Warming Up to Geothermal's Potential Via Google Earth

James, one of the biggest problems is an issue with multi tasking. I am simply not very good at it. I need to be careful not to be drawn off in too many directions at once ... but
I think if you look, you will find some of the best inventions done on this planet were done without 'professional' expertise. Traditionally, colleges were drawn to these people after their abilities were announced. Tesla, Edison, Einstein,to name a few. This concept of special origins of knowledge threaten one of the greatest sources of knowledge for Mankind, the common Man.

About the recent cold fusion news in Italy. The problem I have with that news is it was released through the media. That is not how breakthroughs in science are done, when they are legit. Reporter don't know what questions to ask on something like this. Normally they are first reported in Peer-Reviewed journals and then they are verified by other scientists by replication of the inventor's exact experiments that demonstrate what they are claiming. I have not read that anyone else has duplicated what their claiming to have achieved. If that has been done even the 'inventor' hasn't said so, to my knowledge. I would love it to be true but nothing I've read supports it's real except the inventors claims. I have a big problem with that. Have you ever heard of Carl Segan's idea of a 'Baloney Detection Kit'? It's explained on a Youtube video here,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUB4j0n2UDU
Oddly enough cold fusion and global warming are mentioned in some places. You might find it helpful and good to know info.

With global warming deniers, Google ' global warming deniers ' We all must make up or own minds. What do you think the articles show. I think it's real and know this, we cannot feed the 7 billion people we now have about now, without oil in use now. Fertilizers come from oil, farm equipment run on oil, food is transported off the farms with oil,we can't stop. IMO, we are in a pickle. Geothermal can be used to provide 24/7 electricity where wind and solar can't, not without some form of storage technology. I never read where the heat in the ground will make the globe warmer vs keeping it in the ground. That heat will radiate off in to space quickly. Deserts get very hot in the day from the sun but they also get very cool at night in a matter of hours once the sun is set. All that day time heat is lost to space.
Google 'oil funds deniers' see what comes up. Again I'm not saying what to think. Be careful not to be sold a bill of goods but be open. My limit is up.

Will do James, thank you. But I do not soak up information without study. Especially anything from the US government. But I will look.

Now, another question. Lets assume you are correct. Would it make sence to draw that much heat from the depths of the Earth where nature has stored it and bring it to the surface? I am cautious on the whole global warming thing, but I am also not convinced otherwise. There are some very educated people whose data has convinced them. Those who seem most against it (the global warming concept)are those with base missions inclined towards their personal finances. That makes their data suspect. So, without a good arguement against global warming, do you think it would be prudent to continue pumping previously sequestered heat into the atmosphere at a rate ten times what we do now? The Earth was much warmer when this heat was above ground. Solar, wind and hydro would not inject sequestered heat into the atmosphere, and they would be much less expensive to develop.

Also on another post here, there is a claim of possible cold fusion device becoming operational. Any thoughts on that?

I feel there is no need to see our discussion as an attack from either side.
You asked 'What is your background that allows you the privilege to decide what is ludicrous and what is not?'. I don't see what difference my personal background makes when I am giving my opinion based on facts. Anyone's background is irrelevant if they base their comments on bad information. Nobel laureates opinions even in their own field are worth nothing if they are working with bad scientific methods or data. I present geological facts to support my opinion. The facts that I presented is the authority I base my opinion on. Prove them in error or not. If you can dispute my facts, showing that they are in error, than the authority I claim for my opinion is gone. You haven't done that. You've only stated that it's not 'ludicrous' to question that the earths core could be solidified over hundreds of years of geothermal heat extraction by mankind, with out any information showing that it isn't. If your interested the facts I gave about the earth can be found here,
http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/interior/
The same information is given here,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mantle_%28geology%29
I looked up the information to support my opinion. You presented nothing to support your post or dispute mine. Please do. Let us use verifiable information to support our opinions.

'The Earth houses a vast energy supply in the form of geothermal resources. Domestic resources are equivalent to a 30,000-year energy supply at our current rate for the United States!' Link here (http://www1.eere.energy.gov/geothermal/pdfs/40665.pdf)

30,000 years make's this question 'if centuries of withdrawing enough energy from the core, would it begin to solidify?' that you heard raised during a 'way deep intellectually' talk ludicrous, IMO. If you still have an issue about my opinion with supporting sources, I'll be happy to address them. But please try supporting your opinion as I have mine. Thank you

Attack away, if it is earned.

The question asked which I could not answer, and did not research by the way, was that if you extracted energy in the amount we use now, multiplied by the potential increase expanded over a couple thousand years, would that result in a temperature modification of the planets core? My point was, I have heard of no research addressing that, only cash input to begin operation, with emphatic 'ludicrous' charges from probably someone hardy educated enough on the subject to make such a crutial decision. What is your background that allows you the privledge to decide what is ludicrous and what is not?

The concern raised by others besides Tim as he stated was 'if centuries of withdrawing enough energy from the core, would it begin to solidify' is in fact ludicrous, as I see it and based on this definition of the word.
Ludicrous: adjective = So foolish, unreasonable, or out of place as to be amusing.
Synonyms: ridiculous - laughable - absurd - funny - comical
Yes Tim you did make it clear it was not your belief but you did raise that concern of others. If after my explanation you don't agree with me, then say so and give your reasoning. I'm open to your thoughts that are presented with supporting information. I was not attacking you. I just addressed the concern you chose to repeat on the topic. I was giving a reply to that totally unfounded concern you brought to the discussion. Both for your benefit and others who might not understand just unfounded it is. Your mention of it confirms there are people that might believe that fallacy and that was what I was addressing. No disrespect was intended.

"Tim and everyone else, The question of if " centuries of withdrawing enough energy from the core, would it begin to solidify?" is ludicrous."

I did not say it was or was not possible, I simply said I had no research, then mentioned a scenerio I had heard. And your physical description of the planet has as much bearing on this subject as a peanut butter sandwich. It almost seems that you are trying to protect a science yet unproven. But I am sure you think that your pronouncement of 'ludicrous' should satisfy my question. Again, the issue is money, as you conveniently point out at the end of your post. Which was my point. If there is money to be made, to hell with the facts. Thank you for illuminating my point, I could not have done better myself.

I did write "if not negligeable", and obviously, it is negligeable.
To me the whole notion is as ludicrous as the onion video that shows coal lobbyists arguing that too many windmills will blow the earth out of its orbit. I was just trying to be polite.

Tim and everyone else, The question of if " centuries of withdrawing enough energy from the core, would it begin to solidify?" is ludicrous. The thought that geothermal energy extracted from the mantle might, above some scale, solidify the earth's core in 1 or 2 thousand years is as valid and realistic as some peoples unshakable beliefs of the 7000 y/o earth and Noah's ark. Magical thinking has no value once man entered into the age of reason but it does persist to today. Let me give you and others some perspective on the topic.

The average diameter of the earth is 7,913 miles, being more at the equator (7,926mi) and less at the poles (7,889mi). Geothermal energy is extracted from the earths mantle. The crust, 1% of the earths mass, varies in thickness with the oceanic crust 3 to 6 miles thick while the continental crusts is typically 20 to 30 miles. The rest of the inner earth consists of the mantle and core, both regions are divided into upper and lower parts These are the 5 major regions of the earth's interior. The mantle and core are 99% of the the earths total mass. One should never think that it is even possible in any way that a human activity like geothermal energy extraction from the crust could solidify the earth liquid inner region. Everyone can sleep peacefully knowing that is not possible. However I am sure that just as there are those who believe the evidence on global warming is flawed or that mankind's use of fossil fuels are not impacting the climate, there will be those who will not be deterred from repeating such a concept. Especially went influenced by those who profit from trillions of dollars of fossil fuel still awaiting to be brought up. In spite of how it will further increase our atmospheric level of CO2, as it is being done now. That is your real threat, not any delusion of possibly solidifying the earths core in 2000 years of heat removal for electricity supplying mans energy needs.

I suppose it depends on 2 things
If the heat is latent heat from the big bang, and if overall extraction of thermal energy is not negligeable, then maybe.
If however the heat is from radioactive decay, then no.

Not that I am really worried about the planet in a thousand years ... (I am being facetious)

I have not done a lot of research on this, but one scenerio I've heard is in regard to the Earth orbit around the Sun. It spoke of stability of a rotating mass with a liquid center ... way deep intellectually. And the question was, if centuries of withdrawing enough energy from the core, would it begin to solidify? Its kind of one of those 'solution to pollution is dilution' issues. The physics sound right so I would have to do more study before I determined if this could threaten the Earths orbit. And I would bet there is a ton of theory here. And because the only serious conversation I have heard is negative, my attitude is negative. Why? Because big money doesn't worry about ecological impact never has, and probably never will, their only concern is financial. Before you jump on this band wagon, you might want to make sure it is not a potential Fukushima worldwide, 100 times over. But who really cares about what might happen in 2000 years, come on!