How Old Coal Mines Are Now Producing Clean Geothermal Energy (bbc.com) 66
Kenneth Stephen (Slashdot reader #1,950) writes:
As the world rolls back on using coal to extract energy, it leaves behind empty coal mines. The BBC reports that the UK is actively using these coal mines as a source of geothermal energy.
The BBC visits a wine warehouse in the northeast England town Gateshead, where old coal mines "could still have a role to play in heating homes — but this time, without burning fossil fuels." A new district heating system in Gateshead is poised to begin warming homes and buildings in the area at a cost 5% below market rate, using the clean heat from its mines 150m (490ft) below the ground.
The water in the mines is naturally heated in the surrounding rocks to 20 degrees C (68 degrees Fahrenheit), according to the video report — so a heat exchanger on the surface just repurposes the extracted heat for energy consumers. It's a technique that's also being adopted in the Netherlands. But it's especially applicable in the U.K., where a quarter of homes are above old coal fields (as are 9 of its 10 major urban centers).
The report points out that coal is the world's largest source of CO2 emissions, but now coal production in the UK has fallen by 94% in the last 10 years. "So what happens when the coal mines that used to power our cities are no longer used?"
The BBC visits a wine warehouse in the northeast England town Gateshead, where old coal mines "could still have a role to play in heating homes — but this time, without burning fossil fuels." A new district heating system in Gateshead is poised to begin warming homes and buildings in the area at a cost 5% below market rate, using the clean heat from its mines 150m (490ft) below the ground.
The water in the mines is naturally heated in the surrounding rocks to 20 degrees C (68 degrees Fahrenheit), according to the video report — so a heat exchanger on the surface just repurposes the extracted heat for energy consumers. It's a technique that's also being adopted in the Netherlands. But it's especially applicable in the U.K., where a quarter of homes are above old coal fields (as are 9 of its 10 major urban centers).
The report points out that coal is the world's largest source of CO2 emissions, but now coal production in the UK has fallen by 94% in the last 10 years. "So what happens when the coal mines that used to power our cities are no longer used?"
For small enough values of "world" sure (Score:5, Interesting)
"As the world rolls back the use of coal..."
The only ones rolling back the use of coal are the US and EU, and the US is mainly because we have natural gas that's an easy switch.
The rest of the world? Not so much.
The IEA said we hit an historical record in coal use in 2022. China alone permitted 2 new coal plants PER WEEK last year.
Even here in the developed world, whether solar and wind are self sufficient or profitable tends to end up in an argument over minutia of subsidies and historical government support of the fossil fuel industries.
That we are even having that argument is only because we are fabulously wealthy and can dabble in such solutions. The rest of the world isn't rich enough to indulge in such experiments, and just needs power.
Re: For small enough values of "world" sure (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The only ones rolling back the use of coal are the US and EU
Indonesia and Bangladesh recently announced that they will build no new coal power plants.
Re:For small enough values of "world" sure (Score:5, Informative)
China alone permitted 2 new coal plants PER WEEK last year.
China's coal consumption hasn't risen in over a decade. Nearly 100% of China's coal plants have been replacement projects for shutting down older ones. If you want to be honest then say that China isn't shutting down enough coal mines when they are getting the chance, but otherwise your comment is woefully dishonest.
Re:For small enough values of "world" sure (Score:5, Informative)
China alone permitted 2 new coal plants PER WEEK last year.
China's coal consumption hasn't risen in over a decade. Nearly 100% of China's coal plants have been replacement projects for shutting down older ones. If you want to be honest then say that China isn't shutting down enough coal mines when they are getting the chance, but otherwise your comment is woefully dishonest.
True, what is expanding in China is renewables, hydro and they are looking at geothermal. The two plants a week statistic sounds like it is lifted directly from this article: https://energyandcleanair.org/... [energyandcleanair.org] which is literally the first hit you get when you search for 'china coal plants' on Google. That article goes on to say:
In the long run China is going to try to reduce its reliance of foreign energy imports as much as possible. Not because they are a bunch of pot smoking, bleeding heart, hippie tree-huggers but simply because coal for one is expensive and because imported fossil fuels in general are a national security liability. This, incidentally, is also what is driving wind and solar adoption in the US-American Midwestern states: https://electrek.co/2021/06/23... [electrek.co]... and thatis why one should always click through, read the entire article and not just assume that the little Google summary contains all one need to know.
What did you expect? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
what is expanding in China is renewables, hydro and they are looking at geothermal.
And nuclear. 50 new reactors in the last 30 years, more than the rest of the world combined. And plans for 150 more.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news... [bloomberg.com]
Re:For small enough values of "world" sure (Score:4, Insightful)
It's only expensive here in the West because we have organized groups of luddite whiners (ab)using the system to inflate the costs and timelines as much as possible. China is smart enough to ignore them.
Re: For small enough values of "world" sure (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's only expensive here in the West because we have organized groups of luddite whiners (ab)using the system to inflate the costs and timelines as much as possible. China is smart enough to ignore them.
No, it is expensive here in the west because a very high LCOE is inherent to the technology. Even the poster child of Nuclear energy, France, expects to subsidise every single one of their next-gen nuclear reactors to the tune of billions of euros an even then they can't be built without state disaster insurance guarantes. France's nuclear operator actually went bankrupt because it was made to sell energy below production cost and had to swallow the losses resulting in an inevitable state bailout. Nuclear t
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody is building Chernobyl style reactors anymore, certainly not the Chinese. You need to update your FUD for the 21st century.
Re: (Score:2)
Having some "lunatics" being against a plant, does not change the cost the slightest.
It only increases the timespan.
And: the people planning to build the plant, know about the lunatics.
Simple, ins't it?
Re: (Score:2)
Having some "lunatics" being against a plant, does not change the cost the slightest. It only increases the timespan.
This is so incorrect even you should know this is wrong. "Lunatics" increase the cost of a plant by driving up the cost of security. Any increase in time span also increased the cost of a plant. That is just basic 101 economics, "time is money." Even a third grader knows that.
Yes, lunatic protesters completely drive up the cost of everything.
Re: (Score:2)
Any increase in time span also increased the cost of a plant. That is just basic 101 economics
Actually it does not. As during the delay: nothing is happening. And so: no costs.
And as I said before: the delays are foreseeable. If you want to build something, where you know "lunatics" are against, you already know how to adjust your time plan. So: no extra costs. You knew it before.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually it does not. As during the delay: nothing is happening. And so: no costs.
Wow, I can't believe you posted something this dumb. We know your grasp off economics is limited, but this statement is just plain stupid.
Yes, delays on any project cost money, period. Unforeseen delays, like those caused by kooks at the front gate, cost even more. Taxes on properties still have to be paid, paychecks for project employees still have to be paid. An in some cases penalties for project delays get added up.
Workers don't just go "oh there are kooks at the front gate, you don't have to
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Unlike in the West, very bad things may happen to you and your family if you cause a nuclear accident in China.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you consider a nuclear accident high risk you probably should not get out of bed in the morning. You might die.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
What?
China announced in Feb 2023 that coal consumption has increased by 4.3% in 2022.
Why would you deliberately like about such an easily confirmed fact?
https://www.wsj.com/articles/c... [wsj.com]
Re: (Score:3)
> What ?
He did say past decades and China's consumption has been relatively steady for the past 15 years - https://www.ceicdata.com/en/in... [ceicdata.com]
> China announced in Feb 2023 that coal consumption has increased by 4.3% in 2022
Yes. From 2021 to 2022.
Also, from your link, "China’s Coal Use Is Rising, but Emissions Might Not Follow".
Emissions might not follow ?
> Why would you deliberately like about such an easily confirmed fact?
Why indeed.
Re: (Score:2)
Tap dance all you like.
Simple question: it was stated that China's coal consumption has not gone up in over a decade.
That is, according to China's own announcements factually not true.
Re: (Score:2)
> it was stated that China's coal consumption has not gone up in over a decade. That is, according to China's own announcements factually not true.
He said it didn't go up for decades. Pretty much true.
You said it went up in 2022. In reference to 2021 pretty much true.
No one was lying.
Re: (Score:2)
China announced in Feb 2023 that coal consumption has increased by 4.3% in 2022.
Of course, nothing of significance happened in 2021 that affected international resource consumption. Nothing at all.
Question: Are you dishonest or just really really stupid?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
There's a longer lead time, even in the best case nuclear plants take 6 years or so, realistically more than that now. They have to replace old coal plant now.
Obviously this wouldn't have been a problem if this was planned, but I'm guessing everyone still had their heads in the sand 10-15 years ago.
Re: (Score:2)
That's pretty much how China operates. Everyone thinks they're so good at long term planning, but mostly they're just trying to apply communist ideals to everything, then begrudgingly reacting to the black market and events out of even their iron fisted control. Then they take credit for anything good that happens. That's the real story of their 'economic miracle.' Because it was so unplanned, it's now beginning to implode.
Look at COVID. They messed that up so badly that they recently had to dump their
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There's a longer lead time, even in the best case nuclear plants take 6 years or so, realistically more than that now. They have to replace old coal plant now.
Obviously this wouldn't have been a problem if this was planned, but I'm guessing everyone still had their heads in the sand 10-15 years ago.
Want to bet we'll still have CO2 problem 6 years from now? 12? 18? 24? And 24 years from now there will still be morons screaming "no, nuclear isn't the solution, it's too slow to build"
Re: (Score:2)
And 24 years from now there will still be morons screaming "no, nuclear isn't the solution, it's too slow to build"
Yup, you know it. The best time to start was 50 years ago. The next best time is now.
Re: (Score:2)
Want to bet we'll still have CO2 problem 6 years from now? 12? 18? 24? And 24 years from now there will still be morons screaming "no, nuclear isn't the solution, it's too slow to build"
Oh, absolutely, I'm not using that as an excuse for why it shouldn't be done. Just why they're also building some coal plants right now.
Obviously this wouldn't need to happen if they planned for it 10-15 years ago, but nobody did.
Re: (Score:2)
"China alone permitted 2 new coal plants PER WEEK last year"
I don't often defend China but it's important to point ouf a few things:
1) reports are older, dirtier, less efficient plants are being shut down
2) China now has the most supercritical coal-fired plants by a wide margin
3) After the new rules governing coal plant emissions took effect in 2014, it did NOT exempt any.
In other words,no exceptions, no grandfathering.
Of course that's all dependent
They flood (Score:1)
It's a ground source heat pump (Score:5, Interesting)
Indeed (Score:5, Interesting)
"A new district heating system in Gateshead is poised to begin warming homes and buildings in the area at a cost 5% below market rate, "
Because the market-rate in the UK is the highest of the planet right now, otherwise it would be dead in the water.
Re: (Score:3)
If the US and Canada cut all direct and indirect fossil fuel subsidies, you'd have to reconsider that statement.
Re: (Score:2)
Not necessarily. They will have a guaranteed minimum rate to encourage investment in these relatively new technologies. They aren't at the point where they are competing for the lowest cost yet, like offshore wind is.
It might also just not be cheap, but nothing is when it's new.
Congressional Investments (Score:4, Insightful)
If only we could convert W. Virginia's mines to geo-thermal production, but then we'd have to get Sen. Manchin, who has investments in coal companies, to stop being a butthead.
Re: (Score:3)
What makes you think the coal mining companies wouldn't profit off that?
Re: (Score:2)
They wouldn't profit as much as contributing to the demise of the biosphere by digging up sequestered carbon and selling it to people they know will burn it.
20c heat is (Score:2)
Re:20c heat is (Score:4, Insightful)
Summary says it's getting used with a heat exchanger so perhaps that means it's part of a heat pump style system where the actual temp so much isn't the main factor but the temp differential.
Re: (Score:2)
Summary says it's getting used with a heat exchanger so perhaps that means it's part of a heat pump style system where the actual temp so much isn't the main factor but the temp differential.
Not even the differential. The value is that when you pump heat energy out of the 68F water, it stays at 68F rather than getting chilled and becoming harder to extract heat from. It's a large reservoir of extractable heat, large enough to allow heating a city all winter -- and likely also cooling a city all summer (assuming cooling is needed), because the same thing works the other direction, you can pump a lot of heat into it without it warming so much that it becomes harder to pump heat into it.
Re: (Score:2)
The video the article summarizes gives more details. It's a water-source heat pump. Water at 20 C is an excellent source for a heat pump.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Useful in a residential setting? Really, REALLY? Thats extremely low quality heat. Seems to me that just the cost of the pump infrastructure and the electricity to pump the water in a loop would swamp the benefits. You canâ(TM)t even heat a home with that temp heat.
Yo dude! 20C (68F) is no problem heating my home...even in 0C (32F) or lower winters.
Make sure the windows and doors are properly sealed.
Add insulated drapes and window insulating film (or replace with gas-filled double pane types) all around.
Make sure the chimney isn't drafty...unlike The House of Commons or US Congress.
Make sure the attic has plenty of insulation.
Don't run around the house in your birthday suit at all hours...put some decent clothes on!
Re: (Score:2)
If you'd grown up in England you'd know that 20C is normal room temperature, at least according to my dad. If you're cold, go put a jumper on!
Re: (Score:2)
This is how I got through winter this past year in San Diego. My apartment is all electric and California charges a fortune per KWH but luckily if you just keep the house closed up and put on a hoodie and wear socks you'll survive. Sure, it's not as comfy as if I ran the heater, but not at the prices it would of cost me.
Not looking forward to summer though. I'll probably resort to just keeping my bedroom cool and only when I go to sleep, otherwise I'll go broke trying to stay comfortable.
P.S. This obviously
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously ... (Score:3)
How Old Coal Mines Are Now Producing Clean Geothermal Energy
This was the goal all along, but the coal was in the way and had to first be removed.
Senator Manchin ("D" - WV) should highlight this.
We have a local mine that would be perfect (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
Looking at an old FAQ on the fire:
https://files.dep.state.pa.us/... [state.pa.us]
7) Q: How many coal mine fires are there in the US?
A: The Federal Abandoned Mine Lands Inventory System (AMLIS) lists 241 coal mine
fires in the US
If they are going to let them burn, someone should be trying to extract heat / power from them. Not really any homes left to heat in Centralia but maybe steam turbines or something.
Re: (Score:2)
20% below market rate? (Score:2)
Maybe equip the PA town (Score:3)