Slashdot Mirror
Helium Leads to Geothermal Energy Resources
Roland Piquepaille writes "When we think about alternative sources of energy, we often forget the potential of geothermal energy resources. In fact, it has been estimated that accessible geothermal energy in the U.S. represents 90 quadrillion kilowatt-hours or 3,000 times the country's total annual energy consumption. So far, it has been difficult and expensive to locate good sources of geothermal energy. But now, two U.S. researchers have found a new method which doesn't require drilling. They are using the ratio of helium isotopes in surface waters to point to the best sources of geothermal energy."
...since pretty much all of Earth's helium results from alpha decay of radioactive metals.
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
It'd be a good thing to not depend on Middle Eastern energy resources. I think more than just purely economic pressures should bring such a change. Maybe that's naive though.
I keep seeing this tag. Why? Most of the articles so tagged seem better-than-average for Slashdot, honestly.
This is, indeed, good news! This, plus wind-power, some recent excellent solar-power breakthroughs and throw in hydro, will no doubt drastically reduce the dependency on foreign oil. However, I am a bit hesitant to do the truffle-shuffle just yet because of the oil cartel and hits powerful hold on certain Washington big-wigs and other powerful old farts. Correct me if I'm wrong (which is most of the time), but weren't a few of the alternative power studies debunked by 'independent research' funded by big oil companies? I can't seem to recall off the top of my head...
Fighting over religion is like seeing whose imaginary friend is best.
it's not in iceland as one might guess, it's in the philippines
on leyte, near lake danao above ormoc city, called tongonan geothermal field, run by calenergy
it's a pretty weird place: gorgeous virgin mountain forest, everything is muddy and foggy and it rains all the time there, as it's basically nothing but humongous turbines plopped right over steam vents coming right out of the ground. there are communist NPA guerrillas in the area and the security of the place is pretty important, so there are guys with submachine guns at checkpoints everywhere too
but, notably, some of the streams running off from the area are a brilliant cobalt blue
so just a reality check: some of the problems associated with mining will be found with geothermal sources. mining often churns up lots of unhealthy metals from the earth, artificially. well, geothermal is basically that same process, but completely natural. so whereever you have geothermal energy sources, you have the potential to stir up nasty metals and deposit them on the surface, with or without man's involvement
not my blog, but some good pics and summary
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Actually Canada is the number one supplier of Oil to the U.S.
Source: http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html
Energy Information Administration: Official Energy Statistics from the U.S. Government
Isotopic ratios are a well known tool of geologists. Most of the hot springs of the American SW carry gases and water from below the crust, specifically from dewatering of the subducted Farallon Plate. This is an application of the tools to a hunt for hot water.
Isn't Yellowstone park just one great big fuck off source of hot water?
liqbase
It relies on the heat signature of the surface waters. Any surface waters hotter than 200F are probably indicative of geothermal energy sources.
Where could he be going with this: personal experiences? A joking suggestion? or are you attempting to alienate ~90% of the world population. Except that doesn't work. *I see you've chosen the alienation route... it's not too late, you can still recover. I suggest making a joke here.
...and before you mod that down as flamebait (I know you will), ask yourself: Do YOU think it would work? *ooh, the "don't mark me flaimbait" tactic, the serious route will be a tough one at this point.at least you still have your atheist readers on your side. Superstition is crap. Science works, bitches. *ahh, strike three. You've just finished by alienating everybody. Even your atheist buddies are afraid to look you in the eye now.
Too bad this time. While you will be enjoying a flaimbait moderation from almost everyone in the world, I hope you tune in next time to...
The Slashdot Moderation Game!
Well, back to rejecting software patent applications.
Yeah. It's pretty unstable, though. There are earthquakes, some of them severe in recent memory, such as the mag. 7.5 quake of 1959... Doesn't seem like a really great idea to site a bunch of generators in such a place.
We've got hot springs in the NE portion of Montana in areas that haven't seen serious quake or volcanic activity in tens of thousands of years. That's the kind of place you want to look for the helium isotope, because if you find it, you've got a decent chance of the plant lasting more than a few decades. This stuff is expensive to build, and to wire.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
As a non-expert (see entire scope of knowledge about the field is based on wikipedia, cursory google search, and tv documentaries), is finding sources the major roadblock to widespread geothermal use? I would think so upon my basic knowledge.
a). It is eco-friendly, in that there are no toxic wastes or atmospheric wastes to speak of. Reduction in greenhouse gases is a plus. So there are no environmentalists protesting geothermal expansions like nuclear ones.
b). It is not as conditional as other eco-friendly power sources. With wind and tide power you are at the mercy of the conditions which is a major drawback considering the instancy with which grid fluctuations occur. Granted it is conditional upon the temperature of the earth, but geologic time scales are much more gradual than say meteorological time scales with wind.
c). Plants are fairly efficient. There is very little ancillary equipment needed, because the dynamo system usually runs off steam directly from the ground. Other forms of power, eg nuclear, coal, and oil, are ways of producing heat. With geothermal, the earth is already producing the heat for us. We are essentially utilizing energy that is produced no matter what, but would otherwise be lost.
I have come to see geothermal power as being a major possibility to easing our energy problems, especially upon news of this. I would be all too happy to see this overtake nuclear power as the solution to our energy problems. Now before I get a hundred posts about "if you're not serious about nuclear, then you aren't serious about energy reform," I understand nuclear's potential, vastly under-utilized potential, I think geothermal would be a much more optimal solution. Geothermal requires no mining, no relying on finite resources of naturally fissile material, and it produces no nasty radioactive waste.
I hope that this paves the way to a major increase in geothermal generation. I think it would be the most ideal solution we have available.
Disclaimer: I'm not an expert, and I do expect a ton of pro-nuclear flamage, which I hope I don't deserve, but I might.
I got a catholic block.
I've always thought OTEC was a pretty neat idea, but it's not terribly efficient, which really drives up the cost per kilowatt. Geothermal is much more promising due to the larger temperature differential, but the barrier is still the cost. It's not really about saving the environment as it is about saving money. Sad but true, that's the world we live in. At some point, the price of oil will rise enough to make geothermal (and maybe even OTEC) economical, but my guess is we still have a few decades to go.
Wind power seems to be doing a good job for our initial transition/weaning from oil, but more long-term strategies are still needed... so good for these guys.
DRM 'manages access' in the same way that a prison 'manages freedom'
Yeah, Yellowstone is also a protected national park, home to hundreds of species, including several that are endangered. Read Wikipedia once in a while, eh?
I'm all for developing geothermal energy, but not at the cost of what I believe is a unique geological feature of our country.
Even your atheist buddies are afraid to look you in the eye now.
Why would you presume to know how atheists would react to his post? Does your superstition preclude a sense of humor?
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_power
Of course, to completely replace oil, we would have to be able to use this energy for transportation. So, we still have some problems. Even so, if we drill ten miles deep almost anywhere, we will get useful geothermal energy. That means that we could use existing power plants because their generators are usually steam driven, or could be. We could get rid of our dependance on middle-east energy relatively fast. Canada could supply enough oil for our transportation needs until we can perfect the battery powered semi-trailer truck.
Largest by what metric? The Geysers outside San Fransisco puts out 750 MW(e).
I saw a property for sale in Idaho a while back. 77 acres, with a hot spring (140F at the surface). I love the idea of being able to go off-grid with my own power source, not because I'm any kind of tree-hugger, but because utility companies haven't been the best vendors I've ever dealt with.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
What about the unique geological features destroyed in countless countries to give us oil and electricity and other things we all take for granted?
Or are they not a problem because its not in your backyard?
Would it be OK if Yellowstone was in Canada or Brazil?
liqbase
i can think of many larger vents by pure size, but they are untapped energy sources
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Additionally ggpp lacked any form of humor that I could detect.
Well, back to rejecting software patent applications.
Amazingly, the money for alternative energy has been in solar and ethanol, but that is solely because the feds are pouring tax dollars/euros into that. Geo-thermal is PROBABLY the single brightest spot that feds should be concentrating on, but are ignoring. Points out how inefficient they are.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Doesn't concern me a bit. Religious drones need it ground into their foreheads in letters of indelible ink until even the most fearful, gullible, and just plain stupid among them get it: Science works, religion does not. It's time to face it. Time to leave the ghost stories behind. Time to show the "religious leaders" for what they are, fairy story artists with palm leaves and dowsing rods and some really poorly written old fictions and no more than that. Time to point at every world leader - American, Iranian, etc. - who uses "gawd" as an excuse and call bullshit in no uncertain terms. Time to point at the Muslims who want to kill that lady teacher for naming the teddy bear "Mohammed" and call them ignorant savages, because that's just what they are. Time to point at the pope, blathering along, blaming the world's ills on atheists, and call him the ignorant savage he is.
As for slashdot moderation, you see, the thing about that is - it doesn't work. Because there is no accountability, because bad moderation is never reversed, because reading at anything other than -1 causes the loss of many great posts, no serious slashdot user reads at anything but -1; the rest are posers and aren't even seeing the conversation. So I really don't care what the mods do.
Mind you, if they *fixed* the mod system, you'd have a point. But experience has shown that they aren't going to do that. So - you don't.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
If our politicians had any sense they would come up with a national energy program that helps cultivate our own renewable energy sources. Geothermal is probably one of our best bets. Clean renewable cheap energy would be a boon to this country. Just think of how much of our own money would stay in this country instead of being sent to questionable regimes around the world. Of course a national energy program should also promote things such as power saving technologies.
Now for the bad news. Entrenched companies that make billions every year off of scarce resources have every reason to subvert any effort to make themselves obsolete. Think about it. If your one of these companies why not just buy up all the good ideas that might compete with you and sit on them. I guarantee you some of these companies have enough money to do it.
I think oil, gas, and coal business are scared of the concept of energy produced by non scarce resources that cannot be cornered and manipulated. I would love to see that day.
There are dozens of great alternative energy resources requiring millions in start-up money that are perfectly viable as far as the experts are concerned. Solar thermal has worked perfectly well and very large wind generators can convert great quantities of power like the enormous design we saw last week with the magnetic bearing. There are several fusion experiments that look quite promising and orbital solar is no fantasy. Geothermal is merely another one of these many very promising alternatives that is no doubt quite technically feasible and potentially disruptive but therein lies the rub. These things all require large-scale investments and the organizations that are in position to make those large-scale financial commitments have no real motivation to do so.
This is why low-cost solar panels are so intriguing. It's not because they represent the best alternative energy conversion technology. In fact, they're quite lame in many respects. Nonethless it's the most likely technology that can be implemented in a way similar to the way the internet was built: inward from the edge rather than outward from the center. That's what makes solar the center of attention and the only genuinely likely candidate for a disruptive alternative energy technology.
No doubt geo is good to go. No doubt indeed. My personal favorite fantasy geothermal solution has been to go into Utah and just burn/dig an enormous hole through the coal into the depths. I mean like a hole you can drive huge trucks down into corkscrew like around the edges spiraling into the darkness. Once you've excavated all the coal down to a few miles, you can tap the geothermal energy at the bottom of the pit. You could build a whole community into the walls of the place. Yeah, geothermal is cool. Anybody want to front me some cash to make it happen?
So?Most helium in the crust has escaped to space. The helium profile in the crust is dominated by steady-state production of helium-4 by alpha decay. This is mostly the case in the mantle as well but the mantle has some reserves of primordial helium which never escaped to space because it's buried more deeply, and that helium has an isotopic signature that includes helium-3 (the new helium from radioactivity is all helium-4). They're looking for the helium-3 using the helium-4 as a baseline.
Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
Seriously? The hottest in history? Have you watched much porn? I mean, I'm all for declaring Ms. Hayes a valuable resource of Montana, certainly more valuable than, say, a politician, but she certainly has some competition in the porn world. How about Asia Carrera - totally smoking hot and a mensa member to boot.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Actually Canada is the number one supplier of Oil to the U.S.
They must have weapons of mass destruction.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I always wondered if it was possible to use the heat energy from active but somewhat stable volcanos. You would have a platform submerged in the lava pit and set up a system to run water through it to make steam and run the turbines. Is that feasible? What are the problems? I am guessing maybe the equipment might melt?
Your sig line is the first thing all day that has managed to elicit spontaneous laughter from me. :-)
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
They must have weapons of mass destruction.
Celine Dion?
home
What about a room full of scientists making really bad Papa Smurf impersonations?!?
Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
The (unstable) Yellowstone caldera is actually one of the largest Super Volcanos in the world... and due for an eruption. Probably NOT the place I would mess with... the whole mass-extinction level eruption thing and all...
Good thought though.
The problem I have is regardless of this research, "we" already have mapped plenty of areas to provide the US and plenty more places) with geothermal power (plenty of geological surveys on the subject already... a bunch of sites even got listed in a recent US News magazine)... for some reason though, we just havent tapped them yet.... maybe something to do with the fact that our fossil fuel based economy would be destroyed... tax revenues and corporate investments and corporation financial collapse and all.
There are more than one viable fossil fuel alternative already... geothermal is only one. New solar collectors developed by a Google owned company are another (which are being built in California - to be shipped and used in Europe - but for some reason (a) not here, and (b) not available for consumers to buy here). They cost 1/10th the cost of traditional panels, are easier to maintain and install (flexible sheets - not heavy glass and metal panels) and produce the same power.
The research means nothing when there aren't companies set up to implement them for actual use - and I dont know of any company that could afford to beat out the fossil fuel companies to do so.
StarTrekPhase2 - The Five Year Mission Continues!
The government of Canada has apologized for Brian Adams on several occasions
If you let all the smoke out, it will cease to function properly.
What?
I read about he He isotope method a few years ago, in relation to hot springs along the Rhine Rift system in Germany - the hottest springs have more Helium-3. Its not a new idea.
Alternatively, one could try to locate young faults in geologically inactive areas, young faults are potential sources of geothermal energy as they are often porous and can allow hot fluid from depth to flow to the surface. We used Ar-Ar dating to determine that a fault in Ireland last moved http://www.ria.ie/cgi-bin/ria/papers/100700.pdf
You forgot the obligatory xkcd link
Look, you could work with Hitler or Pol Pot or modern day equivalents of them in areas where you don't conflict if you choose to — the point is, you shouldn't. It isn't all about "getting along." When someone is lying to children (or adults who think like children), it isn't a great idea to go along. Eventually, they'll base real world decisions on the bullshit they've been fed, and then we have trials about evolution, books being banned, stores closing 1/7th of the time, rampant sexual repression, brittle and narrow marriage standards, the loading of tax shares onto the shoulders of others, open homophobia and veiled homophobia AKA "don't ask, don't tell", preachers bilking old ladies out of their savings, the inquisitions, "witches" bing burned, teachers being put to death for naming teddy bears Mohammed, world leaders doing things because "god talks to them", proclamations that hurricane victims "deserved" it because they're sinners, and so on.
Getting along is overrated. Some motherfuckers just need a good stiff punch in the head.
As for being topical, at this point in history, science is the light, and religion is the dark. I choose not to forget the dark while it remains a threat or even just an annoyance. By the way, you are aware it is Sunday, right? Religion is 100% topical here in the USA today. By religious decree.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Look up "Ground Source Heat Pumps". They typically give about a 400% return on energy.
Deleted
Because you didn't understand it the past two times it was said, I'll put it a different way and I'll say it so someone with the intelligence of a 5 year old could understand it:
The article had nothing to do with religion. NOTHING!
You flung religion into this topic and have subsequently attempted to derail it further, the parent post to this being prime example.
Leave it alone.
You know, I did forget to link it, and I was even thinking of the cartoon (and the t-shirt) when I said that. I love that guy's work; best cartoons on the net, bar none, IMHO. In contrition, one of my favorites here.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
My personal favorite fantasy geothermal solution has been to go into Utah and just burn/dig an enormous hole through the coal into the depths. I mean like a hole you can drive huge trucks down into corkscrew like around the edges spiraling into the darkness. Once you've excavated all the coal down to a few miles, you can tap the geothermal energy at the bottom of the pit.
You don't need to go to Utah to use geothermal. At least one home in New York City uses geothermal for heating, cooling, and hot water. This one is too expensive though, the asking price is almost $8M.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Little point looking into geothermal environmentalists will just shut it down.
They have shut down wind farms (Nantucket Sound ala Ted Kennedy, and Walter Cronkite)
They are trying to reverse hydro-power (dam removal in the northwest)
They have killed off nuclear (oh, just pick one)
At some point you just give up and keep buying oil.
Really I don't think the environmentalists (a) believe what they say, and (b) actually want to solve anything.
Most of their actions are either just about narcissism and having something to bitch about (usually yelling at society when they really want to yell at their Dad).
If I thought they actually cared and were working to get things done, I'd be more supportive, but close interaction which the people has turned me very very off to their message.
Fifty, thanks for asking. :-) Look at it this way - I've had a lot more time to watch porn than you have.
I looked at "Kate's Playground"; girl needs to lose the "boy panties", they aren't sexy. Other than that, yep, the lady is a looker.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
You could try not reading posts that you don't like.
An offtopic thread on Slashdot isn't worth getting upset about. Given what we know about the health effects of stress, you probably reduce your life expectancy a measurable amount every time you get mad about something on the internet.
... called Celine Dion
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Isn't Yellowstone park just one great big fuck off source of hot water?
Yellowstone is a supervolcano. Forget about human emissions of greenhouse gases, GHGs, if Yellowstone were ever to erupt in a short tyme it would emit more GHGs than all the GHGs man has emitted since coming out of the trees.
FalconShould there be a Law?
You hadda go and spoil it, didn't you? I almost had a chunk of plaque detached and on the way to blocking a cranial artery, and you had to calm the AC down. Do you think these posts just create themselves? Man, they're work!
Mr/Miss/Ms/Mrs(.) AC, just ignore the parent. You should be pissed. Why, an offtopic post of slashdot? On religion, the ultimate "pretend it isn't there" boogyman? You should be incensed, man! Crazed! C'mon, lets see some real indignation. Let fly. Remember, spittle means never having to water your blood pressure meds!
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Wait, you're suggesting by "I dont know of any company that could afford to beat out the fossil fuel companies to do so." that there aren't companies in the US trying to make money off alternative energy? Further, lots of state governments are actively trying to promote alternative energy, which undermines the theory that the government is afraid of a tax revenue collapse. State governments are subsidizing alternative energy using those very tax revenues, in the hopes that home-grown alternative energy producers will create even more tax revenue in the future.
I hate to sound like a slashvertisement, but I think the following US companies and groups would all disagree with you:
Evergreen Solar (producer based in Mass.)
Heliodyne (producer based in California)
Google (installing panels on its roof)
Solar Energy Industry Association (US trade group)
Tesla Motors) (selling 100% electric cars in the US)
List of solar manufacturers in the US
US solar power installations increase 33% year-to-year
The New York Times has a story about this issue: "Venture Capital Rushes into Alternate Energy" suggesting that $1.5 billion in VC money was invested in 2006 alone in new companies who hope to profit from overthrowing the energy status quo. If you add private equity money then there was $18.1 billion in dealflow in 2006 in the alternate energy sector. Or listen to a 2004 story about the same issue.
It's nice to think that there's some great conspiracy against alternate energy, but the simple truth is that there is a lot of market action in the field and nothing stopping people from making money in it. There is a HUGE amount of money to be made from alternate energy and plenty of people are trying to make it.
GE?
Actually, Nanosolar (which Google invested in) has manufacturing facilities in California AND Germany. I'm sure the German facility is providing supply for the European area.
I vaguely recall from several decades ago that earthquake researchers have been using this same method now for a couple decades. So this may not be all that new a discovery.
Please... feel free to take this post out of context too...
Not one of them is offering power to the masses (as a Power Company) or providing an affordable alternative off-grid power option for consumers... I think I spelled that out clearly... so... now evaluate the statement I made that you quoted out of context.
Explain to me why Google is able to produce solar panels at 1/10th the power - but isnt selling them to consumers - much less anyone in the US - even though they are made here.
Explain to me which company is big enough to implement a geothermal solution for a big portion of the power grid... the power is available (ie: plenty of geothermal in this country to power the world thousands of times over), but there is NO company that can set up the power plants or power grid to deliver it - EXCEPT for the fossil fuel based power companies already in existence.
It's not a conspiracy. Why would a fossil fuel company want to go geothermal when they already have so much invested in their infrastructure, and their profits would decrease due to lower costs? Just good business sense that they only adopt such methods as quickly as is required of them.
As for government *credits* for installing solar, etc... the cost is so prohibitive for most people, that the government can afford to look quite generous with it's incentives - because almost no one can afford it (check how many installations there really are...).
As for other incentives... did you know there was a law passed in Baltimore almost a decade ago that stated BGE had to reimburse people who were generating excess power and feeding it back into the grid? Guess how many got money or a credit? None. Why? According to BGE *AND* the state, because no law has been passed stating HOW or HOW MUCH money the people are entitled to... so... legally they are entitled to SOMETHING... but until a law is written saying how much, they will never see the money... maybe they should wait another decade for that law to be written? Or maybe *AVAILABLE* off-grid power is soo expensive (even though there are solutions like Google's that aren't) that there arent enough people to complain that they arent getting paid for generating excess power back into the grid.
And here's a little something to add to that... if everyone could either (a) generate their own power, or (b) buy it very cheaply from an electric company that used cheaper non-fossil fuel methods, how do you think that would effect the gas car market? I know *I* would own an electric car - since other than maintenance, it would cost me nothing to drive it. Many states LIVE off the tax revenues from gasoline... maybe it's just coincidence, but plenty of govt watchdogs (heck even the govt itself) have stated or speculated that is part of the reason for slow adoption of other power sources...
Now perhaps you understand what I am saying?
StarTrekPhase2 - The Five Year Mission Continues!
I was in a store a couple of days ago that had a rack of CDs by the checkout. The new Celine Dion CD was in the rack. The price sticker on each of the CDs covered the picture of her face on the CD label. The clerk denied responsibility.
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
Yes it does... but drilling through that pressure cap (rock, etc) creates a the risk of releasing that pressure in a massive blast or blasts. Besides, it's more than geothermal energy release that needs to be worried about in that area... it's a Volcano - that drives the geysers... not a geyser system that is just a geyser/spring system.
Such an issue (if you knew ANYTHING about geothermal power) is something that gets considered in EVERY deep drill geothermal setup. There is always the risk of the drilling area fracturing and thus letting out magma. The choice is to find a stable area, and STILL study it to determine if such a risk is likely. Yellowstone is NOT stable in any sense. (1) it is geothermally and volcanicly active (oops, that already gets it off the possible location list), (2) it is changing and geophysically active (surface deformities), (3) it's VERY VERY tectonically active (4) (based off #1-3) the rock structure (composition, fracturing and motion) is a "softer", easier to crumble/fracture material (unlike bedrock or other rock types).
Check Wiki and The US National Geological Survey pages for more info. THEY disagree with your assessment of a quarter million years... the site is recently increasingly active... moving whole mountain ranges and plateaus.
StarTrekPhase2 - The Five Year Mission Continues!
That's absolute bullshit. There's scientific research to say that religion works, bozo. A quick google showed this among many others:
There are other studies that show that praying produces similar results, and other studies that show that regular attendance at religious gatherings such as church on Sunday are benificial for peoples wellbeing because they establish order and stability which in moderation are important for mental wellbeing. I couldn't be bothered looking them up, but from memory these things aren't hard to find.
Religion of most forms combines routine and meditation and these things are benificial. I'm not particularly religious, but I find your attitude offensive because you appear misconstrue science, which is a method of enquiry, into the worst distortion of a religion - a fanatical and blinkered belief system which is the only truth and must be blindly supported as one would support a football team.
I understand the context of your post, but there to say what you have said as an apparent endorsement of science is an insult to scientific discovery. Most scientific understanding of existence is based on models and these models are just that. Models. There is not necessarily such a thing as an atom, but experiments yield results which support the model called "atom" to a point that is useful. Perhaps, instead of saying god isn't real and insulting religious people, try seeing god as a model. As with the particle model and wave models of light, your model and the various religious models can coexist if you want them too. It seems you are happy to be yet another religious fanatic.
I don't therefore I'm not.
You ARE correct - about the drilling part - IF this wasnt a DEEP DRILL scenario. Creating enough power to power the US via Geothermal requires DEEP DRILL setups... not near surface setups such as are used for smaller implementations (small towns, individual houses, etc).
My statement is based on assuming (by the article's reference about creating enough power for the world) that they are talking about large scale geothermal plants which drill through to the magma layer...
StarTrekPhase2 - The Five Year Mission Continues!
From my earlier post...
Explain to me why Google is able to produce solar panels at 1/10th the power - but isnt selling them to consumers - much less anyone in the US - even though they are made here.That should have read:
Explain to me why Google is able to produce solar panels at 1/10th the COST at the same POWER OUTPUT - but isnt selling them to consumers - much less anyone in the US - even though they are made here.
Sorry.
StarTrekPhase2 - The Five Year Mission Continues!
Yes, it is NanoSolar... but according to their very own release, the Cali plant is near completion and the Cali plant will be selling the panels in Europe... and worse - not to consumers.
I wish it werent so... I'd love to have one of their setups myself.
Hopefully they will change their plans in the near future. Then... I could see there being affordable and viable options in this country.
StarTrekPhase2 - The Five Year Mission Continues!
I'll address just part -- There's no alternate energy grid because building a second, redundant power grid would be about the most ironic wasteful use of resources imaginable. Instead, power gets fed into one big grid from "clean" and "dirty" sources. Power distribution companies (the ones with their name on your electricity bill) buy power from other companies, both clean and dirty. The way to get clean energy into your home isn't to buy directly from the producer--almost nobody does that--but to buy through the distributor. The distributor owns the copper, there's no reason to build a second set of copper.
I can't tell you why nanosolar isn't selling to the public yet, but it sure sounds like they've been selling to large projects in the US. And, to be clear, Google has not invested in Nanosolar. The Google founders have invested their own personal money in the company. There's a big difference. Reading their press makes it sound like manufacturing is just ramping up with the new manufacturing facility opening in November (last entry). Contrary to popular belief, it takes time to build manufacturing facilities -- if they opened the plant in November then it's understandable that on December 2 they might not be ready yet.
I have no doubt that Exxon-Mobil has little interest in alternate energy. The good news is that they don't have to; Nanosolar is perfectly happy to take up the slack, and the local power distributor is perfectly happy to distribute power from whatever source it comes from.
Why can't we all use solar? Because the sun is dark at night and batteries are expensive. It's not clear that, even if the actual panels cost 1/10th the amount it costs to run a generator that the resulting power will be 1/10th the cost. First, the claims of Nanosolar are likely inflated puffery; no Version 1.0 product in tech ever works as well as claimed. Second, we still need the old power grid for night time and cloudy days (or to build expensive batteries or hydro-electric storage facilities). Third, we still have problems with maintenance, and need to rent a large amount of land to put the things on. Those costs can drive the price up significantly. I'm sure it'll make a difference, but it's not going to slash prices on energy by 90% overnight--if it could then Nanosolar (in this for the profit) would just raise prices on the solar panels until the price was just pennies below traditional energy.
I have no idea why Baltimore sucks, but it sounds like a regulatory battle that has nothing to do with the vast multi-national oil companies headquartered in Baltimore. Mainly because there aren't any. Baltimore should get on it and fix the poorly-written law, or the local distributor should explain why it isn't able to effectively utilize the reverse current (does it come at the wrong time or day or in an unpredictable fashion?). Fully agreed that the problem there should be fixed.
Can you provide a link to the page where Nanosolar alleges that their products from the San Jose, California plant will be sold exclusively to Europe? I have read their press releases and blogs and not seen such a claim.
Second, if you care about the net carbon footprint of the human population then it shouldn't matter whether the first sales are to commercial users or to home users. If anything, large commercial installations will be better able to work out the inevitable kinks in a Version 1.0 project, and companies (guided by the profit motive) are more likely to deploy the panels efficiently (in sunny areas, think Nevada) where they can generate the most energy possible -- consumers may choose to install panels wherever they happen to live (think New York) even if that's not the most efficient place for solar energy.
Wow. Focused mental activity produces more mental activity than unfocused mental activity. Eur-fucking-reka.
You're a genius. Next up, Google links to research into if really pissing someone off makes them more angry than just annoying them a little. Youtube film at 11.
No. You don't.
You need to learn the difference between a method that involves induction, testing, falsification and redundancy / reproducability across many experiments by many different experimenters as compared to a method that involves "I believe, and/or some pontificating preacher told me so, therefore it are, amen, lynch the gays."
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Why would there be a tax collapse anyway? Is somebody going to suddenly start giving away power for free?
Solar is expensive and can't be built (on a large scale) just anywhere. Wind is somewhat less expensive, but also needs a special site, and unreliable to boot. Geothermal tends to be best in remote areas -- hard to build and staff the power plant, and you lose a lot of power sending it over the wires to the cities.
Not that it's impossible, but it's not quite the cakewalk/slam dunk (except for the conspiracy) that the grandparent would have us believe.
It seems like there are TONS of folks here who keep saying that the environmentalists will stop these projects, and the finally line is almost always, well, I guess that I will stay with OIL|COAL|GAS POWERED CAR|..... Worse, nearly all of you are ACs.
So, the real question is, who is trying to stop this? I do not see Environmentalists stopping any alternative energy (though some minor groups try to stop individual projects). But I do see LOTS of ACs here and elsehwere pointing at Environmentalists. Hmmmm.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
The rivers and lakes around here are fed by glaciers, which grind up minerals and release them in the meltwater. The water is a brilliant turquoise. People come from all over the world to see the wilderness and drinking the water is supposed to be healthful or lucky.
Just because the water is a funny colour doesn't mean it's bad.
Hmmmm. Ok, so 125MW is bigger then 1Gw by your reckoning.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
That's a house using a geothermal heat pump for heating and cooling. My house uses that, and it cost under $400,000 and not $8 million (but it isn't in the heart of NYC, either) It generates no electricity, it just acts as a heat source or sink due to the constant temperature of the earth once you get a few feet down.
The type of geothermal being discussed for these power plants is used to drive a steam turbine and generate electricity. The 52F earth temperature that NYC house taps isn't going to generate any steam!
Yeah... wow, I'm an atheist too and I wouldn't want to claim I knew the original poster.
I don't think it's a matter of having a sense of humor, it's a matter of having sense at all.
I'm with you on the solar. (beyond spirit, I own some myself) Also geothermal on the small scale, ground loop heat pumps should be about mandatory in most areas for new home construction, or encouraged with full tax credits I should say.
By not invading them?
By not using the CIA to subvert their governments and install despots instead?
By ratifying international treaties like Kyoto?
By not treating international law like a plaything and undermining the whole basis of international cooperation?
"I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
You ARE correct - about the drilling part - IF this wasnt a DEEP DRILL scenario. Creating enough power to power the US via Geothermal requires DEEP DRILL setups... not near surface setups such as are used for smaller implementations (small towns, individual houses, etc).
My statement is based on assuming (by the article's reference about creating enough power for the world) that they are talking about large scale geothermal plants which drill through to the magma layer...
They are talking about "accessible" geothermal energy - anything requiring drilling to the magma layer is not accessible (in fact we don't have the tech to drill to the magma layer). What they are talking about is finding places where water is being naturally circulated deep into the crust (where it picks up H3e) and back. Those locations are ideal for Flash and Binary Cycle geothermal plants. You are probably thinking of the EGS/Hot Dry Rock type of geothermal plant, but you don't need to look for 3He in water for good locations for those plants - pretty much anywhere will work.In places like Yellowstone heated water is already venting to the surface and any bores required would be very shallow. They wouldn't breach any pressure chambers at all. But you are right that it is probably not an ideal location due to seismic instability. You certainly wouldn't build a EGS plant there - they have caused earthquakes in the past in areas with seismic instability.
I think any proposal to build a plant at Yellowstone would probably met with significant community opposition due to the possibility of diminishing the areas tourist appeal. Think of the outcry if Old Faithful was affected.
USGS simply can't predict when eruptions of the magnitude that you are talking about will occur. So they are never going to say something as alarmist as "Yellowstone is due to erupt". To draw that conclusion from a mere three data points was extremely irresponsible of whatever journalist was the source of this meme. In fact USGS says this about Yellowstone's potential for a catastrophic eruption (ref):
If another large caldera-forming eruption were to occur at Yellowstone, its effects would be worldwide. Thick ash deposits would bury vast areas of the United States, and injection of huge volumes of volcanic gases into the atmosphere could drastically affect global climate. Fortunately, the Yellowstone volcanic system shows no signs that it is headed toward such an eruption. The probability of a large caldera-forming eruption within the next few thousand years is exceedingly low. The final nail in the coffin (I hope) for this "due" nonsense comes from the Preliminary Assessment of Volcanic and Hydrothermal Hazards in Yellowstone National Park and Vicinity report that came out this year. Read the whole thing if you really want to educate yourself. But the relevant part is this: Although the probability of a large caldera-forming eruption at Yellowstone is exceedingly small, it is exceedingly difficullt to make a defensible quantitative estimate of that probability. As there have been three such eruptions in about the past 2,100,000 years, there are only two intereruptive periods from which to gauge any additional possible interval between the third and a potential fourth such event. The first interval, between the Huckleberry Ridge (2.059±0.004 Ma) and Mesa Falls (1.285±0.004 Ma) caldera-forming events, was 774,000±5700 years. The second interval, between the Mesa Falls and Lava Creek (0.639±0.002 Ma) events, was 646,000±4400 years. A statement, widely repeated in popular media, regards such eruptions as occurring at Yellowstone "every 600,000 years" with the latest eruption having been "600,000 years ago". This is commonly taken to imply that another such eruption is "overdue". Such a statement is statistically indefensible on the basis of the extrapolation of two intervals. (Even the simple arithmetic average of the two intervals is 710,000 years, not 600,000 years). From the line of reasoning outlined here, the probability of a fourth large caldera-forming event at Yellowstone can be considered to be less than 1 in a million, below the threshold of hazards interest unless future premonitory phenomena, probably more severe than those recorded historically in caldera systems around the world (Newhall and Dzurisin, 1988), were to be recognized. So you're right - my "maybe sometime in the next 250,000 years" prediction was probably wrong. I was drawing what I believed to be a more reasonable conclusion from the pitiful amount of data available. In fact USGS don't believe another such eruption is even that likely.Why would there be a tax collapse anyway? Is somebody going to suddenly start giving away power for free?
Let's say Nanosolar's claims are accurate - and as they are already making sales, I would think they would know... so... now, solar setups for a home are available at 1/10th the cost that it used to be (well, if they would sell them to consumers). All electric vehicles now are more enticing. Why? Because it costs nothing to run them (after the initial, far cheaper outlay for solar for your house). So... if solar is now affordable, and more people consider electric vehicles, gas tax revenue starts to decline...
Many states' major tax income is from the gas tax. Many states are barely keeping afloat (financially)...
Now... add to that... you are no longer paying tax on the oil/coal/whatever fossil fuel that the electric company uses to create power because you are no longer using their power - again, less taxes going to states that depend on those taxes. (Whether you pay a tax or surcharge on your bill or not, a tax on the fuel IS being paid to the state).
Then add to that, with a decent solar setup (and there are a bunch online where people are doing this) properly set up, can be feeding power back into the grid... that means perhaps your neighbor's house (or portion thereof) is not being powered by fossil fuels either... again less tax revenue.
Then consider that since you are creating your own "free" electric, why bother having a gas/oil/propane water heater or dryer or home heater? Do it all electric... ooops... more lost tax revenues.
This hasnt been an issue because solar has been too expensive. But if panels are now 1/10th the cost, it's really easy and relatively cheap to set up a solar unit that will both power your own house and send power back into the grid, meaning you are making money every month... starts getting really attractive to a lot more people who wouldnt even consider it at this time. More contractors realize that it is a market they can get into to make more money (installations in new houses, retrofitting old houses to run off-grid, etc)... and start marketing it as well, increasing public awareness...
The snowball starts rolling down the mountain... how long before it triggers that avalanche?
Solar is expensive and can't be built (on a large scale) just anywhere.
Solar WAS expensive. Here, it still is expensive... but Nanosolar's claims (which again, since they already seem to have sold them, I'd assume they know the cost) are that it is now 1/10th the cost for the same amount of power. That means solar WAS expensive (at least in the places Nanosolar is choosing to sell the panels), and solar WAS difficult to install (while now you can just unroll the solar sheets, plug them in to your storage/inverter setup and be done).
Wind is somewhat less expensive, but also needs a special site, and unreliable to boot. Geothermal tends to be best in remote areas -- hard to build and staff the power plant, and you lose a lot of power sending it over the wires to the cities.
Perhaps, but according to the USGS's data on the matter, most of the geothermal sites they have mapped are in the "not that remote" category... for instance, on the east coast, there are a number of sites far closer to NYC than Niagra Falls... and on the west coast, there are tons of sites up and down it - with "remote" locations in that mix that would be ideal for a geothermal plant - that is with in a couple hundred miles of multiple major metro areas.
Not that it's impossible, but it's not quite the cakewalk/slam dunk (except for the conspiracy) that the grandparent would have us believe.
I dont think there is a conspiracy involved. As another /.er and I were discussing back and forth, what sense would it make for a "big oil" company to invest in geothermal? Why spend a lot of money investing in something that
StarTrekPhase2 - The Five Year Mission Continues!
Someone please mod parent insightful, or under-rated at the very least.
"Inveniemus Viam Aut Faciemus" 'We will find a way... Or we will make one!' --Hannibal of Carthage
They are talking about "accessible" geothermal energy - anything requiring drilling to the magma layer is not accessible (in fact we don't have the tech to drill to the magma layer). What they are talking about is finding places where water is being naturally circulated deep into the crust (where it picks up H3e) and back. Those locations are ideal for Flash and Binary Cycle geothermal plants. You are probably thinking of the EGS/Hot Dry Rock type of geothermal plant, but you don't need to look for 3He in water for good locations for those plants - pretty much anywhere will work.
Actually, we do have the resources to do deep drilling to the magma layer...
The heat from the earth's own molten core can be converted into electricity. This core consists primarily of extremely high temperature liquid rock known as magma. This "geothermal" heat circulates within the rock or is transferred to underground reservoirs of water, which also circulate under the earth's crust. Because of the near limitless ability of the earth to produce magma, and the continuous transfer of heat between subsurface rock and water, geothermal energy is considered a renewable resource.Geothermal resources have been harnessed as an energy source since the dawn of civilization, when natural hot springs were first used for cooking and bathing. The geothermal resources tapped to generate electricity are far more intense than those used for space heating and can reside as deep as 10,000 feet below the earth's surface. Capital costs for the construction of geothermal power plants are much higher than for large coal-fired plants or new natural gas turbine technologies. But geothermal plants have reasonable operation and maintenance costs and no fuel costs. Though more expensive than wind power in most cases, new geothermal electricity generation facilities are increasingly competitive with fossil options.
Check out the US DOE's site and other Geothermal sites for more info (the DOE site lists to a bunch worldwide - and of course there is Google). For the type of power generation (ie: amount of power) the article is discussing, there is no other known way to generate that level of power without deep drilling to the magma layer. But it is because countries have done it, and because such sites in their technical section in discussing feasibility, that I made reference to such an operation in Yellowstone being dangerous... the studies already made reference to the need to avoid such areas due to the possible "damage" it could trigger (volcanic, etc).
For smaller setups, (a house, a small town/small city) it might be different... but require a lot more "holes" and power equipment...
As for Yellowstone... it's protected parkland anyway... (though I guess that could be changed).
StarTrekPhase2 - The Five Year Mission Continues!
How the FUCK would any of that help. Those all REDUCE our influence in those countries, completely eliminating any chance we would have of forcing them to protect what would be their national parks. Kyoto is mostly about a country's domestic policy, and if we actually invade with sufficient force we could very easily protect a great natural site. You forget that despots and dictators can be much more efficient at protecting forests and lowering crime rates than a poor democracy. If we completely obeyed international law, we would not have any influence over middle eastern countries, and just by asking them to stop tearing up historic or natural sites they'd do it just to spite us.
Yes, I agree America has fucked up a lot of stuff in the world, but you can't possibly think you're right in this regard.
Please read the quote again if you can't be bothered to read the linked article or study. You have completely missed the point of the sentence.
You seem to be suggesting that I pissed you off by suggesting you are a little narrow minded? You do realise getting angry about this is your choice, and research shows that anger is a much higher risk factor in heart disease than smoking and/or drinking. I suggest you reconsider that choice, perhaps look at what triggers your anger and why.
Please don't tell me what I need to learn. I think the problem here is that you are referring to both science and religion as contradictory methods without stating what the common intended end of the methods is. My suggested common end has ontological undertones. I have read the context in which you made your offensive statements, and all in all, I find you about as biggoted, repugnant and just plain wrong as a preacher who advocates lynching gays.
The venom and hatred in your posts is a clear as your unwillingness to consider an alternative view. Given that, I don't see how you are a good example of a devotee to the scientific faith - in fact you appear to be a borderline fundamentalist scientistic crackpot whacko.
[citation needed]
Check out the announcement in Popular Science... and no, not exclusively... but FIRST to Europe...
http://www.popsci.com/popsci/flat/bown/2007/green/item_59.html
In San Jose, Nanosolar has built what will soon be the world's largest solar-panel manufacturing facility. CEO Martin Roscheisen claims that once full production starts early next year, it will create 430 megawatts' worth of solar cells a year--more than the combined total of every other solar plant in the U.S. The first 100,000 cells will be shipped to Europe, where a consortium will be building a 1.4-megawatt power plant next year.It does mean they will be selling elsewhere eventually... it would be nice if it was now - and they had bigger distribution channels (and contractors who were trained in installing) in the US.
I even understand the reasons... many countries in Europe are more "alternative power" friendly... so go with the big sale - wherever it is - to fund continuing operation.
Second, if you care about the net carbon footprint of the human population then it shouldn't matter whether the first sales are to commercial users or to home users. If anything, large commercial installations will be better able to work out the inevitable kinks in a Version 1.0 project, and companies (guided by the profit motive) are more likely to deploy the panels efficiently (in sunny areas, think Nevada) where they can generate the most energy possible -- consumers may choose to install panels wherever they happen to live (think New York) even if that's not the most efficient place for solar energy.Very true. And I agree with those statements and sentiments. I am being somewhat greedy in wanting it available now, as my family is looking for "green alternatives" - but then again, we have (and have had for over a decade) the highest electric rates in the country - bar none. With another rate hike in the works. And there's also the hope that a solution available for both large scale generation - and home use - will impact that carbon footprint quicker than one available to just one of those groups.
StarTrekPhase2 - The Five Year Mission Continues!
We don't want Bush starting any plans on Canada to distract you guys from Iraq.
To Bush & Co.
Just because the majority of Canadians are unahappy about and dislike the current leader, please do not feel the need to liberate us nor give us your brand of democracy.
Thanks,
Canada
Is somebody going to suddenly start giving away power for free?
When you can generate your own energy big energy businesses will look at it as if you are stealing from them.
Solar is expensive and can't be built (on a large scale) just anywhere.
Those who build Off the Grid can have a payback period of as low as 7 years. The problem as you say is solar can't be built everywhere.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Oh, so being an atheist, you presume to speak for all of us? Sorry, I never voted for you and you don't represent me.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
One thing is for sure, that Yellowstone is an old geyser!
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
but drilling through that pressure cap (rock, etc) creates a the risk of releasing that pressure in a massive blast or blasts.
However I heard some years ago that Bush wants to allow oil companies to drill in Yellowstone for oil.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Thanks for the links... there is a bunch of conflicting info on the site... though what you pointed out is the most recent. Some of it was cited by the Discovery Channel and various colleges involved who came to different conclusions... (overdue, and 10 years to 10,000 years), but regardless, even assuming you are correct and they are not... (and I'll gladly concede that point... because frankly, I dont think any of them are sure... hence working on better methods of predicting such things)...
...it still makes the context of my original point somewhat valid. Lets assume Yellowstone is in no danger of eruption... it is active. Most of that activity is underground (with the aboveground stuff being exhibitted as geysers and hot springs). "Accelerated uplift and magmatic intrusion of the Yellowstone Caldera, 2004 to 2006".
So, my point being, *I* dont think anyone in their right mind would drill to the magma layer of a super-volcano that is showing uplift - and magmatic intrusion (magma flowing upwards into other layers it previously wasnt in?).
I'd rather it be 250,000 years before the next eruption... not "Ooops, our drilling seems to have fractured the dome (that is already leaking) over the magma layer. Gee I wonder if that'll cause a sudden pressure release (ie: eruption)?"
:-)
StarTrekPhase2 - The Five Year Mission Continues!
I've been watching the Discovery Channel on super volcanos. There is supposed to be a 80 mile magma chamber under Yellowstone. It's supposed to be near the surface so we wouldn't have to drill to deep. Why don't we tap into that bad boy?
We wouldn't have to set up shop in the park. I imagine that we could do it from outside and drill in. We can drill multiple well holes from one tap for oil, why can't we do the same here?
I doubt we would set off the volcano with our little taps. The would represent a small part of the total energy. An if we do set the fucker off, well at least we won't have to worry about the coming oil crises.
Supporting World Peace Through Nuclear Pacification
Yes, sorry, they are not Google... Some Google owners backing them... my apologies for that innaccuracy.
As for the cost portion... not MY claimed price. From a PopSci article just recently on Nanosolar's claims and product:
The company produces its PowerSheet solar cells with printing-press-style machines that set down a layer of solar-absorbing nano-ink onto metal sheets as thin as aluminum foil, so the panels can be made for about a tenth of what current panels cost and at a rate of several hundred feet per minute.A minute or two of production would easily power my house! :-)
StarTrekPhase2 - The Five Year Mission Continues!
LETS INVADE!!
I'm a non expert too, so I'll debate your core assertions:
1) stuff from below is bad.
Well better tell that to the volcanos and under sea islands that spew crap into the air and ocean.
2) Salt water is corrosive and bad for power plants.
Better tell that to the navy--they have ships floating in it! and they pump it through their nuclear reactors.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
USGS simply can't predict when eruptions of the magnitude that you are talking about will occur. So they are never going to say something as alarmist as "Yellowstone is due to erupt". To draw that conclusion from a mere three data points was extremely irresponsible of whatever journalist was the source of this meme. In fact USGS says this about Yellowstone's potential for a catastrophic eruption (ref)
Thanks for the link. However I'm left wondering how much this was affected by the Bush admin, who has been cited a number tymes for altering science they didn't agree with even though they didn't have the qualifications, suppressing it, or totally ignoring science.
FalconShould there be a Law?
You ARE correct - about the drilling part - IF this wasnt a DEEP DRILL scenario. Creating enough power to power the US via Geothermal requires DEEP DRILL setups... not near surface setups such as are used for smaller implementations (small towns, individual houses, etc).
My statement is based on assuming (by the article's reference about creating enough power for the world) that they are talking about large scale geothermal plants which drill through to the magma layer...
But what if instead of large scale projects many small scale projects were done? What's needed to solve the energy problem isn't a large one size fits all approach but many little things together. Geothermal is just another piece of the puzzle.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Hmmm ... mod points and up yourself, nice combination.
From what I read Google didn't invest in Nanosolar, the founders did.
FalconShould there be a Law?
I didnt bookmark that one.. but here are a few:
DEEP GEOTHERMAL DRILLING ON THE REYKJANES RIDGE...
Or
Geothermal energy is so named because it derives from the Greek words for "earth heat", "geo" and "therme". Extreme amounts of heat are generated in the Earth's core, which reaches temperatures of up to 9,000 degrees Fahrenheit. The Earth's core then transfers heat to the mantle, a crust of rock surrounding the core. This rock liquefies due to the intense heat becoming magma (molten rock). In this magma layer, water collects in columns or reserves. This trapped water, which can be heated to temperatures of about 700 degrees Fahrenheit, is known as a geothermal reservoir. When engineers want to use geothermal energy, they "tap" in to this geothermal water and use the resulting hot water and steam for various purposes.From: http://ezinearticles.com/?Producing-Energy-From-Geothermal-Resources&id=243735
Or
http://www.crest.org/geothermal/geothermal_brief_geothermal_resources.html
Which shows the hot side very close to the magma layer, with the injection well being farther away...
So, it's either close (drill to) or on/in (drill INto) it depending on which article/method...
For the type of power station you are talking about (EGS) the articles interest in 3He isotopes in water is irrelevant. Ergo, they are not talking about type of plant you are, they are talking about conventional designs. Take particular note of the line which says "And it doesn't even have to require drilling." I repeat: they are not talking about EGS plants. Do not be taken in by their total resource claims - that is just a nice attention getting statement to lead with.The article speaks of using that method to find suitable locations that are "deep down" (from article)... not as a method of creating power... which still requires drilling and a geothermal plant. A conventional Geothermal Plant *is* a deep drill plant... check out all the large scale ones around the world. The depths are different because the magma layers are at different depths... but they all drill to really close - or into that layer.
I think you just misread the article. The title sums it up nicely though... "Helium isotopes point to the best sources of geothermal energy"
"Often when people thought there might be a geothermal resource below the surface the only way to determine if their assumption was correct was drilling and drilling is extremely expensive," he says....(blah blah blah... but can now find what is deep below using this new Helium Isotope method... etc... etc...)...
"This suggests that, as deformation increases, fluids circulate more deeply into the Earth, thus scavenging up more of the mantle helium," van Soest says. "Areas where we can sample fluids near the surface provide a way of getting a relatively cheap and easy indication of what's happening deep down. Applying what we know about the helium ratios makes the exploration for geothermal resources cheaper and faster."
StarTrekPhase2 - The Five Year Mission Continues!
THAT is a damn good question. BUT, would it be cost effective to say... drill a hole to right above the magma layer to run your own power station for your house? Or a small town?
My *GUESS* is for a house... no. For a small town? Dont have a clue... you? I'd guess probably not though... only the method of finding good geothermal locations has become cheaper... not the method for building those geothermal plants when a location is found.
For home use - or even small town/city use, I think this discovery is moot anyway... for home use, it is generally a heat pump... barely a dig at all in comparison.
For a small town... I dont know what they'd use geothermal for (no sense in heating water before resident delivery - and probably not worth the cost of deep drilling and big expensive turbines for electricity generation)... maybe a mid-sized town? OR a small town that has a good geothermal location who wants to sell off that energy back into the "big-grid"?
StarTrekPhase2 - The Five Year Mission Continues!
No. I wasn't. Neither directly nor indirectly. It was an analogy, delivered with some dry humor. So as to the rest of that... no. Buzz.
Easily remedied: both methods purport to (a) describe reality as it is, and (b) provide methods for advancing the condition of humanity. In this pursuit, science actually functions, that is, "it works, bitches"; religion, on the other hand, doesn't. Not a prayer, not a miracle, not even a manifestation by the (various) dark sides. Hence my original remark about praying.
Science has no ontological component or justification; that's just your mind chasing its own tail when you postulate that it does. Science is a method. No more, no less. The goal of that method is to pin down reality as far as possible given the cognitive, perceptual and technical limitations of the beings employing the method. The reason this is worthwhile is because it advances the human condition through such knowledge. Significantly. Often rapidly. Sometimes frighteningly.
Consequently, there is no common end. Just a religious end. It has no place whatsoever in science. Argument for one imaginary story by virtue (and I use the word very loosely) of utilizing reason alone has no more basis in fact than any other; as there is no satisfactory argument for pink unicorns that run upside down along fault lines creating earthquakes, there is no satisfactory argument for god or gods, and for precisely the same reasons: no data. Arguments without data - the ontological argument - are mental masturbation. The fact that you do not recognize this demonstrates a huge gap in your ability to face reality.
So, after all the shit that religionists have, and are, putting me through, I should just sit back and go "hey, that's cool", eh? No reason to be annoyed with them? If *I* told *you* what days you could shop for items you wanted, that you had to pay my taxes, what sex acts are ok and in what social situations you may undertake them, who, how many, and of what sex you may marry, and those issues did not concur with what your reason tells you, would you not be annoyed with me?
Now, with regard to the rest of your sally, if you have an alternative view you want me to consider, then here's what you need to do. You need to set up a predicted result of your alternative view. Like, "at 0900 tomorrow night, your monitor will begin weeping tears of blood." Or peanut butter, crude oil, whatever. I, in my turn, will observe my monitor. When said tears materialize, I will agree that you have your finger on something religious and/or supernatural. If they don't - and we have 2000 years of failed predictions in the case of xianity so far, various other lengths for other religious and superstitious outlooks - I'll just add your alternative view to my (huge) file of crackpottery. For my part, my prediction is that the next time the night sky is clear and you are located at a relatively non-light-polluted appropriate viewing position, should you look up, the vast majority of the stars will be in the exact positions predicted for them by science. Also that with DC current, R=E/I, E=I*R, etc. at room temperature. If those don't work out, by all means, feel free to knock science about and think up "alternative views" and again, I'll pay attention.
You know, the idea that the earth sits on the back of a turtle is an alternative view, too. But it isn't getting any play at my house either. Just because you think something up doesn'
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
This all assumes that the tax system stays exactly the way it is now. If miracle solar panels (or anything else) takes over the energy market, think it's likely that device won't be taxed pretty fast?
It's the same with the people pushing biodiesel. Sure it's fantastically cheap... but you're SUPPOSED to pay tax on it. When it gets big enough that it's worth enforcing you'll HAVE to pay tax on it (it's happened in a few places already).
Energy companies are pretty smart. They'll invest in anything that will make them a buck. Oil is competitive and it's getting hard to come by. The price isn't high by accident. If Shell or Exxon or any of the others can set up a plant in nice stable New York and make a profit pumping out electricity they'll do it. There's no potential for growth in oil, but, by getting in early, they might be able to make a killing in a developing alternate energy source.
Even if Nanosolar's claims are true (aren't everybody's claims of order of magnitude breakthroughs always true?) it will make solar competitive with other energy sources. Maybe. Depends how long the panels last, how cheap the land is, and how much sun you've got. Remember, if it's really true you're going to have to start coughing up your 50% tax on those panels soon.
Wow.
I never claimed to "represent" you. The initial response was a joke (rather apparently so), and additionally in case you didn't realize: joking != truth.
My initial response was only showing how the (now ggggpp) original post did nothing but flame/troll by even mentioning religion.
There's a time and place for these types of discussions, but mainly when a religious or semi-religious topic comes up. Helium leading to geothermal activity has nothing to do with religion. It shouldn't have even been mentioned... because it was, he fully deserves his flamebait moderation and all subsequent offtopic mods too.
Well, back to rejecting software patent applications.
Sadly, probably true... guess that means, IF their claims are true (and the panels last long enough) then it's time to jump on them now before someone figures out a way to tax them to make up for it...
And their longevity ISNT something I considered... thanks for pointing that out... if a (conventional) solar panel lasts up to 30 years - but these new ones last up to 3... then there really isnt any savings at all... and even at 10 years, the savings gets minimized considerably...
Great points, and thanks for new insights into it!
StarTrekPhase2 - The Five Year Mission Continues!
1000MW / 19 plants = ~52MW per plant ...
This one have 125MW alone, DUH!
Many power distribution companies own all or part of the power creation companies. Many actually require it when they look to buying more from other sources (like LIPA). Even owning only a portion of the plant means they would be hurting themselves by investing in cheaper alternatives that make that investment (in the power creation company) obsolete. It also means that buying power from someone other than themself (or power generation company that they own interests in) hurts them as well.
That means *I* would hazard it would be difficult to enter into the power generation market. (ie: that would be MY uneducated guess, but as I dont own - or intend to own a power company, I have no real clue on the matter).
Yeah, Nanosolar's claims may be puffery... but they've already apparently landed a big sale in Europe that would lead me to surmise it isnt. BUT... as someone else pointed out (which would have the same effect you are talking about), how long will the panels last? They may cost 1/10th the price of conventional panels (assuming - and I will grant you that... assuming Nanosolar's claims are true)... but that doesnt mean anything if the panels dont last as long as conventional ones.
As for land areas... in the US, I dont think that is too big of an issue... desert land cant cost that much... well... renting it for power generation probably would. I know if I owned a plot of desert and a power company wanted to *rent* it from me (instead of buying it), I would factor into that rent the fact that they are going to make a bunch of money off generating power.
As for maintenance, there is always that... but that affects every form of power generation we have. Of course, these panels are *supposed* to be more durable... but I wont buy into that claim until a bunch of them are installed and we see what happens under normal (greatly varying) conditions...
I have no idea why Baltimore sucks either... :-) and I wouldnt think it would have to do with any vast multi-national oil company there either... but it might have to do with a vast gas and electric company that knows it can sit on the money - apparently forever... with no intervention from the state to change the current situation.
StarTrekPhase2 - The Five Year Mission Continues!
I am not saying that the technology used in the linked article is snake oil, it is simply not applicable to the electricity generation industry.
As TFA linked to specifically states "About twelve megawatts' worth of potential electricity is going up the stack" then "The heat would hit one side of it, produce steam, and we'd use that to turn a turbine and generate electricity" I think it directly applies to electrical generation. One of the companies in TFA, has this to say:
"(RED) will reduce greenhouse gases profitably through the development and ownership of energy recycling facilities. RED captures industrial waste energy to produce electricity and thermal power, often without burning any additional fuel or emitting any additional pollution. For industrial partners, RED reduces energy costs substantially, increases reliability, and offers the opportunity for emissions credits."
Effectively they are producing electricity. Do you see something wrong with what they say?
I guess what I'm saying is that, while there are many places where geothermal energy is appropriate, some circumstances would make it a poor choice.
Oh, I fully agree. As I've said a bunch of tymes while many look for the 1 big energy source, when what's really needed is a bunch of small sources. Use the energy sources that are available and appropriate in a given area. Use solar where the sun shines a lot, wind where it's windy, tidal in good coastal areas, and geothermal where it can be used. For those places without any good sources of energy, I can't really think of any such places maybe someone else can, hydrogen can be used as an energy carrier. Many say that it is dangerous and cite the Hindenburg, however there's a debate on exactly how the zeppelin caught on fire. Some thing it had nothing to do with the hydrogen, tha tit was the flammable material used. I don't recall where I put it but a week or 2 ago I read an article about how much liquid hydrogen is already being shipped around the world but it was in the billions of gallons if not "barrels".
FalconShould there be a Law?
If you tap into geothermal energy, be prepared for a massive fissure in the Earth's crust that can only be sealed by a 1,000,000 megaton nuclear detonation. Since that almost certainly exceeds the total nuclear stockpile of the United States (but not of the fictional submarine Seaquest), the whole planet will be hooped if we do this. Or we'll be forced to buy nukes from North Korea to make up the difference. Considering the enormous embarrassment that would be, I'll bet the administration will let the Earth be destroyed.
Have you worked out yet that the only reason the continents are 50m ABOVE sea level is that hot rock is lighter than cold rock ?
little bit over the offtopic joust - but I just gotsta...
BZZZZZZZZZT Clang CLANG BAAAAROOOOOGAAAH! I think you just hit 16.3 kilogads on the contractictometer.
The point is that by taking an agressively anti-religious stance, you provide the perfect conditions for agressive pro-religious folks (and remember, they are folks). If instead you leave them to have their beliefs and say, "hey, I don't follow that one myself, but it could work for them," they might start thinking that heretics, heathens, etc aren't so bad when you get to know them and don't really deserve to have rocks thrown at them and burn for eternity in the firey lakes that burn on sulpher. Just a thought.
Data is only data by agreement. The number 0, invented by religious nuts way back, only has meaning because we agree it does. Sure, there are repeatable, measurable structures within the universe, but the measurements and the meaning we give them are just what we agree on. That is truth. Reality is regardless of truth.
We cannot know for sure that R=E/I because resistance, electric potential and current were all invented by humans as part of a model and there may well be an electromotive fairy manipulating the effects behind the scenes for her own amusement. The fact that it's consistant could well be her little running joke. Sure, it's a stupid argument and I don't personally subscribe to it, but it's possible. My point is that, while that's not useful, it's also not really harmful, so why worry about it? You can't prove it isn't so. No worthy scientist can. Why are you so agressive and apparently angry about people believing what they want? Do you punch little kids for getting their photo taken with Santa?
If religious people want to pray for something you would like to see happen, say "thanks" - doesn't mean it will work, but there is research that suggests that intention effects matter and who knows exactly what the effects of a little bit of intention applied to exactly the right minute chunk of space might do? It doesn't hurt and it does build bridges - that's a good thing.
I don't therefore I'm not.
If anyone ever invades we'll turn her up to full power. Nothing would survive (except, perhaps, Celine herself, and cockroaches, and those tube worms that grow at the bottom of the ocean). So next time you foreigners think of invading, just imagine the horror and the agony of dying to the theme to Titanic...
Also she knows the brown note, but that's more of a tactical use whereas I'm talking about strategic deployment.
Ugh... no one is reading the article correctly... :-(
The article says FINDING geothermal resources no longer requires drilling. It also says and infers that USING those resources requires conventional power plants - which are all deep drilling powerplants...
That's right people don't read TFAs correctly. Not once do I see "conventional" anywhere in the article and I used my browser's "Find". Nor does it say "deep drilling" is needed. Once again using Find I don't find "deep drilling" either.
FalconShould there be a Law?
1.6 billion? That's approximately 0.0025% of total world spending. For comparison purposes, we collectively spend $220 billion a year on telemarketing. Assuming that global warming really could destroy the planet, that's hardly an adequate level of investment. In fact, it's pathetic.
Can someone explain to me the reason why Celine Dion is always made fun of. I've really no idea...
True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
If instead you leave them to have their beliefs and say, "hey, I don't follow that one myself, but it could work for them," they might start thinking that heretics, heathens, etc aren't so bad when you get to know them and don't really deserve to have rocks thrown at them and burn for eternity in the firey lakes that burn on sulpher.
Unlike you a lot of religionists, religious people, don't use reason and won't simply let non believers alone. History is filled with examples of this. Hebrews cleared areas they moved into, as did Christians and Muslims. Christians even persecuted other Christians and Muslims other Muslims.
FalconShould there be a Law?
THAT is a damn good question. BUT, would it be cost effective to say... drill a hole to right above the magma layer to run your own power station for your house? Or a small town?
Drilling to the mantle, or anywhere near it, isn't needed. Geothermal New York is about a home that uses geothermal energy to heat and cool the house along with provide it with hot water and they only drilled 1400 feet. While the house is expensive, afterall it's in NYC, there no reason it isn't feasible and can't be done cheaper elsewhere. Use geothermal for heating and cooling, and other energy sources such as solar and wind d for electricity. Even President Bush's house near Crawford, TX uses geothermal energy for heating. Drilling further could very well provide enough energy to generate electricity, however if it's in a sunny location why not use solar or wind gennies in a windy location or any number of other sources of energy?
FalconShould there be a Law?
Yeah, but I differentiated the two... for water, for a small house, yes... but I think you can do that anywhere. The detection method the article is talking about is for power generation on large scale which requires deeper drilling...
But, I wonder if it could lead to more efficient heating and cooling setups? The only problem I see is (unless you have a massive yard) I dont think it would matter...
Though, it might be good to use for power generation on a small scale... something I have been thinking of... Using a Sterling Engine, and a normal depth geothermal setup... since the shorter depth drilling wont heat water well enough to run a turbine for electricity, maybe it would still be useful for a Sterling Engine?
I think maybe a well thought out combination of all the methods you listed - as well as the capacitor-as-a-battery stuff that keeps popping up on /. might be a good solution...
Maybe in our lifetimes... :-)
StarTrekPhase2 - The Five Year Mission Continues!
Where is "here"? In locations solar isn't good wind may be, or geothermal may be, or...
Solar won't work very well during the winter and your electric heater would suck down the production from a whole field of solar panels anyway.
Even in cold climates solar hot water heaters can be used. The Department of Energy says Solar Water Heaters can be used in any climate. A Closed Loop - Glycol System uses glycol, to eliminate busted water pipes and such, to heat water.
FalconShould there be a Law?
That's venture capital investment, not spending on the final product. VC investment is usually leveraged into much (several orders of magnitude) higher sales figures, otherwise the investors would never get their money back.
Total spending is much higher.
it's in the philippines
Guess we should ready the troops (not much of an army/Navy over there, should be a cakewalk!)
If these deposits end up in Europe that could be a tad more difficult.
Cheers
Bob
It Seems I've developed an aversion to proprietary software
If we can generate enough electricity then our oil imports will indeed fall. Of course plastics are still a big problem
Actually plastic can be made without petroleum oil. Prior to 1934, when DuPont was given a patent on making plastic from oil, plastic was made from cellulose. Ever hear of Cellophane, the plastic wraps for food? As it's name suggest it was originally from plant cellulose. Thing is is DuPont was the US's first producer of cellophane. Another big company that made and used cellulose based plastic, cellulose acetate, was Kodak.
FalconShould there be a Law?
If you visit the solar-panel manufacturer's website, you will see that they are currently building their first factory to the tune of 100 million dollars. The CEO notes in the company blog that their entire output for 2008 is already sold out, but that they'll keep ramping up production.
More here: www.nanosolar.com
Yeah, but I differentiated the two... for water, for a small house, yes... but I think you can do that anywhere.
Sorry, my misunderstanding.
The detection method the article is talking about is for power generation on large scale which requires deeper drilling...
Deep drilling would be needed in many places but it's not needed in some. Good examples are at hot springs.
But, I wonder if it could lead to more efficient heating and cooling setups? The only problem I see is (unless you have a massive yard) I dont think it would matter...
Actually what makes the biggest difference for heating and cooling is insulation. With the right R value a building shouldn't need much energy to cool or heat it so it's comfortable to the occupants.
FalconShould there be a Law?
DEEP GEOTHERMAL DRILLING ON THE REYKJANES RIDGE...
Doesn't say they drilled into magma. Does say that an eruption occurred when magma broke into a bore. That resulted in the best parts of the drillfield becoming inoperable for 10-15 years. Obviously no one wants magma venting through their bores and so no one drills into magma.
In this magma layer, water collects in columns or reserves. This trapped water, which can be heated to temperatures of about 700 degrees Fahrenheit, is known as a geothermal reservoir. When engineers want to use geothermal energy, they "tap" in to this geothermal water and use the resulting hot water and steam for various purposes.
That's obviously factually inaccurate as magma is at least 700 degrees Celsius and any water in contact with magma will be heated to that temperature. And they are talking about using existing water reservoirs so they must be talking about Flash or Binary Cycle systems and not EGS systems. So they are not talking about drilling to the magma's level.
http://www.crest.org/geothermal/geothermal_brief_geothermal_resources.html
Which shows the hot side very close to the magma layer, with the injection well being farther away...
So again, no drilling into magma. You still haven't given one example of someone deliberately drilling into a magma chamber for geothermal power generation. The fact is that it is not done. EGS systems involve drilling to heated rock not magma. They may drill close to magma but that is not the same as drilling into magma.
A conventional Geothermal Plant *is* a deep drill plant... check out all the large scale ones around the world. The depths are different because the magma layers are at different depths... but they all drill to really close - or into that layer.
You seem to be confused about the different geothermal plant systems.
A conventional plant is not a deep drill plant. A conventional plant uses water that was already in the ground. In the case of Flash steam systems superheated water (in excess of 180 degrees Celsius) is allowed to flash to steam that drives turbines directly. In the case of Binary Cycle systems cooler water (between 100 and 180 degrees Celsius) is used in a heat exchanger. Both of these systems have been in production for decades and neither one requires deep drilling. The largest scale plants, such as those in The Geysers in California, and the plants in the Philippines are of this type.
EGS systems are still relatively new. They have been developed since the 1980's. They involve drilling to superheated rock and then pumping water from the surface to be heated (i.e. they don't use existing water from the ground). They still do not drill into magma. "Hot dry rock technology is meant to stay well away from the 99 percent of the Earth's interior, which is over 1,000 degrees". Note the "hot dry rock" alternate name - they don't want ground water for these plants. So there is not much point is using this helium technique to find locations for them. And also note that there are no EGS plants in the US.
I think you just misread the article. The title sums it up nicely though... "Helium isotopes point to the best sources of geothermal energy"
I didn't misread at all. You are reading stuff into it that is not there. They developed the technique by analyzing samples from the area surrounding the Dixie Valley geothermal plant in Nevada. That's not a EGS plant. Why would they test a technique for deep drilling on the area occupied by a conventional plant? They did that because they are looking for sites for new conventional plants, not EGS plants. As for the title, clearly the best sources of geothermal energy are those that don't require deep drilling.
As for land areas... in the US, I dont think that is too big of an issue... desert land cant cost that much... well... renting it for power generation probably would. I know if I owned a plot of desert and a power company wanted to *rent* it from me (instead of buying it), I would factor into that rent the fact that they are going to make a bunch of money off generating power.
What the owner of land could do would be to rent to land for a royalty, say $.01 per kilowatt hour.
As for maintenance, there is always that... but that affects every form of power generation we have. Of course, these panels are *supposed* to be more durable...
PV panels today can last 20 years if not longer. The expensive part of a small, therefore not applicable, solar power system is the batteries, however if you're intertied you don't need batteries.
FalconShould there be a Law?
And their longevity ISNT something I considered... thanks for pointing that out... if a (conventional) solar panel lasts up to 30 years - but these new ones last up to 3... then there really isnt any savings at all... and even at 10 years, the savings gets minimized considerably...
Actually if these cells only last 3 years they are still cheaper. Sure at only 10% of the cost of others and only lasting a 10% as long it seems they would cost just as much over the 30 years however in 5, 10, or even 15 years tyme the price will drop even more, in inflation adjusted dollars Solar cells are dropping in price. And with increased efficiency the price per kilowatt will decline. The problem though is what happens to them once they are no longer any good.
FalconShould there be a Law?
[Tongue-in-cheek-mode-on]
I foresee a future where geothermal is the predominate energy source just like fossil fuels are now. After about 100 years or so the average temp of the earth's core will be a degree or two cooler overall thus affecting the earth's magnetic field as circulation of molten rock within the earch slows. That's right, we will have caused global cooling!
Oddly enough I've also been to the biggest geothermal plant, and it's neither in Iceland nor in the Philippines...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larderello producing 4,800 GWh per year (about 4 times more than the theoretical maximum of the 125 MW of tongonan)
It is amaing if it is feasible, but what is the effect of sucking 90 quadrillion kilowatt-hours of energy out of the earth? Have there been many studies into the effects? I think the only real solution to the problem is: * Get the bulk of energy from the sun. Its free + clean. All the energy from biomass, oil etc essentially came from the sun originally anyway! * Fusion. Not really dissimilar to solar energy, since the sun is a fusion reactor. If we cant get enough from the sun, then fusion could be a back-up. Any surplus energy could be beamed out to space using microwaves to prevent heating the earth up. Energy for vehicles could use any high density energy source that can be easily derived from the suns' energy such as fatty acids. Maybe an engine could be designed that metabolises fatty acids to generate electricity rather than directly combusting them. You'd still get CO2 but it would be neutralized byt its generation at the power 'plant'.
"CEO Martin Roscheisen claims that once full production starts early next year [2008], it will create 430 megawatts' worth of solar cells a year--more than the combined total of every other solar plant in the U.S. The first 100,000 cells will be shipped to Europe, where a consortium will be building a 1.4-megawatt power plant next year."
I didn't read anything about them not wanting/being able to sell to the American market, it's just that their first order was placed by a European company. Unfortunately I didn't really further research this since I have a Histology exam in 2hrs and I should probably make my way over to campus.
The only consistency in life is the lack thereof
I suspect the real reason the Solar panels not being sold here is there is an organized market for them in Europe, where they are nearly twice as cheap given our dropping dollar, which means produce to order backlogs, not flog the bushes looking for American customers. In a way, that is optimal for our economy. We get foreign exchange to offset our oil purchases. Europe gets to be the arrow wearing Pioneers. OPEC and Russia see the majority of the demand drop. If America was the primary customer, that demand drop affect would be diluted.
If solar starts making significant inroads then the states will probably switch from a fuel tax to a road tax as their primary income (i.e. a cost for owning a car, possibly tied to the number of miles you drive every year). Of course, they won't cut the tax on fuel either, which will make electric cars even more attractive since you'll only be paying tax once with them and twice with a fossil fuel vehicle.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
A few things here. First, Nanosolar's factory seems well along, but those prices will come only after it's up to speed and has been making and selling product for a bit. Second, the key figure is 30 cents per watt (Is this your PopSci article?). Pretty awesome if they can make it. It would break natural gas as a peak load generator during daylight. But these press blurbs don't indicate whether Nanosolar can deliver on those promises. Finally, the solar cells make up only a portion of the total cost of a solar power system. You also have the mounting frame and electronics (eg, grid inverter, power regulator, etc). In some places, due to low solar influx, even free solar panels won't make the system cost effective.
I don't know where I read or saw this. But I heard that someone saying the new space race is not for fun or just to show off power. It is much to do with finding hidden He3 isotopes in the moon crust. I don't know how to draw the structure of a such isotope, but it has been told, He3 can provide lot of power.
Who knows??? Think I am gonna see a 21st century gold (more sorta Helium) rush....
Nice one. As the parent of three teenage girls, I'd like to nominate Avril Lavigne.
Read the wiki again. In your initial posting, you called it a plant. A plant is composed of one or more wells, such as the Geysers have. Your plant is just a single well. The geysers is composed of multiple wells spread all over to keep it from dropping too much.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coso_Volcanic_Field#Geothermal
When the Coso field was initially being developed, well locations were selected based on heightened mercury levels in the soil.
Just because it's a pretty glacier doesn't mean the glacier isn't grinding up a deposit of arsenic into its milk.
Considering those glaciers provide the drinking water for several cities and have for more than a century, I expect they're not grinding up significant quantities of arsenic.
Yeah - that is what is so sad. As I pointed out in another post... I think it is smart... get big businesses that will buy lots of them, to further the effort of making more - as opposed to trying to sell them to consumers first and hope you sell enough to stay in business.
It's not a BAD thing... it's just a SAD thing (that you or I or Joe HomeOwner can't go buy one).
I guess it's not that sad after all - because it means they are more likely to stick around, having taken that route.
StarTrekPhase2 - The Five Year Mission Continues!
Some of the claimed "production costs" for these solar cells are calculated based on energy costs - which are based on PETROLEUM COMMODITIES SPOT PRICES. Which, in case nobody's noticed, have been fluctuating like a motherfucker lately (along with the major currency they're valued in).
So - to say that we need to wait for Solar to get below a certain $/watt cost to produce is false; for that reason, and also for the reason that; once you position a solar installation, they keep producing energy indefinitely, so it's really a different cost proposition than the petroleum x-dollars/bbl. The thing about petroleum is that you pump it out of the ground, basically for free. You pay for the drills, the rigs, the workers, but the goo is free. Even CHEAPER if you can rig an election to place a former oil executive as president, then con your government into invading other countries to secure you a good deal if the landowner is being a hardass. Even MORE profitable if that invasion makes the markets nervous, driving the spot prices up.
In any case; the argument that alternatives don't "measure up" economically against oil is a BULLSHIT argument, because the metrics you're using to measure with are the dollar, and the barrel of oil, both of which are rigged markets, with arbitrary, artificial valuations. And it is not a coincidence that the people who arbitrarily set the valuations of these metrics, are the same people who are in charge of our economy, and governments.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Umm, I did. And sorry, to clarify... because I sort of short handed that post... but I know people here tend to critique that - especially if they didnt read the other posts...
Nanosolar, which has been heavily invested in by a few of the owners of Google. So, not owned by Google per se. But owned by the people who own Google.
Sorry about that.
StarTrekPhase2 - The Five Year Mission Continues!
This actually makes no fucking sense at all.
If one were an engineer, trying to solve the WORLD'S energy problems, one would look at the relative amount of sunlight in Europe versus America. (The US has more sunlight, in the southwest - solar applications will necessarily be far more efficient if used in the US - it's actually a WASTE to ship them to Europe first). One would look at the relative location of the bulk of the world's oil supplies, nearer Europe, rather than the US (the US peaked its reserves in 1973, and is in decline - and NEEDS the alternatives sooner).
Of course, if one were to take POLITICS as a factor, into account, then it all fucking makes sense.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
I didnt say they didnt want to. I said (hugely paraphrased) that it sucks that they aren't and it sucks that the solar environment (selling them, etc) in this country is in such a state that their best method is to grab the big corporate sales first before they start selling here.
It makes perfect business sense - but that is because there aren't "Walmart's for Solar" here...
Good luck on your exam!
StarTrekPhase2 - The Five Year Mission Continues!
Gee, thanks a whole hell of a lot for giving them THAT idea! :-)
I have a feeling you are right on the money with your entire post...
StarTrekPhase2 - The Five Year Mission Continues!
Data is only data by agreement. The number 0, invented by religious nuts way back, only has meaning because we agree it does. Sure, there are repeatable, measurable structures within the universe, but the measurements and the meaning we give them are just what we agree on. That is truth. Reality is regardless of truth.
We agree on these because they do have repeatable, measurable structures. If you have three bananas, some may "agree" you have three bananas, some may think you have tres plátanos and still others may think you have drei bananen. This is irrelevant because no matter what verbalization you use, the actual property is the same. I don't understand quite what you mean what "reality is regardless of truth" but the goal of science is to find the truth to reality.
We cannot know for sure that R=E/I because resistance, electric potential and current were all invented by humans as part of a model and there may well be an electromotive fairy manipulating the effects behind the scenes for her own amusement. The fact that it's consistant could well be her little running joke. Sure, it's a stupid argument and I don't personally subscribe to it, but it's possible. My point is that, while that's not useful, it's also not really harmful, so why worry about it? You can't prove it isn't so. No worthy scientist can.
The point is not to prove or disprove. The religious viewpoint has (and always will) avoid the scientific method because they are somehow above it. You are correct that science cannot currently disprove that god exists, but it can provide degrees of unlikelihood. Because you suggested it, let's visit your fairy example because (I think) we both agree it is a preposterous example.
Anyone can make a crazy claim, but just because it is made, doesn't mean it is true. If I imagine a brand new Prius sitting outside of my office newly registered in my name with all payments made, it doesn't mean that when I go downstairs I'll be able to drive away in a new Toyota. It's a simple fact that thought != reality and just because you can think it doesn't make it real.
Even if we ignore the fact that thought != reality, we have a backup check in science. You are correct that physical constants may suddenly change, but hundreds (and in some cases thousands) of years of documented evidence shows that these physical constants are just that - constant. With each passing day, the probability of these constants suddenly (or even gradually) changing becomes less likely. While it is true that this graph is a 1/x graph with an asymptote at 0 which will only be reached in an infinite time, we are showing how unlikely such a change is. Let us additionally say (simply for the sake of argument) that the initially postulated theory shows this fairy has a control room on Uranus full of knobs and lights and electrical gadgets (an equally ridiculous claim to go with the first one). I'm sure that science would love to get a probe up there and take a look around. Let's say they do and don't see anything, well Uranus is a gas planet, so the "fariest" would postulate the room is submerged in the gas clouds. While this makes it slightly more unlikely, I would tend to agree with the "fariest" that location wasn't specified. Let's then say science sends another probe up, this time with a magnetic field sensor to try and find the big electrical room the fairy is in, but that also turns up nothing. This is where the story has to change to avoid science. All of a sudden it becomes a minutely small room, or suddenly the knobs are made of cabbage and the room is a sailboat and suddenly there's no electronics, or maybe the fairy made sure to magnetically shield her domain. The point is, while these "theories" (term very loosely used) can be postulated and never fully and 100% disproved, science can show
Well, back to rejecting software patent applications.
Yes. Perfect business sense. It's just sad that is the way it needs to start for Nanosolar to remain long-term viable.
StarTrekPhase2 - The Five Year Mission Continues!
Yes, here's what happens:
No, and no urge to do so. However, I freely admit to the urge to criticize their parents. The only reason I don't say anything about it is because they're not my kids. My kids, I can assure you, were never subjected to such abuse. "Santa? Oh yeah, well, we lied about that to you." What a great precedent to set. Lying to children is heinous, particularly in the case of parents doing it. The only up side to it is for those kids that have an unusually strong streak of independent thinking, they may generalize it and realize that the stories about "god" have no more basis in fact than Santa does, and free themselves from the generations-long procession of lies and ignorance. Sadly, they have to do it at the expense of their parents credibility, but I suppose since their parents don't have any credibility in the first place, well... there you go.
No. It isn't. Build bridges to truth. Not to lies. Then it's a good thing. Would you build a bridge to Pol Pot over the idea of an agrarian collective, while blithely ignoring the slave labor, malnutrition, poor medical care and executions with an estimated death toll of 750,000, perhaps even more? Would you gloss over the fact that he singled out intellectuals for death? What about those who supported Pol Pot and did his bidding? Are they any better? In my view, they're even worse.
I think you might answer that you do not support them and would not "build bridges" to them.
If that's the case, why, considering all the bad things religion has done, and is doing, are you so willing to build bridges to it and the people supporting it?
My theory, which gives you the benefit of the doubt, is you say these things because you haven't really thought the issues through, and you're just regurgitating the politically correct line of "live and let live."
The problem here is the religionists are not just letting the rest of us live unmolested. Therefore, they have not earned the right to be left alone. The ideal of liberty is that my right to swing my fist ends where your face begins. But that is only true if you have not hit me first. The religionists swung first; and that's the end of their right to continue unmolested in their pursuit of their ideas.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Evidence from space reaches us "today" as testimony to the stability of the constants, coming from a huge range of times ranging from just a few years ago (Proxima Centuri) to about 12...14 billion years ago.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
On the other hand, she turned into a pop biatch after she got hitched.
CP as AC:
I didn't even immediately think of that, but very true nonetheless.
If you view our planet and the heat energy it has stored in it as a battery, won't tapping into that energy source drain our planet of the heat it needs to stay alive? How much of the heat energy in our planet can we consume before it starts to cool Earth's core? What unforeseen side effects could this have on our planet's health?
The most ideal source of energy would be a source external to our planet. Which pretty much means solar energy. It seems that uncontrolled consumption of any terresterial source of energy is ultimately detrimental. All sources of energy are finite. Coal, oil, natural gas, wind, solar, and geothermal energy can all are energy reserves that are all stored in one form or another. They are not infinite, but far more solar energy exists than any other source of energy. I am far from being a scientist, but it seems that people advocate one form of energy over another because their preferred energy source is so superior to any other and seemingly has no shortcomings. According to them, if we all just starting using [fill in the blank] all of our problems would be solved. We must all be honest about the energy problems we face as a human race and focus on energy conservation, no matter where the energy comes from.
Third, we still have problems with maintenance, and need to rent a large amount of land to put the things on.
Solar panels are almost maintenance-free. Wiping the dust off occasionally boosts efficiency slightly. And if they track the sun, the mechanism might break down. From my experience with my solar PV panels, that's IT.
And you don't need land, you need flat roofs. Start with big warehouses in the Southwest.
=S
So true. As part of my solar PV installation, I got a net use meter. Instead of that pathetic stupid antique spinning disk that requires a stopwatch and a calculator, I've got an LCD showing instantaneous consumption in kiloWatts. So every time I walk in or out I check my consumption. Any time it's above 1 kW I try to figure out why. I soon realized the downstairs track lights eat 400 Watts, so I leave them off. It pointed out that when a vacuum cleaner brags about stupendous suction power, that means high electric consumption, so I don't leave it running while moving the furniture and changing attachments. It reminds me to activate standby and switch off my computer power strip. It shows that my Sub-Zero fridge is a beautiful piece of inefficient constantly-running crap. Etc. etc. If every house had one, consumption would take a quick dive.
It's still flawed:
=S
To be competitive with oil they have to be 1/10th the price of current cells (actually more like 1/15th or 1/20th if you count fairly, at an equal taxation rate) and last for fifty years, at full capacity.
Not really, if you include the massive subsidies petroleum gets, billions of dollars being spent daily in Iraq for instance, oil is way more expensive. If solar, wind, and other alternative sources of energy were to get as much tax payer money the costs of them would drop.
As you point out, large scale installations of solar cells could be an environmental nightmare when they start wearing out.
But then again computers, cellphones, and all of the other electric and electronic gadgets have the same problem or similar ones. A lot of the fighting in the conflict in the Congo is over coltan, a mineral cellphones are dependent on. Even oil shares blame for conflicts. The conflict in the Niger Delta is in a big part over oil.
FalconShould there be a Law?
It's easy to say that oil benefits from big subsidies, but how true is it? Iraq wasn't holding out on supplying oil -- they were desperate to do so. The war there certainly isn't making oil prices drop any.
Computers, cellphones and other electronic gadgets use electronic components and their associated nastiness in areas measured in square millimetres. Solar panels use them in areas measured in hectares. Fighting in the Congo or Niger isn't really an environmental nightmare. Dealing with large scale production of square kilometres of things we usually only make in chunks ten billion times smaller might be.
Even a perfect solar water heater wouldn't make you off grid.
As long as you depend on the grid for electricity you're not off the grid.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Ah, I see your problem; you are going to move the goalposts until either (a) you have defined away anything that can harm your argument, or (b) your opponent deems you worthless and goes on to other things.
Greenpeace are environmentalists.
You asked for an example.
You got one.
You don't like that and want to change the rules.
That doesn't mean you win; it means you are intellectually dishonest.
Which means we can all ignore you.
which is nothing more than a difference of opinion as to what we each consider deep. To me, 2 miles down - for a human/human machine - is deep.
Ok, yea I can see that.
FalconShould there be a Law?
It's easy to say that oil benefits from big subsidies, but how true is it? Iraq wasn't holding out on supplying oil -- they were desperate to do so. The war there certainly isn't making oil prices drop any.
No, Iraq wasn't holding out. It was UN sanctions, backed by the US, that was holding Iraq from exporting oil. If Saddam had been left to rule though he could have picked which companies could export the oil. Instead of picking US oil companies he could have used French, Russian, or even started an Iraqi oil company to export oil. Mind you, I'm not making out Saddam to be a saint. Actually I was against supporting him during the 1980s when the Reagan and Bush Sr admins did support him, all while he was using Weapons of Mass Destruction. As for oil prices, oil companies want high prices, the higher the price of oil is the more they make.
Fighting in the Congo or Niger isn't really an environmental nightmare.
It can be a nightmare environmentally, however the real nightmare is for those raped and murdered in the grab for control of the resources, whether oil or coltan.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Yes, so the war wasn't about securing oil, or making it cheaper, it was about securing it for US companies. Big difference. The price would be pretty much the same whether it was US companies or French companies doing the drilling.
I live in an oil boom town. Yes, oil companies make lots of money when the price is high, but not as much as the conspiracies would have you think. Much of the profits you'd get from high prices are eaten up by very expensive exploration and extraction techniques needed to increase production to meet demand and doing much of that in a very unstable political environment.
Sure, but the potential problem with solar cells with short lifetimes, which is what we were talking about, isn't so much a war for resources (that will happen anyway), it's the potential damage we could cause by making those cells and then having to dispose of them. After all, barring the odd oil spill and localized damage from drilling, the big problem with oil is carbon dioxide... it's not exactly a highly noxious substance, it's just we produce a whole whackload of it. Now scale up solar cell production to the same level (and with the requirement that they be completely replaced every few years). Solar cells have gotten a lot cleaner than they used to be, but we're still talking about a LOT of them.
The price would be pretty much the same whether it was US companies or French companies doing the drilling.
But it makes a big difference to both French and US companies who gets the money.
scale up solar cell production to the same level (and with the requirement that they be completely replaced every few years). Solar cells have gotten a lot cleaner than they used to be, but we're still talking about a LOT of them.
Solar cells last more than a "few years". You can find solar panels with warranties longer than 20 years. SunPower's panels have a 25 year warranty. As does some BP panels. Here are more panels with 20 or 25 year warranties. And those were just the first 3 results from googling "solar panels" warranty.
FalconShould there be a Law?
When you jumped into this thread we were discussing how new super efficient solar panels might be viable IF they last (at something near full capacity) for a reasonable amount of time. Pointing out that some other solar panels have long warranties isn't particularly useful since it says very little about the ones we're discussing. If you can find the warranty on Nanosolar's (as yet unverified) super efficient solar panels with any amount of Googling, colour me impressed (well, skeptical, actually). Otherwise, I think you've lost the thread of the discussion.
Hi,
I think that the UK government agrees with you that the meter has to be easily visible and inside: the kitchen is often cited (and indeed sited!) as the ideal location. From early next year our (retail) electricity supplier will have to supply us with such a meter for free if we ask for it.
Monitoring of individual circuits would be good, I agree.
Rgds
Damon
http://m.earth.org.uk/
Ok.
FalconShould there be a Law?
so when a European customer orders something before Americans make up their minds that's politics ?
MP3 Search Engine
Due to the messy waste water byproducts. I recal this was in the 1990s.