Helium Leads to Geothermal Energy Resources 317
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."
That makes sense (Score:3, Informative)
RTFA (Score:5, Informative)
So?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)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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)
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)
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.
SWEET!!! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
i've been to the biggest geothermal plant in world (Score:5, Interesting)
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)
just the largest plant by energy output (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Environmentalists will shut this down (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
I just HAVE to ask (Score:2)
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)
"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.
Re:i've been to the biggest geothermal plant in wo (Score:2)
Just because the water is a funny colour doesn't mean it's bad.
Re:i've been to the biggest geothermal plant in wo (Score:2)
Actually Canada is the number one supplier of Oil (Score:5, Informative)
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
Re:Actually Canada is the number one supplier of O (Score:5, Funny)
Celine Dion?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
While we're all making fun of Celine... (Score:4, Funny)
If anyone ever invades we'll turn her up to full power. Nothing would survive (except, perhaps, Celine herself, and cockroaches, and those tube worms that grow at the bottom of the ocean). So next time you foreigners think of invading, just imagine the horror and the agony of dying to the theme to Titanic...
Also she knows the brown note, but that's more of a tactical use whereas I'm talking about strategic deployment.
My solution is much simpler (Score:2, Funny)
As a Non-Expert (Score:4, Insightful)
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)
Re:As a Non-Expert (Score:4, Interesting)
Geothermal energy comes from 2 sources, the primordial heat of the Earth's formation and radioactive decay. The former is clearly non-renewable, the latter is renewing constantly, whether we tap it or not. To say the source is SO HUGE that we could never cause any adverse effects is probably naive. But if properly studied, and keeping our geothermal appetite in proper check, it would be a great source of energy.
Back to Yellowstone... Somehow I don't think our power taps would be deep enough to truly fend off a Yellowstone eruption, but I wonder what sort of effect we would have on it? Would we mellow it a bit, or make it madder?
Re: (Score:2)
Back to Yellowstone... Somehow I don't think our power taps would be deep enough to truly fend off a Yellowstone eruption, but I wonder what sort of effect we would have on it? Would we mellow it a bit, or make it madder?
I think it's too late to prevent the next eruption, but I think we could prevent the next eruption after that. Half a million years is enough time to cool the magma body under Yellowstone. You probably would have to create huge heat sinks. Maybe fill in old Lake Missoula [wikipedia.org] and Lake Bonnville [wikipedia.org]. Those regions will probably be vacant in the wake of a Yellowstone eruption.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:As a Non-Expert (Score:5, Informative)
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)
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)
Re:As a Non-Expert (Score:5, Informative)
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)
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)
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:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
d) It addresses base load power requirements.
The nuclear and coal industry have long argued they are the sole companies able to address this market requirement. So in that respect Geo Thermal would be a direct competitor to those big industries
Re: (Score:2)
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
Geothermal beats OTEC (Score:2)
Wi
Re:Geothermal beats OTEC (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Geothermal beats OTEC (Score:4, Insightful)
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)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
140 is too low. (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
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)
VC for geothermal (Score:2)
Scarce resources vs. unlimited resources (Score:2)
Now for the bad news. Entrenched compan
Anything that requires big start-up is no go. (Score:3)
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?
geothermal (Score:2)
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)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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)
Geothermal works fairly well almost everywhere (Score:2)
Re:Geothermal works fairly well almost everywhere (Score:4, Insightful)
In fact, *saving* power is better than *producing* power. It pollutes less (heat is a form of pollution) and it costs less (less infrastructure and maintenance).
If energy consumption was dramatically reduced, higher prices would make many renewable sources of energy economically feasible while not costing consumers any more than they pay today. Win/win.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It's totally unglamorous, but relatively easy. I managed to cut our home (and home-office) consumption from 33kWh/day (very high, from powering lots of Internet-facing servers) to 7kWh/day (fairly low: typical for a UK household is between 11kWh/day and 20kWh/dayt depending on whose figures you use) without any significant pain or loss of services etc.
http://www.earth.org.uk/saving-electricity.html [earth.org.uk]
Most people could make significant cuts in their own consumption at home and work with zero or mini
Dis ain't so new (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Yeah. It's pretty unstable, though. There are earthquakes, some of them severe in recent memory, such as the mag. 7.5 quake of 1959... Doesn't seem like a really great idea to site a bunch of generators in such a place.
We've got hot springs in the NE portion of Montana in areas that haven't seen serious quake or volcanic activity in tens of thousands of years. That's the kind of place you want to look for the helium isotope, because if you find it, you've got a decent chance of the plant lasting more th
Re:Or... (Score:5, Insightful)
The (unstable) Yellowstone caldera is actually one of the largest Super Volcanos in the world... and due for an eruption. Probably NOT the place I would mess with... the whole mass-extinction level eruption thing and all...
Good thought though.
The problem I have is regardless of this research, "we" already have mapped plenty of areas to provide the US and plenty more places) with geothermal power (plenty of geological surveys on the subject already... a bunch of sites even got listed in a recent US News magazine)... for some reason though, we just havent tapped them yet.... maybe something to do with the fact that our fossil fuel based economy would be destroyed... tax revenues and corporate investments and corporation financial collapse and all.
There are more than one viable fossil fuel alternative already... geothermal is only one. New solar collectors developed by a Google owned company are another (which are being built in California - to be shipped and used in Europe - but for some reason (a) not here, and (b) not available for consumers to buy here). They cost 1/10th the cost of traditional panels, are easier to maintain and install (flexible sheets - not heavy glass and metal panels) and produce the same power.
The research means nothing when there aren't companies set up to implement them for actual use - and I dont know of any company that could afford to beat out the fossil fuel companies to do so.
Re:Or... (Score:5, Informative)
I hate to sound like a slashvertisement, but I think the following US companies and groups would all disagree with you:
Evergreen Solar [evergreensolar.com] (producer based in Mass.)
Heliodyne [heliodyne.com] (producer based in California)
Google [google.com] (installing panels on its roof)
Solar Energy Industry Association [seia.org] (US trade group)
Tesla Motors [teslamotors.com]) (selling 100% electric cars in the US)
List of solar manufacturers in the US [usatoday.com]
US solar power installations increase 33% year-to-year [typepad.com]
The New York Times has a story about this issue: "Venture Capital Rushes into Alternate Energy" [nytimes.com] suggesting that $1.5 billion in VC money was invested in 2006 alone in new companies who hope to profit from overthrowing the energy status quo. If you add private equity money then there was $18.1 billion in dealflow in 2006 [redherring.com] in the alternate energy sector. Or listen to a 2004 story [sfgate.com] about the same issue.
It's nice to think that there's some great conspiracy against alternate energy, but the simple truth is that there is a lot of market action in the field and nothing stopping people from making money in it. There is a HUGE amount of money to be made from alternate energy and plenty of people are trying to make it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Or... (Score:4, Informative)
Please... feel free to take this post out of context too...
Not one of them is offering power to the masses (as a Power Company) or providing an affordable alternative off-grid power option for consumers... I think I spelled that out clearly... so... now evaluate the statement I made that you quoted out of context.
Explain to me why Google is able to produce solar panels at 1/10th the power - but isnt selling them to consumers - much less anyone in the US - even though they are made here.
Explain to me which company is big enough to implement a geothermal solution for a big portion of the power grid... the power is available (ie: plenty of geothermal in this country to power the world thousands of times over), but there is NO company that can set up the power plants or power grid to deliver it - EXCEPT for the fossil fuel based power companies already in existence.
It's not a conspiracy. Why would a fossil fuel company want to go geothermal when they already have so much invested in their infrastructure, and their profits would decrease due to lower costs? Just good business sense that they only adopt such methods as quickly as is required of them.
As for government *credits* for installing solar, etc... the cost is so prohibitive for most people, that the government can afford to look quite generous with it's incentives - because almost no one can afford it (check how many installations there really are...).
As for other incentives... did you know there was a law passed in Baltimore almost a decade ago that stated BGE had to reimburse people who were generating excess power and feeding it back into the grid? Guess how many got money or a credit? None. Why? According to BGE *AND* the state, because no law has been passed stating HOW or HOW MUCH money the people are entitled to... so... legally they are entitled to SOMETHING... but until a law is written saying how much, they will never see the money... maybe they should wait another decade for that law to be written? Or maybe *AVAILABLE* off-grid power is soo expensive (even though there are solutions like Google's that aren't) that there arent enough people to complain that they arent getting paid for generating excess power back into the grid.
And here's a little something to add to that... if everyone could either (a) generate their own power, or (b) buy it very cheaply from an electric company that used cheaper non-fossil fuel methods, how do you think that would effect the gas car market? I know *I* would own an electric car - since other than maintenance, it would cost me nothing to drive it. Many states LIVE off the tax revenues from gasoline... maybe it's just coincidence, but plenty of govt watchdogs (heck even the govt itself) have stated or speculated that is part of the reason for slow adoption of other power sources...
Now perhaps you understand what I am saying?
Re: (Score:2)
From my earlier post...
That should have read:
Explain to me why Google is able to produce solar panels at 1/10th the COST at the same POWER OUTPUT - but isnt selling them to consumers - much less anyone in the US - even though they are made here.
Sorry.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Solar is expensive and can't be built (on a large scale) just anywhere. Wind is somewhat less expensive, but also needs a special site, and unreliable to boot. Geothermal tends to be best in remote areas -- hard to build and staff the power plant, and you lose a lot of power sending it over the wires to the cities.
Not that it's impossible, but it's not quite the cakewalk/slam dunk (except for the cons
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Why would there be a tax collapse anyway? Is somebody going to suddenly start giving away power for free?
Let's say Nanosolar's claims are accurate - and as they are already making sales, I would think they would know... so... now, solar setups for a home are available at 1/10th the cost that it used to be (well, if they would sell them to consumers). All electric vehicles now are more enticing. Why? Because it costs nothing to run them (after the initial, far cheaper outlay for solar for your house). So... if solar is now affordable, and more people consider electric vehicles, gas tax revenue starts to decli
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The (unstable) Yellowstone caldera is actually one of the largest Super Volcanos in the world... and due for an eruption.
Due according to who? All I've seen is some sensationalist rubbish in the media based on the extrapolation of the three most recent eruptions, 2.1 million years ago, 1.3 million years ago, and 640,000 years ago. Hardly enough data to come up with anything more concrete than "it'll probably erupt sometime in the next quarter million years". Certainly not enough to say it's due.
Probably NOT the place I would mess with... the whole mass-extinction level eruption thing and all...
Taking geothermal energy out of ground makes an eruption less likely, if anything. Actually it probably won't make any difference i
Re: (Score:2)
Taking geothermal energy out of ground makes an eruption less likely, if anything. Actually it probably won't make any difference in terms of magma eruptions, though it could reduce the amount of geothermal activity (particularly geysers) in the area and make a steam eruption less likely.
Yes it does... but drilling through that pressure cap (rock, etc) creates a the risk of releasing that pressure in a massive blast or blasts. Besides, it's more than geothermal energy release that needs to be worried about in that area... it's a Volcano - that drives the geysers... not a geyser system that is just a geyser/spring system.
Such an issue (if you knew ANYTHING about geothermal power) is something that gets considered in EVERY deep drill geothermal setup. There is always the risk of the drill
Re: (Score:2)
Check Wiki and The US National Geological Survey pages for more info. THEY disagree with your assessment of a quarter million years... the site is recently increasingly active... moving whole mountain ranges and plateaus.
Cite please? Yellowstone has always been active - I have yet to see anything out of USGS to say that it is unusually active at the moment. Yes, the caldera has been bulging, but it can and does do that for periods of hundreds or thousands of years without an eruption resulting. See, e.g, this page [usgs.gov] which states that "we find little indication that the volcano is moving towards an eruption". Or this page [usgs.gov] which mentions that between 1976 and 1984 part of the caldera uplifted 180mm before subsiding a similar
Re: (Score:2)
You ARE correct - about the drilling part - IF this wasnt a DEEP DRILL scenario. Creating enough power to power the US via Geothermal requires DEEP DRILL setups... not near surface setups such as are used for smaller implementations (small towns, individual houses, etc).
My statement is based on assuming (by the article's reference about creating enough power for the world) that they are talking about large scale geothermal plants which drill through to the magma layer...
Re: (Score:2)
You ARE correct - about the drilling part - IF this wasnt a DEEP DRILL scenario. Creating enough power to power the US via Geothermal requires DEEP DRILL setups... not near surface setups such as are used for smaller implementations (small towns, individual houses, etc).
My statement is based on assuming (by the article's reference about creating enough power for the world) that they are talking about large scale geothermal plants which drill through to the magma layer...
They are talking about "accessible" geothermal energy - anything requiring drilling to the magma layer is not accessible (in fact we don't have the tech to drill to the magma layer). What they are talking about is finding places where water is being naturally circulated deep into the crust (where it picks up H3e) and back. Those locations are ideal for Flash and Binary Cycle geothermal plants. You are probably thinking of the EGS/Hot Dry Rock type of geothermal plant, but you don't need to look for 3He in
Re: (Score:2)
They are talking about "accessible" geothermal energy - anything requiring drilling to the magma layer is not accessible (in fact we don't have the tech to drill to the magma layer). What they are talking about is finding places where water is being naturally circulated deep into the crust (where it picks up H3e) and back. Those locations are ideal for Flash and Binary Cycle geothermal plants. You are probably thinking of the EGS/Hot Dry Rock type of geothermal plant, but you don't need to look for 3He in water for good locations for those plants - pretty much anywhere will work.
Actually, we do have the resources to do deep drilling to the magma layer...
The heat from the earth's own molten core can be converted into electricity. This core consists primarily of extremely high temperature liquid rock known as magma. This "geothermal" heat circulates within the rock or is transferred to underground reservoirs of water, which also circulate under the earth's crust. Because of the near limitless ability of the earth to produce magma, and the continuous transfer of heat between subsurface rock and water, geothermal energy is considered a renewable resource.
Geothermal resources have been harnessed as an energy source since the dawn of civilization, when natural hot springs were first used for cooking and bathing. The geothermal resources tapped to generate electricity are far more intense than those used for space heating and can reside as deep as 10,000 feet below the earth's surface. Capital costs for the construction of geothermal power plants are much higher than for large coal-fired plants or new natural gas turbine technologies. But geothermal plants have reasonable operation and maintenance costs and no fuel costs. Though more expensive than wind power in most cases, new geothermal electricity generation facilities are increasingly competitive with fossil options.
Check out the US DOE's site and other Geothermal sites for more info (the DOE site lists to a bunch worldwide - and of course there is Google). For the type of power generation (ie: amount of power) the article is discussing, there is no other known way to generate that level of power without deep drilling to the magma layer. But it is because countries have done it, and because such sites in their technical section in discuss
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, it is NanoSolar... but according to their very own release, the Cali plant is near completion and the Cali plant will be selling the panels in Europe... and worse - not to consumers.
I wish it werent so... I'd love to have one of their setups myself.
Hopefully they will change their plans in the near future. Then... I could see there being affordable and viable options in this country.
Re: (Score:2)
Second, if you care about the net carbon footprint of the human population then it shouldn't matter whether the first sales are to commercial users or to home users. If anything, large commercial installations will be better able to work out the inevitable kinks in a Version 1.0 project, a
Re: (Score:2)
THAT would be an ideal method of decreasing our dependence on fossil fuels without damaging the existing financial "infrastructures."
I'd love to see such a solution implemented...
Yellowstone (Score:2)
Isn't Yellowstone park just one great big fuck off source of hot water?
Yellowstone [solcomhouse.com] is a supervolcano [wikipedia.org]. Forget about human emissions of greenhouse gases, GHGs, if Yellowstone were ever to erupt in a short tyme it would emit more GHGs than all the GHGs man has emitted since coming out of the trees.
Falcon
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
We could just pray to find the geothermal sources.
*it is at this point in your post, both religious and nonreligious moderators get ready with their -1 Flamebait moderation but are still timid.
Where could he be going with this: personal experiences? A joking suggestion? or are you attempting to alienate ~90% of the world population.
Except that doesn't work.
*I see you've chosen the alienation route... it's not too late, you can still recover. I suggest making a joke here.
...and before you mod that down as flamebait (I know you will), ask yourself: Do YOU think it would work?
*ooh, the "don't mark me flaimbait" tactic, the serious route will be a tough one at this point.
at least y
Comment removed (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Additionally ggpp lacked any form of humor that I could detect.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You hadda go and spoil it, didn't you? I almost had a chunk of plaque detached and on the way to blocking a cranial artery, and you had to calm the AC down. Do you think these posts just create themselves? Man, they're work!
Mr/Miss/Ms/Mrs(.) AC, just ignore the parent. You should be pissed. Why, an offtopic post of slashdot? On religion, the ultimate "pretend it isn't there" boogyman? You should be incensed, man! Crazed! C'mon, lets see some real indignation. Let fly. Remember, spittle means never havin
Re: (Score:2)
Wow. Focused mental activity produces more mental activity than unfocused mental activity. Eur-fucking-reka.
You're a genius. Next up, Google links to research into if really pissing someone off makes them more angry than just annoying them a little. Youtube film at 11.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You know, I did forget to link it, and I was even thinking of the cartoon (and the t-shirt) when I said that. I love that guy's work; best cartoons on the net, bar none, IMHO. In contrition, one of my favorites here [xkcd.com].
Re:"ohnoitsroland" -- Why? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Articles from Roland used to go straight to his blog, which was usually a slightly summarised version of the article. As people can see however, these days you get a link direct to the article and you only go to his blog if you click on his name... which is reasonable enough.
The tag ought to be dropped, but if not, it's meaning will inevitably become less serious and more of an ironic "Oh no!"