A Thought on Geothermal Energy

[Astrid]

Obviously pumping cold water to the fiery depths would cool the earths core and ruin the magnetic field we rely on to protect our atmosphere from the solar wind.

But who cares. End times are almost here. Party on, people!

As if

 

[The happy Objectivist]

What would inhibit a process of drilling down to a depth capable of changing large amounts of water to steam?

Cool water, accelerated by gravity, could drive impellers to produce electricity all the way down; and steam could drive impellers to produce electricity on the way back up. Once on the surface, the steam could be condensed in a radiator, and recirculated in a closed system.

Surely I couldn't be the first person who thought of this very simple process.

So what is the hold up?

I've just recently read an article about a start-up that is proposing to do just that. Their plan is to use fusion-powered lasers to drill down 10 miles and harness the heat to generate electricity. My question would be if we have working fusion reactors why not just use that? It seems like it would be much more efficient.

 

[dlamberth]

Geothermal energy accounts for 66% of Iceland's energy use. Most households are heated with geothermal energy which accounts for most of the 66%. And 25% of their total electricity production is geothermal. Pretty interesting.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

Geothermal energy accounts for 66% of Iceland's energy use. Most households are heated with geothermal energy which accounts for most of the 66%. And 25% of their total electricity production is geothermal. Pretty interesting.

It really is and check this out. I want one. Why isn't everyone doing this:

 

[Astrid]

Geothermal energy accounts for 66% of Iceland's energy use. Most households are heated with geothermal energy which accounts for most of the 66%. And 25% of their total electricity production is geothermal. Pretty interesting.

You vould do that at Yellowstone Park too.
Maybe even two other places

 

[eclipsenow]

In addition to the many other excellent comments above about the engineering difficulties with geothermal is the problem that with a few rare exceptions around the Ring of Fire and other areas where magma forces its way up through the crust, all that heat is just too far down. Drilling 10k down is just too hard and expensive.
Until now? I love it when advances in one area of technology suddenly make huge breakthroughs in another possible. EG: Here lasers designed for fusion tech might suddenly allow breakthroughs in deep crust laser drilling that also leaves a nice glass tube to pump the water down!

 

[chilehed]

Their plan is to use fusion-powered lasers to drill down 10 miles...

 

[chilehed]

Why isn't everyone doing this...

Easy: his kits list at $211 per foot (not including blowers, thermostats, siding, doors, windows, underground piping, or earth moving costs), and that might not reflect fluctuating material costs that are currently at an all-time high. Currently the lexan alone is running $150 per foot.

Same problem as all geothermal designs: the up-front costs are very high.

 

[chilehed]

You vould do that at Yellowstone Park too.

From an engineering stand point, yes, but you don't really think that the current US political climate would allow that, do you? The tree huggers would be apoplectic.

 

[HARK!]

I've just recently read an article about a start-up that is proposing to do just that. Their plan is to use fusion-powered lasers to drill down 10 miles and harness the heat to generate electricity. My question would be if we have working fusion reactors why not just use that? It seems like it would be much more efficient.

It's my understanding that one of the biggest hurdles that we face with fusion, is being able to contain the immense amount of heat that is generated. If we can use that heat to bore a hole for geothermal, for the interim, as we figure out how to effectively harness fusion power; then that would be a great application of our capabilities.

 

[chilehed]

that also leaves a nice glass tube to pump the water down!

You mean a brittle glass tube that will fracture easily due to seismic activity. But yeah, a pretty neat idea, hope it can make it into production. One thing that a thirty-year engineering career has taught me is that it's a long way from feasibility studies to implementation.

 

[Astrid]

It's my understanding that one of the biggest hurdles that we face with fusion, is being able to contain the immense amount of heat that is generated. If we can use that heat to bore a hole for geothermal, for the interim, as we figure out how to effectively harness fusion power; then that would be a great application of our capabilities.

With fusion there no need for other power sources

 

[chilehed]

Their plan is to use fusion-powered lasers...

It's my understanding that one of the biggest hurdles that we face with fusion, is being able to contain the immense amount of heat that is generated.

If @The happy Objectivist is referring to the idea in the video that @eclipsenow shared, then the lasers aren't powered by fusion, they're used in fusion-power research. Important difference. We currently are not able to harness fusion, and yes, if we were then we'd have lots of power available.

 

[HARK!]

With fusion there no need for other power sources

Neither does geothermal; but when we can build an effective fusion generator; it will probably be more practical than geothermal.

 

[HARK!]

We currently are not able to harness fusion, and yes, if we were then we'd have lots of power available.

If we could harness fusion at this time; I would suppose that we could cost effectively produce more energy than we could currently consume.

 

[eclipsenow]

If we could harness fusion at this time; I would suppose that we could cost effectively produce more energy than we could currently consume.

But that's the great question isn't it? Will it EVER be energy positive - and energy positive enough to be cost-effective? What good is a clean energy source that costs $20 billion to get 1 Gig power to the grid when solar can do it 1/4 the cost of today's nuclear?

 

[Tuur]

With fusion there no need for other power sources

Yes. Too bad it's been "We'll have fusion power soon" for most of my life.

 

[eclipsenow]

Yes. Too bad it's been "We'll have fusion power soon" for most of my life.

To be fair - there are lots of advances. Part of this has been about needing faster computers to measure and model what's happening in there. Part of it has been about new materials for super-magnets. I'm not very technical - but from the videos I've seen on it peer-reviewed experts say they're getting closer to knowing. My main objection is the sheer amount of complexity it seems to take to build just one of these things to even get to net positive. How on earth can it pretend to be cheap when these appear to be some of the most complex machines we've ever built?

For now, we can chuck down extra solar panels and (in areas away from sensitive migration paths of birds and bats) wind turbines. Solar and wind and off-river pumped hydro - even off-ocean pumped hydro. Some extra transmission lines. Electrify everything - all transport(1) and heating. We can do this.

Note 1: "Electrifying" transport also includes e-fuels like ammonia and hydrogen and synfuel we might need for heavy vehicles and jets and ships. AND / OR biomass from seaweed! Seaweed has more potential than any other biomass farming scheme to meet the world's demand for a lot of liquid fuel energy AND heal the planet.

Important scientists like the UK's Dr David King and Australia's Dr Tim Flannery are now saying that seaweed could save the world! Not only do they produce many valuable products we need today, but they could be bundled up and sunk to the bottom of the ocean to sequester all the carbon we want for thousands of years! The best bit? Trials show they might even be self-funding, with half the seaweed sold so the other half can be sunk. What do we get from seaweed? First, the farms would be so big they stimulate fisheries to grow - in the oceans naturally - all the fish a world of 10 billion could eat. Dried seaweed itself is a protein and nutrient rich food supplement that can be blended into all sorts of products. It can be a feed-stock for petrochemicals, plastics, pharmaceuticals, and fertilisers. Red seaweed fed to cattle reduces their methane and increases weight gain. At huge scales, it could return the world to 350ppm and de-acidify the oceans by the end of this century. Seaweed could save the oceans, climate, and our economies. Source videos and papers here https://eclipsenow.wordpress.com/saving-the-oceans/

 

[HARK!]

But that's the great question isn't it? Will it EVER be energy positive - and energy positive enough to be cost-effective? What good is a clean energy source that costs $20 billion to get 1 Gig power to the grid when solar can do it 1/4 the cost of today's nuclear?

How much R&D money has it taken to give us solar? Let's start with the simple PN junction.

The major drawback to solar is storing the energy for night, and for cloudy days.

 

[Tuur]

For now, we can chuck down extra solar panels and (in areas away from sensitive migration paths of birds and bats) wind turbines. Solar and wind and off-river pumped hydro - even off-ocean pumped hydro. Some extra transmission lines. Electrify everything - all transport(1) and heating. We can do this.

Unless we have ways to store electricity on a large scale, only hydro, geothermal, and nuclear are viable alternatives to fossil fuels and biomass. Otherwise, you have to maintain existing generation for when the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine. Energy storage is the bottleneck to renewables. Solve that, and not only does it put wind and solar on a footing with existing generation, it lets you use existing generation more efficiently.