4 ms·

Geothermal is popular in more or less every area that has the right geology for it. It's just that those faults that being usable thermal energy close to the su

Geothermal is popular in more or less every area that has the right geology for it. It's just that those faults that being usable thermal energy close to the surface are few and far between.

ncmncm 4y ago
Almost all geothermal was, like nukes, built long before renewables got so much cheaper that literally anything else.
- Manuel_D 4y ago
  Quite the contrary. Places where geothermal is accessible, like Iceland, have extremely cheap Energy costs. That's why they export a lot of bulk aluminum [1]. It's very energy intensive - it basically involves arcing electricity through rocks - so much so that aluminum ore is shipped to Iceland to get processed there. 1. https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Iceland_Export_Treemap.jpg https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Iceland_Export_Tre...
  - ncmncm 4y ago
    Yet, Iceland's energy infrastructure was, as I said, mostly built before energy from renewables got even cheaper than theirs. Very little new geothermal is being built because it cannot compete, most places.
    - Manuel_D 4y ago
      No, renewables would not be cheaper for Iceland. Solar potential that far north is minimal. Wind would be very intermittent and require vast importation of fossil fuels to fill in times of non-production. And if would have to be shipped in in LNG vessels. I am seriously skeptical of the claim that a renewable grid would be cheaper for Iceland. Do you have a source to back up this claim?
      - ncmncm 4y ago
        You seem unacquainted with the expression "most places". Do you really need it explained how Iceland differs from most places? And, intermittency does not, in fact, require importation of fossil fuels, as has been explained to you numerous times before.
        Manuel_D 4y ago
        Intermittency requires the use of dispatchable energy sources. This can be delivered through hydroelectric power, for those regions that have hydroelectric potential. But for those that don't have the right geography for hydroelectricity, fossil fuels are the only dispatchable source. Energy storage could theoretically avoid the need for alternative energy sources during periods of non production. But storage solutions capable of being deployed at relevant scales only exist in white papers, as has been explained to you numerous times before.
        ncmncm 4y ago
        You insist, vociferously, that renewable energy storage infrastructure has not been built out yet. But we all knew that already. It has already been explained to you numerous times that spending on storage would be foolish until we have enough renewables built out to charge it while also meeting demand; for now, money is much better spent on generation capacity. When it does become useful, storage will be radically cheaper to build out than now, as its cost is falling very, very fast. The gating condition has not been met since the last time it was explained to you. Be assured, you will know when it comes about. We will not require further such reminders in the meantime.
        Manuel_D 4y ago
        The gating condition has been met several different places. California, Hawaii, and parts of the southwest. But the assured transition to energy storage has not happened, despite energy prices going negative on a regular basis. Why? Because storage remains nowhere near cost effective. Batteries and hydroelectric storage aren't cheap enough, and the former is actually getting more expensive as supply chains get clogged. Real world examples disprove your claim that storage will be built once a surplus of intermittent energy is produced. There is no solution. Only prototypes and wishful thinking, and hostility to those that point this out.

Geothermal is popular in more or less every area that has the right geology for it. It's just that those faults that being usable thermal energy close to the surface are few and far between.

ncmncm 4y ago

Almost all geothermal was, like nukes, built long before renewables got so much cheaper that literally anything else.

Manuel_D 4y ago
Quite the contrary. Places where geothermal is accessible, like Iceland, have extremely cheap Energy costs. That's why they export a lot of bulk aluminum [1]. It's very energy intensive - it basically involves arcing electricity through rocks - so much so that aluminum ore is shipped to Iceland to get processed there. 1. https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Iceland_Export_Treemap.jpg https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Iceland_Export_Tre...
- ncmncm 4y ago
  Yet, Iceland's energy infrastructure was, as I said, mostly built before energy from renewables got even cheaper than theirs. Very little new geothermal is being built because it cannot compete, most places.
  - Manuel_D 4y ago
    No, renewables would not be cheaper for Iceland. Solar potential that far north is minimal. Wind would be very intermittent and require vast importation of fossil fuels to fill in times of non-production. And if would have to be shipped in in LNG vessels. I am seriously skeptical of the claim that a renewable grid would be cheaper for Iceland. Do you have a source to back up this claim?
    - ncmncm 4y ago
      You seem unacquainted with the expression "most places". Do you really need it explained how Iceland differs from most places? And, intermittency does not, in fact, require importation of fossil fuels, as has been explained to you numerous times before.
      - Manuel_D 4y ago
        Intermittency requires the use of dispatchable energy sources. This can be delivered through hydroelectric power, for those regions that have hydroelectric potential. But for those that don't have the right geography for hydroelectricity, fossil fuels are the only dispatchable source. Energy storage could theoretically avoid the need for alternative energy sources during periods of non production. But storage solutions capable of being deployed at relevant scales only exist in white papers, as has been explained to you numerous times before.
        ncmncm 4y ago
        You insist, vociferously, that renewable energy storage infrastructure has not been built out yet. But we all knew that already. It has already been explained to you numerous times that spending on storage would be foolish until we have enough renewables built out to charge it while also meeting demand; for now, money is much better spent on generation capacity. When it does become useful, storage will be radically cheaper to build out than now, as its cost is falling very, very fast. The gating condition has not been met since the last time it was explained to you. Be assured, you will know when it comes about. We will not require further such reminders in the meantime.
        Manuel_D 4y ago
        The gating condition has been met several different places. California, Hawaii, and parts of the southwest. But the assured transition to energy storage has not happened, despite energy prices going negative on a regular basis. Why? Because storage remains nowhere near cost effective. Batteries and hydroelectric storage aren't cheap enough, and the former is actually getting more expensive as supply chains get clogged. Real world examples disprove your claim that storage will be built once a surplus of intermittent energy is produced. There is no solution. Only prototypes and wishful thinking, and hostility to those that point this out.