There is only one goddess Gaia and Al Gore is her only prophet...

[kandrathe]

Again I've never really heard this, not for any type of moderate or larger scale generation. Of course all geothermal is is dictated by local geography, but there is a reason that commercial application has only been in places where there are natural hotspots, or that the single house geothermal stuff doesn't work anywhere. You do a few kilometers drilling and you can pretty much get geothermal anywhere.

Actually, using the surface heat may be an advantage in some areas. What you are looking for with heat pump technology is a large differential. So for example, where I live the ground a few dozen meters deep is a constant 58 degrees, while the surface fluctuates between -40F to 120F. But, generally as you go deeper, the radiative energy increases. On average, the geothermal gradient is approximately 75 degrees F per mile. The same principles that work for the small home heat pump, can be scaled larger and possibly deeper for larger installations. The amount of energy you can suck from the earth is relative to the surface area of the coils you've buried. From there, condensers will aggregate the accumulated heat which can be used directly, or converted into electricity if needed.

[eppie]

Hi,
Bad logic. True, one person with a large nuclear arsenal can destroy the world. The point, though, is saving the world. You *can* save the world of one billion. You *might be* able to save the world of six billion. Good luck with, say, twenty. It's like treating a person who is sick. They may have symptoms like nausea, headache, etc. You can treat each of the symptoms with some specific medication or other. And treating the symptoms is a worthwhile task, in that it improves the patient's condition. But if the underlying problem is an infection, none of those medications address the real problem. And, as far as the world is concerned, population is the real problem, everything else is a symptom.

As I said, I knew this when I was 9. Then I found out it is far more complex than that. Of course you can just lobby for a few big genocide, kill off some countries by using a-bombs or start a few eugenics programs, otherwise making such statements don't make a lot of sense. Or if you really think that the things in my last sentence would be good than something fari more disturbing is going on.

This was really necessary? Because you know so much of his habits and life that you are entitled to insult him?

Excuse me, I need to go wash off the stink of the sewer. :angry:

--Pete

I am getting a bit simple from those continuous discussion stoppers. We all know that overpopulation is a big problem....no sense bringing it up in each and every thread. Even though that sentence wasn't really directed towards Occhi, it was general (more with Kandrathe and Ashock in mind really:) )

[kandrathe]

And I get really sad if people start complaining (whining) about that this is going to cost them 'a bit more taxes'.

Unfortunately, my fear is not paying higher taxes. My fear is that we will all become as impoverished as the Bangladeshi farmer.

[kandrathe]

Even though that sentence wasn't really directed towards Occhi, it was general (more with Kandrathe and Ashock in mind really:) )

You have little clue as to what I do with my life either, not that it is any of your business.

[eppie]

You have little clue as to what I do with my life either, not that it is any of your business.

And normally I wouldn't comment on that, because it is indeed none of my business. However, if people continue to complain about taxes, health care reforms and anything slightly social I tend to make these remarks.

[Jester]

Deliberate or not, you are seemingly not grasping the nuance of the argument, and attempt to write blanket statements wrongly characterizing what I've said. This might be an effective debate technique that you've learned, but I think it is you who are exaggerating my words (e.g. "Al Gore did not mastermind a diabolical plot beginning..."). How dramatic. No, I think he's exactly like many other politicians who see the government as a way to personally enrich themselves.

So, let me get this straight. You're talking about an *international* alliance of politicians and scientists, trying to force the entire world to reduce carbon emissions. This will undoubtedly undermine the fundamental building block of western economies since the dawn of the industrial revolution, carbon fossil fuels. This is a process thirty years in the making, with countless millions of hours in scientific, political, diplomatic and economic expertise used trying to forward this agenda.

And you're telling me this all happened because Al Gore and a handful of others could get slightly, but not phenomenally, rich off it all these years later? That would be criminally insane - a super villain plot. And yet, this is the narrative you appear to be supporting.

-Jester

Afterthought: You don't get to swap "Al Gore" for "Mohammed" in the Kalima in the *title of the fracking thread*, and then disclaim accusations of fanaticism.

[eppie]

Unfortunately, my fear is not paying higher taxes. My fear is that we will all become as impoverished as the Bangladeshi farmer.

Luckily for you Minnesota will not flood if sea levels are rising....in other words....you indeed can complain a bit more about Al Gore.......and then when Bangladesh is below sea level you still have some time to arrange your pension scheme.

[--Pete]

Hi,

Actually, using the surface heat may be an advantage in some areas. What you are looking for with heat pump technology is a large differential. So for example, where I live the ground a few dozen meters deep is a constant 58 degrees, while the surface fluctuates between -40F to 120F. But, generally as you go deeper, the radiative energy increases. On average, the geothermal gradient is approximately 75 degrees F per mile. The same principles that work for the small home heat pump, can be scaled larger and possibly deeper for larger installations. The amount of energy you can suck from the earth is relative to the surface area of the coils you've buried. From there, condensers will aggregate the accumulated heat which can be used directly, or converted into electricity if needed.

Whoops. You are speaking of heat pumps, and what you are saying is true -- for heat pumps. But the discussion is about geothermal electricity generation. You are still right about looking for the greatest temperature differential you can get, since the thermodynamic efficiency of a heat engine is determined by the difference in temperature between the hot reservoir and the cold reservoir. The cold reservoir is basically the atmosphere, and not much can be done about that. So, the deeper we can go, the more electricity we can generate.

You might want to go back and look at the link I posted earlier. Also, you might want to review heat pumps and geothermal generation. They are considerably different concepts, united mostly by both being the subjects of thermodynamics.

--Pete

[Jester]

But if the underlying problem is an infection, none of those medications address the real problem. And, as far as the world is concerned, population is the real problem, everything else is a symptom.

Is that really true, though? If we had a world of (say) 12 billion people, running off a carbon-free energy mix of nuclear, solar, hydro, wind and geothermal energy, where cars and machinery were either electric or were dropped in favour of bicycles, would we have a problem with global warming? I don't think we would. Even some hypothetical ant farm dystopia of 30 billion, where we all just grew food all day with manual labour, could probably be sustained for quite awhile with low-ish emissions, if we completely got rid of the luxuries of the last century, like the automobile, the airplane, and the internal combustion engine.

The problem is the product - population x emissions per capita. You can fix or worsen the problem by changing either side of it. But the area of the world that's the worst on the right side is almost entirely distinct from the area that's worst on the left. Adding two billion people living on 300 dollars a year in sub-Saharan Africa wouldn't meaningfully change world carbon emissions. (Although it might cause other serious problems.) Add a mere 10% onto the first world's emissions per capita, and without changing the population, global emissions would increase by an alarming amount, almost 5%.

Pollution is a symptom of wealth, not population. The easiest way forward is to develop technology that decouples wealth from pollution. Trying to solve this problem primarily with population control in a timeframe of less than centuries is not feasible, because the high polluters are already among the slowest in terms of growth. We need pollution controls more urgently than population controls, although I would advocate for both.

-Jester

[--Pete]

Hi,

And normally I wouldn't comment on that, because it is indeed none of my business.

I suggest you change that 'normally I wouldn't' to 'I never' and make that your mantra.

However, if people continue to complain about taxes, health care reforms and anything slightly social I tend to make these remarks.

The problem with those remarks is that you imply that the people that disagree with you do so only out of self centered motives. They imply that you are pure of heart and only maintain your views for altruistic reasons, and that your opponents are evil and selfish. Such arguments are what I would expect from a religious fanatic, convinced of his righteousness and the support of his god. They are not the kind of arguments which I would expect to come from a reasonable, rational, person.

You can do better. You have done better.

--Pete

[kandrathe]

Pollution is a symptom of wealth, not population. The easiest way forward is to develop technology that decouples wealth from pollution. Trying to solve this problem with population control in a timeframe of less than centuries is not feasible. We need pollution controls more urgently than population controls, although I would advocate for both.

Pollution is not a symptom of wealth. It is a result of consumption. Wealth begets more consumption per person, but that does not eliminate the consumption of the population. Think of the problems of 6 billion people burning wood for cooking and heat.

The problem with the current rush off of carbon fuels is that they are more dilute energy sources effectively requiring the population to go cold turkey off of energy. And by cold, I mean very cold. However, it does nothing to address the problem of a reduction and limitations in commodities, or the other effects of over population.

[--Pete]

Hi,

. . . would we have a problem with global warming?

If the only problem were global warming, then you would be right. However, I feel that this thread has gone beyond global warming to environmental issues in general.

Pollution is a symptom of wealth, not population.

Not entirely true. The wealth of industrial nations has permitted them to clean up their rivers, the population of the third world has turned many of their rivers into sewers. That is but one example.

The easiest way forward is to develop technology that decouples wealth from pollution.

I have absolutely no idea what this means.

Trying to solve this problem with population control in a timeframe of less than centuries is not feasible. We need pollution controls more urgently than population controls, although I would advocate for both.

Exactly. Which is why, in my analogy, I said it was good to treat the symptoms. Just not sufficient.

--Pete

[kandrathe]

So, let me get this straight.

No. You don't have it straight. There is no plot, other than the individual motivations of each participant. Mr. or Ms. Scientist wants grant money, and if that means fawning all over Al Gore and his ilk, and keeping your mouth shut about any "truth" you've discovered that contradicts the current political frenzy, then so be it. There are very many little pigs suckling at the public teat, none of which is likely to bite big mother government and get cut off from their food supply.

Afterthought: You don't get to swap "Al Gore" for "Mohammed" in the Kalima in the *title of the fracking thread*, and then disclaim accusations of fanaticism.

I believe Mohamed was also using the sheep. I don't believe that Al Gore sees himself as the prophet of the Green movement, although he is their super star by acclaim. I'm reminded more of Brian, from the Python movie, "The Life of Brian". Seriously... "The earth has got a fever..." Who honestly buys this palp?

[Jester]

Pollution is not a symptom of wealth. It is a result of consumption. Wealth begets more consumption per person, but that does not eliminate the consumption of the population. Think of the problems of 6 billion people burning wood for cooking and heat.

What is wealth, but consumption? (Well, savings. But people only save so much.) People consume the vast majority of their income, and they consume it buying things that cause pollution - fuels, uses for fuels, products that require fuels to make. If 6 billion people burned wood for cooking and heat, there would be a problem, but it would be a pretty small one compared to what we have today. Poverty simply does not generate the scale of emissions that wealth does, so long as the wealthy are using coal and oil as primary fuel sources.

Ideally, we want to get away from polluting energy sources, yet maintain our wealth. That means nuclear, plus the usual mix of "green power", coupled with a switch towards electrical rather than fuel-based machinery and transport.

The problem with the current rush off of carbon fuels is that they are more dilute energy sources effectively requiring the population to go cold turkey off of energy. And by cold, I mean very cold. However, it does nothing to address the problem of a reduction and limitations in commodities, or the other effects of over population.

Explain to me how we're going to solve global warming by reducing population, when the correlation between pollution per capita and low birth rate is almost perfect? Without causing all the detrimental side effects you're so worried about? I don't see how it's possible. High birth rate countries aren't polluters, and low birth rate polluting countries can't shrink much faster - unless we're going to solve the problem with Soylent Green.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

Luckily for you Minnesota will not flood if sea levels are rising....in other words....you indeed can complain a bit more about Al Gore.......and then when Bangladesh is below sea level you still have some time to arrange your pension scheme.

You don't see an issue then with people choosing to live within a meter of sea level, or below sea level? Worrying about floods in Bangladesh, would be like worrying about lethal cold weather in Minnesota. I seem to recall a nation that reclaimed a significant portion of their territory from the sea by using technology...

Places like Florida, Venice, the Mississippi river basin or New Orleans have been populated intentionally in areas that are on a geological time span inhospitable. Or, say earthquake faults, or below active volcanoes. It is only human ignorance, or arrogance to believe that one can do so without suffering an occasional disaster.

As for pension... After the latest financial crash, there is little of that, and what I have left is evaporating in a cloud of easy money being printed by our government. But, again, if the unlikely scenario you describe were to unfold, the only pension I would have would be any acreage I had to plant my own crops.

[--Pete]

Hi,

The problem with the current rush off of carbon fuels is that they are more dilute energy sources effectively requiring the population to go cold turkey off of energy.

A few questionable assumptions here. First, I see no real indication of a 'rush'. There is a problem. There are people warning us of it. There are people working to solve it. It would be foolish to wait (as is so often done) for the problem to become a crisis before addressing it. But I see no headlong rush to turn coal and gas fired generators off. I see no mandates to eliminate petroleum powered vehicles. What I do see is a move to avert the problem. Whether that move is too fast or too slow may be debatable, but that the move is necessary, I think, is not.

Second, while some of the solutions indeed are more dilute, others (and nuclear is a big one) are not. But even dilute is not necessarily bad, and might even be to our advantage. The more locally the power is generated, the less of a distribution system that is needed and the less likely it is that a large area will be in darkness because of the failure of one component.

However, it does nothing to address the problem of a reduction and limitations in commodities, or the other effects of over population.

Very true.

--Pete

[Jester]

If the only problem were global warming, then you would be right. However, I feel that this thread has gone beyond global warming to environmental issues in general.

Perhaps. Global warming is the Al Gore topic, and to me, it's the elephant in the room of environmental discussions, but it's certainly not the only issue at hand.

Not entirely true. The wealth of industrial nations has permitted them to clean up their rivers, the population of the third world has turned many of their rivers into sewers. That is but one example.

But follow the money. The wealth of rich nations has created demand, allowing other, downstream nations like China to become industrial by selling to them. The third world is just following suit, and as they one by one become richer, their rivers will also clean up. But unless we come up with clean technology, that just means some yet poorer country will industrialize and pollute their own rivers. Everyone gets richer (good) but the planet continues to deteriorate (bad).

I have absolutely no idea what this means.

It means that, at present, generating an extra dollar per capita of wealth also means generating extra pollution. Those two things are "coupled" - the desirable outcome creates the undesirable one. With the right mix of technology, we might "decouple" the two - allow ourselves to create more wealth without the corresponding increase in pollution. That would then remove the emissions cap on the growth of our wealth, and solve the problem of how to solve global warming without mass impoverishment. It would give the first world a set of new technologies to develop. It would give the developing world a road to walk down that would improve their quality of life, without simultaneously ruining the environment. Nuclear is step one, but there are surely millions of inventions waiting to be made and improved.

(Heh, I write all that, and then check the Wiki, which has a good summary.)

Exactly. Which is why, in my analogy, I said it was good to treat the symptoms. Just not sufficient.

I think I agree with you about the solutions, and half-agree about the problems. But I still don't see population as being the driver of this story.

I think the population problem will solve itself, slowly, given about a hundred years. Population will continue to increase until about 12 billion in 2040 or so, then start dropping back downwards. Educational and social efforts to speed this up are more than welcome, but I think coercion would backfire in most cases. If we manage to treat the "symptom" (pollution) effectively enough until that turning point, we're in the clear. If we don't manage to treat the "symptom", we're going to end up at >600ppm CO2, and it wouldn't matter if population growth stopped dead in its tracks right today.

-Jester

[Kevin]

Hi,
Whoops. You are speaking of heat pumps, and what you are saying is true -- for heat pumps.
--Pete

Thanks for that Pete since I'm on the same page with you. Heat pumps can still be used and are used for small scale (and enough small scale works out to moderate or large scale) applications. It's certainly not a bad thing to pursue or implement, but as you say it's not geothermal power generation in any sense that I've ever learned. Your earlier link jives with everything else I understand on the subject and even talks about a very interesting and much more practical "geothermal anywhere" solution.

[Kevin]

If the only problem were global warming, then you would be right. However, I feel that this thread has gone beyond global warming to environmental issues in general.

I'm using this to speak on beliefs I have on the issue based on the data I've seen. Even if you shut off all pollution from humanity right now we still have to worry about global warming.

There are natural cycles. The earth has been significantly hotter than it is now during it's life sustaining time in this universe. It's also been colder.

I'm not denying that humanity is speeding things up. We are, and I think that contribution is significant, but some of the issues caused by global warming are going to happen and will need to be dealt with.

And I wish I could remember the researches name so that I could dig up a link, but I've heard him speak a few times on NPR and his research is often misused to say that global warming is not a problem. That's not what he is saying. He is a firm believer that man is upping the rate, but that due to some natural, geological scale processes, things have slowed for a decade or so and will stayed slowed for another decade or so, much deal with ocean currents and such. So we are in a bit of a smaller window where our impact is being mitigated but that is not going to continue.

[kandrathe]

What is wealth, but consumption? (Well, savings. But people only save so much.) People consume the vast majority of their income, and they consume it buying things that cause pollution - fuels, uses for fuels, products that require fuels to make.

People consume their income up to a point until they feel comfort, then (for most people) the ratio of consumption decreases and investment increases. That investment is what builds infrastructure, including pollution free power plants, and pays the wages of the employees who work at the Green power plant. That is normally how it works, unless you subscribe to the socialist model.

If 6 billion people burned wood for cooking and heat, there would be a problem, but it would be a pretty small one compared to what we have today. Poverty simply does not generate the scale of emissions that wealth does, so long as the wealthy are using coal and oil as primary fuel sources.

You have very little idea what you are talking about then. 6 billion people would deforest the planet in a very short time, while filling the atmosphere with many tons more carbon particulates, sulfur oxides, nitrous oxides, creosote, and various other volatile organic compounds. Also, again due to incomplete combustion, open wood fires produce more polycyclic organic matter which includes potential carcinogens like benzopyrenes.

Ideally, we want to get away from polluting energy sources, yet maintain our wealth. That means nuclear, plus the usual mix of "green power", coupled with a switch towards electrical rather than fuel-based machinery and transport.

When will the next nuclear plant be built in the US?

Explain to me how we're going to solve global warming by reducing population, when the correlation between pollution per capita and low birth rate is almost perfect? Without causing all the detrimental side effects you're so worried about? I don't see how it's possible. High birth rate countries aren't polluters, and low birth rate polluting countries can't shrink much faster - unless we're going to solve the problem with Soylent Green.

You don't think high birth rate countries are polluters, but no one is really measuring now are they? It would be true that they contribute less CO2, but I think when it comes to pollutants and environmental protection, the wealthier nations are doing more to protect their soil, air, and water. Not enough, but still they can afford to do more than the impoverished nations.