An unknown source of planetary energy?

[swansont]

12 hours ago, Moreno said:

This is just some fortune telling. We don't even know what Pluto core composition is.

Which means you can't be making the assertions that you are making.

I made no claim about the composition. All I said was that it was not clear that your assertion was true. If I'm wrong, then you must have good data, which you admit that you don't have.

 

 

 

[Moreno]

On ‎3‎/‎5‎/‎2018 at 2:32 AM, Essay said:

Possibly, or possibly not. 

Either way, here and now there are many ways to leverage the forces around us to create and store energy.  We could build houses to extract energy from the daily cycle of expansion and contraction the materials go through as temperatures change.  They even have expansion/contraction joints in bridges, but those aren't designed as power capturing devices.  Our shoes, with every step we take, could be charging up our devices.  Maybe someday....  

~

Interesting ideas. Still there is no energy source discovered which would be cheap, safe, powerful and available everywhere. I think the quest for such an energy source will continue in this millennia. Fusion can be regarded as an almost inexhaustible, but is not safe enough at modern stage and is too alien to anything that can be encountered in Earth conditions. I think it would be nice to discover some new energy source which can happen naturally in the bowels of the planets and moons.

Regarding the farther exploration I think, it would be interesting to send a probe to Enceladus which would melt down the ice and make thorough exploration of the internal ocean, its chemical composition and make detailed 3-d map of the energy sources, to understand where energy come from. Also some new measurements and calculations on tidal forces in Saturn systems wouldn't be spare.

 

[Strange]

14 minutes ago, Moreno said:

Still there is no energy source discovered which would be cheap, safe, powerful and available everywhere. I think the quest for such an energy source will continue in this millennia. Fusion can be regarded as an almost inexhaustible, but is not safe enough at modern stage and is too alien to anything that can be encountered in Earth conditions. I think it would be nice to discover some new energy source which can happen naturally in the bowels of the planets and moons.

I don't see how this is going to happen. If there were such an easily available source of energy, we would have discovered it by now. We have taken the low hanging fruit: burning wood, burning fossil fuels, wind and water power, and a few others. We are now exploiting the more technologically complex: solar, fission, fusion, etc. And we are using advanced technology to make some of the older sources (e.g. wind) more efficient.

To imagine that, somehow, we will stumble across something that is cheap and easy to use, which we have somehow missed for thousands of years, seems ... naive.

[Moreno]

4 minutes ago, Strange said:

I don't see how this is going to happen. If there were such an easily available source of energy, we would have discovered it by now. We have taken the low hanging fruit: burning wood, burning fossil fuels, wind and water power, and a few others. We are now exploiting the more technologically complex: solar, fission, fusion, etc. And we are using advanced technology to make some of the older sources (e.g. wind) more efficient.

To imagine that, somehow, we will stumble across something that is cheap and easy to use, which we have somehow missed for thousands of years, seems ... naive.

The same thing people would say about radioactivity 150 years ago. 

[Area54]

On 04/03/2018 at 10:28 PM, Moreno said:

This is just some fortune telling. We don't even know what Pluto core composition is. Some theories suggest it does have only a tiny rocky core. The rest is the ice. What concentration of radioactive elements do you expect in the ice? Would water ocean be able to form due to radioactivity? And it still needs to rise temperature from -233 C to 0 C to make it molten. https://www.space.com/18562-what-is-pluto-made-of.html

I suggest that describing hypotheses based upon sound analysis of validated data as fortune telling is an emotional characterisation that does nothing to help a serious discussion of some interesting observations.

You say "some theories suggest it does have only a tiny rocky core. The rest is the ice." I suggest rather than basing our speculations on oudated "theories" we work with something current. For example, W.B.McKinnon et al, "Origin of the Pluto-Charon system: constraints from the New Horizons flyby" Icarus 287 (2017).  They note that:

New Horizon’s accurate determination of the sizes and densities of Pluto and Charon now permit precise internal models of both bodies to be constructed. Assuming differentiated rock-ice structures, we find that Pluto is close to 2/3 solar-composition anhydrous rock by mass and Charon 3/5 solar-composition anhy-drous rock by mass.  

That eliminates your concern over minimal quantiites of radioactive elements.

Next, you do not need to raise the temperature from -233 C. Why would you? It doesn't start at such a temperature. You appear to be completely ignoring the conversion of kinetic to thermal energy during the accretion process. Why are you ignoring that?

[Strange]

13 minutes ago, Moreno said:

The same thing people would say about radioactivity 150 years ago. 

But that's the point: that is NOT an easy or cheap source of energy to exploit. The fuel is difficult to obtain, it is dangerous, it is expensive to build and run reactors, it is even more difficult to decommission them, etc.

[Moreno]

30 minutes ago, Strange said:

But that's the point: that is NOT an easy or cheap source of energy to exploit. The fuel is difficult to obtain, it is dangerous, it is expensive to build and run reactors, it is even more difficult to decommission them, etc.

Radioactivity is outstanding for pollution and safety problem, so people can only hope that by token they will succeed much more next time.

[Strange]

1 hour ago, Moreno said:

Radioactivity is outstanding for pollution and safety problem,

It appears you are contradicting yourself: why bring up radioactivity as a "cheap and easy" source of energy if it isn't?

It is also untrue. Nuclear power has one of the the best safety records and is one of the least polluting forms of energy generation. Which is why a low-carbon economy will depend on it for quite some time.

[swansont]

2 hours ago, Moreno said:

The same thing people would say about radioactivity 150 years ago. 

This is a pretty careless observation. 

150 years ago people didn't know anything about how the atom was put together,  much less the nucleus. The scale of our knowledge of the world was limited to the literally microscopic.  And yet, there was evidence that something else was there — thermodynamics couldn't account for the geologic observations about the age of the earth, for example. If there's a new, exploitable source of energy out there, it is going to be outside of the parameter space we've investigated, and must be limited in extent, because we have no hints that anything is there.

[Moreno]

18 hours ago, swansont said:

This is a pretty careless observation. 

150 years ago people didn't know anything about how the atom was put together,  much less the nucleus. The scale of our knowledge of the world was limited to the literally microscopic.  And yet, there was evidence that something else was there — thermodynamics couldn't account for the geologic observations about the age of the earth, for example. If there's a new, exploitable source of energy out there, it is going to be outside of the parameter space we've investigated, and must be limited in extent, because we have no hints that anything is there.

"This" is still here. Researchers claim that radioactivity can explain only 55-75% of geothermal heat. Are they wrong? If not then what about the rest?

[swansont]

6 hours ago, Moreno said:

"This" is still here. Researchers claim that radioactivity can explain only 55-75% of geothermal heat. Are they wrong? If not then what about the rest?

Citation?

[Area54]

7 hours ago, Moreno said:

"This" is still here. Researchers claim that radioactivity can explain only 55-75% of geothermal heat. Are they wrong? If not then what about the rest?

I have to assume you have me on Ignore, since you are ignoring every one of my references to the conversion of kinetic energy to thermal energy during the accretion process. Is there a reasn for this? An inconvenient truth, perhaps.

[Moreno]

6 hours ago, Area54 said:

I have to assume you have me on Ignore, since you are ignoring every one of my references to the conversion of kinetic energy to thermal energy during the accretion process. Is there a reasn for this? An inconvenient truth, perhaps.

Why do you expect I suppose to argue with you? Do you think I'm an expert to prove if you are right or wrong? You expressed your opinion so I'm OK with this. If other users don't then they can contribute.

7 hours ago, swansont said:

Citation?

The new measurements suggest radioactive decay provides more than half of Earth's total heat, estimated at roughly 44 terawatts based on temperatures found at the bottom of deep boreholes into the planet's crust. The rest is leftover from Earth's formation or other causes yet unknown, according to the scientists involved.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/nuclear-fission-confirmed-as-source-of-more-than-half-of-earths-heat/#

On ‎3‎/‎6‎/‎2018 at 6:16 AM, Area54 said:

I suggest that describing hypotheses based upon sound analysis of validated data as fortune telling is an emotional characterisation that does nothing to help a serious discussion of some interesting observations.

You say "some theories suggest it does have only a tiny rocky core. The rest is the ice." I suggest rather than basing our speculations on oudated "theories" we work with something current. For example, W.B.McKinnon et al, "Origin of the Pluto-Charon system: constraints from the New Horizons flyby" Icarus 287 (2017).  They note that:

New Horizon’s accurate determination of the sizes and densities of Pluto and Charon now permit precise internal models of both bodies to be constructed. Assuming differentiated rock-ice structures, we find that Pluto is close to 2/3 solar-composition anhydrous rock by mass and Charon 3/5 solar-composition anhy-drous rock by mass.  

That eliminates your concern over minimal quantiites of radioactive elements.

Next, you do not need to raise the temperature from -233 C. Why would you? It doesn't start at such a temperature. You appear to be completely ignoring the conversion of kinetic to thermal energy during the accretion process. Why are you ignoring that?

Well, you believe, it seems, that all heat produced inside of Pluto is caused by radioactivity. Then without radioactivity temperature inside of Pluto would be equal to that on the surface. It would loose any primordial heat long age. So, what I meant is that it suppose to bring temperature of entire planet from -230 to 0 if we assume that radioactive elements are distributed more or less evenly. And create a subsurface ocean.

Even if the core is 2/3 of entire Pluto by mass, it doesn't make much difference as entire planet is tiny. Also, 2/3 by mass is even much less than that by volume, taking density in account.

Presently, the geologists believe that radioactive decay takes places in Earth mantle and crust, not much (if any) in the core. Do you need any links for this? I don't know if the same thing is applicable to Pluto, but still you argument have to be taken cautiously.

Edited March 7, 2018 by Moreno

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Moreno said:

 The new measurements suggest radioactive decay provides more than half of Earth's total heat, estimated at roughly 44 terawatts based on temperatures found at the bottom of deep boreholes into the planet's crust. The rest is leftover from Earth's formation or other causes yet unknown, according to the scientists involved.

IOW, the uncertainty is large, so we can't be sure. But that means there is no definitive evidence of some other source.

[Moontanman]

3 hours ago, Moreno said:

Why do you expect I suppose to argue with you? Do you think I'm an expert to prove if you are right or wrong? You expressed your opinion so I'm OK with this. If other users don't then they can contribute.

Moreno, when you make an assertion on this forum we expect you to backup your assertion with whatever evidence caused you to believe your assertion has merit.  No one expects you to be a PHD in any subject you want to investigate but it is expected that you do give us more than " I don't understand therefore its not understandable." 

3 hours ago, Moreno said:

The new measurements suggest radioactive decay provides more than half of Earth's total heat, estimated at roughly 44 terawatts based on temperatures found at the bottom of deep boreholes into the planet's crust. The rest is leftover from Earth's formation or other causes yet unknown, according to the scientists involved.

I'm not sure why you have a problem with this... can you elaborate? 

3 hours ago, Moreno said:

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/nuclear-fission-confirmed-as-source-of-more-than-half-of-earths-heat/#

Well, you believe, it seems, that all heat produced inside of Pluto is caused by radioactivity.

Believe is a bit less than precise term Moreno and I'm not so sure that everyone believes "all the heat produced" inside of Pluto is caused by radioactivity. Energy from the accretion of Pluto has to be taken into account as well as the heat produced from tidal forces in the Plutonium system. Then there is this concept: Pluto may be small but it could have some smaller version of this. 

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/earth-03k.html

Quote

What would we find if we were to dig a hole all the way down to the centre of the Earth? According to high school science books we would discover a liquid iron alloy core and a smaller solid inner core at the center. For ten years, geophysicist J. Marvin Herndon has presented increasingly persuasive evidence that at the very centre of the Earth, within the inner core, there exists a five mile in diameter sphere of uranium which acts as a natural nuclear reactor.

Dr. Herndon likes to term this beast the "georeactor".

Think of the early Earth as having been like a spherical steel hearth. A hot ball of liquid elements freshly formed out of the primordial disc surrounding our sun. The densest metals sinking down by force of gravity while lighter materials "floated" outwards. Uranium is very dense. At about 19 grams per cubic centimeter, it is 1.6 times more dense than lead at the Earth's surface. But deep within our planet density depends only on atomic number and atomic mass. Uranium, having the greatest atomic number and atomic mass, would be the most dense substance in our planet and will ultimately end up at the center of the Earth. The implications of this relatively new georeactor hypothesis are far reaching indeed. Not only does it threaten to change the way we view our own Earth and planetary formation in general but the very origin of the stars might need to be rewritten.

3 hours ago, Moreno said:

Then without radioactivity temperature inside of Pluto would be equal to that on the surface. It would loose any primordial heat long age. So, what I meant is that it suppose to bring temperature of entire planet from -230 to 0 if we assume that radioactive elements are distributed more or less evenly. And create a subsurface ocean.

Not necessarily, tidal flexing and impacts import energy to a body in space. 

3 hours ago, Moreno said:

Even if the core is 2/3 of entire Pluto by mass, it doesn't make much difference as entire planet is tiny. Also, 2/3 by mass is even much less than that by volume, taking density in account.

Seems reasonable to me but I would like to see a citation for this. 

3 hours ago, Moreno said:

Presently, the geologists believe that radioactive decay takes places in Earth mantle and crust, not much (if any) in the core. Do you need any links for this? I don't know if the same thing is applicable to Pluto, but still you argument have to be taken cautiously.

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/earth-03k.html

 

What would we find if we were to dig a hole all the way down to the centre of the Earth? According to high school science books we would discover a liquid iron alloy core and a smaller solid inner core at the center. For ten years, geophysicist J. Marvin Herndon has presented increasingly persuasive evidence that at the very centre of the Earth, within the inner core, there exists a five mile in diameter sphere of uranium which acts as a natural nuclear reactor.

Dr. Herndon likes to term this beast the "georeactor".

Think of the early Earth as having been like a spherical steel hearth. A hot ball of liquid elements freshly formed out of the primordial disc surrounding our sun. The densest metals sinking down by force of gravity while lighter materials "floated" outwards. Uranium is very dense. At about 19 grams per cubic centimeter, it is 1.6 times more dense than lead at the Earth's surface. But deep within our planet density depends only on atomic number and atomic mass. Uranium, having the greatest atomic number and atomic mass, would be the most dense substance in our planet and will ultimately end up at the center of the Earth. The implications of this relatively new georeactor hypothesis are far reaching indeed. Not only does it threaten to change the way we view our own Earth and planetary formation in general but the very origin of the stars might need to be rewritten.

I lost some of my post to an 40... something error, I'll try to clear it up after I eat... 

[Moreno]

12 hours ago, swansont said:

IOW, the uncertainty is large, so we can't be sure. But that means there is no definitive evidence of some other source.

What about neutrino radiation and heat flux mismatch? 

10 hours ago, Moontanman said:

Dr. Herndon likes to term this beast the "georeactor".

Think of the early Earth as having been like a spherical steel hearth. A hot ball of liquid elements freshly formed out of the primordial disc surrounding our sun. The densest metals sinking down by force of gravity while lighter materials "floated" outwards. Uranium is very dense. At about 19 grams per cubic centimeter, it is 1.6 times more dense than lead at the Earth's surface. But deep within our planet density depends only on atomic number and atomic mass. Uranium, having the greatest atomic number and atomic mass, would be the most dense substance in our planet and will ultimately end up at the center of the Earth. The implications of this relatively new georeactor hypothesis are far reaching indeed. Not only does it threaten to change the way we view our own Earth and planetary formation in general but the very origin of the stars might need to be rewritten.

The mainstream hypothesis suggest otherwise:

• Quote

   

  • Uranium 235, with a half-life of 0.703 billion years,
  • Potassium 40, with a half-life of 1.277 billion years,
  • Uranium 238, with a half-life of 4.468 billion years, and
  • Thorium 232, with a half-life of 14.056 billion years.
  •  
  • The consensus view amongst geochemists is that there is very little, if any, of any of these isotopes in the Earth's core. Potassium, thorium, and uranium are chemically active. They readily oxidize. In fact, they readily combine chemically with lots other elements -- but not iron. They are strongly lithophilic elements. Moreover, all three are "incompatible" elements. In a partial melt, they have a strong affinity to stay in the molten state. This means that relative to solar system abundances, all three of these elements should be strongly enhanced in the Earth's crust, slightly depleted in the Earth's mantle, and strongly depleted in the Earth's core.

   

  https://earthscience.stackexchange.com/questions/4798/what-percent-of-the-earths-core-is-uranium

• I will look for more reliable link if you want.

Edited March 8, 2018 by Moreno

[Area54]

18 hours ago, Moreno said:

Why do you expect I suppose to argue with you? Do you think I'm an expert to prove if you are right or wrong? You expressed your opinion so I'm OK with this. If other users don't then they can contribute.

I did not give you an opinion. I gave you facts that directly contradicted your statements. Despite this you continued to make the same assertions, yet made no effort to dispute the facts I had outlined.

If all you want to do is to spout opinions that are contradicted by the facts then perhaps you would be better of speaking to drunks. On a science forum you are expected to support your assertions or to recognise when they are mistaken.

[swansont]

5 hours ago, Moreno said:

What about neutrino radiation and heat flux mismatch? 

What about them? You are going have to be less coy about new things you bring up.

[Moreno]

On ‎3‎/‎6‎/‎2018 at 8:02 AM, Strange said:

It appears you are contradicting yourself: why bring up radioactivity as a "cheap and easy" source of energy if it isn't?

It is also untrue. Nuclear power has one of the the best safety records and is one of the least polluting forms of energy generation. Which is why a low-carbon economy will depend on it for quite some time.

In any case Uranium is non replenishable. And will start to get scarce soon.

[studiot]

For those who want solid Science can I bring to the attention of the Forum this recent book by

Alberto Patino Douce

Thermodynamics of the Earth and Planets

and published by Cambridge University Press.

 

This hefty book contains much discusion, modern data, Maple presentations and references all for the current subject and other appropriate aspects of planetary geophysics/geochemistry ranging between undergraduate and postgraduate level and linking them together in a coherent way.

Edited March 10, 2018 by studiot

[Essay]

1 hour ago, studiot said:

For those who want solid Science can I bring to the attention of the Forum this recent book by

Alberto Patino Douce

Thermodynamics of the Earth and Planets

and published by Cambridge University Press.

 

This hefty book contains much discusion, modern data, Maple presentations and references all for the current subject and other appropriate aspects of planetary geophysics/geochemistry ranging between undergraduate and postgraduate level and linking them together in a coherent way.

Great source! Searching that led to this (Trinity College Dublin) PDF of a university class on the topic of "Planetary interiors."   Sources include "Thermodynamics of the Earth and Planets," such as the graph of “Radioactive heating of Earth since formation,” on page 27.

Pages 21-27 cover "Heating of the planets,"  which then leads into the section on “Cooling of the Planets,” starting on page 28 (of 47).

I did not know about the significant "Heat of Differentiation" involved with planetary formation, but it makes sense.

Quote

“Accretion and differentiation deposited heat billions of years ago. Radioactive decay is still a source of heat, but was stronger in the past.” -from page 21.

~

[studiot]

Don't know why he couldn't post it, but apparently there is a website for the book.

: https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/thermodynamics-of-the-earth-and-planets/D527F02CB15D79D9B59AA69CBA4AA0BD

 

Thanks essay +1

[Moreno]

21 hours ago, Essay said:

Great source! Searching that led to this (Trinity College Dublin) PDF of a university class on the topic of "Planetary interiors."   Sources include "Thermodynamics of the Earth and Planets," such as the graph of “Radioactive heating of Earth since formation,” on page 27.

Pages 21-27 cover "Heating of the planets,"  which then leads into the section on “Cooling of the Planets,” starting on page 28 (of 47).

I did not know about the significant "Heat of Differentiation" involved with planetary formation, but it makes sense.

~

"For Earth think still some remnant heat of formation. For smaller planets, heat of formation may have been dissipated as quickly as planet formed."

 https://www.tcd.ie/Physics/people/Peter.Gallagher/lectures/PY4A03/pdfs/PY4A03_lecture10n11_ineriors.ppt.pdf

One more argument against Pluto preserved lot of formational heat.

[Essay]

1 hour ago, Moreno said:

"For Earth think still some remnant heat of formation. For smaller planets, heat of formation may have been dissipated as quickly as planet formed."

 https://www.tcd.ie/Physics/people/Peter.Gallagher/lectures/PY4A03/pdfs/PY4A03_lecture10n11_ineriors.ppt.pdf

One more argument against Pluto preserved lot of formational heat.

Is anyone arguing otherwise?  Doesn't the history of Pluto, with collisions and many moons, suggest other sources of heating after formation?

But....

From that link to Thermodynamics of the Earth and Planets, this seemed most relevant to your OP:

Quote

Internal heat reservoirs store energy at various depths, from near-surface environments to the planet's core. They are fed by dissipation of various types of non-thermal energy but there is one unifying characteristic, which is that dissipation takes place deep enough that the rate of heating exceeds the rate of heat transfer to the planet's surface (Chapter 3 - [Energy transfer processes in planetary bodies] ).  - from the summary of Chapter 2 "Energy Sources in Planetary Bodies"  (my emphasis)

...just to point out there are a lot of different reasons planets don't all behave the same.  Heck, just look at the major similarities in formation, yet big differences now, between Earth and Venus.  Venus, due to its closer proximity to the sun, should be about 80 degrees warmer than Earth, iirc, and yet it is very different.

~

[Moontanman]

On 3/8/2018 at 6:09 AM, Moreno said:

What about neutrino radiation and heat flux mismatch? 

The mainstream hypothesis suggest otherwise:

• https://earthscience.stackexchange.com/questions/4798/what-percent-of-the-earths-core-is-uranium

• I will look for more reliable link if you want.

Yes,  I would in fact like a real citation not some anonymous source on another forum... In fact the next anonymous source on your page puts the first in question. I didn't suggest the core reactor was a consensus of mai stream science I was pointing out that other ideas are out there that do not require some mysterious sorce you cannot name,  that you cannot even give a coherent account of much less a citation from any science based source that agrees with you. 

You do not get to simply piss on established science because you don't "believe" or need to believe some fairy tail...