[HN Gopher] Quaise Energy is working to create geothermal wells ___________________________________________________________________ Quaise Energy is working to create geothermal wells Author : pseudolus Score : 173 points Date : 2022-08-04 13:20 UTC (9 hours ago) (HTM) web link (news.mit.edu) (TXT) w3m dump (news.mit.edu) | ufmace wrote: | I've worked in oil and gas for years. It's possible the article | is missing a bunch of details, but I'm extremely dubious of their | idea. | | First, how do they plan to address well control? As you drill | down through the Earth, you drill through many layers of rock, | some of which contain oil and gas in various quantities. Since | the thousands of feet of rock above is heavy, they are under a | lot of pressure, and will be happy to flow out through your | borehole and up to the surface if you don't take measures to keep | the formation under control. If they are allowed to do that, | those flammable materials can easily ignite and cause a fire big | enough to destroy your entire drilling apparatus and be very | difficult to put out. Note that you don't necessarily need enough | oil and gas to be commercially produceable to generate a | disastrously bad blowout. | | Oil wells address this by filling the borehole with drilling | fluid at a specific density, which produces enough pressure at | the bottom of the hole to counter formation pressure. Every well | is also fitted with multiple blowout preventers to seal off the | well in case of a sudden pressure increase from the formation, | and also allow heaver weight fluid to be circulated in to get | back under control. The wells are also drilled and cased in | sections, so that there is never too large of an amount of | borehole uncovered that needs to be kept under control. | | So given all that, exactly where is this Gyrotron going to be? If | it's at the surface, how are they planning to microwave through | miles of drilling fluid and have enough energy at the bottom to | cut more rock? If it's at depth, how is this Gyrotron going to | survive the high temperatures there? High-end electronics are | much more sensitive to extreme heat than drill bits are. | Especially if you're pumping ~megawatts of energy through them to | actually cut rock. Speaking of, how would we even get that much | electric power down there? Oil and gas has spent many billions of | dollars on this and has yet to find a good solution. | | Also, how are they planning to keep this whole straight and judge | depth? Holes thousands of feet down don't just stay straight, you | have to actively keep them straight. The oilfield has plenty of | ways to do this with conventional drilling hardware, how will | their Gyrotron system manage it? And we also need to transport | rock cuttings / fumes to the surface fast enough to support the | drilling rate, how will they do that? | | I'm also wondering about fluid flowrates. If they manage to drill | down far enough to get to rock hot enough, how much fluid do they | need to flow in order to get enough heat energy to the surface to | operate these steam turbines? How big pipes do they need up and | down to flow that rate? They also need to flow slow enough at | depth to pick up lots of heat, and also fast enough through the | mid and shallow depths to not lose all that heat to the local | formation before it gets to the surface. For that matter, what's | the heat flow rate from the magma into the rock at the depth they | were drilling out - how much heat power can we really extract | long-term with their setup? (I see jjk166 has addressed that, and | that it is another serious issue). | | Don't get me wrong, geothermal is a really nice solution, and I | wish all the luck in the world to anyone working on using it | more. I just don't see any technology here that address the real | issues with getting large-scale energy from geothermal. | Mizza wrote: | I think the idea is to use a traditional drilling technique to | start the whole until they are past any gas pockets, then use | the beams after that. The beam drilling doesn't require fluid, | and the process itself creates a glass wall/lavatube on the | side of the hole. They drill quite slowly relative to | traditional drilling to evacuate the ash and fumes, but they | don't need to replace the drill head so the overall process is | faster. | ufmace wrote: | Still sounds rather dubious. I dunno about this whole thing | about the beam creating a protective glass wall, but I'll | give them a pass on that. Also on how they'd actually | evacuate all the fluid and how they'd extract ash and fumes | without it. The most critical part sounds like heat. It's | very hot down there, and we're also presumably running | megawatts of electrical power for this beam, which all goes | to more heat. Ambient temps at those depths may be over 300 F | / 150C, and that's before we pump in megawatts of extra heat | with no way to extract it. | | I helped design and operate lots of oilfield electronics for | those depths and temperatures. MTBF for the most hardened | electronics we could get our hands on at temps over 150C was | in the neighborhood of 200 hours max. Drilling slowly with | much more sophisticated and unproven electronics, I expect | they'll be dropping like flies if they ever work at all. And | that's with extremely generous assumptions on the heat loads. | MTBF of electronics drops exponentially as temperature goes | up. | azinman2 wrote: | What the article doesn't address is the potential for | earthquakes. I thought that was the limiting factor in a lot of | deep geothermal drilling? Didn't Iceland run into this? | giarc wrote: | Perhaps you are thinking of fracking? In fracking they dig | deep, horizontal wells and inject a water/sand mix into the | well to fracture the rock. This method has resulted in | measurable earthquakes. | azinman2 wrote: | This is one example of a geothermal system leading to | earthquakes: | https://grapevine.is/news/2020/11/16/earthquakes-linked- | to-p... | skagenpilot wrote: | It depends on the rock formation the project is targeting. If | one targets a steam reservoir or a sedimentary rock formation, | generaly things are ok (save for this one case in Germany where | Earth started to rise [0]). In case you target hot (dry) rock | that you need to fracture to increase the heat exchange | surface, then more often than not you are going to induce | seismicity. It's been well studied in Alsace and some small | induced earthquake was felt in Strasbourg and attributed to | nearby geothermal developments [1]. | | [0] https://m.dw.com/en/green-good-intentions-cause-chaos-in- | two... | | [1] https://comptes-rendus.academie- | sciences.fr/geoscience/artic... | psadri wrote: | Should we be concerned about cooling down the earth's core over | the long term? I'd rather if we focus our efforts on renewables | (basically anything that gets energy from sunlight - solar, wind, | biomass) | dan353hehe wrote: | A similar question was asked in a another geothermal post. | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32134418 | | The tldr being that there is sufficient heat and we don't need | to worry about running out even if we tapped into a significant | portion of it. | theptip wrote: | Paging u/Animats, who had some interesting thoughts on a previous | write-up of Quaise which had less info. I think he mentioned that | gyrotrons had not been deployed for this use-case and that should | make us skeptical because sticking one on the end of a multi-km | long drill bit sounds Hard(tm). | | An adviser of Quaise (an MIT research engineer) claims: | | > "This will happen quickly once we solve the immediate | engineering problems of transmitting a clean beam and having it | operate at a high energy density without breakdown," explains | Woskov, who is not formally affiliated with Quaise but serves as | an advisor. "It'll go fast because the underlying technology, | gyrotrons, are commercially available. You could place an order | with a company and have a system delivered right now -- granted, | these beam sources have never been used 24/7, but they are | engineered to be operational for long time periods. In five or | six years, I think we'll have a plant running if we solve these | engineering problems. I'm very optimistic." | | Interested in what others think here. Seems overly optimistic to | me. | | It's a really elegant solution though if it works; the idea of | boring a hole in an existing coal plant and repurposing the old | steam turbine & transmission equipment sounds like it could | really lower the cost. | ZeroGravitas wrote: | Re-using coal plant grid infrastructure is a good idea. So good | that it's regularly done today, with big energy consumers like | data centres setting up in those areas to save money. | | Battery systems and solar are other initiatives that are | currently re-using the existing lines. | | However, while it makes a nice hook for a story, I'm dubious of | any energy system that relies on that minor cost saving in | established grids to be viable. | u320 wrote: | Grid connections, turbines and BoP equipment reused from a coal | plant is not a minor cost saving. | ZeroGravitas wrote: | Well, minor is a relative term, but regardless, my point is | stronger the more the business case relies on this re-use. | | Solar can win on price with entirely new builds against | already depreciated Coal plants. If you can't beat that | price, then you are at best a complement to solar, and | sticking solar, battery or synchronous condensors in the old | coal plants might make more sense instead. | | See: Cost-benefit analysis of coal plant repurposing in | developing countries | | https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3646443 | ivan_gammel wrote: | I was looking for the reference to The Garin Death Ray book in | comments, didn't found, so here it is: | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Garin_Death_Ray | | The writer Aleksey Tolstoy came up with the idea of the laser- | like machine that melts the rock in 1920s (maybe also influenced | by H.G.Walls), when his science fiction book was first published. | In this book a genial engineer Garin creates a beam that can be | used both in mining (he wants to get the gold from the mantle, so | uses American VC funding to set up a mining operation in Pacific) | and as a weapon (he also wants to rule the world, so he uses his | machine to destroy German and American competitors). | ge96 wrote: | The Core movie had a gatling laser miner to get to the core of | the Earth. | RosanaAnaDana wrote: | Man MIT press and marketing is good. | Ken_At_EM wrote: | I really don't love being negative all the time, but this project | is going nowhere. | | Boring rock in this way is a permanent "we're 5-10 years away | research project." | | They've coupled a never ending research project with the idea of | "hey there's already some power lines here" which is the smallest | of efficiency gains in the big picture. | hereme888 wrote: | Idk why this sounds like another business scientist with a lofty | idea that will never materialize. | pseudolus wrote: | The potential upside is incredibly high and the investment | required to determine if the technology is so low that it's | well worth pursuing. | pqdbr wrote: | I actually got really excited after reading the article, and | the entire piece is about how "down to earth" (pun intended) | the technology being developed here really is. | | They are going to great lengths to make it compatible with the | existing power grid (just replacing the heat source for current | generators), re-utilizing abandoned mines and all. | | So, would you care to elaborate why you think it would never | materialize? | jffry wrote: | The article puts a lot of weight on the use of pre-existing | technology in a new mode for making deep bore holes, and | glosses over the engineering challenges that have yet to be | solved ("transmitting a clean beam and having it operate at a | high energy density without breakdown"). | | I'm not equipped to judge how difficult those problems will | be to overcome in practice. Obviously this would be very cool | if it bears out, but it's hard to tell if it will. | mgoetzke wrote: | Always fascinated by all of these approaches. Though I still am | fascinated, that all energy available to us is derived from | gravity in one way or another. | lostapathy wrote: | And yet in spite of that, we don't actually know what gravity | is! | boomboomsubban wrote: | >that all energy available to us is derived from gravity in one | way or another. | | How so? Our major energy source is oil, where the energy comes | from sunlight. And light's energy is from the electromagnetic | fundamental force, not gravity. | washbrain wrote: | Where is the light generated? | | The sun. How did the sun form and why does it produce light? | Gravity pulled some hydrogen into a ball, enough of it was | there that gravity forced it to fuse. | boomboomsubban wrote: | Sure. Our energy is still derived from the photons released | by the sun, even if the sun needed gravity to form. Gravity | is necessary, but isn't the source of the energy. | washbrain wrote: | I mean, I guess. The fusion that causes photons doesn't | happen without gravity though. | boomboomsubban wrote: | And fusion happens through an interaction of the weak | nuclear force. Finally, without the strong nuclear force | there wouldn't even be hydrogen atoms for any of this to | happen. All four are necessary, the energy we use comes | from electromagnetism. | 4ggr0 wrote: | I have absolutely zero knowledge which would qualify me to talk | about this topic. But based on what I know about our world and | its ecosystems, I just can't imagine that drilling holes into | earth and extracting it's heat can be a good idea when done in | large scales. | | I could imagine that this seems reasonably safe right now, only | for us to find out that it's actually a horrible thing to do. As | has happened lots of times before. This is just a gut feeling and | I'm not anti or whatever, it just feels...weird to me. | | No idea what the bad effects could be. Loss of internal heat, | destabilization, sinkholes, loss of pressure, volcano eruptions | back-firing through these holes. Admittedly, these examples sound | like apocalypse movie scenarios. Which just validates my initial | statement about me actually not knowing very much. | tresqotheq wrote: | > it just feels...weird to me. | | You are one person, and is sensible. Humanity as a whole, not | so much so, sadly. | sparsely wrote: | I haven't done any maths but I bet the order's of magnitude in | terms of energy flows are wildly different for human usage vs | solar + geothermal flows. | cassianoleal wrote: | Wouldn't the availability of energy at this scale drive | people and organisations to use it? | 4ggr0 wrote: | That could very well be, yes. | | Could also be like deforestation. Trees do die just like | that, without our intervention. This benefits the forest. A | couple of humans can chop wood in said forest and it will not | affect it too much. But if whole cities and countries | suddenly have to get their wood from this forest, it will | disappear very fast. | | So maybe geothermal energy is not a risk when a couple of | plants exist. But if humanity starts to rely on it too much | and starts building geothermal plants like crazy, the damage | could show. Maybe the damage only appears locally in the | vicinity of these plants, which would still be worrying. | | I just want to disclose again that I am just spit-balling | here. | jjk166 wrote: | The big issue with geothermal energy is that rock doesn't conduct | heat very well. When you first bore a hole and pump some water | down, it's easy to use the hot rocks to generate steam which can | in turn drive a turbine, but doing so cools down the rock the | water comes in contact with. Digging deeper, the rock starts out | hotter, maybe it takes twice as long to exhaust the initial heat, | but it's still going to happen in a matter of hours. Long term, a | geothermal well can't extract heat faster than heat flows into | the well from lower in the Earth. This heat flow rate is in the | milliwatts per square meter range. Now with horizontal boring | technology, a single drilling rig might be able to plumb a large | area, but even if they got all the energy in a 10km radius, which | is about 3 times what current technology is capable of, you're | still looking at around 30 MW of thermal heat flux, which would | at best produce about 20 MW of electricity. That's like 8 on | shore windmills or a 100 acre solar plant. It's a little better | given that the heat flow is continuous rather than intermittent, | and multiple borehole locations can be connected by pipeline to a | single generator station to keep capital costs down, but still | this is not a lot of power. | | For context, to provide the electricity demand for kansas would | require about 35% of the total geothermal flux into kansas. New | Jersey's electricity demand is 7 times higher than what its | geothermal heat flux could provide. For the whole US, electricity | consumption is about 75% of geothermal heat flux if you ignore | variations like the yellowstone hotspot. | | Geothermal certainly makes sense in certain locations where the | heat flux is high and other power sources are problematic - for | example iceland is probably the most ideal spot on earth. The | technology for extracting geothermal power may also be useful for | future efforts to control volcanism (though at this point such | plans are highly speculative), so research is warranted. But it | is unlikely to ever be more than a minor slice of the world's | energy supply, and certainly anyone claiming to solve the issue | by just digging deeper is selling snake oil. | majou wrote: | How about inter-seasonal heat storage, a la Drake's Landing? | | https://dlsc.ca | kuprel wrote: | What if you dig down deep enough to molten rock? Then you're | aren't limited by heat conduction of the solid rock, but the | heat convection of the magma | [deleted] | elil17 wrote: | What makes the heat flux in iceland so high? Why doesn't | drilling deeper get you to a similar heat flux? | jjk166 wrote: | Iceland is over a volcanic hotspot where hot rock from deep | in the mantle is physically rising up, so the heat | conductivity of the rock doesn't matter as much. It's like | the difference between standing in a pool of water and being | sprayed by a hose. | elil17 wrote: | That makes sense - thank you for helping me understand. If | we drilled down low enough would convection in the mantel | increase the availability of heat? I assume the issue is | that that would be way too deep to dig, even with new tech | like this? | Retric wrote: | Don't discount the actual energy stored in the rock or capacity | factor. Granit has 790 J/kg per degree C and 1 cubic meter is | ~2700 kg. | | So cooling 10 cubic kilometres of rock by say 50C releases 790J | * 2700 * 1,000,000,000 * 50 * 10 = 10^18J or 600MW of heat over | 50 years. At 33% efficiency your talking 200 MW of electricity | for 50 years assuming 100% capacity factor and ignoring how | fast it recharges. | | If it's a backup for solar and wind at 50% capacity factor then | you could double the power output or double the lifespan. | londons_explore wrote: | I think your maths is off by 1000x... The specific heat | capacity of Granite is 790 J/kg/C | | So replace megawatts with kilowatts in your answer... Still | not nothing, but you're gonna have to have super cheap | drilling to make it viable. | | EDIT: Ah - you made another mistake... there is 1e9 cubic | meters in a cubic kilometer. So your original answer is | correct again! | worik wrote: | But how do you access the heat of a cubic km of rock three | km below ground? | | It would take more than a well. A lot of wells. | | I love this idea in general but it seems to me it will only | work if you find water underground to carry the heat. I am | not a geologist | Retric wrote: | Same basic idea as a well. When you extract water from | underground it gets to your borehole through lot's of | tiny cracks greatly increasing the surface area. | | In some places you can tap into an underground very hot | aquifer. In others with sufficient permeability need only | need to supply your own cold water. Worst case you also | need to crack the rock: | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enhanced_geothermal_system | [deleted] | adrianN wrote: | My guess would be that this is a poor choice for backup | energy for similar reasons that nuclear is a bad choice: | drilling deep is rather expensive, so geothermal costs are | mostly capex. That means you want to run the power plant at | max output as much as possible to maximize profits. To use it | as a backup plant for renewables however you would need to | leave it mostly idle. Depending on how much renewable energy | you have available you need full backup only for a few days | to a few weeks per year. | londons_explore wrote: | I'm thinking the reverse... since the thermal conductivity | of rock is low, you can either have the well operating at a | very low level continuously, or you can have bursts of much | higher output for a few hours/days with the same drilled | boreholes. | | Obviously you will still have to pay the capex for the | turbines and generators for whatever peak level you decide, | but I'd guess they're a smallish chunk of the total budget. | If you think energy prices will be more volatile in the | future (more extreme climate means more peak-usage days, | and more renewables means more days/hours with a shortfall | in generation), then it makes sense to overbuild turbines | so you can rake in the $$$'s in that 1-2 days per year when | energy prices spike up 1000x. | adrianN wrote: | That is a very good point, thanks for bringing it up. I | have changed my opinion. | lazide wrote: | Geothermal has serious issues if water flow is not kept | constant - dissolved minerals in the borehole water are | just waiting for an excuse to crystallize/precipitate, | and it's already an issue at most active running plants, | even when run continuously. Silica crystallization on | heat exchangers, for instance, is a constant maintenance | cost. | | Stopping the flow (and letting it cool in the pipes ) for | any length of time or with any frequency could mean not | being able to _ever_ start it again. | loufe wrote: | You could continue cycling the water, filtering out | contaminants, without extracting heat from it. | [deleted] | nabakin wrote: | Is granite common enough that far underground for this to | make sense? | Retric wrote: | Granite is common, but other rocks have similar numbers. | jjk166 wrote: | The heat still needs to travel horizontally from this rock to | your borehole. A 30 cm diameter borehole drilled 20 km deep | with the bottom 12 km being used for heat collection would | give you 12000 m^2 of surface area and an average temperature | gradient of 135 Kelvin, which at a heat flux rate of 7 | W/m^2/K would only give you 13 MW thermal, or about 4.4 MW | electric when the well is first drilled and about 3 MW after | 50 years. Comparable to a single windmill. You can increase | your surface area through more drilling and fracking, but | that adds to cost and environmental concerns. | | As a battery for storing heat energy generated by other | methods though it's great. | joshjob42 wrote: | Fracking with water (which is what geothermal would do) has | pretty limited environmental concerns, and has enormous | gains in increasing surface area and reach, so it almost | certainly what we're going to end up doing. Iirc this is | part of Quaise's plan: drill 20km down then frack the | bottom to get a really big volume and surface area at those | very high temperatures. | [deleted] | ok_dad wrote: | You're saying we should pull heat out faster than it's | replenished, but what do we do in 50 years? Didn't we learn | our lesson from oil that we can't just kick the can down the | road? | nabakin wrote: | Related comment thread. The OP is a former CTO of a Canadian | geothermal company | | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24854216 | hengheng wrote: | Can I cool my house into the well during the summer? With | surface heat abundant during the summer, I'd expect storing | heat downstairs should make sense even if the efficiency of the | underground reservoir is not exactly stellar. | jjk166 wrote: | This works very well. The low heat conduction of rock also | means that without going too deep you get to a temperature | that is almost constant year round, so you can cool your | house in summer and heat in winter so long as you're not | dumping absurd amounts of heat. | btbuildem wrote: | From what I understand, geothermal works both ways, yes | shagie wrote: | Look up Drake Landing Solar Community - | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_Landing_Solar_Community | // https://www.dlsc.ca/reports/swc2017-0033-Mesquita.pdf | | It is mainly addressing winter heating rather than summer | cooling (the cooling degree days are rather minimal - | https://okotoks.weatherstats.ca/charts/cdd-weekly.html // | https://weatherspark.com/y/2404/Average-Weather-in- | Okotoks-C... "Over the course of the year, the temperature | typically varies from 13degF to 76degF and is rarely below | -12degF or above 86degF.") | | That said, there's nothing saying that one can't use a heat | pump to as a source of heat in the summer (which would also | cool the house) in additional to other sources of thermal | energy. | JumpCrisscross wrote: | I think this was marketed as "geoplutonic" power about a decade | ago. | downrightmike wrote: | Bore hole open cycle loops probably wont be viable in areas | that fracking is happening. Super hot steam mixed with methane | doesn't sound like a good idea. | LargoLasskhyfv wrote: | Why not? Sounds like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syngas | theptip wrote: | While I think this first-principle analysis is helpful, I fear | it may be holding Quaise to too high a standard; their goal | (AFAICT) is not to provide 100% of the energy needs of | anywhere; it's a huge win if coal's 10-20% contribution of | total power generation (or even just a substantial fraction of | that) can be in-place replaced with a geothermal generator. | Maybe this tech won't be cost-effective in 50 years as solar | continues to get cheaper, but as a transitional bridge | technology it could be incredibly impactful in the 10-20 year | timeframe. | | Also, you didn't specify a depth for your calculation; won't | the flux be higher the deeper you go (i.e. be proportional to | the delta-T)? They are talking about going to 20km which as I | understand it is WAY deeper than most geothermal systems | contemplate. Their whole bet is predicated on the idea that | with the gyrotron they can drill deeper since they don't need | to mess with high-temp drill bits. | bequanna wrote: | > Maybe this tech won't be cost-effective in 50 years as | solar continues to get cheaper | | As we replace base load with less reliable sources we need to | come up with some way of expressing a penalty for | availability. Does it matter how cheap solar is if it isn't | available when we need it and storage is not practical? | jjk166 wrote: | > Also, you didn't specify a depth for your calculation; | won't the flux be higher the deeper you go (i.e. be | proportional to the delta-T)? They are talking about going to | 20km which as I understand it is WAY deeper than most | geothermal systems contemplate. Their whole bet is predicated | on the idea that with the gyrotron they can drill deeper | since they don't need to mess with high-temp drill bits. | | The depth doesn't matter at this scale. 20km deep the heat | flux is about 0.3% higher. Things get complicated as you go | down into the mantle, but at 20km you're still in the top | part of the crust. | | The only thing drilling deep does is increase your max | temperature, which increases efficiency, but eventually you | hit the same limit as with any other steam generating plant | where you can only handle steam that is so hot and so high | pressure. With current technology, that limits the efficiency | percentage to the low 40s. Maybe with some technological | improvements this can go up a bit, but the carnot efficiency | of a heat engine where the water is heated to the point it | will decompose is 87%, and there is no way you're even going | to get near that in a real plant, so increasing efficiency | isn't really going to make a huge difference. | [deleted] | yayr wrote: | > For context, to provide the electricity demand for kansas | would require about 35% of the total geothermal flux into | kansas. New Jersey's electricity demand is 7 times higher than | what its geothermal heat flux could provide. For the whole US, | electricity consumption is about 75% of geothermal heat flux if | you ignore variations like the yellowstone hotspot. | | It would be great if you can provide a bit more details on | those assumptions. Thanks | jjk166 wrote: | (Electric energy use per year * 1 year) / (Area * 100 mW/m^2 | * 60% thermal to electric conversion efficiency) | | In reality electricity capacity needs to meet peak demand, | not average demand, the heat flux in continental crust is | more like 65 mW/m^2, and the thermal to electric conversion | efficiency is going to be closer to 40%, so the situation is | actually much worse for geothermal, but maybe with the right | technological developments and implementation you could get | better performance. | V__ wrote: | > This will happen quickly once we solve the immediate | engineering problems of transmitting a clean beam and having it | operate at a high energy density without breakdown | | > [...] In five or six years, I think we'll have a plant running | if we solve these engineering problems. I'm very optimistic. | | If only a few engineering problems have to be solved to make it | work, then it will be ready in no time. It's not like those | engineering problems are hard to solve or anything. That's why | fusion works so great, cheap batteries are wide-spread and | everyone has 100% effective solar-panels. | bshipp wrote: | While your sarcasm is noted, it's important to also note that | engineering problems would never be solved until someone is | allocating the necessary resources to solve them. I'm not a | huge fan of gross theoretical speculation as being a savior for | humanity, but I very much appreciate an innovator's optimism | that redirecting known technologies to a novel application will | result in benefits to humanity. | | Optimism is difficult to generate and easy to snuff out. We | should be less inclined, as a society, to default to apathy. | V__ wrote: | Don't get me wrong, I'm rooting for them and all others | trying to make such solutions happen. I just hate these | handwavy breakthrough-like press releases which get published | 100 times a day. | bshipp wrote: | Perfectly valid reaction, and one I personally share. It's | a delicate balance to support innovative minds and ideas | while simultaneously insulating oneself from baseless | corporate marketing hype. | falcolas wrote: | I read this as skepticism about the timeline - which is 100% | valid. Nobody's downplaying the validity of the research. | | But perhaps being optimistic about timelines is how you | secure funding? Couldn't say. | bshipp wrote: | That is fair. I recently watched "We Were Apollo" and was | struck by how incredibly audacious a manned moon landing | really was in 1960. That sort of positive thinking is what | we really need for fixing the climate crisis and elevating | humanity beyond constant resource conflicts. | falcolas wrote: | It's worth remembering that national pride (and the | beating that pride took when the Soviet Union beat us to | space) is what drove the US to make such fast progress. | | That national pride does not exist as a driving force for | addressing climate change. We, in many ways, don't even | have a national consensus on _the need_ to address | climate change. | BbzzbB wrote: | Didn't 2.5% of US's GDP go into that for 10 years? | | The guy's optimism is laudable but it's fair to be | skeptical it'll just take 5-6 years. | Offsite_camp wrote: | Fascinating. In the most basic of philosophies, extracting | conserved energy from our planet doesn't really fix the problem. | Even in the best case the unintended and unknown consequences | will destroy any predictions as to how something like this plays | out. But as far as band-aids go this one sounds like it could us | a whole lot more time... | f6v wrote: | It's just for a little while till we get fusion reactors up and | running. | | /s | russfink wrote: | Can someone clarify the geochemistry for me? What happens to the | rock vapor? Does it resolidify along the existing wall, or does | it recondense into fine particulates, and are those particulates | easier to remove than pieces of the solid rock itself? | | Then, can somebody clarify the physics for me- how far away can | the target be from the energy source of the gyro-tron? | Maximus9000 wrote: | It's discussed a little bit in this video (starting at 8:37). | It sounds like it creates a glassy coating on the drill hole | wall | | https://youtu.be/g8sjdOjNxIE?t=519 | benevol wrote: | That's nice. But there's an even easier, cleaner and even mobile | source of "free" energy - plus, it's fully open-sourced (no | patents, fees, limitations, etc.): https://www.KryonEngine.org | ovi256 wrote: | The well drilling using microwave lasers, generated using those | gyrotrons, certainly sounds novel enough. It will need a R&D | program to bring it up to a mature tech level. | | The concept of reusing existing coal plants sounds clever. | pseudolus wrote: | Interview with Carlos Araque, the founder of Quaise Energy, on | the podcast "How I Built This" with Guy Raz: | | https://wondery.com/shows/how-i-built-this/episode/10386-hib... | daltont wrote: | I remember seeing bits of an old movie when I was young that used | this has a plot device: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0059065/ | h2odragon wrote: | More geothermal: | https://austinvernon.site/blog/geothermalnextsteps.html | nsm wrote: | The article is quite skeptical of Quaise: "While it is exciting | to see the interest in geothermal, much of the effort leaves me | skeptical. | | Quaise is staffed heavily by former Schlumberger employees. | Schlumberger is known for being too expensive and impractical | in many of its business units for shale. It is on-brand that | they are building a laser-like drilling technology! Quaise | deserves credit for correctly identifying the challenges in | geothermal economics and pursuing a path with a greater than | zero chance of success. But many of their assumptions are off | base. The large, bureaucratic companies you work with at | Schlumberger often do things like limit trip speed to 500'/hr. | One time tripping fast caused a blowout by swabbing the hole, | so no rig contracted by the company can trip fast even if the | blowout risk is low. Smaller companies are ripping out of the | hole at 4000'/hr. Tripping in granite is like tripping in a | cased hole. Most companies will push the speed to the physical | limits of the crew and rig. And even at 50,000' depths, on- | bottom drilling will dominate total time (assuming a high- | temperature motor is available). Both PDC bits and motors | suffer from the vibration drilling in hard rock causes. There | is a decent chance that PDC and elastomer-free motor assemblies | will see longer runs at deep depths because the rock is more | ductile." | | I have no background in energy at all, so I'm not qualified to | comment on this at all. Just leaving it here as a counterpoint | to the original article. | alfiedotwtf wrote: | Anyone else find it weird that there have been a flood of MIT | links on the front page the past few days? | 3pt14159 wrote: | They've always been around and fairly frequent. Pretty high | quality source for hacker related stuff. | | Check out this, for example: | | https://news.ycombinator.com/from?site=news.mit.edu&next=220... | alexpotato wrote: | Is there a guide to how to use some of the features of HN | like the search in the link above? | Agamus wrote: | There is a guide to the API here: | https://github.com/HackerNews/API | 3pt14159 wrote: | There is, but I can't remember the link, haha. You just | kinda learn things over the years. This one can be reached | by clicking on the domain name of a linked article, so it's | easy to remember how to get there. | BbzzbB wrote: | Specifically for search, might as well use hn.algolia.com | than figure out how to use HN's hidden(ish) API. | ChrisMarshallNY wrote: | I suspect it's a chain reaction. Someone (from here) follows | one link, then starts clicking around, and finds more | interesting stuff, and so on. | zaphar wrote: | MIT produces interesting engineering content. They've been a | regular on the HN frontpage for as long as I've been coming | here which is a pretty long time. Why would it be weird? | Communitivity wrote: | TANSTAAFL... If we tap the energy from the molten core, part of | the system that both drives/stabilizes the rotation of the | planet, and provides the magnet generating our solar radiation | shield (van allen belts), then I think we can expect eventually | to face rotation/stabilization degradation. | | Of course, eventually might be a million years from now. I | remember climate change deniers saying that climate change might | produce a visible effect by 2400, and by then we could fix it. | Now look where we are with that. | | There's also fracking. To tap the core we probably need to do | deep drilling, with a lot of the problems that drilling for oil | or fracking cause, except possibly magnified because of the | depths we're talking about. | | It is much easier, and safer, to tap solar energy. If we pour | research into solar efficiency and house-scale batteries, we | could provide all of the electricity needed for U.S. homes and | have enough to sell to Canada and Mexico with only 16k sq miles | (the size of Nellis AFB). | | "A square mile, 5,280 feet times 5,280 feet equals 27,878,400 | square feet. Divided by 15 sq.ft. per module, we can fit | 1,858,560 modules per square mile. At 0.6266 kilowatt-hours per | module per day, our square mile will deliver 1,164,574 kWh per | day on average, or 425,069,510 kWh per year. Back to our goal of | 4,000,000,000,000 kWh, divided by 425,069,510 kWh per year per | square mile, it looks like we need about 9,410 square miles of | surface to meet the electrical needs of the U.S. That's a square | area a bit less than 100 miles on a side. This is a bit over half | of the approximate 16,000 square miles currently occupied by the | Nevada Test Site and the surrounding Nellis Air Force Range." [1] | | [1] https://www.terrawatts.com/PV-production.html | rdsubhas wrote: | TANSTAAFL applies to batteries. There is no viable path known | to produce multi-day batteries to cover everyone on the planet. | Solar & wind is great. But we're not solving the climate crisis | without baseload power generation and distribution. All hands | on deck. | adrianN wrote: | Just use hydrogen if you can't build enough batteries. Make | it into methane or ammonia if you have trouble storing it. | causi wrote: | Global energy usage is 15TW. The earth's core currently | dissipates 47TW through passive cooling. The core has a mass | 528,000 times that of the atmosphere. | sophacles wrote: | Just a nit: fracking problems aren't from the depth of the | drilling. In fracking (hydraulic fracturing) they drill a hole | then push high pressure fluid into the hole in such a way as to | cause large volumes of rock to break apart. For something like | this, you'd want the hole to be stable and not tear apart all | the rock around it, like in a traditional well. | simias wrote: | But if we convert a lot of solar energy into electricity | instead of letting it turn into heat that could usher a new ice | age. | | That's about as reasonable as your point about tapping enough | heat from Earth's core to disturb the magnetic field. | adrianN wrote: | The electricity will eventually be turned into heat too. | Since PV panels are pretty dark, in most places where you put | them they will increase the amount of heat generated, because | less light is reflected back to space. | eloff wrote: | It all gets turned into heat anyway. Whether at the solar | panel or in the electrical transmission process, inverters, | or the actual devices being powered. | u320 wrote: | AFAIK they aren't planning to do any fracking, and it's not | obvious that it is even possible at these depths. And the | drilling is far less disruptive as it is given that it is done | at atmospheric pressure (no drilling fluid). | | As for your second point, batteries are not cheap. Nowhere near | cheap. We need solutions not pipe dreams. | azinman2 wrote: | Solar is much more limited by resources and manufacturing | ability, likely would cost a lot more than this just in | finished product, will take up a ton of land (very expensive), | works much better in certain areas than others, plus the still | unsolved problem of grid-scale storage for at night. You also | need to still build the equipment to hook it up to power lines; | if you can retrofit existing power plants into something that | works 24/7, then that is a much better alternative. | | I think the reality is we need a "yes and" approach, not a "no | but". | rossdavidh wrote: | I don't think I even need to do the math on this, to | demonstrate that our total energy usage is many orders of | magnitude smaller than what would be required to cause the | problem you're discussing. | | Solar is great, and growing fast, but for fairly obvious | reasons works better as part of a multifaceted solution than as | a single source. | adrianN wrote: | Pumping the energy out of the Yellowstone supervolcano was | proposed to lower the risk of an eruption. That seems like a | win-win to me. | HPsquared wrote: | Just as long as the math is correct and it doesn't turn out | to have the opposite effect.. | soheil wrote: | For every few miles you drill the temperature rises by 370F. | The closest we've ever come to drilling was with the Japanese | scientific drilling ship Chikyu [1]. It had to stop because of | extreme pressure collapsing the walls of the drilling hole | after just 7km. Just putting it into perspective, the amount of | heat trapped inside Earth is immense. | | [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiky%C5%AB | chinathrow wrote: | > It is much easier, and safer, to tap solar energy. If we pour | research into solar efficiency and house-scale batteries, we | could provide all of the electricity needed for U.S. homes and | have enough to sell to Canada and Mexico with only 16k sq miles | (the size of Nellis AFB). | | A million times this. | | We have solutions at our hands, but we're not willing enough to | use them | qayxc wrote: | Hm. Annual PV module production in 2020 was ~180 GW [0]; peak | power per 1m2 is on the order of 200W, meaning roughly the | equivalent of 1000 km2 or ~386 sq. miles or thereabouts of PV | modules. | | Covering 16,000 sq. miles would take about 40 years of the | entire global PV module production - a few years less if | adjusted for production increase. | | Doesn't sound very realistic to me, especially considering | infrastructure, storage solutions(!!!), and | maintenance/replacement have to be added on top of that. | | I'm all for clean and sustainable power generation, but a | little diversity (wind, nuclear, geothermal, biomass, tidal | power, hydropower, etc.) seems to be more realistic and | actually achievable. | | [0] https://www.statista.com/statistics/668764/annual-solar- | modu... | rsutherland wrote: | There is no possible way for humans to ever extract enough | geothermal energy in any of our lifetimes, expanded out to | 100,000 lifetimes, to ever affect the geothermal reserves of | the earth. You are making things up to fit you argument that | solar is better. | u320 wrote: | There was this idea going around that solar power would cause | global warming, since a solar panel is typically warmer than | whatever was there before it was installed. But the idea | turns out to be bullshit, the warming effect is tiny compared | to what the equivalent co2 from fossil fuels would cause. | | The lesson is: Always. Do. The. Math. First. | thfuran wrote: | You can't really do the math until you have an idea of what | you want to calculate. | falcolas wrote: | I've wondered as well about the effect of pumping all of that | heat - energy - out of the core and into (effectively) space. | | Best case, our use falls in the .003% mentioned in another | thread of heat that contributes to warming the Earth's crust, | and the surface is that .003% cooler. | | The worst case, though, is we start slowing (maybe even | stopping) the flows of molten rock as it's cooled down. I don't | even have the beginnings of a background to comment - does | anybody? | BurningFrog wrote: | I'd expect we'd use this energy source for only 50-100 years, | before tech & science developments makes it obsolete. | | So it's the wrong time to worry about effects after that. | eloff wrote: | I think geothermal can be part of a solution, as can solar, and | nuclear, and wind, etc. We need all hands on deck here. I think | you're not wrong to worry about cooling the interior of the | Earth too much, but that's a much slower problem we would have | plenty of time to adapt to. Millions of years is longer than | humans have been a species. Given all the other very viable | energy options out there, I don't see us overdoing it on the | geothermal front. Global warming on the other hand is going to | fuck us up over the next century. | | One thing I would like to see happen is tap the energy at | Yellowstone in a big way. We _want_ to cool that down before it | blows up in our faces. | ryan_j_naughton wrote: | Firstly, the energy from geothermal is NOT from the core or | even remotely that deep of an energy source. It is from | potassium and other elements doing radioactive decay in the | crust and upper mantle. | | Nonetheless, it is worth putting some numbers to gain | perspective: | | 1. World electricity demand was 24K terawatt hours in 2019 [1] | | 2. Mt St Helens volcano released 24 megatons of energy when it | erupted [2]. That is 28 terawatt hours. | | 3. Thus, you would be adding 824 equivalent Mt St Helen | eruptions a year in terms of additional energy extraction from | the earth. Which sounds like a lot, but it really isn't for | several reasons. | | 4. In particular, the earth is already radiating substantially | than this amount of energy to the surface. "Because of the | internal heat, the Earth's surface heat flow averages 82 mW/m2 | which amounts to a total heat of about 42 million | megawatts."[3]. That is 42 terawatts of continual energy loss | from the crust/upper mantle to the surface. That is 16 times as | much electricity as humanity uses -- and it is already be | radiated to the surface. | | My guess is that if we started extracting this from 20KM down | and bringing that heat to the surface, then it would cause some | increase in energy radiated to the surface, but it would also | be concentrating that energy radiated to the surface at the | location of the plant and potentially decreasing that energy | from its slow radiation path to the surface through the rock | above it. | | Either way that potassium and uranium is going to decay. Either | way, that heat will eventually make it to the surface and | eventually be lost to space. The question is whether we can | stand in the middle of that process and capture it for use. Our | using of that heat and turning it into electricity -- | ultimately still turns into heat and is radiated to space. It | just is turned into heat when it is loses on the electricity | transmission grid, when it is used to heat a house, when it is | used to move a car, etc. | | TANSTAAFL really doesn't intersect with the reality that stars | burn and the earth decays whether we use the energy or not. | Entropy comes for us all. We are just trying to be a step in | the ultimate transition of all this energy to the heat death of | the universe. | | [1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/280704/world-power- | consu... [2] https://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/en | ergy/energ.... [3] | https://www.worldenergy.org/assets/images/imported/2013/10/W... | donatj wrote: | I'm generally curious after reading this, what effect does our | molten core have on our ambient surface temperature? I can't | imagine much, but it can't be nil, and I genuinely have no idea. | icegreentea2 wrote: | Wiki says it's basically nil: | | > The flow of heat from Earth's interior to the surface is | estimated at 47+-2 terawatts | | And | | > Despite its geological significance, Earth's interior heat | contributes only 0.03% of Earth's total energy budget at the | surface, which is dominated by 173,000 TW of incoming solar | radiation | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_internal_heat_budget | donatj wrote: | Thank you so much for the link, there is a lot in here that | is genuinely fascinating! | | For instance heat from the surface "thus penetrates only | several tens of centimeters on the daily cycle and only | several tens of meters on the annual cycle" | ZeroGravitas wrote: | This is why ground source heat pumps are suprisingly | effective. You're drawing on the yearly solar inflow to the | ground, at a depth where the temperature is quite stable, | due to accumulating and averaging over years. | DLTADragonHawk wrote: | My curiosity in using things like heat pumps is that what | happens when you move too much of that heat energy away. | The heat might be doing nothing but, it has been there | for a long time. At what point is too much heat displaced | to the surface and what is the outcome of that? | antisthenes wrote: | You can read about what happened to the London | underground over the years. | | Except the process has been sort of reversed: there was | heat being introduced into the deep layers of clay and | rock. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Underground_cooling | ZeroGravitas wrote: | For them to actually work the energy needs to be | replaced, flowing from the hot areas to the (relatively) | cold areas, mostly coming from the sun. | | If you have a small area and continually pump the heat | out then you end up with the inside of a freezer, which | uses the same tech for exactly that purpose, but also | intentionally insulates to prevent the heat getting back | in. | aronhegedus wrote: | It's probably similar to the fact that wind turbines don't stop | wind around the world :D | soco wrote: | They actually do, a bit: | https://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-05/fyi-do- | wind-f... | pantulis wrote: | Thats for sure but, where does that energy come from? I would | say it comes from the earths own rotation, would this | infinitesimally slow the earth rotation? | | Anyway this is fascinating stuff! | lxgr wrote: | Solar radiation, ultimately (wind heats air, air expands, | that creates a pressure differential which ultimately | caused wind). | | Maybe you're thinking of tidal power plants? Tides are | gravitationally caused, and as far as I know tapping into | them infinitesimally changes Earth's rotation (and to some | extent probably also Earths and the Moon's orbit). | pantulis wrote: | Well I was thinking of the geothermal energy that Quaise | is pretending to extract. | TheCoelacanth wrote: | Geothermal energy comes from a mixture of radioactive | decay and from gravity pressuring the Earth's core into | gradually solidifying over the course of billions of | years. | pantulis wrote: | I also read that Quaise value proposal is drilling a 20km | deep hole but once you reach there, how do you transform | that into usable energy? Push water to extract vapor? | u320 wrote: | Yes pump water down, extract supercritical steam coming | out and then just use a regular turbine. | pantulis wrote: | Just curious, is this process performed in alternate | phases (pump water, wait for the vapor ) or is it done at | the same time with different pipes in the same hole? | bshipp wrote: | I'm also curious how they would deal with rock | deformation as it reaches the point of becoming less | solid and more squishy. There would need to be a | mechanism to maintain hole integrity post-drilling. | | To your question, I'm wondering if they simply pump down | water and extract resulting steam once it reaches the | point of vaporization? The steam condensers and | everything else are already built on-site for coal | generation. | | One difficulty would be handling any accumulated minerals | that got into the steam loop from interaction with the | rock in the hole. Unlike traditional closed-loop steam | generator, an open system would pick up contaminants and | eventually cause scaling. | deltarholamda wrote: | >stop wind around the world Probably not, but do they affect | local micro-climates? I have the same question about large- | scale solar farms. | | I've always assumed it's been looked at, so I don't worry | about it particularly, but I never see anybody talk about it. | MrsPeaches wrote: | As another spin-off of this, I've always wondered how much | tidal energy we can extract before we start messing up the | moon's orbit. | treeman79 wrote: | We lose energy from gravitational waves being emitted from | the earth spinning around the sun. Causing earth to move | toward the sun. | | The amount lost is sufficient to power a small toaster oven. | smilespray wrote: | Where can you buy one of these toaster ovens? | Scoundreller wrote: | Does it have a USB port? | revolvingocelot wrote: | Can't you read?! There's just one! | | ...and it's kept in the basement of the BIPM, right next | to the International Prototype of the Pop-Tart(r). | Ope_Welp wrote: | Fantastic. Geothermal power has such potential. "The amount of | heat within 10 000 meters of the earth's surface is estimated to | contain 50 000 times more energy than all oil and gas resources | worldwide." - The International Renewable Energy Agency | engineer_22 wrote: | How do they propose to remove the vaporized material from the | bore hole? | rexreed wrote: | My understanding of the term vaporization means turning a solid | into a vapor... so that implies there's nothing substantial | left after vaporization that can't be otherwise removed simply | through ventilation. | engineer_22 wrote: | My understanding is they propose to excite the material with | electromagnetic waves until it undergoes a phase shift, solid | to liquid to gas. | | So then they have superheated gaseous rock in the bottom of | the bore hole, how do they get it out? Conservation of mass: | it must _go_ somewhere. | | Ventilation isn't so simple. The gaseous rock will condense, | then harden on the walls of the ventilation tube. Or, maybe | it reacts with the materials of your down-hole equipment. | digdugdirk wrote: | The best part about vaporization is that there's nothing left | to remove. | engineer_22 wrote: | I can't tell if you're serious or not. | | If that's true, they're proposing to convert mass to energy? | [deleted] | TomGullen wrote: | A great video on this: | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8sjdOjNxIE | jmyeet wrote: | If I read this right, this is still the basic geothermal | structure and idea but is really an improvement in drilling? | | Geothermal seems to be limited by finding suitable places for it, | which is generally where you only need to build fairly shallow | wells. Building deep wells is expensive. If you can build deeper | wells faster and cheaper then it opens it up to move areas. | | Is that correct? | | Better and cheaper drilling has way more applications thatn | building geothermal wells. I mean we need to build tunnels all | the time. Cheaper drilling probably has significant applications | for the oil and gas industry too. | | So if that's true, why the focus on geothermal? I mean I support | research into renewables but it's a whole lot easier if, say, you | can get the oil and gas industry to pay for your R&D, | effectively. | | My understanding is that geothermal energy production is still | pretty low. | | It's also worth noting that boiling water to steam and turning a | turbine has inbuilt costs that you can't escape. There's only one | power source that directly creates energy and that's solar. | Additionally, solar has no moving parts (other than facing PV | pannels towards the Sun, optionally). | danans wrote: | > So if that's true, why the focus on geothermal? I mean I | support research into renewables but it's a whole lot easier | if, say, you can get the oil and gas industry to pay for your | R&D, effectively. | | I believe that is what they are doing, with initial projects | being related to gas exploration, and using that to refine the | technology. | u320 wrote: | I've been following Quaise for a while and I have never seen | any mention of such a plan. Oil and gas is into vertical | drilling and fracking, which these people have little use for | so the applications aren't that similar really. | | There are other geothermal startups doing more O&G-like | drilling though. | danans wrote: | The CEO mentioned it during a recent interview, I think | this one: | | https://www.woodmac.com/news/opinion/the-interchange- | recharg... | [deleted] | Nomentatus wrote: | Note the one of those limited, presently suitable areas in the | US is Yellowstone: a geographically immense caldera. But if | this tech proves cheap enough, as it may in time, we'll be able | tap geothermal anywhere rather than pay to transport or | transmit the energy. That's what's notable about the tech: | | "Houde began his talk with a quote from the Department of | Energy's 2019 Geovision report, an analysis of the geothermal | industry in the United States: 'Supercritical resources can be | found everywhere on Earth by drilling deep enough...Drilling to | this depth is financially prohibitive with existing | technology...Economic production of supercritical resources | will require the development of entirely new classes of | drilling technologies and methods.' | | Quaise is working to that end." | | https://bioengineer.org/quaise-inc-drilling-technology-could... | | Here's hoping the pudding will prove palatable. | giantg2 wrote: | My biggest question is whether this will be the next climate | crisis. There have been recent articles about how the earth's | geology is cooling faster than expected. There are questions | around if our planet will become a dead planet as it cools. It | seems like speeding this up could be an issue, especially given | how little we know. | idontwantthis wrote: | Can you link an article? | doikor wrote: | Geothermal heat provides less than 0.1% of the total heat of | our planet. It is pretty much all just the sun. So as long as | the output of the sun does not change much it won't be a | problem (so will have to wait billions of years and even then | sun will actually get bigger and hotter first before getting | colder) | NineStarPoint wrote: | The issue is that when the core cools too much it will cease | to be magnetic, and then solar radiation strips the | atmosphere. | | But it's not a major concern, in this case faster still means | billion year time scales. | u320 wrote: | The planet is expected to still be mostly molten by the | time the sun swallows it, so there is a huge margin. I | think people underestimate just how much energy there is | down there. | SoftTalker wrote: | And it's being replenished by nuclear decay. It's not | just the original heat from the compression/collisions of | material when the planet formed. | mahkeiro wrote: | Venus doesn't have an internal magnetic field and has a | thicker atmosphere than earth. | lrem wrote: | Won't Earth be engulfed in the first phase? If that's the | case, Solar gasses will also drag down our orbital velocity | and Earth will fall towards the core. So it won't be around | for the second phase. | Invictus0 wrote: | Total human energy consumption is 7.8e20 joules[0]. The heat | content of the earth is 1e31 joules[1]. That is a difference of | 100 billion times. Safe to say there is not going to be a | problem for a very long time. | | [0]: https://www.theworldcounts.com/challenges/climate- | change/ene... | | [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_gradient | Karellen wrote: | Yeah, but it looks like humans are doubling the amount of | energy produced/consumed per year every 30-40 years.[0] If we | say it takes 150 years to increase the amount of energy | consumed by a factor of 10, then we'll be consuming 100 | billion times more energy than we do today in well under | 2,000 years. | | Compared to a human life, that is a very long time. Compared | to the time it's going to take for the sun to expand and | swallow the earth (which others in the thread are doing), it | really isn't. | | [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_supply_and_con | sum... | Invictus0 wrote: | There were also roughly 50% fewer people on Earth 40 years | ago. The population is expected to peak and then decline in | much less than 2000 years. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-08-04 23:00 UTC)