Geothermal and Geothermal Battery (Changed Title 12/21/23)

Void · 2022-11-26 19:02:46

I am familiar with specsmanship, so I understand the apples to organges to grapes BS that can go on, to represent a product as good, so I try to keep an open mind and learn more. So, I am looking at this:

Query: "Elimination of CO2is a suicide pact - Professor William Happer on climate change misconceptions, BizNewsTv"
https://www.biznews.com/global-investin … co2-happer

I am watching this one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGn-6kGoD0c

I guess I will watch the video until I go to a movie there is only one candidate that I might bother with, but I am not too hopeful for it.

Believe me I don't like the cultural directions that are emergent.

It is interesting he said that over the long history of the world, the CO2 levels were 2 or 3 times as high as they are now.
There are not likely enough fossil fuels to get back there now.

Wow! He said that when a plant brings in one CO2 molecule, it loses 100 H20 molecules. So now with CO2 35% higher as apparently it is now, the world is greening up, as plants can get their CO2 with less water losses.

This video is a really good watch.

Oxygen in the air soaks up ~25% of the energy of photosynthesis. So, I wonder if we could make plants to grow in atmospheres with less Oxygen, could we get greater productivity from that? At least for Mars, if that would work, it might be valuable.

He did a calculation. Doubling the CO2 could warm the planet by 3/4 of a degree C. That's all. And we have only elevated it by 35% perhaps.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2022-11-26 19:27:59)

SpaceNut · 2022-11-26 23:19:06

I just did a yearly total of my electric used last year and it is just under the 10,000 kwhr which means the system needed for me is even 2 x larger than the one KBD512 installed since the hours are less for each day. Panel efficiency is the only way to cut the array size but that also will raise the cost of it even when using less panel.

With a rising co2 there is also the need to grow a crop that makes the most of it as some require a higher temperature to be able to make use of it with that higher water loading.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_thermal_collector

We know that solar concentrating to heat seem to be the only way to bring efficiency back in the right direction to offset energy need. Typical solar thermal is near the 60% as compared to average panels at 25%. So, for a sq meter of thermal collection we are seeing 600w but how does that relate to temperature of the collector?

Study Finds Solar Thermal Yields 3-times kWh/m2 of PV

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/en … -collector

https://www.energy.gov/eere/solar/solar-collectors

https://wiki.opensourceecology.org/wiki … lculations

What Is a Solar Thermal Collector? Different Types of Collectors

High-temperature Solar Power Plants: Types & the Largest Plants

trough type concentration

maximum temperature of 200 degrees Celsius, demineralized water or Ethylene Glycol can be used as working fluids, and synthetic oils are used for temperatures higher than 450 degrees Celsius.

https://littleflowercollege.edu.in/uplo … 023eee.pdf
CONCENTRATING SOLAR COLLECTOR

kbd512 · 2022-11-27 00:43:10

Void,

Over time, I fail to see how we get away without recycling some CO2 into new hydrocarbon fuels and making greater use of nuclear energy. Chemical energy is orders of magnitude more energy dense than the best electro-chemical storage devices we know how to make, and nuclear energy is so much more energy dense than anything else that most people can't comprehend it, even if they say they do. I didn't write the rules about what the universe decided which materials / methods / processes conferred the greatest energy density. That was predetermined before any humans existed. What I do know is how to compute energy requirements, which methods provide the most practical solutions when total energy expenditure is taken into account, and which methods are wildly impractical using existing technology.

We can't mine enough metal, except over centuries using industrial equipment, to create an all-electric future. The energy requirements to do that are stupendous, because even though we're not starting from scratch in terms of base level technology, in terms of all the new machines that need to be created, we are effectively starting from scratch. Batteries are one aspect of energy storage, and while important, it should be pretty obvious by now that they're not "taking over" much of anything, except in the thinking of people who are real long on "hopes and dreams", but real short on "basic math".

All these other methods, apart from solar and nuclear heat engines which can make the fuel to move everything else around, while also interesting to me, represent such a small part of the total requirement that they pale in significance. We're in little danger of powering airliners with nuclear fusion reactors, or powering ships with solar panels. We can and do power ships using wind, but building cargo ships that run mostly on wind power is still beyond our capabilities.

There are some bright spots here and there, as it pertains to alternative technologies, but a lot of people need to come to terms with where the bulk of the energy comes from and is used. Much of it is expended feeding people and animals, keeping people and things from becoming ice cubes or fried eggs, transporting people or manufactured goods, and the like. That's all very mundane stuff that's very difficult to "completely revolutionize", but it's also the backbone of a technologically advanced civilization. We can and should look for ways to economize on energy consumption, but most of the major efficiency gains have already been identified and implemented. Everything left, from here forward, is at least an order of magnitude greater level of effort to produce a result worth the sacrifices made to achieve it.

Void · 2022-11-27 06:52:30

I will address Spacenuts post first:

You know I am a fan for Heliostat systems, especially for Mars.

Energy produced by a heliostat system could be elevated thermal values, or even electricity. If geostorage we occur with technology similar to that of geothermal, then either excess heat cold be injected into the storage device, or electrical currents from the heliostat system could be used to store heat into the goestorage device.

If your estate can only support 1/2 of your electrical load, that should not matter. You either see value in that or you don't. If solar panels can supply energy to your needs local physically and in time at a rate competitive to other alternatives, and if you can sell your excess to a storage utility, and then later buy back some of that energy, you are doing OK, presuming the economics work out.

Growing Kelp might give a favorable economic yield, may capture some CO2, and may provide some hydrocarbons.

Partial solar panel method for home estates, looks to me to be a method which should be encouraged. In the event of social/economic/technological disruptions, having 1/2 of your desired means of power in your grasp is much better than having a zero amount. Things being set up that way, recovery from a disruption should occur quicker, and the consequences should be less.

Looking at the Ukraine situation, it is likely that there are quite a few people who would be happier if they had 1/2 of their normal energy resource instead of perhaps none.

We can anticipate that it may be possible that solar panel may become more efficient than 25%, so there is some possible enhancement of the process available over time, maybe.

------

kdb512,

Geostorage is a sort of battery, and geothermal would be an energy source. Geostorage into a geothermal system is likely not that expensive and may add value relative to cost.

I have never said that I want 100% avoidance from burning fuels. In fact, I would like to think that it might be possible to stretch the time period where Shale Oil and Natural Gas can be available to us, presuming it is not sold off to the international market.

If we can get 90% from somewhere, solar, wind, tides, Nuclear, etc. then we only need to fill 10% of our energy needs with hydrocarbons. This may stretch out the availability of supply, giving more time to find solutions, and also putting less of a burden on the environment. It is no longer clear that the alarmists on the CO2 issue are anywhere near reality.

Yes, having the ability to manufacture Hydrocarbons from non-hydrocarbon energy would be good. This would be important on Earth, and in space, including Mars.

Growing Kelp is one possible part of a possible path to that, that would not consume fresh water, at least in the part of growing the kelp. Processing it into products, may likely involve some fresh water, not a huge burden.

Perhaps you will redefine your concerns and we can dialog some more about them.

------

Now about space solar energy:

Like nuclear, if you have a place to store energy seasonally, then you may run space solar and nuclear energy at the most efficient rate, and not be bound to try to throttle the energy production to satisfy a variable load. I think that both of these energy sources could also be very important for Mars and other worlds over time. I think that just now throttling is done with natural gas power plants.

But Geostorage may also work in place of that. Even geothermal can be "Load Responsive". You may allow a geothermal system to accumulate more stored heat, simply by not drawing on it when solar and wind may be available. Then you may draw on that stored value as needed.

Running an electric current though a Eavor similar system would possibly allow very high temperatures to be stored, and so very efficient conversion back to electricity when needed.

A smaller system could be used, and that could perhaps be then less of an expense. If you could go between 1200 degC and 800 degC, that might work out. Such a system would be fed both by geothermal response to heat seeping in from deeper down, and also by excess solar or wind power being input to the system.

I see it as a notion worth working on further.

------

The importance of exercising a technology. Both Taconite and Shale had a pilot plant period, both continue now after that birth event. Over time these both become better as per output and method.

So, it is likely a big mistake to focus on one energy source as "The One". If you do not nurture the many, those neglected will never become a greater resource.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2022-11-27 07:34:06)

tahanson43206 · 2022-11-27 07:51:58

For Void,

I have noticed that you will not respond to new items but will simply circle back to things said before elsewhere, as if to throw the whole notion in the trash, without consideration.

You (Void) have addressed a mysterious ** you ** without specifying the exact target of your complaint.

Please be more specific. There are only four active members of the forum, at this point.

There is not much point in pretending there are more.

This topic has accumulated quite a bit of interesting links and commentary. I just reread it from the top, and discovered I'd missed a post or two in the day-to-day progression.

Your observation about zoning was directed at me, which I appreciate, because it allows me to point out that zoning ** is ** most definitely an issue if a real human being anywhere in the United States wants to build a geothermal power supply system.

I invited SpaceNut to enter into an investigation of zoning in his locality. He predicted he would not be allowed to build a geothermal power plant, but I suspect he has not actually checked with his local officialdom, and does not actually know. Instead, having acquired some knowledge of his locality over time, he has concluded there is no point in asking because the answer would almost certainly be no.

I do not consider this to be an optimal way of dealing with social issues. A society consists of people, and those people vary in capability, knowledge, experience and orientation in thought.

For SpaceNut .... taking into consideration that Void has published text indicating he does not feel a need to worry about zoning, I would like to renew my invitation to compare notes on our respective localities, by actually interacting with them.

We can speculate about what any given group of people might do, or we can find out.

(th)

Void · 2022-11-27 08:00:49

It is not at all wrong to consider how the human race interacts with a technology. However, I felt that the focus of my topic was being bypassed.

My focus was specifically on kdb512.

Circling, rejects new input, and buries it under old materials. It can be a bit rude, as when I post about something such as Geostorage, I become somewhat frustrated when suddenly the conversation gets shifted back to other things that are well discussed in other topics. That in itself is not so much a problem, but when that occurs, and there is no response to the items I posted about, I guess I don't favor that.

I am also not pleased that we seem to operate on negative emotions, those considered as having appeared in archaic organisms, and we seem to have trouble with the nicer ones. The negative ones may likely involve the primitive brain, while the nicer ones may cause our consciousness to hang out where our most powerful human functions tend to exist. The higher mind.

Now, as it happens, I was just provided with a new idea from Utube, and will add it in here. It is rather exciting for Earth and probably other worlds.

If I upset you (th) then I am sorry.

This Query: "Vertical solar panels are 7 times more efficient than horizontal panels, The Electric Viking"

General Response: https://www.bing.com/search?q=Vertical+ … 2b256895da

A specific response: https://www.renewable.news/renewables/s … d%20energy.

The video I watched? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WxW4x86mpLk
Quote:

Vertical solar panels are 7 times more efficient than horizontal panels
The Electric Viking
106K subscribers

I don't like his use of the phrase "Climate Crisis", but it is a good video.

His claim of 7 times better must be reconciled with his indicating "Horizontal" as the reference. Of course, Horizontal will not yield as much energy as a sun facing installation.

But now I am very excited about this east west installation method, as at high latitudes, I anticipate that snow on the ground will boost the amount of sunlight to impinge on the panels, especially in mid-day.

So, this may apply to the "Great Lakes" area, and of course up into Canada, and Alaska.

This sort of installation would be better cooled by winds, and thermal convection in air as well, so then the efficiency should be greater, at least in the winter.

If we apply this to Mars, then by laying a reflective or diffusive foil/vapor barrier on the ground, this may improve the operation.

The vertical panels might also become heat exchanger fins for a geothermal/geostorage facility.

This could be important on worlds like Ceres, and others.

The method in the land of the Midnight Sun? Well it requires some thinking, I guess.

And back on Earth, he indicates that some crops could be grown between the panels, and of course then the "Yards" are available for use if people have lawns between the panels.

I may also suggest the evaporation from the soil may be reduced, or I suppose that may be true.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2022-11-27 08:25:19)

Void · 2022-11-27 08:45:51

As relates to the just prior post, I have some further insights, particularly for Mars.

It occurs to me that an ice-covered body of water, then with vertical bidirectional East/West orientation, with an ice covering which is optimally to be reflective to sunlight, could be really a great thing on Mars.

Two things that can damage solar panels on Mars can be dust and CO2/H2O frost.

A sweeper/vacuum robot(s) could keep the system clean of dust, more effectively. It may also be that with electrostatic methods the solar panels themselves will stay relatively dust free compared to a horizontal installation.

By absorbing most of the solar energy, the vertical panels will help keep the ice below cold.

Then below the ice heat can be stored by various means. Fresh water can maintain a bottom water that is a few degrees warmer than the top water.

A solar salt pond method can do much better, perhaps having bottom water 20 degC or warmer.

But under all of that can be boring type tunnels, and under that possibly Geothermal, and more likely Geostorage.

Where the vertical solar panels can also serve as radiators for a thermal energy system, the rejection of heat from storage through a turbine and into the vertical panels will help to keep them frost free.

At high latitudes on Mars, CO2 frost accumulation in the winter could very likely damage solar panel installations. Being vertical should make them more rugged, and using them as radiators should help to keep them de-iced.

Such a method as this might be used to keep CO2 ice from condensing in a location. This could be a terraform process. You create a sea, you store energy, you inhibit the condensation of CO2, then there is less opportunity for the Martian atmosphere to condense, so the atmosphere stays thicker, and you get more greenhouse effect and warm the planet a bit.

In this case though you would not likely shine sunlight through the ice, but rather would have methods to give chemical and artificial lights to stimulate live in the seas.

The waste heat from this likely being at the bottom of the seas, then the waste heat is stored and utilized to generate electricity.

And of course, this thing might receive extra energy from orbit(s). Microwaves if you include rectenna capabilities, and then also just simply shining light from mirrors in orbit onto the collector method that would cover the seas.

In the case of the North Hemisphere, the "Sea(s)" could be bounded by the lithosphere surface.

In the case of the south then Ice dams are likely to be in use.

Some articles about ice age ice dammed lakes:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 … 222111.htm

https://www.iafi.org/intro/

I would make an assertion that ice dams on Mars at high latitudes could be covered in regolith, and regolith could be piled on the ice walls of the ice dam to reduce thermal interactions between liquid water and the ice dam. This should make them more stable.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2022-11-27 09:07:42)

SpaceNut · 2022-11-27 14:39:02

For zoning sure if you have lots of money to line other pockets most anything can and will be overlooked.

For solar panels I am taxed on them if I do not get prior approval to have the taxation exempted.

The planning or zoning boards have way too much power and more than a bit of say with regards to design and placement and more on a property than one would like for sure as that is why my communities 4 or 5 other solar fields got defeated in the end run as it did not remain profitable to bring them from thoughts to reality.

This includes even a well on your own property. So even if the funds are available and this is a business venture you cannot build it on zoned property that is in the agriculture or residential areas. Boards can grant wavers, but they need to get a go ahead from others that are abutters with a full design brought before them

I find the horizontal versus vertical sort of a question of what determines what has applied to the use of a level? Even once you have that the reference point is the sun versus the flat surface of the panel and that is where the degree of tilt comes in. This tilt is based on 2 sets of information of the horizontal vertical question and where is the perpendicular of the flat panels surface relative to the sun.

https://www.cuemath.com/geometry/parabola/Since we want heat and not wattage, we need the number of BTU's that hit a 1-meter square surface area.
1 kWh = 3,412 btu's (per square meter when the sun is directly overhead)

https://sunnyhotwater.com/math.html

1 BTU=1 DEGREE FARENHEIT INCREASE IN ONE POUND OF WATER.
8.34 POUNDS IN ONE GALLON
BTU EXAMPLE:
Incoming water 50F outgoing water 120F 120 - 50 = DELTA T 70F
BTU's for 1 gallon of water is 70 (delta T) * 8.34 (pounds per gallon) = 583.8 BTU's
Flow Rate 2 Gallons per Minute
2 Gallons * 60 minutes = 120 Gallons per hour
120 Gallons * 583.8 BTU's per Gallon = 70,056 BTU's per Hour

So now we have the reflected to receiving surface multiplier for how hot we can make it.

https://www.cuemath.com/geometry/parabola/

kbd512 · 2022-11-27 15:41:15

Void,

The technology to use geothermal energy generation and storage has existed for many decades now.

Beyond simple monetary cost, which is a proxy for input energy cost, what's holding this technology back?

tahanson43206 · 2022-11-27 16:13:30

For SpaceNut re #33

Cynicism is a luxury.

Let's ** ask ** our respective zoning boards about a geothermal well on our respective properties.

I recognize that you have excellent reasons for doubt that your inquiry would be favorably received, but just doing the exercise would be informative. If you have an enterprising reporter in your community, you could tip them off that you are going to make the inquiry. They can write a story about whatever happens. If the story is published, then a small set of people who still read local reports will see it, but at ** least ** you can publish it here.

I don't think you would have anything to lose. You're not expecting approval, so no loss there. You ** might ** get an article published, which would be a positive outcome, and even if that doesn't happen, what have you lost?

it seems to me this is an undertaking with a potential for upside and no potential for downside.

All members of the forum could participate in the exercise.

In the post just ahead of this one, kbd512 asked Void "what's holding this technology back?" .....

One clear answer ** might ** be ... cynicism prevents Americans from trying.

(th)

kbd512 · 2022-11-27 16:31:27

tahanson43206,

How about engineers who are not Americans?

Are all engineers cynical and averse to trying new things?

Who designed all of our existing geothermal power plants?

SpaceNut · 2022-11-27 18:24:30

Most do not see thermal and a water well in any difference to drilling or digging.

https://www.des.nh.gov/about/boards-and … well-board

https://www.skillingsandsons.com/blog/w … hampshire/

In New Hampshire, well drilling contractors must be licensed, but homeowners can drill a well if it is on their own property. The average depth of a bedrock well for household use is about 300 feet deep but most are 100 to 500 feet. A few can be more than 1,000 feet deep if the geology and underground water source require it.

th?id=OIP.bQkCaBUz8Aw7JPn0bENfMgHaHa&w=160&h=160&rs=1&qlt=80&o=6&pid=3.1

I figure that the average resident does not have pockets deep enough to own one.

The tariff on panels made a 6kw system rise from $6,000 to $9,000 and more since that is not a very large system.

for heat pumps not geo
https://www.geoexchange.org/library/new-hampshire-law/

https://ultrageothermal.com/geothermal- … w-england/

edit
there are permits required for just about everything that you want to do even on your own property that towns must approve if there is no abutter issues which can stop you.

as for the Cynicism is a luxury what I posted is just the facts that I observe since I watch the cable tv channel for the towns public board meeting since they own the franchise that runs through town.

tahanson43206 · 2022-11-27 18:47:56

For SpaceNut re #37

Thanks for your detailed reply, with links and text showing how in inquiry about building a geothermal well might be received.

You've provided text that seems (to me at least) to suggest that if you wanted to drill a well, and your neighbors didn't mind, you could do so?

I find that surprising, in light of the doubts/pessimism you expressed in a recent post.

Could you start drilling without getting a permit?

In the locality where I live, I'm ** pretty ** sure I'd need to get a permit to do anything along those lines.

Neighborhoods differ in this area, which is in a major city. Some neighborhoods require approval for ** any ** (literally ANY) work done on a property.

The neighborhood where I live is more tolerant, but I wouldn't push it. Roof repair is tolerated (for example) but replacing the garage with a new one requires a permit.

(th)

tahanson43206 · 2022-11-27 18:52:44

For kbd512 ... if you don't like my attempt to answer the question you posed, (and i gather you don't) then you are free to answer your own question so the rest of us can become enlightened.

And I admit you had addressed your question to Void, and I had no business offering my response.

However, (reflecting back on the sequence of events) .... ** I ** was addressing SpaceNut specifically.

I quoted a passage from one of your posts, and offered my answer in an aside to SpaceNut.

I have taken note of the distracting nature of that side comment to SpaceNut.

(th)

SpaceNut · 2022-11-27 18:59:29

What is the status for if you want to create power from what it appears to be abundant heat below the surface out west. Since water is an issue for steam being released from filling the well to get a turbine to move is their other options that one might explore to create power?

tahanson43206 · 2022-11-27 20:29:02

For SpaceNut re #40

What a terrific question!

Some time ago, I had asked a related question of Calliban, since he has commented many times on heat and related subjects.

My question was somewhat like this:

Given that heat capture using ordinary Seebeck effect devices, the greater the difference in temperature between the hot side and the cold, the more efficient conversion to electricity is.

Digression ... I spent 30+ years in banking (IT support - mainframes - minis - micros)...

In banking, the traditional income is earned by holding deposits for customers. lending those funds to borrowers, paying a part of the income to the depositors, and living (ie, running the business) on the difference.

It might be possible to set up a Seebeck effect power takeoff system at the bottom of a geothermal well.

The key question that I was hoping Calliban could answer was:

Given energy that could be captured between the earth crust and a container of liquid nitrogen (or similar gas) is it possible to "earn a living" by allocating some of the electric energy produced to keeping the cold store cold, and returning what is left over to the surface to be fed into the power grid?

Unfortunately, my question got lost somewhere in the NewMars archives, so your post gives me a chance to restate it.

***
In addition, out in the American West, there are fields of hot terrain where the crustal hot spots are near the surface. Those locations are not near a steady supply of water for generating steam (as you suggested might be possible).

However, the Pacific Ocean is just a few hundred miles away, and the Great Salt Lake needs refill with water, so a pipeline from California's coast was proposed. That pipeline could be extended to the the hot spot region North of Yellowstone, and water could be used there to produce steam for power generation.

Thanks again for the great question in Post #40.

(th)

SpaceNut · 2022-11-27 21:02:42

That is the Pellitier parts used these days to cool but yes, they can produce electrical power.
post 22 in one of your topics
another post 36
Heat Gradient Power for Earth or Mars

So, the question then as to what we can use for the working fluid and making use of air even on a hot day will still cause the effect to occur to create power.

tahanson43206 · 2022-11-27 21:25:15

For SpaceNut re #42

Thanks for the reminder of the Peltier effect for cooling! It is a helpful reminder that the Seebeck effect and the Peltier effect are two sides of the same coin!

About 2,740,000 results (0.62 seconds)
The Seebeck effect is a phenomenon in which a temperature difference between two dissimilar electrical conductors or semiconductors produces a voltage difference between the two substances.
What is the Seebeck effect? - TechTargethttps://www.techtarget.com › searchnetworking › definition
Image result for seebeck effect

In this case, I am proposing to draw power from the Earth by developing a temperature difference between the crust and the package of liquid nitrogen (or other gas) in a cold pocket at the bottom of the Seebeck device.

The greater the difference in temperature, the greater the electrical potential of the device.

however, the nitrogen will (naturally) be subject to heating as the Seebeck effect works, because the Seebeck effect is not particularly efficient. The question I have is whether the cold package can be kept cold enough to keep working.

You mentioned air, and that would be at the top of the shaft, kilometers away from the location of the hot crust.

The air cooling might work well for a water driven system.

The Seebeck Effect system would NOT use water or air for cooling in the traditional way.

What needs to happen here is that heat needs to be driven into the crust (somehow) in order to keep the cold package cold.

It may not be possible to accomplish what I'm imagining, because the inefficiency of the Seebeck Effect may be too great to overcome.

***
It just hit me that you may have hit on the cooling method for the cold store! The Peltier effect can be used to cool the cold store!

The advantage is that the entire operation would be solid state !!! No mechanical refrigeration equipment would be needed.

Still, inefficiency is likely to ruin the vision. Someone will (hopefully) run the numbers and pronounce the bad news.

***
The graphene thermal energy collection system one of our members posted recently might be an alternative energy collection system that would (presumably) work without cooling.

(th)

SpaceNut · 2022-11-27 21:58:24

The point is to make power without making use of it to control its creation. Anything that can carry a temperature rise to the surface is all that we need to bring to these devices as it's a surface area contact and then its vented. No need to super cool when the hot side is excessive to start with to make it function. Wasting energy to make liquid nitrogen is not needed.

kbd512 · 2022-11-27 22:31:15

tahanson43206,

If you haven't noticed, I don't play any of these silly "only I can post here" or "only this or that person can respond" games. I believe in free speech, even speech I disagree with. My retort to speech I disagree with is more free speech explaining why only certain ideas work well enough or others don't work at all. I don't believe that anyone, especially myself, is infallible. I also don't automatically assume that the best and brightest we have working for us are a bunch of unimaginative or stick-in-the-mud type people who have never thought of any of this stuff or tried to implement it. If they were, then you and I would not be communicating with each other from hundreds or even thousands of miles away, via electrons, at the speed of light.

I do at least try to take stock of what we've actually done in the realm of power systems engineering, what worked and why, as well as what the limitations were. My inclination is to believe that our engineers have tried just about everything they think could possibly work, not that they're all a bunch of cynics who think every attempt at something better is destined to fail. When they convey the limitations of technologies via their research papers and documentation of existing projects, I get the sense that they operate within the realm of science reducible to a series of repeatable practices with generalized applicability. If they do one-off projects that only work under specific circumstances, then I take that to mean there are, at least from what they understand of the subject matter (and this is kinda important since they're the ones designing the things), limitations to how well their solution works or how generally applicable it is.

Your response to that is, "Well, if more engineers believed this / that / the other could work, then it would work." Umm... No. You're conflating science with religion without stating as much or possibly even realizing that that's what you're doing. Nonetheless, your underlying form of argumentation is faith-based. Personal beliefs or proclivities have not stopped scientists or engineers from doing much of anything, but math and physics has ended a lot of theoretically great ideas.

All this stuff you guys want to do, some part of which may be a truly great idea, requires energy to do it. At the same time, you won't identify what the source is for all that energy, or the fact that we're depleting it, or the fact that we have nothing truly ready to take its place. If we don't intend to do this stuff at any appreciable scale, then there's really not much of a case for doing it, apart from satisfying personal aesthetics. If that's all it is, then fine, but you keep asking us, "When are we going to do something in the real world of lasting signficance?" This is "Exhibit A" as to why that's not happening. It's not about aesthetics or intentions or personal beliefs. Results matter. Far more people worry about aesthetics than they do about actually getting a job done. Can you imagine how slow progress would be if Tesla or Edison or Einstein had fixated on the aesthetics of an idea?

Edison may have liked cotton filaments for light bulbs because cotton was very easy to source, but he dropped the idea like a hot rock and moved right on to the next material and the next and the one after that, until he finally found one that did the job acceptably well. He certainly didn't dwell on unworkable light bulb filament materials.

Anything beyond and over the top of what we presently have and use is an energy sink until it starts generating energy. Energy storage is always and forever an energy sink, so how much energy is required to create the energy store is, according to all physical and engineering principles, pretty gosh darned important whenever it's applied at any appreciable scale. If your energy generating or energy storage mechanism requires tens to hundreds to tens of thousands of times more material to store its energy, then pretty soon resource limitations rear their ugly head, and you run out of the thing that you require (steel, glass, concrete, etc).

You guys have all the creativity and knowledge in the world, but you keep chasing after near impossible ideas, because the more mundane ones are not aesthetically pleasing or don't work exactly the way you want them to. Meanwhile, we keep burning through energy like gangbusters, without any viable substitutes or replacements. The response to that is, well, it's a bit strange to me.

I like the idea, but how do you transform this idea into something that's, say 10% of our total energy mix?

SpaceNut · 2022-11-28 19:56:59

The recent volcanic eruption of the Mauna Loa The USGS warning system that knows when rumbling volcanoes will blow their mountain tops

the US Geological Survey (USGS) has identified 161 geologically active volcanoes in 14 states and territories, a third of which constitute “high” or “very high” threats to their surrounding communities, and another 58 volcanoes nationwide classified as being undermonitored.

Seems we have plenty of energy to be had but little in dollars to go and get it done.

SpaceNut · 2022-12-03 21:38:38

This can be used for several topics.

https://www1.eere.energy.gov/ba/pba/pdf … trough.pdf

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parabolic_reflector

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parabolic_trough

https://www.ijert.org/research/design-a … S10531.pdf

tahanson43206 · 2022-12-04 08:29:09

For SpaceNut re #46

The "dollar" is an interesting way of thinking about the problem.

It is possible to imagine trading 'dollars" for services of various kinds, that might be enlisted to build geothermal power facilities.

However, none of those services ** have ** to be provided in exchange for "dollars". It is customary in our society to exchange "dollars" for various goods and services, but (I am pretty sure) a far greater amount of service is performed in human society without the exchange of "dollars" or any other monetary units.

A barn is raised in an Amish community without the exchange of a single monetary unit.

If you wanted to build a barn (or similar) structure in your state, from what I understand of the nature of the folks who live there, you could enlist enough neighbors to raise the barn if you provide the materials. In the Amish scenario, the neighbors bring their own tools, food, water and other supplies the group needs to complete the work in a single day.

Care of family members can be purchased, and many households ** do ** exchange dollars to care for family members, but the vast majority of care provided world wide is done out of generosity and without exchange of any physical objects or even tokens.

All that said, there ** is ** a scenario where exchanging "dollars" makes sense for construction of a geothermal power plant.

Not ** one ** dollar is exchanged up front. ** You ** or someone just like you, creates a detailed plan showing how the plant would be constructed, and how it's output would be delivered to customers. That plan is carefully reviewed by investors, and (if all goes well) the project is funded and the plant comes into existence.

This scenaro is playing out around the world, as it has done for hundreds (if not thousands) of years.

It doesn't cost the planner a dime to make the detailed plans.

Such detailed plans would fit nicely into the environment of this forum.

The work done by the research group in India (in the solar trough topic) shows what a paper document might look like, if it were created to describe a geothermal power plant.

(th)

SpaceNut · 2022-12-04 11:46:05

Those troughs however only collect in 1 axis and are using the high noon southern pointing for alignment. Whereas the other axis is the east to west sweep that is not being used which would add in addition time for collection of energy. The quest to limit how much you pay for items and other things to design and make what you want to build is only due to having limited funds to make the dream come to proof.

NewMarsMember · 2022-12-04 11:58:09

For SpaceNut re #49

Funds are used (often if not always) to persuade other people to help with a project.

However, in some communities, funds are NOT exchanged. Instead, simple kindness is enlisted to carry out all the activities that cause something to come into being.

(th)

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2022-11-26 19:02:46

Re: Geothermal and Geothermal Battery (Changed Title 12/21/23)

#27 2022-11-26 23:19:06

Re: Geothermal and Geothermal Battery (Changed Title 12/21/23)

#28 2022-11-27 00:43:10

Re: Geothermal and Geothermal Battery (Changed Title 12/21/23)

#29 2022-11-27 06:52:30

Re: Geothermal and Geothermal Battery (Changed Title 12/21/23)

#30 2022-11-27 07:51:58

Re: Geothermal and Geothermal Battery (Changed Title 12/21/23)

#31 2022-11-27 08:00:49

Re: Geothermal and Geothermal Battery (Changed Title 12/21/23)

#32 2022-11-27 08:45:51

Re: Geothermal and Geothermal Battery (Changed Title 12/21/23)

#33 2022-11-27 14:39:02

Re: Geothermal and Geothermal Battery (Changed Title 12/21/23)

#34 2022-11-27 15:41:15

Re: Geothermal and Geothermal Battery (Changed Title 12/21/23)

#35 2022-11-27 16:13:30

Re: Geothermal and Geothermal Battery (Changed Title 12/21/23)

#36 2022-11-27 16:31:27

Re: Geothermal and Geothermal Battery (Changed Title 12/21/23)

#37 2022-11-27 18:24:30

Re: Geothermal and Geothermal Battery (Changed Title 12/21/23)

#38 2022-11-27 18:47:56

Re: Geothermal and Geothermal Battery (Changed Title 12/21/23)

#39 2022-11-27 18:52:44

Re: Geothermal and Geothermal Battery (Changed Title 12/21/23)

#40 2022-11-27 18:59:29

Re: Geothermal and Geothermal Battery (Changed Title 12/21/23)

#41 2022-11-27 20:29:02

Re: Geothermal and Geothermal Battery (Changed Title 12/21/23)

#42 2022-11-27 21:02:42

Re: Geothermal and Geothermal Battery (Changed Title 12/21/23)

#43 2022-11-27 21:25:15

Re: Geothermal and Geothermal Battery (Changed Title 12/21/23)

#44 2022-11-27 21:58:24

Re: Geothermal and Geothermal Battery (Changed Title 12/21/23)

#45 2022-11-27 22:31:15

Re: Geothermal and Geothermal Battery (Changed Title 12/21/23)

#46 2022-11-28 19:56:59

Re: Geothermal and Geothermal Battery (Changed Title 12/21/23)

#47 2022-12-03 21:38:38

Re: Geothermal and Geothermal Battery (Changed Title 12/21/23)

#48 2022-12-04 08:29:09

Re: Geothermal and Geothermal Battery (Changed Title 12/21/23)

#49 2022-12-04 11:46:05

Re: Geothermal and Geothermal Battery (Changed Title 12/21/23)

#50 2022-12-04 11:58:09

Re: Geothermal and Geothermal Battery (Changed Title 12/21/23)

Board footer