Abundant Power from Universal Geothermal Energy

Technology Review (MIT) ^ | August 1, 2006 | By Kevin Bullis

[AFreeBird]

Paging FR resident drilling geologist, please pick up the white courtesy phone

[Gay State Conservative]

Try reading the entire article. He really is talking about "anywhere in the world."

Hey,thanks for the advice.It's a good thing I wasn't simply trying to tell a quick story about my own little experience with geothermal that's *already in use*.

[hoosierham]

We could be more thrifty in use of energy if only we had labor costs like the Chinese and Cubans. Installing the millions of already existing energy saving devices takes a lot of human energy.

But seriously folks;why fon't we have more solar powered air conditioning ? My camper burns propane to make heat to make cold, so why not sun shining on the unit as a source of heat to drive the cooling cycle?

[Michael.SF.]

What perspective did you THINK I had, other than relative to the entire USA??

Well, since the link I provided was to an international company, and I posted a map showing world wide distribution of plants from one small company, one could easily have surmised you were referring to the world total.

Quibbling over "exceedingly rare" vs. "small number", not withstanding, you were also wrong that Geothermal plants need to be located near major urban areas. I have referenced you to numerous plants where this is not the case. I am not in my office and thus I do not have access to one of my books, which if I recall correctly lists the MW capacity of the USA (as of 2002) by fuel source and or Plant type. There are about 40 geothermal plants located in California and Nevada alone, a number which in all likelihood exceeds your original thinking, which I was first addressing.

[Wonder Warthog]

"Quibbling over "exceedingly rare" vs. "small number", not withstanding, you were also wrong that Geothermal plants need to be located near major urban areas. I have referenced you to numerous plants where this is not the case."

And what percentage of all the urban areas of the USA does this dinky little figure represent??? 0.001%??

I'll say it ONE MORE TIME--the vast majority of potential geothermal sources are too remote from urban areas to be successsfully utilized. LOOK AT THE DAMNED MAP OF THE US. Probably 95% of the POTENTIAL (not practical) geothermal is west of the Mississippi River, while most of the population is east of the Missippi. You don't transmit electricity thousands of miles--not with current (no pun intended) transmission technology, you don't.

"I am not in my office and thus I do not have access to one of my books, which if I recall correctly lists the MW capacity of the USA (as of 2002) by fuel source and or Plant type. There are about 40 geothermal plants located in California and Nevada alone, a number which in all likelihood exceeds your original thinking, which I was first addressing."

Judging from the ones you posted, the total output of geothermal energy in your list doesn't even meet the output of two standard nuclear power plants. Of course, it's hard to tell , given your "mixed units" including either megawatts or "number of homes" (a meaningless measure).

Geothermal will NEVER provide a significant portion of the US's energy needs. Better to spend the money and energy building a breeder fission capability.

[eraser2005]

It was a 5 ton system, I believe - I don't remember the exact details 100%, but I think it was 5 wells about 300 feet deep each.

[Michael.SF.]

And what percentage of all the urban areas of the USA does this dinky little figure represent??? 0.001%?? I'll say it ONE MORE TIME--the vast majority of potential geothermal sources are too remote from urban areas to be successsfully utilized.

LOL. Yeah, I guess, Los Angeles, Phoenix, SLC, SF don't really count as urban areas, do they?

You also do not understand the grid system of transmission very well, do you? As far as mixing of units go, I took the data, as given. I figured a Phd. would be able to do the conversion. Guess you could not figure out that the average home uses 908 kw-hr per month either that or you were too lazy to do the math.

I have known, in my life, a number of both Phd's and MD's and it has usually been the Phd's who have been overly pompous and arrogant, not willing to admit when their logic is fallible. Real Doctors usually seem to be willing to admit that they do not really know a subject and can take information from others.

I have never said that Geothermal would be a significant part of our electrical supply, I have just always contended that you have grossly underestimated it.

[Eric in the Ozarks]

The Amoco Oil Company drilled an exploration hole past the 18,000 foot mark in eastern Iowa Devonian shale back in the 1970s. Deep drilling is possible but quite expensive and time consuming.

[Wonder Warthog]

"LOL. Yeah, I guess, Los Angeles, Phoenix, SLC, SF don't really count as urban areas, do they?"

So I ask once again--what percentage of the urban US do these areas constitute. Of course you are bogusly assuming that all their electricity will be provided by geothermal, aren't you.

"You also do not understand the grid system of transmission very well, do you?"

So why don't you explain it, genius boy??

"As far as mixing of units go, I took the data, as given. I figured a Phd. would be able to do the conversion. Guess you could not figure out that the average home uses 908 kw-hr per month either that or you were too lazy to do the math."

Now WHY would I bother to have the amount of electricity the "average home" uses memorized?

"I have known, in my life, a number of both Phd's and MD's and it has usually been the Phd's who have been overly pompous and arrogant, not willing to admit when their logic is fallible. Real Doctors usually seem to be willing to admit that they do not really know a subject and can take information from others."

I take ACCURATE information from others just fine. But when someone spouts bullshit, I "will" call them on it.

"I have never said that Geothermal would be a significant part of our electrical supply, I have just always contended that you have grossly underestimated it."

So, I'll ask again---what fraction of the total US energy demand does geothermal provide?? The answer is "an insignificant one".

But you keep on living in your dream world, "wishin' and hopin" for someone to make geothermal useful except in very unsual confluences of easy supply and a nearby dense population.

[3niner]

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.

Then you should know the difference between someone proposing to violate the laws of thermodynamics, and simple matters of efficiency.

In fact, there are geothermal power systems that use even smaller temperature differences, also some of the newer geothermal power plants, that now exist, operate very efficiently using steady state energy extraction.

Professor Tester was merely pointing out that subsurface technology has advanced to the point where it may soon become practical to create, artificially, the conditions which we now use as non-depleting, geothermal, energy sources.

That said, I still think that a much more promising, near term, energy source is to build sodium cooled, fast neutron, fission reactors.

[3niner]

Now WHY would I bother to have the amount of electricity the "average home" uses memorized?

It has been common practice, for many years, for power companies to describe power plant capacity both in megawatts, and in hundreds of homes, when talking to the press. The common rule is that 1 megawatt of power plant capacity will reliably serve about 100 homes. I suspect that power producers like to use this number, because it is close enough, and results in math that even a newspaper reporter can, generally, handle.

---what fraction of the total US energy demand does geothermal provide??

What fraction of the total US energy demand was supplied by nuclear reactors, in 1950?

What fraction of the total US transportation demand was supplied by automobiles, in 1910?

Arguments about future practicality, based on the current state of an infant technology, are specious.

[Michael.SF.]

to make geothermal useful except in very unsual confluences of easy supply and a nearby dense population.

I gave links to all the numbers and data that I used, so don't try and pass this off as BS, when you simply do not know what you are talking about.

For example:

You keep saying that geothermal electricity can only be used if the geothermal plant is located near an urban area. What are you making that erroneous assumption on?

What does the source of fuel/heat have to do with the transmission of electricity to a distant location?

Answer: none. The problems of transmitting electricity are unrelated to the type of fuel used to produce the electricity. Evidence: Colstrip Power Plant, Montana, Jim Bridger PP, Wyoming, Navajo PP, Az., Springerville PP, Az., Four Corners, N.M. plus the geothermal plants I named. All are located 100's of miles from major urban areas, yet all manage to supply a portion of the countries total electrical requirements.

Now, for the last time (I hope) I will state what I have been saying all along: 1) Geothermal produces more electricity then you originally gave it credit for and 2) the location of a geothermal plant is immaterial to the possibility of supplying energy into the system (yes costs will be higher, but it poses no technological problems.)

Now, read some of the links that I have posted and educate yourself on the subject or you will just continue to look foolish.

And I am not a big advocate of geothermal electricity because it is a very expensive, I just try to place facts out for people to consider. But some are not willing to look at simple facts when they are presented to them.

[Wonder Warthog]

"Now, for the last time (I hope) I will state what I have been saying all along: 1) Geothermal produces more electricity then you originally gave it credit for and 2) the location of a geothermal plant is immaterial to the possibility of supplying energy into the system (yes costs will be higher, but it poses no technological problems.)"

No, Mikey, I'll say no such thing. I took the time to do a little of my own homework, and found that the TOTAL INSTALLED GEOTHERMAL CAPACITY of the USA is 3000 megawattss (i.e. the equivalent of 3 "standard nuclear reactors", but that only 2000 megawatts is available. This contributes 0.2% of the US's installed electrical capacity (based on 2001 numbers) and a damned close match for my estimation based on your posting.

IOW, geothermal is just as miniscule a source of power as I thought.

[Wonder Warthog]

"Then you should know the difference between someone proposing to violate the laws of thermodynamics, and simple matters of efficiency."

Who said anything about violating the laws of thermodynamics. I'm talking about the difficulty of drilling thousands of holes four kilometers deep to GET TO the geothermal power.

"In fact, there are geothermal power systems that use even smaller temperature differences, also some of the newer geothermal power plants, that now exist, operate very efficiently using steady state energy extraction."

Excuse me, but this is BS. Maximum thermal efficiency is determined ENTIRELY by temperature differential---the higher the differential, the higher the efficiency. There may be plants that are capable of operating on small temperature differences, but EFFICIENT they are not. You've got to be careful with how these turkeys define "efficiency". A lot of them use a "theoretical percentage of the theoretical maximum FOR THE TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE". That way they can quote a "90% efficiency" for a process that is actually only 10% of the maximum thermal efficiency. It makes'em sound really good--until, that is, you check the actual numbers.

"Professor Tester was merely pointing out that subsurface technology has advanced to the point where it may soon become practical to create, artificially, the conditions which we now use as non-depleting, geothermal, energy sources."

And "Professor Tester" is full of it. To get TO those sources will require holes four kilometers deep. They're VERY EXPENSIVE.

"That said, I still think that a much more promising, near term, energy source is to build sodium cooled, fast neutron, fission reactors."

And THAT I can agree with. The US needs a fast-breeder fission power system.

[Michael.SF.]

You are still wrong about the transmission of power over long distance, so we will call this one a draw. I also note that you did not answer any of my questions regarding your second pint. You just cannot stand it that someone proved you wrong, can you?

Funny that you call me Mikey, in such a condescending tone, thus illustrating my point about Phd's being arrogant assholes compared to real Doctors.

[Michael.SF.]

It is easy to be "proved right, when you define the territory after making a statement. I have never disagreed that Geothermal was a small part of the total power picture. But it is a significant part of the picture, which warrants further consideration.

I did a little more research and found:

Nuclear Power capacity in Calif.: 4314 Mw
percent of total power generated: ~ 9.8%

Geothermal capacity in Calif: 2500 Mw
Percent of total power generated: 4.8%

I do fully agree that nuclear is the better way to go for clean efficient energy, but you should not be so condescending in your abrupt and often erroneous assumptions regarding geothermal.

[Wonder Warthog]

"You are still wrong about the transmission of power over long distance, so we will call this one a draw. I also note that you did not answer any of my questions regarding your second pint. You just cannot stand it that someone proved you wrong, can you?"

Nope. You haven't proved anything. I did some homework on what the grid is, and how it works, and it is YOU who don't understand it. The grid is a mechanism for establishing redundancy, allowing load sharing, and bypassing outages. What it is NOT is a means for transmitting power an appreciable amount of power from California to Maine. The basic laws of physics preclude that---it's called "transmission losses". High voltage power cables have a resistance of about 1 ohm/mile. If the transmission voltage is 475KV, and the distance is guesstimated at 4000 miles, then the maximum current you can transmit is around 120 Amps--or about enough to power a single household.

"Nuclear Power capacity in Calif.: 4314 Mw
percent of total power generated: ~ 9.8%"

"Geothermal capacity in Calif: 2500 Mw
Percent of total power generated: 4.8%"

And the total possible developable geothermal power for California is what?? THAT is the statistic that counts.

"I do fully agree that nuclear is the better way to go for clean efficient energy, but you should not be so condescending in your abrupt and often erroneous assumptions regarding geothermal."

The only problem with your little fantasy is that I haven't been wrong on any point.

[Michael.SF.]

allowing load sharing, and bypassing outages. What it is NOT is a means for transmitting power an appreciable amount of power

You are getting tiresome with your weak understanding and misconceptions of what I have been saying. I never have said that the grid was a method of transmitting power across the country. I said that you do not understand how it works. Further I will say that the answer is in the sentence above, yet you do not realize it.

Here is what you said that was factually wrong:

In a very limited area, where it (electricity derived from geothermal plants) happens to be both readily accessible and near population centers,

Admittedly you did not define "near" I would define near as being within 15-200 miles. I gave you a list of power plants that are located several hundred miles from the urban areas that use "their" electricity.

The grid allows this to happen. You seem to think that if a plant in California produces electricity, then that electricity must travel the entire distance to Maine to be used in Maine. That is not the case and you are clearly wrong on that point.

Here is why:

The grid could be viewed as a charged energy field with multiple inputs and multiple outputs. Electricity is put in at any point and can be taken out at any point. The controllers who operate the grid have the ability to bring up plants, or bring down plants anywhere on the grid to balance the total power distributed.

A sudden surge in usuage, in say Denver, could cause a shortage in the grid sector covered. Thus, they could ramp up power plants in SLC, Wyoming, Kansas or other surrounding areas, to replenish this surge. This is called "load sharing" which you mentioned, but did not understand.

Power plants are paid based on their feed into the grid and are paid at various rates depending on the complexities of established agreements (the commercial agreements are not an area that I have experience).

There are also independent producers who do not tie into the grid and in those cases, then their electrical distibution is limited, but it is limited to a distnace which my not be as "near" as you seem to think.

[kallenpj]

i have been following the discussion between you guys. I was really hoping to find out some useful information about the use of geothermal, so let me see if i got this all straight:
Geothermal is a viable option
Geothermal is expensive, so will probably not be a large factor in the near future.
Geothermal may or may not be able to be used around the world
Geothermal is good as individual home pumps
What are the enviornmental reprocussions of Geothermal. If we remove the heat from the earth's core, will that make the crust hotter? Will heat radiation from the earth increase? Will we be able to pump all excess waste back into the ground? What is it that makes it so expensive? If we can use some of our oil drilling techniques and machines, then why is the expense issue.

[3niner]

Maximum thermal efficiency is determined ENTIRELY by temperature differential...

The way that one determines whether a power plant is practical is by looking at its ECONOMIC efficiency. This is a combination of many factors including construction cost, operating and maintenance cost, power produced, location of produced power, etc.

There are already a number of geothermal power plants which are economically efficient, though they have a high construction cost, some also have very low operating and maintenance costs, combined with a very long projected operating life.

Some very small geothermal power sources have a very low thermal efficiency, but are economically efficient, because they deliver power to a remote area and have very low operating costs.

What you are objecting to, in this article, are the very high construction costs, which you are assuming will remain prohibitively high. Professor Tester is pointing out that they have decreased greatly, in recent years, and is projecting that they will continue to do so. He may be wrong, but it's unlikely that he is a fool.