Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Power Science

Australia Pushes Geothermal Energy 215

Posted by ScuttleMonkey from the attractive-freaks-of-nature dept.
_martini_ writes writes to tell us Reuters is reporting that several Australian firms are experimenting with taking geothermal energy mainstream. Geodynamics Ltd. will be making an investment decision on their first geothermal power station in early 2006. From the article: "Mother Nature has been kind to us. Australia could be the world leader within the next couple of years given the geological anomalies present in South Australia," says Peter Reid, chief executive of another explorer, Petratherm Ltd."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Australia Pushes Geothermal Energy More

Australia Pushes Geothermal Energy

Comments Filter:

  • Geothermal Is Expensive (Score:5, Insightful)

    by geomon ( 78680 ) on Tuesday November 15, 2005 @07:38PM (#14039931) Homepage Journal
    There are several problems that geothermal energy will have to overcome before it can be used for any large-scale power production. First of all, geothermal solutions are terribly corrosive and the pipes are subject to scaling. The maintenance costs associated with keeping the plumbing working are high.

    These are just a few of the problems [elsevier.com] associated with geothermal energy: the variable nature of the reservoirs and fluids; the depth, location, orientation, number and type of wells; the type and size of power plant; the method of disposal of the spent geothermal fluid and the need to conform with local environmental regulations.

    • Re:Geothermal Is Expensive (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      And it's been studied extensively since the 1970s. this article [oit.edu] has a nice summary of the research to date.
    • How expensive is that compared with fossil fuels? With those billions of taxpayers dollars are spent providing security to ensure regular delivery of oil from their source. A price not reflected for instance in the prices at the gas pump. Then there is all the pollution that causes things asthma, contributing to medical bills.

    • Re:Geothermal Is Expensive (Score:5, Informative)

      by ian_mackereth ( 889101 ) on Tuesday November 15, 2005 @08:27PM (#14040231) Journal
      This is quite different to most geothermal installations, though. Most of them utilise vulcanism, with all the attendant sulfur and such to cause the corrosion and scaling. This scheme is in granite that contains low-level radioactivity and should be relatively clean to pump water through. The basic idea is to force water/steam into one hole to open up some fissures, then pump water through those fissures to generate steam that goes up an outlet pipe to drive a turbine. The water's reclaimed and re-pumped down the feed bore.

      Environmental impact should be minimal, and there's hardly any ecosystem there to affect anyway. This region was chosen for the Woomera rocket range for exactly this reason. Australia's about 90% of the area of the continental USA, and much of it looks exactly like this area; arid or semi-arid rocky plains.

      There's a transcript of an article with quite some depth (ahem.) here. http://www.abc.net.au/rn/science/ockham/stories/s1 440622.htm [abc.net.au]

    • Whether geothermal energy is worth it depends entirely on the location. IIRC, Iceland does well with it.

      How geologically active is Australia? Are there any places where hot springs and the like can be tapped on a large enough scale?

    • Re:Geothermal Is Expensive (Score:5, Informative)

      by Timbotronic ( 717458 ) on Tuesday November 15, 2005 @09:07PM (#14040431)
      There needs to be a distinction drawn between regular geothermal power from volcanic areas (such as Iceland, NZ, Yellowstone etc) and hot dry rock geothermal power which is what Geodynamics are pursuing.

      HDR Geothermal works by passing water through hot, fractured granite. The granite is hot because of the radioactive decay of trace elements in the granite (too low in concentration for any radioactive waste concerns). A thick layer of sediment above the granite effectively creates a heat blanket, allowing the temperature to build to 200-300 hundred degrees C - ideal for heating water without building up extreme pressure.

      I'm not a geologist, but I imagine that problems with pipe scaling would be much lower for HDR geothermal than in regular geothermal power, where you've got a lot of salts, sulphur and all sorts of muddy crap bubbling through. The water in HDR geothermal is kept in a closed loop so there's no waste to dispose of. The heat is extracted via a heat exchanger which boils a more volatile fluid such as ammonia and this fluid is used for the power generation. So you've got no impurities going through your generation facility.

      Geodynamics say they have enough heat to power Australia at current levels of consumption for 70 years. Unlike solar or wind, the power is constant and can be ramped up or down at will. I'm surprised this has been off everyone's radar for so long.

    • I believe New Zealand has been operating this form of geothermal power for over a decade, with success. If I am correct in this, then it would be likely that they are sharing any information/technology with Australia to help them get started.

      In fact, given that Australia probably has a larger R&D budget, it would not surprise me if they'd started some kind of geothermal tech exchange program. As much as each enjoys looking down at the other, this is an area they both know they stand a good chance of doi

      • I recall travelling in New Zealand in 1990 and there were geothermal powerplants around (North Island) then that had been around for some time. So that is 15-20 years.

        Of course, while (I'm one) us Aussies and the Kiwis share some animosity, we assist each other far more than we like to admit.
    • I have been to Iceland, whole Reykjavik is running on thermal energy. They warm a city with it, and get all of the electric power with it. And they investigate H2 production for their traffic some busses run on H2. In fact it gives them so much energy that they to use it for aluminum production which is a heavy power consuming electric melting industry.. If that doesn't prove that this is technology of today then the oil companies have all blinded us I'm afraid. There is also a much bigger bonus that is;

  • Energy creation or energy storage? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by dada21 ( 163177 ) * <adam.dada@gmail.com> on Tuesday November 15, 2005 @07:39PM (#14039935) Homepage Journal
    I was reading on a link from LRC about Nature's Nuclear Reactor [discover.com], so the timing of this /. post comes just as I was thinking about the potential energy inside the ground.

    I've ran the numbers for solar cells and windmill generators and can't see the overall savings. Taking into account the manufacturing, installation and maintenance costs, are these techniques better for the environment or any cheaper?

    Geothermal seems like it would work well, if you can store the energy or throttle back the generation during lulls in need. The setup costs seem huge and I wonder how often they'll tap out a given dig's heat (if ever).

    I think money will be better spent in more efficient storage of energy. Batteries, salts and event heat tanks all interest me. I'm not seeing any long term viability of anything but coal, gasoline and natural gas until the storage exceeds the unit per dollar ratio of the 3 gases mentioned.
    • I've ran the numbers for solar cells and windmill generators and can't see the overall savings. Taking into account the manufacturing, installation and maintenance costs, are these techniques better for the environment or any cheaper?

      As we slide down the fossil fuel depletion curve, it will take a combination of "green" tech to keep humanity from freezing to death. (ie ... Windmills work in New Jersey, but not in Pennsylvania ... Solar thermal works in Arizona, but not in Minnesota).

    • First off, the fact that private profitable companies are springing up all over doing wind energies should suggest that your numbers are quite probably incorrect.

      But with that said, I do think that govs. should be funding research in storage. [slashdot.org] I think that it is wise to assume that the future will include a greater mix of energy generation. By storing, we can generate at anytime, and then pull when needed.

    • I've ran the numbers for solar cells and windmill generators and can't see the overall savings. Taking into account the manufacturing, installation and maintenance costs, are these techniques better for the environment or any cheaper?

      Wind turbines pay for their total life energy cost within the first 9 months. They repay their energy input many dozens of times within their lifetime. The materials are also highly recyclable. Offshore farms are practical in many countries and have minimal impact on the

    • The thing is, raw economic costs are never all of it. Given two resources, one finite and one renewable, even if it is more expensive to exploit the renewable resource, in the long term you'll be better off with it.

      As far as mainstream science knows, fossil fuels are a finite resource. Oil and coal are going to become more scarce, and eventually there won't be enough to use. There's certainly disagreement on how much is left, but pretty much everyone agrees that reserves are finite and probably won't out
    • Land based wind power is a clear winner. Typical windmills pay back their energy cost of creation in a few months and capital costs in a few years. OTOH, the best wind areas often are not near urban areas hence you need to transport the power (and lose some energy in the process). All the forms of energy you mention tend to be low maintenance. Geothermal probably has relatively the highest maintenance since it is handling hot possibly acidic or brackish fluids (ie, a high corrosion environment). Offshore w
    • I've ran the numbers for solar cells and windmill generators and can't see the overall savings. Taking into account the manufacturing, installation and maintenance costs, are these techniques better for the environment or any cheaper?

      Solar cells only work when it's sunny. And it doesn't hurt if it's daytime either.

      Likewise, windmills only work when - you guessed it - Cheney is talking.

      And yes, the power generation would be throttleable. Since it's a closed-loop system, you should be able to just slow down

  • Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Tuesday November 15, 2005 @07:40PM (#14039946)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Re:Big anomaly (Score:5, Funny)

      by Frogbert ( 589961 ) <frogbert@gma[ ]com ['il.' in gap]> on Tuesday November 15, 2005 @07:42PM (#14039959)
      Quite frankly I'm surprised there is anything at all in South Australia.

      • Re:Big anomaly (Score:5, Funny)

        by The Nine ( 320384 ) on Tuesday November 15, 2005 @08:06PM (#14040105)
        You're thinking of Western Australia. :p I'm still not convinced Perth actually exists. I mean, sure, it's on the maps, but when was the last time you ever heard anything about Perth on the news, or met anybody from Perth, or had Perth's existence validated in any other way?
        • It's like Delaware in the United States. I'm partially convinced that Delaware is a fictitious entity created as a tax haven for large companies.

        • Re:Big anomaly (Score:2, Funny)

          by Anonymous Coward
          My father claims my step-mother moved to perth when they divorced. I wonder now if that's a euphemism for her untimely demise. :)

          Joking. She really did move there.
          I kinda like perth tho, someone there finally beat up my step brother. The guy seriously deserved it.

        • Re:Big anomaly (Score:4, Informative)

          by mgv ( 198488 ) <Nospam DOT 01 DO ... veltman DOT org> on Tuesday November 15, 2005 @09:47PM (#14040626) Homepage Journal
          You're thinking of Western Australia. :p I'm still not convinced Perth actually exists. I mean, sure, it's on the maps, but when was the last time you ever heard anything about Perth on the news, or met anybody from Perth, or had Perth's existence validated in any other way?

          Ok, I'll bite. As a card carring born again sand groper I think I have to validate my own existance.

          Yes, Perth exists. Deal with it. Its (in my opinion) the best city in Australia, as far as actually being a place to live.

          Whilst I know (as I was born in Melboune and went to high school in Sydney) that Western Australia was almost not on the map then, its getting hard to ignore now. It has the strongest economy in the country, just about the lowest unemployment (actually, Canberra is lower due to the large amount of government money there), and a city that has a future that doesn't depend on motor cars [wa.gov.au] or even fossil fuels [wa.gov.au], so we aren't going to waste the economic benefits of having a strong economy.

          Anyway, I'm sure I'm over reacting to a humourous statement, but I just had to ...

          Michael

          • Sorry to be a "wet blanket", but i read recently that Perth is looking at an interesting dilemma with future water supplies, even underground aquifers are projected to run low in the next 20-30 years. I guess Woodside might spare some gas to run a desalination plant. Not sure about the projections with that technology though.

            BTW, I was over in Perth for LCA 2003 and loved the place. Especially the transport setup and UWA is impressive. My brother and his family are over there too.

        • Perth is actually a hoax perpertrated by the Australian Cricket Association. The Fremantle Doctor is actually created by a huge amount of fans next to a fictional WACA ground which is actually in Western Sydney - unfortunately they only have enough power to power those fans for a few hours each day.
        • I did meet a chick from Perth online. But now that you mention it, I never did get the chance to meet her in person since I got deployed when she was supposed to have visited the states. Coincidence? Perhaps you're on to something.
        • You don't need to see Perth, Western Australia.
          This is not the city you are looking for.
          You can go about your business.
          Move along.
        • I believe it was the last time I watched a test at the WACA on TV.

    • Re:Big anomaly (Score:2, Funny)

      by cheesee ( 97693 )
      I live in Adelaide, I would describe it as more of a biological anomaly than a geological one.

  • Isn't This Dangerous (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MBCook ( 132727 ) <foobarsoft@foobarsoft.com> on Tuesday November 15, 2005 @07:43PM (#14039965) Homepage
    Is this dangerous? I heard this on the radio today and that was what struck me.

    So if we use this to power Australia like they suggest, what are the consequences. That would mean stealing a lot of heat from the Earth that is trapped in these geothermal "deposits" (since it sounds like they found concentrated areas of heat higher up than usual). If we cool those down (which is what will happen when we extract heat from them) then what will happen? Will it effect the ground in any way? I'm thinking of towns where they used to mine salt or coal or something and the ground later started to collapse because the stuff was gone. While they are not removing rock, would removing the heat cause problems later? For example: remove the heat -> things cool down -> rocks contract from cooling -> empty space -> fissues?

    Anyone know? I realize this would probably be a long-term problem (not something that would show up for a long time). Would this not be a problem because the ground could slowly adjust as we removed the heat, or would the heat stay high until the last minute then plummet (sorta like batteries do) causing problems?

    • Re:Isn't This Dangerous (Score:5, Informative)

      by HotNeedleOfInquiry ( 598897 ) on Tuesday November 15, 2005 @07:51PM (#14040016)
      No. It's not dangerous and it's not new technology. I know firsthand that it is used in California and the Sierra Madres of Mexico. Most of the homes in Klameth Falls, Oregon are heated via geothermal energy. I'm sure it's used in a lot of other places, so I'm a little surprised this is even news. I've not heard of any sort of accident or danger, other than the possible release of poisionous hydrogen sulfide gas, and that only during the exploration stage.

      There are issues, but nothin insurmountable.

    • Re:Isn't This Dangerous (Score:5, Informative)

      by palndrumm ( 416336 ) on Tuesday November 15, 2005 @07:58PM (#14040062) Homepage
      Will it effect the ground in any way?

      Not really, no. We're talking about big solid lumps of granite, which at the sort of temperatures they're at to start with won't undergo any significant thermal contraction even if cooled to atmospheric temperature. Plus we're only able to extract a relatively small proportion of the overall amount of heat in these deposits, so the overall temperature of the rock won't change a whole lot.
    • This is what will will happen:

      World turns to geothermal energy. Mankind relieved at being saved from global warming.
      As a result, the Earth's core cools and solidifies and the planet's magnetic field breaks down.
      All life wiped out by cosmic radiation.

      Other than that it's not dangerous at all.
      • Dude. The core is going to cool no matter what we do.
        • Yep, unfortunately, there's no way humans could produce anywhere near enough radioactive materials to feed into the Earth's subduction zones, to make up for the loss of fuel as natural radioactive isotopes decay.
          • There are other alternatives here. The obvious one is that by speeding up Earth's rotation we can used the increased number of tidal cycles to make up for the loss of radioactive material. Second, there's no obvious reason that energy has to be introduced in the form of radioactive materials. Antimatter would be another way we could introduce the necessary energy. Of course, once the Sun goes to white dwarf stage, we'll have to transfer the Earth to another star, but that's a minor issue.

    • Re:Isn't This Dangerous (Score:4, Funny)

      by Michael Woodhams ( 112247 ) on Tuesday November 15, 2005 @09:08PM (#14040433) Journal
      It isn't like an oil field where, once it is gone, it is gone. The heat is continuously renewed from the earth's core.

      It is a lot like an aquifer - a geothermal field will have a limited capacity. Once too much heat is being tapped from it, it will cool down and all users will get less.

      Subsidence can be a problem, as can toxic chemicals which accompany the steam/hot water. See the link in this comment. [slashdot.org].

      I'm surprised Australia is looking into this - across the ditch here (NZ), we regard you as geological deadsville. The Newcastle quake was magnitude 5.6, in 1989. Our most recent magnitude 5.6 was a week ago [geonet.org.nz] (and 5 others this year.) (OK, not really a fair comparison, as this recent one was 290km deep, and Oz may have had bigger but less damaging earthquakes since Newcastle.)

      Oh, and our largest city contains about 50 vulcanos, most recent eruption about 500 years ago.
      • Uh, I'm pretty sure that the rocks aren't heated from the earth's core, which is a little farther down than 5km from the surface. Radioactive decay is actually the source, and that isn't particularly renewable, unless you know of a way to impregnate the rock with more radioactive material. The article suggests 70 years of use at current comsumption rates. (Get it? Current consumption rates?).

        Also the radiation isn't really dangerous since it's just trace amounts; it's just that the heat can't escape so
        • To be pendantic, the heat is a combination of radioactive decay in the rock and conduction of heat from further down. The addition of the former source is what makes this economic to extract.

          As for toxic chemicals, this is dry geothermal, not that messy geyeser stuff.

          Except you are pumping warm water through rock. Even granite has soluble minerals in it so there will be scaling.

    • As a human being, you are using a flawed definition of "a lot" of energy. The earth could not possibly notice the amount of energy borrowed from the system in this way. It's as silly as the theories that using tidal energy would pull the moon out of orbit.
    • These rocks are heating at a constant rate, due to nuclear pollution!!

      If the rocks keep getting hotter, we don't know what could happen. They could reach a tipping point and cause devastating ecological damage!!!

      Clearly we must do something to stop this global warming before it gets out of hand!!!

      Your anti-global-cooling attitude reveals you as a shill for big oil and other dino-fuel monopolists.
  • I wish that they would do more around the yellowstone area. The thing is a super volcano so should have loads of heat easily accessable.
    • I agree, except for the fact that it's also a national park.

    • Re:Yellowstone (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Bad D.N.A. ( 753582 ) <baddna@gmaiIIIl.com minus threevowels> on Tuesday November 15, 2005 @08:45PM (#14040324)
      "I wish that they would do more around the yellowstone area" NO... leave yellowstone alone. And while your there, please catch and release.

      • Sigh (Score:3, Interesting)

        by WindBourne ( 631190 )
        I have been a hard environmentalists since 1971. In fact, it was a major part of my becoming a libertarian in the 90's. So, you do think that we can not take energy from there without harming the area. Ok. Then lets look at alternatives as well as what has happened over the last 5 years.
        1. Oil, coal, NG - These speak for themselves. They are getting expensive and they pollute heavily. Not only are we looking at CO2 pollution leading to global warming, but we are putting in Radioactivity, etc in the air.
        2. Nuc

  • Here on the Ring of Fire... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Repton ( 60818 ) on Tuesday November 15, 2005 @07:46PM (#14039990) Homepage

    I'm sure we can lend them some expertise — NZ's first geothermal plant was commissioned in the '50s...

    (apparently, we get 18% [ew.govt.nz] of our primary energy from geothermal sources)

    • This isn't quite the same kind of power generation. A few people have made similar comments about NZ and the US.

      From TFA: "While the United States, the Philippines, Iceland, New Zealand and Japan already produce commercial volumes of geothermal electricity, their system uses naturally occurring steam from underground reservoirs and springs, rather than the renewable dry rock technology the Australians are developing."
    • ... is generated in a single energy plant where Russell Crowe's rage is tapped and converted into AC current...

    • Re:Here on the Ring of Fire... (Score:5, Informative)

      by nathanh ( 1214 ) on Tuesday November 15, 2005 @09:05PM (#14040421) Homepage
      I'm sure we can lend them some expertise -- NZ's first geothermal plant was commissioned in the '50s... (apparently, we get 18% of our primary energy from geothermal sources)

      NZ has a different area of expertise. NZ has naturally occuring hot water springs. Tapping those is relatively easy. That's why NZ has had geothermal energy for so long. Iceland was in a similar fortunate position and they also have geothermal.

      Australia is drier than Oscar Wilde's wit. There are no naturally occuring hot water springs. The technology being researched in Australia is Hot Dry Rock. The rocks are dry and you pump fluids down into the rocks. The water is forced through naturally occuring horizontal fissures in the rocks and collected by a second bore. This only works when there are insulating rocks above, below and around the fissures. Otherwise the fluid disperses and you never collect back enough water to make the system economical.

      When it does work it's brilliant. The system powers itself and the only significant issue is dealing with scale buildup on the pipes. The energy output is enormous and the capital investment is modest. A single plant can power a small city with almost no pollution and no (as yet known) environmental impact.

    • NZ - Ring of Fire? I thought that the Ring of Fire was from the Vindaloo and four Lagers I had for dinner last night... Plenty of geothermal energy going on right at the moment, I might add...

  • also in small scale (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Keruo ( 771880 ) on Tuesday November 15, 2005 @07:51PM (#14040018)
    Not for generating electricity, but geothermal energy is increasingly popular way to heat residential buildings here.
    It's already half cheaper than oil burner heating and as the oil prices climb, geothermal becomes more and more attractive option.

  • geothermal (Score:2, Informative)

    by H0D_G ( 894033 )
    geothermal shouldn't steal a noticeable amount of heat- remember, the Earth is VERY big and VERY hot. I'd still prefer it if we went Nuclear. and that smart ass with the Adelaide crack... guess where I'm writing this from?
    • Still it's nice to see them finally harnessing all the hot air for power. Shame to see it all go to waste. Adelaide is quite rich in some resources.

    • Re:geothermal (Score:4, Informative)

      by Yartrebo ( 690383 ) on Tuesday November 15, 2005 @08:17PM (#14040167)
      Unfortunately, the Earth is a great insulator. Heat from the mantle travels exceeding slowly to the surface. The maximum sustainable power density is many orders (at least three, probably more) of magnitude less than solar power. The unsustainable (deplete once) energy reserve is exceedingly dilute compared to fossil fuels. I haven't had time to do some hard math, but my gut feeling is that drawing out 8GW of heat energy will cool off a lot of rock real fast. (assupmtions are 15% rankine cycle and 12.5% net efficiency and a 1GW plant). How many cubic kilometers of rock can their collection system honestly cover?

      Iceland has a much larger (though still finite) sustainable energy density, since it sits on the mid-oceanic rift, so it would be a far better site for a geothermal plant, though I have my doubts that 1GW could be extracted even from that island.

      • Granite is radioactive. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by TapeCutter ( 624760 ) on Tuesday November 15, 2005 @09:12PM (#14040449) Journal
        Australia does not have any major fault lines, no volcanoes and has some of the oldest (most stable) bedrock on the planet. The heat in the Granite is not from magma, it is from the low level radioactivity in the rock itself. A big enough chunk of granite will get hot all by itself. Check out the CSIRO, they have been working on this kind of "geothermal" for at least 10yrs. Their numbers say that one site with two deep wells (500m apart) would remain hot enough to replace the largest power plant in NSW for 50yrs. Intrestingly the site they got those numbers from was just a few miles from said power station.

        The biggest problem in Oz is that coal is not only sprinkled everwhere so as to convieniently fuel our current power stations, it is also a major export. These two things combine to make the coal industry fat, lazy and influential.
        • No volcanoes? My parent's farm in the Western district of Victoria has them dotted along the horizon. Some are extinct, but some are dormant... which means they could blow at any time! In the next 20,000 years that is. I recall as a child wishing for the excitement of a volcano erupting.

          Volcanoes in Victoria [vic.gov.au] (random Google)
          • Yes, I live in Victoria and have been to many of the places in your link more than once, perhaps I should have said "no active volcanoes". If you really want to be pedantic we do have at least one active volcano in our bit of Antartica, I left it out becuase it is several thousand kilometers from the mainland.
      • ...I have my doubts that 1GW could be extracted even from that island.

        That's no good at all then. After all, it's well documented that harnessing a single lightning bolt can yield 1.21 GW.

        That's jig-a-watts of course. ;)

  • World leader? (Score:3, Informative)

    by Malc ( 1751 ) on Tuesday November 15, 2005 @07:53PM (#14040036)
    After Iceland that is. I would think they are the world leader. They way they're going they'll be able to banish fossil fuels. Well, I suppose fishing boats and aeroplanes might be an exception.

  • Not the first (Score:2, Interesting)

    by rscoggin ( 845029 )
    What about Iceland? I believe they have an extensive geothermal energy system that provides not only electricity, but also heat for those cold Reykjavik nights ;). So how are the Australian firms making it "main-stream"?

    Some more info [rochester.edu]

    • Re:Not the first (Score:2, Informative)

      by ian_mackereth ( 889101 )
      This isn't your gradfather's geothermal (assuming, of course, that your gradfather came from Iceland or New Zealand or any of these other countries built on top of active volcanos...) This is smack dab in the middle of a tectonic plate, geologically stable enough to be considered for burying nuclear waste (preferable encased in Synroc), and a _bloody_ long way from the nearest sulfurous vent. This is using heat from radioactive materials in solid rock, not steam from magma bubbling just below the surface.

  • Say NO to geothermal (Score:4, Funny)

    by jnadke ( 907188 ) on Tuesday November 15, 2005 @08:16PM (#14040163)
    This is just another attempt at Mother Nature to monopolize the energy market. First coal, then oil, now renewable engeries???

    We must rise up to defeat this threat. Say NO to Mother Nature.

  • Yellowstone Public Utility District (Score:3, Funny)

    by wardk ( 3037 ) on Tuesday November 15, 2005 @08:46PM (#14040329) Journal
    Yellowstone immediately comes to mind as a geothermal power source. I bet if it destroys the environment, the GOP will be all over this.
    • Yellowstone immediately comes to mind as a geothermal power source. I bet if it destroys the environment, the GOP will be all over this.
      Yellowstone is also the site of a "supervolcano". Which can have a large destructive force on the enviroment, and would ba national/world-wide disaster. Which the GOP definitely seems to support those.

  • Ah, geothermal (Score:5, Interesting)

    by localman ( 111171 ) on Tuesday November 15, 2005 @08:51PM (#14040353) Homepage
    I just visited Iceland a couple months back, and I have to say that it made me wonder why geothemal isn't more popular.

    My favorite iceland moment: I went to the blue lagoon [geographia.com], which is a spa next to a geothermal powerplant. Basically you've got this cloudy blue mineral water in a huge black volcanic rock basin, at one end you've got the spa, where you get in, and the water is probably just over 80 degrees. Then on the other end of the basin you've got geothermal runoff water boiling in. You can get as close as you like to the inlet, but when you get within 30 feet or so you're nearly getting cooked. There's also some silica mud and waterfalls along the sides. The view is dramatic with the industrial steamstacks on one end, a classy spa structure on the other, and the natural volcanic pool in the middle. Highly recommended.

    But the point is: you're bathing in powerplant runoff. And it's supposed to be good for you. Now that's pretty amazing: I want that kind of powerplant in my back yard. And looking up in Wikipedia [wikipedia.org], the largest geothermal installation in the world is actually in California. And it doesn't put out some wussy windmill sized power, we're talking 2000 Megawatts -- that's nuclear plant territory, if I understand correctly.

    Reykjavik is reputedly the least polluted city in Europe, and most of the heating and power is provided by geothermal -- they just run hot pipes through the houses. Iceland has some pretty unique geographic properties that lend itself well to the process, but it's hard to believe that this can't be harnessed elsewhere to good effect. I mean, I understand the startup costs are very high. And I understand the technology needs work. But we're talking about a nearly limitless source of energy that is clean, safe, and politically sound. It seems like a pretty wise investment.

    Cheers.

    • Reykjavik is reputedly the least polluted city in Europe



      Not to slight the Icelanders in the least... It sounds like a neat Island, and I'd love to visit it... But... Isn't this a bit unfair to the rest of Europe? You know, the part that isn't completely surrounded by several thousand kilometers of ocean? The Europe that's actually *IN* Europe...

    • But the point is: you're bathing in powerplant runoff.

      Big deal. You've been able to do that in New Jersey for decades.
    • As pointed out elsewhere, most places do not have sufficient geothermal resources. And apparently even Iceland uses only geothermal for a small fraction (17%) of its energy needs. Second, the Geysers is near Clear Lake [usgs.gov], one of the five regions [usgs.gov] (or possibly six) in California that are considered to be volcanically active.

  • Oh No!!! (Score:2, Funny)

    by joelito_pr ( 931211 )
    This is the technology used in Pompey's public baths and just look what happened to THEM!!

  • 1,200 Megawatts? (Score:3, Funny)

    by StikyPad ( 445176 ) on Tuesday November 15, 2005 @10:26PM (#14040827) Homepage
    There could one day be plants supplying more than 1,000 megawatts of power if the market allowed it, which is theoretically a good chunk of the 1,200 megawatts required to power South Australia.

    You mean... 1.2 jigawatts? I'm sorry, but the only thing that can generate 1.21 jigawatts of electricity is a bolt of lightning.

  • Very Cool Technology (Score:3, Informative)

    by foo fighter ( 151863 ) on Tuesday November 15, 2005 @11:00PM (#14040971) Homepage
    I was just in a small, community bank in the U.S. that installed geothermal HVAC when they rebuilt a decade ago.

    They recouped the cost in five years and are very, very happy with the system. It heats for almost no expense in the winter (sometimes they have to fire up the natural gas furnace when it gets way below freezing) and cools for nothing in the summer.

    It's also been basically maintenance free. Nothing on the order of what some of the naysayers here would have you believe.

    I've also seen several rest stops in the area that use geothermal wells to cool and heat very effectively and efficiently. Near-zero maintenance is a very important thing for rest stops.

    From what I've seen, geothermal is underutilized and underhyped and should be investigated closely by anyone doing new construction.

  • I came across AGL Green Living [agl.com.au] and they claim that this service from their company is based on 100% renewable energy.

    AGL Green Living is 5% accredited Green Power and 95% non accredited energy from 100% renewable sources. It is derived from sources such as windmills, solar energy and land fill sites rather than sourced from coal, as coal-generated energy production contributes to global warming and climate change.

    I was wondering if it was actually true or if there was some catch. I didn't think that 1

  • As mentioned in the article, in Europe we've been experimenting with this for some time.

    I worked at the Camborne School of Mines Geothermal Energy Project in Cornwall during the late 80's and early 90's. The problem with the technology is that it's difficult to create a reliable reservour and the reservour itself will only last a few years.

    During a University of Southampton review of the technology in 1990 it was determined that because you had to drill new holes every few years in a radial pattern, the max
  • As everybody knows, the "geological anomalies" are actually fossilised time travelling wizards, and the Luggage. Are you sure you want to go disturbing that stuff?

    Disclaimer: Yes, Perth does exist. I have family there. And if I had had more sense when I was younger, I'd be there too. (sigh) It's Sydney and its tribe of Hyde Park bushmen that is unnecessary.

Slashdot Top Deals

A committee takes root and grows, it flowers, wilts and dies, scattering the seed from which other committees will bloom. -- Parkinson

Close