The Time Is Now For Big Geothermal

Mother Nature Network:

In North America alone, there is enough energy trapped beneath the Earth's surface to produce 10 times as much electricity as coal currently does. Geothermal power is clean, ubiquitous and reliable. And the technology to harness it is finally ready for primetime.

Read the whole story: Mother Nature Network

Comments

[Kenz300]

01:34 PM on 02/19/2012

Quote - " In North America alone, there is enough energy trapped beneath the Earth's surface to produce 10 times as much electricity as coal currently does. "
----------------------------------------
Big oil and coal will do everything they can to keep their hold on the world economy and limit any alternatives.

Our economic security and national security demand that we diversify our energy sources and types.

[sheila]

01:07 PM on 02/17/2012

Scary that this guy is writing on this subject since he doesn't even understand the difference between geothermal heat exchange (which is a super important heating/cooling source for us) and geothermal electricity (which, like all thermal power production is centralized, wasteful, and unsustainable).

If the earthquakes don't get us, the water waste will (yes, they run out of water quickly and need freshwater injected - millions and millions of gallons a year for each plant).

Stick to non-destructive, non-wasteful solutions like efficiency upgrades, passive heating/cooling (like geothermal heat exchange) and micro-solar/micro-wind/biogas, and stop with the central-station monopoly electricity with SF6-spewing transmission. Time to get serious about changing the 19th century Robber Baron model.

[AnIsentropic]

11:59 AM on 02/17/2012

Accelerate cooling of Earth's core, what could possibly go wrong?

[ThinkCreeps]

12:14 PM on 02/17/2012

That's not a problem, it's the lack of ready heat available in the top few km that's the problem. At only 10W per square meter, where there's no especially hot rock, geothermal is heat mining rather than obtaining a long-term supply of energy.

[Kenz300]

11:48 AM on 02/17/2012

The oil and coal companies have the world backed into an energy corner. When prices spike they make wind fall profits. They like that.

The entrenched interests will do all they can to limit their competition and keep the money flowing in.

It is time to transition to safe, clean alternative energy. We need to diversify our energy sources and types. Our economic security and national security depend on it.

[David LS]

03:58 AM on 02/17/2012

The naysayers in the comment section should take a trip to New Zealand, where they have dozens of geothermal plant producing safe clean power for industry and agriculture.
NZ is almost energy independent and is one of the most pristine countries in the world.

[MrBIgp]

12:16 AM on 02/17/2012

If you like fracking, you'll love enhanced geothermal.

[AnthropologistAmongApes]

11:47 AM on 02/17/2012

What do you think they share in common?

[MrBIgp]

10:11 PM on 02/17/2012

'Dry' geothermal requires extensive fracking.

[markkocaldo]

07:17 PM on 02/16/2012

Large scale geothermal problems - the earthquakes, the air pollution and equipment destroying sulfur emissions, the not yet invented high temperature super critical steam pumps?

Your car will be powered by Mr Fusion first.

[ThinkCreeps]

12:16 PM on 02/17/2012

You'd be hard pressed to find a site where the water would come up hot enough to need the luxury of such a device. If you're on Iceland, then it's good news. Otherwise, not so great.

[grappler1987]

12:32 PM on 02/16/2012

I wonder which produces bigger tremors, NG hydraulic fracturing or geothermal hydraulic fracturing.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=geothermal-drilling-earthquakes
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/24/business/energy-environment/24geotherm.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=altarock&st=cse

[grappler1987]

12:18 PM on 02/16/2012

Geothermal map:
http://www.nrel.gov/gis/images/geothermal_resource2009-final.jpg

Rocky Mountain region ... good.
Appalachia region ... not so good.

[Gurinder Dhillon]

10:14 AM on 02/16/2012

I don't know why the author of that article didn't just come out and say what needed to be said; geothermal energy isn't being embraced on a domestic or industrial level as a source of energy because its being suppressed by the likes of Exxon, Chevron, and Royal Dutch Shell, and they simply do not want the energy landscape to shift to product number two as long as supplies of product number one (petroleum) are still abundant; no matter what the ecological cost may be.

[grappler1987]

12:23 PM on 02/16/2012

Petroleum is mostly use for transportation. Geothermal is mostly not used for transportation. They aren't in competition.

https://www.llnl.gov/news/newsreleases/2011/Nov/NR-11-11-02.html

[markkocaldo]

02:55 PM on 02/16/2012

Learn something about energy before you post. Synfuel and EV cues for you.

[mamacat]

08:39 AM on 02/16/2012

So often articles reference Iceland as the ultimate example of the use of geothermal energy.

In fact, the world leader in geothermal usage is California, with many times the amount of geothermal energy harnessed as it is in Iceland.

Most of Iceland's energy comes from harnessing hydropower (dams). After hydropower, geothermal is the biggest renewable resource in Iceland.

Iceland generates about 4 terawatts of energy a year from geothermal.
California generates about 13 terawatts of energy a year from geothermal, and has contracts with sources outside the state to buy additional geothermally generated power.

Kudos to Iceland, but they take a distant backseat to what we are doing here in California.

[PureEnergy]

11:28 PM on 02/16/2012

You mean terawatt-hours (of energy)?

[ThinkCreeps]

12:19 PM on 02/17/2012

He does - there is a bit less than 2GW of geothermal power installed in California.

[lightningbolt]

08:00 AM on 02/16/2012

Geothermal energy is one of the best sources of energy we have available. We need to invest in it now before we run out of fossil fuels or before the pollution they generate becomes overwhelming.

[mhh310351]

11:06 AM on 02/16/2012

I agree.

Interesting reading about geothermal & fracking.

http://geothermal.inel.gov/publications/future_of_geothermal_energy.pdf

[farmilyman]

06:08 AM on 02/16/2012

Unlike fracking for oil or gas, which has turned into an environmental nightmare, geothermal fracking has a relatively small environmental footprint because it uses surface equipment that releases few emissions and confines the process underground.

http://www.energyboom.com/renewable-geothermal-or-not

[mhh310351]

01:41 AM on 02/16/2012

I read an article that says fracking is needed to release this energy so it will never happen! What a shame.

[blurredmolly]

09:16 AM on 02/16/2012

does fracking always have to involve chemicals? I was under the impression that fracking fluid was just liquid waste from fossil fuel production.

[olitenup]

10:31 AM on 02/16/2012

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drilling_fluid#Types_of_drilling_fluid
http://planetsave.com/2011/12/10/newest-epa-report-confirms-fracking-fluids-contaminating-pavillion-wyoming-water-supply/

[mhh310351]

11:00 AM on 02/16/2012

no, they use all kinds of chemicals from chelates, to viscosity enhancers, biocides, etc.... sand and mostly water.

[artleads]

01:02 AM on 02/16/2012

I've seen on TV where private home owners--a few forward-thinking, rich ones--are already using geothermal. But why does it have to be "big?" Why not make the drilling technology cheap enough to enable its deployment by ordinary folks?

[mhh310351]

01:43 AM on 02/16/2012

Got to have a vent or heat source close to the surface and even then it will require ---- Fracking!

Saw a government report that says seismic activity of 2.5 was acceptable.

[artleads]

11:41 AM on 02/16/2012

Is that because they have to go extra deep due to the scale of the project? Are there less destructive ways to dig if done for single property owners?