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

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.

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)

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.

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

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.

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: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.

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.

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.