Comments on: There’s enough deep geothermal to power all of Canada. So why can’t we try just a bit?

By: Jp Warren

Jp Warren — Fri, 28 May 2010 06:02:55 +0000

I said that the climate forcing due to our carbon and methane emissions might cause this, not that we need not worry with regard to carbon or methane emissions! I amplify the call for emission reductions.
There is an article on the importance of water vapour release culminating in runaway greenhouse effect here: http://news.mongabay.com/2007/0427-esa.html
The thrust of this came from the 2004 Planet In Focus Toronto documentary film, The Venus Theory, which compares Earth with our neighbouring planet Venus, and I think Mars too, showing how extreme and rapid climate change can be. Other info on this can be found by googling Venus Climate Change. I would assume that were we close to the point where water vapour began to drive temperature increase we would be well past the point of habitability anyway, but I am not a climate scientist. My concern is that we consider erring on the side of caution, especially when we are contemplating releasing heat from within the planet, along with vapourizing water -both of which may add to, incrementally, the already dangerous situation.

By: crf

crf — Sat, 22 May 2010 18:52:08 +0000

JP Warren, notwithstanding that I’ve not heard tell of a particular water vapour controlled tipping point, there is no chance at all that humans putting a little more water vapour in the atmosphere would be a factor in exceeding it. Evaporation on oceans, lakes and plant and animal respiration all produce water far exceeding anything humans would ever produce by evaporation or even combustion of fossil fuels.

Of more concern than any supposed world wide climate effects from evaporation by humans would just be use in geothermal power of fresh water resources, which are stretched in many locations.

There are well explained reasons why the worry with regard to climate is long lived Carbon Dioxide not water vapour.

By: Paul C from Austin

Paul C from Austin — Wed, 19 May 2010 21:53:45 +0000

One more study- once more the resistance to change, even good, makes-all-kind-of-sense change. Ah well! Let’s hope this study is just one more pebble at the top of the hill being nudged down.

By: Jp Warren

Jp Warren — Wed, 19 May 2010 03:19:39 +0000

So its impact might be consequential only if the planet were already approaching the water vapour tipping point noted above, through forcing by other means?

By: crf

crf — Tue, 18 May 2010 20:28:01 +0000

Water vapour is a green house gas, but it does not have a long residency time in the atmosphere, unlike carbon dioxide. So the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere is not related at all to how much would additionally be evaporated by any human scheme.

By: Peter Judd

Peter Judd — Tue, 18 May 2010 15:06:02 +0000

This makes enormous sense.
What are the costs compared to Hydro with Wind?
Are there any heat depletion concerns in the area of the well over time?

By: Jp Warren

Jp Warren — Tue, 18 May 2010 05:23:45 +0000

Is the water, as steam, once the heat energy has been wrung out of it, condensed so to be recycled within such a system? Water in places like Alberta especially is a precious community lifeblood, it would be a waste to see it being boiled away. Also water vapour is a potent greenhouse gas, scientists holding that if we force the atmospheric carbon dioxide and methane concentrations to the point where the greenhouse effect of water vapour begins to take over, it alone is enough to feed the increasing temperature spiral beyond the point of no return, even if we cut all our conventional greenhouse gas emissions to their pre-industrial levels! If they can simply capture and cycle that water, then they will have provided another wedge to help hold the window open.