Slashdot Log In
Alaska Looks To Volcanos For Geothermal Energy
Posted by
kdawson
on Tue Jul 29, 2008 12:05 AM
from the don't-stamp-so-hard dept.
from the don't-stamp-so-hard dept.
Iddo Genuth writes "Alaskan state officials have recently announced their intention to begin funding the exploration and surveying of Alaska's largest volcanoes in hopes of utilizing these as a
source of geothermal energy. They say this volcano could provide enough energy to power thousands of households, and according to some estimates, Alaska's volcanoes and hot springs could supply up to 25% of the state's energy needs."
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Heat + Air = Hot Air? (Score:5, Informative)
Going a bit astray, has anyone seen the episode of Science Channel's "Eco-Tech" featuring the rooftop windmills [youtube.com] designed by Aerotecture [aerotecture.com]? Pretty cool.
Re:Heat + Air = Hot Air? (Score:5, Insightful)
if we did tap geothermal resources nationwide to get up to supplying 25% of our electrical needs within a few decades
I'm of the opinion that the human race will eventually get close to 90% of its energy needs from geothermal sources. Wind and solar probably can't deliver the wattage. What people don't realize and what they don't want to believe, is that the world is not filled up with oil in the middle. Instead, its filled with molten rock, and beyond that, molten metals. And there is a lot of it in there. All you need to do is invest in shunting sea water a few miles into the earth and harvesting the energy as it boils out. Other than the initial investment, it wouldn't take coal or oil--both of which WILL run out.
Parent
Don't need no stinking volcano... (Score:5, Interesting)
The problem for the last 11yrs in this country has been purely political as we stood stubbornly by the US. Because of this misdirected loyalty our power generation remains 90+% derived from coal and we have seen many innovations payed for by taxpayers sold off to private companies in the EU and elsewhere.
Now that our breadbasket (the Murry-Darling basin) is regularly producing half of what it did just a couple of decades ago people are starting to pay attention.
Parent
Re:Heat + Air = Hot Air? (Score:5, Informative)
"solar probably can't deliver the wattage".
Yeah, right, it's not like the sun would deliver 168 PW to the Earth at any given time, while mankind "only" uses 500EJ a year.
500EJ/168 PW ~= 50 minutes worth of solar radiation would be enough to power whole mankind for a year.
Geothermal sources can really be interesting, but you need to find good ones, and still dig a few kilometers if you want to get high-quality heat and produce electricity. You don't need to dig an inch to collect solar radiation.
Parent
Re:Heat + Air = Hot Air? (Score:5, Insightful)
The key is that when we run low on heat from the Earth's core in the distant future
When the earth's core (the molten metal part that causes the magnetic field that deflects the solar ion radiation) finally goes solid from our geothermal harvesting, we will have mutated to a form we probably couldn't recognize as being evolved from ourselves--and we certainly wouldn't give a damn about the little alien looking marmots either.
Parent
Re:Heat + Air = Hot Air? (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah, once core starts to cool, we can just nuke it to warm it back up. Finally, a good use for our nuclear arsenal!
And to access these geothermal reserves, they would still have to drill down to gain access to them, and if they just "happen" to hit oil, so much the better.
Parent
Re:Heat + Air = Hot Air? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Heat + Air = Hot Air? (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh come on, someone modded this *informative*?
Calling geothermal energy a "temporary fix" is about as useful as calling solar energy a temporary fix. Really, I don't think it's too shortsighted to consider an energy source that could provide power for millions (geothermal) vs billions (solar) of years as more than "temporary". Especially considering how we will have used up the relatively scarce (geologically speaking) oil resource we are looking to replace in the scale of hundreds of years. Hell, I'd be happy to see people think 50 years in advance, imagine what we could do with nuclear power if we'd invest for results with a payoff that far away...
Parent
Re:Heat + Air = Hot Air? (Score:5, Insightful)
I was going to mod him down but there wasn't a suitable category - say like 'Missing The Facts'.
First off, like how much heat energy is actually present beneath the mantle? A. Big number.
Secondly, how long it will take for the magma / iron + whatever core to cool to a point where the magnetic field decreases enough? A. Another big number.
It scares me that people with so little perception of physical reality make comments as if they understand.
Just a point for you too re nuclear power. It may outlast us but Uranium reserves are not infinite either.
Now if we could only get Fusion happening...
All in all geothermal is a great idea - as mentioned in Iceland, and I think the Kiwis (New Zealand) harvest a bit for sparks and even the UK for hot water if I am not mistaken.
No not available everywhere but whatever helps...
Parent
Re:Heat + Air = Hot Air? (Score:5, Informative)
yes, it is definitely possible to 'deplete' a geothermal resource, but it will recover given enough time ( lots of time ). For example the Wairakei geothermal field here in New Zealand has depleted somewhat because they oversized the geothermal plant when it was built and it has been running for 60 years! ( but we forgive them, it was built in 1958, and it is the second oldest geothermal power plant in the world ). The wikipedia article on geothermal power describes depletion in more detail
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_power [wikipedia.org]
Parent
Re:Heat + Air = Hot Air? (Score:5, Interesting)
That's cute. Ummm, what on Earth (no pun intended) are you talking about and how did you get modded informative?
We will probably never get *any* energy from the Earth's core at all. The crust of the Earth alone is 3-5 miles thick under the oceans and 15-35 miles thick on the continents.
Now, the Earth's core is thought to have at least half to ninety percent of it's energy generated from nuclear decay. That means we CANT draw all that energy off at once, even if we could draw it all in the first place. We would be rationed. There is also tidal forces to consider as well. The orbit around the Sun and the Moon for example can generate large amounts of energy in the Earth's core too.
Drilling even 20,000 feet is an ACCOMPLISHMENT. To my knowledge, and I have been on drilling rigs and know people in drilling companies, we have never broken 50,000 feet commercially. So ANYTHING we do is going to be in the CRUST, and not the mantle and certainly not the core. To get to the mantle of the earth on a continent we would have to drill in excess of 75,000 feet. I am pretty sure that at that depth concrete won't do it to create a stable pipeline and you will need some pretty neat material to withstand those stresses and keep a hole open.
Furthermore, the Sun provides an incredible amount of energy. Off the top of my head I think it is near 400 watts per square meter or approximately 1.8*10^17 WATTS total at any given time. That's a lot. 90%+ of the energy present in the crust of the Earth comes from the Sun. The core is providing a negligible amount of that power and most is probably received through direct volcanic activity and not emissions. Don't quote me on that, it's just a guess.
Considering that, in 2005 we required nearly 500 quadrillion BTUs of energy for the whole planet. Nearly 700 quadrillion is projected to be required in 2030. So let's just top that off at a nice quintillion BTUs. After multiplying that by .293 to convert to WATTS we get 293 quadrillion WATTS of energy. That is also PER YEAR. How much of that can be provided by the energy received from the Sun in the crust? 100%.
So basically the Sun can give us all the energy we will need for one year in one day and probably be done before breakfast is over.
We would have to use ALL the energy from the crust of the Earth FASTER than the SUN can replenish it BEFORE we could even begin to siphon off energy from the core.
So yes, you are correct that the energy at the Earth's core is not unlimited, nor is energy unlimited in the Sun or from any orbit. However, for a VERY LONG TIME we would only be able to suck a small droplet of blood of what is sure to be a gargantuan beast of energy. To say we could ever consume enough energy to surpass the energy provided by the Sun at any one moment is just fantastic, awesome, and up there with the Tooth Fairy.
You may also want to consider that the 293 quadrillion BTU requirement represents an INCREDIBLE amount of waste and inefficiency with our processes. I bet that by the time we get to 2075 (if we are not dead already) it will be because we figured out how to survive on far less than that.
Parent
Re:Heat + Air = Hot Air? (Score:5, Insightful)
I mentioned NOTHING about solar power at all. I am simply talking about the amount of energy that the Earth is exposed to at any one moment REGARDLESS OF EFFICIENCIES OR METHODS/PROCESSES OF HARNESSING SAID ENERGY.
That energy has to go SOMEWHERE. The air, the oceans, or the crust. Try reading my post before making derisive comments.
"So basically the Sun can give us all the energy we will need for one year in one day and probably be done before breakfast is over."
If we were taking the incredible amounts of energy from the crust that the poster suggested, I simply pointed out that the Sun would put that much energy back in a very small fraction of the time it took to "pump" it out of the crust.
I never mentioned any specific technologies that were applied to convert the heat energy of the crust to electricity, nor did I mention anything about solar technologies being a suitable replacement for geothermal.
I ONLY POINTED OUT THAT WE COULD NEVER USE ALL THE ENERGY IN THE CORE DUE TO 1) WE CANT REACH IT AND 2) WE COULD NOT USE IT ALL QUICK ENOUGH.
P.S - Try reading some news on occasion. Solar cell efficiency surpassed 15% a LONG FARKING TIME AGO. It is not in production, but we have achieved it. I am open to using any technology, but I am honestly fed up with all the poor references that people use when it comes to environmental technologies. It's not a contest, and I don't give a crap WHICH technology we use. Just as long as we start using something renewable that does not kill us all in 50 years.
Parent
Re:Heat + Air = Hot Air? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Heat + Air = Hot Air? (Score:5, Informative)
Legend has it that the name of Iceland is an ancient Viking fraud. Erik the Red sailed out into the ocean beyond Scotland, and discovered two new countries there: one rich and green and worth settling, and one frozen and barren and utterly worthless. He named one Iceland, and the other Greenland; when he got home, all the other Vikings rushed off to claim lands in Greenland, and Erik got to keep Iceland for himself.
Parent
Re:Heat + Air = Hot Air? (Score:5, Informative)
Iceland had already been settled by Erik's time - he didn't discover it. He was exiled from Iceland because of some killings with which he was closely associated, and he sailed away to the northwest, where the existence of land was rumoured but unconfirmed. It's true that he gave it the name of 'Greenland' for marketing purposes, hoping to encourage settlement there, but during the Mediaeval Warm Period Greenland wasn't quite as inhospitable as it is today, so we cannot fairly accuse Erik the Red of fraud. Only murder. But he was a Viking, so that's to be expected.
Parent
Re:Heat + Air = Hot Air? (Score:5, Interesting)
Even if you succeeded in running Anchorage off geothermal, what the hell are you going to do for the rest of the state? At best, this is a ploy to get more resources into the Mat-Su valley [wikipedia.org] which isn't all that bad, but I don't see this as a big starter for most of the state or, more generally, for down South (ie, everywhere else). Powerlines to Seattle would cost an awful lot of money.
Parent
Volunteers? (Score:4, Funny)
So, how many virgins per minute does it require to keep going?
Re:Volunteers? (Score:5, Funny)
So, how many virgins per minute does it require to keep going?
This is Slashdot. Your question is making people...uncomfortable.
Parent
Geyserville, CA (Score:5, Interesting)
i was surprised to read that The Geysers, just north of San Francisco, claims to be "the largest complex of geothermal power plants in the world" [geysers.com]. i guess "largest" is open to interpretation. But here's another startling claim: "The Geysers satisfies nearly 60 percent of the average electricity demand in the North Coast region from the Golden Gate Bridge to the Oregon border".
who knew ?
Iceland vs Greenland (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Iceland vs Greenland (Score:5, Funny)
not sure i would say "quite" green and verdant. "occasionally", sure. joke i learned from some icelanders: "What should you do if you get lost in an Icelandic forest? ... Stand up."
Parent
Great News (Score:5, Funny)
Yellowstone (Score:4, Insightful)
Speaking of the lower 48's volcanoes. What about Yellowstone? A super-volcano close enough to the surface that the pressure is bending the crust up. Now there is a prime target for investment. Perhaps we can even vent off enough pressure to reduce the risk of another one of those major blasts that it's known for geologically.
Parent
Re:Yellowstone is funny (Score:4, Interesting)
After your initial water investment, you wouldn't really need a significant amount of additional water at all if it was a closed system. I believe that's the general principal in most Geothermal usage wells.
Parent
heheheh (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, SOME wind generators have killed birds (esp one in CA). But over all have not. More important, these are MUCH better on birds than the pollution being put out by coal plants.
The same issue with the mercury in CFL. The CFL has a small amount of Mercury, but FAR FAR less than what is put out by a CLEAN coal plant using a regular bulb.
The geo-thermal requires anywhere from 1 to a 100 holes. But there are plenty of dried wells in places like Colorado that make a great low-temp place (esp, since many wells were already drilled close). Secondly, oil pulls up the exact same sediments. In fact worse, because most are drilling FAR deeper these days. But by using a closed system, esp. with binaries, the pollution on the land and in the air is gone. So that leaves just that below. And since the way of the hole is piping, you really do not interfere with the local water table (barring a shallow heat reservoir). As to the multiple holes, that is also a none issue. Slant drilling works wonders. A single pad with 5 holes will do the trick. Even the EPA says it is one of the cleanest form of energy.
Parent