Alaska Looks To Volcanos For Geothermal Energy 230
Iddo Genuth writes "Alaskan state officials have recently announced their intention to begin funding the exploration and surveying of Alaska's largest volcanoes in hopes of utilizing these as a
source of geothermal energy. They say this volcano could provide enough energy to power thousands of households, and according to some estimates, Alaska's volcanoes and hot springs could supply up to 25% of the state's energy needs."
Heat + Air = Hot Air? (Score:5, Informative)
Going a bit astray, has anyone seen the episode of Science Channel's "Eco-Tech" featuring the rooftop windmills [youtube.com] designed by Aerotecture [aerotecture.com]? Pretty cool.
Re:Heat + Air = Hot Air? (Score:5, Insightful)
if we did tap geothermal resources nationwide to get up to supplying 25% of our electrical needs within a few decades
I'm of the opinion that the human race will eventually get close to 90% of its energy needs from geothermal sources. Wind and solar probably can't deliver the wattage. What people don't realize and what they don't want to believe, is that the world is not filled up with oil in the middle. Instead, its filled with molten rock, and beyond that, molten metals. And there is a lot of it in there. All you need to do is invest in shunting sea water a few miles into the earth and harvesting the energy as it boils out. Other than the initial investment, it wouldn't take coal or oil--both of which WILL run out.
Don't need no stinking volcano... (Score:5, Interesting)
The problem for the last 11yrs in this country has been purely political as we stood stubbornly by the US. Because of this misdirected loyalty our power generation remains 90+% derived from coal and we have seen many innovations payed for by taxpayers sold off to private companies in the EU and elsewhere.
Now that our breadbasket (the Murry-Darling basin) is regularly producing half of what it did just a couple of decades ago people are starting to pay attention.
Re:Don't need no stinking volcano... (Score:4, Interesting)
"The problem for the last 11yrs in this country has been purely political as we stood stubbornly by the US. Because of this misdirected loyalty our power generation remains 90+% derived from coal and we have seen many innovations payed for by taxpayers sold off to private companies in the EU and elsewhere. "
Wow and just how is the US to blame for this?
The US told you to not build solar, or wind? Or even nuclear reactors?
Or did you keep to coal because it was cheap and you have a crap load of it. Not to mention that Australia makes a bunch of money selling it to China?
Please take some responsibility for your own actions. Lots of other countries are allies of the US like Germany and Japan and they both have invested heavily in to none carbon based power systems.
Just silly this whole "Devil made me do it" mentality take some responsibility.
Water vapor is a greenhouse gas (Score:2, Informative)
Scary, isn't it? Unless we carefully condense the steam even geothermal energy doesn't solve global warming. And at present, we don't.
me <- geothermal fan
But we have to be aware of the consequences of everything. We can breed our way out of the benefits of geothermal energy in under a century even if we condense the steam.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps we could whack a turbine on it, condense most of the steam and convert some of that energy into electricity. We would have to beware of the consequences of geo-solidification freezing molten magma under the crust and reducing the gravity of the earth.
Reducing the earth's spin would be bad, people would get taller though, so it can't all be that bad.
Re: (Score:2)
> geo-solidification freezing molten magma under the crust and reducing the ***gravity*** of the earth.
???
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
winks and flicks to next excuse card.
Re: (Score:2)
Wouldn't spinning down the earth make us all feel heavier?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
actually I would use two or even three turbines. Geothermal generally use a closed loop water system.
two turbines on for high pressure steam, one for low pressure steam. A third turbine like those built in damns for water. The water heading back down to the geothermal source by gravity could generate additional power.
Re:Water vapor is a greenhouse gas (Score:4, Informative)
Sorry but you have been misinformed (probably by those who are not geothermal fans). There is no need to condense the steam, yes it's true that H20 is a powerfull GHG but that is only part of the strory. The atmosphere is already more or less saturated with H20 (eg: dew drops form in desrerts every night and evaporate in the heat of the day), adding more H20 won't affect the temprature because it simply falls out somewhere else as rain/dew.
In other words the total amount H20 in the atmosphere stays relatively constant regardless of how much steam we pump into it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I can't res
Re:Heat + Air = Hot Air? (Score:4, Interesting)
Geothermal power is nice, but does have its limits. There are reports suggesting that heavy use of geothermal power can increase the frequency of mini earth tremors, which is probably not good. Also, you are not generally tapping the earth's core (which has plenty of heat) but some local magma reservoir (which has rather less) or a channel through which magma flows (which is not much of a reservoir at all, and could in principle be blocked, which may explain said earlier reports).
In the long term, fusion power is the best solution, but the technology necessary to achieve fusion is taking a painfully long time. I still favour rounding up the fusion scientists, locking them in a building in Alaska with as much money as they can possibly need, and slowly turning down the heat until they quit with the politicking and bitching about whose method is "better" and get something that works.
In the short term, fusion isn't going to happen nearly fast enough to handle the present or any future oil crisis. Geothermal power can. As others have mentioned, other countries use it extensively, such as Iceland and New Zealand. Alaska could probably benefit from it, and the Pacific Northwest is riddled with volcanoes and magma reservoirs. The Pacific Northwest is also a major energy user, making it an ideal place to have major generators.
Re:Heat + Air = Hot Air? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Basically we need another Manhattan project, but where does the motivation come from? We are not in World War II in search of the ultimate weapon, and IMO we are not yet close to a tipping point regarding global warming to make the project palatable to the public (however mistaken and short-sighted that may be).
According to http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=245508 [physicsforums.com] the Manhattan project cost $1 billion in 1945, something like $20 billion today. I also recall that the Hoover dam diverted a huge p
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Heat + Air = Hot Air? (Score:5, Informative)
"solar probably can't deliver the wattage".
Yeah, right, it's not like the sun would deliver 168 PW to the Earth at any given time, while mankind "only" uses 500EJ a year.
500EJ/168 PW ~= 50 minutes worth of solar radiation would be enough to power whole mankind for a year.
Geothermal sources can really be interesting, but you need to find good ones, and still dig a few kilometers if you want to get high-quality heat and produce electricity. You don't need to dig an inch to collect solar radiation.
Re: (Score:2)
about 70 kPa (atmospheric pressure) times 120 km/h (wind speed) times 500 km radius... That's the power coming out of an pretty typical hurricane. I'd imagine 'eating' one hurricane with wind power wound do a pretty good job of powering a lot of homes.
On wind and solar (Score:3, Informative)
" Wind and solar probably can't deliver the wattage"
More important than that, what power they can and always will supply will be inconsistent. Wind isn't constant, and everyone has cloudy days. A day with no wind means no power if you're relying on windmills. And during storms, you can overload the grid. Recently in Oregon, a wind farm nearly blew the local power grid when storms pushed wind speeds so high that the windmills suddenly pushed more power into the system than it could handle. Wind and solar wil
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
solar probably can't deliver the wattage.
Have you even seen an outdoor concert with a massive lighting array that can't compete with the sun?
There is definitely plenty of power to be gotten from solar. The problem has been that solar panels are 15-18% efficient, and those that do not follow the sun lose 1/3 to oblique sun angles.
However solar thermal generators that follow the sun with parabolic mirrors can produce upwards of 60% efficiency, which means the power requirements of the typical power-frugal home can be provided by a rooftop generator
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Wind and solar probably can't deliver the wattage.
searching Wikipedia renders that incorrect:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_energy#Energy_from_the_Sun [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Available_Energy-3.png [wikipedia.org]
A "tiny" portion of the Sahara desert could power the earth
completely in all forms in use at present, transport and otherwise.
The SEGs system at 1.5 square miles is 350 MegaWatts.
The Sahara is 3.5 million square miles.
Total average power usage worldwide is 15 Terawatts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wo [wikipedia.org]
Re:Heat + Air = Hot Air? (Score:5, Insightful)
The key is that when we run low on heat from the Earth's core in the distant future
When the earth's core (the molten metal part that causes the magnetic field that deflects the solar ion radiation) finally goes solid from our geothermal harvesting, we will have mutated to a form we probably couldn't recognize as being evolved from ourselves--and we certainly wouldn't give a damn about the little alien looking marmots either.
Re:Heat + Air = Hot Air? (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah, once core starts to cool, we can just nuke it to warm it back up. Finally, a good use for our nuclear arsenal!
And to access these geothermal reserves, they would still have to drill down to gain access to them, and if they just "happen" to hit oil, so much the better.
Re:Heat + Air = Hot Air? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Heat + Air = Hot Air? (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh come on, someone modded this *informative*?
Calling geothermal energy a "temporary fix" is about as useful as calling solar energy a temporary fix. Really, I don't think it's too shortsighted to consider an energy source that could provide power for millions (geothermal) vs billions (solar) of years as more than "temporary". Especially considering how we will have used up the relatively scarce (geologically speaking) oil resource we are looking to replace in the scale of hundreds of years. Hell, I'd be happy to see people think 50 years in advance, imagine what we could do with nuclear power if we'd invest for results with a payoff that far away...
Re:Heat + Air = Hot Air? (Score:5, Insightful)
I was going to mod him down but there wasn't a suitable category - say like 'Missing The Facts'.
First off, like how much heat energy is actually present beneath the mantle? A. Big number.
Secondly, how long it will take for the magma / iron + whatever core to cool to a point where the magnetic field decreases enough? A. Another big number.
It scares me that people with so little perception of physical reality make comments as if they understand.
Just a point for you too re nuclear power. It may outlast us but Uranium reserves are not infinite either.
Now if we could only get Fusion happening...
All in all geothermal is a great idea - as mentioned in Iceland, and I think the Kiwis (New Zealand) harvest a bit for sparks and even the UK for hot water if I am not mistaken.
No not available everywhere but whatever helps...
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Heat + Air = Hot Air? (Score:5, Informative)
yes, it is definitely possible to 'deplete' a geothermal resource, but it will recover given enough time ( lots of time ). For example the Wairakei geothermal field here in New Zealand has depleted somewhat because they oversized the geothermal plant when it was built and it has been running for 60 years! ( but we forgive them, it was built in 1958, and it is the second oldest geothermal power plant in the world ). The wikipedia article on geothermal power describes depletion in more detail
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_power [wikipedia.org]
Re:Heat + Air = Hot Air? (Score:4, Informative)
First and foremost I am against nuclear power, but...
To be fair to it, uranium is not the only fuel.
Thorium breeder reactors will work as well.
Thorium is much more common, about as common as lead.
And in a breeder setup it "makes" uranium.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium#Thorium_as_a_nuclear_fuel [wikipedia.org]
That being said, man's history with reactor safety is poor.
Wind, Solar, Geothermal, Tidal, Bio fuels, and Ocean Current
Capture is more than enough power by far.
The Antarctic current alone is 135 times the flow of all
the rivers on Earth Combined and the Aquanator style device
works well at capturing it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctic_Circumpolar_Current [wikipedia.org]
Needless to say there are many other underwater currents
with a great deal of power, and some can be harnessed
to some degree without a negative impact.
So let's play SeaLab and make a modern Atlantis and end
this oil mess before it turns the oceans in a hydrogen
sulfide soup.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/11/031104063957.htm [sciencedaily.com]
So in a range of choices, anything but oil.
The oceans are a giant CO2 sink, so as much as we measure
in the air it is worse in the oceans.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because it shows a complete lack of understanding of the time-scales involved in the Earth's (and Sun's) processes. Do you honestly think that mankind (or anything even remotely resembling mankind) will be around in several billion years? Keep in mind that the history of advanced life on Earth is *only* several hundred millions of years.
Re:Heat + Air = Hot Air? (Score:5, Interesting)
That's cute. Ummm, what on Earth (no pun intended) are you talking about and how did you get modded informative?
We will probably never get *any* energy from the Earth's core at all. The crust of the Earth alone is 3-5 miles thick under the oceans and 15-35 miles thick on the continents.
Now, the Earth's core is thought to have at least half to ninety percent of it's energy generated from nuclear decay. That means we CANT draw all that energy off at once, even if we could draw it all in the first place. We would be rationed. There is also tidal forces to consider as well. The orbit around the Sun and the Moon for example can generate large amounts of energy in the Earth's core too.
Drilling even 20,000 feet is an ACCOMPLISHMENT. To my knowledge, and I have been on drilling rigs and know people in drilling companies, we have never broken 50,000 feet commercially. So ANYTHING we do is going to be in the CRUST, and not the mantle and certainly not the core. To get to the mantle of the earth on a continent we would have to drill in excess of 75,000 feet. I am pretty sure that at that depth concrete won't do it to create a stable pipeline and you will need some pretty neat material to withstand those stresses and keep a hole open.
Furthermore, the Sun provides an incredible amount of energy. Off the top of my head I think it is near 400 watts per square meter or approximately 1.8*10^17 WATTS total at any given time. That's a lot. 90%+ of the energy present in the crust of the Earth comes from the Sun. The core is providing a negligible amount of that power and most is probably received through direct volcanic activity and not emissions. Don't quote me on that, it's just a guess.
Considering that, in 2005 we required nearly 500 quadrillion BTUs of energy for the whole planet. Nearly 700 quadrillion is projected to be required in 2030. So let's just top that off at a nice quintillion BTUs. After multiplying that by .293 to convert to WATTS we get 293 quadrillion WATTS of energy. That is also PER YEAR. How much of that can be provided by the energy received from the Sun in the crust? 100%.
So basically the Sun can give us all the energy we will need for one year in one day and probably be done before breakfast is over.
We would have to use ALL the energy from the crust of the Earth FASTER than the SUN can replenish it BEFORE we could even begin to siphon off energy from the core.
So yes, you are correct that the energy at the Earth's core is not unlimited, nor is energy unlimited in the Sun or from any orbit. However, for a VERY LONG TIME we would only be able to suck a small droplet of blood of what is sure to be a gargantuan beast of energy. To say we could ever consume enough energy to surpass the energy provided by the Sun at any one moment is just fantastic, awesome, and up there with the Tooth Fairy.
You may also want to consider that the 293 quadrillion BTU requirement represents an INCREDIBLE amount of waste and inefficiency with our processes. I bet that by the time we get to 2075 (if we are not dead already) it will be because we figured out how to survive on far less than that.
Re: (Score:2)
At a conservative estimate, my scientist friend Karl, told me it's around 1Kw per square metre.
MOD PARENT UP!!
Re:Heat + Air = Hot Air? (Score:4, Informative)
The so called 'solar constant' is actually 1.367 (that should be enough decimals) KW / square meter.
The actual power produced depends on the angle of incidence (lattitude) and the local weather (cloud cover).
The current crop of commercially available solar cells hovers around 16% efficiency when new, the best lab models do 40%+ ( http://www.doe.gov/news/4503.htm [doe.gov] ).
Then of course there's concentration and all kinds of tricks to capture that power in a different form than electricity, and here the efficiencies can be considerably higher still. Electricity is the 'steak' of the power industry, but there are plenty of uses for 'burger' (heat).
Re: (Score:2)
Considering that, in 2005 we required nearly 500 quadrillion BTUs of energy for the whole planet. Nearly 700 quadrillion is projected to be required in 2030. So let's just top that off at a nice quintillion BTUs. After multiplying that by .293 to convert to WATTS we get 293 quadrillion WATTS of energy.
Watt is a unit of measurement for power, not energy.
Re:Heat + Air = Hot Air? (Score:5, Insightful)
I mentioned NOTHING about solar power at all. I am simply talking about the amount of energy that the Earth is exposed to at any one moment REGARDLESS OF EFFICIENCIES OR METHODS/PROCESSES OF HARNESSING SAID ENERGY.
That energy has to go SOMEWHERE. The air, the oceans, or the crust. Try reading my post before making derisive comments.
"So basically the Sun can give us all the energy we will need for one year in one day and probably be done before breakfast is over."
If we were taking the incredible amounts of energy from the crust that the poster suggested, I simply pointed out that the Sun would put that much energy back in a very small fraction of the time it took to "pump" it out of the crust.
I never mentioned any specific technologies that were applied to convert the heat energy of the crust to electricity, nor did I mention anything about solar technologies being a suitable replacement for geothermal.
I ONLY POINTED OUT THAT WE COULD NEVER USE ALL THE ENERGY IN THE CORE DUE TO 1) WE CANT REACH IT AND 2) WE COULD NOT USE IT ALL QUICK ENOUGH.
P.S - Try reading some news on occasion. Solar cell efficiency surpassed 15% a LONG FARKING TIME AGO. It is not in production, but we have achieved it. I am open to using any technology, but I am honestly fed up with all the poor references that people use when it comes to environmental technologies. It's not a contest, and I don't give a crap WHICH technology we use. Just as long as we start using something renewable that does not kill us all in 50 years.
Re: (Score:2)
So... If we have 15% efficient conversion it takes 8 days instead of one day?
Re:Heat + Air = Hot Air? (Score:4, Informative)
True in theory, nonsense in practice. It's ok to think long-term. But it is silly to concern oneself with problems whose first possible date of appearance is many millenia into the future. There are just so many unknowns in such speculation that it is meaningless.
Geothermal is of that magnitude -- you'd have to tap a thousand times our current energy-use for millenia to even have a measurable impact.
Re: (Score:2)
Volcano technology is too expensive and will take too long to implement, so we shouldn't bother with it. France has proved that nuclear technology is the only quick way to get cheap power right now, and no one really gives a crap about what might happen 500-30000 years from now. Three Mile Island and Chernobyl really weren't that bad, and maybe pretty good. We should use the volcanos to dump nuclear waste, but that's it. Alaska needs 5-10 breeder reactors and the energy problems there are solved. If we could just put a little effort into nuclear tech instead of wasting time with bullshit faggy environmentally clean energy, maybe we could all have little breeder reactors in our homes.
gotta love sarcasm
Re: (Score:2)
maybe the newklear sockpuppets are moderating today.
Re: (Score:2)
France has proved that nuclear technology is the only quick way to get cheap power right now,
I thought you weirdo conservapedia types hated france...
Re: (Score:2)
I forget the exact formula, but its something like the product of the masses divided by the distance squared times some constant, iirc.
Re: (Score:2)
I would be a bit surprised if Alaska can make much of geothermal energy. The reason that I feel this way is that cities can benefit but smaller towns can not stand the expense of geothermal power. I could be wrong but I thought Alaska was a bit shy on cities and rather big on small towns and rural life. Also are the cities that they do have close to good geothermal sources?
Re:Heat + Air = Hot Air? (Score:5, Interesting)
Even if you succeeded in running Anchorage off geothermal, what the hell are you going to do for the rest of the state? At best, this is a ploy to get more resources into the Mat-Su valley [wikipedia.org] which isn't all that bad, but I don't see this as a big starter for most of the state or, more generally, for down South (ie, everywhere else). Powerlines to Seattle would cost an awful lot of money.
Re: (Score:2)
can't be too hard to run a power line over some moose. The deep water and big mountains are more of a problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, you could run the lines alongside one of the major roads, the pipeline or the Railroad.
All were specifically designed to avoid areas of permafrost, and don't seem to have moose problems.
Heck. You could kill two birds with one stone, and electrify the railroad while you're at it.
Re:Heat + Air = Hot Air? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Uhmm, you do realize that Iceland is a teenie, tiny little dot of an island
Er ... an island that is considerably larger than Ireland, or Pennsylvania, or Hungary, or more than twice as large as New York state, is a "teenie, tiny little dot"? I think you need to recalibrate your sense of perspective. I mean, sure the Atlantic is big, but there's quite a lot of grades between "fucking humongous" and "teenie tiny".
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Step away from Google Maps. Instead, do a search on "Mercator" to see why you are an idiot. If that is too much to ask: New York = 54,555 sq mi Pennsylvania = 46,055 sq mi Iceland = 39,770 sq mi Hungary = 35,919 sq mi Ireland = 32,591 sq mi (All data from Wikipedia)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
While very neat, if we did tap geothermal resources nationwide to get up to supplying 25% of our electrical needs within a few decades, we'd still be behind Iceland. According to Wikipedia [wikipedia.org], Iceland generates 26.5 of its electricity from geothermal power. Strange to think that a place called Iceland has so much available heat for power generation. Going a bit astray, has anyone seen the episode of Science Channel's "Eco-Tech" featuring the rooftop windmills [youtube.com] designed by Aerotecture [aerotecture.com]? Pretty cool.
26% of Iceland's electrical needs is a tiny number compared to 25% of America's needs. Saying we would still be behind Iceland seems inappropriate if you take into consideration the modest 300k population of Iceland probably consumes less electricity than Baton Rouge, LA.
Re:Heat + Air = Hot Air? (Score:5, Informative)
Legend has it that the name of Iceland is an ancient Viking fraud. Erik the Red sailed out into the ocean beyond Scotland, and discovered two new countries there: one rich and green and worth settling, and one frozen and barren and utterly worthless. He named one Iceland, and the other Greenland; when he got home, all the other Vikings rushed off to claim lands in Greenland, and Erik got to keep Iceland for himself.
Re:Heat + Air = Hot Air? (Score:5, Informative)
Iceland had already been settled by Erik's time - he didn't discover it. He was exiled from Iceland because of some killings with which he was closely associated, and he sailed away to the northwest, where the existence of land was rumoured but unconfirmed. It's true that he gave it the name of 'Greenland' for marketing purposes, hoping to encourage settlement there, but during the Mediaeval Warm Period Greenland wasn't quite as inhospitable as it is today, so we cannot fairly accuse Erik the Red of fraud. Only murder. But he was a Viking, so that's to be expected.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Iceland generates 26.5 of its electricity from geothermal power.
And of course 73.4% is from hydro power, and only 0.1% from fossil fuels. (probably generators at very remote locations?)
So the only fuel they import is to power vehicles!
Now if only they could find a way to export electricity, they would be loaded beyond belief.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Greenland used to be green, and Iceland used to be covered in Ice, but then the automobile and the carbon credit were invented, and the environment (which had never changed previously) suddenly reversed itself, and now their names are but mocking jokes to man's care taking of the planet.
Re: (Score:2)
The US is already "ahead" of Iceland in terms of raw power produced by Geothermal - about 15 billion kilowatt hours per year, compared to Iceland's roughly 4 billion.
Don't forget that Iceland has 1/1000th the population of the US, and is small/compact enough to make things like district heating practical and efficient. 1% of a billion is more than 100% of a million.
=Smidge=
It's actually heat plus COLD air. (Score:4, Interesting)
Same applies to Iceland, of course.
How funny (Score:2)
Yellowstone (Score:4, Insightful)
Speaking of the lower 48's volcanoes. What about Yellowstone? A super-volcano close enough to the surface that the pressure is bending the crust up. Now there is a prime target for investment. Perhaps we can even vent off enough pressure to reduce the risk of another one of those major blasts that it's known for geologically.
Yellowstone is funny (Score:3, Informative)
Yeah, I have wondered the same thing. It seems that if you lower the temps, it might make it better. Of course, it could make it worse. But hey, do research during the time that we are taking the heat.
Re:Yellowstone is funny (Score:4, Interesting)
After your initial water investment, you wouldn't really need a significant amount of additional water at all if it was a closed system. I believe that's the general principal in most Geothermal usage wells.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Proton Exchange Membranes (Score:2)
The problem is the reliance on PEMs, which are expensive and not long-lived. Of course, thermocouples are also relatively expensive when compared to conventional engines, but at least they last.
I'll admit, this is a great idea if they can get the materials issues for the PEMs worked out (and that's a big if). It would be nice to have a heat pump/engine with no moving parts, but the same efficiency as conventional technology.
Re: (Score:2)
If johnson really is 60%, they have the nod. But of course, the PEM is the issue.
Re:Proton Exchange Membranes (Score:4, Interesting)
In a heat engine, there is a maximum theoretical efficiency which may be achieved. This is dependent on the difference in absolute temperatures between the hot and cold reservoirs. For example, if your hot reservoir is 1000K, and your cold is 300K, the maximum theoretical efficiency is 1-300/1000 = 70%. In the coal plant you were referring to, the actual efficiency is likely very near the theoretical efficiency (mechanical engineers have done a good job at achieving high efficiencies with mechanical systems). It is impossible to improve upon that without violating the laws of thermodynamics.
Of course, no moving parts means that you may be able to operate at much higher temperatures (you'd need a ceramic PEM to sustain the higher temperatures).
Re: (Score:2)
"you could pipe water down an enclosed pipe."
Better. You could pump sea water down and get back water vapor (and saltier water you could pump back to the sea).
But that would mean a whole lot of piping involved.
Any volcanoes near California?
Re: (Score:2)
And that's cheap energy that comes with the added benefit that if you drain enough energy out of Yellowstone, you may even prevent it from doing its every-n-million-year super-eruptions that trigger those super-extinctions.
Sadly, if you drained enough energy to do that you would end up with an environmental problem all by itself unless you find a clever way to radiate all that extra heat to space.
Volunteers? (Score:4, Funny)
So, how many virgins per minute does it require to keep going?
Re:Volunteers? (Score:5, Funny)
So, how many virgins per minute does it require to keep going?
This is Slashdot. Your question is making people...uncomfortable.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, we haven't figured out how many virgins go into a Library of Congress.
Re: (Score:2)
Soylent fuel is Slashdot!
Re: (Score:2)
So, how many virgins per minute does it require to keep going?
That would depend on the exchange rate for Orange Crush.
Geyserville, CA (Score:5, Interesting)
i was surprised to read that The Geysers, just north of San Francisco, claims to be "the largest complex of geothermal power plants in the world" [geysers.com]. i guess "largest" is open to interpretation. But here's another startling claim: "The Geysers satisfies nearly 60 percent of the average electricity demand in the North Coast region from the Golden Gate Bridge to the Oregon border".
who knew ?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Lucky old geyser!
Iceland vs Greenland (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Iceland vs Greenland (Score:5, Funny)
not sure i would say "quite" green and verdant. "occasionally", sure. joke i learned from some icelanders: "What should you do if you get lost in an Icelandic forest? ... Stand up."
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
i think you slashdotted it.
Re: (Score:2)
Not a problem, really (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
However, they also have the benefit of wide-open plains that, for the most part, won't be adversely affected by more modern solar methods.
I'm no scientist, but won't the extreme angle of the sun during the summer and the lack of sun during winter adversely impact their solar production?
Each state should fend for itself! (Score:2, Offtopic)
That's my plan. We currently have too much goverment 'wealth distribution' Each state should use its own resources. If a state has a surplus, let it sell it. If there's not enough resources to support the population the population needs to spread to more appropriate places. I hear Montana is nice this time of year. States like California have a disproportunate (sp) amount of the countries resources. All border states are moving in this direction due to illegal immigration. (BTW, I believe we have the r
about time (Score:2)
So, I read the article, and I thought about commenting on little nuances and details, or about crafting some kind of painfully witty reply that would goad mods into giving me karma points, but I read the article and the most eloquent response I can come up with is "it's about fucking time".
Works in Hawaii... (Score:4, Interesting)
The "Big Island" of Hawaii has a geothermal plant rated at something like 25-35 megawatts, which is a meaningful fraction (though not 25%, maybe more like 10%) of demand. More geothermal could be exploited, but there are issues of land ownership (lots of the volcanic stuff is federal land) as well as cultural, religious and environmental sensitivity.
Many many holes to be drilled (Score:2, Troll)
heheheh (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, SOME wind generators have killed birds (esp one in CA). But over all have not. More important, these are MUCH better on birds than the pollution being put out by coal plants.
The same issue with the mercury in CFL. The CFL has a small amount of Mercury, but FAR FAR less than what is put out by a CLEAN coal plant using a regular bulb.
The geo-thermal requires anywhere from 1 to a 100 holes. But there are plenty of dried wells in places like Colorado that make a great low-temp place (esp, since many wells were already drilled close). Secondly, oil pulls up the exact same sediments. In fact worse, because most are drilling FAR deeper these days. But by using a closed system, esp. with binaries, the pollution on the land and in the air is gone. So that leaves just that below. And since the way of the hole is piping, you really do not interfere with the local water table (barring a shallow heat reservoir). As to the multiple holes, that is also a none issue. Slant drilling works wonders. A single pad with 5 holes will do the trick. Even the EPA says it is one of the cleanest form of energy.
Great News (Score:5, Funny)
i've been to the one of the biggest in the world (Score:3, Interesting)
tongonan geothermal field, in leyte, in the philippines (not my page) [wordpress.com]. i have a friend of a relative who works there as a nurse so i was able to tag along as a civilian, which isn't easy because of the heavy security there
its basically just these huge turbines sitting over a bunch of steam gushing from the earth. its a pretty surreal place because its raining all the time (all that steam). its deep in the jungle and it is a major powerplant for the philippines, so it has all these checkpoints and guys with submachine guns (npa rebels are around). and the geothermal activity means all of the streams you pass are a brilliant cobal blue from mineral run off. it feels like the headquarters for a james bond villain, very doctor no
anyway, about those mineral laden streams stirred up from geothermal exploitation: cadmium, manganese, chromium... not too environmentally friendly, no? you have some of the same environmental issues as you would with any mining via chemical leaching in terms of poisoning the environment
in other words, pick an energy source, any energy source, and it has an environmental downside: wind kills birds, tidal energy increases silting, biofuels inflate food prices for the poor, solar panel fabrication pollutes, etc. such that, when you see all of the upsides and downsides, you realize the choice of energy source is not between evil and polluting and clean and carefree, but choosing between different levels of environmental unfriendliness
given that realization, the best energy source in the world is obviously nuclear (with breeder reactors, to make the byproducts far less worrisome)
What? (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
No, he wants all of Alaska to drill his girlfriend. That's like, what... two guys, a canadian, a bear and a moose?
The odds are good, but the goods are odd. (Score:3, Funny)
I know a single woman who works in Alaska. As she puts it "the odds are good, but the goods are odd".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"... she's so hot she could power all of Canada indefinitely!"
Brilliant idea!
Fat-chick-o-thermal power could be tapped (heh, tapped) by running stainless steel boiler tubes through her folds, and the waste heat could pyrolize her liposuction residue!
Re: (Score:2)
Of course it's going away! On the bright side, it'll make the planet plenty warm in the process.
Between the light from the sun, the air/water currents and the heat in this planet, there's a ton of energy just going to waste. We have all of these 'clean' energy sources, and you want to pick one?
Re: (Score:2)
The full joke is
"The fuel use for the locomotive is composed of mummies three thousand years old, purchased by the ton or by the graveyard for that purpose, and . . . sometimes one hears the profane engineer call out pettishly, 'D--n these plebeians, they don't burn worth a cent--pass out a King!'"
LOL (Score:3, Interesting)
And you think that a simple 10BBL is worth a great deal more to Alaska than usi
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)