Geothermal energy, a renewable source of heat and electricity, is influenced by factors such as heat flux, permeability structure, and fluid properties. Its surface-level advantages include constant availability, environmental friendliness, and relatively low cost. Geothermal energy is the most reliable option compared to other renewable energy sources like wind and solar power. Innovative technologies, such as enhanced geothermal systems (EGS), closed-loop systems, and supercritical systems for very high temperatures, are breaking new ground in the field.
The flexibility of a geothermal power plant depends on the subsurface resource that supplies it. Individual geothermal resources are unique, with wide potential for growth. The climate crisis has created an urgent need for sustainable green energy. Geothermal resources have the potential to provide up to 95.1 GWh (gigawatt hours) 2 and 283.6 TWh (terawatt hours) 3 of energy production. However, seismic activity and geological instability can hinder the construction of geothermal power plants in some areas.
To address these challenges, increased access to modern energy infrastructure, enhanced energy security through supply diversification, and transition strategies are essential. Geothermal systems are unique in their ability to work at full capacity due to technical and environmental limitations. Superheating the working fluid by structural modification negatively affects system performance, while natural processes can affect the amount of greenhouse gases released from geothermal power plants over time.
In practice, geothermal plants can only utilize a portion of stored thermal energy due to limitations in drilling technology and rock permeability. The high value of the geofluid mass flow rate could lead to overexploitation of reservoirs. In both geothermal heat and power production, a heat pump transforms heat stored under the earth’s surface into heating, cooling, and hot water.
📹 This Overlooked Energy Source Could Supply 50% Of Electricity
Miles below the Earth’s surface, there’s enough thermal energy to power all of humanity for the foreseeable future. It’s called …
What are some limitations to producing geothermal energy?
Geothermal energy, a renewable and sustainable source, is a significant source of heat found inside the earth’s surface. However, it faces several disadvantages, including environmental issues such as greenhouse gas accumulation below the Earth’s surface, surface instability due to earthquakes, high costs, location-specific issues, and sustainability concerns. Despite its potential, geothermal energy is less utilized than other renewable sources like wind and solar panels. Despite these challenges, geothermal energy remains a viable and environmentally friendly alternative.
What is the greatest limitation for the use of geothermal power?
Geothermal energy has limitations due to its proximity to tectonic plates, low CO2 levels, and potential earthquakes. It must be kept away from populations, reducing site options. However, for countries with geographical advantages, the energy return on investment (EROI) of geothermal energy is about nine units of output per unit of input. This is lower than solar and wind energy, but it has unique advantages such as high reliability and consistent Earth’s core heat, allowing accurate electricity generation.
Each renewable energy source has its pros and cons, and it is important to compare their efficiency based on the relative advantages of each specific location. With the increasing use of geothermal energy and decreasing operational costs, it is projected that global geothermal energy could provide 800-1300 TWh per year by 2050, contributing 2-3 to global electricity generation. Although geothermal energy has its advantages and disadvantages, it is still an indispensable part of the transition to renewable energy.
What limits geothermal power?
Geothermal energy has several disadvantages, including being location-specific, releasing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere during digging, and triggering earthquakes due to alterations in Earth’s structure. These disadvantages are more prevalent with enhanced geothermal power plants, which force water into the Earth’s crust to open fissures for greater resource exploitation. However, these emissions are still lower than those associated with fossil fuels.
Location-specific disadvantages are less common in areas like Iceland, where geothermal energy is readily accessible. Environmental side effects include the release of greenhouse gases stored under the Earth’s surface, which are released into the atmosphere during digging. Despite these drawbacks, geothermal energy remains a viable alternative to fossil fuels due to its low emissions and environmental impact.
How is geothermal energy limited?
Geothermal power plants provide 24/7 renewable electricity, unlike wind and solar, which are variable and dependent on weather conditions. New technologies, such as Enhanced Geothermal Systems (EGS), are making geothermal resources more accessible and easier to find in more locations. Geothermal energy is classified as semi-renewable, but careful management is needed to prevent water or steam depletion.
Ground source heat pumps, often referred to as geothermal heat pumps, are energy efficiency measures that use the ground as a heat source or sink, maintaining a constant temperature. As global demand increases, direct use of heat is expected to increase by 78 percent from 2016-2021.
What are the challenges of geothermal energy?
Geothermal systems, which use hot water to generate steam for electricity generation, are located on the Earth’s tectonic plates, where trapped reservoirs migrate to the surface. These systems, which are typically active where hydrothermal reservoirs exist, are a significant source of energy. However, they also pose a risk of earthquakes, as they can be triggered by the movement of trapped reservoirs.
Geothermal energy is generated from underground hydrothermal reservoirs, which are naturally generated through hot springs, geysers, and volcanoes. There are three primary forms of geothermal power plants: dry steam, flash steam, and binary cycle. However, these systems face location constraints and potential earthquake risks.
Why do geothermal plants have low efficiency?
This paper investigates the economic feasibility of sustainable exploitation of geothermal resources for electricity generation using a novel hybrid techno-economic model. The paper reviews standard terminology and classifications from the literature, such as “sustainability”, “sustainable operation”, “renewability”, “recovery”, “recharge”, and “regeneration”. An example is presented of a conventional, convective high-enthalpy hydrothermal system compared to an enhanced, conductive low-enthalpy petrothermal system.
Different sustainable operation criteria for the use of geothermal energy are derived from the literature, and the conditions for complying with these criteria are compared with the economic criteria of cost minimization (levelized cost of electricity) and profit maximization (net present value).
The hydrothermal system, in contrast to the petrothermal system investigated, can meet several sustainability criteria, such as extraction equals recharge and operating lifetime of 100 to 300 years. However, economically optimal operation leads to excessive overexploitation, showing a distinct trade-off between profit maximization and sustainable operation that has not been discussed in the literature so far.
Renewable energy sources must replace fossil fuels at a massive scale before the end of this century to address climate change challenges. Geothermal energy, which is continuously available and base-load capable, offers immense potential for meeting human energy needs for centuries. However, economical use only exists for a few places with favorable site conditions, and with 16 GW of installed capacity in 2020, geothermal energy represents only a tiny share of world total electricity generation.
Why is geothermal energy restricted?
Geothermal energy, which is beneath the earth’s surface, is not widely used due to a lack of adequate resources and infrastructure. Only a small percentage of land is above suitable water and steam pockets for heating homes or powering electrical plants, limiting the possibility of geothermal power plant installation. Many areas are also located in tectonically active areas, making corporations hesitant to install large-scale electricity generating facilities.
Infrastructure also plays a role in the lack of widespread use of geothermal electricity in the United States. Geothermal energy is typically used to produce baseline power for an electrical grid, which can be expensive and time-consuming. Additionally, the energy cannot be transported to a facility whose grid is more in need, and it must be used as it is extracted.
Renewable energy does not mean unlimited, as every well has limited water and steam that can be extracted. Proper reinjection of used water back into wells can help propel steam and water upwards, but if the pressure gradient is not adequately reestablished, the energy source may dwindle and cause geological impacts like sink holes.
Why is the efficiency of a thermal power plant low?
The overall efficiency of a steam power station is low, around 29 due to significant heat loss in the condenser and heat losses at various plant stages. Heat energy cannot be converted into mechanical energy without temperature difference, and the higher the temperature difference, the greater the heat energy converted into mechanical energy. Therefore, maintaining the lowest temperature in the condenser results in more heat loss. Thermal efficiency is the ratio of heat equivalent of mechanical energy transmitted to the turbine shaft to the heat of combustion of coal.
What factors affect the efficiency of geothermal energy?
The study examined a number of factors, including mass flow rate at the evaporator, bore depth, cooling fluid efficiency, and geofluid temperature. The findings indicated that an elevated temperature differential between the fluid entering and exiting the facility was associated with enhanced overall plant efficiency.
What is the main problem with geothermal power?
Geothermal energy technologies pose significant environmental concerns, including air and water pollution, hazardous waste disposal, siting, and land subsidence. The need for large amounts of water for cooling and other purposes can cause conflicts with other users, such as fish spawning and rearing in areas with limited water. Steam vented at the surface may contain harmful substances, while dissolved solids discharged from geothermal systems can contain toxic heavy metals, leading to localized fish and wildlife kills. However, centralized development of geothermal resources can help reduce environmental impacts to an acceptable level.
What is the biggest problem with geothermal energy?
Geothermal energy technologies pose significant environmental concerns, including air and water pollution, hazardous waste disposal, siting, and land subsidence. The need for large amounts of water for cooling and other purposes can cause conflicts with other users, such as fish spawning and rearing in areas with limited water. Steam vented at the surface may contain harmful substances, while dissolved solids discharged from geothermal systems can contain toxic heavy metals, leading to localized fish and wildlife kills. However, centralized development of geothermal resources can help reduce environmental impacts to an acceptable level.
📹 Could Earth’s Heat Solve Our Energy Problems?
Credits: Narrator/Editor: Brian McManus Writer: Eli Kintisch (https://www.elikintisch.com/) Editor: Dylan Hennessy Animator: Mike …
fracking isn’t the same thing. I did this for years. Depending on the system you need and land avaliable for schools, residential, it may be 8 holes drilled for a farm 250 feet deep each. You could have deeper holes or more holes but not as deep. Basically similar to a radiator, you use something environmentally friendly antifreeze liquid in a loop that liquid travels down and back up a closed system. Because the temperature is always the same allowing you to cool off the liquid or heat the liquid. There is another way thats even safer where its not deep at all and no drilling needed but you need more land to keep better efficiency. You could possibly hit gas drilling but i did this for years thousands of holes drilled and 1 released a tiny bit of gas that almost took my life because the meter to detect gas wasn’t where it was supposed to be and I tried telling everyone but they worked they for 20 and 30 years ignoring me. You don’t drill for gas oil water anything. You first conduct a thermal conductivity test. To see just how efficient it will be after you drill a test hole.
If I was in the oil and gas industry I would be seriously worried, they are not moving with the times fast enough if at all. I would not invest with them, I would not expect my pension fund to invest with an industry that is not changing, adapting with the times. The new generation is very aware of climate change and how a lack of change will effect their and children’s lives. However if they are planning a change their marketing department has failed them, in my opinion
No one will really take geothermal energy seriously until it can run a vertically integrated iron and steel mill and all kinds of heavy industries and create synthetic fuel using the sulfur-iodine cycle (intended for high temperature gas-cooled reactors, lead-cooled BREST reactors, and MSR reactors) for making dimethyl ether as a synthetic fuel to replace diesel fuel.
In New Zealand and Germany there are lithium and silica extraction projects which involve using the Geo-heat to power the extraction and refining process, giving a zero-carbon return. In NZ we have been using Geo-power stations since 1958 (63 years) and 14% of national production is by Geo. The vast majority is Hydro-electric.
Closed loop systems have a major advantage, they wont pick up the salts and heavy metals which are invariably in any subsurface water, particularly hot water. As the point is to extract that heat their is an inevitable drop in solubility and crystallization of these salts and metals as the liquids cool. If that happens above ground in the power plant it can cause enormous damage, or if it happens in the well it can clog it and choke off the whole process. In some instances the metals have value and a controlled precipitation can yield extra revenue, but this is site specific, so a design which just eliminates the whole issue will be a boon and greatly lower the long term costs of geothermal power.
This is the bleeding edge for geothermal energy. “Eavor’s solution (“Eavor-Loop™”) represents the world’s first truly scalable form of green baseload power. Eavor-Loop™ is an industrial scale energy generation system that mitigates or eliminates many of the issues that hinder other renewable forms of energy production. Eavor isn’t burdened with exploratory risk, limited to niche geographies, process intermittencies, grid connectivity or locating concerns. Much like a massive subsurface radiator an Eavor-Loop™ simply collects energy from geologically common rock temperatures found at common drilling depths via a highly efficient conductive system. Unlike conventional geothermal, Eavor isn’t burdened with exploratory risk or limited to niche geographies through the need for highly permeable aquifers at volcanic-like temperatures. As a completely closed-loop system, Eavor has the advantage of no fracking, no GHG emissions, no earthquake risk, no water use, no produced brine or solids, and no aquifer contamination. Unlike wind and solar, Eavor-Loop™ is not intermittent, but instead produces much-needed reliable baseload power. Unlike other forms of power, Eavor is benign enough to power an entire neighborhood literally from someone’s backyard. Eavor is the solution the world has been waiting for. See: eavor.com
Probably a rather stupid thing to consider, but if the world was to almost completely transition on a massive-scale to geothermal energy, would there by any risk of causing the Earth’s core to cool down? And say for example, 10 billion people using the same amount of energy as the average US citizen wouldn’t be enough to have any meaningful impact, how about 100, 200, or even 500 billion people each using five, ten or even fifty times as much energy as the average American in 2019? Would this have any effect on the Earth’s core? While this may seem absurd today, I’m sure when oil was first being used in its very early days that there weren’t many people, if any, who would have predicted billions of people burning as much of the stuff as they currently do today. And, likewise, I’m sure back in those early days of oil use there weren’t many people who would have predicted the impact that this would eventually have on our climate. But, again, perhaps I am completely wrong about this assumption too?
Our world is heading into a beautiful age! This 4th industrial revolution is amazing and we are going against the grain and the elite of old! ELON is leading the way and decentralized currencies along with internet to reach all parts of the world will have so many other countries brought out of poverty. More humans will be able to contribute to the forward movement of Mother Earth until we inhabit Mars or colonize other planetary systems!
Geothermal really may be the best solution to our big energy needs, it as multi purpose as well it can directly heat homes and it can produce electricity it’s the best of both. Wind and solar will supplement but when looking at twhat the article here is stated that 50 Geothermal Power Plants can power 100 000 000 homes that is more efficient than any solar or wind system ever will, it also doesn’t take up nearly as much land and doesn’t destroy views, birds, enormous woodlands (if built where there are woods) and so forth. Solar and wind power systems also need a way to store energy for when the sun don’t shine and the wind doesn’t blow. Here you have a 24/7/365 reliable source of heat energy, it will function much more like the constant reliability of Nuclear power or Hydro Electric power. This is the future and present for our energy transition all over the world this will be the new Coal fired Power plant in the form of wide spread adaption since it literally is available everywhere if only one is able to get the technology right.
Picking hot spots close to the surface is key to economical extraction. Yellowstone, the world’s largest caldera, seems like the proverbial gold mine placed in one of the world’s most beautiful natural wonders. Even steering clear of the geysers and heat pools, a LOT of heat is close to the surface. Perhaps with horizontal drilling techniques, heat extraction could occur with minimal infrastructure and with it being placed well away from key natural habitats and viewing areas. At peak, U.S. power use is a bit over 1000 gigawatts. Tapping Yellowstone, along with large scale use of superconductive transmission lines, and we have a power source that by itself, might provide over 10% (100 gigawatts) of the country’s power needs.
With today’s technology geothermal energy can be harvested in many more areas than it is being done. Talking about the big investments costs of geothermal energy, it is still far less than for example nuclear power. A nuclear power plant costs about three 2 to 3 times per installed MW compared to geothermal. A huge expansion of possible sites for exploiting geothermal energy comes with EGS, enhanced geothermal system. It allows for extracting geothermal from dry rock. Non water bearing dry rock. That means cracking the rock, injecting water through one borehole and extracting steam through another borehole. Or you go for a closed loop system. Drilling boreholes that meet each other and again you pump down water and get steam on the other side. For that you do not have to crack the rock (a misinformation in the article). A big opportunity give binary cycle plants. You can tap lower temperature resources that give at least 100°C hot water. You use this water to heat a medium with a lower boiling point, that then drives the turbine. All the above uses available, tried and proven technology, a lot of it developed by the gas and oil industry. The point is, the possibilities are there, a huge amount, we just have to start exploiting them. New technologies will increase the possibilities, but we have hardly scratched what is possible now.
Geothermal will be a huge boost for base power load……… it has always been under appreciated! It will definitely help to solve the problem, but maybe a bit of an exaggeration with the end statement. Wind and Solar have been over hyped and there is some room for efficiency improvements in them, but you have to produce a huge number of them to get anywhere near power supply levels needed for major cities.
How much brine/water is used up daily for one geothermal powerplant? I know it is supposed to come up again after being heated, but is it really? All of it? Fraking technics are used to split open the sediment and the water goes in there to be ehated up to then come up another pipe. Question is how much every day needs to be added? Now think if this becomes an anywhere solution and everybody is doing it. What would that do to the water cycle on top of the earth?
Would be also be advantageous at locations where geothermal plants are installed to tap into these plants that can provide very inexpensive heat / electricity to run all year long soil free greenhouses (see Netherlands that use these greenhouses). Can have multi level greenhouses (do not need sun just heat for building and high efficient electric lights for plans that will grow the equivalent of hundreds of acres of field but they can produce 4 or even 5 seasons of vegetables every year in the same location. The closer to the population areas these are the less trucking costs are to then move these vegetables to market.
Idea—- find a metal with a much higher melting point then the lava, put that metal in the lava the heat will radiate, and have it run to a contained water source, add turbines, let the steam recycle so you can use the same water over and over and not have it released into the atmosphere. CLEAN ENERGY… no one will do this it’s too easy and simple.
Manfaat besar yang secara tidak kita sadari dengan pemanfaatan teknologi ini tumpukan beban yang terkumpul di poros bumi sedikit demi sedikit akan kita ambil ulang untuk dimanfaatkan sehingga beban yang menimpa bumi semakin lama semakin berkurang yang pada titik waktu tertentu natural failure akan dengan sendirinya semakin menghilang . Ini .mungkin disebut sebagai efek berantai
Doesn’t the Texas freeze this Valentine’s Day make it clear? If you want carbon free energy, 24 x 7 x 365, you need geothermal energy. Period. Wind doesn’t exist when it’s cold. Gas freezes up unless you build fossil fuel protected systems anticipating cold temperatures. Geothermal is the only reliable solution regardless of cost because the religion of CO2 being bad shows this is the ONLY way to avert the coming Ice Age. The Northern and Southern hemispheres will be mostly covered with ice, but at least we’ll have practically unlimited energy from the core of the planet to counter it.
clean energy clean water The biggest idea I am trying to express is tunneling aqueducts from the coast, in this case the west coast of the USA inland to feed combination geothermal power and sea water desalination plants. The idea seems to be so big that no one has considered it possible but I believe it is not only possible but it is necessary. For over a century the fossil water contained in aquifers has been pumped out to feed agriculture, industry and municipal water needs. The natural water cycle cant refill fossil water deposits that were filled 10,000 years ago when the glaciers melted after the last ice age. Without refilling these aquifers there is not much of a future for the region of the United states. As a result ground levels in some areas of the San Joaquin Valley have subsided by more than 30 feet. Similar fossil water depletion is happening in other regions all around the world. TBM and tunneling technology has matured and further developments in the industry are poised to speed up the tunneling process and it’s these tunnels that are the only way to move large volumes of water from the ocean inland. The water is moved inland to areas where it can be desalinated in geothermal plants producing clean water and power. In many cases the water will recharge surface reservoirs where it will be used first to make more hydro power before being released into rivers and canal systems. It’s very important however to not stop tunneling at these first stops but to continue several legs until the water has traveled from the ocean under mountain ranges to interior states.
This is way to optimistic it is just like other startups I have worked for. Getting large DOE loans milking it and then defaulting on the loan. This is the most expensive way to make power. And the pay off is very small. I don’t see this technology working for decades if at all. It definitely not going to support 10% of the power on the grid. Maybe 2% at most. Sorry for the bad news.
There Is No Shortage of Energy; There Is Shortage of Normalcy Despite increased production of energy from renewable sources, and despite the slowdown in car manufacturing, oil prices are skyrocketing. Even though fewer power plants still burn coal, coal prices are skyrocketing, as well. Natural gas prices, too, are going through the roof, and energy demand seems to outpace supply in every country and in every form of energy. Have Earth’s energy sources dwindled so drastically in a matter of months? The answer is a resounding “No!” There is no shortage of energy; there is a serious shortage of normalcy in human relations. I hope the current crisis will put some sense into humanity’s insane consumption. The energy crunch indicates that we are over consuming. We are producing too much, throwing the excess production to the trash, polluting the ground, the air, and the water, and then we are complaining that we do not have enough. It is about as sane as killing one’s parents and then pleading for the court’s mercy because I’ve recently been orphaned. It is time we reconsider everything we produce—how we divide production, profits, and goods, which services are necessary and which are redundant, and most importantly, how we treat one another. The goal of this process should be clear to everyone: survival. There is no ulterior motive, no attempt to dominate or deprive anyone of power or wealth. It is simply that reality is forcing us to take all of humanity and the entire planet into consideration.
I would like to know if conventional geothermal could be developed at hot springs or other areas where the earth’s crust is thin enough to generate vast amounts of electricity at scale that could be sent to population centres through direct current transmission lines to population centres over long distances if necessary and also if additional surplus baseline power could be used to produce hydrogen from water using electrolysis? This might be cheaper than using enhanced EGS to make hydrogen. Hydrogen could then be made available for planes, trains, transport trucks, steel mills and other hard to support systems where higher density and lighter energy is required that battery systems.
If oil companies funded this type of energy, they can be forgiven a little bit for the damage they’ve caused. Everything helps. Just as long as they dont make it like “well we gotta drill here and get the oil out of the way so we can make a geothermal plant” Then it’s a cash grab and they should be slapped.
So, there’s a way to generate power without using any kind of non-renewable fuel, which using modern technology can be built almost anywhere, releases no emissions, can be run constantly around the clock with minimal maintenance and is simple and reliable. Oh yeah, and the heat source is essentially unlimited. Why the hell aren’t we using this a lot more than we are? Boggles the mind.
Don’t underestimate the damaging ability of humans. If this takes off, 100 or 200 years from now we might have different type of issue where the core might be cooling rapidly because we somehow found a way to harvest the energy more rapidly. Remember Mars is a dead planet because of cooled core. This is not a renewable power.
There is also “Low Temperature Geothermal” – Where Stable Ground Temperatures at the depth of about 8 feet below the surface, stabilize at about 50° F, or 10° C, that can be utilized, relatively far easier than Deep Hole Drilling, for General Thermal or Heating Management! For Example – Air at such Temperatures are easier to Heat up for Winter Heating, than Temperatures below Freezing, and such Air Temps are useful for Air Condition in Hot Weather. Also – such temps can be useful for “Cold Room” Food Storage, and for Greenhouse Temperature Moderation, as Shown on the article about Citrus in Nebraska – faircompanies.com/videos/nebraska-retiree-uses-earthss-heat-to-grow-oranges-in-snow/
“Eavor’s solution (“Eavor-Loop™”) represents the world’s first truly scalable form of green baseload power. Eavor-Loop™ is an industrial scale energy generation system that mitigates or eliminates many of the issues that hinder other renewable forms of energy production. Eavor isn’t burdened with exploratory risk, limited to niche geographies, process intermittencies, grid connectivity or locating concerns. Much like a massive subsurface radiator an Eavor-Loop™ simply collects energy from geologically common rock temperatures found at common drilling depths via a highly efficient conductive system. Unlike conventional geothermal, Eavor isn’t burdened with exploratory risk or limited to niche geographies through the need for highly permeable aquifers at volcanic-like temperatures. As a completely closed-loop system, Eavor has the advantage of no fracking, no GHG emissions, no earthquake risk, no water use, no produced brine or solids, and no aquifer contamination. Unlike wind and solar, Eavor-Loop™ is not intermittent, but instead produces much-needed reliable baseload power. Unlike other forms of power, Eavor is benign enough to power an entire neighborhood literally from someone’s backyard. Eavor is the solution the world has been waiting for.” See: eavor.com
The problems with renewables are the footprint, storage and recycling. How many wind turbines, solar panels and storage solutions do we need when we turn off all the fossil generation? People won’t want the footprint. Geothermal is perfect, small footprint per KWh no storage no recycling after 20 or 30 years no batteries to “recycle” after 10 years. If 10% of the money and intellect that currently going into fusion went into geothermal we wouldn’t need fusion as we could cover all our energy needs.
I would love to see far more geothermal…up to a point. It has major advantages over wind and solar. And the need to eliminate fossil fuel power generation is critical. But we need to understand that conventional geothermal plants do emit quite a bit of radiation (radiation is where the geothermal energy comes from). In fact they emit many times more than a nuclear power plant because they don’t usually have to contain their waste. vito.be/en/news/radioactivity-and-deep-geothermal-energy But low levels of radiation are fine – just stop eating bananas and flying on planes if you’re worried about radiation! If we scale up to a high percentage of geothermal power, however, that radiation pollution may become an issue. Personally I think containing the radiation in nuclear plants is the best way to deal with the problem. Geothermal is basically an unregulated nuclear reactor operating under the earth’s crust and if we let the resulting waste spill out to the atmosphere that’s not a good idea.
It isn’t new, we already have plants like this. Still not as efficient or easy to set up as upcoming mini nuclear plants. We spend all this money to become green when we have had the technology to go green since the beginning, but then people will jsut fear monger. This outlet is even making it out like it could become bigger, but literally they say there will be miniature geo plants, it’s like we are ignoring the actual solution by creating new, unreachable solutions.
the earthen magnetic field is caused by the fluid core, were liquid metal, iron, is moving. is that right so far? so if the core cools down to a temperature were there arent enough currents, we lose our magnetic field. so we will lose our shield against ion radiation. is that right? so, if we use geothermal energy, arent we cooling it down? wont it have a compound interest effect over time? and, if we already know that the core is cooling and the magnetic field will become instable, do we have a plan to heat it up again? PS: just to make it clear, i am not against using geothermal energy. just asking what we wanna do in some thousand years.
seems like nuclear and geothermal are both offering highly reliable and low operational cost electricity generation potential, with no carbon emissions, and both struggling with capital costs and attracting investment meanwhile solar and wind receive enormous subsidies for providing very unreliable generation, and have the media fawning over them just about every day of the week
im looking forward to this here in the philippines we have t6he largest caldera in the world called apo laki which means we can havest huge energy from the sea which is way more safer than springs in the suface cause calderas emits 0% carbon footprints we can may also supply electricity to all south east asian countries then to taiwan and china in GOD’s willing we can also supply energy to australia nee zealand and other asian countries but i may be day dreaming here 😁😁😁
Although geothermal energy is a needed energy source it will still increase global warming. We would be moving heat from deep underground and releasing it into the atmosphere. The main plus is it will release far fewer heat retaining games into the atmosphere than burning b g hydrocarbons. Solar energy is the best source of energy for the environment.
Do we really think it’s responsible to allow fossil fuel companies to capitalize further on their ill-gotten gains by exploiting the earth in all new ways? Ways that may cause earthquakes and leaks of this mystery thermal conductive fluid in the short-term, and eventually the cooling (undoubtedly globally uneven cooling) of the earth’s core? I think that geothermal can be an answer to today’s energy crisis, but a Civilian Climate Corps should be in charge of the resource. It should never be used for profit. Necessity only.
How exactly is geothermal energy renewable? According to geologists the heat of the core of the earth is residual heat, stemming from the time when the earth was formed, so every Joule you take out, is a Joule gone for good. Exactly like every barrel of oil is a barrel that will not come back. There is a lot of heat down there, sure, but calling it renewable just because it would suffice for thousands of years at the present rate of power consumption is a little bit misleading, especially if we aim for 50%+ of the total power production. I know that when you look at it this way solar energy isn´t renewable as well. Every hydrogen atom in the sun is only able to fuse once, when that´s done, it´s done, the atom will never revert back to being hydrogen to be fused once more. But the sun is doing this fusing all the time, no matter if we place solar panels or not. So it´s a destructive process that generates energy we can only decide to harvest or leave unused. Taking heat out of the core might be a worse idea.
Is Geothermal actually renewable? If you remove energy from the earth surely like gas and oil it will eventually run out. I can see the amount removed current being small enough to be negligible but if it reaches a point of mass adoption, at what point are we effectivly force cooling the core of the earth? Also what is done with all that heat energy that was effectively trapped in the earth. How much of it will be escape to atmosphere? I am in favour of geothermal energy overall. I just hope that unintended consequences mean it is too good to be true
Not really new idea. I remember reading about closed looped systems in the 1970’s with deep abandoned old non producing oil wells. Early on in my career as a geologist, I looked into working in geothermal. 40 years on there appears to be more incentive. In the early ’80’s shallow very high bottom hole temperature holes were drilled in central Utah. I believe that the closed loop system was tested there. The heat that produces electricity also can be used downstream in greenhouses as in Iceland today. These ideas open up a world of possibilities. I’m sure that it can be done with zero steam emissions as well. For a large scale setup, will likely take a long term investment with corporate and government cooperation.
Would it be possible to use geothermal for desalinization? Like if you can pump water down into a frakked cave and then it heats up and returns as steam, then why not use seawater for that, and fresh water would come up. Of course you would need to use clean fluids so that the water would not be contaminated, and salts would build up in the cave so you would eventually need to either move the caves around or “flush” the brine out of them somehow, but I bet there’s some way to make that work for both producing energy and producing drinking water, and maybe producing salt.
Two things that might help geothermal energy a great deal are: 1) Electricity storage devices that would allow generation of geothermal electricity at one location and use somewhere else without the need for transmission lines and 2) Heat storage devices that could do the same. The first of these would also help geothermal energy’s competitors (wind and solar energy) but the second would strongly favor use of geothermal energy. The best geothermal locations are probably on the ocean floor. Could we harvest the heat and then transport it for use elsewhere without pipes, etc.?
Yes, GTP is great and all, but nothing in this article is actually new or revolutionary. Iceland, Kenya, Japan, many places have used geothermal power for a long time; I’m pretty sure even back when steam engines were just invented someone looked at natural hot springs and thought “If I could use that instead of wood and coal I’d save so much money”. Yet almost nobody has tried to exploit it on large scale. Just because some oil drillers need new jobs does not mean other issues have been solved or that the costs had a massive drop. Also, energy storage is not something that only exists for wind and solar, they are just the cheapest ways to fill that storage. Just like nuclear and coal plants a geothermal power plant cannot really turn down the steam when night falls and demand for electricity goes down, nor can they easily increase their production, especially in a hurry. So you want some kind of energy storage connected to them that you can dump extra power to and draw it when daytime demand has sudden spikes; it has been proven many times that using storage like batteries, pumped hydro etc. is far cheaper than paying premium for electricity to a peaker plant.
yeah, I hope people realize that when Earth has a strong gravity, it means it has a nuclear reaction in its core, and the heat coming out of that reaction is what we need to use, don’t worry Earth has been doing it for more than 4 billion years, literally since the planet formed when there’s no one around
Geothermal technology is one of the best choice among different renewable energy sources and may be one of the few which can be used as base-load in a grid system. But… as this report says all major oil companies becoming interested… it sounds alarming. If every major oil companies start to produce electric energy by means of Geo-thermal at a amount of their current total energy production in form of petroleum, Earth’s magnetosphere will be lost much faster than ever before. If magnetosphere is weakened by a few percent it will be devastating for whole planet.
German mechanical engineer here. Greatly appreciate the in-depth article as always. I wanted to point out some big potential drawbacks of geothermal energy you did not include in the article. 1. Geothermal energy is not boundless as the article suggests. Following the first law of thermodynamics, a natural occurring geothermal reservoir (or aquifer as it is known in the field) or a man-made one thanks to EGS, is bound to lose temperature over time due to the fact that we pump out more heat than we reinject. This inevitably causes a decrease in the aquifers temperature, which in turn causes a diminished steam production which then reduces the amount of generated electricity by turbine/generator. Some sources suggest that the average aquifer requires roughly 30 years until the original temperature is reached again. 2.Scaling/ Fouling. This is probably one of the greatest technical problems with geothermal plants nowadays. Since the water used for direct steam generation or secondary cycle heat transfer is coming from ca.3-4 km underground, it is saturated with different minerals, the most common being SiO2 (quartz) and CaCO3 (limestone). The chemical nature and type of the minerals is highly dependent on the location of the geothermal plant, but you can research them further if you’d like. Rapid changes in pressure and temperature along the pipes leads to the precipitation of these minerals (Scaling/Fouling) and unfortunately quite frequently to the failure of vital mechanical components such as pumps and heat exchangers.
Most opposition to nuclear energy is based on ignorance. Change my mind. Edit: To summ up most answers for those mentioning Chernobyl and others. Just like a plane crash, these examples are easy to point out sources of a couple tens of thousands of deaths. What people always forget mentioning is the estimated 4+ million deaths a year from air pollution. That’s one part of the ignorance i was talking about. A couple accidents costing a couple tens of thousands of lifes cant realistically ever outnumber the lifes we lose each year by polluting the air as we do. Then there is also climate change, which is a hard to grasp concept for some, but way worse than a couple tens of thousands of deaths by itself (and potentially irreversable if we keep continuing). Then there is the fact that newer types of reactors can pretty much make a meltdown more or less impossible, not even talking about using thorium. Keep in mind that nuclear energy was – and still is – a very new energy source in terms of progress. The only real problem would be the waste. However, it’s better to be able to contain and store waste, compared to just pumping it into the atmosphere. Keep in mind that radioactive elements with short halftimes are the dangerous ones, but gone in a couple years. These with millions/billions of years of halflifes are basically not very dangerous, since they dont radiate a lot. So the most problematic ones are those with halflifes that make them radiate dangerous amounts, but still stick around long enough to cause problems.
Real engineering can you do a article on the next generation of nuclear power plants and their efficiencies. The recycling an re-usability of nuclear waste is really interesting in terms of safe and long term nuclear energy and energy sustainability, but people are so scared of the word there is little media coverage on it. cheers.
@Real Engineering Great topic. It would be nice if you did a article on residential/commercial HVAC. IMO, we should’ve been dumping tax incentives into the consumption efficiency side of the equation. Geotherm is a source of heating/cooling that could benefit far more people more quickly than solar or wind.
08:30 EGS is just like fracking, how can you even consider it. I know you talk about the similarities but : The issue with fracking isn’t the fluids used, but the damage it does to the ground. In electronic repair work, the best work is the one that cannot be spotted post-repair. This concept is applicable everywhere esle. The most relaible path for any activities, is the one that doesn’t leave any traces. EGS leaves plenty.
Is this source of energy really limitless though? If we keep tapping heat over a long time (say next 200 years) at a global scale, wouldn’t it lead to eventual cooling of our plant’s body? And when that happens, what side effects can we expect? Massive earthquakes, change in earth’s magnetic field or something else? In other words we can be looking at catastrophic consequences!
Random potential doomsday thought but if we over-exploit geothermal energy from the earth’s molten core, might it be possible to cause the earth’s core to cool, reducing its temperature and motion and potentially weakening the dynamo that generates the magnetosphere and protects us from solar radiation, allowing life to exist at all?
Lived in North Texas. There are shale reserves up there. So fracking is pretty popular. Pretty much once the fracking started we got earthquakes as far down as Dallas. Usually around 3+ magnitude. So the drilling isn’t just an issue for the acquisition of geothermal energy resources. It’s something we’ve already allowed for the tapping of natural gas reserves.
It would have been worth mentioning geothermal energy used directly to heat homes and buildings. You don’t have to drill down as low since you don’t need as much of a temperature differential, and it still lightens the load on the electric grid. In fact, it’s actually a lot more efficient to use roof top solar panels to power a pump in a home geothermal system than to use the power from the panels directly to heat the water.
While much of the interest is in heating we must also remember that a huge portion of our energy use is cooling. A drill/well wouldn’t have to go down far enough to capture heat. In any geographic area that is burdened by cooling costs, using the shaft as a heat exchanger can work backwards without the excessive depth required to reach a heat source. We’re only talking about 30-40 feet.
Great stuff, had often wondered why there wasn’t more geothermal… (tho clearly never enough to actually bother looking it up) So thx for the info. What about the idea of using simple pipes to provide underfloor heating direct to buildings? (obv in suitable places.) Loved the subtle little Yang plug.
Fusion power is coming in about a decade, and a fusion power plant will be way cheaper than a geothermal one. A fusion power plant can also easily be put anywhere and hooked into existing electricity grids. Geothermal might help reduce the damage from dirty energy before fusion power is available, though, which could be important. 🙂
Breaking up a lot of underground rocks, no matter how you do it, is a rather risky thing to do. Geothermal energy is worth looking into. But we need to be careful about what can go wrong. Earthquakes, sinkholes, and unexpected contamination of groundwater, are all things that have to be carefully considered and allowed for.
There are some domestic projects by private ma and pa operations, that dig 8 foot deep and lay 6 to 8 inch diameter pipe . Then air is drawn through either by convection or fan they are receiving 52* to 58*.air temp year round heating greenhouses along with the solar. With some left over to heat the home. This is in Idaho .
We could do better with conserving what we already have. I live in Northern Virginia, surrounded by massive data centers. The smart thing would be to use the cooling requirements of the data centers as a source of heat for the thousands of homes nearby. Unfortunately smarts are hard to find at the moment.
There is an anime with this kind of thing in its plot. Humans started extracting magma to use for energy, at some point they even mixed it with something else and replaced their blood with it which resulted in immortality. Sex was forbidden because births were no longer needed and the rest is on the show….. Darling in the Franx is the title.
the areas marked as better locations for geothermal energy, not coincidentally, seem to match the geological active zones which would make earthquakes more likely. also note that geothermal accounts for 1% of global energy sources and a 28% increase over four years would bring that to 1.28% if total global energy consumption remained the same.
Well, as amazing as it sounds, I have some worries to parts of this technology. First of all it could be critical draining out huge amounts of heat of the ground, in terms of our underground Water supply, ground fertility and the risk of creating huge undergorund cracks due to contraction of materials at lower temperatures, which could further amplify the risks of EGS. Yet I am amazed to see how this technology will impact our future and help us get carbon free. Still, personally I think, that geothermal Energy is just one of a lot of ways we need to go in order to create a sustainable Energy supply. We should not do the same Mistake again, by settling for just one source of energy, but instead using as much diffrent and effective ways as possible.
Could you use old shut down oil wells and convert them into geothermal wells. Lets say a zone that can produce 30,000 bbl of water a day with injection points all through the zone. every well has been shut down because the oil production reached down to 20 bbl a day but still producing 30,000 bbl of water injection a day. could increase that if needed. with water temps unbelievably high… you would burn your hand if you put your hand on that pipe.
Very American look at this. Here in the Nordics it’s very common for house Owners to have their own hole. Small houses or big condos both. Used for heating during the winter, cooling during the summer. Saves you about 90% of electricity compared to direct electricity heating. This is not new, have been normal for 20-30 years. Our ground is not active, no vulcanos or earthquakes here. Combined with solar panels on the roof or a share in a wind generator this could be really economic way for your energy need.
there is actually a way which most scientists know but ignore that is using superthermal-conductors rods and shoving them in earth crust to about 50-60 km…. and there will be probably 600c temp over them which can be used to generate heat which will be used to generate steam on surface (why are we even using water from steam we should get alternatives seriously)… which is actually pretty efficient coz earth is actually a toddler planet… it would take 5-6 billion years if we actually tried to use earth’s geothermal property…… but the problem which arise is normal superconductors are very expensive and they lack in material but the energy they provide will be actually more than nuclear 20-21x more with 20% of size required to build….. but it will take twice the time to build…..and the problem which arise will be the area surrounding the power station needs to be dry and away from ground water…. and vegetation….
While I didn’t read too far into the comments. I only seen one comment that mentioned a huge problem. While I’m no engineer. I’m sure a global scaling to the suggested would have major long term devastating consequences. What Happens When We Cool The Earth Too Much? Hmm 🧐 Something out of the movie 2012.
California doesn’t produce enough energy in summer, either. They buy a good 4k MWH a day from the surrounding grids. A few years old, but this article talks about California being the single biggest importer of electricity in the lower 48: eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=38912 A (relatively) live graph of the grids in the lower 48; this page specifically looks at California. The bottom graph on this page shows energy interchanges with three other grids – Mexico, the Northwest, and the Southwest (excluding California itself). Positive values on the graph indicate energy exported from CAL to the indicated grid, and negative values show energy imported from the indicated grid to CAL. The only place California has exported any energy to in the last week is Mexico, and that looks like it hasn’t broken more than maybe 100 or 200 MWH on any given day. Conversely, both the NW and SW grids have exported between 2k and 6k MWH daily, with only one day coming close to being a net 0 with the SW grid at 5pm. eia.gov/electricity/gridmonitor/dashboard/electric_overview/regional/REG-CAL Even in summer, California doesn’t produce nearly enough energy to sustain itself.
I think the best way we can stop climate change is to utilize what plants have been doing for millennium. I have an idea where we use solar panels to power an electrical charge which will pass over air which will cause CO2 to break into carbon and oxygen. The machine would collect the water from the moisture in the air and carbon and deposit the carbon into the earth while collecting the water for multiple uses, if this machine was utilized in the desert it could use the water to put moisture into the air and decrease the temp of the surrounding area to further reverse climate change. Just as a side note I’m not a scientist I don’t know if this would logistically work or if this is even possible but I do know that in the desert the solar panel would have enough charge 16 hours a day to power this machine and I read a study that a small amount of electricity is enough to break carbon from O2 and produce oxygen. Reply if you have a change that would help incentive or some mechanical issue that would arise that I am not aware of.
GeoThermal certainly needs to be take more seriously, it has a lot of benefits, I had not even considered the economic benefits of putting to work, redundant oil drilling staff, which may even stave off some kind of revolution, you never know. I know a lot of ppl who would be more comfortable living near a geothermal plant, than say, a nuclear plant, despite what ppl might think about safety of nuclear when everything is going according to plan. Nuclear is too fraught with emotion, because it relies on most ppl becoming dependent on something they don’t understand, and are terrified of.
A Planet Core, is an Awsome power source, made of ultra compressed matter, that it generates all the ingredients of life we see in a modern Chemistry chart. Spewing to the surface, primarly bundled as lava/magma, if you can stick a rod that gains energy from pure extreme heat, you gotta super powerhouse supply.
What if the 2 km whole has a collapse and blockage stronger than the water pressure, say, three fourths the way down? How do u fix that? Move the entire facility and bring the drill rig back. I suppose it could be done, but sounds extremely expensive. But good article tho, and I’ve always liked the idea of geothermal.
I think people would be more open to geothermal power if it was clearly explained all the environmental downsides of solar and wind generation. After you get the whole picture it’s hard not to root for a purely nuclear powered world even. Have they considered using areas where fracking took place in order to reduce the costs of drilling? I am assuming that eventually the oil rigs will move on and leave the area once all the oil is extracted.
Very interesting. I have considered the fact that there is more than enough energy under our feet to reduce our carbon footprint by at least half, using the cracked rock method.. As mentioned, using another gas with a lower boiling point reduces the level at which is needed to produce power,, and the safety far outruns using atomic power in terms of safety. However, there is another method that is being kept very much hidden. In Australia, we had in western Australia a plant that used the sun. Using mirrors that were used to directvthe suns energy via parabolic mirrors directly onto tubes at the centre of the oblong mirrors this heated the fluid in the tubes to a huge temperature running generators, once built the maintenance was very basic as there was little to go wrong. To my amazment this plant was shut down, why is a mistery as for a start if was far more productive the solar cell fields, all the active parts were above ground so easy to work on, it was easy to add to to produce more energy and offered a number of different fluids to run through the centre tube so that even when not in complete sun, the e nergy was still produced. Therevare other ways of making electricty such as hydro plants but not huge dams, as there are many fast flowing rivers through out the world that can and should be used to produce cost effective energy just from their flow rate. A look at the amount of engergy produced by some of the smallest units says that all,forms of energy supplied by nature are really worth looking at.
Could you maybe do a article on using gravity to store energy? As in: use any abandoned mineshaft to let a weight move up and downwards, depending on the current net energy balance. This is mechanically simple, this reliable, and if anything happens, there‘s just a weight on a slide falling down a mineshaft.
Radioactive decay is responsible for about half of geothermal energy. The other half is primordial heat left from the formation of the Earth. Potassium-40 is responsible for about 15% of Earth’s radiogenic heat. Uranium-238 is responsible for about 40% and Thorium-232 for about 45%. Uranium-235 decay also contributes a negligible amount.
Nuclear energy is a sensible energy solution NOW. Geothermal is nice in theory, but is still beyond our current technological ability. Some readily accessible geothermal energy is easy to get to but is very dangerous. But most stable sources are very expensive and difficult to get to. Let’s keep using coal, oil and gas and nuclear while we are developing other technologies. The CO2 issue driving the panic at the heart of this is discussion is way OVERSTATED.
Long-term I don’t think geothermal is sustainable, sure it has it’s place when other forms of power are not feasible, but we’re just taking energy from the system that is protecting us – the magnetic dynamo. On our current puny scale it’s negligible but eventually it’s probable to assume we could extract enough power over human history to significantly shorten the lifespan of our magnetic field. Anyways, the Earth’s core is kept active through radioactive decay so it’s just like, a variation on nuclear power anyways. At least solar, hydro, and wind are constantly being replenished and don’t depend on an initial load of isotopes.
Yellowstone park could be a significant source of energy production. A significant production site could possible prevent, or delay an inevitable eruption, and provide perhaps all the electrical needs of North America. It is a waste to leave it undeveloped, as it’s beauty is fleeting. It’s overdue for a major eruption that will most likely bring mankind to the brink of extinction. The irony is, that if we do not take advantage of these natural heat resources as our populations grow, we will suffer catastrophic consequences continuing on our path of burning untold amounts of fossil fuels.
Please no more comments about Stirling engines. For a practical Stirling engine, you need the heat source and sink relatively close together (they are not in this case) in a thermally conductive medium (the ground isn’t). Otherwise, it is limited by thermal transport. The thermodynamic efficiency depends upon a high temperature gradient, which is rare. That’s why you don’t see a Stirling engine in everybody’s back yard. Get over it.
Truth about the root source for geothermal. Energy that power our solar system is electric energy in the form of cosmic electrostatic present in the cosmic space of our universe, from day 1. These e charge isn’t entirely static but transport from place to place in a process of charge equalization, in the form of plasma filament, aka Birkeland Current. Subatomic particles are carriers for e charge, if both separated otherwise, e charge and particles stay where they were. Plasma feeds our solar at its poles let it heat up high enough to emit electromagnetic radiation from infra red to uV, Xray wave and beyond. Residual energy dump from solar spread along its equatorial plane, some of which reached earth but get redirected to earth’s NS poles as Birkeland current display in aurora. Like our sun, it also let earth’s core heats up, but at a much lower temperature. Ignorantly we associate that heat generation by gravity and nuclear energy. The form of plasma, cosmic scale plasma, that heats up all stars in our universe and our solar is the same form of energy also responsible to assemble planets and stars, from e-field scattered cosmic subatomic particles and molecules, from a process called Z-pinch or magnetic punching. One form of energy does it all, not gravity. Cosmic electric energy if can harvested economically it is the ENEEGY of cleanest, safest and limitless kind of energy.
Geothermal can be used for good. First, instead of building batteries and pumped hydro, it will be good as backup energy when there is no wind or sun. This way it will also last much longer without depletion of of energy source. Second, with good planning and computer simulation, it can be used to prevent or reduce volcano eruptions by taking some energy from the ground around them. Third, as it directly takes heat from our planet, this will reduce global warming in the long run. Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant in moderate amount, as plants use it for growth. It is excessive heat, that is bad, so we should target heat directly by bulding solar, wind, hydro, earth thermal, ocean tide plants – while gradually reducing carbon emissions in sustainable ways. This way we can meet our target faster. Nuclear plants just reduce carbon emissions in the long without taking the heat, actually they make the heat as they require cooling. They should be used as our last choice, as they also need large investment and expensive/dangerous research.
Mean heat flow is 65 milliwatts/sq. meter (through ~50 miles of continental crust!) That’s in milliwatts! Solar radiation is approximately 1,368 W/m2 (watts per square meter). That’s +20,000 times more energy from sunlight! So? OK? Pour water on a camp fire, and see how long you can keep generating steam!
China and Russia are sure to veto this again in the US Congress. China wants political investments for their political economy, and they are already getting US states to propagandize the benefits of solar at the people’s and taxpayer’s expense. In the who benefits model of Socitology China benefits. People ignore China’s vested interests in Green Energy, perhaps starting since Nixon the Manchurian candidate opened up a Chinese Pandora’s box. Science often demands visible proof and modeling with expense proportional to the overall expense. The climate does change as precession happens. Circumstantial evidence fueled by newly minted professions, like climatology (meteorology’s version of astrology) turns Climate Change into climate change. The wells have been so poisoned that hardly anybody demands solid proof anymore. Synopsis: DREAM ON! Politics is more pervasive and destructive than you think. It’s draining wallets and minds. It’s worse when evilocracies see democracies as prey. Techwise: Heat to electricity conversion has been a real bitch requiring discoveries based on magnetons. Nature really, really, really, really hates to turn heat into electricity. New discoveries, as always, move science and tech along. They Will allow for the creation of magnetocaloric thermocouples. Traditional thermocouples were out of the question.
Only people against this are Banks, Billionairs Corporations, Manufacturers, politicians and trade associations why? Cause NO money or profit for them!! That is the only thing wrong with Geothermal is FREE! Don’t let anyone tellmyou that it is dangerous – NOT the ones I am talking about as thise are/ is possible if you have a well pond lake or can dig 8ft down = your good! Some municipalities don’t allow them unless you have an acerage! I don’t know what they’re talking about here? But anywhere as far as I was taught you can have one- nothing to do with fracking or hot springs?
Hello Real Engineering, I seem to remember watch about high efficiency perovskite solar panels that would be mass produce very soon (it should have started in the end of last year originally) but don’t remember of which company it was and can’t find the article/passage. Would you remember or would be able to find it ? Thank you.
At approximately 9:15 the article discusses man-made earthquakes. This is similar to what happened in Denver Colorado in the late 60’s when a military facility (Rocky Mountain National Arsenal) attempted to store toxic chemicals in a long term manner by pumping them underground. There were at least two minor earthquakes that resulted from this. (I lived there at the time.) Remember kids… every solution comes with a drawback…
AUSTRIAN non-mechanical engineer here: Geothermal power is a solution but requires very particular planning and execution. It is used (not only in England) in Europe and many other regions with hot springs or thermal activity. But – you need to think bigger. Earth has in fact thermal activity in it’s core – we will learn how to use this source without destroying our planet – but that may take hundreds of years or thousands.
The reality is that the initial cost higher Hydro Power Plan and only Big companies can gamble by drilling. Bank 🏦 won’t support such gambling drilling action. Because of that the production cost is high or we have to spread the investment up to 15-20 years to meet the price Just an info from Indonesia 🇮🇩
I live in an area where there is potential geothermal power production. Using injection of liquids into the ground here would be folly. There are multiple hidden faults here, and the potential for earthquakes, sink holes, and contamination of ground water far excedes the potential benefits. When it comes to energy production, the old adage “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it,” applies. So called “renewable energy sources” only have the potential to provide 2% of current power usage. That’s a lot of people freezing to death in winter and dying of heat stroke in the summer. People need to stop panicking over computer models and get real. There’s nothing wrong with supplementing power production with solar and wind, but replacing all power production is not economically viable. What use is “saving the planet,” if only the rich will be able to get out in it? Enjoying the lockdowns? That’s life with “green” energy.
Hey, What about Hydrogen Cogeneration? Instead of storing the energy in batteries, during summer months of higher generation why doesnt California produce hydrogen. This hydrogen can later be used in a turbine. I know germany is turning to this, SIEMENS has been making leaps and bounds. Maybe a article on that?