GENIUS FORUMS

ENERGY

1. There are many different ways to derive energy.
2. Each of these methods has different relationships with the environment
3. Each of these methods has different costs and different benefits
4. Each of the these methods has different pros and cons.
5. A partial list of methods; oil, coal, shale, wood, gas, Biofuels (a. food crop, b. hemp crop c. algae) Solar, Thermal Solar, Wind, Tidal, Geothermal, Hydrogen, Hydrolic, Zero Point, Nuclear.

6. Oils relationships with the environment are
a. oil is ancient organic material that has undergone geological processes.
b. oil is removed from the ground via oil wells. Ie oil is mined from the Earth.
c. oil is burned in order to get heat and chemical reaction to create the energy.
d. burning it creates smoke. the smoke is toxic. it is multiply toxic to the ecosystem in multiple ways.
e. its causing global warming
f. it causes cancer
g. it causes acid rain
h. thus it hurts humans personally and the whole ecosystem as whole in these different ways.

7. oil costs a certain amount of money to obtain from the earth, depending on how deep it is and at what pressure it is under.

8. oil costs a certain amount of money to refine and process, as well as to transport.

9. The pros of oil are that ;

a. it is accessible with very primitive levels of technology
b. our current energy infrastructure is based on oil
c. oil costs less than biofuels or, at least, it used to.
d. oils over all cost benefit analysis remains do-able from the perspective of economics alone.

10. The cons against oil are
a. oil is actually very expensive as technology compared to other forms of energy in which initial
costs render yields not limited by physical quantities. Solar power stations, Wind, and Geothermal all provide energy options which
are simply cheaper over the long term.
b. oil pollutes the ecology as mentioned in its environmental analysis above.
c. that pollution will cause the extinction of life on earth as we know it should it continue.
d. we have already reached a tipping point where we have raised the global temperature so high that the new larger contributor to
greenhouse gasses is the ice that is being melted.
e. thus we need solutions to reverse global warming, or, our civilization is doomed.

11. Coal. The specifics change, but Coal, like oil, is an ancient organic substance exposed to geological processes, mut be burned, and thus
contributes to pollution and global warming.

12. oil Shale and coal Shale. Similar to oil and coal or extensions of them, shale is harder to mine and harder to extract oil from.
thus it costs more to process.

13. Biofuels. The difference between biofuels and oil or coal is that biofuels have not been exposed to geological processes, but rather,
similarly effecting technological processes.
a.Biofuels still have toxic smoke which pollutes and which contributes to global warming
b. Biofuels trade energy shortage and economic stress for food shortage and economic stress, thus creating c +d
c. Biofuels create food shortages, hunger, and contribute to global poverty
d. Biofuels make food more expensive.

14. Solar Power
a. solar power is derived from the suns light and chemical processes.
b. Solar panels are a permanent fixture which will continue to derive energy whenever the sun shines.
c. Solar panels have real but comparatively very tiny environmental costs.
d. Solar panel technology is up to date and evolved, no more research is actually required.
e. assorted pundits and candidates and politicians and so forth like to tell us that they favor more research for solar power.
Thats a secret unsecret way of saying that they don't support employing it as a real world solution, because solar power has worked
and has been feasible and economically viable for over 20 years.
f. Solar power is derived at a specific rate depending on the size of the panel, the efficiency of the absorption of the sunlight, and the amount of
sunlight available.
g. Solar power does better at high altitudes because theres less atmospheric interference.
h. Solar Power has very low yields per physical system cost. In order to run a car on Solar energy, you have to panel the entire car,
and in order to run your house on solar energy, you would have to panel your entire rooftop and buy energy saving appliances.
i. Solar power is most attractive and useful in a whole energy strategy because it is uniquely mobile. Geothermal wells or Wind
power or tidal power (for obvious reasons) won't run a car directly.
j. Solar power could in theory be used to solve the energy crisis almost by itself, by paneling over a very large surface area. This surface area
has been calculated variously, with low estimates ranging in 10 by 10 miles, and high estimates ranging upto 200 by 200 miles.
h. The problem with this is that the cost/ benefit analysis shows us that this would be very expensive when compared to a holistic energy strategy.
i. Solar power has very low yields when compared to geothermal power.

15. Thermal Solar. Thermal Solar is a variation of Solar power with a much cheaper cost, a much lower per square foot yield, and operating at a much simpler technology level.
a. about 100 miles by 100 miles (median estimate) of Thermal solar paneling could in theory meet our energy needs.
b. Thermal Solar can be done in such a way that it has lower materials costs and lower materials environmental impact.
c. Thermal solar involves using light to heat a liquid which creates energy by pushing a turbine when the fluid expands.

16. Wind Energy.
a. Wind energy is derived from creating large turbines called wind mills.
b. Wind mills are generally very large affairs.
c. The larger a windmill is, the more energy it creates relative to its overall material cost.
d. This means that the cost/ benefit analysis shows that larger windmills are cheaper.
e. Windmills create medium yields of energy when they are operating.
f. One good large windmill can probably meet the energy needs for perhaps a dozen homes.
g. The USA could in theory meet all of its energy needs via wind power, if we invested heavily also in enormous
distribution network infrastructure.
h. The USA is rich in wind energy compared to most places on the earth.
i. the problem with windmills is downtime when theres no wind.
j. This is significantly less a problem than with solar downtime due to no sun.
k. Wind and Solar together as a team can capitalize on the two extremes of climate, and should thus be employed
alternately depending on the location one wishes to provide energy for.
l. for instance, Solar power is better in New Mexico, Arizona, California, Texas, And sunny places.
J. And yet Wind power is better in places like New Jersey, Oregon,...places alongside the Canada Border.
k. The other problem with wind power is that it can create quite an eye sore to look at.
l. Wind power also can be very devastating to local bird populations.
m. Wind and Solar might be good tandem partners for cities like Denver, where theres lots of wind and lots of sun,
but not usually at the same time except for when it is.
This allows such a system to generate power in the sunny months with solar and in the winter months with wind.

17. Tidal Power
a. Tidal power is derived much like wind power is, from the movement of water instead of air.
b. Tidal power is slightly higher in potential yields because water is denser.
c. Tidal power would have to be done more or less on remote beaches , probably in large fenced
areas to protect the systems from animals and animals and humans from the systems.
d. Tidal power is obviously only viable on the coastlines of oceans or very large bodies of water such as lakes.
e. Tidal power could in theory meet all of our energy needs.
f. the cost/ benefit analysis for tidal power is a bit murky because its a mostly unexplored technology.
g. however, proof of concept units do exist and the technology is very simple.
h. tidal power has problems due to the corrosive nature of salt water and erosion.
i. Tidal power is unpopular because it ruins one beach per facility.
j. Most accessible tidal power exists in the energy of waves.
k. Cost/ benefit analysis shows that tidal power can be done out at sea, but it becomes increasingly more expensive the further out
you go to get the power back to land.
l. Tidal power is probably a good solution for arctic regions which don't get much sun, and whose wind conditions might on some occasions be too intense,
pulling windmills down.
m. Along with Solar power and Wind power, tidal power provides a third leg of medium level yield energy for low materials cost in situations where
geothermal power would be too expensive.

18. Geothermal Power
a. Geothermal power is energy derived from the heat of the earth.
b. that heat is on average several miles beneath the surface.
c. However, there is a lot of variance in how deep that heat is, and every state has regions where that heat is within a few hundred meters of the surface.
d. Geothermal power like wind power becomes cheaper per materials cost the larger the plant is.
e. Geothermal power has very high potential yields, and is in fact competitive with nuclear power in terms of sheer yield.
f. Geothermal power plants could in theory be built with higher energy yields than nuclear power plants. However, this is not advised or advisable, due to
potential tectonic stresses such high energy plants could create.
g. in the range around 100th or even 1 tenth the yield energy of a nuclear power station, geothermal power stations could be built which would have
virtually no impact on tectonic stresses.
h. Tectonic stress is an important variable. Frequently geothermal power is most accessible along fault lines. However, these should be ignored for
caldera like situations where the system is not contributing or in danger due to tectonic stresses.
i. There are many different ways of configuring a geothermal power station, and only one which this author supports. This is called double circuit closed system geothermal power.
j. double circuit simply means that the water drops on one circuit and the steam comes up on the other.
k. closed circuit means that no water is ever lost in the system, because even the heating element chamber is a well engineered container
L. Geothermal power can in theory meet all of our energy needs
M. of the resources available to us, it does this with the cheapest over all cost, the smallest possible ecological footprint, and the highest level of
permanency.
N. Geothermal power is not a good solution in situations where a small amount of power is needed for small communities or remote estates. It has a high material cost and start up cost to drill the well.
O. Geothermal power is theoretically available almost everywhere on the surface of the earth.
P. current oil wells now go as deep as 7, 8, 9 miles deep.
Q. Enough Geothermal power is accessible within 200 meters depth to meet all of our energy needs.
R. where larger power sources are wanted in places where that heat is deeper, it is still true that geothermal heat in most places is not
deeper than 4 miles.
S. In some rare situations where the crust is thick, geothermal power might be as deep as 20 miles.
Don't drill there, import the energy from 150 miles away somewhere.

19. Hydrogen power;
a. Hydrogen power is an up and coming technology which we can expect to see having good strong applications 20 or 30 years from now.
b. Hydrogen power is very promising, but currently, its still mostly a way to store energy, not create it.
c. The two main exceptions to this are using corrosive rare earth metals to get reactions, and using phased electrical energy to short out the binding force.
d. The problem with the former is that the rare earth metal is itself a form of fuel, and that creating it, and "burning" it with water both create toxic
substances as side effects.
e. the problem with the latter is containment of the field and what happens when organic matter is exposed to high energy bursts of electricity.
f. To the knowledge of this author, water based solutions which continue to use a combustion engine are frauds.
g. When Hydrogen becomes a used technology, it will probably be for very large equipment and uses, such as trains, planes, and large boats

20. Hydrolic or Hydro Electric power.
a. This energy is created by damming a river and using falling water to drive a turbine.
b. this is incredibly damaging to the ecology.
c. Yields are fairly high per materials cost, but, still, hydro electric materials costs are comparable to geothermal power, which doesn't destroy an entire
ecosystem per power plant.
d. Hydro electric power does not exist in anywhere near sufficient quantities to meet all of our energy needs.
e. This author finds hydro-electric power to be a bad idea all the way around, not even as useful as nuclear power.

21. Nuclear power
a. Nuclear power (currently) is derived from using rare earth metals in reactions which turn some fraction of those fuels directly into energy.
b. The radioactive fuels must be mined, and this results currently in the deaths (and serious health problems) of many Miners.
c. Nuclear power currently creates hyper toxic and radio active wastes, which cost money to tend and babysit, and which in an accident
of ignorance 10 thousand years from now could wipe out an entire continents worth of our descendants.
d. Nuclear power is in many senses still a futuristic technology with much promise and much potential.
e. Thus nuclear power should be studied and refined in the laboratory.
f. The focus of such studies should be in finding ways to use non radioactive fuels,
finding ways to create dissipating forms of radiation only, and finding ways to eliminate the problem of wastes.
g. Nuclear power is very high yield, but it has exorbitant costs, especially over the long term.
h. Compared to Geothermal power, nuclear power is extremely expensive, gets more expensive instead of less expensive over time, is extremely
dangerous, and perhaps most importantly, sooner or later we will run out of nuclear fuels, and still be forced to move on to geothermal power.
i. Nuclear power will be most useful for purposes of exploring our solar system and our galaxy.
j. There is no good reason to use nuclear power for domestic use considering the other much better alternatives.

22. Zero point energy
a. Zero point energy is derived from quantum phase state fluctuations where energy is created in contradiction to the "laws" of conservation of mass and
energy.
b. Zero point energy is a futuristic technology which may become realistic within the next 100 years.
c. Final stage proof of concept zero point energy research should be conducted at least as distant from the earth as the oort cloud, due to the unforseeable
nature of potential dangers.
d. In theory, zero point energy could create a self sustaining quantum phase reaction which could create nearly unlimited energy in spaces literally too small to be seen by the naked eye.
e. Early stage research into zero point energy is the entire field of quantum mechanics, specifically Singularities, branes, and quantum holographics.


23. Summary of findings.
a. Geothermal, Solar, Wind, Tidal, and Hydrogen Technologies together provide a clear and easy path towards green and sustainable energy.
b. Geothermal energy specifically is the solution which a realistic green energy infrastructure should be rooted in.
c. It is reasonable to project a total holistic solution in which 80 percent of our energy comes from geothermal, 10 percent from Solar, 5 percent from
Wind, and 5 percent from Tidal.
d. It is also worth mentioning that electric cars are a current and viable technology.
e. This is all of it simply a sumary of known and provable science fact. The only reason why most people don't know all of this is that oil companies
and rich evil jerks have spent billions of dollars to flood the public with propaganda and misinformation.
f. The other strategy of the evil empire jerks is to promote energy resources such as biofuels or nuclear power which create a situation of extreme expense so that they can continue to exploit our need for energy in order to make money. A Geothermally based energy infrastructure would provide
extremely cheap energy (especially over the long term) and this would be the death of the energy industry.





____________
“The opposite of bravery is not cowardice but conformity.”

"Out beyond ideas of right-doing and wrong-doing there is a field. I’ll meet you there. "
-Rumi-

“The best way to escape from your problem is to solve it.”

I think eventually solar will totally revolutionize the economy. It has great potential, more so than all the others combined.

solar power is great, but its very low yield, which means that meeting our energy needs via it dominantly would have a very high cost.

did you not read, not understand the information presented?

Geothermal power has more potential than all the other sources combined.

Geothermal is only available in some areas, sort of like Wind. I studied Geology a bit, so I know that if you live in an idea that is dead tectonically, the probability of deriving useful amounts of geothermal energy is very low.

However, solar on the other hand, is in its infancy stage. As the technology evolves, I believe it will become much more potent. Nanotechnology will probably give birth to very efficient panels, transfer connections and storage units, perhaps thousands of times more powerful than what exists now.

Geothermal is only available in some areas, sort of like Wind.

The only places it is not available realistically are mountainous regions or long flat zones where the crust is thick.
Every state in the union has enough accessible geothermal power to meet the needs of the entire nation.

I studied Geology a bit,

How long ago? 20 years ago 4 miles deep was "impossible."
Now, 9 miles deep is commonplace.

so I know that if you live in an idea that is dead tectonically,

Actually, dead tectonic zones are best because that way you won't encourage tectonic activity.
heat is more accessible in tectonically active zones, but, I'm trying to be responsible over here.
In the worst case scenarios of the east, we are only talking 4 miles. And enough heat exists within 200
meters to meet all of our energy needs.

the probability of deriving useful amounts of geothermal energy is very low.

I appreciate your voice in this, but you are incorrect and probably operating off of propaganda created by the oil
companies.

However, solar on the other hand, is in its infancy stage. As the technology evolves, I believe it will become much more potent.

I am sure that is true. The efficiency rate could go way up, thats fer sure.

Nanotechnology will probably give birth to very efficient panels, transfer connections and storage units, perhaps thousands of times more powerful than what exists now.

Yes, i have high hopes for nanotech as well.
:)

first of all, I don't believe that the oil companies have as much control as you think. They only have control because oil is the most economical method of creating quick energy at the moment.

However, if solar suddenly became more economical, then the oil companies would have a difficult time preventing such massive consumer redirection in consumption. Moreover, if oil companies had any power, then they would prevent all these alternatives from emerging from the outset, but they clearly haven't been able to keep new emerging technologies out of the market. On the contrary, many large oil companies are investing in alternatives because they sense there is change coming over the horizon, and they want to be ready for the energy transition themselves.

The only power they have is the fact that oil is still cheaper and more plentiful than the alternatives.

And I think you are being overly optimistic with the potential of geothermal. Moreover, if geothermal had so much potential that it would be more commonplace all over the world. It isn't, and so your empirical analysis is called into question. You see, humans do what is cheapest. They tend to take the path of least resistance.

The only areas of the world that produce a high percentage of their own energy with geothermal are places like Iceland that have access to very shallow chambers.

Moreover, suppose one can drill down very deep to find a hot enough chamber, the problem then arises as to how much do the costs increase to pump water down through the chambers, and back up, as it is the steam that travels through the chambers that pushes the turbines. Personally, I suspect that the deeper chambers are not as economically feasible as the more shallow ones, and the shallow ones are much more rare, and that is why geothermal hasn't taken off on a global scale.

first of all, I don't believe that the oil companies have as much control as you think. They only have control because oil is the most economical method of creating quick energy at the moment.

Actually, if it were economics, solar, wind, tidal geothermal are all more economic, some by an order of magnitude.
The reverse is true, oil is still used modernly because its easy to commoditize.

However, if solar suddenly became more economical,

Its already economical. The idea that it isn't is again purely propaganda. You can spray paint on a solar panel
for under 30 bucks.

then the oil companies would have a difficult time preventing such massive consumer redirection in consumption.

The means by which they prevent it are numerous, and have to do with the control over the auto industry, and corruption in politics.

Moreover, if oil companies had any power, then they would prevent all these alternatives from emerging from the outset,

Which is what they have successfully done for 30 or so years.

but they clearly haven't been able to keep new emerging technologies out of the market.

You are not paying attention. Electric cars were viable 30 years ago. This has nothing to dowith market forces
and everything to do with cronyism, corporatism, monopolies, and corruption.

On the contrary, many large oil companies are investing in alternatives

in piddily and purely propagandistic sums of money. I remember seeing a report on this not so long
ago showing the ratios. spending less than a single percent of ones income on green energy to keep
the masses complacent is merely a marketing and public relations ploy.

because they sense there is change coming over the horizon, and they want to be ready for the energy transition themselves.

That may have become true in the last 5 years. Prior to that, everything they did was based on keeping alternative energy off the market.

The only power they have is the fact that oil is still cheaper and more plentiful than the alternatives.

No, in fact the alternatives are cheaper and have been for decades. The power that they have is political
and propagandistic; otherwise you wouldn't be telling me that, for instance.

And I think you are being overly optimistic with the potential of geothermal.

okay, but I have studied the problem, and know what i am talking about.

Moreover, if geothermal had so much potential that it would be more commonplace all over the world.

It IS more commonplace all over the world than in the USA. And aside from this, the global economy is USA global imperialism. USA corporations run third world countries.

It isn't, and so your empirical analysis is called into question.

In your mind, i guess.

You see, humans do what is cheapest.

were that true, we would have gone to green energy exclusively 30 or 40 years ago.

They tend to take the path of least resistance.

that part is true, but there are other things to consider than just economics.
Geothermal power would be so cheap that it would cut out corporations from making profits.
Politics trumps economics in lots of ways. Universal single payer health care would be cheaper than the system we have now. But its not about economics, its about the politics of insurance companies making money off of human suffering.

The only areas of the world that produce a high percentage of their own energy with geothermal are places like Iceland that have access to very shallow chambers.

True.

Moreover, suppose one can drill down very deep to find a hot enough chamber, the problem then arises as to how much do the costs increase to pump water down

Down is easy. Its called gravity.

through the chambers, and back up, as it is the steam that travels through the chambers that pushes the turbines.

up is easy. Its called pressure.

Personally, I suspect that the deeper chambers are not as economically feasible as the more shallow ones, and the shallow ones are much more rare, and that is why geothermal hasn't taken off on a global scale.

Well, thats a contributing factor, but its not the reason. The reason is propaganda, politics, and convenience to corporate imperialism.

prometheuspan,

The means by which they prevent it are numerous, and have to do with the control over the auto industry, and corruption in politics.

There is some of that going on, mostly America, but many other countries are not controlled to the same degree as America, and many of these technologies have not become more popular than oil.

Which is what they have successfully done for 30 or so years.

I disagree, these technologies are only beginning to become feasible based on advancements in dozens of different industries that are all interrelated.

You are not paying attention. Electric cars were viable 30 years ago. This has nothing to do with market forces
and everything to do with cronyism, corporatism, monopolies, and corruption.

Yes and no. The battery technology is very poor. The cars drive fairly slow, and they not even green anyway if the power source is still fossil fuels, so its not a huge accomplishment. Plus, it is unrealistic to believe that a few corporations can keep an emerging technology out of the “global” marketplace. Perhaps at the national level, but not on the global level.

That may have become true in the last 5 years. Prior to that, everything they did was based on keeping alternative energy off the market.

It wasn’t that viable 5 years ago anyway. This technologies are in their infancy based on the present technological progress in many sectors. The casual conditions must be right for a new technology to emerge anyhow. All of which are dependent on dozens of interrelated industries, and I don't believe the oil companies had the power to stunt the progress of dozens of interrelated industries....

Down is easy. Its called gravity.

It needs a massive amount of pressure going down though.

up is easy. Its called pressure.

It needs more pressure than that. I think you're making it sound a little too easy, it costs millions of dollars to implement, and if the conditions are wrong, then you have wasted all your money. I'm keeping my money on solar.

Well, thats a contributing factor, but its not the reason. The reason is propaganda, politics, and convenience to corporate imperialism.

No, I don't think so, corruption only occurs in some countries, not all countries. And there are dozens of countries all working away to solve these problems, but most of these nations are still dependent on oil because it is still the cheapest easiest source, regardless of all the technological progress made around the world over the last century.

There is some of that going on, mostly America, but many other countries are not controlled to the same degree as America, and many of these technologies have not become more popular than oil.

contributing factors to this include simply education; they don't realize its possible,
propaganda, they are told as you have been that its harder than it is,
and Corporatism, which invests in keeping the solutions off the table.

Also, there are technological hurdles, even say china is 30 years behind us.

I disagree, these technologies are only beginning to become feasible based on advancements in dozens of different industries that are all interrelated.

Which one? Electric cars? There are electric busses that have been running in santa barbara for 20 years.
Solar power? Thats been feasible for also maybe even as long as 30 years. Sure its improved, but it was possible and
a working technology a long time ago. Wind? do you know how long thats been around? Thousands of years.
Geothermal power stations were first explored a hundred or so years ago, and have always been just as feasible as oil.

Yes and no. The battery technology is very poor. The cars drive fairly slow, and they not even green anyway if the power source is still fossil fuels, so its not a huge accomplishment. Plus, it is unrealistic to believe that a few corporations can keep an emerging technology out of the “global” marketplace. Perhaps at the national level, but not on the global level.

Like i said, there are santa barbara city busses that are wholly electric and which have been running for 20 years.
the question of getting more light weight and cheaper batteries is a red herring. It would be nice, but its not required.
Again, there are several reasons why corporations can keep technologies off the table globally, not the least of which is
that we more or less own many of these countries economically, and that their information regarding technology comes from us, and, that they are decades behind us technologically.

It wasn’t that viable 5 years ago anyway. This technologies are in their infancy based on the present technological progress in many sectors.

I'm sorry, but that simply is not true. Its what the oil companies want you to think, but its not reality as it is.

The casual conditions must be right for a new technology to emerge anyhow. All of which are dependent on dozens of interrelated industries, and I don't believe the oil companies had the power to stunt the progress of dozens of interrelated industries....

Your belief does not figure into this. Do you have any idea how much exxonmobile spent just to propaganda war away global warming? Billions of dollars total. My suggestion is that you do some more research, visit my site, and get more informed.

It needs a massive amount of pressure going down though.

No, it does not. All that is required for down is gravity.


Quote:
up is easy. Its called pressure.

It needs more pressure than that. I think you're making it sound a little too easy,

than what? You have a closed double circuit system in which water is transformed into steam. The density difference
between water and steam is an order of magnitude. Thats more than enough pressure. Alternately, the whole apparatus
can be buried just above the chamber.

it costs millions of dollars to implement, and if the conditions are wrong, then you have wasted all your money. I'm keeping my money on solar.

okay, you do that.


Quote:
Well, thats a contributing factor, but its not the reason. The reason is propaganda, politics, and convenience to corporate imperialism.

No, I don't think so, corruption only occurs in some countries, not all countries.

Dude, what planet do you live on? Corruption occurs everywhere, its part of social entropy. In fact the iron rule of oligarchies pretty much demonstrates that no society or country has yet made it past inherent corruption, because
engineering a society versus social entropy is a very difficult problem that has yet to be solved.

And there are dozens of countries all working away to solve these problems, but most of these nations are still dependent on oil because it is still the cheapest easiest source,

Oil is demonstrably more expensive than solar, wind, tidal, or geothermal power. In the case of geothermal power,
by two orders of magnitude.

Geothermal power has more potential than all the other sources combined.

Thats my view as well. I'm a fan of Geothermal power and traditional hydro.

I haven't read what you wrote above, but do you think that the transfer of heat from below the surface over a long time frame will result in global warming on the surface.

the fractional tiny amount of heating that it might cause is orders of magnitude to small to make any difference.

similarly, some worry about cooling the core. The sheer size of the energy pool is so large that we are not even talking about something the size of a gnat compared to a human. If the entire worlds energy came from goethermal power,
the gnat that would represent if represented as a total gnat would still be too small to see with the naked eye,
and would drain less than a trillionth of the energy from that energy pool.

the amount of energy difference compared to oil/etc global warming on the surface is millions of times less.
if the wells and turbines are buried, its even less.

prometheuspan,

I'm sorry, but that simply is not true. Its what the oil companies want you to think, but its not reality as it is.

Its not that extreme, you demonize the oil companies too much by overestimating their power, while underestimating the power of the free market.

Do you have any idea how much exxonmobile spent just to propaganda war away global warming? Billions of dollars total. My suggestion is that you do some more research, visit my site, and get more informed.

There is a large probability that Global warming isn’t even caused by human activity anyway. For instance: the earth goes through ice ages and then hot house periods, and the earth is naturally moving into a hot house period.

Dude, what planet do you live on? Corruption occurs everywhere, its part of social entropy. In fact the iron rule of oligarchies pretty much demonstrates that no society or country has yet made it past inherent corruption, because
engineering a society versus social entropy is a very difficult problem that has yet to be solved.

I meant relative corruption when it comes to oil companies preventing entry of other technologies into the market. And yes, America has been known for that sort of activity in the past, but as of late, the US economy does allow other technologies to compete with oil. The problem is that the technologies aren’t practical on a grand scale.

Oil is demonstrably more expensive than solar, wind, tidal, or geothermal power. In the case of geothermal power,
by two orders of magnitude.

Oh come on, I have a tidal plant in my province, and the power company only keeps it in operation because it is a historic site, but other than that, they are losing money on it every year, and it only produces a small amount of energy. And it costs roughly $15000-$20000 for a full scale solar set up for your home, does that sound less expensive than oil? As I've said, these technologies are not yet practical on a large scale, and that is what sets oil apart from the rest. Oil can be used for most energy sources on a global scale, and it is easily accessible in the earth. The waste products can also be used for plastics. And as far as geothermal, here are some quotes from wikipedia , which I highly doubt is propaganda supplied by oil companies –

As of 2007, geothermal power supplies less than 1% of the world's energy.[3]

There must be logical reasons for that, other than a massive global conspiracy by oil companies, I don't believe that any single power can have that sort of negative affect on the global economy.

Disadvantages:

From an engineering perspective, the geothermal fluid is corrosive, and worse, is at a relatively low temperature (compared to steam from boilers), which by the laws of thermodynamics limits the efficiency of heat engines in extracting useful energy as in the generation of electricity. Much of the heat energy is lost, unless there is also a local use for low-temperature heat, such as greenhouses or timber mills or district heating, etc.
There are several environmental concerns behind geothermal energy. Construction of the power plants can adversely affect land stability in the surrounding region. This is mainly a concern with Enhanced Geothermal Systems, where water is injected into hot dry rock where no water was before.[8] Dry steam and flash steam power plants also emit low levels of carbon dioxide, nitric oxide, and sulfur, although at roughly 5% of the levels emitted by fossil fuel power plants.[7] Hot water from geothermal sources will contain trace amounts of dangerous elements such as mercury, arsenic, antimony, etc. which if disposed of into rivers can render their water unsafe to drink. However, geothermal plants can be built with emissions-controlling systems that can inject these substances back into the earth, thereby reducing carbon emissions to less than 0.1% of those from fossil fuel power plants.[9]
Although geothermal sites are capable of providing heat for many decades, eventually specific locations may cool down. It is likely that in these locations, the system was designed too large for the site, since there is only so much energy that can be stored and replenished in a given volume of earth. Some interpret this as meaning a specific geothermal location can undergo depletion, and question whether geothermal energy is truly renewable. For example, the world's second-oldest geothermal generator at Wairakei has reduced production. If left alone, however, these places will recover some of their lost heat, as the mantle has vast heat reserves[citation needed]. An assessment of the total potential for electricity production from the high-temperature geothermal fields in Iceland gives a value of about 1500 TWh (total) or 15 TWh per year over a 100 year period. The electricity production capacity from geothermal fields is now only 1.3 TWh per year. [10]

Doesn’t sound like a miracle solution to me.

Iceland
Main article: Geothermal power in Iceland
Iceland is situated in an area with a high concentration of volcanoes, making it an ideal location for generating geothermal energy. 19.1% of Iceland's electrical energy is generated from geothermal sources[16]. In addition, geothermal heating is used to heat 87% of homes in Iceland. Icelanders plan to be 100% non-fossil fuel in the near future.[17]

This is an tectonic rich area, which according to the latest accepted knowledge in geology - is the most fertile areas for geothermal. And Iceland, (most fertile on the planet for this type of energy) only produces 19.1% of their total energy requirements, and the oil companies are not controlling that nation at all, they are leaders in hydrogen fuel cell technology. As I've stated previously, geothermal doesn’t sound like a miracle solution to me.