I’m not sure that you can do it correctly! Where is there any data on the talking points of my post? You would do better to follow the court battles that went all the way to Supreme Court. And the investment patterns of geothermal energy during that period. Just throwing stuff against the wall with internet searches to see what sticks is a waste of time.
How about you? Do you have any sources that support your story?
Back in the 70’s the carbon credits were look at as another commodity market and being sold to the public that way. The future energy that we understood would be required was going to be enormous. What was being done by the big oil and utility companies was a blueprint for clean and carbon free energy by the use of geothermal energy. At the time the Geysers just north of San Francisco was the poster child for the geothermal energy of the future. Over half of the electric at the time use by San Francisco area came from the Geysers.
What happened next was the (mainly the California) scientists at the time attacked the geothermal energy with what turned out to be fault accusations and theories. But the public backed the scientists in the belief of these fault accusations.
Now, had the oil companies and utility companies been allowed to build the geothermal inner structure that they wanted to construct. Then we would have had and would have been using carbon free and dirt cheap energy now for decades. The utility companies did the only thing the public would allow, build the system using cheap coal.
I’m not sure that you can do it correctly! Where is there any data on the talking points of my post? You would do better to follow the court battles that went all the way to Supreme Court. And the investment patterns of geothermal energy during that period. Just throwing stuff against the wall with internet searches to see what sticks is a waste of time.
How about you? Do you have any sources that support your story?
Back in the 70’s the carbon credits were look at as another commodity market and being sold to the public that way. The future energy that we understood would be required was going to be enormous. What was being done by the big oil and utility companies was a blueprint for clean and carbon free energy by the use of geothermal energy. At the time the Geysers just north of San Francisco was the poster child for the geothermal energy of the future. Over half of the electric at the time use by San Francisco area came from the Geysers.
What happened next was the (mainly the California) scientists at the time attacked the geothermal energy with what turned out to be fault accusations and theories. But the public backed the scientists in the belief of these fault accusations.
Now, had the oil companies and utility companies been allowed to build the geothermal inner structure that they wanted to construct. Then we would have had and would have been using carbon free and dirt cheap energy now for decades. The utility companies did the only thing the public would allow, build the system using cheap coal.
I am the source. This was before the internet came along. Life seemed a lot simpler back then. Ask me what points you are interested in. That way I will not have to write page and pages. I worked the Geysers, then was hired by Hughes and given the geothermal fields in Southern California as my territory. I also worked with the Department of Energy on a program to build geothermal educational trailers.
I am the source. This was before the internet came along. Life seemed a lot simpler back then. Ask me what points you are interested in. That way I will not have to write page and pages. I worked the Geysers, then was hired by Hughes and given the geothermal fields in Southern California as my territory. I also worked with the Department of Energy on a program to build geothermal educational trailers.
Hmmm, K , got it, Bad Scientists, Good Oil Men, stifled in their tracks so what else were they to do. :blank:
But this data isn’t getting much play. How come? And we still don’t have an answer for the Neoproterozoic climatic paradox when the CO2 was 300 times more than today’s levels and it was a snowball for 10 million years.
Hi, I'm new so please let me know if I'm butting in to existing conversations.
There s no "butting in". This is an open forum. Anyone can add his opinion to any thread.
My understanding of the high level of atmospheric CO2 during the snowball Earth period is they were the result of the global glaciation.
When all the continents are along the equator there's no way to prevent a runaway glaciation event if the ice cover reaches within 30 degree of the equator...I forget how it works exactly it has to do with uptake of CO2 from land surfaces that are no longer present when all the continents are along the Equator and an albedo feedback. So when climatic variation at the time pushed glaciation over this limit there was no way to stop it, ice cover reached all the way to the equator. This blocked the uptake of carbon dioxide by the oceans and weathering from rock. Volcanic activity was still able to push trough the ice cover and CO2 built up slowly in the Earth's atmosphere because there was no mechanism to remove it. After it reached certain levels it provided enough of a positive radiative forcing to overcome the negative forcing of having a highly reflective ice cover over most of the Earth. The Earth then warmed rapidly, the oceans were once again available to take in CO2 as was exposed land cover. This was probably repeated a number of times in freeze/fry cycles or so the theory goes.
It's just one more piece of evidence of how important CO2 is in maintaining a global climate equilibrium I think, we wouldn't even be here if CO2 wasn't a very powerful factor in forcing the climate into different states depending on its atmospheric concentration.
As for climate models, they're intended as a check on current data and a guide to look at where further change may take us. They cover a broad range of possible forcings, people who claim inaccuracy in climate models show there is little understanding of human forced climate change have little understanding of what climate models are or what their intent is. They give a range of solutions given certain inputs, they're not some mystical divination of the natural world. Although I imagine they could seem that way to people who seem to use magical thinking to discount the huge amount of empirical evidence in support of human driven climate change.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/how-do-climate-models-work.html
http://www.elsevierscitech.com/emails/physics/climate/the_origins_of_computer_weather_prediction.pdf
On the glaciation cycles, according to Hansen in his book, with just one factory producing CFCs there would be no possibility of a new ice age on the Earth. The negative forcings of the Milanchovitch cycle are tiny and work applied over thousands of years with strong direct feedbacks resulting in a much cooler Earth and largely ice covered Northern Hemisphere. They would be completely overwhelmed by the much greater positive human radiative forcings from things like emitting hundreds of billions of tons of CO2 over the last couple of centuries plus a bunch of other changes.
I am the source. This was before the internet came along. Life seemed a lot simpler back then. Ask me what points you are interested in. That way I will not have to write page and pages. I worked the Geysers, then was hired by Hughes and given the geothermal fields in Southern California as my territory. I also worked with the Department of Energy on a program to build geothermal educational trailers.
Hmmm, K , got it, Bad Scientists, Good Oil Men, stifled in their tracks so what else were they to do. :blank:
Yes, you are correct. The movements were protests that were held back then. They seemed to be more of a social than issue driven protests to me personally. Mostly hippy type of events. At the time I was corresponding with one of the top mining geologist in the country. He was mapping out aluminum deposits in Baja Mexico for the United States government and I was following the old maps to historical gold mining that took place before Pancho Villa ran all the foreigners out of this part of Mexico back in the early 1900’s. The mining geoogist was taking students to finish their doctor’s degree to Mexico but wanted to be sure it was safe and that he knew the country first. At the time being robbed by bandits was a problem. One of the partners in the gold mining venture was a Mexican Army officer. He had the rank of what we call colonel. He provided us with soldiers for protection in the bad areas. He was also providing protection for the geologist. He got us together and we ended up testing several of the old mining operations. I was able to be there because the startup and funding of the geothermal operations had been held up by permitting process of the State of California because of the earth quakes the scientists said were caused by the geothermal drilling operations. I had contacted the geologist that worked for Magna and the oil companies and they told me that the State college scientists were just creating work for themselves. That there was nothing to their theories. Around the campfires in Mexico the mining geologist explained a lot about geothermal to me. The gold mines themselves were the result of old geothermal activity. The mining geologist was also a State of California professor and he said that the geothermal shut down was based upon bad theories by the scientists.
The bad theories. Here was the problem in a nutshell. The State of California college scientists would go to an area where the geothermal drilling was taking place and setup instruments and record movements from the earth in the form of very small earth quakes. The instruments were working properly and the very small earth quakes were real. The bad science happened when they connected the earth quakes to the geothermal drilling that was taking place. The geologist for the drilling operation claimed that the micro earth quakes are taking place all the time and everywhere on earth. The State geologist disagreed. So the geothermal geologist challenged the State geologist to provide any spot on earth that these micro earth quakes are not taking place. The State geologist pick one of the most stable spots in America located in Texas and setup their instruments. It took them three years to do the testing. It is now accepted that micro earth quakes are taking place everywhere on earth. The new instruments at the time were just able to detect finer details. Instruments today in Idaho can pick up storm waves hitting the beaches in Washington State. By the time all this had worked its way to the truth. The direction of future energy had bypassed geothermal investment by the government and investing public. In my geothermal area of Southern California I expected the some investment to move forward. But we had a lot of lawsuits taking place about the status of geothermal. The geothermal is close to pure heat. It would melt gold and when expanded in the surface pipes the gold would line the pipes. The mineral rights of who owned the gold ended up in court. Then once the court cases started there were scientists who claimed that geothermal steam itself was a mineral that had ownership. Geothermal steam as a mineral took years and worked its way to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled that geothermal was just hot water.
I am the source. This was before the internet came along. Life seemed a lot simpler back then. Ask me what points you are interested in. That way I will not have to write page and pages. I worked the Geysers, then was hired by Hughes and given the geothermal fields in Southern California as my territory. I also worked with the Department of Energy on a program to build geothermal educational trailers.
Data existed before the internet, people just put it ON the internet. The links include how much energy Geysers produced and how much San Francisco consumed. It does not come out to half, as you claimed.
It would melt gold and when expanded in the surface pipes the gold would line the pipes.
Hmmm, that's interesting. Can you point to any papers written up on the phenomena? What other metals would be deposited with gold?
As for the rest of your story, right now, it's exactly that an interesting story around the camp fire. Be interesting to read something more objective than selective memory. Also seems that considering California's Earthquake history and the San Andrea's Fault and all that, simply writing them off as idiots, is playing your bias card pretty hard. A little caution may have been quite appropriate.
Speaking about those wonderful oil men who are out for America's good - how about them earthquakes in Oklahoma.
Or does fracking have nothing to do with it and it's just another example of those good all-american's being bullied by those bad scientists and hippies??
Mike, Did you notice any snickering going on around this campfire while they were telling you these stories? Did one guy whisper to another “tell him its pure heat”, then the others laugh as you believed this tall tale?
Mike, Did you notice any snickering going on around this campfire while they were telling you these stories? Did one guy whisper to another "tell him its pure heat", then the others laugh as you believed this tall tale?
Agreed. I'd like Mike to define "pure heat" for us. Heat is energy transferred from a hot body to a cold body.
Mike, Did you notice any snickering going on around this campfire while they were telling you these stories? Did one guy whisper to another "tell him its pure heat", then the others laugh as you believed this tall tale?
Agreed. I'd like Mike to define "pure heat" for us. Heat is energy transferred from a hot body to a cold body.And how do you move energy from a hot body to a cold body? Can you explain? Or do you have a clue? The term pure heat helps in the understanding that we are dealing with high temperatures. The holes are not drilled for the geothermal water. The holes are drilled for the heat. Geothermal is a by product of the drilling for heat. The heat is in the rocks, to move the heat, water is added to make a median for transportation. Only then can the heat energy be transferred. As the rock cools the rock cracks until the rate of heat matches the amount of water that can remove the heat. Once the water gets the heat to the surface then the heat is conditioned with more water for the transportation to the generating turbines. Once at the generating station the heat is then used to make steam to drive the turbines. The hole normalization takes about two years. The first well drilled at the Geysers was in the early 1900's and it is still producing the same amount of energy today, over a hundred years latter. This will be the last time I answer a question for you that is not ask in a adult manner.
Heat by convection occurs when the motion of a liquid or gas carries energy from a warmer region to a cooler region.
Which is what Darron said. I understood what Darron said.
I understood what Spock meant when he said, "pure energy". (You can look that up if you want)
Saying "pure heat" does not help me understand that it's really hot, not in any definition of "heat" I've ever seen.
Oh, and here's the temperature of the steam.] Not that hot really.
I understood what Spock meant when he said, "pure energy". (You can look that up if you want)
Saying "pure heat" does not help me understand that it's really hot, not in any definition of "heat" I've ever seen.
Heat is a measurement of energy, not an entity unto itself. Astronomers measure the temperature of the gas between stars in nebulae and the gas is hot, but if you were centered between stars in the Pleiades you'd quickly freeze without an portable energy source. Something is said to be hot when it has a lot of energy.
What is Heat?]
There are several definitions here, all commonly used in physics. "Pure heat" is a meaningless term.
And how do you move energy from a hot body to a cold body? Can you explain? Or do you have a clue?
I myself liked referring to it as thermo-mass.
I've been criticized, but I'm not a scientist.
I do know that it worked quite well back in the day, when I had to explain to servers that they had to preheat little tea pots and cups.
"Kids, it's quite easy, think "Thermo-mass""
First you fill the cold cup and pot with hot water, let it stand while getting your tray together.
Thus allowing the heat from the water to transfer into the porcelain of the cup and pot.
Once heat has transferred water has lost its thermo-mass and must be discarded.
Place cup upside down to stop convection from sending all that heat into the air.
Refill the pot with piping hot water, that now stays piping hot because the pot has already absorbed all the heat it can.
Serve with a smile and the sweet old ladies will know you are a server with Class and that you know what you're doing.
:coolsmile:
It would melt gold and when expanded in the surface pipes the gold would line the pipes.
Hmmm, that's interesting. Can you point to any papers written up on the phenomena? What other metals would be deposited with gold?
As for the rest of your story, right now, it's exactly that an interesting story around the camp fire. Be interesting to read something more objective than selective memory. Also seems that considering California's Earthquake history and the San Andrea's Fault and all that, simply writing them off as idiots, is playing your bias card pretty hard. A little caution may have been quite appropriate.
Speaking about those wonderful oil men who are out for America's good - how about them earthquakes in Oklahoma.
Or does fracking have nothing to do with it and it's just another example of those good all-american's being bullied by those bad scientists and hippies??
Citizen, are you really interested in facts, or are you trying to make a joke out of any item that helps explain how one looks at climate change. You are sounding like a communist. Oil companies are one of the few trades built by the United States that people can be proud of. Our steel mills are mostly gone now. Our refineries are now built overseas. Our lead in the auto is falling apart. The only big trades we are going to have is farming, banking and world police left if we continue down this path. I will summarize the points I make because you misdirect what is stated to untrue talking points.
You think in terms of good and evil. That there are good scientists and evil oil men. The point I made was that the scientists do work in the oil trade too. And we had scientists disagreeing with other scientists. Had this not of happened then we might also be the world leaders in geothermal energy production today. The footprint of geothermal energy in global warming would be very small.
Your use of misdirection with the San Andrea fault and fracking in Oklahoma, can only mean that you are really out of talking points.
If you are really interested in what other metals would be deposit with the gold, we need to have Lausten look that up for us. Myself, I was only interested in the court cases about who owned the gold ending so the work could begin.
Heat by convection occurs when the motion of a liquid or gas carries energy from a warmer region to a cooler region.
Which is what Darron said. I understood what Darron said.
I understood what Spock meant when he said, "pure energy". (You can look that up if you want)
Saying "pure heat" does not help me understand that it's really hot, not in any definition of "heat" I've ever seen.
Oh, and here's the temperature of the steam.] Not that hot really.
Lausten, you are trying to ride a dead horse. Let me help you out a little bit here. What you are going to find if you keep researching the Geysers is a little history that will tell the story correctly. The Geysers that I worked at years ago no longer exists in the same manner or context. You are trying to compare apples to oranges with your thirty second searches. A question for you, is can you tell me why they are not the same? The trade knew even back then that the Geysers was limited and were trying to find a solution for the problem. The real hope for Geothermal competing with nuclear at the time was Imperial Valley in California.
I use the term pure heat because it worked in the research we did for the geothermal educational trailers. We wanted to make clear that it was not water that was hot, it was the rock. What is being used at the Geysers today would have been capped back then for not being even close to hot enough.
If you are really interested in what other metals would be deposit with the gold, we need to have Lausten look that up for us. Myself, I was only interested in the court cases about who owned the gold ending so the work could begin.
None of the minerals in the steam is found in commercial quantities.
The minerals arsenic, boron, and ammonia are present in the steam...
"All oil, gas, oil shale, coal, phosphate, sodium, gold, silver, and all other mineral deposits in public lands belonging to the State, or which may become the property of the State, are reserved to the State."
It's really a simple case of rights being granted to land, then the land being used in a different way and additional value discovered in it. It's pretty clear cut that the State has mineral rights and never granted them. I don't see how this affected geothermal energy at the time or any time since.
I understood what Spock meant when he said, "pure energy". (You can look that up if you want)
Saying "pure heat" does not help me understand that it's really hot, not in any definition of "heat" I've ever seen.
Heat is a measurement of energy, not an entity unto itself. Astronomers measure the temperature of the gas between stars in nebulae and the gas is hot, but if you were centered between stars in the Pleiades you'd quickly freeze without an portable energy source. Something is said to be hot when it has a lot of energy.
What is Heat?]
There are several definitions here, all commonly used in physics. "Pure heat" is a meaningless term.
We were considering using the term pure energy with the geothermal educational trailers, but our tests showed pure heat worked better. I can see that pure energy would work better with the understanding on this web site. The key problem back then was to help people understand that the drilling was for heat and not for water. We had to deal with the general publics and the school children’s understanding of geothermal being of hot (heat) water. We had to separate the two.
As for the points you post, I agree, you are right.
I also found something on the earthquake problem. ]
It seems the geothermal scientists do accept this idea and are dealing with it. That’s why I google things you say Mike, they never quite match up to what I find in reputable sources. I’m sure it’s possible you know things that no one else but you and a few guys around a campfire know, but would accept my retelling of such stories?
It would melt gold and when expanded in the surface pipes the gold would line the pipes.
Hmmm, that's interesting. Can you point to any papers written up on the phenomena? What other metals would be deposited with gold?
As for the rest of your story, right now, it's exactly that an interesting story around the camp fire. Be interesting to read something more objective than selective memory. Also seems that considering California's Earthquake history and the San Andrea's Fault and all that, simply writing them off as idiots, is playing your bias card pretty hard. A little caution may have been quite appropriate.
Speaking about those wonderful oil men who are out for America's good - how about them earthquakes in Oklahoma.
Or does fracking have nothing to do with it and it's just another example of those good all-american's being bullied by those bad scientists and hippies??
Citizen, are you really interested in facts, or are you trying to make a joke out of any item that helps explain how one looks at climate change. You are sounding like a communist. Oil companies are one of the few trades built by the United States that people can be proud of. Our steel mills are mostly gone now. Our refineries are now built overseas. Our lead in the auto is falling apart. The only big trades we are going to have is farming, banking and world police left if we continue down this path. I will summarize the points I make because you misdirect what is stated to untrue talking points.
You think in terms of good and evil. That there are good scientists and evil oil men. The point I made was that the scientists do work in the oil trade too. And we had scientists disagreeing with other scientists. Had this not of happened then we might also be the world leaders in geothermal energy production today. The footprint of geothermal energy in global warming would be very small.
Your use of misdirection with the San Andrea fault and fracking in Oklahoma, can only mean that you are really out of talking points.
If you are really interested in what other metals would be deposit with the gold, we need to have Lausten look that up for us. Myself, I was only interested in the court cases about who owned the gold ending so the work could begin.
Wait a minute buddy. You wrote about about gold lining the inside of pipes.
That's a really fascinating thought to me. I am into geology and have learned about gold deposits, even worked at a real gold mill, Sunnyside, in Silverton.
You can tour the place now. So I was asking you for more information about that,
be interesting to learn about the circumstance under which it happens, and so on.
Also seems that other metals would be involved.
All innocent enough. Why the freak out?
It was a potentially fascinating tangent.
But instead your … your … I don't know your paranoia, your tunnel vision, I don't know what...
But you really don't need to dump on me.
And what's with the communist crap?
Wanna know something chump, I'm probably more a real "libertarian" than any of youz right wingers.
If libertarian means living a life of maximized personal freedom.
Except I never bought into the notion that I had to clutter my life with stuff,
so my freedom wasn't depend on the sweat of others, I found a way under my own steam!
I actually managed to go down the path less traveled and it's been cool as creation.
You asked :blank:
So Tell me Mike, who are you? :smirk:
_______________________________________
Beyond that I was asking for some facts. There must be stories written about it at the time.
Actually I vaguely remember some of the controversy being from the bay area during the early 70s,
so I'd enjoy looking at some of those old articles.
Why get so offended and offensive about asking for independent corroborating sources???
I don't think in terms of good and evil, it was sounding to me like you do that, and I was asking you to clarify.
Lighten up.
Oh and what's with the always fabricating demons out of people who are trying to conduct a rational discussion???