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'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
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.
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.
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.
Well, there was also the fact that his stories tended to be hype-filled press-release copy-paste jobs with sensationalized headlines but little real information, while the subject matter was typically mundane vaporware products or crackpot science. And yet somehow, his stories were accepted at an alarming rate. To his credit, lately they have been better. (Note that while his main story links are now direct, he still links to his blog from his name).
main(c,r){for(r=32;r;) printf(++c>31?c=!r--,"\n":c<r?" ":~c&r?" `":" #");}
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.
They must have weapons of mass destruction.
Celine Dion?
home
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!
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.
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!
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.
It would be an economic issue but our current oil situation is being subsidized by the military (700 overseas bases) who we as taxpayers pay real dollars. But because of this, the true price of oil is hidden and not completely reflected at the pump.
If you had the U.S. Military either tax only the oil companies for the services they provide or had the oil companies provide their own defense, you would see a rise in gas prices and thus a shift away from oil into other technologies.
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.
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?