Fracking for Heat: A New Source of Clean Energy? (msn.com) 37
Southern California Edison — one of America's largest power companies — will buy power from 7-year-old fracking startup Fervo, reports the Washington Post.
"But instead of oil and gas, Fervo is hunting heat, a more abundant resource that neither pollutes the air nor contributes to global warming." The heat will fuel a new type of power plant: an enhanced geothermal plant... [C]onventional geothermal power plants capture steam from natural underground hot springs in places such as Iceland or the Geysers in Northern California. These require a rare combination of geologic conditions — heat, underground water and porous rock. Enhanced geothermal plants use technology pioneered by oil and gas drillers to reproduce the conditions of a conventional geothermal well. This makes it possible to extract heat in many more places.
When completed in 2028, the new enhanced geothermal plant will add 400 megawatts of carbon-free electricity to the power grid (Southern California Edison has agreed to buy 320 megawatts; the rest will go to smaller power providers.) That is less than one-fifth of the generating capacity of the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant, which by itself provides nearly a tenth of California's electricity. But as the first power purchasing agreement between an electric utility and an enhanced geothermal company, the deal represents a milestone in the effort to limit global warming. "It's a big deal," said Fervo founder and CEO Tim Latimer. "It shows the important role that geothermal is going to play on the grid as a 24/7 carbon-free energy resource...."
Fracking for heat releases no greenhouse gases. But to meaningfully contribute to emissions cuts, enhanced geothermal will need to expand quickly.
The article includes an interesting statistic about the original impact of fracking. "Between 2005 and 2021, cheaper natural gas replaced so much coal that it drove a larger reduction in U.S. CO2 emissions than replacing coal with emissions-free electricity sources such as wind and solar." (Though it still emits other greenhouse gases, and "some scientists now say that so much methane leaks during fracking that natural gas warms the planet as much as coal does.")
And while fracking for oil still has some strong critics, U.S. presidential candidate Kamala Harris "will not seek to ban fracking if she's elected," the Hill reported Friday, citing confirming comments from a campaign official.
"But instead of oil and gas, Fervo is hunting heat, a more abundant resource that neither pollutes the air nor contributes to global warming." The heat will fuel a new type of power plant: an enhanced geothermal plant... [C]onventional geothermal power plants capture steam from natural underground hot springs in places such as Iceland or the Geysers in Northern California. These require a rare combination of geologic conditions — heat, underground water and porous rock. Enhanced geothermal plants use technology pioneered by oil and gas drillers to reproduce the conditions of a conventional geothermal well. This makes it possible to extract heat in many more places.
When completed in 2028, the new enhanced geothermal plant will add 400 megawatts of carbon-free electricity to the power grid (Southern California Edison has agreed to buy 320 megawatts; the rest will go to smaller power providers.) That is less than one-fifth of the generating capacity of the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant, which by itself provides nearly a tenth of California's electricity. But as the first power purchasing agreement between an electric utility and an enhanced geothermal company, the deal represents a milestone in the effort to limit global warming. "It's a big deal," said Fervo founder and CEO Tim Latimer. "It shows the important role that geothermal is going to play on the grid as a 24/7 carbon-free energy resource...."
Fracking for heat releases no greenhouse gases. But to meaningfully contribute to emissions cuts, enhanced geothermal will need to expand quickly.
The article includes an interesting statistic about the original impact of fracking. "Between 2005 and 2021, cheaper natural gas replaced so much coal that it drove a larger reduction in U.S. CO2 emissions than replacing coal with emissions-free electricity sources such as wind and solar." (Though it still emits other greenhouse gases, and "some scientists now say that so much methane leaks during fracking that natural gas warms the planet as much as coal does.")
And while fracking for oil still has some strong critics, U.S. presidential candidate Kamala Harris "will not seek to ban fracking if she's elected," the Hill reported Friday, citing confirming comments from a campaign official.
Ok. (Score:3)
Re: Ok. (Score:2)
Hmm, more or less than having a population of 10 billion by 2050?
Re: (Score:3)
In natural gas-rich areas, natural gas seeping into aquifers is not a "fracking" thing. A 2012 USGS study [usgs.gov] found that, of 239 water wells in New York with no gas drilling around them, 53% had dissolved natural gas in them. Chestnut Ridge State Park in western New York even has Eternnal Flame Falls [wikipedia.org], a waterfall you can light on fire because natural gas seeps up through the same rock that feeds the river, and there's a particularly strong leak under the falls.
People commonly have a grossly disproportionate s
Re: (Score:2)
Same as the aforementioned waterfall. Nobody drilled a gas well into the waterfall and fracked it. It's a natural, natural gas seep that's been there as long as people have known of the site. They're all over the place in the region, because the bedrock is petrogenic shale. Where there's cap rock, gas and/or oil accumulate under it (up to the capacity of the reservoir). Where there's not, it slowly seeps to the surface. In the particular case of Eternal Flame
Re: (Score:2)
I mean, let's not forget that for a long time, the "Saudi Arabia" of the world for petroleum production was actually Pennsylvania. Because oil was just leaking up onto the surface. Up to the mid 1800s, you had to have a surface oil seep, and you'd dig a pit down into it, and then haul out oil like a well. Early drills improved on that, but depths were still very shallow. The abundant near-surface deposits of the US northeast proved a ripe source for harvest.
Early on, natural gas was a waste product (to
Environmental impacts? (Score:5, Interesting)
One is the environmental impact of the fracking fluid, for which there is some debate.
Two is that you will need a heat-exchange fluid (this is dry-rock geothermal), which is typically water. Dry-rock geothermal is more accessible in the Mountain West where surface water is scarce to begin with, and after passing the heat exchange water through the hot rock, it probably has soaked up arsenic and other poisonous minerals to make disposal of this water a concern, even if this water gets reused somewhat.
Three, you will need a source of cooling water for your Rankine cycle (boiling and condensing water) to power the turbines driving your alternators.
With respect to the heat-exchange fluid, an alternative could be highly pressurized CO2 gas, with the CO2 supplied by sequestering emissions from coal or natural gas power plants. This source of CO2 is "political" inasmuch as there is a movement not to burn coal or natural gas, even if the CO2 is not released into the atmosphere.
That said, solar and wind are not without environmental impacts in obtaining the materials to collect this diffuse energy resouce and whether and which of these materials can be recycled or repurposed at end-of-life of a solar collector or a wind turbine.
Let's just say the environmental impacts of geothermal are enough to elicit opposition once people learn all that is involved, but wind turbines, especially, have engendered some degree of opposition for impacts on aesthetics and wildlife.
Re: (Score:2)
"Three, you will need a source of cooling water for your Rankine cycle (boiling and condensing water) to power the turbines driving your alternators."
What, it has to be water cooled? Not air like an old VW bug? I think we could make air do the the job, and maybe pipe it around town to mitigate the home and office building heating requirements. Oh, yeah, no real reason NOT to drill these holes downtown, either, where there's people that could make use of the waste heat.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, sounds to me like it's about as clean as Clean Coal(TM). Is this the gas industry clutching at straws while renewables eat their lunch?
I guess now we'll have to differentiate between at least 2 different categories of geothermal energy; the good one that Iceland & Japan, for example, implement, & the shit show that'll be the
Re: (Score:2)
Does there have to be an impact?
Looks to me like it just couldn't get any better. Virtually no disturbance of the surface environment. Heat from deep rock (I read 12,000 feet in another article would bring you a perpetual source of heat energy from the earth's natural heat (which BTW has a large component of nuclear decay powering it)) so it would essentially be nuclear power with zero chance of nuclear accident and zero emissions during operation. Plus, unlike normal geo, you could set it up someplac
Re: Ok. (Score:1)
Once, I talked to an old Driller/Miner? Who was working on the Taranaki oil fields in NZ...
He reckoned he was on a project in Oz that used fracking to generate steam. The problem was the sludge that came out of the pipes, it came from so far down in the earth... it was full of heavy metals and radioactive contamnents... so I guess there's swings and roundabouts for everything.
Re: (Score:3)
Possibly no direct emissions. Hydrogen sulfide is very common in geothermal fluids.
As for other effects, lots of very small earthquakes. The Geysers in CA is famous for them. Other fracking site get them too.
Finally (Score:4, Insightful)
Green fanatics... discovered geothermal?
Let's hope they discover hydro and nuclear soon. Then we can have an actual shot at reducing CO2 emissions.
Re: Finally (Score:2)
No, they're still in the dam-busting phase of their journey. And most of them believe nuclear power causes three eyed fish and roving hordes of zombies.
Re: Finally (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
No, they're still in the dam-busting phase of their journey. And most of them believe nuclear power causes three eyed fish and roving hordes of zombies.
Well, I'll just say that Nuclear Power causes a large segment of Environmentalists to mindlessly spout out things mechanically (NUCLEAR POWER BADDDDDDDDDDDDDD), walk around aimlessly in the pursuit of their goal (protesting in front of Nuclear power stations) and are generally an obstacle to those of us possessing actual brain power and wanting to further human kind (getting in the way). So yeah, in a weird kind of way, Nuclear power does cause roving hordes of (Environmental) zombies. :)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But geothermal is nuclear.
Otherwise the core of the earth would have cooled off billions of years ago.
Re: (Score:2)
As far as I can tell the only thing stopping nuclear power plants is the economics don't work. They are expensive, plagued with construction delays and and cost overruns, unreliable once built and can't operate profitably without massive government subsidies.
There are also have enormous environmental risks as Chernobyl demonstrated. The cancer risks associated with mutations from exposure to radiation are well-documented. As are other mutations.
Are those risks sometimes exaggerated? Yes, but not as much a
Re: (Score:2)
The profitability of a technology isn't something that exists in a vacuum. It depends on the costs of *alternative* technologies.
The ability of fossil fuel users to dump their waste in the atmosphere amounts to a public subsidy for fossil fuel use. Since CO2 remains in the atmosphere for hundreds of years, that cost will be paid by future generations. By 2050 middle of the road estimates of annual costs for adapting to altered climate run around $40 trillion. That's forty trillion *every single year* for
Fracking...under an earthquake hot zone. (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:4)
Re: (Score:2)
Pair with desalination? (Score:1)
Re: Pair with desalination? (Score:1)
Renewables are a criminal waste of money. (Score:2)
Build nuclear.
Every dollar spent on this nonsense is a waste. Nuclear energy density is logarithmically better. It's cleaner, it's safer, it's literally everything better except it doesn't justify communism and oppressive taxation.. as the energy is so cheap.
Times are changing. The nonsense will come to an end, because thermodynamics is a bitch.
Re: (Score:3)
Nuclear energy density is logarithmically better. It's cleaner, it's safer, it's literally everything better except it doesn't justify communism and oppressive taxation.. as the energy is so cheap.
So why are taxpayers and ratepayers continually on the hook to pay off the costs of failed nuclear projects? Why is the former Republican speaker of the House for Ohio going to prison for 20 years for taking bribes to pass a $1.3 billion dollar bailout for nuclear power company FirstEnergy. Why would they need a bailout if nuclear energy is so much better? Where do you think the money comes from for the government handouts that nuclear always requires?
Re: (Score:2)
The US navy seems to have no problem building safe, effective, mobile nuclear reactors.
Re: (Score:2)
The US navy seems to have no problem building safe, effective, mobile nuclear reactors.
What a ridiculous argument. The US navy has no problem paying hundreds of dollars per gallon for fuel. The economics clearly have no relation whatsoever to those for commercial power production.
Very incomplete article (Score:2)
The article leaves out some important history that minimal research would have turned up.
Look up the Hot Dry Rock project at Los Alamos National Laboratory, https://discover.lanl.gov/publ... [lanl.gov] in the 1970s to the early 2000s. Exactly this with lots of important research results.
They might at least have credited the original research funded by your tax dollars...