There's a Vast Source of Clean Energy Beneath Our Feet. And a Race To Tap It. (nytimes.com) 193
The United States has enough geothermal energy to power the entire country. Some are trying to unlock it by using techniques from the fracking boom. From a report: Traditional geothermal plants, which have existed for decades, work by tapping natural hot water reservoirs underground to power turbines that can generate electricity 24 hours a day. Few sites have the right conditions for this, however, so geothermal only produces 0.4 percent of America's electricity currently. But hot, dry rocks lie below the surface everywhere on the planet. And by using advanced drilling techniques developed by the oil and gas industry, some experts think it's possible to tap that larger store of heat and create geothermal energy almost anywhere. The potential is enormous: The Energy Department estimates there's enough energy in those rocks to power the entire country five times over and has launched a major push to develop technologies to harvest that heat.
Dozens of geothermal companies have emerged with ideas. Fervo is using fracking techniques -- similar to those used for oil and gas -- to crack open dry, hot rock and inject water into the fractures, creating artificial geothermal reservoirs. Eavor, a Canadian start-up, is building large underground radiators with drilling methods pioneered in Alberta's oil sands. Others dream of using plasma or energy waves to drill even deeper and tap "superhot" temperatures that could cleanly power thousands of coal-fired power plants by substituting steam for coal. Still, obstacles to geothermal expansion loom. Investors are wary of the cost and risks of novel geothermal projects. Some worry about water use or earthquakes from drilling. Permitting is difficult. And geothermal gets less federal support than other technologies.
Dozens of geothermal companies have emerged with ideas. Fervo is using fracking techniques -- similar to those used for oil and gas -- to crack open dry, hot rock and inject water into the fractures, creating artificial geothermal reservoirs. Eavor, a Canadian start-up, is building large underground radiators with drilling methods pioneered in Alberta's oil sands. Others dream of using plasma or energy waves to drill even deeper and tap "superhot" temperatures that could cleanly power thousands of coal-fired power plants by substituting steam for coal. Still, obstacles to geothermal expansion loom. Investors are wary of the cost and risks of novel geothermal projects. Some worry about water use or earthquakes from drilling. Permitting is difficult. And geothermal gets less federal support than other technologies.
Hot dry rock 10 years away (Score:2)
In the way that magnetic-confinement fusion is always 30 years away, hot dry rock geothermal power is always 10 years away. Why is that?
Is it because much of the hot dry rock resource is in the Mountain West, where water is scarce, both as a heat-exchange fluid to extract the heat and also to cool the condensers for the steam power plant?
Could CO2 sequestered from natural gas power plants be piped in and serve as a heat-exchange fluid?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, the big energy change is the transition from liquid to gas and back again. Pumping steam isn't very efficient.
It's kind of a basic problem with all thermal energy generating systems (coal, NG, nuclear, etc.). They all waste energy (and use a lot of water).
Re:Hot dry rock 10 years away (Score:5, Interesting)
Aside from the planet's core continuing to heat things up, I think you underestimate the amount of energy in those hot rocks. By several orders of magnitude. The low end estimate is that geothermal energy will last at least 17 billion years - regardless of how much we use.
Re:Hot dry rock 10 years away (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
The amount of thermal energy in easily accessible shallow rocks is limited.
Ok, can we quantify what we are talking about here? Everything is limited, even the Sun's output. Which is why statements like this are to be taken as vague generalities.
We need quantification: how many joules of geothermal energy are in, and how much of that can be tapped (and thus lost by cool down.)
Without even doing the math, we can say it's damned yuuuge. The Earth's total geothermal energy is 10^31 Joules (3 * 10^15 terawatts.) Bore holes 2-3 miles deep and pour fluid on them, no matter how much e
Re: Hot dry rock 10 years away (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Are you saying fracking companies could be producing more energy from geothermal than from oil, and just don't know it?
Re: Hot dry rock 10 years away (Score:2)
Re:Hot dry rock 10 years away (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't matter. These guys are reflexively against any new and/or cheap energy source. Give it year or five, and they'll be blaming every tremor and geologic anomaly on it.
The number of people who would be distressed if we solved our energy and warning problems does truly boggle the mind.
Re: (Score:3)
It doesn't matter. These guys are reflexively against any new and/or cheap energy source. Give it year or five, and they'll be blaming every tremor and geologic anomaly on it.
The number of people who would be distressed if we solved our energy and warning problems does truly boggle the mind.
Seriously - are you positing that anyone who isn't fracking now to utilize this clean almost limitless energy source is wanting there to be an energy crisis?
The reasons that this is not the panacea that is being claimed is technical, not political or some weird capitalist conspiracy. Let's talk some facts
Geothermal power plants exist already in the world. They utilize steam, usually naturally occurring steam. They produce electrical power by routing the steam through a turbine. They work fairly well.
Re: Hot dry rock 10 years away (Score:2)
The American energy cycle:
(+0 years) it's fake news; it actually takes more energy to power it than its output
(+10 years) it's too dangerous
(+20 years) it's too expensive
(+30 years) it's not practical in some regions
(+40 years) it's too late to have an impact; we'll just wait for magical battery technology to solve everything
(+50 years) any day now we'll build enough capacity to store wind and solar ... any day now ...
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Or keeping guns out the hands of criminals?
Or investing in large infrastructure projects ?
Or reducing the cost of higher education?
Or improving the quality of the air, land and water?
Or ensuring everyone has the right to vote?
Re: (Score:3)
Some people are unalterably opposed to anything that improves the quality of life for people, or even maintains it. We call them "lefties."
It would be amusing if what you said was true - I'll bet you'd eat a pound of arsenic if I told you that it was a liberal hoax that it was bad for people.
Come back when you have some technical knowledge, or at least head on over to Truth Social where your people live.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The low end estimate is that geothermal energy will last at least 17 billion years - regardless of how much we use.
I know I may sound obtuse, but "regardless of how much we use" appears to defy the laws of math and physics, unless you somehow limit how much we use. You may want to qualify that a bit more.
Re: (Score:2)
will last at least 17 billion years - regardless of how much we use.
Humanity: Challenge Accepted.
Seriously, If you think something will never run out, that just means there's enough of it for people to start coming up with more extreme ways to use it.
It will run out, and when it does, welp I hope Earth having an electromagnetic field to shield the surface from harmful solar radiation wasn't important to you....
Re:Hot dry rock 10 years away (Score:4, Informative)
If we pull that much energy away from the hot rocks, they will cool. If we did this for decades, the result might be fewer or less powerful earthquakes as we release gigaojoules of energy every day, but this may have some adverse effect like the diminishment of the Earth's magnetic field that protect us from ionizing radiation (Van Allen belts).
The Earth's crust, which we'd drill into to access geothermal heat, is thousands of miles away from the core, where the magnetic field is generated. Even if we reach the crust-mantle boundary, which would be an impressive drilling feat, still nowhere near the core.
So we really don't have to worry
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Hot dry rock 10 years away (Score:4, Insightful)
If we pull that much energy away from the hot rocks, they will cool.
Well, in theory, if we round up all comets and ice bodies in the solar system and plunge them into the Sun, the Sun will kinda maybe cool down a little. You are underestimating the amount of thermal energy in those rocks (or the entire planet) compared to the cooling effect of all the water on the planet.
This is like trying to cool down Chernobyl during its meltdown by peeing on it.
If we did this for decades, the result might be fewer or less powerful earthquakes as we release gigaojoules of energy every day, but this may have some adverse effect like the diminishment of the Earth's magnetic field that protect us from ionizing radiation (Van Allen belts).
Dude, just no. You are severely misjudging the magnitudes of the stuff discussed here. You can bore a hole down the mantle and shove all the oceans into it, and it would not have the effect you suggest here.
The safest solution seems to be a combination of solar and energy storage (like reservoirs / hydroelectric && lithium ion batteries).
Safest with respect to what? Solar still requires mining and (for the time being) the use of fossil fuels to manufacture the panels. Energy storage is still experimental, and some of them can be dangerous in an accident (like molten salt battery/plants.)
The issue I see with this proposal is with corrosive agents seeping through the waters (or fluids) to be used in these proposed plants. It is a solved problem, but it is by no means a trivial matter.
We will have to use a combination of solar, thermal, nuclear, tidal (and possibly clean syngas burning and carbon sequestration) to solve our clean energy needs.
Re: Hot dry rock 10 years away (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There's a reason these rocks are dry in the first place. Water heated to those temperatures is probably not going to naturally flow into a network of cracks. I'm not sure they'll be able to get it to flow so much as cycle. Force water in under high pressure, then wait for it to come back under even higher pressure, then repeat. Basically an artificial geyser.
Re: (Score:3)
At least part of the reason it's perpetually 10 years away is that the well-oiled fossil fuel lobby works hard to ensure even the smallest step toward alternative power generation faces a long, hard uphill battle.
Re: (Score:2)
Probably not.
Basically there are 4 problems I see with geothermal, and 3 are not unsurmountable.
A. Water access, This is actually pretty easy to solve and can partially solve "sea level rise" and "clean drinking water" problems. Step 1, pump sea water in affected areas to a bore hole, this will vaporize the water and leave behind contamination in the bore hole. Step 2A, route steam through as many steam turbines as possible. Step 2B. Condense off the remaining steam to save as clean drinking water (additio
Re: (Score:2)
And yet there are nuclear reactors in the Mountain West, which I hear also require a few metric shitloads of water for cooling and turning turbines.
Even in the desert southwest! Amazing!
Wrong. Itâ(TM)s NOW (Score:2)
Thorium based reactors? (Score:3)
What would be nice if there were a race for thorium reactors and other reactor designs that are idiot-resistant. Ideally designs that don't need river water or cooling areas, but can be air cooled, perhaps easily trucked in assembled, and decommissioning can just be scramming the reactor and trucking out, ideally a breeder reactor design so the fuel can keep being used.
This way, it doesn't really matter what geography is present, inexpensive energy is possible regardless of location.
Re: (Score:3)
China and India are both working on thorium reactor designs (and China just licensed the first operation commercial reactor a few weeks ago).
You exaggerate the advantages - they are not air cooled, they are either light water reactors (the convention design) or molten salt (the more practical design for thorium).
And thorium reactors must be breeder reactors, since thorium isn't fissile. It has to be irradiated with neutrons to (eventually) turn it into U-232, which is. (What else can be bred in them is anot
Re: (Score:2)
THTRs are gas cooled. But not very reliable. Germany wrecked both prototypes it built.
Re: (Score:2)
Just a quick clarification.
Yes, they MUST be breeder reactors, but they can be set up to breed only what they need and not require any external neutron source after the initial startup.
In addition, you can breed a small excess of U-232 then use that to start a second reactor, rinse and repeat.
Re: (Score:2)
China, India and a few other countries are trialing burning thorium in heavy water CANDU reactors.
Does this mean fracking is good now? (Score:2)
I thought were against fracking because it could create seismic issues and affect aquifers.
Is fracking suddenly safe if you aren't using it to force natural gas to the surface?
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It already is reality is some places, like Iceland where 2/3 of all houses are heated with energy from geothermal plants.
Politics is complicated and dangerous, but ignoring reality is far more so.
Not *THE* solution... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
RTFS, chump
some experts think it's possible to tap that larger store of heat and create geothermal energy almost anywhere
Where were the earthquake worriers with fracking? (Score:2)
Uh huh. And where were all of these people who worry about earthquakes when the fracking boom was gearing up?
Also, fracking creates tons and tons of contaminated wastewater – which is injected into the ground.
Please don't mess things up (Score:2)
What "race"? (Score:2)
Headline says "and the race to tap it". That's copied from the article headline.
But the article makes no mention of a "race" or who the race participants are or why they are "racing".
This is what it's about though, the "Enhanced Geothermal Shot" https://www.energy.gov/eere/ge... [energy.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because that would be racist...
LOL
Nothing is free. (Score:2)
What happens when we alter the heat signature of our planet significantly? How will it impact inner flow of materials? How might that impact volcanoes or tectonic plate formation? We don't know.
Just like we don't know about seeding clouds, or altering atmospheric particle levels. But we've done both for a while. China for sure altered weather for the Beijing Olympics. And CA tries to regulate particles released/created from vehicles... which is also connected to cloud formation, which would alter wea
Re: (Score:2)
There are lots of reasons not to do this. Worries about changing the heat signature of the planet are not on that list.
The Earth's crust is a paper thin layer of cold rock floating atop a huge ass blob of molten rock and iron. It's the like the surface layer of your hot chocolate vs. the entire rest of your drink. We'd barely scratch a pin prick in the scummy layer atop the molten rock blob.
Earthquakes, toxic water sludge, and the difficulty of digging deep enough to matter are some of the problems here.
Hooray for... (Score:5, Interesting)
... subterranean geological instabilities.
Someone will make the argument that there's so much energy down there we could never consume enough to make a difference. But here's the thing - much like aquifers, pulling heat from a specific location will affect subterranean structures in the immediate vacinity, and we have little experience with how that might play out.
Re: (Score:3)
True, and on the other hand we do have experience with how fracking plays out in geologically unstable areas — it increases seismicity measurably, significantly, and immediately.
It's like no one was paying attention. (Score:2)
Did Zach Snyder teach you nothing about Krypton with "Man of Steel"?
Re: (Score:2)
Another problem created? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If we get a republican in office, prepare for solar to be dumped in a large dumpster fire. Solar = liberal ideals, for many republicans. (It doesn't make sense, but it doesn't have to.)
Beneath my feet? (Score:3)
My feet are propped up on the sofa. So would that source be my TV set?
Wow! (Score:2)
The United States has enough geothermal energy to power the entire country.
{Does comical, slapstick math using fingers}
Well, that's handy! An entire country has enough to power an entire country!
What race? (Score:2)
Need to use our super volcanoeS. (Score:2)
Oil Sands (Score:2)
⦠Albertaâ(TM)s oil sandsâ¦
You know, whenever you use the phrase âoeoil sandsâ, youâ(TM)re repeating petroleum industry propaganda. In Alberta, the resource was so dirty and of such poor quality, it was originally referred to as âoetar sandsâ.
The (successful) effort to rebrand âoetar sandsâ to the less filthy-sounding âoeoil sandsâ is reminiscent of how âoeglobal warmingâ has been replaced with the more politically acceptable âoeclimate changeâ.
Re: Oil Sands (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's literally impossible to get to net zero with heat pumps alone. Exploring other non poluting energy sources might help though.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course not, its always a multifaceted solution but considering that the largest residential use for fossil fuels is just heating they can play an important role in that they are 3-5x more efficient and are energy agnostic.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Heat pumps are commonly done as a split system with the outdoor coil above ground. No more footprint than an AC system.
While there may be great benefit for underground outdoor coil, a lot of places do not bother.
Re: (Score:2)
Another option is to drill a hole down instead of digging trenches. With a hole it only needs to be about 20cm diameter, and the whole unit about 2m square at most.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The costs depends on what is in the ground. Shallow trenches are easier to dig in some places. In others, it's even easier to just get a little mini bore hole driller and go through soft earth. Installers will know what the layers are like down there.
Re: (Score:2)
If we could just get the cost down for this, it would be the best option. The problem is that it's still insanely expensive. Found an overly extensive write-up on the current state of things: https://www.osti.gov/servlets/... [osti.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
Well, not cooling, that's already a heat pump for most places, and people using alternatives would be using alternatives that are more efficient than air conditioning., *maybe* heat, but that's tricky.
Heating is oil, natural gas, or heat pump. Resistive electric heating is in play for some spot heating, but largely is gone from whole home heating. Natural gas and oil are fairly inefficient at electricity generation, but since the problem is waste heat, when burned in a furnace it turns out to be a difficu
Re: Heat pumps? (Score:2)
If I'm not mistaken, a heat pump taking into account transmission loss and generation loss is currently more effect than directly burning gas for heat in pretty much the entire continental US
Re: (Score:2)
My back of a napkin calculation showed that yes, it could be the case while the system is serving as a heat pump, but you also have to factor in the 'emergency heat' behavior, and the cost and energy associated with ripping and replacing a furnace with a heat pump, and it's not a clear winner.
*If* your system really needs replacement anyway, going with heat pump would be a good idea, but I don't think we will gain a lot by a massive campaign to accelerate a shift shift from natural gas furnace to heat pump
Re: (Score:2)
Issue isn't low-grade heat, it is steam that can be used for running a turbine to produce electricity. No reason to not do both.
Re: Heat pumps? (Score:2)
Isn't geothermal a form of heat pump? No heat is being generated by the energy capture. It's simply moving the heat from place to place; i.e., a heat pump.
Re: Heat pumps? (Score:2)
With that said, ground source or geothermal heat pumps are the only way to go.
Re:Heat pumps? (Score:5, Informative)
That may have been true in the past, but isn't any longer. A good thorough video with analysis from a Chicago-area resident: Technology Connections [youtube.com]
I disagree with the OP that heat pumps are enough, but they ARE good for temperatures far below the freezing point of water.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Heat pumps? (Score:5, Informative)
In theory, the current refrigerants could go down much farther (some can boil at -50C) but there isn't much demand for that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
there a pure heat pump system that replaces central HVAC for an entire house?
Yes, everybody makes them, if you have central AC and you're unit is up for replacement it makes perfect sense to get a unit with heat pumping (its just an extra valve and some electronics).
https://www.trane.com/resident... [trane.com]
https://www.carrier.com/reside... [carrier.com]
https://www.lennox.com/product... [lennox.com]
https://www.goodmanmfg.com/pro... [goodmanmfg.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
What do you think a central AC replacement is besides the inside furnace (evaporator) and outside unit (condensor)?
If you have an AC system you already have a gas or electric furnace.
Nobody is saying if you have a working central system to move to heat pump just to get that feature, it's going to be a loser especially if you have a fairly new system.
if you have a 10+ year old AC system and are nearing the end of its lifetime which means a replacement of both sections of the system then it makes absolute sen
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Lets be real, there is no solution for efficient heating (one time or re-curring costs) in cold climates.
They're called heat pumps and they are more eficent because they have a coefficent of 300-500% on average and in the vast majority of the United States the number of days that are colder than the rated range for the heat pump is a fraction of the cold days that fall into it's prime range so on the whole, much more efficent. It's physics, gas and electric can only have a max coefficent of 100%
Re: Heat pumps? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Lets be real, there is no solution for efficient heating (one time or re-curring costs) in cold climates.
Sure there is. Good insulation is the place to start. A well insulated home needs less heating in the first place and it's entirely passive once it's installed and can last the lifetime of the building. Then there's heat pumps which don't necessarily have to be air sourced and don't have to be central ducted systems either.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I have a somewhat large house (approx 380 sqm internal space) that I installed ducted reverse cycle AC into. Total system cost was $AUD 14,500 installed, for a 20kw system (ie. 20kw of cooling capacity and 22kw of heating capacity, and six zone damper controller, with a thermostat and remote on/off switch in each zone, with wifi enabled smart controller. Specs say it draws a maximum of 6.17kw for heating and 6.08kw for cooling, but since it's an inverter drive system, it will run at lower and energy draw as
Re: (Score:2)
Now as for reasonably priced, that's more a function of the companies that make them than the technology. Central heat/air systems are a rip off because they can, for some reason, get away with it. There is no reason you should be able to buy a mini-split for every room in your home and come out cheaper than replacing a central system with a comparable heat pump
Re: (Score:2)
lol, what? So let me get this straight, you want me to replace my central air system with multi mini-split heat pumps for a house with 2600 sq ft? So hallways dont get air treatment? how about my bathrooms? Every room gonna have holes punched into my 2 floor house with random pipping all over the exterior? you on crack?
First off, go fuck yourself. Second, learn to read. I said there is no reason that a central system should cost as much as an putting a mini-split in every room was ridiculous and a sign that the companies selling the central systems are overcharging. How your addled brain took that as me saying you should install mini-splits in every room I have no fucking idea. I suggest you spend less time worrying about HVAC and maybe go consult a neurologist.
Re: (Score:2)
My house has a variable-speed multi-zone heat pump with backup electric emergency heat. We've had single-digit weeks and have kept the home heated just fine. Only time the emergency heat pack comes on is if I test it.
House was built in 2014, so it's "newer" but not the newest.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There are geothermal heat pumps that work far better in cold climates, as they use the ground-based heat that stays basically the same year-round if you only go down 20 feet or so. It's just not as good of a temperature gradient for mass energy production, but it's sure good enough to work a heat exchanger for heating / cooling a home.
The install costs more though, because you have to dig a really big hole somewhere on your property.
Re: (Score:2)
That was a thought, I have seen calculation done that got to 9 billion years.
It had some issues, like assuming 100% efficient extraction of energy, and also calculated draining the earth to 0K, but also mistakes the other way like failing to calculate the contribution of radioactivity (a non trivial amount of our heat energy is basically the earth being a gigantic RTG).
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Hi, time traveler from the future here. So we all though the atmosphere was really super duper big and could hold like...TONS of CO2. It can't. So can someone calculate when the Earth's core will run out of heat if X amount of people draw Y amount of energy from it?
Since you have traveled back from the future we know humanity survived.
Maybe that will help alleviate the crippling climate anxiety that affects lots of people.
Re: (Score:2)
Just thinking out loud here but aren't there subduction zone in the ocean right now? If my high school earth science class (or Nature https://www.nature.com/article... [nature.com]) is to be believed, plate tectonics already eats a large volume of the oceans every year. This is replaced through volcanic out-gassing and comets.
We could pump all the earths oceans into the mantle and it wouldn't make much of a difference... other than killing all of us through dehydration that is.
Re: (Score:2)
Because you need a DEEP hole to make it worthwhile, and all the pilot projects I've heard of have huge problems with corrosion.
Because water goes in clean, then dissolves every salt it comes in contact with (and it is HOT don't forget) so it comes out corrosive, loaded with sulfur, and toxic AF. So now you've got a f-ton of horrifying water trying to eat your pipes and pumps and storage tanks.
This does not happen with fracking nearly as much because they use water to fracture the rocks, and they -leave- it
Humans need more expensive energy (Score:2)
Terra needs less humans
Re: (Score:2)