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."
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.
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.
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.
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 other reason is that often Roland gets something spectacularly wrong and announces some well known thing as an enormous breakthrough with impossible consequences. Take his articles with simple thermodynamics, chemistry and electromagnetism in mind and be sure to go for the source article and not the Roland or Zonk summary.
That's pretty short-sighted. With more abundant electricity available other options become more feasible like electric trams for mass transit in addition to electric cars. Picture induction on all our roads to keep the things powered. If we can generate enough electricity then our oil imports will indeed fall. Of course plastics are still a big problem but not as toxic as burning fossil fuels.
I'll also add that all forms of energy production used today have their raw materials shipped to them either by truck or train and there the price of oil does have a rather immediate impact.
We're not going to replace our current energy infrastructure with renewable sources overnight. For now, to paraphrase Franklin, a gigawatt saved is indeed a gigawatt earned.
In fact, *saving* power is better than *producing* power. It pollutes less (heat is a form of pollution) and it costs less (less infrastructure and maintenance).
If energy consumption was dramatically reduced, higher prices would make many renewable sources of energy economically feasible while not costing consumers any more than they pay today. Win/win.
How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
"The environmentalists" are actually not shutting most things down. Fact is, wind power (for instance) is growing rapidly in the US (as elsewhere in the world): "New utility-scale wind turbines have been constructed in 20 states, most notably in California, Washington, Minnesota, New York and Texas (which now leads the nation in wind power use)."
Just because a particular project or two somewhere ran into trouble doesn't change the big picture.
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