it sounds like someone recorded a robot voice from a speaker across the room on a walkman, then made the video and dubbed it with walkman sound. This reminds me of someone recording a movie in a theater with their phone.
..or the Worst news, if they lose control of the process, and cause some kind of Volcanic explosion. I don't know. It looks interesting, but why isn't the U.S. Department of Energy investing in this?
@@Texaca @ 500 degrees Celsius isn't a great risk But if we dig only when the temperature is 150 degrees there are no risks there at all....zero risk The old coal power station could be retrofitted to work with acetylene or something that has a lower boiling point
geothernal is always there at least in form of hotspring, now we just make it advance, fusion however always happen in the sun, it's a pipe dream compared to geothermal
@@markturner7459 In theory one could load the drill hole with something of similar density to rock, so properly a low temperature molten salt, or a mercury mix. Or perhaps water loading the drill hole, could counter act some of the pressure, and the cooling from pumping water through the drill head, could help firm up the surrounding rock, but that cooling and water pressure would merely extend the viable depth range rather than solve the issue.
It probably won't work in regions with heavy seismic activities. Earthquakes will destroy the drilled holes and you can start the process again and again. And I'm very skeptical if this drilling will work in the depth where temperatures are very high.
Regions with heavy seismic activity are already being thoroughly exploited for geo-thermal energy to power grids. For years and as we speak. There are a bunch in the US PacNW and Asian Ring of Fire. As for your last objection, that's already in full effect as well. The deeper and hotter, the better.
This is the year 2022. A voice over should not sound so bad as this narrator. It sounds at a distance. With the unnecessary music the text is hard to follow for those who's mothertongue is not English.
This is what happens when media production in in the hands of half a billion people equipped with ten cent microphones and no knowledge of audio production. Bad audio is everywhere now. Cell phones are the source of much of it.
Water is light and it wouldn't be able to get the excavated material up and out the bore-hole. Argon has more mass per particle (almost 40 versus 18 for water).
Because it's expsnvie and wasteful. There are other processes doing the same as this fusion gun that are purely mechanical from drill start to powering the grid.
Now the question is the fact that drilling or weak points in the crust make it easier for seismic energy to transfer, meaning smaller but many more earthquakes (always better to have ten thousand magnitude 2.0 quakes that you generally cannot feel than one magnitude 6.0 earth quake that can cause damage)... how would the deep drilling effect the seismic energy transfer?
This might be an oversimplification, but a structural beam can have a lot of small holes in it without losing a significant amount of load-bearing capacity. Of course the crust of the Earth is a very different system. Geologic simulations might provide answers.
This drilling method allows to drill cheaper and much deeper than mechanical drilling. Which means that there is no need in drilling close to seismically active zones. If this method lives up to the expectations than geothermal power stations can be build pretty much anywhere without worrying about earthquakes.
@@artiomvas The inventors said exactly this. Plus its a great way to power existing fossil fuel stations instead of decommissioning them. To me this is more promising than ITER. It's still fusion after all.
@@Mike-ms6he/videos no, it is not fusion. Fusion is a physical process of creating heavier chemical elements from lighter ones. This tech has *_nothing_* to do with fusion. They only mentioned fusion because Gyrotron is a physical apparatus that is used in fusion research to heat up plasma. Also, ITER is not a power plant it is a plasma science research facility (no usable energy will be produced). And ITER is already (potentially) obsolete. There is a test reactor being build in Devens, Massachusetts called SPARC (Smallest Possible ARC fusion reactor). It is scheduled to become operational in 2025. It is a collaboration between MIT (PSFC) and specially created company Commonwealth Fusion Systems. They already have a blueprint for full scale *_actual_* reactor (ARC). Once they complete the tests they'll make some adjustments (if needed) and begin building ARCs. By the time ITER is fully operational (2035) they'll have a couple ARCs build. SPARC/ARC uses recently developed yttrium barium copper oxide (YBCO) superconducting magnetic coils. They produce much stronger magnetic field than ITER's niobium-tin/titanium (Nb3Sn/NbTi) magnets and require less cooling: 10-20 degrees above absolute zero vs 4 degrees. These new coils allow for much smaller reactor - 8 to 10 times smaller then ITER.
Nuclear waste needs continuous cooling, and that is why you see them burying it at the bottom of the seas or in cold places. The first nuclear disaster occurred in the Soviet Union, I think in the fifties, before Chernobyl or Fukushima because of neglecting the cooling element.
@@electronresonator8882 Hasn't been done widely thus far. I can only assume it has been too expensive, or perhaps geothermal can only be done in some limited number of places on the planet. Don't really know.
@@electronresonator8882 When all coal, oil and natural gas have been changed into geothermal. When no wood is burnt and no mountain valley razed to provide power. When geothermal have replaced all of those devastating energy sources - then we can consider replacing nuclear power. And not a second before.
Geothermal is a bad idea, as there is one problem namely ringwoodite and wadsleyite, these minerals will absorb earths water as we cool it down. So yeah I choose to keep the water.
@@larryhawkins8311 yep, and it becomes even more scary when you realize that the geomagnetic field is generated in the mantle, and the quicker we cool it the quicker we will probably loose the magnitosphere.
Don't worry about it. Globaly, all random volcanic erruptions amount to a far larger release of heat that all manking will ever harness from GEO thermal.
If you drill a million holes to the center of the Earth, you think that will somehow come up to the surface and heat the Earth? They actually have to inject water to extract steam to run turbines, the heat doesn't just come up on it's own, even if we "liberate it" by drilling inside the Earth.
Most of the energy is transformed into mechanical energy than into electrical. The dissipated thermal energy will be released deep into the crust with very little reaching the surface.
Well we are 4 years on from the inception! I wonder if there are any updates yet? ..... or if not Why not? As described here it fires a beam of energy 20KM down a tube filled with high pressure Argon to blast rock another 20KM back up the hole. Anyone else wonder how they are going to keep the vaporised rock out of the way of the beam? Or how they cool the debris as it comes out ..... we don't want it to congeal on the tube wall do we? Or what the "traditional drilling" technology is they plan to use. A normal drill will just fill the hole up and stop any beam going down there. Then there is the tricky bit of focusing a beam to within "millimetre accuracy" over 20KM of highly gas filled environment without getting any noticeable dispersion! But I am not from MIT so may just be talking out of my backside ;o)
I think that the entire crust swims on water and water is necessary for the balance of the center of the earth or the black hole, but the cause of heat is pressure, not fire in the center of the earth, and this does not negate the heat of the black hole in the center, and between water and the hole there is only the magnetic field and the so-called gravity
@@totherarf Yes, in all seriousness, that every planet's foundation is a black hole that absorbs materials in space and gases, and a planet is around it.
No. The "drill" head, rather close to the bottom of the shaft, blasts the rock from no more than an inch or so as argon is injected down there to blow the chips and debris back to the surface. He head blasting the rock need be no further from the rock than that.
@@abedmarachli7345 Ok ..... What do you think stops the shell of the planet from falling into the hole? Indeed how does he planet not follow a slightly different orbit and get eaten?
I'm curious about the effect this will have on the cooling of the core. If we go cold we lose our atmosphere. Obviously this is melodramatic, but there would without a doubt be an effect. Creating weak spots could pose an issue too I would guess since volcanoes only go down about 10km. I'm certainly no geologist however.
Did you listen to the part where they said tapping just 0.1 percent of this energy could supply the world's energy needs for more than 20 million years? I'd say the earth will be just fine.
@@GoldwireIT Uhm no, I have working ears. You would still be transferring the heat out of the ground and that would lead to cooling in the most ideal of circumstances. I would like to know the potential for accidents. I'm not convinced you are equipped to properly answer that question. I don't operate on blind faith unfortunately. Look at the earthquake in south korea caused by geothermal energy and tell me we know enough to make opinions and decisions.
@@user-zt2vf6vx7p No, I'm not equipped to properly answer that question. I was just making a guess that the earth will be fine. Which renewable energy system are you looking forward to seeing become a reality or win out as the main system used for our energy needs?
@@GoldwireIT In my opinion it should always be a balance between many options. I'd like to see more nuclear and if we can start producing our own silicon outside of China then I'd like to see much more solar investments take place. I want to see all forms of energy even geothermal if possible. I also would prefer oil continues to play a role. I personally can't stand the idea of phasing it out completely. We aren't at a point in our progress for it to make sense.
I think it's too narrow for becoming a volcano. The magma can never flow fast enough to avoid cooling down and blocking the hole. I am not a geologist either but pretty sure it can never result in a volcano.
No, geo-thermal power plant here in iceland have been in the same pleace for years. They now-a-days have a number of holes surrounding the planet so they can take from a number of locations letting water reheat which is does so very quickly. They also re-inject water back into the ground in newer plants which speeds up the process as well as reducing the amount of polltion released from the plant.
And what is your solution?to stop using energy and die so we won't polute anything anymore.that is good final solution,if you think about it..because even if we use solar and wind turbines which are consider clean,you know someone needs to dig up the materials from earth in order to build those solar panels and batteries,and they need to be replaced every few years.so what is your solution,instead of just botching around how everything we do is catastrophic and toxic.you think that those people who drill for oil or gas do it to destroy the earth on purpose,or that your ass can sit comfortably in you hot house ,where you can criticize structures of our whole economic and social system,for just few dollars every month.i would like to see how would you survive and use energy if there are no other people who actually do the dirty work of drilling the earth.maybe you would become like a plant and live off photosynthetic process...
The amount of energy available from volcanoes is miniscule compared to the resource they are talking about in the video, and tapping that energy requires that there be a recent volcano. Looking around the planet, I don't see all that many active volcanoes near major population centers, so electricity generation from geothermal resources would require transmission of the electricity.
The narrator quickly tells us that the hole will be melted with a gyrotron and the debris blown out of the hole with argon gas. I have no idea why an inert gas is required or where all that argon will come from. It is implied that the gyrotron remains at the surface and that a precision beam can remain focused as it melts its way deeper and deeper.
@@sheltonmyers832 yeah I agree, anything at that temperature that could react would do so making unwanted bi products. This would be an impressive feat of engineering
The tube is a waveguide. The EM-energy from the gyrotron (a transformer/amplifier) bounces/reflects down the tube. It's more like aiming with a long water-hose than aiming like a long-distance gunshot.
@@DreadX10 This goes back 60 years so may be totally obsolete: I remember a waveguide being a precision machined brass rectangular tube. Can a rough melted rock surface also function as a waveguide? Can the waveguide function while the tube is filled with debris being blow up wards?
@@pauleohl Wave-guides can also be round tubes and made of steel (cheaper). The inside doesn't have to be extremely smooth if you just want to put power through it. Any imperfection will cause a phase-shift in the signal and some of the energy gets reflected back to the source. The inner walls need to have a low resistance to electric current for a wave-guide to function properly. As I understand it, the Argon is pushed down the tube (prevents debris from going into the tube) and leaves the hole on the outside of the wave-guide (together with the debris).
we need to me more like animals and use less energy, and we need to make mabye spaceships to give the earth a rest. this can help but handing around here with tons of cheap evergy is nt healthy and well die here as a species. this is a means to and end tho... so its great..
Mahh... Been dreaming of this for 100 years or more..like flying cars and crippled walking again. Unless companies can make a zillion dollars outta it . Best of luck but I'll believe it when I see it...
It could be possible that a natural disaster could wipe out humanity. But, messing with what is natural can bring disaster to humanity. By the time we realize it, it could be late!!! Here we are talking about making money for the most powerful, in exchange of the planet survival. I think we are smart enough to look a way to generate power without sacrificing our home planet. Let's use gravity, electrical force, etc....let's don't take the easiest path without looking the consecuenquenses.
Its looks Nice but not for the short future . We invest a lot in wind and sunenergy and later in nucleair energy. Maybe its interesting for the very long future over about 30/40/50 years
It's cool Star Trek technology but were are still talking between 10 and 20 roll out. Not discourage anyone. Humanity needs all the dreamers it can get, but the clock is ticking toward the great filter. Energy is just one many problems that should have been addressed beginning in the 1980s. Might have made a difference. Keep going guys, our bunkers will need a clean efficient powers source. That is nearly inexhaustible.
lol, you can't "cool down the planet" with this tech. It's like a pin prick to an elephant. The earth's heat comes from decaying isotopes of Thorium & Uranium, the sun will expand & wipe out the earth before that source/reaction is depleated.
Lot's of "if'" "might" "could" "maybe" what a load of BS, it is a nice idea but like fusion it is a pipe dream and a massive waste of time, money and resources...
Your Avatar is a Th, I think you might be ideologically invested, which is blinding you to other possibilities. I like Gen 4 reactors and new fuel cycles too. But lets face it, public opinion is way behind the adoption curve on fission of any type. Yet you claim this is a "massive waste of time, money & resorces". Sounds like the exact same argument that is used by anti fission lobby and environmentalists to discredit fission. If this can be done, so deep bore using Gyrotrons etc, it's simpler to R&D by a magnitude, would take no where near as long to get through regulation, would be cheaper due to all these points no doubt & gets you baseload + heat. It's an easier sell to the public for sure. Why wouln't you like it and at least spend the money to see if it works?
If we drill that much deep then there is a possibility that we may experience large scale earthquake or flood, becoz we making gap in our earth core which take thousand year to form
it sounds like someone recorded a robot voice from a speaker across the room on a walkman, then made the video and dubbed it with walkman sound. This reminds me of someone recording a movie in a theater with their phone.
If true, this is the best news since fusion
..or the Worst news, if they lose control of the process, and cause some kind of Volcanic explosion. I don't know.
It looks interesting, but why isn't the U.S. Department of Energy investing in this?
@@Texaca
@ 500 degrees Celsius isn't a great risk
But if we dig only when the temperature is 150 degrees there are no risks there at all....zero risk
The old coal power station could be retrofitted to work with acetylene or something that has a lower boiling point
And about as feasible. Better not give up on SMRs or MSRs in the meantime.
geothernal is always there at least in form of hotspring, now we just make it advance,
fusion however always happen in the sun, it's a pipe dream compared to geothermal
It's the best news since the wheel, actually. Probably even saved wheeled appliances, lol.
That closing statement :D true
Shades of Mohole.
Which was tried and found unworkable.
Now back to electric energy so cheap it won't even be metered.
At the pressures at 20km down it will be extremely difficult to not simply have the hole collapse in on itself.
Exactly. The problem is the hole casing not the drilling at those temperatures and pressures.
Are there any solutions for this?
@@markturner7459 In theory one could load the drill hole with something of similar density to rock, so properly a low temperature molten salt, or a mercury mix. Or perhaps water loading the drill hole, could counter act some of the pressure, and the cooling from pumping water through the drill head, could help firm up the surrounding rock, but that cooling and water pressure would merely extend the viable depth range rather than solve the issue.
@@markturner7459 Tubing?
The high temp drill liquifys the surrounding rock to make a casing which may be suitable itself to strengthen the shaft and serve as a natural pipe.
I wanted to listen to a robot. I'd
ask my phone.
I would have just hired Son Goku to hit a kamehame wave just speed up the process.
It probably won't work in regions with heavy seismic activities. Earthquakes will destroy the drilled holes and you can start the process again and again. And I'm very skeptical if this drilling will work in the depth where temperatures are very high.
Pretty sure anything about 50ft underground is pretty well protected from earthquakes. Just have to reinforce for earthquakes until that depth
Regions with heavy seismic activity are already being thoroughly exploited for geo-thermal energy to power grids. For years and as we speak. There are a bunch in the US PacNW and Asian Ring of Fire. As for your last objection, that's already in full effect as well. The deeper and hotter, the better.
Have you heard of Iceland? 1000s of earthquakes and we have lots geothermal
This is the year 2022. A voice over should not sound so bad as this narrator. It sounds at a distance. With the unnecessary music the text is hard to follow for those who's mothertongue is not English.
This is what happens when media production in in the hands of half a billion people equipped with ten cent microphones and no knowledge of audio production. Bad audio is everywhere now. Cell phones are the source of much of it.
Why can't we drill with high pressure water?
Water is light and it wouldn't be able to get the excavated material up and out the bore-hole. Argon has more mass per particle (almost 40 versus 18 for water).
Because it's expsnvie and wasteful. There are other processes doing the same as this fusion gun that are purely mechanical from drill start to powering the grid.
Europe ban fracking and some geothermal projects only 5 Km deep in France. Guess what is going to happen with this technology if finally works.
It could prevent Yellowstone from ever erupting, if they could surround that area with these to power the US
Now the question is the fact that drilling or weak points in the crust make it easier for seismic energy to transfer, meaning smaller but many more earthquakes (always better to have ten thousand magnitude 2.0 quakes that you generally cannot feel than one magnitude 6.0 earth quake that can cause damage)... how would the deep drilling effect the seismic energy transfer?
This might be an oversimplification, but a structural beam can have a lot of small holes in it without losing a significant amount of load-bearing capacity. Of course the crust of the Earth is a very different system. Geologic simulations might provide answers.
It’s like a mosquito stung a huge mountain.
This drilling method allows to drill cheaper and much deeper than mechanical drilling. Which means that there is no need in drilling close to seismically active zones. If this method lives up to the expectations than geothermal power stations can be build pretty much anywhere without worrying about earthquakes.
@@artiomvas The inventors said exactly this. Plus its a great way to power existing fossil fuel stations instead of decommissioning them. To me this is more promising than ITER. It's still fusion after all.
@@Mike-ms6he/videos no, it is not fusion. Fusion is a physical process of creating heavier chemical elements from lighter ones. This tech has *_nothing_* to do with fusion. They only mentioned fusion because Gyrotron is a physical apparatus that is used in fusion research to heat up plasma.
Also, ITER is not a power plant it is a plasma science research facility (no usable energy will be produced). And ITER is already (potentially) obsolete.
There is a test reactor being build in Devens, Massachusetts called SPARC (Smallest Possible ARC fusion reactor). It is scheduled to become operational in 2025. It is a collaboration between MIT (PSFC) and specially created company Commonwealth Fusion Systems. They already have a blueprint for full scale *_actual_* reactor (ARC).
Once they complete the tests they'll make some adjustments (if needed) and begin building ARCs. By the time ITER is fully operational (2035) they'll have a couple ARCs build.
SPARC/ARC uses recently developed yttrium barium copper oxide (YBCO) superconducting magnetic coils. They produce much stronger magnetic field than ITER's niobium-tin/titanium (Nb3Sn/NbTi) magnets and require less cooling: 10-20 degrees above absolute zero vs 4 degrees. These new coils allow for much smaller reactor - 8 to 10 times smaller then ITER.
Interesting. I wonder if we could dump nuclear waste deep down there where it will melt and become so diluted it poses no problems.
Nuclear waste needs continuous cooling, and that is why you see them burying it at the bottom of the seas or in cold places. The first nuclear disaster occurred in the Soviet Union, I think in the fifties, before Chernobyl or Fukushima because of neglecting the cooling element.
@@abedmarachli7345 I've not heard this before. Thank you. I'll try to read up more about it.
it's actually better to change nuclear power plant into goethermal all together, and produce no more nuclear waste
@@electronresonator8882 Hasn't been done widely thus far. I can only assume it has been too expensive, or perhaps geothermal can only be done in some limited number of places on the planet. Don't really know.
@@electronresonator8882 When all coal, oil and natural gas have been changed into geothermal. When no wood is burnt and no mountain valley razed to provide power. When geothermal have replaced all of those devastating energy sources - then we can consider replacing nuclear power. And not a second before.
What could possibly go wrong?
This sounds like vapour ware
Geothermal is a bad idea, as there is one problem namely ringwoodite and wadsleyite, these minerals will absorb earths water as we cool it down. So yeah I choose to keep the water.
I agree, this is a bad idea. I don’t think we should mess with the core of the earth. Another non renewable source!
@@larryhawkins8311 yep, and it becomes even more scary when you realize that the geomagnetic field is generated in the mantle, and the quicker we cool it the quicker we will probably loose the magnitosphere.
@@atlanciaza and I believe that magnetic field is what protects us from solar radiation. But m no expert!
@@larryhawkins8311 lol, you hit the nail on the head! So I do think you might be an undercover expert...
@@atlanciaza lol, right!
Yes, and pigs fly too! :)
This was how Krypton was destroyed
Now no environment,treaty are violated I guess
Good except liberating the core heat of the Earth into the atmosphere on any kind of large scale is not a good idea
Don't worry about it. Globaly, all random volcanic erruptions amount to a far larger release of heat that all manking will ever harness from GEO thermal.
If you drill a million holes to the center of the Earth, you think that will somehow come up to the surface and heat the Earth? They actually have to inject water to extract steam to run turbines, the heat doesn't just come up on it's own, even if we "liberate it" by drilling inside the Earth.
Wow, you must be stupid. Did you ever learn physics?
Most of the energy is transformed into mechanical energy than into electrical. The dissipated thermal energy will be released deep into the crust with very little reaching the surface.
Don’t even need to go that deep.
Just say no to artificial voice technology!!!
Well we are 4 years on from the inception!
I wonder if there are any updates yet? ..... or if not Why not?
As described here it fires a beam of energy 20KM down a tube filled with high pressure Argon to blast rock another 20KM back up the hole. Anyone else wonder how they are going to keep the vaporised rock out of the way of the beam? Or how they cool the debris as it comes out ..... we don't want it to congeal on the tube wall do we? Or what the "traditional drilling" technology is they plan to use. A normal drill will just fill the hole up and stop any beam going down there. Then there is the tricky bit of focusing a beam to within "millimetre accuracy" over 20KM of highly gas filled environment without getting any noticeable dispersion!
But I am not from MIT so may just be talking out of my backside ;o)
I think that the entire crust swims on water and water is necessary for the balance of the center of the earth or the black hole, but the cause of heat is pressure, not fire in the center of the earth, and this does not negate the heat of the black hole in the center, and between water and the hole there is only the magnetic field and the so-called gravity
@@abedmarachli7345 Sorry, you think the Earth's crust is floating on water? ..... With a Black Hole at the centre?
Seriously?
@@totherarf Yes, in all seriousness, that every planet's foundation is a black hole that absorbs materials in space and gases, and a planet is around it.
No. The "drill" head, rather close to the bottom of the shaft, blasts the rock from no more than an inch or so as argon is injected down there to blow the chips and debris back to the surface. He head blasting the rock need be no further from the rock than that.
@@abedmarachli7345 Ok ..... What do you think stops the shell of the planet from falling into the hole? Indeed how does he planet not follow a slightly different orbit and get eaten?
I'm curious about the effect this will have on the cooling of the core. If we go cold we lose our atmosphere. Obviously this is melodramatic, but there would without a doubt be an effect. Creating weak spots could pose an issue too I would guess since volcanoes only go down about 10km. I'm certainly no geologist however.
Did you listen to the part where they said tapping just 0.1 percent of this energy could supply the world's energy needs for more than 20 million years? I'd say the earth will be just fine.
@@GoldwireIT Uhm no, I have working ears. You would still be transferring the heat out of the ground and that would lead to cooling in the most ideal of circumstances. I would like to know the potential for accidents. I'm not convinced you are equipped to properly answer that question. I don't operate on blind faith unfortunately. Look at the earthquake in south korea caused by geothermal energy and tell me we know enough to make opinions and decisions.
@@user-zt2vf6vx7p No, I'm not equipped to properly answer that question. I was just making a guess that the earth will be fine.
Which renewable energy system are you looking forward to seeing become a reality or win out as the main system used for our energy needs?
@@GoldwireIT In my opinion it should always be a balance between many options. I'd like to see more nuclear and if we can start producing our own silicon outside of China then I'd like to see much more solar investments take place. I want to see all forms of energy even geothermal if possible. I also would prefer oil continues to play a role. I personally can't stand the idea of phasing it out completely. We aren't at a point in our progress for it to make sense.
I think it's too narrow for becoming a volcano. The magma can never flow fast enough to avoid cooling down and blocking the hole. I am not a geologist either but pretty sure it can never result in a volcano.
That last comment was foul hahaha.
every time Iceland sinks a geo-thermal power plant the ground cools and the plant has to be moved.
They probably aren't ten km deep though, are they?
Yeah deep down that heat is coming in constantly from an immense volume
Citation needed. This claim appears to be bogus.
No, geo-thermal power plant here in iceland have been in the same pleace for years. They now-a-days have a number of holes surrounding the planet so they can take from a number of locations letting water reheat which is does so very quickly. They also re-inject water back into the ground in newer plants which speeds up the process as well as reducing the amount of polltion released from the plant.
so let me get this right,,,,,we screwed up the planet by drilling deep for fossil fuel..so....now we drill even deeper....gee...what could go wrong
And what is your solution?to stop using energy and die so we won't polute anything anymore.that is good final solution,if you think about it..because even if we use solar and wind turbines which are consider clean,you know someone needs to dig up the materials from earth in order to build those solar panels and batteries,and they need to be replaced every few years.so what is your solution,instead of just botching around how everything we do is catastrophic and toxic.you think that those people who drill for oil or gas do it to destroy the earth on purpose,or that your ass can sit comfortably in you hot house ,where you can criticize structures of our whole economic and social system,for just few dollars every month.i would like to see how would you survive and use energy if there are no other people who actually do the dirty work of drilling the earth.maybe you would become like a plant and live off photosynthetic process...
No, we don't need to drill deeper for geo-thermal taps. Much shallower, and nowhere near seismic zones or vents, in fact.
This doesn’t make sense. Why not just drill a short pipe on the side of a volcano? No need to go that deep.
The amount of energy available from volcanoes is miniscule compared to the resource they are talking about in the video, and tapping that energy requires that there be a recent volcano. Looking around the planet, I don't see all that many active volcanoes near major population centers, so electricity generation from geothermal resources would require transmission of the electricity.
Because you actually need a volcano and maybe you know there are only few around the planet. What about locations with no volcanos nearby ?
The narrator quickly tells us that the hole will be melted with a gyrotron and the debris blown out of the hole with argon gas. I have no idea why an inert gas is required or where all that argon will come from. It is implied that the gyrotron remains at the surface and that a precision beam can remain focused as it melts its way deeper and deeper.
I imagine at the need pressure and at that temperature anything other then a noble gas will react or decay
@@sheltonmyers832 yeah I agree, anything at that temperature that could react would do so making unwanted bi products. This would be an impressive feat of engineering
The tube is a waveguide. The EM-energy from the gyrotron (a transformer/amplifier) bounces/reflects down the tube.
It's more like aiming with a long water-hose than aiming like a long-distance gunshot.
@@DreadX10 This goes back 60 years so may be totally obsolete: I remember a waveguide being a precision machined brass rectangular tube. Can a rough melted rock surface also function as a waveguide? Can the waveguide function while the tube is filled with debris being blow up wards?
@@pauleohl Wave-guides can also be round tubes and made of steel (cheaper). The inside doesn't have to be extremely smooth if you just want to put power through it. Any imperfection will cause a phase-shift in the signal and some of the energy gets reflected back to the source.
The inner walls need to have a low resistance to electric current for a wave-guide to function properly.
As I understand it, the Argon is pushed down the tube (prevents debris from going into the tube) and leaves the hole on the outside of the wave-guide (together with the debris).
FF7 prequel
dangerous😢🌍🍀
we need to me more like animals and use less energy, and we need to make mabye spaceships to give the earth a rest. this can help but handing around here with tons of cheap evergy is nt healthy and well die here as a species. this is a means to and end tho... so its great..
Mahh...
Been dreaming of this for 100 years or more..like flying cars and crippled walking again.
Unless companies can make a zillion dollars outta it .
Best of luck but
I'll believe it when I see it...
Dreaming off flying cars?
:)
Sounds like a nightmare....
Flying cars and crippled people walking again have already happened vis stem cells. Just saying.
Fusion gyrotron laser drill deep bore technologies ? This sounds like the worst carnival ride ever or some Ron Jeramie’s promotional product line
Boondoggle bullshit.
Pretty much. There are already mechanical ways to do the same for geo-thermal taps.
Its a damned good thing these are so inexpensive, or it would simply be crazy to do it. Wait ... *WHAT??*🤣🤣🤣
The ultimate global warming machine? A real question indeed.
It could be possible that a natural disaster could wipe out humanity. But, messing with what is natural can bring disaster to humanity. By the time we realize it, it could be late!!! Here we are talking about making money for the most powerful, in exchange of the planet survival. I think we are smart enough to look a way to generate power without sacrificing our home planet. Let's use gravity, electrical force, etc....let's don't take the easiest path without looking the consecuenquenses.
Its looks Nice but not for the short future .
We invest a lot in wind and sunenergy and later in nucleair energy.
Maybe its interesting for the very long future over about 30/40/50 years
Nuclear too expensive. We can recommission all coal plants into geothermal.
This technology is a lot closer than 30-50 years. They claim they'll have power production by 2026, which seems aggressive.
It's cool Star Trek technology but were are still talking between 10 and 20 roll out. Not discourage anyone. Humanity needs all the dreamers it can get, but the clock is ticking toward the great filter. Energy is just one many problems that should have been addressed beginning in the 1980s. Might have made a difference. Keep going guys, our bunkers will need a clean efficient powers source. That is nearly inexhaustible.
How sad we are destroying our planet!!! Now we want to start to cool down the planet. We will loose our home!!! Greed is the mother of our perdition.
lol, you can't "cool down the planet" with this tech. It's like a pin prick to an elephant. The earth's heat comes from decaying isotopes of Thorium & Uranium, the sun will expand & wipe out the earth before that source/reaction is depleated.
drilling for oil can cause earthquakes
*Fracking for oil can cause earthquakes. Drilling for geo-thermal taps won't.
Extremely dangerous, unknown risks on a massive scale. Absolutely should NOT be attempted.
Lot's of "if'" "might" "could" "maybe" what a load of BS, it is a nice idea but like fusion it is a pipe dream and a massive waste of time, money and resources...
Your Avatar is a Th, I think you might be ideologically invested, which is blinding you to other possibilities. I like Gen 4 reactors and new fuel cycles too. But lets face it, public opinion is way behind the adoption curve on fission of any type. Yet you claim this is a "massive waste of time, money & resorces". Sounds like the exact same argument that is used by anti fission lobby and environmentalists to discredit fission. If this can be done, so deep bore using Gyrotrons etc, it's simpler to R&D by a magnitude, would take no where near as long to get through regulation, would be cheaper due to all these points no doubt & gets you baseload + heat. It's an easier sell to the public for sure. Why wouln't you like it and at least spend the money to see if it works?
If we drill that much deep then there is a possibility that we may experience large scale earthquake or flood, becoz we making gap in our earth core which take thousand year to form