Posted on 08/13/2007 5:57:20 PM PDT by neverdem
> constantly being renewed from the radioactive elements in the core
Sorry, Sauron. No more radioactivity down there than there is up here. That’s the Sun you’re thinking about. The Earth’s core is cooling — but over spans of billions of years, since the only ways the Earth as a whole can lose heat are radiation and gas escape.
The main reason it’s still warm is that you’re right about it being a huge amount of heat to start with. The volume of the solid earth is ~20x that of the entire ecosphere (even when very generously defined as being out to the edge of space) and several thousands of times denser — and that large, dense volume is very hot, around 10,000 degrees.
So there’s a *whole bunch* of heat energy down there. So yeah, I think it can stand a couple of glasses of ice water. In fact, you could pour all the oceans of the world on it to convert them to superheated steam to cook everybody on the planet and still not make much of a dent.
> I assume the author meant to say “gigawatt hours of electricity”.
Why? Such an investment would generate a continuous flow of electricity, hence “gigawatts” not “gigawatt hours”.
Huhh? Is he talking 100 GH hours over 40 years? If so, the same amount invested in a single 1000 MW coal or nuclear plant would produce three times more electricity in that same period.
100 GW hours over a 40 year period is not all that much electricity.
No, I'm pretty sure it's apples to apples. In other words, 1000GW vs 1000MW.
The center is not cooling but warming. This would let the excess heat production do some useful work before it is radiated to outer space.
1000 MW = 1 GW.
100 GWh (Gigawatt hour)is producing 1 GW for 100 hours.
That's what an average base load coal or nuclear plant produces over a course of a week.
Summer peak demand in the US exceeds 700 GW (or over 700,000 MW).
In terms of GWh, the US uses over 4,000 GWh per year. (4,000,000 MWh)
If that was what the author meant, he should have said “100 gigawatts generating capacity” (or similar). The terminology is important to avoid confusion — as in this case.
The actual, average capital cost of geothermal plants runs to about $2,000 per KW of capacity. To install 100 gigawatts of capacity would cost $200 billion dollars — at least $200 times the amount quoted in the article.
If the Swiss were actually spending only $8 to $10 per installed kilowatt of capacity; that would be a major breaktrhough. The feat would have been the lead story in every news outlet on the planet.
I’m pretty sure that’s what they meant — I can’t think of any reason anybody would *stop* pumping water down the hole once they reached 100 gwh. Besides, you *always* have to “interpret” science stories in the media. People smart enough to understand all the details don’t become reporters. :D
And that it would be a breakthrough is the point of the story — the reason it’s not the lead around the world is it’s only a proposal at the moment. It will be a while before anything actually happens. It took 24 years to dig a hole twice that deep. (http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=567)
“I’m pretty sure that’s what they meant ....”
We’ll have to leave it at that for now. The fact that neither of us knows for certain underscores the need to use proper terminology, when writing about — well, anything.
Radioactive potassium may be major heat source in Earth's core:
Radioactive potassium, common enough on Earth to make potassium-rich bananas one of the "hottest" foods around, appears also to be a substantial source of heat in the Earth's core, according to recent experiments by University of California, Berkeley, geophysicists.Radioactive potassium, uranium and thorium are thought to be the three main sources of heat in the Earth's interior, aside from that generated by the formation of the planet. Together, the heat keeps the mantle actively churning and the core generating a protective magnetic field.
“This consideration is irrelevant now that we know that a cold formation process assembled the Earth and that hydrocarbons could have been maintained, and could be here for the same reasons as they are on the other planetary bodies.”
ELECTRICITY involved in the formation of planets?
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=443
Click on this for a video of the coagulation process...
Hm. Guess my physics class has become outdated. :) Thanks for the info.
Yes, drilling could solve (local) energy problems two ways.
One: Some extra energy may be released by heating water underground (in a few places where volcanic rocks are near the surface and clean, excess surface water is available to pump underground).
And by reducing the need for energy topside by knocking down the buildings and factories and homes topside. 8<)
I’ve long thought plasma/magnetic field interactions explain the formation of planets and star systems better/faster than gravity does.
PVC (compared to corrugated metal pipe) is a smooth-sided, very thick-walled plastic pipe. Compared to most material, the plastic becmoes an effective insulator compared to the low temperature differences available.
Any metal pipe would be many times more effective than the PVC plastic. Though more likely to corrode out over time.
:’)
Scientific maverick’s theory on Earth’s core up for a test
SF Chronicle | Monday, November 29, 2004 | Keay Davidson
Posted on 12/05/2004 2:17:28 PM EST by SunkenCiv
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1294934/posts
if it cooled enough to stop rotating the Earths magnetic field could fail and we’d get zapped by radiation from space...IF you believe Hollyweird.
The sheer VOLUME of the molten material involved makes that impossible - if you could dump all the worlds polar icecaps, glaciers, AND oceans down a geothehrmal hole it wouldnt be nearly enough to noticeably cool it off.
Even a ‘Motie’ civilization would be hard pressed to exhaust geothermal energy...don’t let neoLuddites scare you about it.
Only in the mind of liberals ;-)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.