What is Digg?28 Comments
- Petrarch1603, on 10/12/2007, -1/+23ideas like this give me hope for our fragile planet
- eplawless, on 10/12/2007, -1/+17I swear, before this becomes practically viable, someone's going to have to find a way to produce toxic materials from geothermal energy extraction. Otherwise it's just not industry.
- CoffeeCup, on 10/12/2007, -2/+18MIT says a lot of things.
- chubbymidget, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14Didn't the Klingons do this and destroy their moon?
- Paktu, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12Best of all, in 2020, it will only be ten to fifteen years away!
- SmeRndmGy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10We need to put funding toward things like this instead of subsidizing the oil companies.
- EochaidRiata, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7We will not repeat the mistakes they made on Praxis.
- datagod, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Peter Griffin: "Yeah...I wanted to drill that Venus chick too...but not Mars....I don't swing that way"
- geekee, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5Most of the political commentary comes from a small number of liberals. Checkout Aidenag, BloodJunkie, etc.
Funny, I just noticed BloodJunkie posted this article. - avPaul, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"MIT says a lot of things."
Amen to that. Their "Technology Review" magazine has turned into the "Discovery Channel" of university publications... - jkendel, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3sadly nothing will replace the oil/gas sector until someone finds a way to make rediculous amounts of money off of it.
- jamessavik, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1From a technology standpoint, Geo-thermal energy is probably the easiest of the new energy technologies being considered to develop. Potentially the cleanest as well.
I hope that it doesn't get shelved by Luddites that hate all technology site unseen. - Paktu, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4I agree, but it's not politically feasible because it will cause a short-term spike in gas prices. I don't think too many congresscritters would be getting reelected at $5/gallon.
- mOdQuArK, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I wonder how much energy we'd have to use before people would start worrying about "cooling the Earth's core" :-)
- SmeRndmGy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2"I don't think too many congresscritters would be getting reelected at $5/gallon."
Good. It's time to switch things up. - Petrarch1603, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1as long as man needs energy, he is going to look at the closest and most efficient source. There will be a time when this need will be met by geo-thermal energy.
- elnerdo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2When I read the title, I was expecting drilling Mars, or Venus or something similar.
- mowog, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I'm rooting for geothermal, but here in Japan, where there are few fossil fuels but plenty of seismic energy, hot springs, and volcanos, I don't think geothermal has been going anywhere. Japan also has a large government that likes to invest in "forward-thinking" projects (well, someone thought they were at the time), but it doesn't seem to be jumping at geothermal.
How much can one learn from Iceland, which despite being near the Arctic Circle is (so I've read) self-sufficient in tropical fruits from all the greenhouses powered by extremely cheap geothermal energy? Alcoa is apparently going to build an electricity-sucking aluminum smelter there, because the E is near free (so I exaggerate a bit).
In southern Indiana, near French Lick and Paoli, one can sometimes see ads for geothermal home power systems. I never knew anyone who had them, but that's not where I lived, either. - feucht, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Yes, and hot water on communal tap in Reykjavik, though it does smell very eggy!!
- gedw99, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0This has a list of all geothermal energy project around the world. Its quite large.
http://www.dhm.ch/geothermlinks.html
This shows the exact amount each country generates from Geothermal compared to other forms, and also the various ways of actually mining it (so to speak):
http://wwwphys.murdoch.edu.au/rise/reslab/resfiles/geo/text.html
It sounds like a very promising technology, but its still twice the price of coal (for example) in the end, so more work is needed to make it cheaper to produce.
Also, very large quantities of water are needed, and about 20 to 30% of the water is lost in the process. - scott1, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1This might work. We already have the technology necessary to do this we just need to start building "heat mines". At least it won't be like Nuclear fusion or perpetual motion devices.
- Comatose51, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Forgetting global warming and the blanketing effects of certain man made pollutions for a minute, can we generate enough energy to heat up the Earth faster than it can be radiated out into space, assuming our atmosphere is not polluted in any ways?
- daldredge, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3@SmeRndmGy
How do we subsidize the oil companies? - lazydrumhead, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3not really...."universal"
- geekee, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2"How do we subsidize the oil companies?"
There are tax incentives for oil exploration. This isn't necessarily a bad thing. - scott1, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2@daldredge
Well ofcource he knew it's really. What he was asking if it could be abused and eventually destory the planet. - daldredge, on 10/12/2007, -10/+3You do know that Star Trek isn't real.
Don't you?
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is