"I'm a young earth kind of guy"

It's not a stereotype if it's always true

Question for the educated people, possibly a dumb one, all major power plants use steam turbines to generate electricity. Why can't we use the higher temperatures deep beneath the earths surface to create large amounts of steam. Wouldn't we just have to drill deep?

Not a dumb question, it's called geothermal energy I believe.

yes, there are few places in the world that we can drill to to get high temperatures, but it is a fantastic, clean form of energy

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/tech/geothermal-energy

I know of geothermal to heat a house but that doesn't really generate substantial energy. I meant on a significantly larger scale. Like putting in several 100megawatt generating stations where we could drill deep enough to achieve high enough temperatures to get superheated steam in large quantities.

are you, by chance, from iceland?

"Tens of thousands?" Science has proven that the Earth is "tens of thousands of years old?"

Geothermal energy has been used in houses and it can be proven that it can be used anywhere. Not sure if I or another person said this in the thread, but it's really costly to install, but it can lower heating costs for the better. The earth's heat is infinite and can be regulated in geothermal energy, and IMO it is the best source of heating compared to using oil and kerosene.

Geothermal/passive solar to heat and cool buildings and water, PV to power appliances, electric cars run from a grid based mostly on solar thermal plants, food grown locally, trains>planes, and Id say we could live on a much cleaner planet, coexisting with other life rather than destroying it.

True.

You have good ideas and everything kid, but you really need to research what you're talking about more in depth before you go preaching it.

1. The earth is 4.6 BILLION years old. Not "several million".
2. The Ozone problem is almost non-existant anymore (save China). The Ozone issue is one of the only true successes we as Humans have had at reversing our impact on the environment.
3. "The earth's heat is infinite and can be regulated in geothermal energy" Using the earth's energy IS geothermal energy. Saying that you can regulate the earth's heat with geothermal energy is like saying I pooped in the toilet with feces.
4. The EPA is a horrible entity to rely on for making any change. They're a regulatory agency, not a point of change.
5. Geothermal cannot be used anywhere. Geothermal energy is a very region-specific resource. There are specific hot spots throughout the world that are more viable sources for energy than others. Below is a map from NREL. Basically the entire mid-west and east coast is worthless for geothermal energy.

Nope, i am Canadian, Alberta actually, Being an electrician and working in some large power generation stations I've always wondered if all we need to make electricity is significant amounts of steam why are we not putting in more of an effort to drill deep enough to access the earths hot temperatures? Maybe fault lines? Or near volcanos, could be very difficult to control as there is some very high pressure down there. Seems simple enough, drill a deep ass hole, poor in lots of water, steam comes out.

Fukushima is a special case. Pretty much everything that could have went wrong did, and it was out of their control. Earthquake destroys stuff? No problem, backup power. Oh wait, tidal wave destroys backup power? We're fucked. The only thing that could have gone worse is if godzilla attacked after the tidal wave.

Yay! Fellow Albertan! I think that there are two possible reasons as to why we haven't done this in Alberta yet. 1) being that the oil industry is such an economy booster that we're going to milk it as long as we can or 2) something terrible would happen like a huge fucking eruption and we'd be responsible for the demise of man kind or some crazy shit.

I think you just answered your own question.

Haha you guys have all the answers to the global energy crisis dont you?

What do oil companies have to do with the production of electricity, two different forms of energy, never heard of large scale diesel or gasoline powers generation stations.

Ya was doubtful that we would have suitable locations for something like this, It would have to be one or a few really good locations with massive generating stations I would assume. I wouldn't think oil companies would necessarily be against this, However most industrial sites are using natural gas right now for electric generating thats super cheap

Haha that's nuts. But I don't think we will run out. I think it will just keep getting more expensive as it gets harder to get and eventually we will get tired of making deals with insane countries over it.

Please stop posting. Or at least do a little research, especially about something as basic as the generally accepted timeline of the earth.

fortunately, the only people who believe that crap live in the U.S.

well yeah that's usually what happens when there's an earthquake.

The biggest/easiest/cheapest solution to the energy use/climate change discussion is:

1. Stop using so much fucking energy
2. Stop having so many fucking kids

There isn't enough energy in the world for everyone to have a washing machine, yet we push and push for this to be the goal. Somewhere, something has to give. People look at China as this big bad polluting country that is using tons of energy. When in fact the US uses orders of magnitude more energy per capita than China and produces less alternative energy than China.

On to solar energy. Solar power is still extremely "young" and inefficient. I saw they just created a solar cell w/ an efficiency of something like 47%, that's a huge step. But in reality, typical solar cells are around 12-20% efficient. That's horrible. Just make more of them? Technology like solar cells and electric cars are the big buzz due to their seemingly "free energy" type operation when in reality they take a shitload of energy just to produce them in the first place. So again, everyone can't have a solar car, everyone can't have solar panels.

So, stop using so much fucking energy, and stop having so many fucking kids.

I don't know much about this, but Thorium can be used as an alternate fuel for nuclear generators.

Not much waste in wind energy.

I agree with the rest of your post but that's not even remotely true. There's plenty of potential energy out there, even with 100% renewable sources. We just don't chose to allocate the funding/subsidies properly to develop it to it's full potential. Between geothermal, Solar PV, Solar Thermal, increased efficency in HVAC systems and appliances, Solar, Wind, Micro Hydro, and other upcoming energy sources, we have plenty of energy to power the world... and some. Geothermal alone has enough potential energy to power the world. It's all about the allocation of development funds and showing the incentives to do so.

Couldn't agree more. We will never get the last drop of oil.

In about 15 years, oil extraction will start to decline (wells will dry up/unable to keep pace with demand) and when that occurs, the price of oil will drastically increase. Natural gas? Fracking, ahh maybe, however, look at what happened in Colorado. Solar electric. expensive.


Hemp is the only solution and when we solve the engineering problems to make Hydrogen Fusion power plants, thus harnessing the power of the Almighty star.


Did you know in a survey, the question---Did you consume or smoke any of these listed drugs? Hemp oil was included.

I hear you on that. I just feel like it's almost too idealistic to expect that kind of change. It's the culture of typical westerners, their lifestyle and energy use that others try to copy that leads to less focus on investment in the future and more on now now now, me me me.

But I agree, there is definitely enough potential energy out there. Being able invest in the technology needed to capture it, while decreasing current use is tough.

Addressing hemp in general. I seriously think it could be such a large solution to a portion of energy consumption if it was legal to grow on a massive scale for oil, paper, clothing, and materials in general.

Trust me, that's exactly what my business is and I deal mostly with the Baby Boomer generation who only think in terms of money and how they can be succesful in the "now". It's not too idealistic if you show people the incentives of it. All you have to do is show people that it will save them money and increase both national and international security. Who needs to develop domestic oil supplies when you can develop an infinite source of energy?

I have heard of hemp paper, Is it economical to make oil out of, just never heard of it??

personally I dont really see solar or wind as an economical source of energy, regardless I dont see it affecting oil production until were using electric cars.  Wind and solar I think would need a method of storing it to make it very useful.

I didn't read the thread at all really but can anyone tell me if they think solar, wind, or nuclear power will be the next big thing and why?

I just don't really see anything we have available now being the next major energy producer. I think it's gonna be fusion when we do finally step forward. Fusion power like...

personally think nuclear is the best thing we have today

but yes fusion much better

Hemp paper is what The Constitution is written on. There used to be a law in Jamestown that required you to grow hemp on your property. It also used to me our main cash crop/source of paper until Henry Aslinger starting running anti-hemp/cannabis campaigns and eventually convinced people that hemp and cannabis were the same plant.

Why do you say that Wind and Solar energy are not economical sources of energy? The only issue with them is efficency and storage and both are being solved very quickly. If we actually provide some decent funding to these technologies, they'll happen even quicker. I guarentee you will start seeing viable storage options or diurnal energy sources like wind/solar VERY soon. Trust me on that.

-Daniel Tosh

Nuclear will not be a part of future energy production. Save China and India, you will see many nuclear plants start to get decommissioned in the next few decades. They run clean, but it's a nightmare to store the used materials, they're national security issues, they're expensive as shit to run, use immense amounts of water, and have a bunch of other issues as well. The future will be combination of everything, including making devices/appliances so efficient that very minimal energy demands will be needed in the first place. Each geographical region will utilize a combination of different energy sources. Solar wouldn't do well in the PNW but wind, hydro and geothermal will. Geothermal won't do well in the mid-west or east coast, but solar, wind, and hydro will. The plains of Colorado can utilize all sources of energy while the higher elevation regions like Summit County would do well with everything except for Wind because the wind is too strong there and doesn't work within the threshold required for efficent wind production. The wind turbines you see at Copper are more for show than anything. Once energy storage technology for renewable resources increases, and hemp is used in place of oil for plastics and whatnot, oil will become obsolete.

Does that satisfy your question?

Purely out of interest, what makes you think, or believe nuclear won't be a part of the energy future. Do you have any research that supports this? (maybe I should be selling my uranium stocks). Would it not make more sense to start shutting down coal before nuclear as coal is Responsible for so much pollution? When it comes to solar and wind what kind of technologies do you know of that can store the energy so that it is more usable when required? If not yet developed what kind of timeline are we looking at. Will it not require absurd amounts of windmills and solar panels to Replace nuclear (and hopefully coal)?? Also how much hemp will be required to be grown to replace paper and oil?? Is it possible that it could be a pipe dream like ethanol oil?

Two words: Hemp fusion.

Purely out of interest, what makes you think I'm a scholar's scientific encyclopedia?



I could write for days on this but I'll do what I can here to answer your questions but I don't have time to go fishing for the peer-reviewed articles I've read on the subject. If you really care, go use Google Scholar. Of course it makes sense to shut down Coal plants first but nuclear plants should be (in my opinion) decommissioned as well. May I ask why you are so enthralled by Nuclear power? Neither coal or nuclear power make much logical sense. Uranium is a finite resource and coal is dirty. Used uranium is a nightmare to store (I already mentioned that though), and decommissioning a nuclear plant is an even bigger nightmare than storing the used nuclear waste. The only nuclear power that makes sense is Geothermal Energy, which is completely different than traditional Nuclear Plants. Sure it runs clean, but I don't think Nuclear will be a part of the long term (key words "long term") energy future because it's not stable enough, it's too expensive, too limited by finite resources, has security issues, is a disaster to store the waste, is a disaster to decommission and there are too many other cheaper/cleaner sources out there being developed right now that will make nuclear power obsolete.

For your energy storage question. There's a lot of different storage ideas being generated but hte most interesting I have seen are both fuel cells which and fuel-to-gas storage techologies. Here's an interesting upcoming company (partially owned by GM) that I suggest investing in instead of or in addition to your energy stocks. The "timeline" is now. Technology is there, we just have to invest in it to make it widely available. http://www.hydrogenics.com/

Yes, it will require an "obsurd" amount of solar development but what does that matter when there's millions of south-east facing rooftops in the country? Germany is the global leader in solar energy production, but here in the US we have MUCH higher solar potential than the Germans do. Why not USE that potential? here's a graphic comparing hte two potentials. Keep in mind that even with the lack-of-solar potential, that Germany is STILL the global leader in Solar (and forestry but that's another story).



Yes, a metric fuckton of hemp will be required to be grown in order to replace paper and oil but hemp is fast growing, regenerative, nitrogen fixing plant that an be grown in poor and degraded soils. BAsically, what I'm trying to say is that the great thing about hemp (and other nitrogen fixers) is that you can grow it in soils that have been devastated and it can help to rejuvinate that soil (to an extent). Vertical farming can be utilized to save space as well. No, hemp is not a "pipedream" like ethanol because it has WAY WAY WAY more uses than ethanol and isn't a stable food source like corn is. Hemp can be grown to be used as food for livestock, as a substitute for many petroleum products (including plastics), it's fibers can be used for cloths, ropes, and paper; it's oils for fuel, the plant itself for rejuvenation of degraded and nitrogen poor soils, and it's oil from the seeds can also be used for an immense amount of health benefits including fighting cancer.

I'm going to bed now. In before tldr.

I meant staple food source instead of stable food source

nuclear power will save the world.

wind and solar power is for the stupid environmental science hippies.

thank you for spelling hippie correctly.

Half of this thread is now Tosh

I am really doubtful that any nuclear plants will begin to be decommissioned in the next 10-30 years, I am willing to bet that they are still even being built in that time. They're clean, uranium won't run out in a long ass time and they can generate significant power, (not saying this is necessarily a good thing) This will outweigh its downsides and proabably make it more attractive than coal in the future. Solar and wind at "absurd" levels may be able to one day cover residential power demands, but not industrial needs. Good idea, not enough capacity plus so many dead birds haha. Enhanced geothermal on the other hand is definitely the best solution. Long term I could see it (hope to anyways) overtaking coal and nuclear. Hopefully it can be as promising as it looks. Until it really gets going though I think nuclear is going to stay.

I mean, you're right that Nuclear probably won't go away any time soon. I was being more idealistic than anything. I do think that it is entirely possible that solar and other renewable types can be applied to industrial uses; that will require further technological gains though. As of now, we can definitely produce enough power for large scale residential applications, where geographically viable, through a combination of solar PV, Solar Thermal, and increasingly efficient housing envelopes. There are a lot of innovations going on in the renewable energy fields and things can only get more efficient/self-powering as technology improves. Why not start investing in it now? What's the worst that could happen, oil companies losing money?