Pathetic life of Software Engineer
@helios,
You don't have to be an asshole all the time... you know that, right?
Oh, so that's why molten rock keeps coming out of volcanoes!
Regardless of whether or not the core is solid, it's cooling down. And not because of humans, because that's what hot things do. They dissipate their heat. I didn't imply it would be because we're using Geothermal.
Why does that make me think of MegaMan?
You don't have to be an asshole all the time... you know that, right?
| The Earth's core is solid. The state of matter depends on both temperature and pressure. It's why water boils at 80° C at high altitudes -- and instantly in a vacuum -- and why the core is solid even though it's at the same temperature as the surface of the sun. |
Oh, so that's why molten rock keeps coming out of volcanoes!
Regardless of whether or not the core is solid, it's cooling down. And not because of humans, because that's what hot things do. They dissipate their heat. I didn't imply it would be because we're using Geothermal.
| megameters |
Why does that make me think of MegaMan?
I'm not. You just happen to be around when it happens.
Also, "core" and "mantle" are not synonyms.
Also, "core" and "mantle" are not synonyms.
closed account (z05DSL3A)
| chrisname wrote: |
|---|
| You don't have to be an asshole all the time... you know that, right? |
| helios wrote: |
|---|
| I'm not. You just happen to be around when it happens. |
Funny! :0)
Hm. About this geothermal thingiebungiestuff..
A friend of mine comes from Indonesia, Bekasi. She told me, the rivers were crystal clear, you could drink from them. The ground water was just below the surface so a small drill in the backyard satisfied all your needs. Gouvernment encouraged and funded households to get drills for fresh water supply. They said, it can never run out - after all it's ground water! A couple of human can't possible effect the masses of water below the surface and it replenish much faster than could be used up.
This was 40 years ago. Now, the rivers are brown and the ground water is around 30-50 meters deep - someplace even deeper that you need jet-pumps to get anything other than mud out of the ground. Even then, the pumped water contains 100 times the maximum dose of iron, quicksilver and magnesium allowed in my country here - probably because of different sediments and compositions of the lower ground layer. She said it's because everyone now has a drill today.
Well - she's not a professional expert for ground water. Some other guy (slightly more an expert in the field) explained to me later, that the ground water sinks not only because so many people draw it out, but that it needs only some people to reduce the water a bit. This will increase the flow speed of the water slightly. This in turn will increase the underground erosion and set free different layers of soil. The main layer below the ground water in Bekasi contained things that increased erosion and thus, the flow speed increased even more by a huge factor starting a self sustaining chain reaction. This all was unforseeable with indonesian technology. Of course, this only tops the fact that the population and per capita water usage increased a lot and prognoeses back then probably always tend to be rather optimistic to calm people down.
Can there be any parallel drawn between the problem there and the energy drawn from the earth's heat?
My point is: I just observe, that the same kind of blind argumentation is used again: The claim is that the heat extraction done by human could never possible influence the earth cooldown by more than just an unmeasureable blib in the epic timescale. The argument for this is arithmetic calculation on the earth mass, its remaining heat and amount of energy extracted - hopefully taking into account all known side effects. It is based on current known side-effects. It assumes, that we already know all about this and all the factors and consequences a mass-installation of this technology will have on the earth as it will be in 40 years..
Really, don't get me wrong - I have no clue about geothermal stuff and only few clue about ground water extraction, but I just see the same kind of argumentation again and again and wonder whether there is something fundamental different in geothermal that makes this argument here immune..
Just my 2 cents...
Ciao, Imi.
A friend of mine comes from Indonesia, Bekasi. She told me, the rivers were crystal clear, you could drink from them. The ground water was just below the surface so a small drill in the backyard satisfied all your needs. Gouvernment encouraged and funded households to get drills for fresh water supply. They said, it can never run out - after all it's ground water! A couple of human can't possible effect the masses of water below the surface and it replenish much faster than could be used up.
This was 40 years ago. Now, the rivers are brown and the ground water is around 30-50 meters deep - someplace even deeper that you need jet-pumps to get anything other than mud out of the ground. Even then, the pumped water contains 100 times the maximum dose of iron, quicksilver and magnesium allowed in my country here - probably because of different sediments and compositions of the lower ground layer. She said it's because everyone now has a drill today.
Well - she's not a professional expert for ground water. Some other guy (slightly more an expert in the field) explained to me later, that the ground water sinks not only because so many people draw it out, but that it needs only some people to reduce the water a bit. This will increase the flow speed of the water slightly. This in turn will increase the underground erosion and set free different layers of soil. The main layer below the ground water in Bekasi contained things that increased erosion and thus, the flow speed increased even more by a huge factor starting a self sustaining chain reaction. This all was unforseeable with indonesian technology. Of course, this only tops the fact that the population and per capita water usage increased a lot and prognoeses back then probably always tend to be rather optimistic to calm people down.
Can there be any parallel drawn between the problem there and the energy drawn from the earth's heat?
My point is: I just observe, that the same kind of blind argumentation is used again: The claim is that the heat extraction done by human could never possible influence the earth cooldown by more than just an unmeasureable blib in the epic timescale. The argument for this is arithmetic calculation on the earth mass, its remaining heat and amount of energy extracted - hopefully taking into account all known side effects. It is based on current known side-effects. It assumes, that we already know all about this and all the factors and consequences a mass-installation of this technology will have on the earth as it will be in 40 years..
Really, don't get me wrong - I have no clue about geothermal stuff and only few clue about ground water extraction, but I just see the same kind of argumentation again and again and wonder whether there is something fundamental different in geothermal that makes this argument here immune..
Just my 2 cents...
Ciao, Imi.
Last edited on
@helios,
Ok, well whatever. I'm not as irritated as you might think; but never mind.
That's what it's called, the mantle! That's the one.
Ok, well whatever. I'm not as irritated as you might think; but never mind.
| Also, "core" and "mantle" are not synonyms. |
That's what it's called, the mantle! That's the one.
He meant the core of the earth. The absolute core, the innermost layer, which is solid due to the ridiculous pressures at that depth. Between that and the crust is the outer core and the mantle. Just a clarification.
-Albatross
[edit]
BTW, on a more satirical note. I hope you all know that the end of the world is coming. Please repent. http://www.repentamerica.com/
And no, I have not been hijacked. C# == most of Java.
Also, no offense intended, Duoas, just wanted to show how ridiculous this debate has become.
-Albatross
[edit]
BTW, on a more satirical note. I hope you all know that the end of the world is coming. Please repent. http://www.repentamerica.com/
And no, I have not been hijacked. C# == most of Java.
Also, no offense intended, Duoas, just wanted to show how ridiculous this debate has become.
Last edited on
@ imi
I agree completely.
It's like those North American pioneers/settlers who kept cutting down all the forestation because there were so many forests they thought they'd never run out. ... until they ran out.
If there's one thing environmental history has shown us over and over again, it's that our actions are always a lot more significant than we thought they'd be. It's a lesson we've been taught hundreds of times, yet for some reason it still doesn't seem to sink in with a lot of people.
Geothermal energy is one of those things where there's no possible way we can know the full extent of what the consequences of it will be until we experience them. So the question is, is it worth the risk?
I say hell no. There are other ways to get energy that are not nearly as risky.
I agree completely.
It's like those North American pioneers/settlers who kept cutting down all the forestation because there were so many forests they thought they'd never run out. ... until they ran out.
If there's one thing environmental history has shown us over and over again, it's that our actions are always a lot more significant than we thought they'd be. It's a lesson we've been taught hundreds of times, yet for some reason it still doesn't seem to sink in with a lot of people.
Geothermal energy is one of those things where there's no possible way we can know the full extent of what the consequences of it will be until we experience them. So the question is, is it worth the risk?
I say hell no. There are other ways to get energy that are not nearly as risky.
@Disch & imi,
I think you're right. All the 'sustainable' ways of creating electricity might turn out to be unsustainable after all.
I think you're right. All the 'sustainable' ways of creating electricity might turn out to be unsustainable after all.
| chrisname wrote: |
|---|
| You don't have to be an asshole all the time... you know that, right? |
| helios wrote: |
|---|
| I'm not. You just happen to be around when it happens. |
Well... To be honest (and by no means trying to insult anyone) the latter actually does sound like something an asshole would say >:D But then again he doesn't contradict himself in any way since chrisname is present in this topic... <:D
Last edited on
| helios wrote: |
|---|
| The Earth's core is solid. |
How do you know? Have you actually been there? This is but our scientists' speculation. There are people who claim that earth is hollow... :O
Last edited on
closed account (z05DSL3A)
| How do you know? |
Sound propagation.
| There are people who claim that earth is hollow |
much like their heads?
PS. There are two parts to the core, inner core is solid the outer core is liquid.
| How do you know? Have you actually been there? |
You assuming evidence by eye-sight is better than evidence by seismic measurements? Anyway. It is true.*) Earth core is solid.
| There are people who claim that earth is hollow... :O |
Yes, there are.
There are also people who claim the earth is flat. There are people who claim that a big monster live inside the earth and eat people through drain holes over now and then. There are always people that say everything. That doesn't matter. People claiming something doesn't make that something true*).
Ciao, Imi. :-P
*) Beware that In science, when you say "this is true", then its just a shortcut for "From our current base of huge and almost contradiction-free knowledge, the best answer is that it is true. Either the statement itself was proven in numerous experiments and predicted accurately a lot of phenomena statistifically significant. Or - if it would be wrong - then a much larger parts of our other physic assumptions have contradictions and must be wrong too. They have hold in numerous experiments and predicted accurately a lot of phenomena statistifically significant, so its very unlikely they are wrong either. This concludes that unless other strong contradicting and proven evidence is found, the best acceptable answer is: It is true."
Last edited on
| Imi wrote: |
|---|
| ...contradiction-free knowledge... |
The theorem of incompleteness says that contradiction-free knowledge never gives you the whole truth about something... Well, at least in mathematics... But I guess since you can describe almost everything with mathematical models I am allowed to take the leap and also apply it here...
Last edited on
| The theorem of incompleteness says that contradiction-free knowledge never gives you the whole truth about something... |
It never gives you the whole truth, but it gives you the whole "truth*)"
Ciao, Imi.
*) See my last post for the definition of "true*)" :-D
Last edited on
You know guys, we generated enough energy in the Hadron Supercollider to of the largest cities in the world for a year....with all of what? 2 atoms? Let's just use that as a new form of energy generation? We've pretty much got a nuclear fusion machine.
Then I wonder how much energy that supercollider took to accelerate those atoms particles, and how much energy they took to fuse back again as well.
-Albatross
-Albatross
Last edited on
* "that above post should read "to power two of the largest cities in the world for a year" sorry, got distracted
anyways, well they underestimated the power it was going to generate by something like 100 trillion. I was really joking about using it as an energy source, only because if we used the same amount of plutonium that was in the first atom bomb...to collide at the same speed of .99999 times the speed of light, we'd have enough energy to blow up all of this half of the galaxy. That is, if energy produced is directly proportional to how much matter is input into the system.
anyways, well they underestimated the power it was going to generate by something like 100 trillion. I was really joking about using it as an energy source, only because if we used the same amount of plutonium that was in the first atom bomb...to collide at the same speed of .99999 times the speed of light, we'd have enough energy to blow up all of this half of the galaxy. That is, if energy produced is directly proportional to how much matter is input into the system.
| Seraphimsan wrote: |
|---|
| with all of what? 2 atoms? |
| Albatross wrote: |
|---|
| Then I wonder how much energy that supercollider took to accelerate those atoms |
| Albatross wrote: |
|---|
| how much energy they took to fuse back again as well. |
| Seraphimsan wrote: |
|---|
| We've pretty much got a nuclear fusion machine. |
Last edited on
If the answer to m4ster r0shi's last question was 'yes' that would be awesome. Stick a hydrogen and a Lawrencium atom (Lr being the last entry in the periodic table AFAIK) in the supercollider and we'll make our own element! :O
Or just a really big explosion...
Or just a really big explosion...