Posted on 08/01/2006 11:15:01 AM PDT by aculeus
Try reading the entire article. He really is talking about "anywhere in the world."
Actually, one of the long term proposals for protecting against damage from earthquakes, is to inject fluids into faults, lubricating them, and causing hundreds (or even thousands) of microquakes, to replace the small numbers of large destructive ones.
Yes, a good idea in principle, but who would be willing to host the Insurance Liability?
True, fluids can have that effect. But at what point do you stop? Too much and you have more than just micro earthquakes. Don't think I'd want to be held responsible if the BIG one if it happened while I was trying to lubricate to prevent it.
Environmental Wackos will find something to bitch about
Count on it
Yes, really. Compared to the widespread urban power needs for the United States there are damned few geothermal sites sited so they can be tied into the grid so as to get the power to them. (there "is" a limit to how far power can be transmitted, y'know).
Actually, this is indicative of a common mistake that people make when projecting the effectiveness of technology. The early geothermal power plants had the problem that you describe, now they recirculate the water and gasses, and extract energy at the same rate that it is replenished.
There is a geothermal power plant near my house, which just sits there looking like it is doing nothing, requires a very small maintenance staff, and puts out about 50 megawatts.
As technology progresses, the technology described by the author, will very likely become practical.
That said, we already have the ability to build much better nuclear reactors than those that now produce power:
http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA378.html
Smart people want to move forward with everything that makes sense. If we had listened to the do nothing, nay sayer, panic crowd, we wouldn't have automobiles, aircraft, plentiful food, and much longer lives than our ancestors.
You've probably heard the old saying, "Those who can't do, teach." I would like to suggest a corollary, "Those who can't do, should just shut the hell up, and let the doers take care of it."
On the the Ping list please.
The idea the men might someday fly is "sheer crackpottery."
You are clearly not an engineer.
When gravity assembled the earth from stone and iron, the gravitational potential energy of the uniting parts was converted into heat, and the top rock layers keep this fossil heat contained. Furthermore long lived radioisotopes contribute.
They are much more valuable when used as fuel for Integrated Fast Reactors. Follow the link in post #68.
Don't worry, YOU won't be.
When (if) this technology is developed, it will be tested in less vulnerable areas.
How many wells or feet of trench did they put in for the MN system ? Bet its not in Duluth. That rock is hard stuff.
In your original post you used the term "exceedingly rare" now you are comparing to the total energy needs of the USA. Let's look at the numbers and some facts:
Hawaii -- 30% of the power on the Big Island comes from Geothermal
Mammoth Navy I -- Produces enough electricity for 40,000 homes.
Mammoth/Coso Junction -- 273 MW capacity
Geysers -- Supplied enough for electricity 1.8 million people
Imperial Valley -- 327 MW total at 10 plants
Steamboat, Nevada -- 40 MW at Three Plants
Utah -- 23 MW
Yes compared to the entire USA those are small numbers, but exceedingly rare as originally stated is factually incorrect and misleading. Source: Geothermal Power Plants in the USA
Never thought to ask him about any geothermal installations.
I have several other stories of experienced workers who took over because the newbie was too slow and cautious;they promptly destroyed the item being worked on!
RTFM !
Nope. Just a PhD Analytical Chemist with Nuclear minor. I occasionally make noises like an engineer, though, sufficient to have 24 issued patents, with more coming, and two R&D 100 awards.
And I say again, "universal geothermal energy" is sheer crackpottery. Having to drill 4 kilometers down to get to a temp of the boiling point of water (not a very efficient thermal differential) is NOT practical, and unlikely to ever BE practical.
In my book, those "small numbers" qualify as exceedingly rare. What perspective did you THINK I had, other than relative to the entire USA??
Ping me please.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.