/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.5125048]

> 99% of the Earth's material is above 1000° C
2012: still talking about energy supply limits

[Anonymous No.5125051]

dayum that bitch gaia is hot

[Anonymous No.5125053]

>heat
>an energy supply
>cannot into entropy
The limiting factor is how much T° differential you can get using atmosphere or cooling things by radiating into space.
Of course it's still very high.

[Anonymous No.5125057]

>>5125053 here
Forgot to mention evaporating water, but you get the drill.

[Anonymous No.5125060]

>>5125055
Ok, let's say you are dropped in a protected facility on top of a bool of lava the size of hearth.
How do you get energy?

[Anonymous No.5125066]

>>5125060
Please tell me you're not seriously arguing with a shitposter who said nothing but "kill yourself". If I were you, I'd simply report him. There's not much rationality to expect from these people. They come here for shitposting only.

[Anonymous No.5125087]

Yep. Deep geothermal is one of many options for supplying us with all of our energy needs.

It's actually nuclear energy, or at least in large part. Uranium, thorium, and potassium decay and produce heat, which has kept the interior of the Earth from cooling down as far as it would have otherwise.

In particular, radioactive decay is responsible for the rapid increase of temperature as you dig into the continental crust, since the granite of continental plates is enriched in radioactive elements relative to the mantle or the basalt of the sea floor.

[Anonymous No.5125105]

>>5125087

This guy doesnt really know what he is talking about. It is nuclear power, but it isnt from things like uranium. The pressures exerted inside the earth as a result of gravity is what feeds the reaction, not radioactive metals.

[Anonymous No.5125110]

>>5125105
Although he is right about the amount of energy down there.. geothermal is by far the best source of energy available to us humans. The only reason we dont do it more is because drilling for the plants is more expensive than using fossil fuels at the moment. Drilling for geothermal is currently a gamble.. as only a portion of the holes end up being of proper specification to generate electricity in the way that we want to. Companies hate spending millions of dollars to drill a hole that they just need to abandon without any return.

[Anonymous No.5125123]

1.Build 10x hoover dam sized power facility near a volcano
2.???
3. Limitless energy to entire country from one source
4. Hope you built it deal with any future occurrence

[Anonymous No.5125137]

>>5125105
>It is nuclear power, but it isnt from things like uranium. The pressures exerted inside the earth as a result of gravity is what feeds the reaction, not radioactive metals.
Heh. I want to hear more about how you think it works. Tell me about how pressures exterted inside the earth as a result of gravity feeds a nuclear reaction that doesn't involve radioactive metals.

>>5125110
>geothermal is by far the best source of energy available to us humans
"Best" is a pretty subjective claim. With solar, there is certainly far more power available (hint: the heat of Earth's core contributes little to the warmth of the surface). You can't fill up a bucket with geothermal energy like you can with coal or oil, and take it to wherever you need the power. Ocean thermal power might operate on a smaller temperature difference, but it's a lot easier to push a pipe into deep water than deep rock. And aside from the risk and technical complications of nuclear, it's an amazingly potent and versatile energy source, with practically unlimited fuel availability.

[Anonymous No.5125142]

>>5125123
I hate shit posters so much

[Anonymous No.5125145]

>>5125123

[Anonymous No.5125152]

>>5125137
Why do you post on things you have absolutely no knowledge about?

Is there a point to just making shit up as you go along?

[Anonymous No.5125155]

>>5125110
No. The reason we don't do it more is that energy storage mechanisms suck and so geothermal only applies to on the site power generation.

Also, heat travels through rock very slowly, and so the rate at which heat is taken out of a general area is much much greater than the natural heat regeneration, meaning that the energy is unsustainable in a local area

[Anonymous No.5125157]

>>5125152
Are you the one who posted >>5125105 ?

Still waiting for you to explain your gravitational nuclear reaction theory.

[Anonymous No.5125173]

There is a lot of misinformation going on here.

1) The heat in the earth is mostly left over from the creation of the earth. Of course, the earth came together as the result of gravity, so you could I suppose attribute it to gravity... although its via frictional/kinectic vehicles.

2) The second largest source is frictional... gravity pulls heavier elements towards its center, which rub against the other elements that they pass, causing friction

3) We believe radioactive materials do generate heat down there, but we have no idea how much and its probably miniscule compared to the other sources.

As for gravity fed nuclear reactions.. thats what happens in the sun, not the earth.

As for the guy who said geothermal isnt sustainable.. we already have geothermal plants that have been operating for quite awhile... you cant make one giant plant to power everything, but localized plants would not run out of thermal energy for billions of years.

[Anonymous No.5125190]

>>5125173
>1) The heat in the earth is mostly left over from the creation of the earth.
The current mainstream theory is that just over half of the heat escaping from the Earth's interior is generated by nuclear decay, which was much more potent in the past.

The Earth started out hot, and radioactivity would not have warmed it up to quite the current temperature if it hadn't, but it's radioactivity that has kept it hot, and that has been the majority contributor.

>2) The second largest source is frictional... gravity pulls heavier elements towards its center, which rub against the other elements that they pass, causing friction
This is laughable crackpot stuff. Or rather "ignorant middle-school kid making a guess" stuff.

Learn to look shit up instead of guessing.

>3) We believe radioactive materials do generate heat down there, but we have no idea how much and its probably miniscule compared to the other sources.
You are clearly just making shit up. They measure neutrinos from radioactive decay deep in the Earth. That's how they know how much there is.

[Anonymous No.5125834]

I think geothermal is by far the best investment in the future of our energy economy.

fossil fuels: resources will eventually deplete

nuclear fission: highest energy density but we have to deal with the radioactive material in some cases for millions of years. material cost is astronomically high ... there is no insurance company in the world which would come up for the damages caused by major accident at the nuclear power plant, because it would be an economic desaster in the range of trillions of dollars.

fusion: for the past 60 years or so it will be practical after the next 30 years

hydroelectricity: there's little capacities left, vast impact on the land which might be useful for other purposes


a mix out of sun, wind and geothermal is like the only solution

[Anonymous No.5125914]

>>5125190

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=why-is-the-earths-core-so

[Anonymous No.5125918]

>>5125834
What about alge derived fuels? Or does that fall under the same problem as fossil fuels, where, assuming we don't get to space and have access to a galaxies worth of resources, we will eventually run out of it?

[Anonymous No.5125923]

>>5125914
>SA

:(

[Anonymous No.5125938]

>>5125923
Looks like they're directly quoting "Quentin Williams, associate professor of earth sciences at the University of California at Santa Cruz "

I have no idea if he is respected in his field though

[Anonymous No.5125957]

>>5125914
This is a poorly written article, and apparently a worse-read one. 1 and 2 are both contributors to primordial heat. 2 is not an ongoing process, but one that finished long ago, as part of the Earth's formation. I can't imagine why he thought it would be appropriate to single out that part of the process and present it as if it were distinct.

"The magnitude of the third main source of heat--radioactive heating--is uncertain."
This statement is not even close to being equivalent to:
>3) We believe radioactive materials do generate heat down there, but we have no idea how much and its probably miniscule compared to the other sources.

Nowhere does he imply "probably miniscule".

Furthermore, this is from 1997. In the past 15 years, there has been significant progress in measuring both the heat escaping from Earth's interior into space and the energy production by decay of radioisotopes.

Total decay heating is estimated (by measurement of antineutrinos from Earth's core) at 18 TW and estimates of total cooling (from borehole temperature measurements) range from 31-44 TW. The heating produced by decay is therefore a little more or less than half of escaping geothermal heat.

[Anonymous No.5125972]

>>5125957
Is it possible to calculate the amount of energy we could be extracting from the earth with these numbers? Like a way to calculate how much humanity could rely on geothermal energy?

[Anonymous No.5125995]

why don't we just put giant solar panels on the north and south poles?

[Anonymous No.5126001]

>>5125972
I don't think so. This 30-40 TW is a rough limit on how much energy we can take out without affecting the rate at which the Earth cools, and if we harvest it all for ourselves, it will bring tectonic processes and volcanic activity pretty much to a halt.

It tells us nothing about what's practically accessible, or whether there would be any consequences worth noticing to taking the energy out faster.

We currently generate and use about 2 TW of electrical power, and consume about 15 TW in total energy (not including such things, obviously, as solar warming, weather, and plant growth which benefit us, but are not under our control). So this does suggest that there is enough power for all our needs available from geothermal, but only if we take full advantage.

[None !!BJiYgff8zf2 No.5126010]

>>5126001

There is also enough power for all our needs from solar and nuclear, both fission and fusion. Only question is money.

[Anonymous No.5126020]

>>5126010
the only question is our technological capability.

we'll get fusion power in time, don't worry. We'll be fine. once fusion is achieved all the energy worries will be over forever.

[Anonymous No.5126123]

>>5126020
>the energy worries will be over forever.
Was this a reference to Asimov's last question?

[Anonymous No.5126140]

>>5125053
>Doesn't know how geothermal energy works
No law-of-thermo violations here.

[Anonymous No.5126166]

Sweet fuck, you guys are imbeciles.

[>>5125087] is right. Most of the heat down there comes from nuclear decay.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_gradient#Heat_sources
This of course doesn't mean that the Earth's interior is warming, and it indeed did originally heat due to gravitational friction and compaction, but it has retained this heat much longer than it otherwise would due to nuclear decay.

There was an infamous experiment by Lord Kelvin to determine the age of the Earth scientifically, using principles of thermodynamics. Of course, at the time he had no knowledge of nuclear decay in the Earth's mantle, so he came up with a mere 20-40 million years.

[Anonymous No.5126167]

>>5126010
I was under the impression that solar doesnt actually hit the surface with enough energy to make collecting it practical to meet all of humanity needs.

..and isnt our fissile material a limited resource just like fossil fuels are?

[Anonymous No.5126180]

>>5125053
Heat is pretty much what drives 90% of our energy production and engines.
What do you think the point of nuclear reactions are?
To generate heat, which heats up water to steam, which drives turbines. Same with coal and everything else we burn in most of our engines.

[Anonymous No.5126454]

>>5125918
Algae is fine for liquid fuels, but we'd ideally want to generate electricity from another source. Remember we'll need to make enough electricity to meet our current power needs AND to generate enough power to grow and refine the algae.

Though if you started it up now, you might be able to make it self-perpetuating in time.

[Anonymous No.5126468]

>>5126167
>..and isnt our fissile material a limited resource just like fossil fuels are?
With conventional light water tech, yes. With conventional CANDUs, maybe not. With better stuff like LFTR, not really no.

[Anonymous No.5126516]

>>5126167
>solar doesnt actually hit the surface with enough energy to make collecting it practical to meet all of humanity needs.
Yes it does, many times over.

>isnt our fissile material a limited resource just like fossil fuels are?
Not on anything like the same scale. Fission fuel is "limited" in about the same way that the sun is "going to burn out". With nuclear technology, granite is several times better than coal.

In any case, it's going to last long enough to figure out fusion technology as well as we could possibly need to.

[Anonymous No.5126526]

>>5126516
>>solar doesnt actually hit the surface with enough energy to make collecting it practical to meet all of humanity needs.
>Yes it does, many times over.
The problem is harvesting it and storing it economically, which is not feasible right now.

[Anonymous No.5126559]

>>5126526
True, but we're getting there quickly, and geothermal looks to be considerably more difficult.

[Anonymous No.5126561]

>>5126559
>True, but we're getting there quickly
No we aren't. AFAIK there's no good reason to suspect that energy storage is going to be solved anytime soon.

[Anonymous No.5126598]

>>5126561
There are lots of options, no central organization is needed to develop the necessary technology, and we've been making rapid progress in cost efficiency.

How does this seem unlikely to solve the problem to you?

[Anonymous No.5126610]

>>5126598
>making rapid progress in energy storage tech costs
No we haven't.

[Anonymous No.5126647]

>>5126610
Yep. That's why the electric car is still a pipe dream, and you couldn't go buy one today and drive it around.

Oh wait.

[Anonymous No.5126668]

>>5126647
Do you understand how significant the problem is, and how little the advance you cited is going to help? Here, let me explain:
http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/08/nation-sized-battery/
There isn't sufficient extractable raw material on the planet to create a nation sized battery with that technology.

[Anonymous No.5126669]

>>5126647
>>5126668
To be fair, sulphur sodium batteries are closer to practical, but still off by an order of magnitude or 2.

[Anonymous No.5126696]

>>5126668
>pick one of the oldest battery technologies
>show that it wouldn't work for all energy needs everywhere
>treat as evidence that battery technology isn't advancing

[Anonymous No.5126702]

>>5126696
You obviously didn't read the whole page. It covered lithium, lead, and a couple others too.

[Anonymous No.5126704]

>>5125834
> a mix out of sun, wind and geothermal is like the only solution

That's true, and it still can't run the economies that you've built ON petroleum and FOR petroleum.

If you intend to reach Earth's likely population peak of 9 billion AND you intend to feed them all minimum diets AND you intend to have modern economics, THEN you have to accept a low level of economic opportunity for all. And of course that's impossible since the elite will still try to keep over 90% of everything.

Face facts: The problem involves the intersection of physics, geology, economics and psychology. And that intersection involves war and starvation. There is no alternative. What you believe is possible under physics, turns out to be impossible under economics. What you believe is possible under geology, turns out to be impossible under psychology. Etc. You have to understand the problem using ALL its critical factors.

That's why you fail.

[Anonymous No.5126714]

>>5126704
Or, you know, nuclear, and synthetic gasoline such as from the Green Freedom method.

[Anonymous No.5126733]

>>5126704
But what if that's not your goal?

And when I say 'your' here, I'm not speaking for myself. I'm speaking for the people who run things. What if their goal is to maintain their advanced lifestyles in perpetuity, and to hell with the rest? Biofuels and nuclear could sustain the global elite and their handlers for a while yet. If billions more die, what's it to them?

What's the carrying capacity of the world without industrialized agriculture? 3 billion? 4 billion? The latter number would cover China, India, the US, and most of Europe. Do the people in charge care about the rest?

[Anonymous No.5126731]

>>5126702
It was either written in complete ignorance of, or deliberately ignored, the battery technologies existing already which require no scarce elements whatsoever, and all non-battery energy storage technologies (flywheel, compressed air, high temperature thermal energy storage, cryogenic thermal energy storage, fuel production).

A person making a serious attempt at analysing the problem would have done the work he did and said, "Well, obviously we won't use lead-acid batteries, then." and gone on to look at the other options that don't rely on an element in limited supply.

[Anonymous No.5126767]

>>5125834
>sun, wind

I think it would be wonderful if they could provide the sort of power people want them to, but it's just not going to happen. The biggest problem lies with the nature of the beasts - the sun can only provide power when it's shining and the wind can only provide power when it's blowing (but not too strong, or the turbines shut down for safety). Unfortunately, human civilization runs 24/7 and the peak of solar output doesn't match the peak of power demand - and the wind blows when it will blow, not when man needs it to. And power can only be shipped so far across the grid and can't be stored for later use. You can't power America's evening energy needs with electricity from morning in Europe - you can't even power New York's with energy from California (feel-good certificates aside, the power grid simply doesn't work that way).

Geothermal is much more steady, but also highly limited in availability.

The biggest obstacles when it comes to dealing with nuclear waste tend to be political. Methods exist for reprocessing nuclear fuel and extracting almost all available energy from them, reducing them to waste components that will only be radioactive for a few centuries instead of thousands of years. Alternatively, use of thorium instead of uranium as a reactor fuel.

[Anonymous No.5126777]

>>5126731
He covers those in other articles. That was for (chemical) batteries.

Your ignorance is showing. Flywheels are even more expensive, as are your other solutions.

[Anonymous No.5126817]

>>5126777
Fuck off. The point isn't the current state of the art, it's the progress we're making. A lot of this stuff would get vastly cheaper even if we just picked an option and started mass-producing it.

You posted a complete bullshit argument, and now you say "your ignorance is showing" because I haven't read the rest of his bullshit arguments. Have some fucking shame.

[Anonymous No.5126814]

>>5126702
Geez, it's like they deliberately silicon-air batteries to make their stupid point.

[Anonymous No.5126821]

>>5126777
>expensive
>making calculation with current tech when talking about fundamental limits

[Anonymous No.5126828]

>>5126821
Strawman.

I always said "with current tech".

[Anonymous No.5126833]

>>5126817
I'm sorry, you're simply mistaken.

[Anonymous No.5126839]

>>5126817
>>5126833
To continue, the facts are that solar + storage tech is nowhere close to actually workable, your opinions of the facts notwithstanding.

Nuclear is the only viable approach with current tech.

[Anonymous No.5126841]

>>5126828
>I always said "with current tech".

>>5126561
>there's no good reason to suspect that energy storage is going to be solved anytime soon.

The fucking topic of discussion is the potential for progress in the field of energy storage, so don't start calling "strawman!" now, you miserable cunt.

[Anonymous No.5126843]

>>5126828
Jesus! Do you even have a point?

[Nuka-Cola No.5128856]

>>5125834
>but we have to deal with the radioactive material in some cases for millions of years
uh, i'm not aware of any substances which are dangerously radioactive for longer than 20,0000 years. still a long time mind you, but not a million

>material cost is astronomically high
not really. modern NPPs and fuel bundles can turn a solid profit at the end of the day, a pretty good one at that. It's a little less than a natural gas plant though

>economic disaster in the range of trillions of dollars.
Fukushima is basically the worst we're ever going to see from a modern NPP, and it really was not that bad at all. the area outside of 1km from the plant is already cleared for habitation.

[Anonymous No.5128879]

>>5128856
>>Fukushima is basically the worst we're ever going to see from a modern NPP, and it really was not that bad at all. the area outside of 1km from the plant is already cleared for habitation.

Wow...you are completely delusional. There are many plants in close proximity to millions of people. If those have an event take place, it is going to be much worse.

[Anonymous No.5128892]

[Nuka-Cola No.5128893]

>>5128879
the problem is getting an event to happen at places like that, barring enormous natural disasters. modern reactors are rock-fucking-solid. something like Chernobyl really cannot happen again.

[Anonymous No.5129610]

>>5128892
that's basically the solution
you don't even have to dig that deep
1 km is feasible already
but deeper bore holes are much more effiecient

one crazy solution would be some sort of dyson sphere which captures the entire energy of a core but of a planet instead of a star. well, technically, we have it right now and it's the lithosphere of our planet but we don't use its energy directly for our purposes.