German Geothermal Project Re-evaluated After Setting Off Earthquake

nytimes.com:

Government officials here are reviewing the safety of a geothermal energy project that scientists say set off an earthquake in mid-August, shaking buildings and frightening many residents of this small city.

Read the whole story: nytimes.com

Comments

[zizyphus]

A geothermal plant was placed within a beautiful rainforest here on the Big Island. Many people downwind of it had to move, sickened by the nasty gases and heavy metals that the wind blew on them from the plant. The noise of the plant irritates many neighbors. It could have been placed in a more desolate area, but no. So, they wound up having to set up a fund to buy out people who couldn't stand to live near it.

[MikeDu]

This looks like something to ponder when looking at carbon sequestration too. How many hundred of tons of carbon could be stored deep underground without causing a 'geologic incident'? "Clean coal" carbon sequestration does not appear to be even remotely workable on a useful scale.

[CessnaDriver]

2.7? We have about 50 of them a week here in Southern California. I don't think you can even feel a 2.7 unless you are sitting right on top of the epicenter.

[StephBr]

I'll trade a 2.7 quake for 30,000 tons of CO2 any day.
Where is the problem?

[joebaggadonuts]

Shouldn't someone realize that when we inject lots of fluids into the earth it's likely to make changes? Specifically shouldn't we realize that this same set of problems will affect the injection well technology use for recovering "trapped" natural gas? Pickens?

[jsarets]

It should be pointed out that the seismic problems are pretty much limited to "enhanced geothermal" facilities. The ones that sit on natural dry steam beds, like The Geysers just north of San Francisco, are substantially more benign from an environmental perspective.

And the geothermal heat exchangers for building HVAC systems are similarly safe for the environment.

[sheila]

I was a little surprised that this article doesn't even mention the ENORMOUS water waste of geothermal plants. The "naturally occurring" water/steam runs out fairly quickly and has to be replaced by reservoir, lake, aquifer or other scarce water supplies, to the tune of several hundred million gallons/year.

Can we just massively improve energy efficiency, get some hydrogen-based storage solutions (like the MIT one) online, pair them with rooftop PV and take a deep breath while we let science catch up with policy? Destroying watersheds, deserts, ridgelines or other natural places and resources is NOT a sustainable answer and is being done purely for PROFIT, not for the environment...

[jsarets]

Geothermal plants use 20L of water per MWh versus over 1000L/MWh for nuclear, coal, or oil.

Hydrogen is a poor storage medium because of its very low volumetric energy density. Liquid oils and alcohols are vastly superior because they're easy to produce, store, and consume.