Australia Pushes Geothermal Energy

_martini_ writes writes to tell us Reuters is reporting that several Australian firms are experimenting with taking geothermal energy mainstream. Geodynamics Ltd. will be making an investment decision on their first geothermal power station in early 2006. From the article: "Mother Nature has been kind to us. Australia could be the world leader within the next couple of years given the geological anomalies present in South Australia," says Peter Reid, chief executive of another explorer, Petratherm Ltd."

Comments

Geothermal Is Expensive

[geomon]

There are several problems that geothermal energy will have to overcome before it can be used for any large-scale power production. First of all, geothermal solutions are terribly corrosive and the pipes are subject to scaling. The maintenance costs associated with keeping the plumbing working are high.

These are just a few of the problems associated with geothermal energy: the variable nature of the reservoirs and fluids; the depth, location, orientation, number and type of wells; the type and size of power plant; the method of disposal of the spent geothermal fluid and the need to conform with local environmental regulations.

Re:Geothermal Is Expensive

[Anonymous Coward]

And it's been studied extensively since the 1970s. this article has a nice summary of the research to date.

Re:Geothermal Is Expensive

[DodgyGeezer]

How expensive is that compared with fossil fuels? With those billions of taxpayers dollars are spent providing security to ensure regular delivery of oil from their source. A price not reflected for instance in the prices at the gas pump. Then there is all the pollution that causes things asthma, contributing to medical bills.

Re:Geothermal Is Expensive

[ian_mackereth]

This is quite different to most geothermal installations, though. Most of them utilise vulcanism, with all the attendant sulfur and such to cause the corrosion and scaling. This scheme is in granite that contains low-level radioactivity and should be relatively clean to pump water through. The basic idea is to force water/steam into one hole to open up some fissures, then pump water through those fissures to generate steam that goes up an outlet pipe to drive a turbine. The water's reclaimed and re-pumped down the feed bore.

Environmental impact should be minimal, and there's hardly any ecosystem there to affect anyway. This region was chosen for the Woomera rocket range for exactly this reason. Australia's about 90% of the area of the continental USA, and much of it looks exactly like this area; arid or semi-arid rocky plains.

There's a transcript of an article with quite some depth (ahem.) here. http://www.abc.net.au/rn/science/ockham/stories/s1 440622.htm

Re:Geothermal Is Expensive

[Kelson]

Whether geothermal energy is worth it depends entirely on the location. IIRC, Iceland does well with it.

How geologically active is Australia? Are there any places where hot springs and the like can be tapped on a large enough scale?

Re:Geothermal Is Expensive

[elhedran]

the method of disposal of the spent geothermal fluid and the need to conform with local environmental regulations.

According to the article this is dry-rock geothermal energy, so there is no spent geothermal fluid.

Re:Geothermal Is Expensive

[Anonymous Coward]

We have spent half a trillion dollars just in the USA invading Iraq, basically for its oil. For that money, we could have moved America to alternative energy and avoided the coming war with Venezuela and/or Iran.

Re:Geothermal Is Expensive

[surfdaddy]

Geomon is correct; in the early 1980's I worked in chemical sampling and characterization of a pilot geothermal power plant in Brawley, CA. The geothermal water is very briny - highly saturated in salts. Not only sodium chloride, but a host of other metals and minerals. Another not commonly known issue is that geothermal energy should be considered *non-renewable*. Apparently once you've sent water down to be heated, it cools the warm areas enough that they will take centuries to reheat. It needs to be looked at like oil, a lot of it there, but not gonna come back once you use it.

Re:Geothermal Is Expensive

[Timbotronic]

There needs to be a distinction drawn between regular geothermal power from volcanic areas (such as Iceland, NZ, Yellowstone etc) and hot dry rock geothermal power which is what Geodynamics are pursuing.

HDR Geothermal works by passing water through hot, fractured granite. The granite is hot because of the radioactive decay of trace elements in the granite (too low in concentration for any radioactive waste concerns). A thick layer of sediment above the granite effectively creates a heat blanket, allowing the temperature to build to 200-300 hundred degrees C - ideal for heating water without building up extreme pressure.

I'm not a geologist, but I imagine that problems with pipe scaling would be much lower for HDR geothermal than in regular geothermal power, where you've got a lot of salts, sulphur and all sorts of muddy crap bubbling through. The water in HDR geothermal is kept in a closed loop so there's no waste to dispose of. The heat is extracted via a heat exchanger which boils a more volatile fluid such as ammonia and this fluid is used for the power generation. So you've got no impurities going through your generation facility.

Geodynamics say they have enough heat to power Australia at current levels of consumption for 70 years. Unlike solar or wind, the power is constant and can be ramped up or down at will. I'm surprised this has been off everyone's radar for so long.

Re:Geothermal Is Expensive

[Anonymous Coward]

From the article: "Mother Nature has been kind to us. Australia could be the world leader within the next couple of years given the geological anomalies present in South Australia," says Peter Reid, chief executive of another explorer, Petratherm Ltd."

(feel free to mod this redundant, it's ripped directly from the summary. but the parent apparantly needs some redundancy in his data flows)

Re:Geothermal Is Expensive

[ozmanjusri]

Another not commonly known issue is that geothermal energy should be considered *non-renewable*.

Perhaps it's not commonly known because it's not really true. The Japanese Ogachi HDR power station was optimised so ensure the temperature drawdown was lower than it's replenishment rate, for example. If a faster drawdown is needed, then multiple holes can be drilled and swapped around to allow for "resting" drawn-down wells.

Re:Geothermal Is Expensive

[PermanentMarker]

I have been to Iceland, whole Reykjavik is running on thermal energy. They warm a city with it, and get all of the electric power with it. And they investigate H2 production for their traffic some busses run on H2. In fact it gives them so much energy that they to use it for aluminum production which is a heavy power consuming electric melting industry.. If that doesn't prove that this is technology of today then the oil companies have all blinded us I'm afraid. There is also a much bigger bonus that is; it can make a country independent of the global oil economy. And that is something quite important as we all now that oil prices will go sky high as the world is running out of oil, so alternative energy sources are needed. So to start it might be high cost but in the end it's the only natural non polluting energy source that can give a constant energy power, and is unlimited (I mean the cold surface of the earth is about 1% while the rest is quite hot inside). Also our technology has grown we can build tunnels from France to England, so why not go down and collect some heat.. And remember plastics don't erode.

Re:Geothermal Is Expensive

[ajs318]

Not only that, but geothermal energy is nothing like renewable energy: in fact, it's just as much stored energy as fossil fuel. When the Earth's core gets cooled sufficiently, the liquid magma will begin to solidify. And it's not water, so it will shrink when it solidifies. What we will end up with, will be a planet which consists of a huge solid lump of heavy volcanic rock rattling around inside a fragile hollow shell.

I don't find that any less scary than any of the climate change scenarios that have been suggested.

Re:Geothermal Is Expensive

[PermanentMarker]

why is it a problem to have corosive fluids?. I mean glass plastics porcelain there a lot of industrial materials how can deal with that. Plastics must be the cheapest of all to produce, and ideal for pipes. Today plastics can even be stronger then steal. might it be that it's just a question of time before new tech is cheap and adapted in this industry ?

Re:Geothermal Is Expensive

[Morky]

Or, we could have simply invaded Australia instead.

Re:Geothermal Is Expensive

[Morky]

I'm more worried about when the sun goes red giant and consumes the entire solar system. Keeps me up at night.

Re:Geothermal Is Expensive

[swissfondue]

First of all, I firmly believe we are at the point where knowledge of geothermal processes and improving technologies will make geothermal energy a major alternative source of energy to oil, gas and coal.

I support research and projects into HDR technology, but there are a number of fundamental problems with it that have already been solved with other geothermal technologies.

HDR entails drilling two boreholes usually a number of kilometers apart, then pressing water with high pressure through one hole to create fissures in the rock through which one hopes water at ambient temperature can then be pumped from the other borehole.

The main risk is no one can guarantee that this "closed circuit" will function as planned. Water may not come out of the "pump" hole, or not is sufficient quantities. Thus one can not calculate the energy output beforehand in a precise manner. This makes financing such projects risky and costly.

Secondly, in practice the water is washing the rock and accumulating sediments and chemicals along it's way. So the pumped up water will not be pure. Corrosion and mineral deposits are some of the consequences which can shorten the longevity of such a solution. I've recently learned of a technology Geohil (sorry, link is to German language text only) whereby only one borehole is required.

It has generally been thought that the energy output of one borehole technologies is insufficient to be commercially viable, especially for electricity generation (I'm excluding hot water geothermal energy such as used in Iceland). However such studies have not taken into account the fact that rocks are saturated with water at a depth varying from 12 to 50 or more meters and water which circulates in such an open system is not only heated by the walls of the borehole but also by water in the surrounding rocks. This effect increases the energy output by 4 to 5 times that of the normal output of a traditional borehole.

The technology can be resumed thus: a thermo insulated pipe is lowered into the borehole within a larger water permeable pipe. The hole is then filled with pebbles. Surface water is poured down and the warm water is then pumped up through the inner pipe, creating a closed circuit. Since the outer pipe is permeable, the cooler water can interact with the water in the water saturated rocks and not only the outer walls of the borehole.

Experiments have shown that these boreholes can be placed within a radius of 8 to 10 meters within each other without affecting the thermal energy output of each hole.

I've seen working installations, which have already been functioning since over 20 years. The beauty of it is one can calculate very precisely how deep and wide a borehole must be to guarantee a certain energy output. Secondly, this technology can be used everywhere and does not depend on specific geological conditions. This last point is the major advantage over all other geothermal energy technologies.

So you may ask "why doesn't anyone know about this technology yet?" or "why hasn't it been a huge commercial success already?" The short answer is that a good engineer is not necessarily a good marketer or entrepreneur.

Another rhetorical question: "So, is this whole post just product placement?" No. I have no commercial interests so far ;) But I'm convinced the state of geothermal technology is at a turning point to much larger deployment and will be a credible and financially attractive alternative energy source.

Re:Geothermal Is Expensive

[ajs318]

Nah ..... you'll be toast before that happens. Well, eight and a half minutes after it starts, anyway.

Re:Geothermal Is Expensive

[Morky]

Flamebait my ass. Invading Australia for geothermal electricity. That's at least a 3 Funny.

Energy creation or energy storage?

[dada21]

I was reading on a link from LRC about Nature's Nuclear Reactor, so the timing of this /. post comes just as I was thinking about the potential energy inside the ground.

I've ran the numbers for solar cells and windmill generators and can't see the overall savings. Taking into account the manufacturing, installation and maintenance costs, are these techniques better for the environment or any cheaper?

Geothermal seems like it would work well, if you can store the energy or throttle back the generation during lulls in need. The setup costs seem huge and I wonder how often they'll tap out a given dig's heat (if ever).

I think money will be better spent in more efficient storage of energy. Batteries, salts and event heat tanks all interest me. I'm not seeing any long term viability of anything but coal, gasoline and natural gas until the storage exceeds the unit per dollar ratio of the 3 gases mentioned.

Re:Energy creation or energy storage?

[BushCheney08]

The setup costs seem huge and I wonder how often they'll tap out a given dig's heat (if ever).

The answer should be "never." There're extreme temperatures and pressures at the depths they're drilling to (sorry, don't have my P/T chart handy). That's the nature of having nearly 3 miles of rocks above you.

Re:Energy creation or energy storage?

[Average_Joe_Sixpack]

I've ran the numbers for solar cells and windmill generators and can't see the overall savings. Taking into account the manufacturing, installation and maintenance costs, are these techniques better for the environment or any cheaper?

As we slide down the fossil fuel depletion curve, it will take a combination of "green" tech to keep humanity from freezing to death. (ie ... Windmills work in New Jersey, but not in Pennsylvania ... Solar thermal works in Arizona, but not in Minnesota).

Re:Energy creation or energy storage?

[WindBourne]

First off, the fact that private profitable companies are springing up all over doing wind energies should suggest that your numbers are quite probably incorrect.

But with that said, I do think that govs. should be funding research in storage. I think that it is wise to assume that the future will include a greater mix of energy generation. By storing, we can generate at anytime, and then pull when needed.

Re:Energy creation or energy storage?

[nathanh]

I've ran the numbers for solar cells and windmill generators and can't see the overall savings. Taking into account the manufacturing, installation and maintenance costs, are these techniques better for the environment or any cheaper?

Wind turbines pay for their total life energy cost within the first 9 months. They repay their energy input many dozens of times within their lifetime. The materials are also highly recyclable. Offshore farms are practical in many countries and have minimal impact on the environment. The issues of mooring are already well understood, due to the efforts devoted to offshore oil rigs.

More info from Vestas. Remember the name.

I think money will be better spent in more efficient storage of energy. Batteries, salts and event heat tanks all interest me. I'm not seeing any long term viability of anything but coal, gasoline and natural gas until the storage exceeds the unit per dollar ratio of the 3 gases mentioned.

Then the only thing I can say is that I'm glad you're not in charge.

Re:Energy creation or energy storage?

[Kelson]

The thing is, raw economic costs are never all of it. Given two resources, one finite and one renewable, even if it is more expensive to exploit the renewable resource, in the long term you'll be better off with it.

As far as mainstream science knows, fossil fuels are a finite resource. Oil and coal are going to become more scarce, and eventually there won't be enough to use. There's certainly disagreement on how much is left, but pretty much everyone agrees that reserves are finite and probably won't outlast the century.

But geologic hot spots aren't likely to change significantly within human life time, and in most cases we could follow them when they moved. We're not going to run out of sunlight anytime soon. And wind patterns are stable in some areas, though that's certainly subject to climate change.

To put it in economic terms, the finite resource is kind of like a loan, but the renewable resource is more like an investment. You take out the loan -- using fossil fuels to power the industrial revolution -- so you can make investments in something that will continue to bring in revenue when you've paid off the loan.

Re:Energy creation or energy storage?

[khallow]

Land based wind power is a clear winner. Typical windmills pay back their energy cost of creation in a few months and capital costs in a few years. OTOH, the best wind areas often are not near urban areas hence you need to transport the power (and lose some energy in the process). All the forms of energy you mention tend to be low maintenance. Geothermal probably has relatively the highest maintenance since it is handling hot possibly acidic or brackish fluids (ie, a high corrosion environment). Offshore windmills would probably be comparable (especially in a high salt environment like the Mediterranean).

Geothermal shares with solar power the tendency to degrade over time. Ie, once you extract the usable latent heat of the rock, you are dependent on heat that trickles in from deeper below. In some places that can mean that long term power is 50% below the initial power. Similarly, solar cells degrade over time and steadily weaken.

I don't like geothermal as well as the other sources since it's very dependent on region and there really isn't that much out there. Wind or solar could theoretically power all of human civilization by themselves. Not so with geothermal IMHO.

Re:Energy creation or energy storage?

[Empty Yo]

I've ran the numbers for solar cells and windmill generators and can't see the overall savings.

I may sound petty, but you are comparing century old industries to two that have been in the field for less than 30 years. In that period, the KwH cost for wind, for example, had dropped from many times that of gas to only twice as high. Give both wind and solar the same 100+ years to work with, and they will eventually go lower, guaranteed. In addition, don't discount opposition from the existing fuels and how that can add to your cost. Your home comes with a furnace that uses existing fuels automatically. You don't have to add it, licence it with the city, install it, etc. Solar and wind are always added on after the fact at your cost and to an existing installation, which is always more expensive than building it in from the start. If solar and wind take off to the point where they are generally accepted like gas or coal, then cities will set bylaws so that you can add a wind tower below x feet without consulting them. As it is now, you have to apply to even put it in. When was the last time you applied to put in a gas furnace?

Re:Energy creation or energy storage?

[WalksOnDirt]

There is thought to be enough coal to last for several centuries. The question is whether we can accept the environmental consequences of using it.

Re:Energy creation or energy storage?

[StikyPad]

I've ran the numbers for solar cells and windmill generators and can't see the overall savings. Taking into account the manufacturing, installation and maintenance costs, are these techniques better for the environment or any cheaper?

Solar cells only work when it's sunny. And it doesn't hurt if it's daytime either.

Likewise, windmills only work when - you guessed it - Cheney is talking.

And yes, the power generation would be throttleable. Since it's a closed-loop system, you should be able to just slow down the pump. Or speed it up, since slowing it down would allow for more heat transfer? Whatever. I'm sure the engineers can figure it out.

Re:Energy creation or energy storage?

[Dan Ost]

Just for the record, solar water heating works just fine in Minnesota. It takes a little longer to hit the break-even point than in more southern states, but some people still find it an attractive way to save energy.

Re:Energy creation or energy storage?

[mwood]

Yeah, you probably get sunshine in MN in January and February. IN doesn't. :-(

Big anomaly

[Neo-Rio-101]

.... given the geological anomalies present in South Australia

You mean the city of Adelaide?

Re:Big anomaly

[Frogbert]

Quite frankly I'm surprised there is anything at all in South Australia.

Re:Big anomaly

[cheesee]

I live in Adelaide, I would describe it as more of a biological anomaly than a geological one.

Re:Big anomaly

[The Nine]

You're thinking of Western Australia. :p I'm still not convinced Perth actually exists. I mean, sure, it's on the maps, but when was the last time you ever heard anything about Perth on the news, or met anybody from Perth, or had Perth's existence validated in any other way?

Re:Big anomaly

[Martin Blank]

It's like Delaware in the United States. I'm partially convinced that Delaware is a fictitious entity created as a tax haven for large companies.

Re:Big anomaly

[Bad D.N.A.]

Delaware is more like a tax-free haven for those of us that live near DC. Tax free shopping baby.

Re:Big anomaly

[Anonymous Coward]

An Elizabethan, eh? ;-)

Re:Big anomaly

[Lisandro]

That reminds me of a great movie...

  It's bluescreen magic! We can go anyware! Imagine being able to be magically whisked away to... Delaware?... Um... hi... i'm in Delaware...

Re:Big anomaly

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey hey hey..

Speaking from Adelaide (yes, it does exist) the only geothermic issues here are just that strange gas that occassionally seeps up from the ground and makes everyone a bit weird. Seriously though, the heat from underground is a pain.. the further you dig the hotter it gets. That's why there are so many shallow graves.

Re:Big anomaly

[Anonymous Coward]

My father claims my step-mother moved to perth when they divorced. I wonder now if that's a euphemism for her untimely demise. :)

Joking. She really did move there.
I kinda like perth tho, someone there finally beat up my step brother. The guy seriously deserved it.

Re:Big anomaly

[bobscealy]

I live in Adelaide, I would describe it as more of a biological anomaly than a geological one.

A few gastronomical anomalies as well.

Re:Big anomaly

[mgv]

You're thinking of Western Australia. :p I'm still not convinced Perth actually exists. I mean, sure, it's on the maps, but when was the last time you ever heard anything about Perth on the news, or met anybody from Perth, or had Perth's existence validated in any other way?

Ok, I'll bite. As a card carring born again sand groper I think I have to validate my own existance.

Yes, Perth exists. Deal with it. Its (in my opinion) the best city in Australia, as far as actually being a place to live.

Whilst I know (as I was born in Melboune and went to high school in Sydney) that Western Australia was almost not on the map then, its getting hard to ignore now. It has the strongest economy in the country, just about the lowest unemployment (actually, Canberra is lower due to the large amount of government money there), and a city that has a future that doesn't depend on motor cars or even fossil fuels, so we aren't going to waste the economic benefits of having a strong economy.

Anyway, I'm sure I'm over reacting to a humourous statement, but I just had to ...

Michael

Re:Big anomaly

[ki4iib]

Re: Wyoming, USA.

Re:Big anomaly

[strider44]

Perth is actually a hoax perpertrated by the Australian Cricket Association. The Fremantle Doctor is actually created by a huge amount of fans next to a fictional WACA ground which is actually in Western Sydney - unfortunately they only have enough power to power those fans for a few hours each day.

Re:Big anomaly

[StikyPad]

I did meet a chick from Perth online. But now that you mention it, I never did get the chance to meet her in person since I got deployed when she was supposed to have visited the states. Coincidence? Perhaps you're on to something.

Re:Big anomaly

[Coryoth]

I believe it was the last time I watched a test at the WACA on TV.

Re:Big anomaly

[Anonymous Coward]

A few weeks ago a nobel prize was awarded to a couple of chaps over there for discovering helicobacter pylori.

Re:Big anomaly

[bmgoau]

Your future is pretty grim, it may exist now, but it wont in a few decades.

Perth is built on a sandbank people. One that is slowly becomeing unstable.

Although the actual city may take a long time to go under or for any foundations to crack, the problem is already causing Perths water tables to rise and causeing so far a small amount of catchment water to run into the sea.

Luckily, the city of wollongong (where i live) is built on top of old coal wash and useless material from the many mines we have. That has no chance of causing any problems, and the huge floods we had in 1998 were not related :P

Re:Big anomaly

[Anthony]

Sorry to be a "wet blanket", but i read recently that Perth is looking at an interesting dilemma with future water supplies, even underground aquifers are projected to run low in the next 20-30 years. I guess Woodside might spare some gas to run a desalination plant. Not sure about the projections with that technology though.

BTW, I was over in Perth for LCA 2003 and loved the place. Especially the transport setup and UWA is impressive. My brother and his family are over there too.

Re:Big anomaly

[Anonymous Coward]

As an American, I'm not sure the entire continent exists. Sure, there are other Americans who think the've gone to "Australia", but who's to say the plain didn't just circle around the Pacific for a few hours and then land in California? You train a couple hundred people to speak in a ridiculous accent and say "G'day!" and you've got yourself a very lucrative vacation spot. Personally, I think "Australia" was made up by the British to explain what they were doing with all their criminals. And marsupials? Do you actually expect us to believe there are animals with built-in fanny packs?

(Yes, I'm kidding.)

Re:Big anomaly

[Anonymous Coward]

Australia's Worst Spammer, Wayne Mansfield, is from Perth. His upcoming arse-kicking by the appropriate authorities will be news enough.

Re:Big anomaly

[Anonymous Coward]

Dear Michael

Not to put to fine a point on it - but - would you please SHUT THE FUCK UP!!!

Yes it's all nice and dandy and all that being a born-again sandgroper and defending the honour of Perth, but for crying out loud - we have enough Poms coming here as it is. If you start all this "Perth is fantastic" crap, and the rest of the world learn that Perth has the climate California THINKS it has, then before you can say "Can I buy an airline ticket" we'll be over-run with damn Eastern Staters. And you know what that means don't you? That's right - Collingwood fans! Reams of the little bastards coming into Perth and breeding more Collingwood fans.

In no time at all you won't be able to walk in to the Cot on a Sunday afternoon without having to squish past all those dirty little, black and white stripe wearing, denizens of evil spending their time talking about Nathan Buckley and Eddie "Would you please get the fuck off my television" McGuire!

So do us all a favour - when someone takes the piss out of Perth, just smile quietly and say "don't you just hate how all the shops close at 6pm" and then go about your daily business.

Cheers!

Rockin' Az (a fellow sandgroper, not logged in)

Re:Big anomaly

[swatthatfly]

Perth is the Secon Foundation.

Re:Big anomaly

[mwood]

It sounds like a wonderful place to live, then.

Re:Big anomaly

[mwood]

Of course fans of Samurai Cat know that Delaware is everywhere. :-)

Re:Big anomaly

[smithmc]

  I mean, sure, it's on the maps, but when was the last time you ever heard anything about Perth on the news, or met anybody from Perth, or had Perth's existence validated in any other way?

I've been there. Pleasant city. Very clean. Good zoo. Nice casino/hotel on the outskirts. Now, you just have to prove that I'm real, and not some sort of auto-Perth-replying 'bot.

Re:Big anomaly

[Anonymous Coward]

Crikey!!

Re:Big anomaly

[Splintax]

What the fuck? Speaking as a student who's been living in Perth since I waws 5, I can honestly say that our transport setup is fucked. Particularly public transport. You simply can't depend on a bus to actually arrive at all, let alone on time. Every other week an entire train line (ie. one-quarter of the whole train system) is shut down and replaced by a "rail replacement" bus, which takes about 10 times longer to get anywhere.

Re:Big anomaly

[Anthony]

That is a sad. I was impressed by the design. I had no troubles gettign around Perth. Looks like the implementation needs work.

Re:Big anomaly

[PC-PHIX]

You're thinking of Western Australia. :p I'm still not convinced Perth actually exists. I mean, sure, it's on the maps, but when was the last time you ever heard anything about Perth on the news, or met anybody from Perth, or had Perth's existence validated in any other way?

Gee. I know that some of these guys [slashdot.meetup.com] would be pissed to read that!

In fact, have a look at this and I would say that Perth is the ONLY place in Australia that really exists in the world of Slashdot!

Isn't This Dangerous

[MBCook]

Is this dangerous? I heard this on the radio today and that was what struck me.

So if we use this to power Australia like they suggest, what are the consequences. That would mean stealing a lot of heat from the Earth that is trapped in these geothermal "deposits" (since it sounds like they found concentrated areas of heat higher up than usual). If we cool those down (which is what will happen when we extract heat from them) then what will happen? Will it effect the ground in any way? I'm thinking of towns where they used to mine salt or coal or something and the ground later started to collapse because the stuff was gone. While they are not removing rock, would removing the heat cause problems later? For example: remove the heat -> things cool down -> rocks contract from cooling -> empty space -> fissues?

Anyone know? I realize this would probably be a long-term problem (not something that would show up for a long time). Would this not be a problem because the ground could slowly adjust as we removed the heat, or would the heat stay high until the last minute then plummet (sorta like batteries do) causing problems?

Re:Isn't This Dangerous

[HotNeedleOfInquiry]

No. It's not dangerous and it's not new technology. I know firsthand that it is used in California and the Sierra Madres of Mexico. Most of the homes in Klameth Falls, Oregon are heated via geothermal energy. I'm sure it's used in a lot of other places, so I'm a little surprised this is even news. I've not heard of any sort of accident or danger, other than the possible release of poisionous hydrogen sulfide gas, and that only during the exploration stage.

There are issues, but nothin insurmountable.

Re:Isn't This Dangerous

[Anonymous Coward]

a lot of heat.

Just like trying to empty the ocean with a cup is taking a lot of water from it.

Re:Isn't This Dangerous

[palndrumm]

Will it effect the ground in any way?

Not really, no. We're talking about big solid lumps of granite, which at the sort of temperatures they're at to start with won't undergo any significant thermal contraction even if cooled to atmospheric temperature. Plus we're only able to extract a relatively small proportion of the overall amount of heat in these deposits, so the overall temperature of the rock won't change a whole lot.

Re:Isn't This Dangerous

[MBCook]

I didn't mean cool down the planet's core or anything like that. While that would eventually happen, it would take a LONG time.

But if that heat built up over millions of years, it would be possible to drain in if we take energy out fast enough.

Re:Isn't This Dangerous

[leathered]

This is what will will happen:

World turns to geothermal energy. Mankind relieved at being saved from global warming.
As a result, the Earth's core cools and solidifies and the planet's magnetic field breaks down.
All life wiped out by cosmic radiation.

Other than that it's not dangerous at all.

Re:Isn't This Dangerous

[BushCheney08]

Millions of years? You're thinking on the wrong scale. Bump it up by a few thousand of those millions...

Re:Isn't This Dangerous

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Klamath Falls suffered an earthquake a while back, and there was a theory that *part* of the cause may have been some older wells that didn't reinject.

Re:Isn't This Dangerous

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe it will counteract the effect of the "supposed" global warming!

Re:Isn't This Dangerous

[Bad D.N.A.]

Dude. The core is going to cool no matter what we do.

Re:Isn't This Dangerous

[fabs64]

It's news because they are talking large scale power generation, not individual homes or even towns indoor heating.

Re:Isn't This Dangerous

[SETIGuy]

No. It's not dangerous and it's not new technology.

Tell that to the people of Pompeii. Their little experiment with geothermal energy was less than sucessful.

Re:Isn't This Dangerous

[Michael Woodhams]

It isn't like an oil field where, once it is gone, it is gone. The heat is continuously renewed from the earth's core.

It is a lot like an aquifer - a geothermal field will have a limited capacity. Once too much heat is being tapped from it, it will cool down and all users will get less.

Subsidence can be a problem, as can toxic chemicals which accompany the steam/hot water. See the link in this comment..

I'm surprised Australia is looking into this - across the ditch here (NZ), we regard you as geological deadsville. The Newcastle quake was magnitude 5.6, in 1989. Our most recent magnitude 5.6 was a week ago (and 5 others this year.) (OK, not really a fair comparison, as this recent one was 290km deep, and Oz may have had bigger but less damaging earthquakes since Newcastle.)

Oh, and our largest city contains about 50 vulcanos, most recent eruption about 500 years ago.

Re:Isn't This Dangerous

[njfuzzy]

As a human being, you are using a flawed definition of "a lot" of energy. The earth could not possibly notice the amount of energy borrowed from the system in this way. It's as silly as the theories that using tidal energy would pull the moon out of orbit.

Re:Isn't This Dangerous

[Fallingcow]

Most of the homes in Klameth Falls, Oregon are heated via geothermal energy.

Maybe that's why they survive the nuclear war.

Good thing, too, since it'll provide a good starting place for, say, a person looking for the G.E.C.K. to save the village in the North.

Re:Isn't This Dangerous

[GeeksHaveFeelings]

First of all, those rocks don't undergo a lot of thermal contraction, and second, even if it did, humans can't take nearly enough heat away from the earth to "use up" geothermal energy. The real problem is finding hotspots that can either pump its own hot water up, or ones that are easily accessed and can be pump into/out of.

Re:Isn't This Dangerous

[StikyPad]

Uh, I'm pretty sure that the rocks aren't heated from the earth's core, which is a little farther down than 5km from the surface. Radioactive decay is actually the source, and that isn't particularly renewable, unless you know of a way to impregnate the rock with more radioactive material. The article suggests 70 years of use at current comsumption rates. (Get it? Current consumption rates?).

Also the radiation isn't really dangerous since it's just trace amounts; it's just that the heat can't escape so it's just been accumulating.

As for toxic chemicals, this is dry geothermal, not that messy geyeser stuff.

Re:Isn't This Dangerous

[Velox_SwiftFox]

Yep, unfortunately, there's no way humans could produce anywhere near enough radioactive materials to feed into the Earth's subduction zones, to make up for the loss of fuel as natural radioactive isotopes decay.

Re:Isn't This Dangerous

[mike.newton]

My friends all laugh at me when I ask about wind power. What happens to climate when there are millions of windmills all over the world "slowing down" the wind? I don't have any climatologist friends though, so nobody gives me straight answers.

Re:Isn't This Dangerous

[Anonymous Coward]

"I'm surprised Australia is looking into this - across the ditch here (NZ), we regard you as geological deadsville."

Take a look at a map of South Australia. Look at the two gulfs, Kangaroo Island, the two peninsulas, the large salt lakes (once were "inland" seas) and the adjacent Adelaide hills (very ancient hills - once was a huge mountain range but is almost weathered down to nothing now), and the Flinders Ranges.

All of those features are essentially parallel. There is a series of parallel faults. Some sections lowered down (to become gulfs) and some sections are raised up (to become ranges of hills).

This was the site of enormous geological upheaval millions and millions of years ago.

AFAIK all that is left today is that the earth's crust is fairly thin here and the heat from the earth's core comes relatively close to the surface - but it does so over a very large area indeed.

Re:Isn't This Dangerous

[Anonymous Coward]

No, the rocks aren't heated from the Earth's core. They're heated by radioactive decay of small quantities of radioisotopes in the rock itself (those same elements are sometimes responsible for the formation of the granite from the preexisting sedimentary rocks).

What I don't understand is, given the dramatically enormous expanses of just basically nothing in Australia, why solar isn't more popular. It would be cheaper to set up initially and would scale to any desired output. It would also never diminish, unlike the limited amounts of available geothermal.

As an aside, the Earth's heat flux is about 0.05 Watts per meter^2, so even if the heat flow in any area is an order of magnitude greater, any geothermal extraction is still going to be out of equilibrium with the rate of replenishment. Geothermal is a finite resource, but the sun is unlikely to stop shining in any realistically near future.

I'd really like to see a careful breakdown of the costs of solar vs. geothermal for some realistic scenarios.

NOTE: Storing solar power during the night is not impossible.

Re:Isn't This Dangerous

[khallow]

To be pendantic, the heat is a combination of radioactive decay in the rock and conduction of heat from further down. The addition of the former source is what makes this economic to extract.

As for toxic chemicals, this is dry geothermal, not that messy geyeser stuff.

Except you are pumping warm water through rock. Even granite has soluble minerals in it so there will be scaling.

Re:Isn't This Dangerous

[khallow]

There are other alternatives here. The obvious one is that by speeding up Earth's rotation we can used the increased number of tidal cycles to make up for the loss of radioactive material. Second, there's no obvious reason that energy has to be introduced in the form of radioactive materials. Antimatter would be another way we could introduce the necessary energy. Of course, once the Sun goes to white dwarf stage, we'll have to transfer the Earth to another star, but that's a minor issue.

Re:Isn't This Dangerous

[mwood]

Will it affect the ground in *any way*? Sure. Will it affect the ground in any *significant* way? I seriously doubt it.

Re:Isn't This Dangerous

[mwood]

Um, first figure up the mass of the core. Now calculate (a) the amount of heat you can extract to bring it down to the freezing point; (b) the amount of additional heat due to continuing radioactive breakdown that you'll also have to draw down continually to get to freezing; (c) the even more enormous amount of heat you'll have to draw out to cross the phase line. Then come back and tell us how many millennia it will take to use up all that heat without utterly wrecking the atmosphere. We'll either be gone or capable of interstellar migration by the time that happens.

Humph, that might be more energy than we'd need to *do* the interstellar migration.

Re:Isn't This Dangerous

[swissfondue]

Luckily we can upgrade to dual core.

Yellowstone

[WindBourne]

I wish that they would do more around the yellowstone area. The thing is a super volcano so should have loads of heat easily accessable.

Re:Yellowstone

[mrchaotica]

I agree, except for the fact that it's also a national park.

Re:Yellowstone

[Bad D.N.A.]

"I wish that they would do more around the yellowstone area" NO... leave yellowstone alone. And while your there, please catch and release.

Here on the Ring of Fire...

[Repton]

I'm sure we can lend them some expertise — NZ's first geothermal plant was commissioned in the '50s...

(apparently, we get 18% of our primary energy from geothermal sources)

Re:Here on the Ring of Fire...

[oztiks]

Yeah NZ has various environmentally friendly sources of power.

I believe that Australian scientists have theorised that the over abundance of methane generated by NZ's sheep supply could power the entire planet.

Re:Here on the Ring of Fire...

[ltmon]

Of course anything half worthwhile to come out of New Zealand is automatically the property of Australia... Crowded House -> Australian Geothermal Energy -> Australian L. (P.S. you can have Russell Crowe back, we don't want him anymore).

Re:Here on the Ring of Fire...

[afaik_ianal]

This isn't quite the same kind of power generation. A few people have made similar comments about NZ and the US.

From TFA: "While the United States, the Philippines, Iceland, New Zealand and Japan already produce commercial volumes of geothermal electricity, their system uses naturally occurring steam from underground reservoirs and springs, rather than the renewable dry rock technology the Australians are developing."

Re:Here on the Ring of Fire...

[oztiks]

Yeah, i guess aussie scientists arent all that bright when it comes it all as the only counting they usually get up to is the process of stacking beer cans and measuring womens cup sizes.

And i agree with you about aussie sheeps being scrawny and small compared to the new zealend sheep, i mean heck in nz sheep are considered sexual icons, sort of like brad pitt in the united states, so as a result they are very well looked after, groomed and are usually sitting on the higher income bracket.

Re:Here on the Ring of Fire...

[Anonymous Coward]

no that's ok, you can keep him. please.

Re:Here on the Ring of Fire...

[Yorrike]

We'll take him back on one condition; Australia makes an official, world-wide announcement that New Zealand was the country that invented the Pavlova, thus giving us the recognition we Kiwis deserve :)

Re:Here on the Ring of Fire...

[mederjo]

Ah, you Ozzie wits. Just can't get past the sheep jokes can you ;-). Last time my I was in Oz virtually every person I met had a lame sheep joke. I have a cousin working there at the moment who gets the same thing.

Funny thing ( or not ) is that there are about 3 times as many sheep in Australia as in NZ [1]. What's more I hear there is a shortage of women in rural Australia, for example in many parts of WA it's 3 men for every woman. My cousin does occupational health around rural NSW and Queensland and can confirm similar issues there. All those sheep, all those isolated places, so few women... you do the maaaa-th ;-).

BTW, the number of sheep are steeply on the decline in NZ [2]. The main methane producers are cattle, whose numbers have increased greatly recently, particularly for dairy. There's still way more of both in Oz though.

[1]http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/abs@.nsf/0/a3328 a1f1ca80e9dca2568a9001393ff?OpenDocument
[2]http://www.farmtofarm.co.nz/nz.html

Regards,

Jo Meder

Re:Here on the Ring of Fire...

[ltmon]

OK, now that's just cruel.

I never even heard the claim that NZ invented the pavlova until sometime last year. It's just so ingrained in Australian folklore that none of us can quite fathom the possibility that it isn't Australian.

mmmm..... pavlova

Re:Here on the Ring of Fire...

[nathanh]

I'm sure we can lend them some expertise -- NZ's first geothermal plant was commissioned in the '50s... (apparently, we get 18% of our primary energy from geothermal sources)

NZ has a different area of expertise. NZ has naturally occuring hot water springs. Tapping those is relatively easy. That's why NZ has had geothermal energy for so long. Iceland was in a similar fortunate position and they also have geothermal.

Australia is drier than Oscar Wilde's wit. There are no naturally occuring hot water springs. The technology being researched in Australia is Hot Dry Rock. The rocks are dry and you pump fluids down into the rocks. The water is forced through naturally occuring horizontal fissures in the rocks and collected by a second bore. This only works when there are insulating rocks above, below and around the fissures. Otherwise the fluid disperses and you never collect back enough water to make the system economical.

When it does work it's brilliant. The system powers itself and the only significant issue is dealing with scale buildup on the pipes. The energy output is enormous and the capital investment is modest. A single plant can power a small city with almost no pollution and no (as yet known) environmental impact.

Re:Here on the Ring of Fire...

[PhunkySchtuff]

NZ - Ring of Fire? I thought that the Ring of Fire was from the Vindaloo and four Lagers I had for dinner last night... Plenty of geothermal energy going on right at the moment, I might add...

Re:Here on the Ring of Fire...

[onco_p53]

And I was amazed when I heard the Aussies were claiming the Kiwi Pav as their own!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pavlova Wikipedia is a little more neutral, but the earliest evidence is on the kiwi side.

Re:Here on the Ring of Fire...

[Anonymous Coward]

The other 82% comes from the environmentally-friendly oviscoital source, which is also a primary form of relaxation.

Re:Here on the Ring of Fire...

[JohnboyHolmes]

Hi Jo,

I was in your comp.sci.fundamentals course this semester.

After living in Australia for a while I have realised it is actually just a big hole, in fact up to 15m below sea level that all of central Australian drains into.

Re:Here on the Ring of Fire...

[Anonymous Coward]

The thing is that NZ is not part of the "United States" (good on you too) and as such does not exist (see Wright bros). The only reason Australia is getting any credit for this is that they have been the "United States of Australia" for a while now. Remember, Emperor Bush does not have a bad case of tapeworms, that's Little Johnny's laces hanging out.

Re:Here on the Ring of Fire...

[oztiks]

Hi Jo

Just as there are plenty of sheep jokes against new zealand going around in australia, new zealanders always have a huge array of come backs for this very issue.

But then the subject changes to football and the fact the All Blacks always loose to australia, then nz just doesnt have any come backs to such comments :)

Re:Here on the Ring of Fire...

[JohnboyHolmes]

But then the subject changes to football and the fact the All Blacks always loose to australia, then nz just doesnt have any come backs to such comments :)


Earth to Oztiks,

OMG you are a troll. Have you seen how your teams are performing lately, I guess you could boast about cricket, nope aussie sucks at that (how did the ashes go again). How about Rugby union, nope you have lost your last 6 tests in a row. How about league, no Australian was last in the tri nations. You recently got your butts kicked in netball by NZ. There is not a lot left. I guess you are the best in the world at AFL, an aussie only sport.

Shit, is there anything Australia has won at recently?

So, be quiet before we send over a small troop of kiwi girl guides to invade you and declare Australia the "West Island". I think that is all it would take, hell you can't beat anything else!

Re:Here on the Ring of Fire...

[oztiks]

Well see in the bledisloe cup where australia has already won it for the past 3 years, and as far as NRL is concered, doesnt NZ have a team? its called erm ... auckland, I think, but we rearly hear about them because they dont seem to be any real match for aussie teams.

As for cricket thats an argument you should well and truely stay away from, aussie puts up a good fight in cricket against nations like england and south africa, as for new zealand its just batting practice for the aussie team!

Re:Here on the Ring of Fire...

[Coryoth]

Well see in the bledisloe cup where australia has already won it for the past 3 years

Do you mean the Bledisloe cup which New Zealand has won for the last 3 years? It's not still 2002 you know. ...and as far as NRL is concered, doesnt NZ have a team?

That would be the New Zealand Warriors. Yes, they are a bit up and down but they were minor premieres and grand finalists in 2002 (you know, back when you guys still had the Bledisloe cup). And then there's the fact that many of the Australian NRL teams are packed with Kiwi players...

Re:Here on the Ring of Fire...

[Anthony]

Moderators, please fix this parent. Aussie/NZ banter like this is NOT flamebait. It is a national past-time on both sides of the Tasman Sea.

Re:Here on the Ring of Fire...

[Anonymous Coward]

There are no naturally occuring hot water springs

Well that's bullshit right there.

Re:Here on the Ring of Fire...

[McCarrum]

Seconded.

Re:Here on the Ring of Fire...

[nathanh]

There are no naturally occuring hot water springs

Well that's bullshit right there.

You're right, that was bullshit. Change the "no" to "none in the arid areas they're using for this research" and it makes more sense.

Re:Here on the Ring of Fire...

[Anonymous Coward]

I hear in NZ every sheep has a ring of fire.

Re:Here on the Ring of Fire...

[Hexact]

The page you point to talks about NZ energy consumption in petajoules (PJ). Do you people buy lightbulbs rated in joules?

Re:Here on the Ring of Fire...

[shplorb]

Actually there is. Paralana(sp?) near Arkaroola in the Gammon Ranges is a volcanic spring. I believe it's the only volcanic activity in Australia and is in the general vicinity (give or take a few hundred KM's) of where Geodynamics are drilling.

Re:Here on the Ring of Fire...

[njh]

Actually, there are plenty of hot springs in the desert. The outflow rates are not high and the temperature is usually around 50C, so it is not practical for large scale geothermal. Look up Dalhousie Hot Springs.

also in small scale

[Keruo]

Not for generating electricity, but geothermal energy is increasingly popular way to heat residential buildings here.
It's already half cheaper than oil burner heating and as the oil prices climb, geothermal becomes more and more attractive option.

geothermal

[H0D_G]

geothermal shouldn't steal a noticeable amount of heat- remember, the Earth is VERY big and VERY hot. I'd still prefer it if we went Nuclear. and that smart ass with the Adelaide crack... guess where I'm writing this from?

Re:geothermal

[Belseth]

Still it's nice to see them finally harnessing all the hot air for power. Shame to see it all go to waste. Adelaide is quite rich in some resources.

Re:geothermal

[Yartrebo]

Unfortunately, the Earth is a great insulator. Heat from the mantle travels exceeding slowly to the surface. The maximum sustainable power density is many orders (at least three, probably more) of magnitude less than solar power. The unsustainable (deplete once) energy reserve is exceedingly dilute compared to fossil fuels. I haven't had time to do some hard math, but my gut feeling is that drawing out 8GW of heat energy will cool off a lot of rock real fast. (assupmtions are 15% rankine cycle and 12.5% net efficiency and a 1GW plant). How many cubic kilometers of rock can their collection system honestly cover?

Iceland has a much larger (though still finite) sustainable energy density, since it sits on the mid-oceanic rift, so it would be a far better site for a geothermal plant, though I have my doubts that 1GW could be extracted even from that island.

Re:geothermal

[Cheapy]

"and that smart ass with the Adelaide crack... guess where I'm writing this from?"

Ooh ooh! I know this one! Adelaide!

Re:geothermal

[cujo_1111]

Snowtown? Having fun with all those barrels?

Re:geothermal

[Mspangler]

"my gut feeling is that drawing out 8GW of heat energy will cool off a lot of rock real fast."

Most likely. And although renewable over geologic time, it's pretty slow in human time. So basically, you are mining heat, and when the rocks cool, you are done for several thousand years.

What is the current output of the Geysers geothermal plant? They were noticing the cooldown ten years ago.

Re:geothermal

[nonlnear]

...I have my doubts that 1GW could be extracted even from that island.

That's no good at all then. After all, it's well documented that harnessing a single lightning bolt can yield 1.21 GW.

That's jig-a-watts of course. ;)

World leader?

[Malc]

After Iceland that is. I would think they are the world leader. They way they're going they'll be able to banish fossil fuels. Well, I suppose fishing boats and aeroplanes might be an exception.

Re:World leader?

[Seraphim1982]

I seem to recall hearing on the radio that Iceland is working on using Hydrogen (generated from geothermal energy) for their fishing fleet, so all you have to worry about is airplanes.

Environmental regulations????

[Ritz_Just_Ritz]

Perhaps I'm just ignorant of how this process works, but.... This is geothermal energy and aren't its byproducts "natural?" I mean, isn't the scaling or corrosive materials or whatever going to be released to the environment eventually by mother nature regardless of what us miniscule humans do? How do you "regulate" that? This isn't really a put down or complaint. I simply don't understand.

Cheers,

Re:Environmental regulations????

[Yartrebo]

Scaling materials do not harm the environment and generally be disposed of like sand. The corrosive materials are safe to dump in small amounts over the millenia as nature slowly weathers rock formations, but I do think that the liquid would have to be pumped back into the rock formation to avoid contamination. (isn't that what they do already?)

If it's really a problem (probably not), one can always use a closed cycle, which will avoid contamination issues at an increase in cost.

The bigger drawback to geothermal energy is that it is non-renewable on the human timescale. Heat moves very slowly through the earth, and eventually, the local hot spots in the crust will be cooled down. It also show far less potential for future cost reduction than wind or solar. Considering Australia has excellent solar resources and good wind resources, why not develop those?

Re:Environmental regulations????

[Kelson]

The issue with scaling and corrosion isn't that it'll escape and damage the environment -- it's that it'll damage the power plant itself. Most power plants work by burning something to heat water, vaporize it, and use the steam to turn a turbine. At least one form of geothermal power involves plugging pipes into the ground where magma is naturally heating water and vaporizing it. In other words, hot springs. But since it's ground water, it's full of minerals that can cause scaling in the pipes. And since it's ground water from a volcanic area, it's generally full of corrosive materials that, again, damage the pipes.

Re:Environmental regulations????

[TedCheshireAcad]

Do you mean in the same sense that oil and its consumption wastes are "natural"?

Re:Environmental regulations????

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is that the energy companies dont want to incur the extra costs of maintence by using natural materials, which are all filled with corrosive crap that screws up their equipment. I can't put it much simpler than that.

Re:Environmental regulations????

[mwood]

Some perspectives:

Concentrated hydrochloric acid is natural: your stomach makes some every minute. Uranium is natural: it's dug out of the ground like coal (also natural). Horrific, destroy-all-in-its-path wildfires covering thousands of square km. are natural and have been happening since long before humans came along. Just because it's "natural" doesn't mean it's nice.

Geothermal hot spots will be cooled, not eventually, but *immediately*. By a few degrees within centimeters of the tap, millidegrees further out. Meanwhile more energy flows in from elsewhere. Moderate extraction will simply set a new equilibrium point somewhat lower than the old one but will still provide plenty of energy, and energy flow into the affected area actually increases a bit since the potential difference has increased.

Meanwhile, yes, Australia should indeed develop its solar and wind resources *too*. Some companies invest in one, some in another, and society reaps the benefits of all of them.

Remember that the extracted heat *itself* can be looked upon as a pollutant, and by extracting it we're increasing the rate of pollution and moving another equilibrium point. One of the (possibly still distant) restraints on growth of a high-tech society is simply the ability to get rid of waste heat without moving an equilibrium point that's too touchy for comfort. And one of the laws of thermodynamics boils down to the principle that all energy eventually becomes waste heat, so the overall density of energy use should be considered carefully.

Reuters Rooted

[CarlHungus]

I can't read the damn article. Is it possible that Reuters is susceptible to slashdot? I didn't think that many people would be interested in reading about the ass end of the wrold, sorry Australia.

Re:Reuters Rooted

[Anonymous Coward]

If you read the other posts, it is fairly clear that Iceland is the ass end of the world, closely followed by New Zealand. Also, Adelaide is the ass end of Australia - most people from australia would concur.

Re:Reuters Rooted

[Amargosa3000]

Not to worry mate, its not like you can even spell.

Re:Reuters Rooted

[Nqdiddles]

Please, if you insist on insulting my country at least do so properly. It's the "ass end of the world", not the wrold.

Re: Reuters Rooted

[CarlHungus]

I can spell, I just can't type very well. Were you offended by me quoting a former Australian Prime Minister?

Re:Reuters Rooted

[Anonymous Coward]

no i belive the correct spelling is "arse"

Re:Reuters Rooted

[ian_mackereth]

And shouldn't that be "ARSE end" if you're going to localise it?

(Remember the vile Sir Les Paterson (Minister of The Yartz) comments about Australia being the "Arts End of the World"?)

Not the first

[rscoggin]

What about Iceland? I believe they have an extensive geothermal energy system that provides not only electricity, but also heat for those cold Reykjavik nights ;). So how are the Australian firms making it "main-stream"?

Some more info

Re:Not the first

[GumphMaster]

You have to love market-speak. They probably justify the "main-stream" claim on the basis that:

• They will be the first to document the process in Australian English
• They will be the only geothermal power provider in South Australia and therefore must be the "main-stream"
• They will dig three wells and designate one of them "main-stream"

As usual, technology on (or in) the ground trumps marketing hype everytime. Others have pointed out the relevant "prior art" making a mockery of this hype. The problem in Australia is a government that believes the marketing techo-hype and funds on that basis.

Re:Not the first

[Anonymous Coward]

>Others have pointed out the relevant "prior art" making a mockery of this hype

And then others have pointed out that this is not the same thing. Try reading the article yourself.

Re:Not the first

[ian_mackereth]

This isn't your gradfather's geothermal (assuming, of course, that your gradfather came from Iceland or New Zealand or any of these other countries built on top of active volcanos...) This is smack dab in the middle of a tectonic plate, geologically stable enough to be considered for burying nuclear waste (preferable encased in Synroc), and a _bloody_ long way from the nearest sulfurous vent. This is using heat from radioactive materials in solid rock, not steam from magma bubbling just below the surface. They'd have to pump the water in, because there's bugger all of it out there! (OK, there's the Great Artesian Basin, but this area is isolated from that by a few kilometres of impermeable rock. Which is why the whole scheme is possible in the first place.)

PG&E has been doing this for decades in Califo

[Anonymous Coward]

PG&E has been generating electricity from geothermal energy for decades. See http://www.unocal.com/geopower/evolution/

If hot air production is the ticket...

[Ritz_Just_Ritz]

I say we tap the US Senate. 8-)

Say NO to geothermal

[jnadke]

This is just another attempt at Mother Nature to monopolize the energy market. First coal, then oil, now renewable engeries???

We must rise up to defeat this threat. Say NO to Mother Nature.

Re:Say NO to geothermal

[serveron]

Yes, let's do! Before she starts on zero-point-energy or any magnetic form of energy. Don't even mention cold fusion... iss vacant yet? i am leaving

Well...

[Anonymous Coward]

I, for one, welcome our mole people overlords.

Re:PG&E has been doing this for decades in Cal

[Yartrebo]

At least they're nice and honest and admit that it's a non-renewable resource. They talk about an estimated reserve of at least 50 years and their depletion rate. They also don't use the word 'sustainable' that many people attach to geothermal energy.

The only thing I would like in addition is what is the production in GW*h/year? They mention peak of 1.1GW, but that implies just a 1.1GW turbine. My guess is that the geothermal energy is easily throttled, so they run it as a peaking plant to get the most bang for their calorie and that it doesn't make nearly as much GW*h/year as a 1.1GW coal or nuclear facility.

Nooooooo!

[HermanAB]

Massive use of geothermal energy will cause global cooling. That will cause the earth to shrink, sea levels will rise, the San Andreas fault will reverse direction and the global warming industry will be destroyed, together with all other non-intelligent human life on the planet...

Yellowstone Public Utility District

[wardk]

Yellowstone immediately comes to mind as a geothermal power source. I bet if it destroys the environment, the GOP will be all over this.

Re:Yellowstone Public Utility District

[SB5]

Yellowstone immediately comes to mind as a geothermal power source. I bet if it destroys the environment, the GOP will be all over this.
Yellowstone is also the site of a "supervolcano". Which can have a large destructive force on the enviroment, and would ba national/world-wide disaster. Which the GOP definitely seems to support those.

Ah, geothermal

[localman]

I just visited Iceland a couple months back, and I have to say that it made me wonder why geothemal isn't more popular.

My favorite iceland moment: I went to the blue lagoon, which is a spa next to a geothermal powerplant. Basically you've got this cloudy blue mineral water in a huge black volcanic rock basin, at one end you've got the spa, where you get in, and the water is probably just over 80 degrees. Then on the other end of the basin you've got geothermal runoff water boiling in. You can get as close as you like to the inlet, but when you get within 30 feet or so you're nearly getting cooked. There's also some silica mud and waterfalls along the sides. The view is dramatic with the industrial steamstacks on one end, a classy spa structure on the other, and the natural volcanic pool in the middle. Highly recommended.

But the point is: you're bathing in powerplant runoff. And it's supposed to be good for you. Now that's pretty amazing: I want that kind of powerplant in my back yard. And looking up in Wikipedia, the largest geothermal installation in the world is actually in California. And it doesn't put out some wussy windmill sized power, we're talking 2000 Megawatts -- that's nuclear plant territory, if I understand correctly.

Reykjavik is reputedly the least polluted city in Europe, and most of the heating and power is provided by geothermal -- they just run hot pipes through the houses. Iceland has some pretty unique geographic properties that lend itself well to the process, but it's hard to believe that this can't be harnessed elsewhere to good effect. I mean, I understand the startup costs are very high. And I understand the technology needs work. But we're talking about a nearly limitless source of energy that is clean, safe, and politically sound. It seems like a pretty wise investment.

Cheers.

Re:Ah, geothermal

[aurifex]

And it doesn't put out some wussy windmill sized power, we're talking 2000 Megawatts -- that's nuclear plant territory, if I understand correctly. Indeed it seems so, at least according to this page.

Re:Ah, geothermal

[Temkin]

Reykjavik is reputedly the least polluted city in Europe

Not to slight the Icelanders in the least... It sounds like a neat Island, and I'd love to visit it... But... Isn't this a bit unfair to the rest of Europe? You know, the part that isn't completely surrounded by several thousand kilometers of ocean? The Europe that's actually *IN* Europe...

Re:Ah, geothermal

[John Nowak]

But the point is: you're bathing in powerplant runoff.

Big deal. You've been able to do that in New Jersey for decades.

Re:Ah, geothermal

[localman]

Wonderful! I'll have to give that a shot next. I'm sure it does wonders for the skin :)

Re:Ah, geothermal

[bm_luethke]

"I just visited Iceland a couple months back, and I have to say that it made me wonder why geothemal isn't more popular."

There are several reasons (the wiki article cited implies much of this). First, like hydroelectric, you can't just build them anywhere. The earth has to be a specific states for them (those states depend on the type being used). This is probably the main reason.

For the type you saw - probably some of the cleanest power production in the world - you need the hot springs and external steam sources. It's being pumped up to the surface anyway and we are just harnessing it there. This is mostly similar to hydroelectric in that it is not very invasive (much less than hydroelectric) and can actually create habitat and such. They are just rare. Only a few places on the planet you can do this and much of it is parks due to the natural beauty that they cause (say building large power plants over Yosemite National Park).

For others, especially the volcanic type, it is expensive and polluting. No, not greenhouse gasses but wonderful things like Radon and Hydrogen Sulfide gas (personally I go for the greenhouse gas). So not only more expensive, but worse for the environemnt. They are generally used in cases where the pollutive fallout isn't going to hurt anything (if the area surrounding it is already dead from volcanic activity, nothing to loose) and/or there is no other choice.

Other types aren't any better or worse, just different from coal and such. Dead from one thing is just as dead from another.

The one listed in the parent article seems to be pretty clean. It seems that taking the heat out of the ground in these cases doesn't hurt anything and there isn't any emissions, though I'll wait a while to decide on that one for sure. Remember, carbon emissions were thought to be clean at one time too - it wasn't until large scale long term effects were studied. This type has neither been around long term or large scale - not that I mean don't try, just don't do like we have in the past and assume because of models and smaller tests.

The saying "There is no such thing as a free lunch" has been pretty much true. You either have the power source rare, pollutive in production, pollutive in disposal, or pollutive while running. The company that solves this (if it is even solveable) will be one of the richest companies in the world.

Re:Ah, geothermal

[khallow]

As pointed out elsewhere, most places do not have sufficient geothermal resources. And apparently even Iceland uses only geothermal for a small fraction (17%) of its energy needs. Second, the Geysers is near Clear Lake, one of the five regions (or possibly six) in California that are considered to be volcanically active.

Venus, anyone?

[aurifex]

I would think that Venus would a more viable planet to use Geothermal power on, if any.

The other 82%...

[Eponymous Powder]

... is generated in a single energy plant where Russell Crowe's rage is tapped and converted into AC current...

Look no further

[Centurix]

I can extract geothermal energy from my early morning dutch ovens...

Granite is radioactive.

[TapeCutter]

Australia does not have any major fault lines, no volcanoes and has some of the oldest (most stable) bedrock on the planet. The heat in the Granite is not from magma, it is from the low level radioactivity in the rock itself. A big enough chunk of granite will get hot all by itself. Check out the CSIRO, they have been working on this kind of "geothermal" for at least 10yrs. Their numbers say that one site with two deep wells (500m apart) would remain hot enough to replace the largest power plant in NSW for 50yrs. Intrestingly the site they got those numbers from was just a few miles from said power station.

The biggest problem in Oz is that coal is not only sprinkled everwhere so as to convieniently fuel our current power stations, it is also a major export. These two things combine to make the coal industry fat, lazy and influential.

Re:Granite is radioactive.

[fatboyslack]

No volcanoes? My parent's farm in the Western district of Victoria has them dotted along the horizon. Some are extinct, but some are dormant... which means they could blow at any time! In the next 20,000 years that is. I recall as a child wishing for the excitement of a volcano erupting.

Volcanoes in Victoria (random Google)

Re:Granite is radioactive.

[TapeCutter]

Yes, I live in Victoria and have been to many of the places in your link more than once, perhaps I should have said "no active volcanoes". If you really want to be pedantic we do have at least one active volcano in our bit of Antartica, I left it out becuase it is several thousand kilometers from the mainland.

Oh No!!!

[joelito_pr]

This is the technology used in Pompey's public baths and just look what happened to THEM!!

I'm a geothermal geek

[Anonymous Coward]

I used to write geothermal software for a living & have spent some time on site
at geothermal plants around the world. I'll be a coward because its a small industry.

Basically the article is crap. New Zealand, Iceland, Calfornia/USA, Indonesia, Japan & the Philippnes (sp) all have a good geothermal resources, and well establised industries going back 50 years or more.

The common factor in all but Iceland is that the countries are based around the 'ring of fire' just google it). Makes it easy to get started - just drill a 1km hole in most hot zones & you get good steam.

Australia are a long way off even getting started in any serious way; even then they are using dry rock which has limited life. They should stick to solar - its not like they have a shortage compared with NZ & Iceland.

Re:I'm a geothermal geek

[Anthony]

I am studying at the ANU dept of Earth and Marine Sciences that is doing a lot of the research in this. This is not hydrothermal. You are right, there are no active margins and no active hotspots. This is using 3-4km deep drill holes, injecting plentiful artesian water down, fracturing the rock at depth and the heated water returning. The anomaly is a large intrusion that is near enough to the surface to make the project feasible. Sorry I haven't the paper at hand. Look at Geodynamics or look for papers by Prame Chopra. The "limited life" they are projecting is 300 years.

in federation square

[shrewd]

melbourne, which is a very large indoor/outdoor place they use geothermal heating to heat the place, you walk over large grates with heated air gently blowing out of them, it's the most well heated outdoorish area ive ever visited...

Re:in federation square

[H0D_G]

not geothermal. look at wikipedia, but it's basically sunlight stored in concrete. The so-called "Labyrinth" is a passive cooling system sandwiched above the railway lines and below the middle of the square. The concrete structure consists of 1.2 km of interlocking, honeycombed walls. It covers 160 m2. The walls have a zig-zag profile to maximize their surface area, and are spaced 60 cm apart. During summer, cold air is pumped in the combed space, cooling down the concrete, while heat absorbed during the day is pumped out. The following day, cold air is pumped from the Labyrinth out into the Atrium through floor vents. This process can keep the Atrium up to 12 C cooler than outside. This is comparable to conventional air conditioning, but using one-tenth the energy and producing one-tenth the carbon dioxide. During winter, the process is reversed, whereby warm daytime air stored in the Labyrinth overnight, to be pumped back into the Atrium during the day.

Re:in federation square

[shrewd]

i stand corrected, apologies for not being as well informed as you, the rather brief explanation i had was rather lacking i guess... still an amazing system...

ass end of the wrold

[PigIronBob]

No we're not, on a clear day you can see it though, just head out north east for about 12 hours and you'll hit its western shore, the big pimple on it must be YOU

Fuck sheep. Why yes we do.

[winsomecowboy]

(I'm a NZer) Best sheep shagger reply I ever heard was. "Why yes I am a sheep shagger, all New Zealenders are. We shag sheep all the time. Boys, men, we shag them constantly, and when we're finished we kill them...and send them overseas...and you eat them.

May already be solved for this type of system

[jd]

I believe New Zealand has been operating this form of geothermal power for over a decade, with success. If I am correct in this, then it would be likely that they are sharing any information/technology with Australia to help them get started.

In fact, given that Australia probably has a larger R&D budget, it would not surprise me if they'd started some kind of geothermal tech exchange program. As much as each enjoys looking down at the other, this is an area they both know they stand a good chance of doing very nicely from.

Re:May already be solved for this type of system

[fatboyslack]

I recall travelling in New Zealand in 1990 and there were geothermal powerplants around (North Island) then that had been around for some time. So that is 15-20 years.

Of course, while (I'm one) us Aussies and the Kiwis share some animosity, we assist each other far more than we like to admit.

Re:May already be solved for this type of system

[jd]

The real reason for the animosity is that the All Blacks have a better war-dance at the start of rugby matches and New Zealand has cool parrots that walk(!) up the sides of trees, but the Australians have Rolf Harris and the wibble-board.

Re:May already be solved for this type of system

[PeteABastard]

Happily enough Rolf Harris moved to the UK in the sixties and we dont see much of him any more :-)

1,200 Megawatts?

[StikyPad]

There could one day be plants supplying more than 1,000 megawatts of power if the market allowed it, which is theoretically a good chunk of the 1,200 megawatts required to power South Australia.

You mean... 1.2 jigawatts? I'm sorry, but the only thing that can generate 1.21 jigawatts of electricity is a bolt of lightning.

Re:1,200 Megawatts?

[Anonymous Coward]

wtf are u talking about..?
thats about the size of a normal nuclear reactor...

Re:1,200 Megawatts?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure in 1985 plutonium is available in every corner drugstore!

Re:1,200 Megawatts?

[jesterpilot]

...or a moderate conventional powerplant, or Tjernobyl after the accident, or a beowulf-cluster of 200 windturbines like this http://www.netwark.net/seaport/presse/EZ038.08.11. 05.pdf [pdf, german].

Re:1,200 Megawatts?

[smithmc]

  You mean... 1.2 jigawatts? I'm sorry, but the only thing that can generate 1.21 jigawatts of electricity is a bolt of lightning.

Well, that's why they're only generating 1.20 jigawatts, silly.

Sounds like

[Mind Socket]

Sounds like a bunch of hot air to me

Re:Sounds like

[ian_mackereth]

Comments like this could get you in hot water...

Re:Sounds like

[Mind Socket]

And here I was hoping for a +5 Funny instead. :P

Sounds like hot rock didn't scan as well.

Very Cool Technology

[foo fighter]

I was just in a small, community bank in the U.S. that installed geothermal HVAC when they rebuilt a decade ago.

They recouped the cost in five years and are very, very happy with the system. It heats for almost no expense in the winter (sometimes they have to fire up the natural gas furnace when it gets way below freezing) and cools for nothing in the summer.

It's also been basically maintenance free. Nothing on the order of what some of the naysayers here would have you believe.

I've also seen several rest stops in the area that use geothermal wells to cool and heat very effectively and efficiently. Near-zero maintenance is a very important thing for rest stops.

From what I've seen, geothermal is underutilized and underhyped and should be investigated closely by anyone doing new construction.

Stop Global Warming!

[benjamindees]

These rocks are heating at a constant rate, due to nuclear pollution!!

If the rocks keep getting hotter, we don't know what could happen. They could reach a tipping point and cause devastating ecological damage!!!

Clearly we must do something to stop this global warming before it gets out of hand!!!

Your anti-global-cooling attitude reveals you as a shill for big oil and other dino-fuel monopolists.

Jedi Mind Control

[skribe]

You don't need to see Perth, Western Australia.
This is not the city you are looking for.
You can go about your business.
Move along.

you mean like this?

[zogger]

Solar Tower Project

http://www.enviromission.com.au/

guess where I'm writing this from?

[PigIronBob]

If it's in Adelaide it can only be from a church...

Offtopic: Is it bad to say that men shouldn't cry?

[Anonymous Coward]

So, we were having a discussion, and she tells me she's considering becoming a grief counselor. I repled with, "If a guy comes in you just tell him to 'Grow up and be a man!' and give him a solid cockpunch. That's half the job right there." She asked if I was kidding and I said, "Yes and no." That is literally all I said. Then she proceeded to spend the next hour lecturing me on how heartless I am, how dead inside I am, how various men have cried (when their kids died, etc), how I have no compassion, how I should have no friends for saying something like that, how it made her sick to hear me say that, and how she's not sure she could continue talking to someone who thinks that. I pretty much said nothing the whole time, other than "okay" and "uh-huh". A few times I chimed in with things, like explaining that neither I nor my brother cried at my dad's funeral and how my (adopted) cousin did cry at my grandmother's funeral, but he's a pansy.

Based on that: Is there something seriously wrong with what I said? Am I evil or psychopathic or what? Would you say that she overreacted to a pheonomenal degree and has some major issues? Should men not cry? Regardless of if they should or shouldn't cry, is it wrong to believe they shouldn't?

Coincidentally, while I was typing this I was watching the scene in "The Godfather" where Brando was slapping a guy and yelling at him to "be a man" because he was crying.

Lastly, a number of times, when she was saying how heartless/compassionless I am, I told her how funny that was for her to say. I know she didn't understand why it's funny, I even told her so, but she never asked why it's funny. I'll give you a hint and leave it at that: "Hey Kettle, it's me Pot, you're black!"

maybe people will move

[zogger]

"OTOH, the best wind areas often are not near urban areas"..and so on. Yep. this is true. For now anyway....

  For all the talk and interest of colonizing space, we still have a lot of areas on the good ole Earth that are very unpopulated, and actually quite a bit more attractive climate and resource wise than Mars. No comparison really.

    In centuries past, people moved and created habitable areas based on any number of criteria, being where a river entered an ocean was always a biggee for trade, being close to fertile river valleys for agriculture, being near major mountain passes, etc. This is and has been mutable to the extreme, so there's no reason to think what we have now is "it" for how-or where-humans will be living in the future..

  Perhaps in the future due to humans ability to conduct trade and work and live most anyplace now that we might be creating new areas to live based on local available energy supplies as the primary criteria. As imported energy costs go up, it becomes more attractive to settle where these sources are going down in price. Example, Siberia and Alaska and northern Canada, even Antarctica, currently not all that populated relatively speaking, but with *tremendous* potential in the future due to extensive and quite varied energy reserves, including massive wind power potential. People might start to think why export raw energy for some small profit when you can use it yourself to develop industry, etc. and receive profit times x more large amount? Why make the other guy rich off of your valuable stuff? I think there's still a lot of "wild wild west" left on this planet, and energy costs and availability will push the "great expansion part deux" soon.

Re:maybe people will move

[khallow]

Could be. My take is that transportation costs are really low now (even electricity), and despite "peak oil" arguments, I don't see compelling reasons to believe this will change long term. Having said that, building a "vertical" infrastructure, where you turn your base resource into a high value product (rather than sell it as a low value commodity) is a reasonable approach.

For example, why sell low value electricity from solar power when you can sell exotic farm fish or shrimp?

Geothermal? no need, come to FNQ

[Archades54]

pffft, who needs to drill, do u know how hot it is in far north queensland right now?

Problems with this scheme

[Anonymous Coward]

Well - I hope it works. The company is GDY.ax and this is an old old story. Why it is in slashdot is beyond me. When they actually have some news then it would be appropriate.

Initally they are going to try a fairly small power plant.

First off there is a lot of energy there.

A cubic kilometer of granite should contain about (10^3*10^2)^3 * 2.25 *0.8 *150 = 270*10^15 joules This is assuming a delta-T of 150K

270*10^15/(10^9 j/s) = 270*10^6 seconds = 3124 days.

This is at a power flow of 1GWe.

If we are going to carry this with water at a delta-T of 150K then we will need about 1.6 M^3/second assuming 100% efficiency in the plant. If we assume 15% then we need about 6x this.

Now the problem is that GDY.ax is drilling into a nice granit plume which they will have to frac. Probably the only reasonable way to do this is with a nuclear bomb.

It is going to be incredibly difficult for them to frac it any other way.

So I hope they are successful but I'm not going to invest in their stock until they announce they have a big nuke on order.

Re:Problems with this scheme

[Anthony]

The water injected is enough to cause at least small-scale fracturing, significant enough to increase the permeability for the scheme to work. Seismic monitoring during the test drilling have shown this fracturing happens.

Re:Problems with this scheme

[Anonymous Coward]

Damn - slashdot will not allow me to log in!

Do you know how much water we are talking about here? 10 cubic meters per second? (assuming 15% efficiency)

When you frac the openings usually follow the line of greatest weakness which is not necessarily even in the direction of your outlet well. Once that path is open additional fracing tends to just follow the same crack.

Getting enough permiability in that granite plume is going to be a really big problem and may in fact be a show stopper.

If it was gravel down there then I'd say the prognosis might be different.

Now they may be able to directionally drill but that is still going to be a show stopper because directional drilling is expensive and they will need one hell of a lot of bore holes to flow that much water through. 10 cubic meters per second is a fair sized river.

Slow down volcanic activity?

[Sleeping Kirby]

Okay, this is a question that probably has a very obvious answer. But since natrual science is one of my weak points and I've been wondering this for years, I need to ask.
Let's say Geothermic plants becomes very popular and start springing up around the world like pimples on a teenager (sorry to all you teenagers). Can a syphon of the earth's geothermic heat calm things like say volcanic activity in a region?

Snowtown

[H0D_G]

I used to live in snowtown. foot meets mouth. dickhead.

Re:Snowtown

[cujo_1111]

Damn good guess then wasn't it fuckwit?

I made a joke, albeit a little poor taste, there was no need to get abusive.

Sigh

[WindBourne]

I have been a hard environmentalists since 1971. In fact, it was a major part of my becoming a libertarian in the 90's. So, you do think that we can not take energy from there without harming the area. Ok. Then lets look at alternatives as well as what has happened over the last 5 years.

1. Oil, coal, NG - These speak for themselves. They are getting expensive and they pollute heavily. Not only are we looking at CO2 pollution leading to global warming, but we are putting in Radioactivity, etc in the air.
2. Nuclear - Few want them in their back yards, and even fewer want the waste product. Consider the fact that GWB picked Nevada over West Texas even though WT was the superior choice. Personally, I think that we should be building more of these.
3. Solar - This has been being worked on for 50 years. I think that we are getting close, but we are still looking at high pollution from it. In addition, it suffers from inconsistent generation.
4. Wind - Starting to make inroads, but we are still aways from being able to generate GWs of power from it.
5. Hydro - We probably have as much as we are going to get. In fact, we may end up losing a bunch due to environmental issues.
6. Wave - Promising, but again not that much.
7. And that brings us to Geothermal. Yellowstone has the capacity to do 50-60GWatts. Now, I do not want to see us take that amount from there due to possible harm, but certainly we can take some amount of heat from there without causing any issues. In fact, since global warming is occuring, this may actually allow the park to stay closer to the way it normally is.

So, what is the real problem here? First, you have the dems who long ago started shutting things away. Cool. The land is in better shape. But in the early 80's, reagan repealed a bunch of the environmental laws to help his buddies (Watts was something else; Norton gets her clues from him). And it was harsh. But somewhat Poppa Bush and mostly Clinton rolled back a number of the hits. Now GWB speaks of terrorism and creates an "Energy bill" that

1. Gives tax break to oil companies.
2. Allows access to closed land.
3. Rolls back a number of environmental laws.
4. Makes it illegal to sue either the gov. or the company over this.

How was this allowed? Well, we are on too much of a see-saw. We are simply going to the far right (that is what allowed GWB to spend .5 trillion invading a country). What is needed by the dems (I am pretty certian they will control the next admin), is to put in place a saner policy. That would mean, that yes, there should be drilling the ANWSR as well as in the west here. But it should mean that it must be done at least damage to the environment, no matter the costs( And if it can not be done economically, then it is not done). Basically, that means loads of sideway drillings. In addition, they are now injecting some wicked chemicals (carcinogens) in the wells. they can do it AND not get sued. If they could be sued for any leaks, they would stop. In addition, we should be charging for the use of the water that they think is available free (they own the minerals, but not the surface or the water).

Following this example, Yellowstone can be slowly tested. It is simple to build a small power plants and see how they are doing over a couple of years. Then build more iff no side issues.

Keep in mind, that we are in the boat that we are because both parties did not think this through. Previous admins should have started diversifing our energy generation/storage. They haven't.

Talking about alternative energy in Australia...

[Anonymous Writer]

I came across AGL Green Living and they claim that this service from their company is based on 100% renewable energy.

AGL Green Living is 5% accredited Green Power and 95% non accredited energy from 100% renewable sources. It is derived from sources such as windmills, solar energy and land fill sites rather than sourced from coal, as coal-generated energy production contributes to global warming and climate change.

I was wondering if it was actually true or if there was some catch. I didn't think that 100% renewable energy was anywhere close to being feasible at this point in time for mass consumption. Something just doesn't seem to sit right about this, like it's just some marketing gimmick to get people to switch to their company. Otherwise, I'd assume it would receive heaps of attention. Anyone else hear of this and can confirm that it's valid?

Not new, Not economic.

[MROD]

As mentioned in the article, in Europe we've been experimenting with this for some time.

I worked at the Camborne School of Mines Geothermal Energy Project in Cornwall during the late 80's and early 90's. The problem with the technology is that it's difficult to create a reliable reservour and the reservour itself will only last a few years.

During a University of Southampton review of the technology in 1990 it was determined that because you had to drill new holes every few years in a radial pattern, the maximum lifetime of a power station would be around 25 years. The cost per unit would be something in the region of 10 times that of conventional power stations.

Even with advances in drilling recently and the small scale experiments the EU have been doing around Saltz I wouldn't think the cost per unit will have come down by more than half.

The technology itself is basically the following:-

Drill a deep bore hole which becomes sub-horizontal near the end.

Pump a wall paper paste type substance containing sand down the hole at extremely high pressure to open up the joints in the rock. (The sand wedges in the cracks and keeps them open, hopefully.) During this process monitor the micro seismic events so as to locate where the joints have opened.

Drill a second bore hole to intercept the cloud of opened joints.

Pump water down one hole and out the other, hoping that the water doesn't short circuit or wander off. Also hope that the rocks are hot enough to generate super heated steam and that there's enough surface area to do so.

Repeat every 3-4 years as after that time you will have cooled the rocks in the first reservour to the point where they're not usable.

Re:Not new, Not economic.

[fatmatt_oz]

I spoke with some of the people involved in planning this project a couple of years ago. They were well aware of the work that had been done in the UK and Europe. The lifespan of a well and the amount of rock its effectively extracting heat from is easy enough to calculate (volume, temperature, conductivity, but don't ask me to do it). The numbers I've seen proposed a lifespan of about 20-25 years per well before the temperature was too low for it to be economic. This was on numbers obtained while drilling the first well a couple of years ago and things may have altered a little since then.

As a British person, I have only this to say:

[Gordonjcp]

Shit, we've been rumbled.

Zeppelins

[RAMMS EIN]

``so all you have to worry about is airplanes.''

The return of hydrogen-filled zeppelins?

Semi-obligatory Pratchett reference

[Flying pig]

As everybody knows, the "geological anomalies" are actually fossilised time travelling wizards, and the Luggage. Are you sure you want to go disturbing that stuff?

Disclaimer: Yes, Perth does exist. I have family there. And if I had had more sense when I was younger, I'd be there too. (sigh) It's Sydney and its tribe of Hyde Park bushmen that is unnecessary.

Thank you

[Anonymous Coward]

As a 12+ month shareholder in Geodynamics I would like to thank the submitter for helping to push up my stock value.

Why do you hate freedom?

[Hillgiant]

If we do not strip-mine all our national treasures, the terrorists have already won.

excellent point

[zogger]

I even tried to shop this sort of idea to the owners at the last place I lived that had a full solar rig. I tried to interest them in getting a commercial wind tower of considerable size like 1 megawatt, then run some businesses there from it (they had a lot of acreage and a mountaintop). They didn't want to and already made enough money...but I think it's still an excellent idea for someone who wants free power plus have a good income. Instead of installing "just enough" alternative energy devices for your personal use, and figuring out some "payback" period, go whole hog wholesale size, have all you can eat, build some businesses around USING the juice. Payback would be a lot sooner and then make you some serious cash. I think it might be a viable idea even for a co op of partners, invest in land, then build homes and shops/faqrm action, power the whole thing from commercial sized alternative energy installations.

I once worked at a woodshop that did a variant of this. They used to purchase electric power to run the shop, eventually someone there smart bingoed to the fact of all the valuable woodscrap waste they generated that they used to sell off cheap for firewood just to get rid of it. They installed a GE steam turbine boiler/generator system, generated 100% of all the power they needed to run the factory from burning the wood scraps, plus made an additional 10 grand a month selling the surplus electricity into the grid. that was 70s money, too. They could have easily expanded operations with all that extra juice. Moved away, no idea what became of them other than they closed that factory eventually and outsourced manufacturing to China. I think all that is left is the marketing and shipping. Good idea (seemed to me anyway) while it was running though.

Re:excellent point

[khallow]

I think this sort of thing works better if you have a plan at the start. Come up with the high value product and build around that.