4 ms·
The drilling is on land. Artificial cooling of permafrost using thermosiphons (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermosiphon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermosi
by wahern 4y ago
The drilling is on land. Artificial cooling of permafrost using thermosiphons (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermosiphon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermosiphon) isn't new. For example,
> 120,000 thermosyphons were built into the Trans-Alaska Pipeline’s supports in the 1970s.
https://dakotafreepress.com/2021/07/11/permafrost-melting-could-break-trans-alaska-pipeline-thermosyphons-to-the-rescue/ https://dakotafreepress.com/2021/07/11/permafrost-melting-co...
All of the concern about this project is fundamentally speculative. That doesn't mean the speculation is wrong, but little factoids like that about thermosiphons seem to be thrown into the mix to insinuate more substance and impending doom than can otherwise be fairly shown (at least shown in a popular news article).
If coal is any indication, it's entirely possible that extraction at Willow would become unprofitable long before the lease expires.
- namaria 4y agoThe fact that industrial sized ground cooling is already kinda common makes me feel way worse about it, not better.
- anarticle 4y agoWhat you have described is geothermal heating, only using less total energy due to not having to heat for human survival. This tech is also used on buildings to keep from frost heaving. https://canada.constructconnect.com/joc/news/technology/2016/09/thermosyphons-use-simple-physics-to-lick-cold-climate-challenges-1018682w https://canada.constructconnect.com/joc/news/technology/2016... It's not that big of a deal, consider the thermal difference between the ground and air. Also, consider it is not using any input energy to do it, simply the evaporation of ammonia!
- namaria 4y agoNet energy is the crucial difference. One generates carbon emissions to make carbon based infrastructure last longer, further generating emissions, while the other actually displaces them.