A Geothermal Future  

Posted by Big Gav in , ,

The NYT has an editorial on the promise and risks of geothermal power - Geothermal Future.

To most people the word “geothermal” means hot springs and geysers — like parts of Iceland or Yellowstone National Park where water is heated by the presence of magma near the surface of the earth. But the earth’s heat lies below everywhere, and it offers a virtually untapped energy reserve of enormous potential with a very short list of drawbacks.

In 2006, a panel led by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology surveyed the prospects for electricity production from enhanced geothermal systems. Its conclusions were conservative but very optimistic. The panel suggested that with modest federal support, geothermal power could play a critical role in America’s energy future, adding substantially to the nation’s store of renewable energy and more than making up for coal-burning power plants that would have to be retired.

Following up on the M.I.T. study and a separate survey of its own, the Bureau of Land Management issued a decision last month that would open up as many as 190 million acres to leases for geothermal exploration and development. These lands are mostly in the West, where hot rock lies closer to the surface than it generally does in the East.

There is a lot of research yet to be done about geothermal sources, new techniques for deep drilling and energy generation at the surface. But the basics are clear enough. Water is injected deep into the earth where it absorbs heat from the surrounding rock. As the fluid returns to the surface, that heat is used to generate electricity. The fluid is then re-injected. The system forms a closed loop. It creates almost no emissions and is entirely renewable. It also occupies a smaller surface area than either solar or wind power.

Still, large-scale commercial production is at least a decade away and will require improvements on currently available technology. Geothermal development also will mean still more competition for scarce water, more holes in the ground and more roads to service those holes.

The M.I.T. report’s statement that the success of geothermal production “would parallel the development of the U.S. coal-bed methane industry” is no doubt meant to be reassuring. Yet in parts of the West, coal-bed methane has been an environmental disaster, both for fragile landscapes and the wildlife that depend on them.

Geothermal development must not be allowed to foster another drilling free-for-all of the kind we’ve seen during the past decade. Done right, it could help free the country of the grievous environmental burden of coal-burning power plants. Done wrong, it could create grievous environmental problems of its own. Mindful of the dangers, the next administration should commit to developing this extraordinary resource.

Cleantech.com reports that Tata is planning a geothermal power plant in India - Tata Power plans geothermal, solar for Gujarat.
India's largest private power utility is exploring the possibility of building two 5-megawatt renewable energy power plants in Gujarat.

Mumbai-based Tata Power, part of the Tata Group, said it plans to strengthen its renewables portfolio with a power plants using geothermal or solar technology. The projects would come under a partnership with the government of Gujarat, a state in western India.

Tata Power has an installed generation capacity of 2,300 MW, but the company is aggressively adding renewables to its sources. It currently generates renewable energy from geothermal, hydro, solar and wind projects.

In September, Tata Power announced plans to buy a 10 percent stake in Australian enhanced geothermal systems firm Geodynamics for $37 million. As part of the deal, Tata planned to review the potential of geothermal prospects outside of Australia (see Tata Power buys stake in Australia's Geodynamics).

4 comments

I am having a immensely hard time with the NY Times comparing the environmental disasters coal-bed and methane with geothermal.

For the NY Times to take this MIT report and concluded geothermal has 'big issues' is erroneous and discrediting

After spending nearly a decade installing and monitoring 'complex' wells in the Great Lake region, I would be hard pressed to find a seasoned enviro geo-engineer or hydro that would state 'standard' geothermal wells are disruptive to 'surface' areas or 'dangerous' to subsurface conditions.

Hydroelectric - YEs depending the area and localized ecosystem...

Cost, maintenance, energy return on investment, disturbance to environment... NO other natural energy benefits come close to geothermal and heat recovery systems.

Have the people who wrote these reports actually installed, worked monitored or maintained these alternative energy systems or just 'analyzed others hard work'?

Geothermal compared to Coal, coal-bed methane , Nuke & Natural Gas - Are you kidding me?

What is the 'cradle to grave', impact of:

One coal planet to mine, transport, mitigate, health costs, land disturbance, environmental aftermath - before a lightbulb?

One nuke planet to mine, enrich, regulated, secure, health costs, litigate, mitigate, regulated, land disturbance, environmental aftermath - before a lightbulb?

One natural gas plant from well to mine, transport, mitigate, safety, distribution, land disturbance, environmental aftermath - before a lightbulb?

Then look at Geothermal and it looks like a gift from the heavens (oh wait that would be wind power;-).

MOST geothermal sources SHOULD utilize low level and tap existing wells before deep core is considered, but any and ALL of these concerns can be put into solid regulatory guidelines


YES we need environmental protection regulations for ALL energy sectors to ensure the protection of our resources. When all sectors follow the same protections standards, geothermal will still be at the top of the leaderboard.

Just stating that 'geothermal' would make a 'another drilling free-for-all' would argue that every other finite energy source is still allowed to continue this?

What people should read in the NYT post is:
'It creates almost no emissions and is entirely renewable. It also occupies a smaller surface area than either solar or wind power.'

End of article and end of game.


I would also post this comment on the editors page if I did not believe there was another reason behind the comments... geothermal is boring and gets the least amount of attention (like passive homes, seamgas, etc.) Maybe the editor is trying stir up individuals to stand up and scream for geothermal support?

One can only hope, I would also hope that Mr. Chu's knowledge of this issue brings greater clarity to the attention of our nation and the world.

I fear that without MASSIVE outside collective support and data, he will be forced to inherit the NUKE option.

According to the article it was the MIT report that compared geothermal drilling to coal bed methane drilling.

Its not a good comparison because you won't have the waste water issues that coal bed methane drilling creates with a closed loop EGS system (though traditional geothermal does produce a fair amount of tainted waste water).

I thought the article was pretty positive, in spite of its efforts to be overly "balanced".

Anonymous   says 11:05 PM

I am not sure sometimes whether MIT did more good or harm. Its EGS has very difficult obstacles to overcome in attempting to create an artificial aquifer. In the meantime vast resources are starved for funding.

Ironically EGS may be most helpful early on for increasing the permeability of conventional resources as Google and partners are attempting with a non-productive well near Reno.

Kudos to EHS Director for mentioning tapping conventional sources first.

In my view, even more important, at least near term, is exploiting low temperature resources that are widely available. Chena Hot Spring Spa, northeast of Fairbanks, Alaska, is the model.

Best, Terry

I agree - low temperature geothermal is often overlooked and we should be getting our act together to harness it.

I did a detailed post on this topic not long ago :

http://peakenergy.blogspot.com/2008/11/low-temperature-geothermal-power.html

Post a Comment

Ads

Ads

Statistics


referer referrer referers referrers http_referer

Locations of visitors to this page

Ads

Books

Followers

News

Loading...

Blog Archive

Labels

australia (499) global warming (290) solar power (261) peak oil (258) electric vehicles (168) wind power (139) smart grids (137) geothermal energy (131) csp (127) solar thermal power (115) ocean energy (112) coal seam gas (109) nuclear power (103) tidal power (103) oil (102) iraq (101) green buildings (98) china (97) geothermal power (97) renewable energy (88) lng (87) agriculture (79) smart meters (71) biofuel (69) solar pv (68) energy storage (67) natural gas (66) oil price (63) energy efficiency (56) uk (56) wave power (53) electricity grid (49) google (49) big brother (46) coal (45) food prices (45) internet (42) thin film solar (39) bicycle (37) ocean power (37) biomimicry (36) new zealand (34) air transport (33) algae (32) water (32) canada (31) credit crunch (31) politics (31) queensland (31) concentrating solar power (30) bioplastic (29) scotland (29) population (27) resource wars (26) surveillance (26) batteries (25) california (25) censorship (25) cleantech (25) geoengineering (25) cogeneration (24) saudi arabia (24) shale gas (24) ctl (23) offshore wind power (23) bruce sterling (22) economics (22) woodside (22) coal to liquids (20) iraq oil law (20) drought (19) origin energy (19) ultracapacitor (19) brightsource (18) indonesia (18) ausra (17) rail transport (17) santos (17) arctic ice (16) carbon tax (16) lithium (16) ucg (16) buckminster fuller (15) collapse (15) psychology (15) concentrating solar thermal power (14) exxon (14) geodynamics (14) iceland (14) mapping (14) michael klare (14) biodiesel (13) carbon emissions (13) cellulosic ethanol (13) fertiliser (13) investment (13) limits to growth (13) tesla (13) ambient energy (12) atlantis (12) cities (12) electric bikes (12) ethanol (12) kenya (12) matthew simmons (12) public transport (12) victoria (12) al gore (11) biochar (11) brazil (11) energy policy (11) texas (11) desertec (10) goldman sachs (10) hybrid car (10) internet of things (10) shale oil (10) terra preta (10) tinfoil (10) volt (10) alaska (9) bees (9) biomass (9) carbon trading (9) cradle to cradle (9) gtl (9) pge (9) sweden (9) toyota (9) afghanistan (8) amory lovins (8) big oil (8) bucky fuller (8) chile (8) distributed manufacturing (8) eroei (8) esolar (8) fabber (8) fuel cells (8) gazprom (8) linc energy (8) lithium ion batteries (8) methane hydrates (8) relocalisation (8) us elections (8) western australia (8) antarctica (7) arrow energy (7) bloom energy (7) boeing (7) climategate (7) copenhagen (7) distributed generation (7) fish (7) floating offshore wind power (7) guerilla gardening (7) methane (7) nanosolar (7) otec (7) severn estuary (7) vinod khosla (7) apocaphilia (6) bolivia (6) ceramic fuel cells (6) cigs (6) four day week (6) jatropha (6) jeremy leggett (6) local currencies (6) natural gas pipelines (6) nigeria (6) pentland firth (6) somalia (6) stirling engine (6) t boone pickens (6) chp (5) futurism (5) ocean acidification (5) saul griffith (5) varanus island (5) airborne wind turbines (4) garbage (4) kevin kelly (4) low temperature geothermal power (4) oled (4) scenario planning (4) space based solar power (4) tim flannery (4) v2g (4) club of rome (3) global energy grid (2) norman borlaug (2) peak oil portfolio (1)