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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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