7 ms·
In Utah, researchers are trying to make geothermal energy a reality
- giantrobot 4y ago
- Ancalagon 4y agoYeah I was gonna say. Can't they hire some of the engineers from Iceland? Or is this about much deeper geothermal vents that haven't been accessed in this way before?
- p_l 4y agoIceland is also pretty much on thin crust around a bunch of active volcanoes, plus it has much lower energy needs. Geothermal power in Iceland is effectively playing on easy mode.
- PragmaticPulp 4y agoThe Iceland topic is very clearly addressed in the article only a few paragraphs in.
- PragmaticPulp 4y agoThe difference from Iceland is very clearly addressed a couple paragraphs into the article: > Tapping that heat, however, has proved difficult. Some nations—notably volcanically active Iceland—siphon hot groundwater to heat buildings and generate electricity. In most places, however, the rock lacks the water or the cracks needed to easily move heat to the surface. For decades engineers have sought to coax heat from this hard, dry basement rock, which can reach temperatures of more than 250°C. But those efforts have largely failed
- dang 4y ago"Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- jandrewrogers 4y agoThat region of the US sits on top of one of the largest high-quality geothermal fields on the planet, about the size of Western Europe, and it isn't the only one in the US. The US produces more geothermal power than any other country by a significant margin, and several times more than Iceland. Ironically, environmental activism has substantially hindered development of geothermal power in the US, but the country still has a lot of it.
- rr808 4y agoIts like 100 degrees all week in Utah. Maybe you can generate electricity but surely geothermal is best for heating in the cold? Is the molten core of the Earth so hot that its inexhaustable? I'm wondering if it cools if that could potentially cause any issue. At least I'd think a warming planet doesn't need that extra heat on the surface.
- Ancalagon 4y agoWe are already heating the planet by burning fossil fuels, and that has the double-heating effect of emitting gases which further trap heat, mostly from the sun.
- taktoa 4y agoThe heat emitted by burning fossil fuels is completely irrelevant compared to the greenhouse impact. We burn about 11.7 gigatons of oil equivalent a year, which over 200 years would be 2.7 * 10^16 kWh. The greenhouse effect increase over the last 20 years leads to over 2.2 * 10^15 kWh/yr added to the planet, over 20x as much.
- pengaru 4y ago> Is the molten core of the Earth so hot that its inexhaustable? AIUI it's effectively inexhaustible. Earth's core is gradually cooling but we're talking something like 100C per billion years, for something presently at like 5,400C. So as far as human activity is concerned, it's an infinite source of heat. Edit: it's worth keeping in mind the Sun has something like 5B years before it turns into a red giant which is game over for Earth regardless of how much energy remains in its core.
- IntelMiner 4y agoWouldn't the pressure of all the weight of the planet itself trying to press down on a single point eventually lead to a heat equilibrium?
- 4y ago
- pmcollins 4y ago
- CyanLite2 4y agoEarthquakes is the primary concern. Ask South Korea.
- beefman 4y agoDon't know why you were downvoted. Induced seismicity is indeed a real issue with this form of geothermal energy, with prominent events in South Korea and Switzerland.
- sushid 4y agoStrange that you're being downvoted. This is fracking and it's been associated with one of the largest earthquakes South Korea has ever experienced. https://www.science.org/content/article/second-largest-earthquake-modern-south-korean-history-tied-geothermal-plant https://www.science.org/content/article/second-largest-earth...
- beefman 4y agoAh yes, the really really hard-to-get-to nuclear power. Always good to make things sporting.
- redtriumph 4y agoAs a mere spectator, I am aware that a lot of work may be required to make this work at scale and it’s possible that this research/approach stalls due to unknowns or some long pole. But readings like this give us all a hope that there is a better world possible!
- beefman 4y agoHow do you know it would be a better world? How should we evaluate energy systems? How should we evaluate possible futures?
- krageon 4y agoGiven that you've stepped so far outside of the norm (which is the understanding that the world is going to shit), perhaps you could start with why you think these questions are interesting and what your own ground state is. As it stands, this reads as being contrarian for no reason.
- beefman 4y agoI didn't make any claims about the state of the world. I asked how energy systems, at issue here, and possible futures, raised in the grandparent comment, should be evaluated. I do think it's a good idea to be a bit explicit when constructing hypothetical future states of the entire world and passing judgement on them.
- ggm 4y agoThe most recent Australian experience is that this demands more $ than you think, and invokes more engineering risks than you wanted, and in economic stress can wind up almost there, but a million miles away. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_power_in_Australia#Geodynamics_Cooper_Basin_Demonstration_Plant,_South_Australia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_power_in_Australia#... It's really sad. It should work, and it had massive upsides. I don't think the investment was a waste, where I do think CCS for sequestration is generally a giant boondoggle by the oil and gas extraction industries. There is a lot of emotion around fracking. Given its almost exclusively used to enhance well extraction, and against local farmers wishes, its hardly surprising. Water tables are complex, and people visualise them as something different: I was told by a geologist sleeving a drill through the water table is normal and common and there should be no necessary pollution of one by the other (deep fracking) but there's a lot of nervousness about it. They use heinously wierd mixtures to force the fracking. A lot of power investment decisions are basically linear optimisation: there are umpteen competing tensions, financial, political, energy cost/benefit, pollution, distance to consumer, longterm future, royalty, capex, opex, it's not that unusual for good science to be drowned out by politics (for instance). Right now, my sense is that Wind and Solar are in the ascendent, and that the politics of looking at other forms of energy involve most of the non-tech, political, layer 9 aspects of energy planning. I truly believe other forms of energy are worth exploring, but not if they interfere with deployment of low-carbon wind and solar and battery, and are just being used as a battering ram to preserve oil/coal energy income streams.
- SQueeeeeL 4y agoI feel like it's really common for people involved in energy extraction to tell the people living in a community "we promise it will all be fine". And then suddenly when things aren't fine, they'll pay the absolute legally enforced minimum (usually nothing) to those in the communities they've crippled. People are right to be afraid, giving money to a few well owners in exchange for your entire water table potentially getting destroyed is a bad deal
- ggm 4y agoYes. It's an exceptionally bad deal. Especially when you consider fugitive gas release from gas extraction is a huge, under-reported problem. All this does is contribute to wild, uncontained methane release. But fracking for heat, I think may still be worth arguing for, and discussing as risk issue. It's not unlike cancer treatments: anti cancer drugs are wildly toxic, and you would never, ever give them to a patient otherwise. None the less, until the newer anti-cancer vaccines came along, they were the gold standard for treatment: Arguing for testing demanded doctors justify giving people toxins. Was it worth it? Yes.
- Smoosh 4y agoI've also been following the work of Supercritical, who are tackling the high costs of deep drilling needed (in most locations) for geothermal energy. https://www.thinkgeoenergy.com/disruptive-drilling-technology-to-help-geothermal-power-the-world/ https://www.thinkgeoenergy.com/disruptive-drilling-technolog...
- Smoosh 4y agoThis may be an even better article: https://newatlas.com/energy/quaise-deep-geothermal-millimeter-wave-drill/ https://newatlas.com/energy/quaise-deep-geothermal-millimete...
- kreelman 4y agoThis is a pretty good video on the same thing. This is the "Undecided with Matt Ferrell" channel on youtube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8sjdOjNxIE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8sjdOjNxIE There are the usual adds, but nothing unusual in that respect. Seems like a pretty good summary.
- joak 4y agoPretty cool startup. Digging 20km deep holes, and only in 3-4 months, this would be amazing.
- svantana 4y agoMe too, though I think "supercritical" only refers to the water temperature they are targeting, >373 C [1]. The company name is Quaise Energy. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercritical_water_oxidation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercritical_water_oxidation
- TulliusCicero 4y ago> By one recent estimate, more than 5000 gigawatts of electricity could be extracted from heat in rock beneath the United States alone. That’s nearly five times the total currently generated by all U.S. power plants. So it could provide all the US' energy needs for five years? In some ways that sounds...unimpressive? Or more like, "okay that would be cool for a little while, but then it runs out and you're at square one", as opposed to solar/wind which are renewable, or nuclear where there's tons of uranium that could be used.
- Scarblac 4y agoNothing in that sentence suggests it's only for five years.
- chowells 4y agoWatts are power, not energy.
- TulliusCicero 4y agoAh, good point.
- betwixthewires 4y agoHow is geothermal considered renewable?
- paulbaumgart 4y agoIt’s renewable by human timescale standards, just like solar energy.
- gardaani 4y agoA geothermal plant running on full capacity may deplete its geothermal well in 50 years. It may take 1000 years before the geothermal system becomes a resource again [1]. Is that human timescale? [1] https://www.savingiceland.org/2010/10/geothermal-energy-running-out/ https://www.savingiceland.org/2010/10/geothermal-energy-runn...
- thehappypm 4y agoThat’s not bad actually. Any power plant is gonna be decommissioned after 50 years anyway.
- sgift 4y agoFind some scientific papers and then we can talk. Two comments without any context on a website called "savingiceland" aren't very convincing.
- djvdq 4y agoHow is solar considered renewable?
- betwixthewires 4y agoWell that's an interesting question, the short answer is it's shining anyway and hitting the surface regardless, might as well use it. The long answer is only so much is hitting the surface and you have to raze living areas that need it to use it so you still have to be cautious and selective. Geothermal is radiating into space from the center and is residual energy from formation and from the decay of radioactive material inside. If it is used that increases the rate at which it radiates, and too much of that has terrible potential implications, such as slowing of tectonics and lowering of the magnetic field. It may be hard to see humans using enough to do this, but someone could've said the same about fossil fuels when they began being used. This is not so with the sun, which is radiating the same regardless. So how is geothermal considered renewable?
- joak 4y agoThe main issue with geothermal energy is that it needs cooling and that means water, a lot of water. I do not have the exact estimates for geothermal, but in the US the current numbers are 15 gallons to produce 1kWh of electricity. source: https://www.usgs.gov/mission-areas/water-resources/science/thermoelectric-power-water-use https://www.usgs.gov/mission-areas/water-resources/science/t... Same issue with any kind of thermal power btw. This is already a problem with nuclear reactors that have to shut down because of droughts. Thermal pollution is also an issue. Rivers (and coastal waters) temperatures going up is destructive for ecosystems. So yes, geothermal is much better than coal. Not really a long term solution though.
- Schroedingersat 4y agoWater doesn't vanish when you boil it. In some areas you can just use it for heating, in other areas condensers are possible (although will not be built if not enforced via regulation or water pricing). There are also more exotic uses for low grade heat. Thermochemical storage, desalination, driving other endothermic reactions. Still a good argument for using wind and solar wherever possible and just collectively calming the hell down for a few hours when it's cloudy.
- thinkcontext 4y ago> ... just collectively calming the hell down for a few hours when it's cloudy. This is the exact argument people opposed to wind and solar make.
- Schroedingersat 4y agoThat's because they treat our habits and systems of organisation as immutable constants and the laws of physics as guidelines.
- thinkcontext 4y agoYou'll have to define what you mean by "... collectively calming the hell down when its cloudy". To me this implies pretty drastic demand response behavior changes but perhaps that's not what you mean.
- benevol 4y ago
- BonoboIO 4y agoIt’s a scam
- benevol 4y agoSays someone who hasn't even studied the material. Let alone attempted a prototype.
- AnimalMuppet 4y agoYou know, it's kind of the job of those making the claim to attempt the prototype (and then to demonstrate, publicly, that it works). It's not the skeptics' job to make the prototype. (And if they did, the true believers could just say "you didn't do it right".) The burden of proof is on you (and, even more, on the authors of the website, if there's any difference). Don't ask your critics to do your job.
- BonoboIO 4y agoIn history of mankind no one has shown a working „free energy“ generator. Id someone can do, jackpot richest man on earth, Nobel price and happy life. Every single claim ever was a scam or failure.
- arolihas 4y agoMaybe study thermodynamics instead. Free energy devices, perpetual motion, these concepts are physically impossible.
- lakomen 4y agoAlso in Utah, the NSA has a huge data store of mass surveillance data