[pp.int.general] Global heating: 2 degrees of heating is 16 years away

[Maxime Rouquet]

On 07/28/2012 06:07 PM, Kenneth Peiruza wrote:
> That is micro-geothermal, not geothermal. It's not my fault if you don't
> explain properly well.

Sorry, I am not a native English speaker.

> BTW, that is a SMALL part of a global thing called "sustainable
> architecture" (...) " The most important and cost effective (...) element
> of an efficient heating, ventilating, and air conditioning (HVAC)
> system is a well insulated building"

I agree. In general, the principle that fixing any cause of energy
wasting before looking for more energy production systems is good.

However, when the need of producing energy exists, we should also look
for good ways of doing it. Micro-geothermal of geothermal systems are an
example of what can be done and will not be supported by a big
monopolistic energy selling company, but it remains only an example.

When I speak about it I give the example of Iceland, or overseas French
territories that have a compatible volcanic activity, but I also explain
that the solution must be adapted to local conditions. Of course
geothermal energy cannot be exploited everywhere. And micro-geothermal
energy is difficult in crowed areas like cities...

The solution can only be found on a case by case basis, my point is that
we should not depend on a unique global solution like nuclear power in
France (three quarters of electric production) which has all the
weaknesses of any centralized system (plus a bunch of others...), but
rather look for locally optimized renewable energy production solutions
that, most of the time, will not be promoted by Areva or EDF.

And probably also break most of states monopolies on energy distribution.

> As I told you, digging around volcanic areas can easily cause loads of
> earthquakes, as already demonstrated in Switzerland and New Zealand.
> Looks like Hawai is having problems as well...

Nuclear energy done wrong would have wrong effects, look at Chernobyl
and Fukushima. Maybe geothermal energy is not a good idea, but the fact
that someone did something wrong with it is not a final argument to
discard it.

> BTW, geothermal plants cause CO2 & CH4 (methane) emissions, H2S (acid
> rain) and ammonia (NH3). The water used there is rich in heavy metals
> (mercurium and so), and might be processed & reused to avoid toxic
> waste, and so and so and so....
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_electricity#Environmental_impact

This might be true for electricity production, I do not know and do not
have time to investigate. However, producing electricity is not the only
way of exploiting (micro-)geothermal energy.

The first would be heating houses, farms and other places. This does not
imply necessarily to produce electricity, but it can have the effect of
reducing the electricity consummation by avoiding to use electric
radiators (which are not effective but highly advertised by companies
like EDF in France).

> Do you want a private company to operate such a toxic environment for
> their economic profit????

States could and should pass general laws against toxic waste and other
abuses of private and public companies.

> Your solution isn't cheaper than wind power and can't be used in most
> countries  ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source
> ) and has plenty of well known backside effects...

It is not my solution but an example. I agree it cannot be used in many
places. But note the price might decrease with a wider use, and I
suppose there are a lot of factors of that kind that make such
assertions quite peremptory.

> Ok, it took me 10 minutes to demonstrate how was your point, with
> references.
> 
> Is it okay for you now? otherwise, please, don't reply me again without
> scientific references... I got rid of religious beliefs.

I share your opinion on religious beliefs. However, I encourage you not
to fall in manichaeism, which I also got rid about.

Regards,

m