4 ms·
I agree with GP, this shouldn't be a discussion of, "we don't need geo-thermal because solar/wind is cheaper". The issue is we are still heavily dependent on n
by DoingIsLearning 6y ago
I agree with GP, this shouldn't be a discussion of, "we don't need geo-thermal because solar/wind is cheaper".
The issue is we are still heavily dependent on non-intermitent energy generation. Which for now is mostly Coal and Gas Power Plants. Coal is extremely poluting and Natural Gas is both polluting and has a geo-political mess of supliers.
Fusion is still years in the future and if even if there was a political will for nuclear it cannot be realistically rolled out quickly enough to decomission coal in terms of climate damage.
Without knowing all the details it seems like a much easier problem to solve:
- Get 24/7 heat out of deeper earth's crust without 'fracking' earthquake's
Vs
- Energy efficient time sustained nuclear fusion
As a bonus, if I'm allowed to be completely cynical, geo-thermal could enable much of the Oil and Gas drilling technology and know-how to transition to a new industry, giving them an exit strategy rather than continue this tactic of agressive lobbying and squeezing the final dollars out of the Petro-Chemical industry at the cost of Human Future.
- pfdietz 6y agoGeothermal is a lot like nuclear: it's a capital intensive baseload source. As such, it suffers like nuclear in an environment with increasing intermittent penetration. One might have imagined an environment in which geothermal replaced (say) diesel at remote locations, because diesel fuel is expensive. But add some wind/solar/batteries to that diesel and you save most of the fuel. The benefit of replacing it with geothermal is reduced.