Slashdot Mirror
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."
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.
"Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
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.
.... given the geological anomalies present in South Australia
You mean the city of Adelaide?
READY.
PRINT ""+-0
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?
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
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)
Repton.
They say that only an experienced wizard can do the tengu shuffle.
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.
There are no atheists when recovering from tape backup.
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?
Kids! Bringing about Armageddon can be dangerous. Do not attempt it in your home!
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.
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
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.
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.
"I wish that they would do more around the yellowstone area" NO... leave yellowstone alone. And while your there, please catch and release.
"Truth is much too complicated to allow anything but approximations"
Yellowstone immediately comes to mind as a geothermal power source. I bet if it destroys the environment, the GOP will be all over this.
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.
... is generated in a single energy plant where Russell Crowe's rage is tapped and converted into AC current...
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.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
This is the technology used in Pompey's public baths and just look what happened to THEM!!
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.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
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.
Slashdot: Where nerds gather to pool their ignorance
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.
obviously no deficiencies vs. no obvious deficiencies
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
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
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.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
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.