Geothermal Technology Offers Path To Curbing CO2 Emissions, Global Warming

A promising new technology could provide a powerful weapon in the fight against global warming.

From Gizmag:

The technology focuses on tapping heat from beneath the Earth's surface. By using high-pressure carbon dioxide (CO2) instead of water to extract the heat, the system has the potential to produce significantly more efficient renewable energy. At the same time, by sequestering CO2 deep underground, it actively reduces atmospheric CO2. It's being hailed as a two in one solution for climate change.

Faculty member Martin Saar and graduate student Jimmy Randolph of the University of Minnesota's Department of Earth Sciences call their approach CO2-plume geothermal system (or CPG). Gizmag explains that, because CO2 travels more easily than water through porous rock, the heat can be extracted more effectively, "making it a more economically and technologically efficient system than traditional geothermal electricity production."

Word of the innovation comes on the heels of news that an international effort to lower C02 emissions through an extension of the Kyoto Protocol is encountering resistance.

A recent study conducted by Stanford University scientists concluded that if greenhouse gas concentrations continue to climb, it could result in an irreversible rise in temperatures in many regions of the world.

RELATED:

Comments

[Benjamin Rosenfeld]

10:17 AM on 06/14/2011

I don't understand why people seem to believe that you can pump as much co2 into the ground as you want and expect it to be trapped there forever.

[TYRANNASAURUS]

04:33 PM on 06/13/2011

Geothermal Technology Offers Path To Curbing CO2 Emissions, Global Warming .....

You can pull out all the shell games and bandages you want but the only thing that's going to slow global warming is the immediate lowering of world population.... at this point nothing will stop it from happening..

[obamavet]

02:19 PM on 06/14/2011

That's a leap. World population reduction means no global warming. How do you propose we reduce the world population? Of course there is still the nastly little matter of the rest being addicted to fossile fuels and economies that ignore contributing to a clean environment.

[TYRANNASAURUS]

10:57 AM on 06/16/2011

Limit breeding.......... limits population ..............limits pollution.

[Russ Klettke]

01:21 PM on 06/13/2011

Very interesting – let's learn more about this as it develops. I had an perplexing discussion with a climate change-denier about a week ago, and he kept boiling the conversation down to an either-or scenario, with the continued, exclusive use of fossil fuels being his default position. This article shows there are dozens, perhaps hundreds of great ideas that our wise scientists and engineers can develop that might offer a cost-effective and earth-friendlier alternative.

The only thing standing in the way of a pure expression of innovative enterprise – supposed bulwarks of our economic system – around renewable and green energy sources, are the entrenched industries (oil, gas, coal) that stand to lose the most. Will their lobbying dollars triumph over this kind of progress? I suspect they will for a generation or two, until we see how other countries benefit economically by adopting alternative and green energy sources.

[Stony Curtis]

12:07 AM on 06/13/2011

Sounds like fracking to me...

[MsGypsy]

12:44 AM on 06/13/2011

Exactly....And actually, it ALREADY is very similar to fracking now.....Refer to my earlier posts, I've included a bunch of links for reference....

[wsmith3023]

05:10 PM on 06/13/2011

All oil, gas, water and geothermo wells are identically drilled and completed. In fractured gas wells, the fracturing process lasts a couple of hours depending on the depth of the well. There is no fracturing done over the next 20 years of the well's life.
In geothermal wells, there is no need to fracture. Heat doesn't need tiny cracks to flow through. Cracks would probably disrupt thermal flow. That's what we use on the surface for insulation, spaces between thermal conducting materials.

[Stony Curtis]

05:17 PM on 06/13/2011

I live in the middle of Marcellus Land and am quite familiar with drilling.

I forgot to add "/sarcasm" to the post, my point being that whatever comes about will always be "not green enough" for those on the Greeniac side of things.

[Minolta321]

07:07 PM on 06/12/2011

So where will they get the CO2? If it's that easy and cheap to catch lets catch it and bury it. Seems to me someone's not thinking here. Capturing the CO2 would probably so bankrupt us it would destroy us. Sorta like Pelosi, Reid, and Obama spending like Crazy has done.

[wsmith3023]

05:01 PM on 06/13/2011

In a combustion-engine using methane as the fuel, we could capture the CO2 as it comes out of the exhaust and use the waste heat as a source of energy to turn the CO2 back into methane (CH4). In the 1970s, this process was only 70% efficient. Maybe with newer technology it could be improved. The catalyst for carbon to substitute H for O was reduced nickel. This catalyst is never used up. With entropy one would still have to add some energy to keep it going, but not 100%. And this engine could output some kind of mechanical work. We need higher efficiency use of energy, not more energy. All energy use pollutes. No exception.

[Longtimeliberal]

12:24 PM on 06/12/2011

There are many technologies coming on line and we must pursue all available.

[TYRANNASAURUS]

04:34 PM on 06/13/2011

Sterilization is an old technology.

[wsmith3023]

09:07 PM on 06/13/2011

All of the many techniques I see coming on line were tried in the 1970s and failed. I hope at least one succeeds this time. We The People are the only ones in control. We vote with our purchases.

[stevesouthmn927]

10:24 AM on 06/12/2011

New way to curb global warming?? How about not printing off 24,000 pages of emails that used 250lbs of paper per copy, then burning thousands of gallons of jet fuel to fly up to Alaska to get. All to find a whole lot of nothing. Didn't that damage some fragile ecosystem somewhere?

[Doobie Snacks]

02:41 PM on 06/12/2011

ever hear of digital????

[stevesouthmn927]

02:53 PM on 06/12/2011

Yep. Ever hear of a witch hunt?

[SLS11]

03:15 PM on 06/12/2011

Off topic!

[stevesouthmn927]

03:40 PM on 06/12/2011

It's right on target. That is unless doing little things to curb climate change doesn't matter? Killing tree's, burning fuel, aren't those to blame for climate change??

[MsGypsy]

08:17 AM on 06/12/2011

Does anyone know why Switzerland suspended their geothermal energy program? MASSIVE SEISMIC ACTIVITY. Has anyone ever looked at the seismic activity around the largest geothermal energy plant in the world - The Geysers in Northern California? And how about the seismic activity around the geothermal plants in Iceland - the country that uses the most geothermal energy for their needs?
There are BIG problems with this form of "green" energy - and the "green mercenaries" are fully aware, yet continue to push for their agenda and neglect the dangerous facts. This process is JUST as problematic as fracking, and whether or not one could "sequester" CO2 remains to be seen......

[jcabowers]

02:10 PM on 06/12/2011

Not well acquainted with geology, are you?

[MsGypsy]

02:26 PM on 06/12/2011

So dispute what I've said with facts then......

[Doobie Snacks]

02:56 PM on 06/12/2011

I like your micro-bio.
http://www.thevenusproject.com/

[SLS11]

03:13 PM on 06/12/2011

Oh dear. Where to start?

Would you please tell me what kind of problems Iceland has had due to seismic activity around the geothermal plants? Please provide a source with link.

Please also link to the seismic activity that has caused Switzerland to suspend their geothermal program.

That's all for now, let us just start here. And please, don't deflect the questions back at me. YOU are the one making these claims, please back them up with evidence.

[MsGypsy]

05:18 PM on 06/12/2011

No deflecting - just that "not well acquainted with geology" isn't a legitimate response to what I've said. I'd be more than happy to provide you with links:

Regarding Switzerland: I originally found information on Wikipedia under "Geothermal Electricity", but here's a more definitive link: There are other's....
http://scitizen.com/future-energies/swiss-geothermal-energy-project-causes-earthquakes-_a-14-1035.html

Regarding Iceland: I found information on Wikipedia under "Geothermal power in Iceland", also the 1st link below briefly discusses this under "Environmental Concerns", the second discusses Iceland and other areas:
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Geothermal_power
http://www.livescience.com/7440-happened-geothermal-energy.html

Regarding Northern California and The Geysers: Again, several articles with this info, but this one is concise:
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/geothermal/geopower_landuse.html

And an interesting perspective: Go to the USGS.gov website, pull up Iceland - look at the political map and pinpoint where the geothermal plants are, then pull up the seismic activity map. You'll see the same significant trend in the exact area of The Geysers in Northern California. And Costa Rica, Philippines, Indonesia........There's got to be a better answer to green energy. We cannot continue to pursue this problematic route just because it's an "alternative" - They don't have legitimate proof that these "little" earthquakes are not a serious problem. And I certainly don't see how they are any less of a problem than with fracking....

[PrairieGayCompanion]

01:16 AM on 06/12/2011

Hey, I remember seeing "Crack in the World" back in the '60s. With the increase in earthquakes and volcanic activity it's a perfect time to experiment.

[jmichaelmunger]

12:17 AM on 06/12/2011

Anyone who dismisses this ought to be kicked in the face... "Oh it won't work"... "It'll be too expensive"... "It will take too much time"

The things worth doing will take some time, will be expensive, but will eventually work better than the current sources we got.

[LyleORoss]

11:50 PM on 06/11/2011

Ohiomark speaks from his gut. "It's cool here in Ohio, therefore global warming doesn't exist." I know what he means, we got a brief shower here in Houston last week after three months of not a drop. That means we're not really in a drought right?

When you calculate the real cost of oil, including subsidies to the oil companies, the cost of pollution clean up, the cost of several wars, etc. It turns out it's quiet expensive. Somewhere over $10 a gallon. Ohio, you should thank the poor and middle class, those who actually pay their taxes, for subsidizing your oil habit.

[stevesouthmn927]

10:29 AM on 06/12/2011

That's a lot like climate researchers in which for many of them their only source of income is government grants. Of course they will keep the myth alive if it results in a steady income.

[Aerin Gael]

03:26 PM on 06/12/2011

how come climate researchers have a steady message even though govt changes on elections? seems to me they would sync their message to the party in control if their main concern was their own funding. but no, their message has been consistent.

[Justtheobvious]

11:40 PM on 06/11/2011

Republicans will legislate this into the ground before it ever becomes viable.

[jmichaelmunger]

12:17 AM on 06/12/2011

Love the pun and the truth.
F/F

[ohiomark]

11:15 PM on 06/11/2011

Until a viable, cost efficient alternative to oil is found, keep drilling for the black gold. That and coal are the cheapest, most efficient energy forms we have.

By the way, no matter what energy source we use, it won't make one bit of difference in the climate. It's simply not possible.

Get over yourselves Libs, you can't change or control the climate, just adapt.

It's going to be in the upper 60's in the middle of June here in northern Ohio for the next few days. Does that sound like "warming" to anyone?

[oilfield]

11:41 PM on 06/11/2011

they can justify any weather with "warming" .....we have learned that in recent years. if it gets too hot we can build smokestacks from our coal power plants and inject the sulfur dioxide directly into the stratosphere.

[scottishboy]

11:48 PM on 06/11/2011

Who is funding the massive Climate Change tax scheme? It can’t be George Soros because he’s “One world Governance”, or money, or what ever.

[Greatest Darthfruit]

11:06 PM on 06/11/2011

This is GREAT! But, will the greedy oil companies allow its massive development?

[WorkhelpWorkhelp]

12:12 AM on 06/12/2011

of course not.

[newplasticmachine]

10:55 PM on 06/11/2011

we have the largest energy source beaming light at us every minute of every day. Future anthropologists will scratch their head in awe that we never took advantage of it.