The Potential of Geothermal Power 397
EskimoJoe wrote with a link to an AP article about progress in the development of geothermal energy. A Swiss company is competing with another in Australia to be the first to commercially develop a geothermal power plant. The concept is simple to understand: earth's core heat transforms water into steam, which in turn causes a turbine to revolve. The potential, though, is enormous. "Scientists say this geothermal energy, clean, quiet and virtually inexhaustible, could fill the world's annual needs 250,000 times over with nearly zero impact on the climate or the environment. A study released this year by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology said if 40 percent of the heat under the United States could be tapped, it would meet demand 56,000 times over. It said an investment of $800 million to $1 billion could produce more than 100 gigawatts of electricity by 2050, equaling the combined output of all 104 nuclear power plants in the U.S."
Re:Global Warming? (Score:2, Insightful)
article (or quote) must be wrong (Score:3, Insightful)
Since I have some faith in studies from M.I.T. it seems like the writers are off by a few orders of magnitude. Probably they meant $800 billion to $1 trillion?
Ick, measurements (Score:5, Insightful)
A study released this year by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology said if 40 percent of the heat under the United States could be tapped, it would meet demand 56,000 times over.
Why do science journalists insist on giving human-unfriendly numbers like this? Is 40 percent feasible? No. Does 56,000 times hold any special significance? No. So why don't they say that 1% would meet demand 1,400 times over? It's a lot more realistic and more comprehensible for readers. Or why don't they say that the USA need only tap a thousandth of a percent of its heat to more than completely power the country? That's more relevant.
Re:Misleading (Score:2, Insightful)
Capitalism in action. Fuck the environment unless it makes you money. At least it might work out in the environment's favor this time.
Re:Misleading (Score:3, Insightful)
As a side note, i also think we've been trained to think that the possibilities are communism, fascism, or the status quo (which is not capitalism and with no real free market, both being result of what the banking and insurance big fish decide).
Instead scientific and technological development didn't need to victimize the environment, or replace spirituality, or try to replace religion.
Goethermal Reduces CO2 (Score:3, Insightful)
But every ton of CO2 released into the atmoshere has a devastating effect on our lives. Not that CO2 is poisonous, but if significantly effects the absorption of solar energy. Why do you think there are record floods in South Asia, the polar ice cap is melting and huricane season is no longer simply interesting. It is because the condition of our atmosphere is changing.
Power produced by geothermal energy does end up producing heat. But it has an almost unnoticeable effect on our environment, and when it is shut off, its effects are shut off. This is absolutely not the case with fossil fuels, especially coal.
So get to know the science, and be afraid. Be very afraid.
Re:Global Warming? (Score:2, Insightful)
The only long-term workable solution is to require less joules per day per happy person, but that's unamerican.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Misleading (Score:2, Insightful)
Slash and burn will not feed 6,000,000,000 people! The "cultural revolution" you are suggesting has already been tried by China and was found wanting (for food mainly).
"Instead scientific and technological development didn't need to victimize the environment, or replace spirituality, or try to replace religion."
So exactly what would you like to throw out, since throwing out ALL "scientific and technological development" (ie:ideas and tools) put's humans somewhere below birds on the eveloutionary tree of brain-power?
Re:Goethermal Reduces CO2 (Score:2, Insightful)
I strongly recommend a reading of "The Weather Makers" by Tim Flannery. Please read it. Please weigh the evidence provided. Then see if your opinion remains as-is, or if you find the argument inescapable, as I did.
Re:Misleading (Score:3, Insightful)
Perhaps, but;
The question of scale (Score:5, Insightful)
That said, I am sure that someday in the distant furure, such concerns would be warrented. I can forsee a day when the power needs of the earth and the technology is such that we would be tapping heat more directly from the mantle or core in amounts that we might be able to affect the magnetosphere by cooling the mantle/core significantly. This is not a problem for these projected plans. I would be doubtful of our ability to cool even a localized area enough that we could accomplish something like "eliminate the possibility of the Yellowstone supervolcano erupting." We have to keep in mind the scale of our activities compared to the size of the earth. Our ability to communicate only makes the earth seem to be small....
Finally, on the subject of heating the earth: all electricty generation and consumption creates heat. We take fossil fuels from deep inside the earth and burn them, generate electricity and consume it, converting it back to heat as we do. This is all heat that would not have otherwise ever been found on the surface of the earth. Or we can take heat that is rising to the surface of the earth anyways, fast track it to the surface, generate electricity and do the consumption/conversion thing. Yes, we bring heat to the surface, but since it was on its way to the surface anyways, it seems a no brainer to me.
low heat flow... (Score:2, Insightful)
Stirling engine?
Re:article (or quote) must be wrong (Score:4, Insightful)
Kind Regards
Re:Just 40% They say.. (Score:3, Insightful)
and some of them are played out, ie. dry wells.
They might make good exploratory candidates as the first 16,000+ feet is
already drilled on a lot of dry holes.
Some are deeper: ( over 4 miles down )
Deepest well ( in california )(dry hole):
Total depth: 24,426 feet (Point of Rocks)
Year drilled: 1987
County: Kern (Sec. 29, T.30S., R.23E.)
Operator: Occidental of Elk Hills, Inc.
Well name: 934-29R
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Misleading (Score:2, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:2, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Iceland already exports energy (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:The numbers (Score:3, Insightful)
Beyond that, oil companies may have no interest in developing a resource that would devalue their existing oil wells, and their leases on the oil fields beneath them. Geo-thermal power would be the monopoly of no country, no region. It would be entirely disruptive of the power structure that the US has just spent hundreds of billions on in the Iraq debacle. It would probably bankrupt all existing car manufacturers, since electric-car competitors can be nimbler if small, and would need very little from currently patented automotive tech.
This power source would also create a public perception of abundance, which would lead to demands from the working and middle classes that we return to offering things like the free public university educations many states offered until several decades ago, and maybe even, finally, universal health care in America. Only the public perception of scarcity allows the rich to hoard the wealth as we presently do. The perception of an energy crisis supports the "right" attitude among the lower classes. The easiest way to maintain that perception is to actually maintain an energy crisis.
Re:Remember "The Core"? (Score:3, Insightful)
Then again, at that point we'd be using about 139PW. (That is, petawatts.) The earth's surface would be just about the melting temperature of lead at that point.
Re:article (or quote) must be wrong (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:geothermal pipe dream (Score:3, Insightful)
WTF? What's moving?
too dangerous to put a power plant
Right, cause all of Yellowstone is as dangerous as Mt. St. Helens.
any suggestion of digging great big holes is nonsense as well
Since the big holes are already working quite well, I think you're full of it.