Slashdot Mirror
Alaska Looks To Volcanos For Geothermal Energy
Iddo Genuth writes "Alaskan state officials have recently announced their intention to begin funding the exploration and surveying of Alaska's largest volcanoes in hopes of utilizing these as a
source of geothermal energy. They say this volcano could provide enough energy to power thousands of households, and according to some estimates, Alaska's volcanoes and hot springs could supply up to 25% of the state's energy needs."
if we did tap geothermal resources nationwide to get up to supplying 25% of our electrical needs within a few decades
I'm of the opinion that the human race will eventually get close to 90% of its energy needs from geothermal sources. Wind and solar probably can't deliver the wattage. What people don't realize and what they don't want to believe, is that the world is not filled up with oil in the middle. Instead, its filled with molten rock, and beyond that, molten metals. And there is a lot of it in there. All you need to do is invest in shunting sea water a few miles into the earth and harvesting the energy as it boils out. Other than the initial investment, it wouldn't take coal or oil--both of which WILL run out.
Just callin' it like I see it.
Speaking of the lower 48's volcanoes. What about Yellowstone? A super-volcano close enough to the surface that the pressure is bending the crust up. Now there is a prime target for investment. Perhaps we can even vent off enough pressure to reduce the risk of another one of those major blasts that it's known for geologically.
Just because you can, does not mean you should.
The key is that when we run low on heat from the Earth's core in the distant future
When the earth's core (the molten metal part that causes the magnetic field that deflects the solar ion radiation) finally goes solid from our geothermal harvesting, we will have mutated to a form we probably couldn't recognize as being evolved from ourselves--and we certainly wouldn't give a damn about the little alien looking marmots either.
Just callin' it like I see it.
Oh come on, someone modded this *informative*?
Calling geothermal energy a "temporary fix" is about as useful as calling solar energy a temporary fix. Really, I don't think it's too shortsighted to consider an energy source that could provide power for millions (geothermal) vs billions (solar) of years as more than "temporary". Especially considering how we will have used up the relatively scarce (geologically speaking) oil resource we are looking to replace in the scale of hundreds of years. Hell, I'd be happy to see people think 50 years in advance, imagine what we could do with nuclear power if we'd invest for results with a payoff that far away...
I was going to mod him down but there wasn't a suitable category - say like 'Missing The Facts'.
First off, like how much heat energy is actually present beneath the mantle? A. Big number.
Secondly, how long it will take for the magma / iron + whatever core to cool to a point where the magnetic field decreases enough? A. Another big number.
It scares me that people with so little perception of physical reality make comments as if they understand.
Just a point for you too re nuclear power. It may outlast us but Uranium reserves are not infinite either.
Now if we could only get Fusion happening...
All in all geothermal is a great idea - as mentioned in Iceland, and I think the Kiwis (New Zealand) harvest a bit for sparks and even the UK for hot water if I am not mistaken.
No not available everywhere but whatever helps...
I can't resist the chance here to take a swipe at those misinformed people that demand immediate nuclear power - you are looking at a decade to plan and construct the thing even with available designs. People have to remember that this stuff is not run by magic whether it's wind, hyro, or a glowing lump of radiactive material contained by expensive technology and producing steam.
Uhmm, you do realize that Iceland is a teenie, tiny little dot of an island in the northern ocean do you? The actual amount of energy produced from geothermal sources in Iceland is verrry small and about equal to a single fair sized coal fired (or nuclear) power station.
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
When it is a closed system, that I would call that clean. The problem occurs when you extract the water and dispose of it on the surface. When it is in the ground, extracted, use for heat, and then re-injected back into the ground, I would say that is clean. OTH, some of these do not operate in that fashion. For example, the one in CA uses waste water from local towns to inject in the ground producing steam. That steam is allowed to flow out. That will pick up the local compounds and send it in the air. But chena and most of the other Geo-thermals re-inject.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
That single setup produces about 5 times more geothermal energy than the much touted Iceland...
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
I mentioned NOTHING about solar power at all. I am simply talking about the amount of energy that the Earth is exposed to at any one moment REGARDLESS OF EFFICIENCIES OR METHODS/PROCESSES OF HARNESSING SAID ENERGY.
That energy has to go SOMEWHERE. The air, the oceans, or the crust. Try reading my post before making derisive comments.
"So basically the Sun can give us all the energy we will need for one year in one day and probably be done before breakfast is over."
If we were taking the incredible amounts of energy from the crust that the poster suggested, I simply pointed out that the Sun would put that much energy back in a very small fraction of the time it took to "pump" it out of the crust.
I never mentioned any specific technologies that were applied to convert the heat energy of the crust to electricity, nor did I mention anything about solar technologies being a suitable replacement for geothermal.
I ONLY POINTED OUT THAT WE COULD NEVER USE ALL THE ENERGY IN THE CORE DUE TO 1) WE CANT REACH IT AND 2) WE COULD NOT USE IT ALL QUICK ENOUGH.
P.S - Try reading some news on occasion. Solar cell efficiency surpassed 15% a LONG FARKING TIME AGO. It is not in production, but we have achieved it. I am open to using any technology, but I am honestly fed up with all the poor references that people use when it comes to environmental technologies. It's not a contest, and I don't give a crap WHICH technology we use. Just as long as we start using something renewable that does not kill us all in 50 years.
While very neat, if we did tap geothermal resources nationwide to get up to supplying 25% of our electrical needs within a few decades, we'd still be behind Iceland. According to Wikipedia, Iceland generates 26.5 of its electricity from geothermal power. Strange to think that a place called Iceland has so much available heat for power generation. Going a bit astray, has anyone seen the episode of Science Channel's "Eco-Tech" featuring the rooftop windmills designed by Aerotecture? Pretty cool.
26% of Iceland's electrical needs is a tiny number compared to 25% of America's needs. Saying we would still be behind Iceland seems inappropriate if you take into consideration the modest 300k population of Iceland probably consumes less electricity than Baton Rouge, LA.
"At first, we thought it was just another snake cult."
Basically we need another Manhattan project, but where does the motivation come from? We are not in World War II in search of the ultimate weapon, and IMO we are not yet close to a tipping point regarding global warming to make the project palatable to the public (however mistaken and short-sighted that may be).
According to http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=245508 the Manhattan project cost $1 billion in 1945, something like $20 billion today. I also recall that the Hoover dam diverted a huge portion of its energy to the project.
So it may be some time before fusion gets the attention it needs. Until then, geothermal, wind and solar seem like relatively easier ways, both politically and scientifically, to address our energy needs.
This post brought to you by your friendly neighborhood MBA.
Step away from Google Maps. Instead, do a search on "Mercator" to see why you are an idiot. If that is too much to ask: New York = 54,555 sq mi Pennsylvania = 46,055 sq mi Iceland = 39,770 sq mi Hungary = 35,919 sq mi Ireland = 32,591 sq mi (All data from Wikipedia)
Wind and solar probably can't deliver the wattage.
searching Wikipedia renders that incorrect:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_energy#Energy_from_the_Sun
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Available_Energy-3.png
A "tiny" portion of the Sahara desert could power the earth
completely in all forms in use at present, transport and otherwise.
The SEGs system at 1.5 square miles is 350 MegaWatts.
The Sahara is 3.5 million square miles.
Total average power usage worldwide is 15 Terawatts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy
So 50,000 times 1.5 = 75,000 sq. miles = 17+ Tera watts.
About 2 % of the Sahara.
Spread it around the world so sun is always hitting the arrays
in different timezones, ie. sun is always up somewhere.
Bingo, power forever.
Total transmission losses for the US in 2005 was approx. 7%
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_power_transmission#Losses
I have been bashed by ppl for wanting to put CSP solar
in desolate almost totally barren deserts.
Nuclear is a crap choice, undersea currents hold more power
than wind does, geothermal near volcanoes is a great idea.
Look at the power for Africa, Australia, and South America
in the Antarctic Circumpolar Current.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctic_Circumpolar_Current
135 times all the rivers of the world...its mind boggling.
The Aquanator is the current most likely candidate for tapping
it with little to no ecological harm.
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/09/26/1096137100758.html?oneclick=true
There are other major ocean currents elsewhere that are prime
for tapping.
google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"