Magma Energy – Feasible since 1982 !?

So what is the effect of cooling that magma to the point where use is no longer viable in 700 years (or sooner if the projections were a little off). What does the heated fluid magma do for the general environment of the planet. Currently tht heat must be doing something as part of our environment, since it exists uncerneath us and must pass through our environment to escape the planet. Also how does the earth magnetic field strength correspond to the fluidity, temperature, and convective flow of the magma? Since our magnetic field is necessary to stop solar winds and radiation from stripping away our atmosphere and frying everyone, it might be something to consider. How would this effect the rotation and tilt of our planet? how does the rotation, tilt, magnetic field, and thermal energy escaping from the earths core effect our weather? How would this effect seismicity?

Also how is this a renewable source? How do you regenerate the heat in the magma that you previously extracted?

Good question - if we thought patching the ozone and sequestering CO2 was tough..........

Well on a small scale it is probably trivial. However, the effects on a large scale to provide a substantial portion of our energy needs should be considered, especially over a long timeline, such as 700+ years, with the growing population and per capita demand for energy. We are effectively talking about accelerating the heat transfer from the core to space. However, in the short term this is a good patch for some portion of our energy needs to allow time to transition to a better source of energy.

The DOE found this out rather recently (by comparison); that magma has been down there for quite some while, I believe. With diligence, within 700 years, we ought to have figured a solution to the energy problem. Larry Niven's "Ringworld" perhaps? Or maybe just cultural annihilation so we can resume our paleolithic ways. However, this might be the solution we need to keep the great Yellowstone volcano from destroying the North American continent...

My thoughts exactly

Brad

Hmm, I am not sure that an eruption of yellowstone could actually destroy the whole continent. I am not even sure that it could make all of the contiguous US uninhabitable or kill all the people in the US during the eruption. I suspect it would cause severe ash falls in the least populated areas of the US, making those require immediate evacuation, probably cause some respiratory issue over a few years exposure to most of the midwest north of texas through florida and maybe even have some minor impacts as far as the eastern seaboard, and then maybe lead to a few years of cooling in the northern hemisphere due to the ash in the atmosphere. However ash makes for good agricultural soils, so Iowa would be back in business probably within a decade. However, I am pretty sure the continent would still exist and be habitable in many places even immediately during and following an eruption.

Correctly placed the cooling could not only provide large scale power but also slowly reduce the chance of various volcanoes erupting (eg Mt St Helens).

I can't think of any significant environmental problems.

The earth's magnetic field comes from rotation of a molten core far deeper than any drilling likely for this purpose.

Hmm, interesting, and this rotation and molten core you speak of how does it reverse our magnetic field every so often? As I understood my geology courses in college, the magnetic field derives from the convective activity in the outer core. So if enough people draw enough energy from the lower mantle, reducing the temperature of the mantle underlying various wealthy countries, how does this effect the convection in the outer core. Additionally, how much does this accelerate the cooling of the planet. Everything we do has some effect, it is just that some effects are insignificant until we do them at a large enough scale or long enough duration. As a rule those effects that go unnoticed for a very long duration or until we have a very large scale generally have large source/sinks and damping factors. At what point do we overwhelm the damping. 30 years ago no one believed we could have much of an effect on the worldwide climate. also, once you start down this type of road, and you keep building and growing as the effect is "insignificant" where do you tell them to stop, which country or company gets the last geothermal energy plant.

My geology is pretty rusty so you are probably right that the magnetic field comes from convective activity in the outer core.

It still amounts to a huge amount of energy before it could have a significant effect.

By the time it does, we should have developed different sources of energy, eg fusion.

The question becomes, by the time it becomes significant and we conduct the studies to prove a significant adverse impact and the world governments come to a consensus to solve the problem, will be be so far along that we have exceeded the natural attenuating/dampening effects of the natural environment. How close can you get to a waterfall before you have gone to far to go back, and how much would it cost to go back. I think we are seeing this on a much smaller scale with the climate change issues. I am not sure it is prudent to jump up to screwing around with something on a much larger scale that could potentially have a much greater impact on life on the surface without a substantial factor of safety built in. I am sure 100 years ago they thought oil was so plentiful that it was a nearly inexhaustible supply of cheap energy, and 30 years ago they thought that if we could reduce the particulates and heavier smog producing components and/or exhaust them to the upper atmosphere we would improve life and the atmosphere would readily absorb our contributions like some endless sink.