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
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.
Once upon a time links in Roland stories would direct you to his own blog where you could find a link to the real story. His blog has some ads so this was seen as profit-mongering. This hasn't been done for a long time but apparently some people never forgive.
I have seen the future, and it is inconvenient.
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.
I know I sound paranoid when I say this, but: if geothermal ever actually did become feasible for providing the world's energy needs at current levels, environmentalists would rationalize a reason why it's not eco-friendly.
Apology to Ubuntu forum.
Articles from Roland used to go straight to his blog, which was usually a slightly summarised version of the article. As people can see however, these days you get a link direct to the article and you only go to his blog if you click on his name... which is reasonable enough.
The tag ought to be dropped, but if not, it's meaning will inevitably become less serious and more of an ironic "Oh no!"
Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
From my own reading on the subject, "the major roadblock to widespread geothermal use" is lack of motivation.
Despite all the talk and hand-wringing over global warming, power companies are still not paying any carbon tax. They aren't required to phase out coal-fired plants, and they aren't having any difficulty getting permits to build new ones. They have a business model that is working and making money for them, and no pressing reason to change their ways.
A study came out of MIT a while back showing that the USA has vast geothermal resources which could be exploited fairly easily. It would require a small R&D investment to prove the concept, but they believe enhanced geothermal energy could be accessed across large regions of the country.
Is anybody going for it? No. . . No power companies want to pony up that "small R&D investment". Why should they? They can continue using coal and natural gas without any R&D cost at all. As for the federal government, their energy research has been cut to nearly nothing. So nothing happens.
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.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
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.
Geothermal will be used to generate electricity, not power transportation. Less than 1% of US electric generation comes from Oil. Increasing the price of oil has essentially zero effect on electric generation. Using Geothermal in the US will have zero effect on Oil imports.
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
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!
While properly working geothermal is in theory clean, in actuality there are several hazards associated with it.
The first is localized ground/surface water pollution. The water pulled from deep geothermal springs has many chemicals dissolved in it that are not normally found in high concentrations in surface waters (since they are not common, organisms have not adapted to them, hence they are often toxic.) Simply returning the water back underground is feasible in the short term, the aforementioned chemicals combined with the high heat render the water quite corrosive at times, and considering the high pressure desired to efficiently pump heat out of the ground, some spillage or at least seepage is eventually all but guaranteed. The risks posed by these soluents may very well be less than petroleum, but they are non-negligible.
Extra heat must be dispelled from some point in the power plant to maintain a thermal gradient. Efficiency requires a high level of heat transfer, so the excess heat will have to be dumped into the environment. The level of energy transfer will likely be similar to that of a nuclear power plant of similar power rating. The most likely solution for ejection of heat at these levels (100 megawatt?) would be by transfer to a freshwater source (as saltwater corrosion would make maintenance far more expensive) likely fluvial such as a stream or river as the water flow would ensure a constant supply of cool water. Warming up freshwater systems also has a non-zero effect on the native habitat, generally negative, but sometimes can be managed to increase productivity of fisheries. The need to expel the heat also means the geothermal power plant will be located close to a river or stream, meaning any leaks in the system will allow the aforementioned dissolved minerals to leach into the water, either directly through surface flow or possibly through groundwater flow which would be much more difficult to detect and have much more long lasting effects as the entire groundwater reserve would have to be purged before the system returns to normal.
If direct ejection into freshwater systems is not feasible, then the water will have to be cooled in a cooling tower, which introduces inefficiencies into the system as the tower must be powered, and requires a source of fresh or even de-mineralized water to avoid salt buildup in the tower. Again, this issue has to be dealt with in other thermal energy plants, such as nuclear, so is not that big of a strike against geothermal, but is still non-zero.
In some locations, the "excess" heat can be repurposed for municipal heating, such as is done in Iceland. In this case, the excess heat becomes an asset rather than a liability. However, few locations consistently cold enough to actually benefit from waste heat have a high enough population density where their worldwide environmental impact would be significant, even if they used less "green" methods of energy production. High population densities that will start thirsting for more and more energy are generally found in temperate to tropical or even arid climates and therefore the waste heat from geothermal sources is a definite liability to the majority of the world.
I'll never make that mistake again, reading the experts' opinions. - Feynman
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.
Geothermal energy (heat), makes electricity. In the short term, all geothermal will do is rid us of our dependence on coal and natural gas, it will do nothing to slow the demand of gasoline.
Oil accounts for half of our "energy" usage in this country, but only about 1% of our electricity generation. It's an important distinction.
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!
The first is localized ground/surface water pollution. The water pulled from deep geothermal springs has many chemicals dissolved in it that are not normally found in high concentrations in surface waters
Fossil water isn't needed. Actually water may not be the best carrier of heat to use, but if used water doesn't need to be pumped up. A closed loop can pump surface water down where it is heated up then it comes back up where a heat pump then extracts the heat.
Extra heat must be dispelled from some point in the power plant to maintain a thermal gradient. Efficiency requires a high level of heat transfer, so the excess heat will have to be dumped into the environment.
What extra heat? Where you see "waste heat", I see another energy source. And efficiency requires more of that heat energy to be extracted. If the water is hot it still has plenty of energy that can be used.
If direct ejection into freshwater systems is not feasible, then the water will have to be cooled in a cooling tower,
In a closed loop the cooled water is just pumped back down where it picks up more heat before coming back up. If the water still has heat before being pumped back down then 1, more energy can be extracted or 2, it won't need to heat up as much but this isn't as efficient as the first option. Also where it's cold cogeneration can be used. The heated water can be used to heat building as is done in Iceland. Oh, I see you mention it later. Another place that use cogeneration systems like this is NYC.
FalconShould there be a Law?
No, the major roadblock to geothermal has been, to date, a lack of sources of 'easy' geothermal, and technical/geological difficulties in 'hard' geothermal. 'Easy' in this case finding pre-existing undergound flows of water which happen to flow through hot areas to create high pressure steam deposits that can be tapped. This is the predominant form of geothermal in action today.
Hard geothermal involves creating your own water flow by injection and recovery. This is a very hard thing to achieve and requires state of the art drilling techniques developed by the oil industry. You have to drill down into what is typically very hard rock (because it's typically radioactive granite - that's where the heat comes from), and fracture the rock to create cavities for the water to flow through. Then you need to find exactly the right spot to drill a second well to allow venting of the steam back up to the turbines.
This is the new world of geothermal and there are high hopes for it in Australia. It is not easy to bring to scale, even when the direct drilling problems are sorted out, because you need a suitable hot rock formation, it needs to be close enough to the surface (or creating enough steam pressure at the surface becomes impossible), and it helps if the source is close to a load centre or transmission line (most aren't). The same sorts of things that slow most renewable energy sources, just mundane practical problems which end up making costs get too high to compete with coal, which gets you to pay its waste disposal costs for it. All power is expensive, we just pay loss-leader rates.
Fossil water isn't needed. Actually water may not be the best carrier of heat to use, but if used water doesn't need to be pumped up. A closed loop can pump surface water down where it is heated up then it comes back up where a heat pump then extracts the heat.
While this method reduces the risk of pollution, it does not eliminate it completely. There is a significant chance that the "fossil water" is under considerable pressure, and would be forced out of the holes drilled to pipe the fluids used to transfer heat. The extreme conditions also mean that any part of the system would require significant inspections and maintenance. What extra heat? Where you see "waste heat", I see another energy source. And efficiency requires more of that heat energy to be extracted. If the water is hot it still has plenty of energy that can be used.
Extracting more of that "heat waste" will realistically not increase the efficiency of the system. Essentially, the power plant in a geothermal electrical generator are not powered by the fact that underground water is hot. They are powered by the gradient in temperature between that hot underground water and wherever the waste heat is pumped to. Almost any attempt to recapture this waste heat, such as with thermocouples, will in essence insulate the cooling mechanism, reducing the efficiency of the primary generators. Why not use the rising air from the heat from a nuclear cooling tower to power a turbine to get more electricity out? Because then the ability of the cooling towers to cool the liquid is decreased, and would have to be compensated for, likely by pushing more air through the towers with a device similar to a fan. By applying the laws of thermodynamics, it becomes obvious that due to unavoidable inefficiencies running the fans will take more energy than the turbines at the top of the cooling towers gain, otherwise this becomes a free energy device.
Cogeneration is a completely different concept, as thermodynamically you are not attempting to generate extra power from the system, rather you are essentially turning the heated buildings into massive heat sinks for the nuclear (or geothermal, or even coal/oil fired) power plant.
There may be, however, one scenario in which re-using the waste heat at the end of the life cycle in geothermal power generation would work, if some of the waste heat from off peak periods is stored until peak demand periods and used to run an ancillary generator system to make up some of the difference between base and peak load.
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. It is more applicable to other industries in which the waste heat is truly waste and not the result of trying to create a large heat differential as needed to run a heat engine which spins turbines, powering generators which then produce electricity.
Well, at least we both agree that cogeneration is a good thing in certain circumstances. And I'm not honestly implying that the risks inherent with geothermal make the whole thing a no-go. They are in all likelihood significantly less than the risks of other energy production methods in a large number of circumstances. I'm just saying that there are risks and drawbacks that have to be considered. This may mean that geothermal power is not appropriate for certain locations, such as sensitive habitats which could be greatly disturbed by normal operation, or put at risk in case of failure. Then again, a nuclear fission plant would pose the same and likely greater risks in these situations, as would fossil fuels. Hydro or wind power may be more or less appropriate depending on exactly why that particular habitat is classified as sensitive.
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. And I got caught up in the mental exercise of figuring out what possible hazards geothermal presents and simply hadn't yet gotten to the point of asking where in particular would it be appropriate.
I'll never make that mistake again, reading the experts' opinions. - Feynman
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?
"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
Dead right.
It's totally unglamorous, but relatively easy. I managed to cut our home (and home-office) consumption from 33kWh/day (very high, from powering lots of Internet-facing servers) to 7kWh/day (fairly low: typical for a UK household is between 11kWh/day and 20kWh/dayt depending on whose figures you use) without any significant pain or loss of services etc.
http://www.earth.org.uk/saving-electricity.html
Most people could make significant cuts in their own consumption at home and work with zero or minimal spend and without giving up anything they currently do if they (a) wanted to (b) had the information. That's much better than technical fixes alone. One result of a US-based utility study was that simply telling people what they were using when and what it cost to generate helped cut their consumption 10%--15%. (And 78.35435102% of all such stats are hotly contested, natch...)
And there are slightly smarter things than just saving power and money that you can do if you feel inclined, which cost you nothing at all and make a disproportionate saving in CO2 and an improvement in grid stability, eg don't run big appliances at peak demand if you can easily avoid it.
For example, peak demand in the UK is in winter from 4pm to 8pm. At home we're avoiding running our washing machine and dishwasher in that 4 hour window since providing power to us (and everyone else then) is probably the dirtiest and most carbon-intense and expensive of the whole year, and with the biggest losses and strain in the distribution network. We're not sitting in the dark and cold humming whalesong: we just put off running the dishwasher for an hour or two. No one will ever notice, and our electricity bill will be just the same, so I want my medal now, of course! B^>
Rgds
Damon
http://m.earth.org.uk/