OK known oil and gas is running out and burning it heats the planet
due to increases in CO2, BUT , we are living on a big ball of molten
iron with a relatively thin crust, and at any point if you drill
downwards for a few 10's to 100's of miles it gets amazingly hot.
Surely this geothermal source should be our salvation, and research be
poured into the technology needed rather than faffing about with wind
/ wave / nuclear solutions? It's a practically unlimited energy source
anywhere on the globe. The oil industry can already drill hugely deep
holes so the basic technology is in place - just need higher
temperature techniques and materials for the last few miles of
drilling!

AWEM

Andrew Mawson wrote:
OK known oil and gas is running out and burning it heats the planet
due to increases in CO2, BUT , we are living on a big ball of molten
iron with a relatively thin crust, and at any point if you drill
downwards for a few 10's to 100's of miles it gets amazingly hot.
Surely this geothermal source should be our salvation, and research be
poured into the technology needed rather than faffing about with wind
/ wave / nuclear solutions? It's a practically unlimited energy source
anywhere on the globe. The oil industry can already drill hugely deep
holes so the basic technology is in place - just need higher
temperature techniques and materials for the last few miles of
drilling!


Would you mind if I posted your post (credited of course) on
www.greendoug.com?

--
Grunff
http://www.greendoug.com - a forum for all things environmental

On 14/02/2007 17:24, Grunff wrote:

Would you mind if I posted your post (credited of course) on
www.greendoug.com?

Probably depends if you're going to ridicule him or laud him as the
planet's saviour!

--
Statistics are like a bikini, what they reveal is suggestive,
but what they conceal is vital - Aaron Levenstein.

On 14 Feb, 16:58, "Andrew Mawson"
wrote:
OK known oil and gas is running out and burning it heats the planet
due to increases in CO2, BUT , we are living on a big ball of molten
iron with a relatively thin crust, and at any point if you drill
downwards for a few 10's to 100's of miles it gets amazingly hot.
Surely this geothermal source should be our salvation, and research be
poured into the technology needed rather than faffing about with wind
/ wave / nuclear solutions? It's a practically unlimited energy source
anywhere on the globe. The oil industry can already drill hugely deep
holes so the basic technology is in place - just need higher
temperature techniques and materials for the last few miles of
drilling!

AWEM

I think you'll find drilling 100 mile long holes is just little bit
more difficult than you realise......

Philip

wrote:
On 14 Feb, 16:58, "Andrew Mawson"
wrote:
OK known oil and gas is running out and burning it heats the planet
due to increases in CO2, BUT , we are living on a big ball of molten
iron with a relatively thin crust, and at any point if you drill
downwards for a few 10's to 100's of miles it gets amazingly hot.

I think you'll find drilling 100 mile long holes is just little bit
more difficult than you realise......

Nah, Bruce Willis managed it just fine.

David

Andy Burns wrote:
On 14/02/2007 17:24, Grunff wrote:

Would you mind if I posted your post (credited of course) on
www.greendoug.com?

Probably depends if you're going to ridicule him or laud him as the
planet's saviour!


Neither, just discuss the subject.


--
Grunff
http://www.greendoug.com - a forum for all things environmental

"Grunff" wrote in message
...
Andrew Mawson wrote:
OK known oil and gas is running out and burning it heats the
planet
due to increases in CO2, BUT , we are living on a big ball of
molten
iron with a relatively thin crust, and at any point if you drill
downwards for a few 10's to 100's of miles it gets amazingly hot.
Surely this geothermal source should be our salvation, and
research be
poured into the technology needed rather than faffing about with
wind
/ wave / nuclear solutions? It's a practically unlimited energy
source
anywhere on the globe. The oil industry can already drill hugely
deep
holes so the basic technology is in place - just need higher
temperature techniques and materials for the last few miles of
drilling!


Would you mind if I posted your post (credited of course) on
www.greendoug.com?

--
Grunff
http://www.greendoug.com - a forum for all things environmental

No problem at all

AWEM

Andrew Mawson wrote:

No problem at all

Thank you kindly.


--
Grunff
http://www.greendoug.com - a forum for all things environmental

wrote in message
oups.com...
On 14 Feb, 16:58, "Andrew Mawson"
wrote:
OK known oil and gas is running out and burning it heats the
planet
due to increases in CO2, BUT , we are living on a big ball of
molten
iron with a relatively thin crust, and at any point if you drill
downwards for a few 10's to 100's of miles it gets amazingly hot.
Surely this geothermal source should be our salvation, and
research be
poured into the technology needed rather than faffing about with
wind
/ wave / nuclear solutions? It's a practically unlimited energy
source
anywhere on the globe. The oil industry can already drill hugely
deep
holes so the basic technology is in place - just need higher
temperature techniques and materials for the last few miles of
drilling!

AWEM

I think you'll find drilling 100 mile long holes is just little bit
more difficult than you realise......

Philip


South African diamond mines are unbearably hot at a depth of just
under two miles (3.5 km). As I understand it the crust varies from
zero at the gushy bit (lava flows) to 70km under the Andes and
averages 40 km on the continental bits of the globe. For it to be
usablely hot you don't need to dip your drill in the magma, just get
close to it !

AWEM

Andrew Mawson wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
On 14 Feb, 16:58, "Andrew Mawson"
wrote:
OK known oil and gas is running out and burning it heats the
planet
due to increases in CO2, BUT , we are living on a big ball of
molten
iron with a relatively thin crust, and at any point if you drill
downwards for a few 10's to 100's of miles it gets amazingly hot.
Surely this geothermal source should be our salvation, and
research be
poured into the technology needed rather than faffing about with
wind
/ wave / nuclear solutions? It's a practically unlimited energy
source
anywhere on the globe. The oil industry can already drill hugely
deep
holes so the basic technology is in place - just need higher
temperature techniques and materials for the last few miles of
drilling!

AWEM
I think you'll find drilling 100 mile long holes is just little bit
more difficult than you realise......

Philip


South African diamond mines are unbearably hot at a depth of just
under two miles (3.5 km). As I understand it the crust varies from
zero at the gushy bit (lava flows) to 70km under the Andes and
averages 40 km on the continental bits of the globe. For it to be
usablely hot you don't need to dip your drill in the magma, just get
close to it !

AWEM


You may not need to go as deep as others thought but I'm still not sure
that it's a DIY project that many of us could tackle.

On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 17:42:14 +0000, Lobster wrote:

wrote:
On 14 Feb, 16:58, "Andrew Mawson"
wrote:
OK known oil and gas is running out and burning it heats the planet due
to increases in CO2, BUT , we are living on a big ball of molten iron
with a relatively thin crust, and at any point if you drill downwards
for a few 10's to 100's of miles it gets amazingly hot.

I think you'll find drilling 100 mile long holes is just little bit
more difficult than you realise......

Nah, Bruce Willis managed it just fine.

David

===============================
Also, Professor Challenger, with unexpected results:

"When the Earth screamed", A.C.Doyle

Cic.

--
================================
Testing UBUNTU Linux
Everything working so far
================================

Andrew Mawson wrote

South African diamond mines are unbearably hot at a depth of just
under two miles (3.5 km). As I understand it the crust varies from
zero at the gushy bit (lava flows) to 70km under the Andes and
averages 40 km on the continental bits of the globe. For it to be
usablely hot you don't need to dip your drill in the magma, just get
close to it !

The thinnest parts of the crust are underwater. I remember an attempt
called Project Moho back in the 60's. That's long been abandoned, but
the attempt has been taken up by these people:

http://www.jamstec.go.jp/chikyu/eng/index.html

--
-blj-

Re supply of energy...
o Several geothermal power stations exist
o One pilot plant exists in a National Park in the USA
o Small, compact, quite powerful, sits below a low tree line (12ft)

One problem is the scale required and cheap solutions require
rather geologically specific areas which are not that abundant.

The problem is not an energy crisis or cost, but political.
Lobbyists have too much power, UK has followed the USA.

Alternative energy...
o Transported Hydrogen -- will never be viable
---- H is not easily liquefied making transportation & storage difficult
o Fuel Cell derived Hydrogen -- may be viable someday
---- requires replacement cars / car industry / supply chain
---- GM can do plastic cars now, but parts industries would vanish
o Stored Electricity -- viable now via Lithium Ion batteries
---- requires replacement cars / car industry / supply chain
---- GM can do plastic cars now, but parts industries would vanish

Fuel Cell & Battery technologies would destroy much industry.
o You would gain fuel cell & battery producing manufacturers
o You would lose every manufacturer related to the IC engine
o You would lose a lot of competitive advantage overnight

That politically is why USA, Germany & Japan will not do it.
An electric car in its purest forms has very few parts which in
turn makes labour cost a dominant component, profit the least.
Consider Ford alone have about 165B$ in debt, and most debt
& leasing in businesses is hidden in Off Balance Accounting.

Any viable fuel solution needs to combine three elements:
o Provide a direct substitute for oil in cars / power stations / planes
---- removes the need for vast CapEx spend on electric cars
---- removes the need to destroy parts industries around IC engines
o Provide a carbon neutral or ideally carbon negative effect
---- carbon negative like a heat pump CoP figure (more out than in)
o Provide a political lobbyist acceptable solution
---- which is the stumbling block

The viable fuel is plant derived alcohol fuels.
o Existing cars & technology is readily adapted
---- no major CapEx, no lost parts industries around IC engines
---- migration to other technologies amortised over time
o Carbon negative potentially through plants
---- plants remove CO2, car produces CO2
o Political lobbyist unacceptable
---- UKs most profitable companies are oil & supermarket :-)
---- replacing oil execs with farmers is not going to excite them

It would be interesting to know if plant ethanols could be viably be
used to power existing gas stations (not just a burner change :-)

If nuclear is blocked in the UK, we could simply outsource it:
o Nuclear plant can be located anywhere in France for example
o Electricity is then simply piped to us (and warms a lot of cable)

UK nuclear stations are not ideally positioned re sea level rise.


GM can produce a plastic composite car tomorrow.
o The problem is not cost or engineering or performance (it does better)
o The problem is the cycle time in producing the panels (still too high)


So there is not an energy crisis, just political protectionism.
Business & politicians are now inseparable, which makes both idle.


You could argue we are reaching a peak in Consumption (spending).
o Present taxation system is quite heavily based around Consumption
o If Consumption were to fall then Energy is a natural taxation target

Energy is a very attractive indirect taxation target for Moron Brown.
In an outsourced society it is that which can not be that gets expensive.

Global warming changes in the West are quite irrelevant since most
of the big industrials have moved plant East so they can enjoy the
ability to walk away from environmental legislation whatsoever.

Governments can not even understand compound interest, so a bit
of a stretch to make them understand energy policy. The last light to
be turned off will be in government, only then will a light turn on.
--
DB.

Andrew Mawson wrote:
OK known oil and gas is running out and burning it heats the planet
due to increases in CO2, BUT , we are living on a big ball of molten
iron with a relatively thin crust, and at any point if you drill
downwards for a few 10's to 100's of miles it gets amazingly hot.
Surely this geothermal source should be our salvation, and research be
poured into the technology needed rather than faffing about with wind
/ wave / nuclear solutions? It's a practically unlimited energy source
anywhere on the globe. The oil industry can already drill hugely deep
holes so the basic technology is in place - just need higher
temperature techniques and materials for the last few miles of
drilling!

AWEM



For those of you fortunate enough to live next door to a Volcano, there
are even easier access methods for hot stuff. Just sling a bucket over
the fence and drag back a load of MOLTEN LAVA! No holes required.

Seriously though folks, Andrew raises an interesting question,
especially as there are so many near-to-surface hot features. Why isn't
research going on into using them?

R.

"TheOldFellow" wrote in message
...

Seriously though folks, Andrew raises an interesting question,
especially as there are so many near-to-surface hot features. Why isn't
research going on into using them?

There is actually quite a lot going on with geothermal power - ie there is
research going on into using them, and in fact more than that - it's
actually being used in real life.

cheers,
clive

"Andrew Mawson" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
oups.com...
On 14 Feb, 16:58, "Andrew Mawson"
wrote:
OK known oil and gas is running out and burning it heats the
planet
due to increases in CO2, BUT , we are living on a big ball of
molten
iron with a relatively thin crust, and at any point if you drill
downwards for a few 10's to 100's of miles it gets amazingly hot.
Surely this geothermal source should be our salvation, and
research be
poured into the technology needed rather than faffing about with
wind
/ wave / nuclear solutions? It's a practically unlimited energy
source
anywhere on the globe. The oil industry can already drill hugely
deep
holes so the basic technology is in place - just need higher
temperature techniques and materials for the last few miles of
drilling!

AWEM

I think you'll find drilling 100 mile long holes is just little bit
more difficult than you realise......

Philip


South African diamond mines are unbearably hot at a depth of just
under two miles (3.5 km). As I understand it the crust varies from
zero at the gushy bit (lava flows) to 70km under the Andes and
averages 40 km on the continental bits of the globe. For it to be
usablely hot you don't need to dip your drill in the magma, just get
close to it !

AWEM


Southampton has a geothermal power station. I'm not sure how deep the bore
is but Googling for 'West Quay' should turn up further details.

Bob

Southampton has a geothermal power station. I'm not sure how deep the bore
is but Googling for 'West Quay' should turn up further details.

Bob

The CEGB did experiments around Southampton in the 1970's, as I recall the
problems were that a significant proportion of the water that you pump down
as a heat transfer agent "goes missing", also that when you do the sums they
work OK at the start, then the performance drops off because you are cooling
off the hot rock faster than it warms up. Works fine in places like Iceland
of course but has to be engineered to cope with the nasty corrosive
sulphurous water.

You may not need to go as deep as others thought but I'm still not sure
that it's a DIY project that many of us could tackle.

I dunno I'll get me black and decker out tomorrow and give it a try maybe
I can drain all that black oily stuff we have in the garden away

"Newshound" wrote in message
...


Southampton has a geothermal power station. I'm not sure how deep the
bore
is but Googling for 'West Quay' should turn up further details.

Bob

The CEGB did experiments around Southampton in the 1970's, as I recall the
problems were that a significant proportion of the water that you pump
down as a heat transfer agent "goes missing", also that when you do the
sums they work OK at the start, then the performance drops off because you
are cooling off the hot rock faster than it warms up. Works fine in places
like Iceland of course but has to be engineered to cope with the nasty
corrosive sulphurous water.
If it was used during the summer in reverse as an air conditioner the heat
would at least in part be put back? maybe?

"Clive George" wrote in message
...
"TheOldFellow" wrote in message
...

Seriously though folks, Andrew raises an interesting question,
especially as there are so many near-to-surface hot features. Why isn't
research going on into using them?

There is actually quite a lot going on with geothermal power - ie there is
research going on into using them, and in fact more than that - it's
actually being used in real life.

cheers,
clive

What about using small nuclear reactors - of the type that have been used
for years in submarines? They could be located off shore to give good
cooling water supplies. The technology seems to be sound.

Many small ones around the coast would minimise distribution costs and
losses.

On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 16:58:41 +0000, Andrew Mawson wrote:

OK known oil and gas is running out and burning it heats the planet
due to increases in CO2, BUT , we are living on a big ball of molten
iron with a relatively thin crust, and at any point if you drill
downwards for a few 10's to 100's of miles it gets amazingly hot.
Surely this geothermal source should be our salvation, and research be
poured into the technology needed rather than faffing about with wind
/ wave / nuclear solutions? It's a practically unlimited energy source
anywhere on the globe. The oil industry can already drill hugely deep
holes so the basic technology is in place - just need higher
temperature techniques and materials for the last few miles of
drilling!


As with all forms of energy technology there is a temptation to discount
the capital costs when blinded by potentially low (or even
nominally zero) running costs. There is also a tendency to discount
maintenance and decommissioning costs when looking at the viability of a
source of energy.

Take nuclear power: the 'carrot' is that fissile materials produce
enormous amounts of energy and although they are rare minerals and
require very careful preparation and handling. This attraction was causing
people to say 'electricity too cheap to meter' 50 years ago. The real
costs are of course staggering - the plants are expensive to build,
expensive to run (safely) and the waste is politically undisposable, and
very very expensive to store.

Another factor affecting energy sources is the temperature. There are
loads and loads of methods of generating low grade heat energy which is
useful for space heating. There are fewer and more expensive ways of
obtain high grade heat energy that can be used to raise steam and make
electricity.

Geothermal is probably viable i.e. won't cost more to make than it makes!
I suspect, it's currently too expensive to complete with simpler methods.



--
Ed Sirett - Property maintainer and registered gas fitter.
The FAQ for uk.diy is at http://www.diyfaq.org.uk
Gas fitting FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/GasFitting.html
Sealed CH FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/SealedCH.html
Choosing a Boiler FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/BoilerChoice.html
Gas Fitting Standards Docs he http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/GasFittingStandards

Andrew Mawson wrote:
OK known oil and gas is running out and burning it heats the planet
due to increases in CO2, BUT , we are living on a big ball of molten
iron with a relatively thin crust, and at any point if you drill
downwards for a few 10's to 100's of miles it gets amazingly hot.
Surely this geothermal source should be our salvation, and research be
poured into the technology needed rather than faffing about with wind
/ wave / nuclear solutions? It's a practically unlimited energy source
anywhere on the globe. The oil industry can already drill hugely deep
holes so the basic technology is in place - just need higher
temperature techniques and materials for the last few miles of
drilling!

Bringing my A level geology back from the deeper recesses of my mind
and following a slug if 20year old, 62% Talisker...

While the core of the earth is generally thought to be molten iron,
there's a lot of hot and molten rock between the crust and the
core.

Geothermal heat and energy production is not new. While the Icelanders
have done very well out of living on the north Atlantic mid-oceanic
ridge it's not always so easy. If you thought London water was hard and
made the scale fur up, you've got nothing on the problems the Icelanders
have.

The oil industry can drill several kms deep through continental crust.
After than things get much harder. As the temperature rises the
metal in the drill bit starts to heat up and soften which reduces the
ability to drill. There is at least one project to drill to the 'moho'
which is the divide between the solid crust and the softer mantle.

A big problem is pumping enough water into the crust and then
controlling/capturing the hot water as it rises again.

There is a lot of energy in the core of the planet but getting at
it is surprisingly hard.

Happy Valentines!

Guy

Dorothy Bradbury wrote:

Re supply of energy...
o Several geothermal power stations exist

[snip]

Oh Lordy, it's Bullet-Point Girl again.... ;-)

Clive George wrote

There is actually quite a lot going on with geothermal power - ie there is
research going on into using them, and in fact more than that - it's
actually being used in real life.

Last year, I stayed at a place in Rotarua, New Zealand and the landlord
there had a thermal vent in his back garden. Basically, it was a 4"
hole which went down through a jumble of small rocks in his lawn down
through countless miles to the bowels of the earth.

Okay... well, maybe not that far. g

But it dribbled enough steam to for him to mount a heat exchanger over
it and heat his house and provide hot water for all his needs and run a
small sauna all year round.

The disadvantage of this method is, of course, that you have to live
over the mouth of an active volcanic vent and so (a) the place
permanently smells of bad eggs and (b) it's liable to cough and blow you
off the face of the earth.

--
-blj-

On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 22:22:05 +0000 (UTC) someone who may be Ed
Sirett wrote this:-

Another factor affecting energy sources is the temperature. There are
loads and loads of methods of generating low grade heat energy which is
useful for space heating. There are fewer and more expensive ways of
obtain high grade heat energy that can be used to raise steam and make
electricity.

It depends on the temperature of the geothermal source. In Iceland
Krafla started generating electricity 1977, but most of the sources
are used for heating only, with electricity generated from water.



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

"David Hansen" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 22:22:05 +0000 (UTC) someone who may be Ed
Sirett wrote this:-

Another factor affecting energy sources is the temperature. There are
loads and loads of methods of generating low grade heat energy which is
useful for space heating. There are fewer and more expensive ways of
obtain high grade heat energy that can be used to raise steam and make
electricity.

It depends on the temperature of the geothermal source. In Iceland
Krafla started generating electricity 1977, but most of the sources
are used for heating only, with electricity generated from water.



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh

I vaguely recall ;'Yonks ago" reading of a proposal to lay an underwater
cable from Iceland to Northern Scotland to import geo-thermal sourced
electricity to the national grid.
IIRC; the economic driver for Iceland was that a large load at the UK end
would justify a large scale electricity generator. But , I guess that even
such a environmentally-friendly scheme would get 'green-activists'
chuntering on about entropy

--

Brian

Andrew Mawson wrote:
OK known oil and gas is running out and burning it heats the planet
due to increases in CO2, BUT , we are living on a big ball of molten
iron with a relatively thin crust, and at any point if you drill
downwards for a few 10's to 100's of miles it gets amazingly hot.
Surely this geothermal source should be our salvation, and research be
poured into the technology needed rather than faffing about with wind
/ wave / nuclear solutions? It's a practically unlimited energy source
anywhere on the globe. The oil industry can already drill hugely deep
holes so the basic technology is in place - just need higher
temperature techniques and materials for the last few miles of
drilling!

AWEM


Cost benefit.

Its mostly a long way down, and tapping it is expensive.

Places like Iceland though have IIRC many geothermal power stations.

John wrote:
"Clive George" wrote in message
...
"TheOldFellow" wrote in message
...

Seriously though folks, Andrew raises an interesting question,
especially as there are so many near-to-surface hot features. Why isn't
research going on into using them?
There is actually quite a lot going on with geothermal power - ie there is
research going on into using them, and in fact more than that - it's
actually being used in real life.

cheers,
clive

What about using small nuclear reactors - of the type that have been used
for years in submarines? They could be located off shore to give good
cooling water supplies. The technology seems to be sound.

Many small ones around the coast would minimise distribution costs and
losses.


Well the earth IS a large nuclear reactor. That's partly what keeps it hot..

All energy is ultimately nuclear.

On 14/02/2007 22:44, Guy Dawson wrote:

A big problem is pumping enough water into the crust and then controlling/capturing the hot water as it rises again.

But we'll have plenty of unwanted axtra seawater soon, two birds/one
stone, at least for part A

"Owain" wrote in message
...
Dwayne & Angela wrote:
If it was used during the summer in reverse as an air conditioner the
heat would at least in part be put back? maybe?

If we had long enough pipes we could export our warmth to somewhere in the
southern hemisphere during their winter, and vice versa.

:-)

I like that idea!

Mary

Owain

"TheOldFellow" wrote in message
...

....

For those of you fortunate enough to live next door to a Volcano, there
are even easier access methods for hot stuff. Just sling a bucket over
the fence and drag back a load of MOLTEN LAVA! No holes required.

Seriously though folks, Andrew raises an interesting question,
especially as there are so many near-to-surface hot features. Why isn't
research going on into using them?

What makes you think there isn't?

Mary

R.

Guy Dawson wrote:
Andrew Mawson wrote:
OK known oil and gas is running out and burning it heats the planet
due to increases in CO2, BUT , we are living on a big ball of molten
iron with a relatively thin crust, and at any point if you drill
downwards for a few 10's to 100's of miles it gets amazingly hot.
Surely this geothermal source should be our salvation, and research be
poured into the technology needed rather than faffing about with wind
/ wave / nuclear solutions? It's a practically unlimited energy source
anywhere on the globe. The oil industry can already drill hugely deep
holes so the basic technology is in place - just need higher
temperature techniques and materials for the last few miles of
drilling!

Bringing my A level geology back from the deeper recesses of my mind
and following a slug if 20year old, 62% Talisker...

While the core of the earth is generally thought to be molten iron,
there's a lot of hot and molten rock between the crust and the
core.

Geothermal heat and energy production is not new. While the Icelanders
have done very well out of living on the north Atlantic mid-oceanic
ridge it's not always so easy. If you thought London water was hard and
made the scale fur up, you've got nothing on the problems the Icelanders
have.

There are a number of geothermal power stations in Iceland and none of
them seems to have problems with that.
Geothermal water is also used to heat up buildings etc. and there does
not seem to be any problems there either.

The oil industry can drill several kms deep through continental crust.
After than things get much harder. As the temperature rises the
metal in the drill bit starts to heat up and soften which reduces the
ability to drill. There is at least one project to drill to the 'moho'
which is the divide between the solid crust and the softer mantle.

A big problem is pumping enough water into the crust and then
controlling/capturing the hot water as it rises again.

Why would you need to pump water down, why don´t you just pump up the
water/steam that is already there like they do in Iceland?

There is a lot of energy in the core of the planet but getting at
it is surprisingly hard.

Happy Valentines!

Guy

On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 22:50:45 +0000, Lobster wrote:

Dorothy Bradbury wrote:

Re supply of energy...
o Several geothermal power stations exist

[snip]

Oh Lordy, it's Bullet-Point Girl again.... ;-)

I thought the bullets hit the target...as you might say.


--
Ed Sirett - Property maintainer and registered gas fitter.
The FAQ for uk.diy is at http://www.diyfaq.org.uk
Gas fitting FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/GasFitting.html
Sealed CH FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/SealedCH.html
Choosing a Boiler FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/BoilerChoice.html
Gas Fitting Standards Docs he http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/GasFittingStandards

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

John wrote:

"Clive George" wrote in message
...

"TheOldFellow" wrote in message
...

Seriously though folks, Andrew raises an interesting question,
especially as there are so many near-to-surface hot features. Why
isn't
research going on into using them?

There is actually quite a lot going on with geothermal power - ie
there is research going on into using them, and in fact more than
that - it's actually being used in real life.

cheers,
clive


What about using small nuclear reactors - of the type that have been
used for years in submarines? They could be located off shore to give
good cooling water supplies. The technology seems to be sound.

Many small ones around the coast would minimise distribution costs and
losses.

Well the earth IS a large nuclear reactor. That's partly what keeps it
hot..

All energy is ultimately nuclear.

All energy is finite.

If enough countries use wave power, how much will that slow down the seas?
If enough countries use wind power, again, how much will that slow down
the wind?

Having slowed down these two assets, the UK will be as deep in snow as
the poles.

Having said that, did you read in the papers this week, that though the
Arctic is shrinking, the Antarctic is growing?
(I always thought that the ozone layer hole that was growing was at the
South Pole.)

Is this due to the fact that this guvmint does not fly South of the
equator that much :-)
Hence does not pollute that area.

Or could it be that Gordon only wants more money from the plebs, for
whatever reason he can think up?

When we use all the oil in the ground and then move onto using all the
nuclear energy that is in the ground (uranium based energy.) and having
discarded all the carbon based energy, such as coal, how long will it
take to suck enough heat from planet earth to provide us with permafrost
so deep that all crops fail?

The sun has a finite life, so the earth must be the same, or a lot less.

Makes you think.

Mind you, I will not be around to see this, but it does make me think
about my children's children's children's children's children etc. By
which time, I will be a memory on some futuristic nano drive :-)

Dave

On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 21:33:31 +0000, John wrote:

What about using small nuclear reactors - of the type that have been
used for years in submarines? They could be located off shore to give
good cooling water supplies. The technology seems to be sound.

Many small ones around the coast would minimise distribution costs and
losses.

What about using one f**k-off great big one with an energy distribution
system across the planet. And putting it a few (e.g. 93 million) miles
away so you don't have to worry about disposing of reaction by-products?

On 2007-02-16 00:40:04 +0000, John Stumbles said:

On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 21:33:31 +0000, John wrote:

What about using small nuclear reactors - of the type that have been
used for years in submarines? They could be located off shore to give
good cooling water supplies. The technology seems to be sound.

Many small ones around the coast would minimise distribution costs and
losses.

What about using one f**k-off great big one with an energy distribution
system across the planet. And putting it a few (e.g. 93 million) miles
away so you don't have to worry about disposing of reaction by-products?

Yes, but what would you do at night?

Andy Hall wrote:
On 2007-02-16 00:40:04 +0000, John Stumbles
said:

On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 21:33:31 +0000, John wrote:

What about using small nuclear reactors - of the type that have been
used for years in submarines? They could be located off shore to give
good cooling water supplies. The technology seems to be sound.

Many small ones around the coast would minimise distribution costs and
losses.


What about using one f**k-off great big one with an energy distribution
system across the planet. And putting it a few (e.g. 93 million) miles
away so you don't have to worry about disposing of reaction by-products?


Yes, but what would you do at night?

Travel there at night to do maintenance?
;-)

"Andrew Mawson" wrote in message
...

South African diamond mines are unbearably hot at a depth of just
under two miles (3.5 km). As I understand it the crust varies from
zero at the gushy bit (lava flows) to 70km under the Andes and
averages 40 km on the continental bits of the globe. For it to be
usablely hot you don't need to dip your drill in the magma, just get
close to it !

Rock is a poor conductor of heat.
You drill down to a few hundred feet of the magma and start extracting the
heat and it cools rapidly.
You need some method of exposing a large amount of hot rock so you can
extract the heat.

It was suggested that dropping nuclear bombs down the hole would fracture
enough rock to make it useable.
Its a bit of a long term project as you have to wait a few decades before
you can pump water down.

Fusion is the answer if it works.

I suppose that the west could kill off Africa and convert its entire output
to bio fuels so we had a sustainable bio fuel economy as an easier
alternative.

"Ed Sirett" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 22:50:45 +0000, Lobster wrote:

Dorothy Bradbury wrote:

Re supply of energy...
o Several geothermal power stations exist

[snip]

Oh Lordy, it's Bullet-Point Girl again.... ;-)

I thought the bullets hit the target...as you might say.

Which target?

We don't have the land mass to grow enough fuel to even run the cars so bio
fuel doesn't work if everyone tries to do it.

All the "alternative" energy sources quoted are not sources at all.. just
different transport mechanisms each of which wastes energy and makes global
warming worse unless the source of the energy is carbon negative i.e.
nuclear, hydroelectric at the moment (I challenge anyone to prove that wind
is even carbon neutral in actual power plants in operation).

"Mary Fisher" wrote in message
t...

"Owain" wrote in message
...
Dwayne & Angela wrote:
If it was used during the summer in reverse as an air conditioner the
heat would at least in part be put back? maybe?

If we had long enough pipes we could export our warmth to somewhere in
the southern hemisphere during their winter, and vice versa.

:-)

I like that idea!

It has competition though.. we export and import the stuff already.. its
called wind.