Groups > sci.physics > #571929 > unrolled thread

why are the news agencies-- tv and magazines suppressing coverage of Geothermal? And is geothermal 5,000 times superior to solar?

Started by	Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com>
First post	2016-04-20 14:49 -0700
Last post	2016-04-28 23:43 -0700
Articles	20 on this page of 31 — 11 participants

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Page 1 of 2 [1] 2 Next page →

#571929 — why are the news agencies-- tv and magazines suppressing coverage of Geothermal? And is geothermal 5,000 times superior to solar?

From	Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com>
Date	2016-04-20 14:49 -0700
Subject	why are the news agencies-- tv and magazines suppressing coverage of Geothermal? And is geothermal 5,000 times superior to solar?
Message-ID	<f363e2ff-6f8a-49ba-8c75-3909e97feb2f@googlegroups.com>

Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2016 19:12:57 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: Re: Miles O'Brien, David Shukman, DW, science magazines, Stefan
 Boltzmann law: Geothermal, is it 4 to 1 superior to Solar or 5000 to 1
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2016 02:12:58 +0000

Why is the world suppressing the data, knowledge and information on Geothermal. Why has no science magazine covered geothermal in years? Why has NOVA never given a hour long program on Geothermal. 

Why does every coverage of Global Warming and Renewable Energy mention only Solar and Wind and never mention Geothermal? 

Is the world being suppressed of Geothermal news reporting? Apparently so. 

AP

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#571934

From	Sergio <invalid@invalid.com>
Date	2016-04-20 16:54 -0500
Message-ID	<nf8trv$c4j$2@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to	#571929

On 4/20/2016 4:49 PM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Newsgroups: sci.math Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2016 19:12:57 -0700 (PDT)
>
> Subject: Re: Miles O'Brien, David Shukman, DW, science magazines,
> Stefan Boltzmann law: Geothermal, is it 4 to 1 superior to Solar or
> 5000 to 1 From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
> Injection-Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2016 02:12:58 +0000
>

> Why is the world suppressing the data, knowledge and information on
> Geothermal. Why has no science magazine covered geothermal in years?
> Why has NOVA never given a hour long program on Geothermal.
>
> Why does every coverage of Global Warming and Renewable Energy
> mention only Solar and Wind and never mention Geothermal?
>
> Is the world being suppressed of Geothermal news reporting?
> Apparently so.
>
> AP
>

Good question, I have not seen any through indepth reporting.

California has a spot, there is a new band along texas coastline,
Iceland, Japan,

typically geothermal is not clean, lots of impurities, desolved minerals
that foul things up.

there should be a GeoThermal Magazine

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#571943

From	jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com
Date	2016-04-20 22:24 +0000
Message-ID	<76cluc-dtr.ln1@mail.specsol.com>
In reply to	#571934

Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> wrote:
> On 4/20/2016 4:49 PM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
>> Newsgroups: sci.math Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2016 19:12:57 -0700 (PDT)
>>
>> Subject: Re: Miles O'Brien, David Shukman, DW, science magazines,
>> Stefan Boltzmann law: Geothermal, is it 4 to 1 superior to Solar or
>> 5000 to 1 From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
>> Injection-Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2016 02:12:58 +0000
>>
> 
>> Why is the world suppressing the data, knowledge and information on
>> Geothermal. Why has no science magazine covered geothermal in years?
>> Why has NOVA never given a hour long program on Geothermal.
>>
>> Why does every coverage of Global Warming and Renewable Energy
>> mention only Solar and Wind and never mention Geothermal?
>>
>> Is the world being suppressed of Geothermal news reporting?
>> Apparently so.
>>
>> AP
>>
> 
> Good question, I have not seen any through indepth reporting.
> 
> California has a spot, there is a new band along texas coastline,
> Iceland, Japan,
> 
> typically geothermal is not clean, lots of impurities, desolved minerals
> that foul things up.
> 
> there should be a GeoThermal Magazine

Most of the places that are suitable for a geothermal plant already
have one and there are issues about the lack of transmission lines
to areas that might be usefull for a new plant.

All the geothermal plants in the US together produce less than 1% of
US energy requirements.

California has the most and they produce less than 5% of the state needs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_energy_in_the_United_States
 
 

-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#572311 — Yellowstone fully developed Re: And is geothermal 5,000 times superior to solar?

From	Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com>
Date	2016-04-21 23:11 -0700
Subject	Yellowstone fully developed Re: And is geothermal 5,000 times superior to solar?
Message-ID	<f24cdacf-f864-4e71-8be0-3945b621033f@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#571943

On Wednesday, April 20, 2016 at 5:31:07 PM UTC-5, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
(snipped)
> 
> Most of the places that are suitable for a geothermal plant already
> have one and there are issues about the lack of transmission lines
> to areas that might be usefull for a new plant.
> 
> All the geothermal plants in the US together produce less than 1% of
> US energy requirements.
> 
> California has the most and they produce less than 5% of the state needs.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_energy_in_the_United_States
>  
>  
> 
> -- 
> Jim Pennino

Yellowstone, fully developed would supply all the electrical needs of the 48 lower states.

AP

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#572510 — Increasing the size of Yellowstone while extracting geothermal Re: Yellowstone fully developed Re: And is geothermal 5,000 times superior to solar?

From	Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com>
Date	2016-04-22 14:08 -0700
Subject	Increasing the size of Yellowstone while extracting geothermal Re: Yellowstone fully developed Re: And is geothermal 5,000 times superior to solar?
Message-ID	<f7d4fd80-0acd-4a40-9c46-9ecf5176bdd2@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#572311

On Friday, April 22, 2016 at 1:11:19 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 20, 2016 at 5:31:07 PM UTC-5, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> (snipped)
> > 
> > Most of the places that are suitable for a geothermal plant already
> > have one and there are issues about the lack of transmission lines
> > to areas that might be usefull for a new plant.
> > 
> > All the geothermal plants in the US together produce less than 1% of
> > US energy requirements.
> > 
> > California has the most and they produce less than 5% of the state needs.
> > 
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_energy_in_the_United_States
> >  
> >  
> > 
> > -- 
> > Jim Pennino
> 
> Yellowstone, fully developed would supply all the electrical needs of the 48 lower states.
> 
> AP

Now I do not want Environment Groups and Green Groups down on my throat for exploiting Yellowstone. But I do believe the best way forward is to tap into Yellowstone with many large geothermal power stations, and have them fenced off. Keeping Yellowstone as a national park and with the massive amounts of money made from Yellowstone is to buy out the surrounding land and increasing the total size of Yellowstone that allows all the wild animals to live in this Greater Yellowstone. Allow only tourists with a special permit to visit Yellowstone, but allow the daily work force of these electric stations.

A whole new concept of the National Park with Yellowstone leading the way. We preserve it and increase it, but we also gain benefit of its electricity.

AP

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#572615 — Re: Increasing the size of Yellowstone while extracting geothermal Re: Yellowstone fully developed Re: And is geothermal 5,000 times superior to solar?

From	Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com>
Date	2016-04-22 22:43 -0700
Subject	Re: Increasing the size of Yellowstone while extracting geothermal Re: Yellowstone fully developed Re: And is geothermal 5,000 times superior to solar?
Message-ID	<478fee57-8cf3-4939-b16d-19d740694b04@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#572510

On Friday, April 22, 2016 at 4:08:39 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> On Friday, April 22, 2016 at 1:11:19 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > On Wednesday, April 20, 2016 at 5:31:07 PM UTC-5, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> > (snipped)
> > > 
> > > Most of the places that are suitable for a geothermal plant already
> > > have one and there are issues about the lack of transmission lines
> > > to areas that might be usefull for a new plant.
> > > 
> > > All the geothermal plants in the US together produce less than 1% of
> > > US energy requirements.
> > > 
> > > California has the most and they produce less than 5% of the state needs.
> > > 
> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_energy_in_the_United_States
> > >  
> > >  
> > > 
> > > -- 
> > > Jim Pennino
> > 
> > Yellowstone, fully developed would supply all the electrical needs of the 48 lower states.
> > 
> > AP
> 
> Now I do not want Environment Groups and Green Groups down on my throat for exploiting Yellowstone. But I do believe the best way forward is to tap into Yellowstone with many large geothermal power stations, and have them fenced off. Keeping Yellowstone as a national park and with the massive amounts of money made from Yellowstone is to buy out the surrounding land and increasing the total size of Yellowstone that allows all the wild animals to live in this Greater Yellowstone. Allow only tourists with a special permit to visit Yellowstone, but allow the daily work force of these electric stations.
> 
> A whole new concept of the National Park with Yellowstone leading the way. We preserve it and increase it, but we also gain benefit of its electricity.
> 
> AP

The trouble with Yellowstone at the moment, is that we cannot use it as a treasure trove of energy, where we no longer need coal, oil, or gas but have clean renewable geothermal electricity.

And we preserve and ENLARGE Yellowstone Park by using some of the money of the electricity to keep buying surrounding land, enlarging and fencing in Yellowstone. We no longer allow free access as tourists but as authorized guests into the park. This is better for the wild animals their.// Of course, there will be many electric generating stations manned by employees.

I would rather have cleaner air and a Yellowstone with power stations than dirty air, gasoline run society and a Yellowstone of bumper to bumper tourists.

And the same model at the Hawaii volcanic national park.

AP

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#572693 — Re: Increasing the size of Yellowstone while extracting geothermal Re: Yellowstone fully developed Re: And is geothermal 5,000 times superior to solar?

From	Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com>
Date	2016-04-23 08:33 -0500
Subject	Re: Increasing the size of Yellowstone while extracting geothermal Re: Yellowstone fully developed Re: And is geothermal 5,000 times superior to solar?
Message-ID	<nfftj8$pka$4@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to	#572510

On 4/22/2016 4:08 PM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
>> Yellowstone, fully developed would supply all the electrical needs of the 48 lower states.
>> >
>> >AP
> Now I do not want Environment Groups and Green Groups down on my throat for exploiting Yellowstone.
> But I do believe the best way forward is to tap into Yellowstone with many large geothermal power
> stations, and have them fenced off. Keeping Yellowstone as a national park and with the massive
> amounts of money made from Yellowstone is to buy out the surrounding land and increasing the total
> size of Yellowstone that allows all the wild animals to live in this Greater Yellowstone. Allow
> only tourists with a special permit to visit Yellowstone, but allow the daily work force of these
> electric stations.
>
> A whole new concept of the National Park with Yellowstone leading the way. We preserve it and increase
> it, but we also gain benefit of its electricity.
>
> AP

While your idea is interesting, I would point out several things:
- There is a difference between a National Park and a National Wildlife 
Refuge. A National Park is not for the animals. It is for the American 
people to visit, usually because of some *unspoiled* natural terrain. To 
exploit a National Park for commercial use on a large scale means 
decommissioning it as a National Park, period.
- Expanding Yellowstone means that the government comes and takes 
existing private lands, which in turn means compensating everyone whose 
land is taken. I think you'd need to evaluate how much money you expect 
to get from geothermal compared to the value of the land you'd have to 
pay for. This would all come from taxes, by the way.
- Geothermal is known to pose some substantial risk of aggravating 
volcanic or seismic activity by virtue of pumping water down into 
delicate strata. It's one of the downside of the technology. It's like 
sticking a hot needle into a boil. Now, if this were being done in a 
failsafe way, then this wouldn't be so much of a problem. But if it's 
the sole source of energy in the country and a volcanic eruption takes 
out half your physical plant, then you have a serious problem. On top of 
that, Yellowstone is known to be the epicenter of a "supervolcano" 
which, if it were to cataclysmically erupt due to poking it, could wipe 
out the entire human race as well as all life in North America. Just saying.


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#572706 — Re: Increasing the size of Yellowstone while extracting geothermal Re: Yellowstone fully developed Re: And is geothermal 5,000 times superior to solar?

From	HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com>
Date	2016-04-23 06:52 -0700
Subject	Re: Increasing the size of Yellowstone while extracting geothermal Re: Yellowstone fully developed Re: And is geothermal 5,000 times superior to solar?
Message-ID	<6b4dca6c-0226-42b8-9f16-30f3ed8dd1ab@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#572693

Odd Bodkin said
While your idea is interesting, I would point out several things:
- There is a difference between a National Park and a National Wildlife
Refuge. A National Park is not for the animals. It is for the American
people to visit, usually because of some *unspoiled* natural terrain. To
exploit a National Park for commercial use on a large scale means
decommissioning it as a National Park, period.
- Expanding Yellowstone means that the government comes and takes
existing private lands, which in turn means compensating everyone whose
land is taken. I think you'd need to evaluate how much money you expect
to get from geothermal compared to the value of the land you'd have to
pay for. This would all come from taxes, by the way.
- Geothermal is known to pose some substantial risk of aggravating
volcanic or seismic activity by virtue of pumping water down into
delicate strata. It's one of the downside of the technology. It's like
sticking a hot needle into a boil. Now, if this were being done in a
failsafe way, then this wouldn't be so much of a problem. But if it's
the sole source of energy in the country and a volcanic eruption takes
out half your physical plant, then you have a serious problem. On top of
that, Yellowstone is known to be the epicenter of a "supervolcano"
which, if it were to cataclysmically erupt due to poking it, could wipe
out the entire human race as well as all life in North America. Just saying.
------------------

And I hate to be the naysayer here, but since we don't have superconducting power transmission lines, the efficiency of transferring this generated electricity over distance is a problem. Not to mention the destruction of the scenic beauty of the area which is priceless

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#572708 — Re: Increasing the size of Yellowstone while extracting geothermal Re: Yellowstone fully developed Re: And is geothermal 5,000 times superior to solar?

From	john <johnsefton288@gmail.com>
Date	2016-04-23 07:05 -0700
Subject	Re: Increasing the size of Yellowstone while extracting geothermal Re: Yellowstone fully developed Re: And is geothermal 5,000 times superior to solar?
Message-ID	<538fa221-8b85-48c3-b475-2f9537e2930a@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#572706

No 
Wouldn't want to be pumping no
water down nowhere.
Or disturbing underlying rock
formations.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#572865 — Re: Increasing the size of Yellowstone while extracting geothermal Re: Yellowstone fully developed Re: And is geothermal 5,000 times superior to solar?

From	Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com>
Date	2016-04-23 22:41 -0700
Subject	Re: Increasing the size of Yellowstone while extracting geothermal Re: Yellowstone fully developed Re: And is geothermal 5,000 times superior to solar?
Message-ID	<fab48c9e-9e33-423f-985d-aef1dee3c2bf@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#572708

On Saturday, April 23, 2016 at 9:05:54 AM UTC-5, john wrote:
> No 
> Wouldn't want to be pumping no
> water down nowhere.
> Or disturbing underlying rock
> formations.

Yellowstone can accommodate both power plants and the scenic wonders of geysers.

Reminds me of Pragmatic Philosophy, the only good philosophy I ever found in life, pragmatism. The basic tenets are, knowledge is in the "doing", and truth is "what works", so that truth is not an absolute. However, the atomic theory is an absolute.

And in Pragmatism, beauty is in what is the most use. Sleep is beautiful because we use it everyday, and more beautiful than a scene of the Teton Mountains which we see a few times in our life.

If someone were to draw up plans, they could easily accommodate Yellowstone as a National Park with all its present beauty and along with having electric geothermal power stations there.

AP

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#572716 — Re: Increasing the size of Yellowstone while extracting geothermal Re: Yellowstone fully developed Re: And is geothermal 5,000 times superior to solar?

From	Mike Duffy <mqduffy001@bell.net>
Date	2016-04-23 11:45 -0400
Subject	Re: Increasing the size of Yellowstone while extracting geothermal Re: Yellowstone fully developed Re: And is geothermal 5,000 times superior to solar?
Message-ID	<1h5zbjaoyepkd$.1v87078vgh18.dlg@40tude.net>
In reply to	#572706

On Sat, 23 Apr 2016 06:52:37 -0700 (PDT), HVAC wrote:

> - There is a difference between a National Park and a National Wildlife 
> Refuge. A National Park is not for the animals. It is for the American 
> people to visit, usually because of some *unspoiled* natural terrain. To 
> exploit a National Park for commercial use on a large scale means 
> decommissioning it as a National Park, period. 

No problem. Just re-open it as a the "Museum of Renewable Energy".

> - Expanding Yellowstone means that the government comes and takes 
> existing private lands, which in turn means compensating everyone whose 
> land is taken. I think you'd need to evaluate how much money you expect 
> to get from geothermal compared to the value of the land you'd have to 
> pay for. This would all come from taxes, by the way. 

Eminent domain ....

> [...] Yellowstone is known to be the epicenter of a "supervolcano" 
> which, if it were to cataclysmically erupt due to poking it, could wipe 
> out the entire human race as well as all life in North America. Just saying. 

The feds would get blamed whether or not the supervolcano explosion was
actually caused by the geothermal energy extraction, or if the explosion
was something that would have happened anyways. (As they do regularly on a
'geologic' timescale.)

> but since we don't have superconducting power transmission lines,

Battery tech is constantly getting better. Also, one might use electrolysis
and just ship out methane or hydrogen via pipelines. 

A lot of NYC is heated by steam pipes. Maybe with one big enough we could
go all the way from Yellowstone to Manhatten without the intermediary
losses from coverting the energy to different forms. Although this may be a
pipe dream, we should never count out any possibilities.

-- 
http://mduffy.x10host.com/index.htm

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#572863 — Re: Increasing the size of Yellowstone while extracting geothermal Re: Yellowstone fully developed Re: And is geothermal 5,000 times superior to solar?

From	Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com>
Date	2016-04-23 22:35 -0700
Subject	Re: Increasing the size of Yellowstone while extracting geothermal Re: Yellowstone fully developed Re: And is geothermal 5,000 times superior to solar?
Message-ID	<25f1ce34-c604-4cf7-a438-e11dd0e33a92@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#572693

On Saturday, April 23, 2016 at 8:33:32 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 4/22/2016 4:08 PM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> >> Yellowstone, fully developed would supply all the electrical needs of the 48 lower states.
> >> >
> >> >AP
> > Now I do not want Environment Groups and Green Groups down on my throat for exploiting Yellowstone.
> > But I do believe the best way forward is to tap into Yellowstone with many large geothermal power
> > stations, and have them fenced off. Keeping Yellowstone as a national park and with the massive
> > amounts of money made from Yellowstone is to buy out the surrounding land and increasing the total
> > size of Yellowstone that allows all the wild animals to live in this Greater Yellowstone. Allow
> > only tourists with a special permit to visit Yellowstone, but allow the daily work force of these
> > electric stations.
> >
> > A whole new concept of the National Park with Yellowstone leading the way. We preserve it and increase
> > it, but we also gain benefit of its electricity.
> >
> > AP
> 
> While your idea is interesting, I would point out several things:
> - There is a difference between a National Park and a National Wildlife 
> Refuge. A National Park is not for the animals. It is for the American 
> people to visit, usually because of some *unspoiled* natural terrain. To 
> exploit a National Park for commercial use on a large scale means 
> decommissioning it as a National Park, period.

Try reading my writings without assuming "I do not know". Your replies are far far in the category of believing I know almost nothing, and so your reply is going to fill in some blanks. Try reading my posts to improve your own mind, not reading my posts to "look for alleged gaps or holes in thought". You are a young and dumb person to continue on your present course of replies to me.

To make you a better conversant, read what the person offers, what I offer, and if you disagree, just say-- disagree. Stop making replies that show your disdain and low opinion of me. Of course, you hide behind a fake name, so probably you will not heed any of my advice, since, if you cannot even post with your real name shows a lack of ability to be in science.

The National Park system is in the Executive branch of government and can easily be changed as to the purpose and use of the parks. In fact, the purpose and use of our parks is changing all the time even if no president is changing the purpose.

What I was conveying was the idea that we can have both a beautiful pristine Yellowstone and have electric geothermal power stations there. That we can increase the size of Yellowstone and make it a better place.

What you are conveying in most of your posts, is a disdain and low opinion of me. Yet, you are too young and dumb to realize it.

AP

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#572937 — Re: Increasing the size of Yellowstone while extracting geothermal Re: Yellowstone fully developed Re: And is geothermal 5,000 times superior to solar?

From	Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com>
Date	2016-04-24 15:37 -0500
Subject	Re: Increasing the size of Yellowstone while extracting geothermal Re: Yellowstone fully developed Re: And is geothermal 5,000 times superior to solar?
Message-ID	<nfjaqc$1mms$1@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to	#572863

On 4/24/2016 12:35 AM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Try reading my writings without assuming "I do not know". Your replies are far far in the category
> of believing I know almost nothing, and so your reply is going to fill in some blanks. Try reading
> my posts to improve your own mind, not reading my posts to "look for alleged gaps or holes in thought".
> You are a young and dumb person to continue on your present course of replies to me.
>
> To make you a better conversant, read what the person offers, what I offer, and if you disagree, just
> say-- disagree. Stop making replies that show your disdain and low opinion of me. Of course, you hide
> behind a fake name, so probably you will not heed any of my advice, since, if you cannot even post
> with your real name shows a lack of ability to be in science.

I disagree with this statement, and I would suggest you take your own 
advice about assuming anything about my scientific ability. In my 
experience, people who post with their real names on a public internet 
forum are playing with fire and are either foolhardy or naive. Secondly, 
I think you should not confuse sci.physics with any forum where real 
science is PERFORMED. That is not its purpose and scientists certainly 
do not use sci.physics as a place to keep up with research.

>
> The National Park system is in the Executive branch of government and can easily be changed as to
> the purpose and use of the parks. In fact, the purpose and use of our parks is changing all the
> time even if no president is changing the purpose.

Nevertheless, the IUCN has as a firm requirement of National Parks the 
following:
"Highest competent authority of the country has taken steps to prevent 
or eliminate exploitation or occupation as soon as possible in the whole 
area and to effectively enforce the respect of ecological, 
geomorphological, or aesthetic features which have led to its establishment"

>
> What I was conveying was the idea that we can have both a beautiful pristine Yellowstone and have
> electric geothermal power stations there. That we can increase the size of Yellowstone and make it
> a better place.

As I mentioned, conversion of private land to public land requires 
compensation to the private land owner. There are provisions for private 
landowners to sue if the government exerts eminent domain appropriation.

>
> What you are conveying in most of your posts, is a disdain and low opinion of me. Yet, you are too
> young and dumb to realize it.

And when you declare me "young and dumb", what kind of opinion are you 
trying to convey to me?

All I'm asking for you is to be aware of some well-documented facts.

>
> AP

-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#572951 — Re: Increasing the size of Yellowstone while extracting geothermal Re: Yellowstone fully developed Re: And is geothermal 5,000 times superior to solar?

From	Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com>
Date	2016-04-24 14:53 -0700
Subject	Re: Increasing the size of Yellowstone while extracting geothermal Re: Yellowstone fully developed Re: And is geothermal 5,000 times superior to solar?
Message-ID	<26544060-48e6-4a45-97c0-d905f7ba0aba@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#572937

On Sunday, April 24, 2016 at 3:37:41 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 4/24/2016 12:35 AM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > Try reading my writings without assuming "I do not know". Your replies are far far in the category
> > of believing I know almost nothing, and so your reply is going to fill in some blanks. Try reading
> > my posts to improve your own mind, not reading my posts to "look for alleged gaps or holes in thought".
> > You are a young and dumb person to continue on your present course of replies to me.
> >
> > To make you a better conversant, read what the person offers, what I offer, and if you disagree, just
> > say-- disagree. Stop making replies that show your disdain and low opinion of me. Of course, you hide
> > behind a fake name, so probably you will not heed any of my advice, since, if you cannot even post
> > with your real name shows a lack of ability to be in science.
> 
> I disagree with this statement, and I would suggest you take your own 
> advice about assuming anything about my scientific ability. In my 
> experience, people who post with their real names on a public internet 
> forum are playing with fire and are either foolhardy or naive. Secondly, 
> I think you should not confuse sci.physics with any forum where real 
> science is PERFORMED. That is not its purpose and scientists certainly 
> do not use sci.physics as a place to keep up with research.
> 

No, if you are in science, means you are in for the truth, and never scared of the "public", never scared of others. The truth wills and wins out. If you have to use a fake name, science is not primary for you, but other things are more important to the fakester-- like attacking people.

There are situations where a fake name is required, such as in a oppressive environment, a oppressive government. But Odd is not living in such a environment to be forced to use a fake name.

> >
> > The National Park system is in the Executive branch of government and can easily be changed as to
> > the purpose and use of the parks. In fact, the purpose and use of our parks is changing all the
> > time even if no president is changing the purpose.
> 
> Nevertheless, the IUCN has as a firm requirement of National Parks the 
> following:
> "Highest competent authority of the country has taken steps to prevent 
> or eliminate exploitation or occupation as soon as possible in the whole 
> area and to effectively enforce the respect of ecological, 
> geomorphological, or aesthetic features which have led to its establishment"
> 

By building Geothermal stations in Yellowstone and with the money acquired for huge amounts of electricity, Yellowstone is able to buy up neighboring land for the park and to enclose the entire Park by fencing. All because of the money generated. Someday, Yellowstone could be the largest land bloc in the lower 48 and still have its scenery, its wild animals, and its wildnerness, save for electric plants and lines. It is better to have a few thousand workers at Yellowstone, than to have millions of tourists waddling through Yellowstone.

> >
> > What I was conveying was the idea that we can have both a beautiful pristine Yellowstone and have
> > electric geothermal power stations there. That we can increase the size of Yellowstone and make it
> > a better place.
> 
> As I mentioned, conversion of private land to public land requires 
> compensation to the private land owner. There are provisions for private 
> landowners to sue if the government exerts eminent domain appropriation.
> 

You are a depressant for new and better ideas. Why not be a "uplifting personality" rather than your depressant one.

> >
> > What you are conveying in most of your posts, is a disdain and low opinion of me. Yet, you are too
> > young and dumb to realize it.
> 
> And when you declare me "young and dumb", what kind of opinion are you 
> trying to convey to me?
> 
> All I'm asking for you is to be aware of some well-documented facts.
> 

No, all you are asking for is to "forever post replies to AP" saying what low opinion you have of him and how every idea of AP has to be wrong. That is what you are playing, and yet you are too dumb to realize what you are playing. Dumbness usually, not always equates to being young and learning through time a wiser way of living. Show me a post of yours, that respects me, rather than puts me down.

AP

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#572964 — Re: Increasing the size of Yellowstone while extracting geothermal Re: Yellowstone fully developed Re: And is geothermal 5,000 times superior to solar?

From	"Anon E. Mouse" <nobody@home.invalid>
Date	2016-04-24 19:07 -0400
Subject	Re: Increasing the size of Yellowstone while extracting geothermal Re: Yellowstone fully developed Re: And is geothermal 5,000 times superior to solar?
Message-ID	<nfjje9$4u6$1@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to	#572951

On 4/24/2016 5:53 PM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> On Sunday, April 24, 2016 at 3:37:41 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 4/24/2016 12:35 AM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

>> I disagree with this statement, and I would suggest you take your own
>> advice about assuming anything about my scientific ability. In my
>> experience, people who post with their real names on a public internet
>> forum are playing with fire and are either foolhardy or naive. Secondly,
>> I think you should not confuse sci.physics with any forum where real
>> science is PERFORMED. That is not its purpose and scientists certainly
>> do not use sci.physics as a place to keep up with research.
>
> No, if you are in science, means you are in for the truth, and never scared
> of the "public", never scared of others. The truth wills and wins out. If you
> have to use a fake name, science is not primary for you, but other things are
> more important to the fakester-- like attacking people.

 > There are situations where a fake name is required, such as in a
 > oppressive environment, a oppressive government. But Odd is not living
 > in such a environment to be forced to use a fake name.

First, what kind of fake name is "Archimedes Plutonium"?

Second, this is an internet discussion group, not a science lab. There 
are plenty of unstable people here. Look at "hanson" and his antisemitic 
and coprophilic obsession with Herb Glazier for example. That kind of 
people is a good reason not to use a real name here.

>> As I mentioned, conversion of private land to public land requires
>> compensation to the private land owner. There are provisions for private
>> landowners to sue if the government exerts eminent domain appropriation.
>>
>
> You are a depressant for new and better ideas. Why not be a "uplifting personality"
> rather than your depressant one.

Compensation for eminent domain is in the US Constitution. It is a 
simple requirement. Odd Bodkin is simply stating a fact.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#572976 — Re: Increasing the size of Yellowstone while extracting geothermal Re: Yellowstone fully developed Re: And is geothermal 5,000 times superior to solar?

From	Mike Duffy <mqduffy001@bell.net>
Date	2016-04-24 19:48 -0400
Subject	Re: Increasing the size of Yellowstone while extracting geothermal Re: Yellowstone fully developed Re: And is geothermal 5,000 times superior to solar?
Message-ID	<1x2cx7861t2xo$.brqqtwdkdpe7.dlg@40tude.net>
In reply to	#572964

On Sun, 24 Apr 2016 19:07:17 -0400, Anon E. Mouse wrote:

> First, what kind of fake name is "Archimedes Plutonium"?

I'm not sure he's the 'real' one, but he has an entry here: 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenet_celebrity

As I recall from days gone by, he actually changed his legal name to
"Archimedes Plutonium". So, regardless if the other person is faking the
name, it is, in fact, not a fake name.

On the other hand, "Anon E. Mouse" seems a bit suspect.

-- 
http://mduffy.x10host.com/index.htm

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#573047 — Re: Increasing the size of Yellowstone while extracting geothermal Re: Yellowstone fully developed Re: And is geothermal 5,000 times superior to solar?

From	Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com>
Date	2016-04-25 06:35 -0500
Subject	Re: Increasing the size of Yellowstone while extracting geothermal Re: Yellowstone fully developed Re: And is geothermal 5,000 times superior to solar?
Message-ID	<nfkvdb$1vkm$1@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to	#572951

On 4/24/2016 4:53 PM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> On Sunday, April 24, 2016 at 3:37:41 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 4/24/2016 12:35 AM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
>>> Try reading my writings without assuming "I do not know". Your replies are far far in the category
>>> of believing I know almost nothing, and so your reply is going to fill in some blanks. Try reading
>>> my posts to improve your own mind, not reading my posts to "look for alleged gaps or holes in thought".
>>> You are a young and dumb person to continue on your present course of replies to me.
>>>
>>> To make you a better conversant, read what the person offers, what I offer, and if you disagree, just
>>> say-- disagree. Stop making replies that show your disdain and low opinion of me. Of course, you hide
>>> behind a fake name, so probably you will not heed any of my advice, since, if you cannot even post
>>> with your real name shows a lack of ability to be in science.
>>
>> I disagree with this statement, and I would suggest you take your own
>> advice about assuming anything about my scientific ability. In my
>> experience, people who post with their real names on a public internet
>> forum are playing with fire and are either foolhardy or naive. Secondly,
>> I think you should not confuse sci.physics with any forum where real
>> science is PERFORMED. That is not its purpose and scientists certainly
>> do not use sci.physics as a place to keep up with research.
>>
>
> No, if you are in science, means you are in for the truth, and never scared of the "public",never
> scared of others.

Then you will post your home address and bank account details here. No 
fear, right?

> The truth wills and wins out. If you have to use a fake name, science is not primary for you, but
> other things are more important to the fakester-- like attacking people.

No, not really. My motive for maintaining a nym are simple identity 
protection from people on the internet who like to steal identities and 
cause havoc in their lives. Perhaps you've had no experience with that. 
I have.

>
> There are situations where a fake name is required, such as in a oppressive environment, a
> oppressive government. But Odd is not living in such a environment to be forced to use a fake name.

Oh, but I am.

Perhaps you can walk in the Bronx with $10 bills hanging out of our 
pocket, feeling no fear of an "oppressive environment".

Be cautious about judging, Mr. Plutonium.

>
>
>>>
>>> The National Park system is in the Executive branch of government and can easily be changed as to
>>> the purpose and use of the parks. In fact, the purpose and use of our parks is changing all the
>>> time even if no president is changing the purpose.
>>
>> Nevertheless, the IUCN has as a firm requirement of National Parks the
>> following:
>> "Highest competent authority of the country has taken steps to prevent
>> or eliminate exploitation or occupation as soon as possible in the whole
>> area and to effectively enforce the respect of ecological,
>> geomorphological, or aesthetic features which have led to its establishment"
>>
>
> By building Geothermal stations in Yellowstone and with the money acquired for huge amounts of
> electricity, Yellowstone is able to buy up neighboring land for the park and to enclose the entire
> Park by fencing. All because of the money generated. Someday, Yellowstone could be the largest
> land bloc in the lower 48 and still have its scenery, its wild animals, and its wildnerness,
> save for electric plants and lines. It is better to have a few thousand workers at Yellowstone,
> than to have millions of tourists waddling through Yellowstone.

Please note the charge of the IUCN to "eliminate exploitation ... and to 
effectively enforce the respect of ... the aesthetic features". If you 
look at IUCN rules, you'll note that National Parks must be kept open to 
the public, not fenced off or restricted to workers. I just am floored 
that you are proposing that Yellowstone have its status as a National 
Park revoked. You know, surely, that Yellowstone is the oldest National 
Park in the country, and was in fact the lampholder for the National 
Park program in the first place?!

>
>
>>>
>>> What I was conveying was the idea that we can have both a beautiful pristine Yellowstone and have
>>> electric geothermal power stations there. That we can increase the size of Yellowstone and make it
>>> a better place.
>>
>> As I mentioned, conversion of private land to public land requires
>> compensation to the private land owner. There are provisions for private
>> landowners to sue if the government exerts eminent domain appropriation.
>>
>
> You are a depressant for new and better ideas. Why not be a "uplifting personality" rather than
> your depressant one.

Because, frankly, I disagree that it's a better idea. I think it's a 
terrible idea to use Yellowstone for geothermal energy, for a number of 
reasons.

>
>>>
>>> What you are conveying in most of your posts, is a disdain and low opinion of me. Yet, you are too
>>> young and dumb to realize it.
>>
>> And when you declare me "young and dumb", what kind of opinion are you
>> trying to convey to me?
>>
>> All I'm asking for you is to be aware of some well-documented facts.
>>
>
> No, all you are asking for is to "forever post replies to AP" saying what low opinion you have of
> him and how every idea of AP has to be wrong.

If you post something I disagree with, you are going to react bitterly 
at my disagreement?

>That is what you are playing, and yet you are too dumb
> to realize what you are playing. Dumbness usually, not always equates to being young and learning
> through time a wiser way of living. Show me a post of yours, that respects me, rather than puts me down.
>
> AP
>


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#573337 — Re: Increasing the size of Yellowstone while extracting geothermal Re: Yellowstone fully developed Re: And is geothermal 5,000 times superior to solar?

From	Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com>
Date	2016-04-25 22:39 -0700
Subject	Re: Increasing the size of Yellowstone while extracting geothermal Re: Yellowstone fully developed Re: And is geothermal 5,000 times superior to solar?
Message-ID	<073269a6-7a24-437b-9464-8c7d41d578ec@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#573047

On Monday, April 25, 2016 at 6:35:12 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 4/24/2016 4:53 PM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
(snipped)
> >> All I'm asking for you is to be aware of some well-documented facts.
> >>

No, your presence in my threads is not to learn, not to do physics, but is to counter everything I say.
It is to suppress me. It is to eject your low opinion of me. It is to attack. You are too dumb to realize this. A smart person that hates another, avoids them. Dumb people keep sticking around people they hate.

> >
> > No, all you are asking for is to "forever post replies to AP" saying what low opinion you have of
> > him and how every idea of AP has to be wrong.
> 
> If you post something I disagree with, you are going to react bitterly 
> at my disagreement?
> 

No, I do not. I react angrily at a poster that does ** nothing but disagree ** with everything I post. If we had this discussion face to face instead of Internet, about the 2nd or 3rd time you disagreed with me, I would not let you in my presence, or there would be a fight. But since the Internet is not face to face, the Internet is full of stalkers like you. Some stalkers are ugly with just one post. You are the soft stalker that takes many posts for the other person to realize your game of constant disagreement, constant negatives, constant depression of your attitude.

You never even gave a physics argument that Geothermal is superior to Solar by a factor of 5,000. You attacked that and left it blank empty to your belief that geothermal is not superior. So, how is Solar superior to geothermal, in pure physics. But you cannot answer that because, well, you are not a physicist, but just a dumb person that like physics.

So, I used the Stefan Boltzmann law for the 5,000 superiority.

Let me see your math for Solar being superior, since you said I was wrong on Geothermal superior.

You see, when in the hospital, I was focused on just posting, even though yours were attacks. But now out of the hospital and regaining my old self, I really cannot stomach a depressing person like you who is bent on trashing my every idea.

You complain about cranks and others in sci.physics, but have you ever considered, you are in their boat, not in the boat of those that love physics, know some physics and want to learn physics. You are in the boat with Hanson as to use Internet to constantly attack people, albeit the soft attack.

unsigned because it is not worth saving

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#573848 — Re: Increasing the size of Yellowstone while extracting geothermal Re: Yellowstone fully developed Re: And is geothermal 5,000 times superior to solar?

From	Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com>
Date	2016-04-27 19:57 -0700
Subject	Re: Increasing the size of Yellowstone while extracting geothermal Re: Yellowstone fully developed Re: And is geothermal 5,000 times superior to solar?
Message-ID	<05ce0efc-0d72-44b3-b07c-31496dae77bc@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#573337

I would include the Hawaii lava National Park as a site to develop geothermals and supply the entire world with batteries since it is too far to string electric lines.

AP

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#573908 — Re: Increasing the size of Yellowstone while extracting geothermal Re: Yellowstone fully developed Re: And is geothermal 5,000 times superior to solar?

From	Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com>
Date	2016-04-28 01:56 -0700
Subject	Re: Increasing the size of Yellowstone while extracting geothermal Re: Yellowstone fully developed Re: And is geothermal 5,000 times superior to solar?
Message-ID	<790570af-6536-4f39-b384-8248ad9a2543@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#573337

Now can someone search through all the Science, New Scientist, Scientific American magazines for how many articles given to Geothermal Energy in the past starting with year 2000? Was it zip for all three magazines?

iPhone post

AP

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2 [1] 2 Next page →

csiph-web

why are the news agencies-- tv and magazines suppressing coverage of Geothermal? And is geothermal 5,000 times superior to solar?

Contents

#571929 — why are the news agencies-- tv and magazines suppressing coverage of Geothermal? And is geothermal 5,000 times superior to solar?

#571934

#571943

#572311 — Yellowstone fully developed Re: And is geothermal 5,000 times superior to solar?

#572510 — Increasing the size of Yellowstone while extracting geothermal Re: Yellowstone fully developed Re: And is geothermal 5,000 times superior to solar?

#572615 — Re: Increasing the size of Yellowstone while extracting geothermal Re: Yellowstone fully developed Re: And is geothermal 5,000 times superior to solar?

#572693 — Re: Increasing the size of Yellowstone while extracting geothermal Re: Yellowstone fully developed Re: And is geothermal 5,000 times superior to solar?

#572706 — Re: Increasing the size of Yellowstone while extracting geothermal Re: Yellowstone fully developed Re: And is geothermal 5,000 times superior to solar?

#572708 — Re: Increasing the size of Yellowstone while extracting geothermal Re: Yellowstone fully developed Re: And is geothermal 5,000 times superior to solar?

#572865 — Re: Increasing the size of Yellowstone while extracting geothermal Re: Yellowstone fully developed Re: And is geothermal 5,000 times superior to solar?

#572716 — Re: Increasing the size of Yellowstone while extracting geothermal Re: Yellowstone fully developed Re: And is geothermal 5,000 times superior to solar?

#572863 — Re: Increasing the size of Yellowstone while extracting geothermal Re: Yellowstone fully developed Re: And is geothermal 5,000 times superior to solar?

#572937 — Re: Increasing the size of Yellowstone while extracting geothermal Re: Yellowstone fully developed Re: And is geothermal 5,000 times superior to solar?

#572951 — Re: Increasing the size of Yellowstone while extracting geothermal Re: Yellowstone fully developed Re: And is geothermal 5,000 times superior to solar?

#572964 — Re: Increasing the size of Yellowstone while extracting geothermal Re: Yellowstone fully developed Re: And is geothermal 5,000 times superior to solar?

#572976 — Re: Increasing the size of Yellowstone while extracting geothermal Re: Yellowstone fully developed Re: And is geothermal 5,000 times superior to solar?

#573047 — Re: Increasing the size of Yellowstone while extracting geothermal Re: Yellowstone fully developed Re: And is geothermal 5,000 times superior to solar?

#573337 — Re: Increasing the size of Yellowstone while extracting geothermal Re: Yellowstone fully developed Re: And is geothermal 5,000 times superior to solar?

#573848 — Re: Increasing the size of Yellowstone while extracting geothermal Re: Yellowstone fully developed Re: And is geothermal 5,000 times superior to solar?

#573908 — Re: Increasing the size of Yellowstone while extracting geothermal Re: Yellowstone fully developed Re: And is geothermal 5,000 times superior to solar?