Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Power Science Technology

Helium Leads to Geothermal Energy Resources 317

Posted by Zonk from the who-doesn't-love-clean-burning-earth dept.
Roland Piquepaille writes "When we think about alternative sources of energy, we often forget the potential of geothermal energy resources. In fact, it has been estimated that accessible geothermal energy in the U.S. represents 90 quadrillion kilowatt-hours or 3,000 times the country's total annual energy consumption. So far, it has been difficult and expensive to locate good sources of geothermal energy. But now, two U.S. researchers have found a new method which doesn't require drilling. They are using the ratio of helium isotopes in surface waters to point to the best sources of geothermal energy."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Helium Leads to Geothermal Energy Resources More

Helium Leads to Geothermal Energy Resources

Comments Filter:

  • That makes sense (Score:3, Informative)

    by Nimey ( 114278 ) on Sunday December 02, 2007 @07:45PM (#21555267) Homepage Journal
    ...since pretty much all of Earth's helium results from alpha decay [wikipedia.org] of radioactive metals.

    • RTFA (Score:5, Informative)

      by MillionthMonkey ( 240664 ) on Sunday December 02, 2007 @08:30PM (#21555573)
      ...since pretty much all of Earth's helium results from alpha decay of radioactive metals.

      So?

      Different parts of the Earth are composed of a variety of elements in varying amounts. Earth's crust contains a variety of noble gases, one of those being helium. Natural helium occurs as two isotopes, helium-4 (4He) and helium-3 (3He.) Typically, helium-4 is more abundant in Earth's crust, whereas helium-3 is more abundant in the mantle below. Thus, the helium-3/helium-4 ratio of the gas found in groundwater can provide an indication of the extent to which the water has interacted with volcanic rocks derived from the mantle.
      Most helium in the crust has escaped to space. The helium profile in the crust is dominated by steady-state production of helium-4 by alpha decay. This is mostly the case in the mantle as well but the mantle has some reserves of primordial helium which never escaped to space because it's buried more deeply, and that helium has an isotopic signature that includes helium-3 (the new helium from radioactivity is all helium-4). They're looking for the helium-3 using the helium-4 as a baseline.

  • Oil Dependency (Score:3, Insightful)

    by a whoabot ( 706122 ) on Sunday December 02, 2007 @07:45PM (#21555269)
    It'd be a good thing to not depend on Middle Eastern energy resources. I think more than just purely economic pressures should bring such a change. Maybe that's naive though.
    • Well, avoiding dependence on ME oil is very much an economic reason for such a change...

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by dykofone ( 787059 )
      Middle East energy (oil), fuels cars.

      Geothermal energy (heat), makes electricity. In the short term, all geothermal will do is rid us of our dependence on coal and natural gas, it will do nothing to slow the demand of gasoline.

      Oil accounts for half of our "energy" usage in this country, but only about 1% of our electricity generation. It's an important distinction.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Eivind ( 15695 )
        True. But it's not just oil, its fossil fuels in general.

        You're right that geothermal cannot replace gasoline aslong as batteries suck as much as they do.

        But if you could replace all -stationary- power-production, that'd still be a significant net win. Oil-powered electricity-plants, sure, but as you say, those are few anyway. Also gas-powered electricity-plants, coal-powered electricity-plants.

        To the degree that people burn fossil fuels in order to heat their homes/factories that could also be replaced, in

    • Re:Oil Dependency (Score:4, Interesting)

      by rolfwind ( 528248 ) on Monday December 03, 2007 @12:21AM (#21556945)
      It would be an economic issue but our current oil situation is being subsidized by the military (700 overseas bases) who we as taxpayers pay real dollars. But because of this, the true price of oil is hidden and not completely reflected at the pump.

      If you had the U.S. Military either tax only the oil companies for the services they provide or had the oil companies provide their own defense, you would see a rise in gas prices and thus a shift away from oil into other technologies.
  • This is, indeed, good news! This, plus wind-power, some recent excellent solar-power breakthroughs and throw in hydro, will no doubt drastically reduce the dependency on foreign oil. However, I am a bit hesitant to do the truffle-shuffle just yet because of the oil cartel and hits powerful hold on certain Washington big-wigs and other powerful old farts. Correct me if I'm wrong (which is most of the time), but weren't a few of the alternative power studies debunked by 'independent research' funded by big

    • This is, indeed, good news! This, plus wind-power, some recent excellent solar-power breakthroughs and throw in hydro, will no doubt drastically reduce the dependency on foreign oil. However, I am a bit hesitant to do the truffle-shuffle just yet because of the oil cartel and hits powerful hold on certain Washington big-wigs and other powerful old farts. Correct me if I'm wrong (which is most of the time), but weren't a few of the alternative power studies debunked by 'independent research' funded by big oil companies? I can't seem to recall off the top of my head...

      Any oil company worth its salt is looking for a way to get in on the alternative-energy game the minute it becomes profitable (and maybe before if they can stake out the territory). And, honestly, I'd imagine that there are nontrivial expertise overlaps between drilling for oil and drilling for geothermal power that would put the oil industry at an advantage over other-random-people for getting in on the action. And if geothermal energy is meaningfully profitable, geothermal dollars are as good as petroleu

      • So far efforts by the big oil to enter the renewables market are only token and serve for good PR. Oil is still very profitable, and its more profitable too keep drilling for oil then to spend money on other, more risky technology.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by MrKaos ( 858439 )
          That's true, but in the same vein Oil companies are mostly drilling oil for energy, they can still drill for oil to make plastics and the other products made from oil.

          I guess when carbon trading is finally established it will be less profitable for 1 PetaJoule of energy from oil than if they sell 1 PetaJoule of energy from Geothermal Energy, after all it's an energy transaction - so to speak.

          I hope it works, we could use all the geothermal power we can get.

  • it's not in iceland as one might guess, it's in the philippines

    on leyte, near lake danao above ormoc city, called tongonan geothermal field, run by calenergy [calenergy.com]

    it's a pretty weird place: gorgeous virgin mountain forest, everything is muddy and foggy and it rains all the time there, as it's basically nothing but humongous turbines plopped right over steam vents coming right out of the ground. there are communist NPA guerrillas in the area and the security of the place is pretty important, so there are guys with submachine guns at checkpoints everywhere too

    but, notably, some of the streams running off from the area are a brilliant cobalt blue

    so just a reality check: some of the problems associated with mining will be found with geothermal sources. mining often churns up lots of unhealthy metals from the earth, artificially. well, geothermal is basically that same process, but completely natural. so whereever you have geothermal energy sources, you have the potential to stir up nasty metals and deposit them on the surface, with or without man's involvement

    not my blog, but some good pics and summary [wordpress.com]

    • Largest plant? (Score:2, Offtopic)

      by Dr. Cody ( 554864 )
      Largest by what metric? The Geysers outside San Fransisco puts out 750 MW(e).

    • Environmentalists will shut this down (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 02, 2007 @09:10PM (#21555813)
      Little point looking into geothermal environmentalists will just shut it down.
      They have shut down wind farms (Nantucket Sound ala Ted Kennedy, and Walter Cronkite)
      They are trying to reverse hydro-power (dam removal in the northwest)
      They have killed off nuclear (oh, just pick one)

      At some point you just give up and keep buying oil.

      Really I don't think the environmentalists (a) believe what they say, and (b) actually want to solve anything.
      Most of their actions are either just about narcissism and having something to bitch about (usually yelling at society when they really want to yell at their Dad).

      If I thought they actually cared and were working to get things done, I'd be more supportive, but close interaction which the people has turned me very very off to their message.
      • It seems like there are TONS of folks here who keep saying that the environmentalists will stop these projects, and the finally line is almost always, well, I guess that I will stay with OIL|COAL|GAS POWERED CAR|..... Worse, nearly all of you are ACs.

        So, the real question is, who is trying to stop this? I do not see Environmentalists stopping any alternative energy (though some minor groups try to stop individual projects). But I do see LOTS of ACs here and elsehwere pointing at Environmentalists. Hmmmm.

      • Re:Environmentalists will shut this down (Score:4, Insightful)

        by timeOday ( 582209 ) on Monday December 03, 2007 @03:07AM (#21557837)

        At some point you just give up and keep buying oil.
        It must be hard to win when you actually want to lose.

        "The environmentalists" are actually not shutting most things down. Fact is, wind power (for instance) is growing rapidly in the US [gainesville.com] (as elsewhere in the world): "New utility-scale wind turbines have been constructed in 20 states, most notably in California, Washington, Minnesota, New York and Texas (which now leads the nation in wind power use)."

        Just because a particular project or two somewhere ran into trouble doesn't change the big picture.

    • The rivers and lakes around here are fed by glaciers, which grind up minerals and release them in the meltwater. The water is a brilliant turquoise. People come from all over the world to see the wilderness and drinking the water is supposed to be healthful or lucky.

      Just because the water is a funny colour doesn't mean it's bad.

  • Actually Canada is the number one supplier of Oil (Score:5, Informative)

    by phunster ( 701222 ) on Sunday December 02, 2007 @07:54PM (#21555331)
    Actually Canada is the number one supplier of Oil to the U.S.

    Source: http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html [doe.gov]

    Energy Information Administration: Official Energy Statistics from the U.S. Government

  • My solution is much simpler (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    It relies on the heat signature of the surface waters. Any surface waters hotter than 200F are probably indicative of geothermal energy sources.

  • As a Non-Expert (Score:4, Insightful)

    by explosivejared ( 1186049 ) <hagan@jared.gmail@com> on Sunday December 02, 2007 @08:02PM (#21555401)
    As a non-expert (see entire scope of knowledge about the field is based on wikipedia, cursory google search, and tv documentaries), is finding sources the major roadblock to widespread geothermal use? I would think so upon my basic knowledge.

    a). It is eco-friendly, in that there are no toxic wastes or atmospheric wastes to speak of. Reduction in greenhouse gases is a plus. So there are no environmentalists protesting geothermal expansions like nuclear ones.

    b). It is not as conditional as other eco-friendly power sources. With wind and tide power you are at the mercy of the conditions which is a major drawback considering the instancy with which grid fluctuations occur. Granted it is conditional upon the temperature of the earth, but geologic time scales are much more gradual than say meteorological time scales with wind.

    c). Plants are fairly efficient. There is very little ancillary equipment needed, because the dynamo system usually runs off steam directly from the ground. Other forms of power, eg nuclear, coal, and oil, are ways of producing heat. With geothermal, the earth is already producing the heat for us. We are essentially utilizing energy that is produced no matter what, but would otherwise be lost.

    I have come to see geothermal power as being a major possibility to easing our energy problems, especially upon news of this. I would be all too happy to see this overtake nuclear power as the solution to our energy problems. Now before I get a hundred posts about "if you're not serious about nuclear, then you aren't serious about energy reform," I understand nuclear's potential, vastly under-utilized potential, I think geothermal would be a much more optimal solution. Geothermal requires no mining, no relying on finite resources of naturally fissile material, and it produces no nasty radioactive waste.

    I hope that this paves the way to a major increase in geothermal generation. I think it would be the most ideal solution we have available.
     
    Disclaimer: I'm not an expert, and I do expect a ton of pro-nuclear flamage, which I hope I don't deserve, but I might.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by UbuntuDupe ( 970646 ) *
      I know I sound paranoid when I say this, but: if geothermal ever actually did become feasible for providing the world's energy needs at current levels, environmentalists would rationalize a reason why it's not eco-friendly.

    • Re:As a Non-Expert (Score:5, Informative)

      by Zobeid ( 314469 ) on Sunday December 02, 2007 @08:29PM (#21555565)
      From my own reading on the subject, "the major roadblock to widespread geothermal use" is lack of motivation.

      Despite all the talk and hand-wringing over global warming, power companies are still not paying any carbon tax. They aren't required to phase out coal-fired plants, and they aren't having any difficulty getting permits to build new ones. They have a business model that is working and making money for them, and no pressing reason to change their ways.

      A study came out of MIT a while back showing that the USA has vast geothermal resources which could be exploited fairly easily. It would require a small R&D investment to prove the concept, but they believe enhanced geothermal energy could be accessed across large regions of the country.

      Is anybody going for it? No. . . No power companies want to pony up that "small R&D investment". Why should they? They can continue using coal and natural gas without any R&D cost at all. As for the federal government, their energy research has been cut to nearly nothing. So nothing happens.

      • Re:As a Non-Expert (Score:4, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 03, 2007 @12:53AM (#21557137)
        No, the major roadblock to geothermal has been, to date, a lack of sources of 'easy' geothermal, and technical/geological difficulties in 'hard' geothermal. 'Easy' in this case finding pre-existing undergound flows of water which happen to flow through hot areas to create high pressure steam deposits that can be tapped. This is the predominant form of geothermal in action today.

        Hard geothermal involves creating your own water flow by injection and recovery. This is a very hard thing to achieve and requires state of the art drilling techniques developed by the oil industry. You have to drill down into what is typically very hard rock (because it's typically radioactive granite - that's where the heat comes from), and fracture the rock to create cavities for the water to flow through. Then you need to find exactly the right spot to drill a second well to allow venting of the steam back up to the turbines.

        This is the new world of geothermal and there are high hopes for it in Australia. It is not easy to bring to scale, even when the direct drilling problems are sorted out, because you need a suitable hot rock formation, it needs to be close enough to the surface (or creating enough steam pressure at the surface becomes impossible), and it helps if the source is close to a load centre or transmission line (most aren't). The same sorts of things that slow most renewable energy sources, just mundane practical problems which end up making costs get too high to compete with coal, which gets you to pay its waste disposal costs for it. All power is expensive, we just pay loss-leader rates.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by kmac06 ( 608921 )
      If you're going to say that nuclear energy relies on finite resources of naturally fissile material, then I'm going to say that geothermal energy relies on the finite naturally fissile material found in the mantle and core. They're both unlikely to run out in the next several millennia when you account for the uranium in the oceans.

    • Re:As a Non-Expert (Score:5, Informative)

      by shawb ( 16347 ) on Sunday December 02, 2007 @10:00PM (#21556119)
      While properly working geothermal is in theory clean, in actuality there are several hazards associated with it.

      The first is localized ground/surface water pollution. The water pulled from deep geothermal springs has many chemicals dissolved in it that are not normally found in high concentrations in surface waters (since they are not common, organisms have not adapted to them, hence they are often toxic.) Simply returning the water back underground is feasible in the short term, the aforementioned chemicals combined with the high heat render the water quite corrosive at times, and considering the high pressure desired to efficiently pump heat out of the ground, some spillage or at least seepage is eventually all but guaranteed. The risks posed by these soluents may very well be less than petroleum, but they are non-negligible.

      Extra heat must be dispelled from some point in the power plant to maintain a thermal gradient. Efficiency requires a high level of heat transfer, so the excess heat will have to be dumped into the environment. The level of energy transfer will likely be similar to that of a nuclear power plant of similar power rating. The most likely solution for ejection of heat at these levels (100 megawatt?) would be by transfer to a freshwater source (as saltwater corrosion would make maintenance far more expensive) likely fluvial such as a stream or river as the water flow would ensure a constant supply of cool water. Warming up freshwater systems also has a non-zero effect on the native habitat, generally negative, but sometimes can be managed to increase productivity of fisheries. The need to expel the heat also means the geothermal power plant will be located close to a river or stream, meaning any leaks in the system will allow the aforementioned dissolved minerals to leach into the water, either directly through surface flow or possibly through groundwater flow which would be much more difficult to detect and have much more long lasting effects as the entire groundwater reserve would have to be purged before the system returns to normal.

      If direct ejection into freshwater systems is not feasible, then the water will have to be cooled in a cooling tower, which introduces inefficiencies into the system as the tower must be powered, and requires a source of fresh or even de-mineralized water to avoid salt buildup in the tower. Again, this issue has to be dealt with in other thermal energy plants, such as nuclear, so is not that big of a strike against geothermal, but is still non-zero.

      In some locations, the "excess" heat can be repurposed for municipal heating, such as is done in Iceland. In this case, the excess heat becomes an asset rather than a liability. However, few locations consistently cold enough to actually benefit from waste heat have a high enough population density where their worldwide environmental impact would be significant, even if they used less "green" methods of energy production. High population densities that will start thirsting for more and more energy are generally found in temperate to tropical or even arid climates and therefore the waste heat from geothermal sources is a definite liability to the majority of the world.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by falconwolf ( 725481 )

        The first is localized ground/surface water pollution. The water pulled from deep geothermal springs has many chemicals dissolved in it that are not normally found in high concentrations in surface waters

        Fossil water [wikipedia.org] isn't needed. Actually water may not be the best carrier of heat to use, but if used water doesn't need to be pumped up. A closed loop can pump surface water down where it is heated up then it comes back up where a heat pump then extracts the heat.

        Extra heat must be dispelled from some

        • Re:As a Non-Expert (Score:5, Informative)

          by shawb ( 16347 ) on Monday December 03, 2007 @01:17AM (#21557279)
          Fossil water isn't needed. Actually water may not be the best carrier of heat to use, but if used water doesn't need to be pumped up. A closed loop can pump surface water down where it is heated up then it comes back up where a heat pump then extracts the heat.

          While this method reduces the risk of pollution, it does not eliminate it completely. There is a significant chance that the "fossil water" is under considerable pressure, and would be forced out of the holes drilled to pipe the fluids used to transfer heat. The extreme conditions also mean that any part of the system would require significant inspections and maintenance. What extra heat? Where you see "waste heat", I see another energy source. And efficiency requires more of that heat energy to be extracted. If the water is hot it still has plenty of energy that can be used.

          Extracting more of that "heat waste" will realistically not increase the efficiency of the system. Essentially, the power plant in a geothermal electrical generator are not powered by the fact that underground water is hot. They are powered by the gradient in temperature between that hot underground water and wherever the waste heat is pumped to. Almost any attempt to recapture this waste heat, such as with thermocouples, will in essence insulate the cooling mechanism, reducing the efficiency of the primary generators. Why not use the rising air from the heat from a nuclear cooling tower to power a turbine to get more electricity out? Because then the ability of the cooling towers to cool the liquid is decreased, and would have to be compensated for, likely by pushing more air through the towers with a device similar to a fan. By applying the laws of thermodynamics, it becomes obvious that due to unavoidable inefficiencies running the fans will take more energy than the turbines at the top of the cooling towers gain, otherwise this becomes a free energy device.

          Cogeneration is a completely different concept, as thermodynamically you are not attempting to generate extra power from the system, rather you are essentially turning the heated buildings into massive heat sinks for the nuclear (or geothermal, or even coal/oil fired) power plant.

          There may be, however, one scenario in which re-using the waste heat at the end of the life cycle in geothermal power generation would work, if some of the waste heat from off peak periods is stored until peak demand periods and used to run an ancillary generator system to make up some of the difference between base and peak load.

          I am not saying that the technology used in the linked article is snake oil, it is simply not applicable to the electricity generation industry. It is more applicable to other industries in which the waste heat is truly waste and not the result of trying to create a large heat differential as needed to run a heat engine which spins turbines, powering generators which then produce electricity.

          Well, at least we both agree that cogeneration is a good thing in certain circumstances. And I'm not honestly implying that the risks inherent with geothermal make the whole thing a no-go. They are in all likelihood significantly less than the risks of other energy production methods in a large number of circumstances. I'm just saying that there are risks and drawbacks that have to be considered. This may mean that geothermal power is not appropriate for certain locations, such as sensitive habitats which could be greatly disturbed by normal operation, or put at risk in case of failure. Then again, a nuclear fission plant would pose the same and likely greater risks in these situations, as would fossil fuels. Hydro or wind power may be more or less appropriate depending on exactly why that particular habitat is classified as sensitive.

          I guess what I'm saying is that, while there are many places where geothermal energy is appropriate, some circumstances would make it a poor choice. And I got caught up in the mental exercise of figuring out what possible hazards geothermal presents and simply hadn't yet gotten to the point of asking where in particular would it be appropriate.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by dbIII ( 701233 )

      is finding sources the major roadblock to widespread geothermal use

      Not always. Some of the most impressive spots are very deep and drilling holes is expensive. Oddly enough one of the best spots in Australia is underneath an oilfeild and was found by oil exploration. It's not a huge suprise because power was generated in that region over a hundred years ago using hot artesian water.

      Since electricity was mentioned you might get some nuclear trolls but they have to realise there is more than one way to ge

  • I've always thought OTEC [wikipedia.org] was a pretty neat idea, but it's not terribly efficient, which really drives up the cost per kilowatt. Geothermal is much more promising due to the larger temperature differential, but the barrier is still the cost. It's not really about saving the environment as it is about saving money. Sad but true, that's the world we live in. At some point, the price of oil will rise enough to make geothermal (and maybe even OTEC) economical, but my guess is we still have a few decades to go.

    Wi

    • Re:Geothermal beats OTEC (Score:4, Informative)

      by Ironsides ( 739422 ) on Sunday December 02, 2007 @09:24PM (#21555895) Homepage Journal
      Geothermal will be used to generate electricity, not power transportation. Less than 1% of US electric generation comes from Oil. Increasing the price of oil has essentially zero effect on electric generation. Using Geothermal in the US will have zero effect on Oil imports.

      • Re:Geothermal beats OTEC (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Vancorps ( 746090 ) on Sunday December 02, 2007 @11:25PM (#21556645)

        That's pretty short-sighted. With more abundant electricity available other options become more feasible like electric trams for mass transit in addition to electric cars. Picture induction on all our roads to keep the things powered. If we can generate enough electricity then our oil imports will indeed fall. Of course plastics are still a big problem but not as toxic as burning fossil fuels.

        I'll also add that all forms of energy production used today have their raw materials shipped to them either by truck or train and there the price of oil does have a rather immediate impact.

        • plastic (Score:3, Informative)

          by falconwolf ( 725481 )

          If we can generate enough electricity then our oil imports will indeed fall. Of course plastics are still a big problem

          Actually plastic can be made without petroleum oil. Prior to 1934, when DuPont was given a patent on making plastic from oil, plastic was made from cellulose. Ever hear of Cellophane [wikipedia.org], the plastic wraps for food? As it's name suggest it was originally from plant cellulose. Thing is is DuPont was the US's first producer of cellophane. Another big company that made and used cellulose b

  • The potential (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 02, 2007 @08:10PM (#21555451)

    The MIT report calculated the world's total EGS resources to be over 13,000 ZJ. Of these, over 200 ZJ would be extractable, with the potential to increase this to over 2,000 ZJ with technology improvements - sufficient to provide all the world's energy needs for several millennia.[14]

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_power [wikipedia.org]

    Of course, to completely replace oil, we would have to be able to use this energy for transportation. So, we still have some problems. Even so, if we drill ten miles deep almost anywhere, we will get useful geothermal energy. That means that we could use existing power plants because their generators are usually steam driven, or could be. We could get rid of our dependance on middle-east energy relatively fast. Canada could supply enough oil for our transportation needs until we can perfect the battery powered semi-trailer truck. ;-) The other thing is that all the drilling activity would stimulate the economy. Even the existing oil companies could be happy because they would make a mint drilling the wells.
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • 140 is too low. (Score:3, Informative)

      by WindBourne ( 631190 )
      What is needed is one of several things.
      1. A newly engineered generator that can handle that low of a temp. There is a new one up in alaska that will go to 165 (the springs is at 172).
      2. Hook it up to a solar thermal unit, to increase the temp. I have been think that this is useful for a number of reasons. This approach can be used even on the units that Skyfuel wants to do.
      3. Finaly, just use the heat to heat/cool. It can be used to cool via an amonia AC.

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by ShieldW0lf ( 601553 )
        You could build a massive cone shaped greenhouse, with intake vents at the bottom and a hollow tower standing in the middle venting out the top, and wind turbines inside the tower. There was a successful test of such technology as a way to harness solar energy in northern Europe, and from what I understand there's a large scale deployment going on in Australia to power Sydney's grid.

        If you built such a structure over a hot spring, it would seem pretty obvious that you'd get some significant energy return f

        • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

          by QuickFox ( 311231 )
          You must be a fantastically skilled architect if you can design a greenhouse that is massive enough to drive a turbine yet doesn't disrupt the landscape at all.
  • Amazingly, the money for alternative energy has been in solar and ethanol, but that is solely because the feds are pouring tax dollars/euros into that. Geo-thermal is PROBABLY the single brightest spot that feds should be concentrating on, but are ignoring. Points out how inefficient they are.

  • Scarce resources vs. unlimited resources (Score:2)

    by Anonymous Coward
    If our politicians had any sense they would come up with a national energy program that helps cultivate our own renewable energy sources. Geothermal is probably one of our best bets. Clean renewable cheap energy would be a boon to this country. Just think of how much of our own money would stay in this country instead of being sent to questionable regimes around the world. Of course a national energy program should also promote things such as power saving technologies.

    Now for the bad news. Entrenched compan

  • Anything that requires big start-up is no go. (Score:3)

    by ahfoo ( 223186 ) on Sunday December 02, 2007 @08:28PM (#21555563) Journal
    There are dozens of great alternative energy resources requiring millions in start-up money that are perfectly viable as far as the experts are concerned. Solar thermal has worked perfectly well and very large wind generators can convert great quantities of power like the enormous design we saw last week with the magnetic bearing. There are several fusion experiments that look quite promising and orbital solar is no fantasy. Geothermal is merely another one of these many very promising alternatives that is no doubt quite technically feasible and potentially disruptive but therein lies the rub. These things all require large-scale investments and the organizations that are in position to make those large-scale financial commitments have no real motivation to do so.

    This is why low-cost solar panels are so intriguing. It's not because they represent the best alternative energy conversion technology. In fact, they're quite lame in many respects. Nonethless it's the most likely technology that can be implemented in a way similar to the way the internet was built: inward from the edge rather than outward from the center. That's what makes solar the center of attention and the only genuinely likely candidate for a disruptive alternative energy technology.

    No doubt geo is good to go. No doubt indeed. My personal favorite fantasy geothermal solution has been to go into Utah and just burn/dig an enormous hole through the coal into the depths. I mean like a hole you can drive huge trucks down into corkscrew like around the edges spiraling into the darkness. Once you've excavated all the coal down to a few miles, you can tap the geothermal energy at the bottom of the pit. You could build a whole community into the walls of the place. Yeah, geothermal is cool. Anybody want to front me some cash to make it happen?

    • My personal favorite fantasy geothermal solution has been to go into Utah and just burn/dig an enormous hole through the coal into the depths. I mean like a hole you can drive huge trucks down into corkscrew like around the edges spiraling into the darkness. Once you've excavated all the coal down to a few miles, you can tap the geothermal energy at the bottom of the pit.

      You don't need to go to Utah to use geothermal. At least one home in New York City [wsj.com] uses geothermal for heating, cooling, and hot wate

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Max Littlemore ( 1001285 )

      My personal favorite fantasy geothermal solution has been to go into Utah and just burn/dig an enormous hole through the coal into the depths.
      ...
      You could build a whole community into the walls of the place.

      Praytell, does your fantasy include the evolution of the people who live in these communities into short, pale skinned humanoids with enormous black eyes who feed predominantly on fungus, communicate via telepathy and play a strange form of full contact ten pin bowling involving large lead mallets and c

    • There are several fusion experiments that look quite promising and orbital solar is no fantasy.

      Orbital solar power is without a doubt the most interesting, because it has more potential to scale than any other conceivable engineering project and it has the potential to remove any need for terrestrial power generation. Small scale renewable energy projects inevitably clutter up the landscape as they move towards peak capacity; windmill and solar farms are ugly.

  • Volcano Energy? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by TheBearBear ( 1103771 )
    I always wondered if it was possible to use the heat energy from active but somewhat stable volcanos. You would have a platform submerged in the lava pit and set up a system to run water through it to make steam and run the turbines. Is that feasible? What are the problems? I am guessing maybe the equipment might melt?
  • Look up "Ground Source Heat Pumps". They typically give about a 400% return on energy.
     
  • I vaguely recall from several decades ago that earthquake researchers have been using this same method now for a couple decades. So this may not be all that new a discovery.

Slashdot Top Deals

Get hold of portable property. -- Charles Dickens, "Great Expectations"

Close