Discussion About Anti-Nuclear Energy/Arms Protest

[Hot Breath]

That list is incomplete as it does not include any cancer related deaths from Fukashima. Nor does it include mining deaths from mining Uranium. Nor does it include the deaths which governments have over the years concealed or misattributed to other causes.

Deaths by radiation caused by military, medical or other industrial exposures are not related to the production of energy so therefore irrelevant to any discussion about the harm of energy policy. One might as well claim that skin cancer is the responsibility of the nuclear energy industry. So surely anyone quoting such figures has "dealt themselves out of this debate", "oh dear".

The intimate linkage in most natures which utilise nuclear power and the nuclear arms race is well known and established. Governments seeking nuclear weapons often hide their efforts behind the shield of the nuclear power plants. One only has to look at Israel/Iran/Pakistan/South Africa to see that. Accidents occur in non-generating nuclear piles as well as generating nuclear piles.

 

[starviking]

That list is incomplete as it does not include any cancer related deaths from Fukashima.

Which would be zero.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

The intimate linkage in most natures which utilise nuclear power and the nuclear arms race is well known and established.

You've included radiotherapy in your list. Do you think there is a linkage between this and nuclear weapons? You do know that radiotherapy was used to treat cancer a good 50 years before the first nuclear explosion? Also you might want to look into the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

If anything radioactive causing harm can be placed at the fault of nuclear power industry then surely we can also blame the harm caused by wind onto the wind energy industry and the harm caused by the sun onto the solar energy industry. Which means your handful of radiotherapy deaths are swamped under the massive death and destruction caused each year by cyclones, gales, wind caused accidents, sun cancer, drought, and so on.

Governments seeking nuclear weapons often hide their efforts behind the shield of the nuclear power plants. One only has to look at Israel/Iran/Pakistan/South Africa to see that. Accidents occur in non-generating nuclear piles as well as generating nuclear piles.

So you want to add the following countries to the nuclear proliferation watch list?

Costa Rica
Spain
Morocco
Mexico
El Salvador
Estonia

 

[Hot Breath]

The intimate linkage in most natures which utilise nuclear power and the nuclear arms race is well known and established.

You've included radiotherapy in your list. Do you think there is a linkage between this and nuclear weapons? You do know that radiotherapy was used to treat cancer a good 50 years before the first nuclear explosion?

Immaterial. It should be acknowledged that the first genocide occurred well before the Turks decided to destroy the Armenians, does that mean we should ignore that effort or subsequent ones? Deliberate contamination by Radiation is a moral and often a legal crime, yet Governments seem to get away with it all the time.

Also you might want to look into the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Treaties only work if the signatories intend them to work. If a nation is not a signatory or isn't honest, then they have little value. Just look at the Syrian use of chemical weapons against their own people to see that.

If anything radioactive causing harm can be placed at the fault of nuclear power industry then surely we can also blame the harm caused by wind onto the wind energy industry and the harm caused by the sun onto the solar energy industry. Which means your handful of radiotherapy deaths are swamped under the massive death and destruction caused each year by cyclones, gales, wind caused accidents, sun cancer, drought, and so on.

Ah, you're welcome to try that in the courts. I look forward to reading the reports of your case.

So, you've not produced any evidence of peer reviewed medical/scientific journal articles on wind farm "infrasound". How interesting. You still claim it's a problem?

Governments seeking nuclear weapons often hide their efforts behind the shield of the nuclear power plants. One only has to look at Israel/Iran/Pakistan/South Africa to see that. Accidents occur in non-generating nuclear piles as well as generating nuclear piles.

So you want to add the following countries to the nuclear proliferation watch list?

Costa Rica
Spain
Morocco
Mexico
El Salvador
Estonia

If they are acting in a dangerous manner, then yes. Are they? I must admit I have no idea. Perhaps you'd care to inform us or will you just brush your claims under the carpet like your "infrasound" one?

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Ah, you're welcome to try that in the courts. I look forward to reading the reports of your case.

[font=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]Palm to face. I was using the nature of your argument applied to other energy sources. An argument that even you now admit lacks logic. That is it lacks logic when the ebil word "radiation" is replaced by wind or sunlight.
[/font]
[/size]

So, you've not produced any evidence of peer reviewed medical/scientific journal articles on wind farm "infrasound". How interesting. You still claim it's a problem?[/size]

Why should I? I simply said look it up which clearly you have but only come back here with snide allusions.


To help you out here is a link to an article that links to several reports.


http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/122-a20/

 

[starviking]

It does seem to be an area where science has still not settled on an agreed answer, but there are indications of health effects.


"Wind turbine noise seems to affect health adversely and an independent review of evidence is needed", in the BMJ concludes:

A large body of evidence now exists to suggest that wind turbines disturb sleep and impair health at distances and external noise levels that are permitted in most jurisdictions, including the United Kingdom. Sleep disturbance may be a particular problem in children, and it may have important implications for public health. When seeking to generate renewable energy through wind, governments must ensure that the public will not suffer harm from additional ambient noise. Robust independent research into the health effects of existing wind farms is long overdue, as is an independent review of existing evidence and guidance on acceptable noise levels.

"CONSTRUCTIVE INTERFERENCE OF TONAL INFRASOUND FROM SYNCHRONISED WIND FARM TURBINES: EVIDENCE AND IMPLICATIONS" in Acoustics Australia states:

Noise from wind farms is contentious: people who live nearby complain of annoyance, and yet broadband measurements of infrasound seem to indicate the noise is generally not above audibility criteria. The paradox can be resolved by supposing that wind farms generate a strong tonal signal at the blade passing frequency, 0.8 Hz, and that this infrasound, with a wavelength of 400 m, can constructively interfere if two or more wind turbines operate in synchrony and the path lengths differ by a multiple of 400 m. Coherent infrasound at 0.8 Hz could propagate many kilometres, would tend to carry many harmonics due to the rapid changes within its waveform, and the high harmonics in the 20?30 Hz band have the potential to be heard by human ears. The existence of coherent infrasound from wind turbines has not been specifically recognised, but evidence of the phenomenon can be discerned in two anomalies contained in data from recent infrasound monitoring of wind farms in South Australia. <B>NOTE - not a peer-reviewed article.</B>

"Analysis of Unweighted Low Frequency Noise and Infrasound Measured at a Residence in the Vicinity of a Wind Farm" in Proceedings of Acoustics 2013 concludes:

Several spectral characteristics have been identified in this study which may be overlooked in an analysis that considered time-averaged third-octave levels exclusively. The existence of two tones around 28 Hz and 46 Hz that have corresponding rms sound pressure levels close to the threshold of audibility (for most people) for single frequency tones, has been established. It has also been shown that these tones are amplitude modulated at approximately 0.8 Hz, which corresponds to the blade-pass frequency. The 15 dB of amplitude modulation makes this noise much more noticeable and annoying than would be the case for the steady tonal sound used to establish the thresholds of audibility.


...


It has also been shown that low-frequency indoor noise levels are highly variable with room position and could differ by as much as 20dB from one position to another. This occurred at frequencies in the range where room resonances would be expected to exist. A possible structural resonance was identified at 16 Hz, where the vibration levels were relatively higher. The sound pressure level at this frequency was also found to increase indoors relative to outdoors for one of the measurement cases.

 

[Orionblamblam]

The most deleterious effect of wind turbines isn't *direct* health effects, but that it causes people to devote effort, money and hopes into low-density power generation that is dependent upon the weather. Advanced nuclear systems, in contrast, can go anywhere, run non-stop regardless of weather and can even leave Earth. Wind power is monumentally useless in the vacuum of space, and is thus of no value there; anything that does not aid in the outward expansion of mankind is by definition not helpful. And when that not-helpful thing actually takes resources away from systems vital for the progress of mankind... well, that's like taking your fire department budget and spending it on building a water park.

 

[sferrin]

The most deleterious effect of wind turbines isn't *direct* health effects, but that it causes people to devote effort, money and hopes into low-density power generation that is dependent upon the weather. Advanced nuclear systems, in contrast, can go anywhere, run non-stop regardless of weather and can even leave Earth. Wind power is monumentally useless in the vacuum of space, and is thus of no value there; anything that does not aid in the outward expansion of mankind is by definition not helpful. And when that not-helpful thing actually takes resources away from systems vital for the progress of mankind... well, that's like taking your fire department budget and spending it on building a water park.

Well said.

 

[Rickshaw]

The most deleterious effect of wind turbines isn't *direct* health effects, but that it causes people to devote effort, money and hopes into low-density power generation that is dependent upon the weather.

Which is why wind is used in unison with solar, tidal, wave and other alternative power sources. My personal favourite is Geothermal. It is not dependent on weather, works 24x7 and is relatively cheap to create, with the CSIRO's "Hot Rocks" technology.

Advanced nuclear systems, in contrast, can go anywhere, run non-stop regardless of weather and can even leave Earth. Wind power is monumentally useless in the vacuum of space, and is thus of no value there; anything that does not aid in the outward expansion of mankind is by definition not helpful. And when that not-helpful thing actually takes resources away from systems vital for the progress of mankind... well, that's like taking your fire department budget and spending it on building a water park.

You are welcome as far as I am concerned to utilise nuclear power in space - provided you can lift or build it there without any possibility of an accident occurring which will harm the lives of innocent people back on Earth.

Now, it appears a Spanish mob have come up with a bladeless wind turbine which would save most of the criticism levelled at it by most of Wind Power's critics.

 

[shedofdread]

As much fun as a good argument is [and be honest, we all love a good argument....], I'm not diving in on this one other than to comment on the 'bladeless turbine' thingy. If it works as I understand - on the principle of alternate vortex shedding and using that to make something wobble, it will be spectacularly inefficient because it has a very small equivalent 'swept area'. Also, it will still make noise. How much? Well, less than a traditional one but as there'll need to be MANY more to achieve equivalence...

 

[sferrin]

You are welcome as far as I am concerned to utilise nuclear power in space - provided you can lift or build it there without any possibility of an accident occurring which will harm the lives of innocent people back on Earth.

By that rational we should scrap all solar, wind, geo, and hydro power as they're already killing people. Right?

Now, it appears a Spanish mob have come up with a bladeless wind turbine which would save most of the criticism levelled at it by most of Wind Power's critics.

Less efficient, more noise, eyesores, cost, etc. etc.

 

[sferrin]

As much fun as a good argument is [and be honest, we all love a good argument....], I'm not diving in on this one other than to comment on the 'bladeless turbine' thingy. If it works as I understand - on the principle of alternate vortex shedding and using that to make something wobble, it will be spectacularly inefficient because it has a very small equivalent 'swept area'. Also, it will still make noise. How much? Well, less than a traditional one but as there'll need to be MANY more to achieve equivalence...

It's not really much of an argument. One side is putting up sourced facts and statistics while the other has fingers stuffed firmly in ears while proselytizing the miracles of unicorns and fairy dust.

 

[Hot Breath]

As much fun as a good argument is [and be honest, we all love a good argument....], I'm not diving in on this one other than to comment on the 'bladeless turbine' thingy. If it works as I understand - on the principle of alternate vortex shedding and using that to make something wobble, it will be spectacularly inefficient because it has a very small equivalent 'swept area'. Also, it will still make noise. How much? Well, less than a traditional one but as there'll need to be MANY more to achieve equivalence...

It's not really much of an argument. One side is putting up sourced facts and statistics while the other has fingers stuffed firmly in ears while proselytizing the miracles of unicorns and fairy dust.

Yes, the pro-nuclear side hasn't been performing as well as they appear to believe they are. I've been putting up links to articles which have put forward the anti-nuclear side's arguments.

 

[Hot Breath]

It does seem to be an area where science has still not settled on an agreed answer, but there are indications of health effects.
[...]
"CONSTRUCTIVE INTERFERENCE OF TONAL INFRASOUND FROM SYNCHRONISED WIND FARM TURBINES: EVIDENCE AND IMPLICATIONS" in Acoustics Australia states:

Noise from wind farms is contentious: people who live nearby complain of annoyance, and yet broadband measurements of infrasound seem to indicate the noise is generally not above audibility criteria. The paradox can be resolved by supposing that wind farms generate a strong tonal signal at the blade passing frequency, 0.8 Hz, and that this infrasound, with a wavelength of 400 m, can constructively interfere if two or more wind turbines operate in synchrony and the path lengths differ by a multiple of 400 m. Coherent infrasound at 0.8 Hz could propagate many kilometres, would tend to carry many harmonics due to the rapid changes within its waveform, and the high harmonics in the 20?30 Hz band have the potential to be heard by human ears. The existence of coherent infrasound from wind turbines has not been specifically recognised, but evidence of the phenomenon can be discerned in two anomalies contained in data from recent infrasound monitoring of wind farms in South Australia. <B>NOTE - not a peer-reviewed article.</B>

I would be careful about using this article as it has been discredited by both the experts and the responsible media in Australia. It was a tiny sample size and only of those who already reported effects, rather than a widespread sample which included those who did not.

As far as I am aware, there are no peer-reviewed scientific articles which concluded conclusively there are effects from so-called "infra-sound". Until there is, I reserve judgement on the issue and put most reports of such effects down to hysteria.

However, at least you rose to the challenge Starviking. Unlike the original claimant who chickened out.

 

[starviking]

It does seem to be an area where science has still not settled on an agreed answer, but there are indications of health effects.
[...]
"CONSTRUCTIVE INTERFERENCE OF TONAL INFRASOUND FROM SYNCHRONISED WIND FARM TURBINES: EVIDENCE AND IMPLICATIONS" in Acoustics Australia states:

Noise from wind farms is contentious: people who live nearby complain of annoyance, and yet broadband measurements of infrasound seem to indicate the noise is generally not above audibility criteria. The paradox can be resolved by supposing that wind farms generate a strong tonal signal at the blade passing frequency, 0.8 Hz, and that this infrasound, with a wavelength of 400 m, can constructively interfere if two or more wind turbines operate in synchrony and the path lengths differ by a multiple of 400 m. Coherent infrasound at 0.8 Hz could propagate many kilometres, would tend to carry many harmonics due to the rapid changes within its waveform, and the high harmonics in the 20?30 Hz band have the potential to be heard by human ears. The existence of coherent infrasound from wind turbines has not been specifically recognised, but evidence of the phenomenon can be discerned in two anomalies contained in data from recent infrasound monitoring of wind farms in South Australia. <B>NOTE - not a peer-reviewed article.</B>

I would be careful about using this article as it has been discredited by both the experts and the responsible media in Australia. It was a tiny sample size and only of those who already reported effects, rather than a widespread sample which included those who did not.

Do you have a reference for the reports debunking it? I have not been able to source them.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

so-called "infra-sound".

[font=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]So-called? Infrasound is a real word. It means sound at frequencies less than 20 hertz. Infra is a widely used prefix meaning "below"; from the Latin.[/font]


[/size]

Unlike the original claimant who chickened out.

Don't mistake a desire to not feed a troll as a lack of courage.

 

[Hot Breath]

Do you have a reference for the reports debunking it? I have not been able to source them.

Best analysis I know of was by Australian ABC-TV's "Media Watch"...

 

[Hot Breath]

Don't mistake a desire to not feed a troll as a lack of courage.

I don't, on either count. I see it more as a lack of intestinal fortitude. Even Cowards turn and fight when cornered. You just haven't been cornered yet...

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I don't, on either count. I see it more as a lack of intestinal fortitude. Even Cowards turn and fight when cornered. You just haven't been cornered yet...

Always nice to meet someone who is worse than me at making friends on the internet.

 

[sferrin]

As much fun as a good argument is [and be honest, we all love a good argument....], I'm not diving in on this one other than to comment on the 'bladeless turbine' thingy. If it works as I understand - on the principle of alternate vortex shedding and using that to make something wobble, it will be spectacularly inefficient because it has a very small equivalent 'swept area'. Also, it will still make noise. How much? Well, less than a traditional one but as there'll need to be MANY more to achieve equivalence...

It's not really much of an argument. One side is putting up sourced facts and statistics while the other has fingers stuffed firmly in ears while proselytizing the miracles of unicorns and fairy dust.

Yes, the pro-nuclear side hasn't been performing as well as they appear to believe they are. I've been putting up links to articles which have put forward the anti-nuclear side's arguments.

LOL. I'll bet you and your alter-ego Kadja Man are the only two who believe that. ;D

 

[sferrin]

I don't, on either count. I see it more as a lack of intestinal fortitude. Even Cowards turn and fight when cornered. You just haven't been cornered yet...

Always nice to meet someone who is worse than me at making friends on the internet.

You might be cranky but at least you know what you're talking about.

 

[starviking]

Do you have a reference for the reports debunking it? I have not been able to source them.

Best analysis I know of was by Australian ABC-TV's "Media Watch"...

That refers to a study by Steven Cooper, the report you were commenting on was one by A Bell in Acoustics Australia.

 

[Rickshaw]

Activist Nun Sister Megan Rice And Two Fellow Anti-Nuclear Advocates Released From Prison
Marianne stages anti-nuclear demo

 

[bobbymike]

http://nextbigfuture.com/2015/05/terrestrial-energy-allying-with.html

 

[Hot Breath]

You seem to have misunderstood the title of the thread.

How about this, instead?

Outback hot-rocks test site powers up. Just a combination of a drilling rig, water and of course a means of collecting and using the steam. No nasty radioactivity, no danger of a meltdown. :

 

[starviking]

You seem to have misunderstood the title of the thread.

How about this, instead?

Outback hot-rocks test site powers up. Just a combination of a drilling rig, water and of course a means of collecting and using the steam. No nasty radioactivity, no danger of a meltdown. :

1 MW, in the Outback... Good for the Outback, if economically viable. Elsewhere?


Risk of earthquakes, risks of arsenic release into the environment.

 

[Hot Breath]

You seem to have misunderstood the title of the thread.

How about this, instead?

Outback hot-rocks test site powers up. Just a combination of a drilling rig, water and of course a means of collecting and using the steam. No nasty radioactivity, no danger of a meltdown. :

1 MW, in the Outback... Good for the Outback, if economically viable. Elsewhere?

Risk of earthquakes, risks of arsenic release into the environment.

Arsenic? I think you're thinking of Fracking, not geothermal energy extraction. Earthquakes appear to be a minor problem, from my reading.

 

[starviking]

Arsenic? I think you're thinking of Fracking, not geothermal energy extraction. Earthquakes appear to be a minor problem, from my reading.

I think you are mistaken: http://www.rcn.montana.edu/Publications/Pdf/2003/Webster_Nordstrom_Geothermal_Arsenic.pdf


Do you have a link to that map?

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Just a combination of a drilling rig, water and of course a means of collecting and using the steam. No nasty radioactivity, no danger of a meltdown. :

No low cost per joule generating, no reliable fuel source over time to make energy, no ease of transmission to electricity users, no local supply of a critical consumable needed to produce energy (water). The heat in those rocks are are not renewable, they eventually get cold when you keep pouring water on them. They are also a long way from where people use electricity requiring very expensive long transmission lines and inevtiable energy loss. Their location is also notorious for not having any water and steam turbines with long heat exchangers into the ground are not closed cycles for water use.


And the whole thing is based on the rather hit and miss engineering of rock drilling. Now Ben Affleck may have once very wittingly commented that: "How hard can drilling be? You just point the drill at the ground and turn it on." But while a very valid critique of the plot of the movie "Armageddon" (in that wouldn't it have been easier to train astronauts as rock drillers rather than train rock drillers as astronauts) it does not apply to electricity production via hot rock powered steam. If we had to drill as many holes per joule created by oil as you do for joules created by hot rocks the world would still be running its ships, trains, cars, trucks and planes (?) on coal and the Saudis would still be dirt poor date sellers.


So its no wonder hot rocks and other exotic energy sources are not powering the world.

 

[Rickshaw]

Arsenic? I think you're thinking of Fracking, not geothermal energy extraction. Earthquakes appear to be a minor problem, from my reading.

I think you are mistaken: http://www.rcn.montana.edu/Publications/Pdf/2003/Webster_Nordstrom_Geothermal_Arsenic.pdf

An interesting report but not one that concerns Australia overly much. Hot Rocks is exclusively an Australian development of geothermal power. Downunder, its limited though in it's applicability.

All you do is drill deep enough and you find hot rocks. You pump water down one hole, draw it up the other as steam and you feed it into a generator.

Simple and effective.

 

[sferrin]

All you do is drill deep enough and you find hot rocks. You pump water down one hole, draw it up the other as steam and you feed it into a generator.

Simple and effective.

Unfortunately, reality has to be taken into consideration. It's generally a bit more problematic than the average utopian pipe dream.

 

[Hot Breath]

Arsenic? I think you're thinking of Fracking, not geothermal energy extraction. Earthquakes appear to be a minor problem, from my reading.

I think you are mistaken: http://www.rcn.montana.edu/Publications/Pdf/2003/Webster_Nordstrom_Geothermal_Arsenic.pdf


Do you have a link to that map?

Here.

 

[Hot Breath]

All you do is drill deep enough and you find hot rocks. You pump water down one hole, draw it up the other as steam and you feed it into a generator.

Simple and effective.

Unfortunately, reality has to be taken into consideration. It's generally a bit more problematic than the average utopian pipe dream.

As against "electricty so cheap you won't be billed for it!"? Nuclear energy has promised a lot but rarely delivered what it has claimed and has polluted the world with it's radioactivity.

 

[Hot Breath]

Just a combination of a drilling rig, water and of course a means of collecting and using the steam. No nasty radioactivity, no danger of a meltdown. :

No low cost per joule generating, no reliable fuel source over time to make energy, no ease of transmission to electricity users, no local supply of a critical consumable needed to produce energy (water). The heat in those rocks are are not renewable, they eventually get cold when you keep pouring water on them. They are also a long way from where people use electricity requiring very expensive long transmission lines and inevtiable energy loss. Their location is also notorious for not having any water and steam turbines with long heat exchangers into the ground are not closed cycles for water use.

Been a geologist long?

In reality, the pressure differentials and the heat is created by the depth of the rocks from the surface. They will not go cold according to the CSIRO.

And the whole thing is based on the rather hit and miss engineering of rock drilling. Now Ben Affleck may have once very wittingly commented that: "How hard can drilling be? You just point the drill at the ground and turn it on." But while a very valid critique of the plot of the movie "Armageddon" (in that wouldn't it have been easier to train astronauts as rock drillers rather than train rock drillers as astronauts) it does not apply to electricity production via hot rock powered steam. If we had to drill as many holes per joule created by oil as you do for joules created by hot rocks the world would still be running its ships, trains, cars, trucks and planes (?) on coal and the Saudis would still be dirt poor date sellers.

As the map which Kadija_man has posted shows, the certainty of striking hot rocks in Australia has largely been explored to the point that if you drill where it points out "high confidence" has been displayed, you will more than likely find hot rocks.

So its no wonder hot rocks and other exotic energy sources are not powering the world.

Been to New Zealand, Iceland, Norway, Western Europe, Chile, Peru, USA and Canada and Mexico to name a few of the nations which utilise geothermal energy?

As of 2015, worldwide geothermal power capacity amounts to 12.8 gigawatts (GW), of which 28 percent or 3,548 megawatts are installed in the United States. International markets grew at an average annual rate of 5 percent over the last three years and global geothermal power capacity is expected to reach 14.5–17.6 GW by 2020.[3]

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_electricity]

Small quanties at the moment but it is slowly and steadily increasing. Clean, green and applicable across most of the globe.

 

[sferrin]

As against "electricty so cheap you won't be billed for it!"? Nuclear energy has promised a lot but rarely delivered what it has claimed and has polluted the world with it's radioactivity.

Oh I think we all know who's the worst in the promise/results area:

http://www.tsp-data-portal.org/Breakdown-of-Electricity-Generation-by-Energy-Source#tspQvChart

Despite all of the hype and money squandered (Solendra anybody?) your unicorn fantasies, all lumped together, only account for 5% of production. That's hydro, wind, geo, solar, etc. all rolled into one. PT Barnum would be proud.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Been a geologist long?

In reality, the pressure differentials and the heat is created by the depth of the rocks from the surface. They will not go cold according to the CSIRO.

Geothermal systems do not go cold only if you extract heat from them at the same rate (or less) that they are replenished by the Earth’s core. These EGS plants do not extract heat at such a low rate. They even frack the bedrock to improve heat extraction which decreases the ability of the rock to reheat. Without nature fissures geothermal energy has to be mobile or an enormous mega structure that destroys the environment it was built to supposedly save.

As the map which I have posted shows, the certainty of striking hot rocks in Australia has largely been explored to the point that if you drill where it points out "high confidence" has been displayed, you will more than likely find hot rocks.

If you dig a deep enough hole you find hot rocks everywhere. But the deeper your holes the more expensive an already very expensive system becomes.

Been to New Zealand, Iceland, Norway, Western Europe, Chile, Peru, USA and Canada and Mexico to name a few of the nations which utilise geothermal energy?

Cherry pick much? You have listed a bunch of countries that have some of the best access to volcanism and the heat from the Earth’s core in the world as if they are representative of the entire planet. Iceland is great for geothermal energy. Why they store so much electricity in aluminium there. But the downside is an environment very precarious for human occupation. The Skaftáreldar was far worse to live through than the minor problems we face today from global warming.

 

[Hot Breath]

You claim I "cherry pick" and you ignore the map of countries which utilise geothermal power generation. I named the countries I knew from the top of my head, which utilised geothermal power generation and which you may have visited. It looks like the world is indeed moving to geothermal as one of a mix of non-fossil/non-nuclear means of power generation, which despite how you've attempted to liken it a world catastrophe. Do you have shares in nuclear power generators or coal mining?

 

[starviking]

Thanks to the link to the report Hot Breath. I do note it's almost a decade old, and EGS concerns have not abated.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

You claim I "cherry pick" and you ignore the map of countries which utilise geothermal power generation.

All those countries you listed are well known as having highly active vulcanisation:

“New Zealand, Iceland, Norway, Chile, Peru, USA, Canada and Mexico”

And despite that and the subsequent naturally occurring heat sink channels and close proximity to geothermal heat none of them, except Iceland (the most extreme volcanic nation on the planet), have geothermal as more than an insignificant fraction (under 10%) of their energy sourcing or even for most their electricity generation (which is only a less than half fraction of typical developed nation energy use).

It looks like the world is indeed moving to geothermal as one of a mix of non-fossil/non-nuclear means of power generation,

Just because a few rich countries are digging holes in the ground does not mean a move to geothermal energy.

which despite how you've attempted to liken it a world catastrophe. Do you have shares in nuclear power generators or coal mining?

Hyperbole much? No one has attempted to liken geothermal energy to a world catastrophe. Just pointed out that it is very costly per joule of energy produced. And the world can only afford so much costly energy.

Do you have shares in nuclear power generators or coal mining?

So anyone who doesn’t agree with you must have some kind of nefarious motivation? Or are you just holding a dogmatic belief? My generally negative assessment on so called renewable energy is based on technical analysis of it as a solution to the energy demands of advanced economies. Bearing in mind that global warming is not going to destroy civilisation in the next decade or two (or ten) despite the hysterics of the prone to hysterics crowd.

 

[bobbymike]

http://nextbigfuture.com/2015/06/us-crude-oil-production-heading-11-to.html

Projected US crude production