We establish governments to protect ourselves from predators, like the corporations that control most of the media. When we beat them back with better regulation, we'll have a freer society and better media, through increased competition among all of them.
You don't create competition by regulating an industry, you create competition by making it easy for competition to form. If I wanted to I should be able to start my own radio station without a license therefore creating competition for the established broadcasters. I don't like media consolidation but the way to fight it is by opening up the airwaves. The only regulations should be on certain frequencies for emergency personnel and services like ambulances and police, and maybe one for the safety of equipment.
As one example, what if we found a way to make the radio spectrum freely available to all without mutual interference, so that as many people who wanted to broadcast, could? If it weren't for the scarcity of usable frequencies imposed by past-generation technology, would we need or want the FCC to be telling corporations how many stations they can own in an area. And would the FCC be able to impose censorship or (currently at bay) a "fairness doctrine" using the excuse that it can impose any restrictions it wants on a limited public resource? We may actually be seeing this unlimited-resource situation in the Net;
It's good to see someone who supports pirate and micropower broadcasters. With today's technology there can be a lot more radio and TV stations that won't interfere with each other in given locations so there is really no need for expensive licenses to broadcast, and the license is the major cost of broadcasting.
That pesky competition stuff seems all too familiar at the FCC these days. It makes one wonder what might happen if the FCC had the interests of the American consumer in mind, rather than that of the media and telco mega-corps.
If the FCC really wanted competition on the airwaves they'd allow Pirate and Micropower broadcasters. But instead the FCC does what it can to shutdown them.
It's easy to say that oil benefits from big subsidies, but how true is it? Iraq wasn't holding out on supplying oil -- they were desperate to do so. The war there certainly isn't making oil prices drop any.
No, Iraq wasn't holding out. It was UN sanctions, backed by the US, that was holding Iraq from exporting oil. If Saddam had been left to rule though he could have picked which companies could export the oil. Instead of picking US oil companies he could have used French, Russian, or even started an Iraqi oil company to export oil. Mind you, I'm not making out Saddam to be a saint. Actually I was against supporting him during the 1980s when the Reagan and Bush Sr admins did support him, all while he was using Weapons of Mass Destruction. As for oil prices, oil companies want high prices, the higher the price of oil is the more they make.
Fighting in the Congo or Niger isn't really an environmental nightmare.
It can be a nightmare environmentally, however the real nightmare is for those raped and murdered in the grab for control of the resources, whether oil or coltan.
But oil is pretty fungible. Reduce U.S. demand and international oil prices drop, and tyrants with their hands on the pumps get less money.
Agreed! I'd love to see an Apollo sized research program to develop a hydrogen infrastructure. Now, the problem though is that hydrogen is extracted from fossil fuels. Instead perhaps algae could be used to produce hydrogen.
The reasons go all the way back to the original design and creation of mankind by God.
I don't believe in any Supreme Deity whether "God" or not. Nor do I have any religious beliefs. The closest I've come is I used to have spiritual beliefs however I no longer believe them.
Man and woman were created for each other as distinct and complimentary persons so that they might learn through their relationship who God is and what his plans for mankind are. Anything outside of the traditionally accepted 1 man + 1 woman relationship was and is frowned upon in the Judeo-Christian tradition.
Even Judeo-Christians had in the Bible Intersexuals or eunuchs. Interexuals are those born with sexual organs that could be either female, male, or hermaphrodite. That's a medical fact not a matter of how a person acts. Isaiah 56:3-5 says "Nor let the eunuch say 'See, I am a dry tee.' For thus says the Lord: to the eunuchs who observe my sabbaths and choose what pleases me and hold fast to my convenant, I will give, in my house and within my walls, a monument and a name Better than sons and daughters;"
You may say that Isaiah is Old Testament, however you did say "Judeo-Christian". The New Testament's book Matthew, 19:10-12 says Jesus "spoke of those who were born eunuchs".
Finally "Deuteronomy also forbids eating shellfish, mixing seed in a field, or blending fabrics." Yet many Christians do one or of these.
I was trying to say that if you have a normal yard, it really didnt matter too much where you dug, because the chances are your net results would be the same in spot A, or in Spot B that's only 40 feet away
Yea, it kind of difficult to say what a "normal yard" is though. I love to garden however where I live now I can only grow what I consider a "stamp" sized garden. However the entire property including the building where I live now can fit into the backyard where I used to live. I don't think the lot is even 1/4 acre, most of it shaded, whereas I used to be able to garden in about 1/2 an acre with full sunlight in just the backyard. And both lots are typical for where they are.
Myself, I consider that small too, I want to have at least an acre to garden in.
Which leads to an incentive to *wait* until solar is more efficient... why have someone build out on your property now when your returns will be much greater if you wait ten years before allowing construction.
Because you're going 10 years without being paid. If a person receives a $01. per kilowatt hour royalty and they generate 10 kilowatts for 8 hours a day that's almost $300 a year or 3000 over 10 years without investing it. Investing at 10% compounded yearly in 10 years it would be more than $4000 more than what you'd would have without it. Not much to some but if you don't have much of an income it can make a big difference. And all you have to do is make available the space, require the power company to pay for and install the PVs then maintain them. That means there's no money out of your pocket.
Then in 10 years the panels are replaced with more efficient panels, and the next 10 years you'll make even more. This doesn't even take into consideration the rise in cost of electricity to the end user. Instead of the royalty being a fixed amount, $.01 per kilowatt hour, it could be a percentage. Say 10%, if the end user pays $.10 per kilowatt hour today the person renting the space will get $.01. But in 5 years when electricity cost $.15 the person gets $.015.
To be competitive with oil they have to be 1/10th the price of current cells (actually more like 1/15th or 1/20th if you count fairly, at an equal taxation rate) and last for fifty years, at full capacity.
Not really, if you include the massive subsidies petroleum gets, billions of dollars being spent daily in Iraq for instance, oil is way more expensive. If solar, wind, and other alternative sources of energy were to get as much tax payer money the costs of them would drop.
As you point out, large scale installations of solar cells could be an environmental nightmare when they start wearing out.
But then again computers, cellphones, and all of the other electric and electronic gadgets have the same problem or similar ones. A lot of the fighting in the conflict in the Congo is over coltan, a mineral cellphones are dependent on. Even oil shares blame for conflicts. The conflict in the Niger Delta is in a big part over oil.
I'm aware there are alternatives but they aren't heavily used. Most plastics you find from the case around my monitor to my cable tv box to the lid on a can of Planters' Nuts are all made out of oil-based plastic. If they all switched then that alone would significantly drop our level of consumption.
As if a drop in consumption is bad. More like if everyone else had the same consumption level as the average person in the US did earth may not be able to support the population. Switching to plant based plastics may actually improve this, even without a drop in consumption. Plastics made from petroleum is nonrenewable and is hard to recycle and there's not much it can be used for, perhaps those plastic picnic tables and benches. Cellulose plastic though can be composted. Another problem is petroleum is eventually going to run out what then? Simply cellulose plastics is renewable whereas petroleum plastic isn't.
Now where are those U.S. military bases in Canada, Mexico, Venezuela, and Nigeria? Even SA has moved the U.S. bases out although it does continue to some air bases there.
Yea, Ecuador wants to get rid of US military bases, unless it can have one in the US: "Ecuador wants military base in Miami". About the only South American country still with US bases that I know of is Columbia. However the School of the Americas still trains military personnel from Latin America.
And their longevity ISNT something I considered... thanks for pointing that out... if a (conventional) solar panel lasts up to 30 years - but these new ones last up to 3... then there really isnt any savings at all... and even at 10 years, the savings gets minimized considerably...
Actually if these cells only last 3 years they are still cheaper. Sure at only 10% of the cost of others and only lasting a 10% as long it seems they would cost just as much over the 30 years however in 5, 10, or even 15 years tyme the price will drop even more, in inflation adjusted dollars Solar cells are dropping in price. And with increased efficiency the price per kilowatt will decline. The problem though is what happens to them once they are no longer any good.
As for land areas... in the US, I dont think that is too big of an issue... desert land cant cost that much... well... renting it for power generation probably would. I know if I owned a plot of desert and a power company wanted to *rent* it from me (instead of buying it), I would factor into that rent the fact that they are going to make a bunch of money off generating power.
What the owner of land could do would be to rent to land for a royalty, say $.01 per kilowatt hour.
As for maintenance, there is always that... but that affects every form of power generation we have. Of course, these panels are *supposed* to be more durable...
PV panels today can last 20 years if not longer. The expensive part of a small, therefore not applicable, solar power system is the batteries, however if you're intertied you don't need batteries.
Yeah, but I differentiated the two... for water, for a small house, yes... but I think you can do that anywhere.
Sorry, my misunderstanding.
The detection method the article is talking about is for power generation on large scale which requires deeper drilling...
Deep drilling would be needed in many places but it's not needed in some. Good examples are at hot springs.
But, I wonder if it could lead to more efficient heating and cooling setups? The only problem I see is (unless you have a massive yard) I dont think it would matter...
Actually what makes the biggest difference for heating and cooling is insulation. With the right R value a building shouldn't need much energy to cool or heat it so it's comfortable to the occupants.
If we can generate enough electricity then our oil imports will indeed fall. Of course plastics are still a big problem
Actually plastic can be made without petroleum oil. Prior to 1934, when DuPont was given a patent on making plastic from oil, plastic was made from cellulose. Ever hear of Cellophane, the plastic wraps for food? As it's name suggest it was originally from plant cellulose. Thing is is DuPont was the US's first producer of cellophane. Another big company that made and used cellulose based plastic, cellulose acetate, was Kodak.
The United States does get as much oil from the Middle East as many think. The biggest provider of oil to the US is Canada. Saudi Arabia is second with Mexico, Venezuela, and Nigeria finishing the top five providers of oil to the US. After the invasion of Iraq, it became the 6th largest provider.
If you had read my post you'd realize I did read it. Maybe you didn't comprehend that.
Maybe we will use a transporter to get it out... or... wait... what else could we do? Oh, I know! We can DRILL... DEEP! Sorry about the sarcasm... but I even quoted the article and bolded the relevant sections...
"Deep within" is NOT "Deep Drilling".
with today's technology, is a deep drill reservoir/plant combo. There isnt ANY other way. I provided a BUNCH of links in my other posts.
And elsewhere I provided links showing deep drilling isn't necessary. Another example that shows deep drilling isn't needed is Iceland. The same can be said of Yellowstone, Hawaii, and I'm sure there are many others such as along the Ring of Fire and near HotSprings. One person used geothermal produced electricity for a resort. Here are more examples where geothermal can be used while drilling less than 10,000 feet, that's no where near the depth of the Mariana Trench. Maybe you have a different definition of "deep drilling" but that's not too deep to me. Here's a page showing 14 places in California that produces geothermal electricity.
Where is "here"? In locations solar isn't good wind may be, or geothermal may be, or...
Solar won't work very well during the winter and your electric heater would suck down the production from a whole field of solar panels anyway.
Even in cold climates solar hot water heaters can be used. The Department of Energy says Solar Water Heaters can be used in any climate. A Closed Loop - Glycol System uses glycol, to eliminate busted water pipes and such, to heat water.
THAT is a damn good question. BUT, would it be cost effective to say... drill a hole to right above the magma layer to run your own power station for your house? Or a small town?
Drilling to the mantle, or anywhere near it, isn't needed. Geothermal New York is about a home that uses geothermal energy to heat and cool the house along with provide it with hot water and they only drilled 1400 feet. While the house is expensive, afterall it's in NYC, there no reason it isn't feasible and can't be done cheaper elsewhere. Use geothermal for heating and cooling, and other energy sources such as solar and wind
d for electricity. Even President Bush's house near Crawford, TX uses geothermal energy for heating. Drilling further could very well provide enough energy to generate electricity, however if it's in a sunny location why not use solar or wind gennies in a windy location or any number of other sources of energy?
If instead you leave them to have their beliefs and say, "hey, I don't follow that one myself, but it could work for them," they might start thinking that heretics, heathens, etc aren't so bad when you get to know them and don't really deserve to have rocks thrown at them and burn for eternity in the firey lakes that burn on sulpher.
Unlike you a lot of religionists, religious people, don't use reason and won't simply let non believers alone. History is filled with examples of this. Hebrews cleared areas they moved into, as did Christians and Muslims. Christians even persecuted other Christians and Muslims other Muslims.
Ugh... no one is reading the article correctly...:-(
The article says FINDING geothermal resources no longer requires drilling. It also says and infers that USING those resources requires conventional power plants - which are all deep drilling powerplants...
That's right people don't read TFAs correctly. Not once do I see "conventional" anywhere in the article and I used my browser's "Find". Nor does it say "deep drilling" is needed. Once again using Find I don't find "deep drilling" either.
I am not saying that the technology used in the linked article is snake oil, it is simply not applicable to the electricity generation industry.
As TFA linked to specifically states "About twelve megawatts' worth of potential electricity is going up the stack" then "The heat would hit one side of it, produce steam, and we'd use that to turn a turbine and generate electricity" I think it directly applies to electrical generation. One of the companies in TFA, has this to say:
"(RED) will reduce greenhouse gases profitably through the development and ownership of energy recycling facilities. RED captures industrial waste energy to produce electricity and thermal power, often without burning any additional fuel or emitting any additional pollution. For industrial partners, RED reduces energy costs substantially, increases reliability, and offers the opportunity for emissions credits."
Effectively they are producing electricity. Do you see something wrong with what they say?
I guess what I'm saying is that, while there are many places where geothermal energy is appropriate, some circumstances would make it a poor choice.
Oh, I fully agree. As I've said a bunch of tymes while many look for the 1 big energy source, when what's really needed is a bunch of small sources. Use the energy sources that are available and appropriate in a given area. Use solar where the sun shines a lot, wind where it's windy, tidal in good coastal areas, and geothermal where it can be used. For those places without any good sources of energy, I can't really think of any such places maybe someone else can, hydrogen can be used as an energy carrier. Many say that it is dangerous and cite the Hindenburg, however there's a debate on exactly how the zeppelin caught on fire. Some thing it had nothing to do with the hydrogen, tha tit was the flammable material used. I don't recall where I put it but a week or 2 ago I read an article about how much liquid hydrogen is already being shipped around the world but it was in the billions of gallons if not "barrels".
Slashdot Mirror
We establish governments to protect ourselves from predators, like the corporations that control most of the media. When we beat them back with better regulation, we'll have a freer society and better media, through increased competition among all of them.
You don't create competition by regulating an industry, you create competition by making it easy for competition to form. If I wanted to I should be able to start my own radio station without a license therefore creating competition for the established broadcasters. I don't like media consolidation but the way to fight it is by opening up the airwaves. The only regulations should be on certain frequencies for emergency personnel and services like ambulances and police, and maybe one for the safety of equipment.
FalconAs one example, what if we found a way to make the radio spectrum freely available to all without mutual interference, so that as many people who wanted to broadcast, could? If it weren't for the scarcity of usable frequencies imposed by past-generation technology, would we need or want the FCC to be telling corporations how many stations they can own in an area. And would the FCC be able to impose censorship or (currently at bay) a "fairness doctrine" using the excuse that it can impose any restrictions it wants on a limited public resource? We may actually be seeing this unlimited-resource situation in the Net;
It's good to see someone who supports pirate and micropower broadcasters. With today's technology there can be a lot more radio and TV stations that won't interfere with each other in given locations so there is really no need for expensive licenses to broadcast, and the license is the major cost of broadcasting.
FalconThat pesky competition stuff seems all too familiar at the FCC these days. It makes one wonder what might happen if the FCC had the interests of the American consumer in mind, rather than that of the media and telco mega-corps.
If the FCC really wanted competition on the airwaves they'd allow Pirate and Micropower broadcasters. But instead the FCC does what it can to shutdown them.
FalconIt's easy to say that oil benefits from big subsidies, but how true is it? Iraq wasn't holding out on supplying oil -- they were desperate to do so. The war there certainly isn't making oil prices drop any.
No, Iraq wasn't holding out. It was UN sanctions, backed by the US, that was holding Iraq from exporting oil. If Saddam had been left to rule though he could have picked which companies could export the oil. Instead of picking US oil companies he could have used French, Russian, or even started an Iraqi oil company to export oil. Mind you, I'm not making out Saddam to be a saint. Actually I was against supporting him during the 1980s when the Reagan and Bush Sr admins did support him, all while he was using Weapons of Mass Destruction. As for oil prices, oil companies want high prices, the higher the price of oil is the more they make.
Fighting in the Congo or Niger isn't really an environmental nightmare.
It can be a nightmare environmentally, however the real nightmare is for those raped and murdered in the grab for control of the resources, whether oil or coltan.
FalconBut oil is pretty fungible. Reduce U.S. demand and international oil prices drop, and tyrants with their hands on the pumps get less money.
Agreed! I'd love to see an Apollo sized research program to develop a hydrogen infrastructure. Now, the problem though is that hydrogen is extracted from fossil fuels. Instead perhaps algae could be used to produce hydrogen.
FalconThe reasons go all the way back to the original design and creation of mankind by God.
I don't believe in any Supreme Deity whether "God" or not. Nor do I have any religious beliefs. The closest I've come is I used to have spiritual beliefs however I no longer believe them.
Man and woman were created for each other as distinct and complimentary persons so that they might learn through their relationship who God is and what his plans for mankind are. Anything outside of the traditionally accepted 1 man + 1 woman relationship was and is frowned upon in the Judeo-Christian tradition.
Even Judeo-Christians had in the Bible Intersexuals or eunuchs. Interexuals are those born with sexual organs that could be either female, male, or hermaphrodite. That's a medical fact not a matter of how a person acts. Isaiah 56:3-5 says "Nor let the eunuch say 'See, I am a dry tee.' For thus says the Lord: to the eunuchs who observe my sabbaths and choose what pleases me and hold fast to my convenant, I will give, in my house and within my walls, a monument and a name Better than sons and daughters;"
You may say that Isaiah is Old Testament, however you did say "Judeo-Christian". The New Testament's book Matthew, 19:10-12 says Jesus "spoke of those who were born eunuchs".
Finally "Deuteronomy also forbids eating shellfish, mixing seed in a field, or blending fabrics." Yet many Christians do one or of these.
FalconI was trying to say that if you have a normal yard, it really didnt matter too much where you dug, because the chances are your net results would be the same in spot A, or in Spot B that's only 40 feet away
Yea, it kind of difficult to say what a "normal yard" is though. I love to garden however where I live now I can only grow what I consider a "stamp" sized garden. However the entire property including the building where I live now can fit into the backyard where I used to live. I don't think the lot is even 1/4 acre, most of it shaded, whereas I used to be able to garden in about 1/2 an acre with full sunlight in just the backyard. And both lots are typical for where they are.
Myself, I consider that small too, I want to have at least an acre to garden in.
Falconwhich is nothing more than a difference of opinion as to what we each consider deep. To me, 2 miles down - for a human/human machine - is deep.
Ok, yea I can see that.
FalconWhich leads to an incentive to *wait* until solar is more efficient... why have someone build out on your property now when your returns will be much greater if you wait ten years before allowing construction.
Because you're going 10 years without being paid. If a person receives a $01. per kilowatt hour royalty and they generate 10 kilowatts for 8 hours a day that's almost $300 a year or 3000 over 10 years without investing it. Investing at 10% compounded yearly in 10 years it would be more than $4000 more than what you'd would have without it. Not much to some but if you don't have much of an income it can make a big difference. And all you have to do is make available the space, require the power company to pay for and install the PVs then maintain them. That means there's no money out of your pocket.
Then in 10 years the panels are replaced with more efficient panels, and the next 10 years you'll make even more. This doesn't even take into consideration the rise in cost of electricity to the end user. Instead of the royalty being a fixed amount, $.01 per kilowatt hour, it could be a percentage. Say 10%, if the end user pays $.10 per kilowatt hour today the person renting the space will get $.01. But in 5 years when electricity cost $.15 the person gets $.015.
FalconEven a perfect solar water heater wouldn't make you off grid.
As long as you depend on the grid for electricity you're not off the grid.
FalconTo be competitive with oil they have to be 1/10th the price of current cells (actually more like 1/15th or 1/20th if you count fairly, at an equal taxation rate) and last for fifty years, at full capacity.
Not really, if you include the massive subsidies petroleum gets, billions of dollars being spent daily in Iraq for instance, oil is way more expensive. If solar, wind, and other alternative sources of energy were to get as much tax payer money the costs of them would drop.
As you point out, large scale installations of solar cells could be an environmental nightmare when they start wearing out.
But then again computers, cellphones, and all of the other electric and electronic gadgets have the same problem or similar ones. A lot of the fighting in the conflict in the Congo is over coltan, a mineral cellphones are dependent on. Even oil shares blame for conflicts. The conflict in the Niger Delta is in a big part over oil.
FalconI'm aware there are alternatives but they aren't heavily used. Most plastics you find from the case around my monitor to my cable tv box to the lid on a can of Planters' Nuts are all made out of oil-based plastic. If they all switched then that alone would significantly drop our level of consumption.
As if a drop in consumption is bad. More like if everyone else had the same consumption level as the average person in the US did earth may not be able to support the population. Switching to plant based plastics may actually improve this, even without a drop in consumption. Plastics made from petroleum is nonrenewable and is hard to recycle and there's not much it can be used for, perhaps those plastic picnic tables and benches. Cellulose plastic though can be composted. Another problem is petroleum is eventually going to run out what then? Simply cellulose plastics is renewable whereas petroleum plastic isn't.
FalconNow where are those U.S. military bases in Canada, Mexico, Venezuela, and Nigeria? Even SA has moved the U.S. bases out although it does continue to some air bases there.
Yea, Ecuador wants to get rid of US military bases, unless it can have one in the US: "Ecuador wants military base in Miami". About the only South American country still with US bases that I know of is Columbia. However the School of the Americas still trains military personnel from Latin America.
FalconAnd their longevity ISNT something I considered... thanks for pointing that out... if a (conventional) solar panel lasts up to 30 years - but these new ones last up to 3... then there really isnt any savings at all... and even at 10 years, the savings gets minimized considerably...
Actually if these cells only last 3 years they are still cheaper. Sure at only 10% of the cost of others and only lasting a 10% as long it seems they would cost just as much over the 30 years however in 5, 10, or even 15 years tyme the price will drop even more, in inflation adjusted dollars Solar cells are dropping in price. And with increased efficiency the price per kilowatt will decline. The problem though is what happens to them once they are no longer any good.
FalconAs for land areas... in the US, I dont think that is too big of an issue... desert land cant cost that much... well... renting it for power generation probably would. I know if I owned a plot of desert and a power company wanted to *rent* it from me (instead of buying it), I would factor into that rent the fact that they are going to make a bunch of money off generating power.
What the owner of land could do would be to rent to land for a royalty, say $.01 per kilowatt hour.
As for maintenance, there is always that... but that affects every form of power generation we have. Of course, these panels are *supposed* to be more durable...
PV panels today can last 20 years if not longer. The expensive part of a small, therefore not applicable, solar power system is the batteries, however if you're intertied you don't need batteries.
FalconYeah, but I differentiated the two... for water, for a small house, yes... but I think you can do that anywhere.
Sorry, my misunderstanding.
The detection method the article is talking about is for power generation on large scale which requires deeper drilling...
Deep drilling would be needed in many places but it's not needed in some. Good examples are at hot springs.
But, I wonder if it could lead to more efficient heating and cooling setups? The only problem I see is (unless you have a massive yard) I dont think it would matter...
Actually what makes the biggest difference for heating and cooling is insulation. With the right R value a building shouldn't need much energy to cool or heat it so it's comfortable to the occupants.
FalconIf we can generate enough electricity then our oil imports will indeed fall. Of course plastics are still a big problem
Actually plastic can be made without petroleum oil. Prior to 1934, when DuPont was given a patent on making plastic from oil, plastic was made from cellulose. Ever hear of Cellophane, the plastic wraps for food? As it's name suggest it was originally from plant cellulose. Thing is is DuPont was the US's first producer of cellophane. Another big company that made and used cellulose based plastic, cellulose acetate, was Kodak.
FalconMiddle East energy (oil), fuels cars.
The United States does get as much oil from the Middle East as many think. The biggest provider of oil to the US is Canada. Saudi Arabia is second with Mexico, Venezuela, and Nigeria finishing the top five providers of oil to the US. After the invasion of Iraq, it became the 6th largest provider.
FalconYou still havent read the article have you?
If you had read my post you'd realize I did read it. Maybe you didn't comprehend that.
Maybe we will use a transporter to get it out... or... wait... what else could we do? Oh, I know! We can DRILL... DEEP! Sorry about the sarcasm... but I even quoted the article and bolded the relevant sections...
"Deep within" is NOT "Deep Drilling".
with today's technology, is a deep drill reservoir/plant combo. There isnt ANY other way. I provided a BUNCH of links in my other posts.
And elsewhere I provided links showing deep drilling isn't necessary. Another example that shows deep drilling isn't needed is Iceland. The same can be said of Yellowstone, Hawaii, and I'm sure there are many others such as along the Ring of Fire and near Hot Springs. One person used geothermal produced electricity for a resort. Here are more examples where geothermal can be used while drilling less than 10,000 feet, that's no where near the depth of the Mariana Trench. Maybe you have a different definition of "deep drilling" but that's not too deep to me. Here's a page showing 14 places in California that produces geothermal electricity.
Try again.
FalconWhere is "here"? In locations solar isn't good wind may be, or geothermal may be, or...
Solar won't work very well during the winter and your electric heater would suck down the production from a whole field of solar panels anyway.
Even in cold climates solar hot water heaters can be used. The Department of Energy says Solar Water Heaters can be used in any climate. A Closed Loop - Glycol System uses glycol, to eliminate busted water pipes and such, to heat water.
FalconTHAT is a damn good question. BUT, would it be cost effective to say... drill a hole to right above the magma layer to run your own power station for your house? Or a small town?
Drilling to the mantle, or anywhere near it, isn't needed. Geothermal New York is about a home that uses geothermal energy to heat and cool the house along with provide it with hot water and they only drilled 1400 feet. While the house is expensive, afterall it's in NYC, there no reason it isn't feasible and can't be done cheaper elsewhere. Use geothermal for heating and cooling, and other energy sources such as solar and wind d for electricity. Even President Bush's house near Crawford, TX uses geothermal energy for heating. Drilling further could very well provide enough energy to generate electricity, however if it's in a sunny location why not use solar or wind gennies in a windy location or any number of other sources of energy?
FalconIf instead you leave them to have their beliefs and say, "hey, I don't follow that one myself, but it could work for them," they might start thinking that heretics, heathens, etc aren't so bad when you get to know them and don't really deserve to have rocks thrown at them and burn for eternity in the firey lakes that burn on sulpher.
Unlike you a lot of religionists, religious people, don't use reason and won't simply let non believers alone. History is filled with examples of this. Hebrews cleared areas they moved into, as did Christians and Muslims. Christians even persecuted other Christians and Muslims other Muslims.
FalconUgh... no one is reading the article correctly... :-(
The article says FINDING geothermal resources no longer requires drilling. It also says and infers that USING those resources requires conventional power plants - which are all deep drilling powerplants...
That's right people don't read TFAs correctly. Not once do I see "conventional" anywhere in the article and I used my browser's "Find". Nor does it say "deep drilling" is needed. Once again using Find I don't find "deep drilling" either.
FalconI am not saying that the technology used in the linked article is snake oil, it is simply not applicable to the electricity generation industry.
As TFA linked to specifically states "About twelve megawatts' worth of potential electricity is going up the stack" then "The heat would hit one side of it, produce steam, and we'd use that to turn a turbine and generate electricity" I think it directly applies to electrical generation. One of the companies in TFA, has this to say:
"(RED) will reduce greenhouse gases profitably through the development and ownership of energy recycling facilities. RED captures industrial waste energy to produce electricity and thermal power, often without burning any additional fuel or emitting any additional pollution. For industrial partners, RED reduces energy costs substantially, increases reliability, and offers the opportunity for emissions credits."
Effectively they are producing electricity. Do you see something wrong with what they say?
I guess what I'm saying is that, while there are many places where geothermal energy is appropriate, some circumstances would make it a poor choice.
Oh, I fully agree. As I've said a bunch of tymes while many look for the 1 big energy source, when what's really needed is a bunch of small sources. Use the energy sources that are available and appropriate in a given area. Use solar where the sun shines a lot, wind where it's windy, tidal in good coastal areas, and geothermal where it can be used. For those places without any good sources of energy, I can't really think of any such places maybe someone else can, hydrogen can be used as an energy carrier. Many say that it is dangerous and cite the Hindenburg, however there's a debate on exactly how the zeppelin caught on fire. Some thing it had nothing to do with the hydrogen, tha tit was the flammable material used. I don't recall where I put it but a week or 2 ago I read an article about how much liquid hydrogen is already being shipped around the world but it was in the billions of gallons if not "barrels".
FalconNo prob, I'm nowhere near being an expert but I occasionally look into the Multi-regional vs Out of Africa debate.
Falcon