundred times or more it wouldn't matter much. All we're doing is drawing the heat out a little faster in small areas, which wouldn't effect the Earth on a broad scale for many millions of years, if there was any effect at all. The Earth is big, and heat flow is remarkably slow within it (rocks are good thermal insulators). It's difficult to perturb heat flow except very locally by artificial means. And generally speaking the areas tapped for geothermal power already have elevated heat flows anyway.

      You should worry more about wind turbines affecting weather patterns. At least that might have a plausible basis.

    3. Re:Please check my logic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Holy cow, I guess we shouldn't do anything now.

      I think you should hold your breath for two hours. Right now you are emitting heated gases into the atmosphere, along with with more CO2 than you inhaled. By periodically restricting your atmospheric intake for several hours, you will reduce your impact on the surrounding ecosystem.

  34. Re:Life Imitates Minecraft by BotnetZombie · · Score: 2

    Yes it's a new source. The old one is water extracted from geothermally active areas, although the water is very hot because of the magma being nearby.

  35. LTTH by Pope+Raymond+Lama · · Score: 4, Funny

    Yes! Instead of lots of inneficient conversion methods, and n orer to overcome the last mile problem, this would finally allow the deployment of Lava To The Home technology, through some simple piping.

    Besides heating, hot lava could be used in special taps to allow for inexpensive 3D printing, allowing everyone to produce their own custo made Rock Consumer Appliances.

    --
    -><- no .sig is good sig.
    1. Re:LTTH by lennier · · Score: 1

      Rock Consumer Appliances.

      Rock smashes Consumer, Consumer buys Appliance, Appliance.. prototypes Rock!

      --
      You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
    2. Re:LTTH by sonamchauhan · · Score: 1

      Lava lamps?

    3. Re:LTTH by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Something like Flintstones 2020?

  36. Digging by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This happened to me in Minecraft.

  37. This will not end well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Have we learned nothing from history? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inferno_(Doctor_Who)

  38. Magma ? Energy ? Really ? No !? by Latinhypercube · · Score: 0, Funny

    Magma ? Energy ? Really ? No !? Wow, you think we can get energy from red hot magma. I mean, we've been using GEOTHERMAL for decades, what possible use could Magma have ?

  39. One milllyun dohllarrrs! by Latent+Heat · · Score: 1

    I will commence my project to extract ENERGY from the CENTER OF THE EARTH unless the governments of the world pay me . . . ONE MILLYUN DOHLLARRS!

  40. The Icelanders dug too greedily and too deep. by EnsilZah · · Score: 3, Funny

    You know what they awoke in the darknesss of Eyjafjallajokull.

    1. Re:The Icelanders dug too greedily and too deep. by lennier · · Score: 4, Funny

      You know what they awoke in the darknesss of Eyjafjallajokull.

      Björk?

      --
      You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
  41. Iceland = Saudi Arabia by avtchillsboro · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Iceland could be the Saudi Arabia of the Hydrogen Economy: An island nation, w/practically unlimited geothermal energy--with which desalinate seawater; and for making electricity to break the molecular bonds of all that H2O.

    1. Re:Iceland = Saudi Arabia by Yvan256 · · Score: 1

      And if that doesn't work, open up the nation as a theme park called Magmaland.

    2. Re:Iceland = Saudi Arabia by WindBourne · · Score: 2

      w/practically unlimited geothermal energy
      You have to be kidding. There are MANY more places on this planet with loads more geo-thermal. However, for the number of ppl on the island, it is a lot.

      With that said, my bet is that unless EU starts putting in pipes that can deal with H2, then an H2 project will NEVER go anywhere.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    3. Re:Iceland = Saudi Arabia by evilviper · · Score: 2

      You should ask Alcoa what they think of your idea...

      Sure, you could bulldoze the country, and make it a major energy supplier to the world (though many others are in contention, too) but the icelandic people have said no to much smaller projects before, and its likely they wouldn't stand for wholesale destruction of their country to achieve that status.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    4. Re:Iceland = Saudi Arabia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hydrogen is hard to ship. Aluminium on the other hand also needs its oxygen liberated, but ships quite easily afterwards. That's why Iceland has 3 aluminium plants, and 3 more in various stages of planning&construction.

  42. That Magma is very Close by Sinesurfer · · Score: 3, Informative

    It's a wonderful idea (and don't get me wrong, we use geothermal energy in NZ [it's around 5% of our power generation]) but the inherent danger of magma is that if you make one little error you're dealing with MAGMA!!!

    it's the second most hostile energy source after nuclear energy, the only difference is the half life isn't thousands of years.

    oh! and 7000 is little more than 2 kilometres, that's really, really, really close for magma (the other way to look at it is that it's a very, very, very think mantle on the Earth near Iceland). Most other estiamtes of the Earth's mantle are ~=50-60 Km's vs. 3% of the average thickness beneath Iceland.

    Good luck to Iceland!

    --
    Regards Sinesurfer A Nerd is someone who lives for technology, A Geek is someone who lives for technology and loves it
    1. Re:That Magma is very Close by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      Wow. I'll bet your shrink gets tired of your neurosis.
      You need to grow some balls.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  43. Eyes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Eyeing" is not a verb. How about writing english that can be understood everywhere in the world?

    Iceland is considering liquid magma as an energy source

    No confusion there.

    1. Re:Eyes? by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

      "Eyeing" is not a verb.

      You fail English. "He eyes the bitch from across the bar, and makes his move."

      How about writing english that can be understood everywhere in the world?

      Huh? How about using the language as it's designed? What do different locales have to do with whether it's proper English? Why am I arguing with someone who won't respond?

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
  44. Re: all geothermal energy comes from lava by neonsignal · · Score: 1

    It isn't strictly true that all geothermal energy comes from lava. Some of the 'hot rocks' style geothermal projects are tapping heat that has been at least in part produced by radioactive decay of Uranium, Thorium and Potassium. Of course, that means they also have a limited life span, because they will be exhausting heat faster than it is produced.

  45. Exports? by countertrolling · · Score: 2

    I want to see the harbor where they load this stuff into the boats..

    --
    For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
  46. WTF? by Vegan+Cyclist · · Score: 0

    It's 2011 - how many unheated homes are left in Iceland?!?!

  47. Unintended consequences again.... by macraig · · Score: 1

    What happens if every nation, all over the planet, eventually follows Iceland's lead and taps magma below the crust for heat to convert to energy? Will drawing off so much heat accelerate the eventual cooling of the Earth's core and thus the senescence of the magnetosphere, thus accelerating the end of all life on Earth? How much heat can we manage to draw off if we "go geo"? Is the consequence so far off in the future that it is inconsequential? Humans once thought that tapping aquifers and petroleum was like having liquid VISA gift cards with no obligation to repay, but we now know the piper expects to be paid for those. The price for this little stunt, however far off the maturity of the loan, might be greater than anything else we've done.

    1. Re:Unintended consequences again.... by WorBlux · · Score: 1

      The heat of the core is generated from nuclear decay, not something likely to stop in the next 10,000 years. Plus only stuff relatively close to the surface might be worth tapping.

    2. Re:Unintended consequences again.... by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      And by close to the surface, we are talking about .1% of the earth. IOW, out of just about everything that we have done, this is the least likely to result in damage due to the MASSIVE amount of it. The only thing with more energy, is the sun.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  48. Iceland needs new energy? by John.Banister · · Score: 1

    I thought Iceland was the one country that already had a surplus. Are they looking to add 30,000 new homes? I suppose they could make methane, combining hydrogen from sea water with atmospheric CO2, and fill up LNG ships, but had they wanted to do that, they would be.

    1. Re:Iceland needs new energy? by MrQuacker · · Score: 1

      They use that cheap electricity to smelt aluminum. Iceland is one of the largest aluminum producers in the world.

  49. YellowStone by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    YellowStone is showing signs of eruption. Now, would be a great time to consider the idea of taking the pressure off by actually using the magma to run a LARGE power plant.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  50. Dumb question by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    Can this be pulled up and used to form bricks? And how hard is Igneous Rock? The magma COULD be poured into shapes. For example, comes from home wool insulation comes from basalt. Or how about bricks?
    Then of course, the magma comes up hot enough to melt iron. This could give a nice way to create a smelter for iron, or even for concrete.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  51. Chuck by neonv · · Score: 1

    Chuck Norris doesn't heat his home with natural gas, he uses liquid magma

    1. Re:Chuck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Chuck Norris doesn't use solar energy. The sun uses Chuck Norris energy.

  52. Magma is dangerous, hmmmmkay? by Johnno74 · · Score: 1

    They hit magma while digging? Ouch.

    If minecraft has taught me anything, it is that hitting magma unexpectedly is a Very Bad Thing.

    I sincerely hope that they had a bucket of water handy to put themselves out, and that they weren't foolish enough to be digging the block they were standing on when they hit magma.

  53. increased efficiency by Alan+R+Light · · Score: 2

    Three times as much power from a single well as the traditional method - that is pretty neat.

    This isn't about a radically new concept, but a radically new implementation - and a rather large "incremental" gain.

  54. I am pessemistic by NSN+A392-99-964-5927 · · Score: 1

    The USA will make a claim when oil runs out for magma. Been there, done that drilled here dept.

    --
    All cows eat grass!
  55. Shameless plug by catman · · Score: 1

    A hot-water spa in Iceland using the waste water from a geothermal power station, its intake is 2000 meters down. Great place, I was surprised to find that the water is salty, at about 1/3 the salinity of ocean water.
    If you fly trans-Atlantic, make a stopover in Iceland and spend a day at that spa. It's worth it.

  56. Well... ;) by RichiH · · Score: 1

    I wouldn't, as heat already is a form of energy.

  57. Confused? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A Canadian company called Magma Energy just bought a majority share in one of Iceland's power companies. I think someone is confused. There have been no news in Iceland on this subject.

  58. Re:Life Imitates Minecraft by djdanlib · · Score: 1

    It's a power source AND a good home defense system, all in one! Just don't forget which lever controls it...

  59. Crack the Earth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Whatever you do, just don't dare try to do this.

  60. that damn project by hesaigo999ca · · Score: 1

    I RTA, and thought it funny how this is the same nation that was building that humongous damn project to get their energy from, and then it hit me, maybe it was the same project, that they now had to sideline because of the magma flow, can anyone tell me if this is the case, I saw the project on mega machines, where they showed the damn being built and was a world wonder in terms of architectural integrity, but also construction (special machines designed for just this job), I wanted to know if anyone could pinpoint the project that was sidelined...

    1. Re:that damn project by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its 2 different projects. Then damn project at Karahnukar has been powering an aluminium plant for 2 or 3 years now.
      This was another project at Krafla where they were planning to use geothermal energy to power another aluminium plant.
      I think they had some concerns if the area could provide enough energy to power the aluminium plant and wanted to experiment with drilling an extra km down to see if they could get more energy.
      And then they hit magma, and it was like "Ops, our project failed". Actually it was like their drill stopped 2 times before they realized what had happened.
      It appeard to me to be a second though when they came back and said: "This is great, we can get even more energy from the magma". But I never heard if they had any ideas on how to achieve this.

  61. Check out this site about magma power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The potential has been known about for a long time. Help get the world off fossils and support this technology...

    http://www.magma-power.com/