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."
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.
Start a happiness pandemic
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.
So, how many virgins per minute does it require to keep going?
Table-ized A.I.
Well, actually, if you drill a big hole in the ground, you could pipe water down an enclosed pipe. Then the steam would come up another pipe to power generator turbines. When it cools back down to water, you send it back down to heat up again.
After your initial water investment, you wouldn't really need a significant amount of additional water at all if it was a closed system. I believe that's the general principal in most Geothermal usage wells.
Give a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day. But light a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
i was surprised to read that The Geysers, just north of San Francisco, claims to be "the largest complex of geothermal power plants in the world". i guess "largest" is open to interpretation. But here's another startling claim: "The Geysers satisfies nearly 60 percent of the average electricity demand in the North Coast region from the Golden Gate Bridge to the Oregon border".
who knew ?
Anyone else noticed that Iceland is quite a green and verdant place, while Greenland is a large lump of ice?
The opinions expressed here are those of this individual, and may not reflect the policy or practice of the collective
The CSIRO in Australia has been investigating the practicality of producing electricity from granite deposits since the early nineties. Also since the nineties the same organisation has been saying that Australia could produce all it's power and then some from either solar or wind.
The problem for the last 11yrs in this country has been purely political as we stood stubbornly by the US. Because of this misdirected loyalty our power generation remains 90+% derived from coal and we have seen many innovations payed for by taxpayers sold off to private companies in the EU and elsewhere.
Now that our breadbasket (the Murry-Darling basin) is regularly producing half of what it did just a couple of decades ago people are starting to pay attention.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
The "Big Island" of Hawaii has a geothermal plant rated at something like 25-35 megawatts, which is a meaningful fraction (though not 25%, maybe more like 10%) of demand. More geothermal could be exploited, but there are issues of land ownership (lots of the volcanic stuff is federal land) as well as cultural, religious and environmental sensitivity.
The oil industry will need a cheap form of electricity to extract all that expensive oil. Awesome.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
That argument is the same one as saying that wind generators wipe out the birds or that CFL have mercury in them.
Yes, SOME wind generators have killed birds (esp one in CA). But over all have not. More important, these are MUCH better on birds than the pollution being put out by coal plants.
The same issue with the mercury in CFL. The CFL has a small amount of Mercury, but FAR FAR less than what is put out by a CLEAN coal plant using a regular bulb.
The geo-thermal requires anywhere from 1 to a 100 holes. But there are plenty of dried wells in places like Colorado that make a great low-temp place (esp, since many wells were already drilled close). Secondly, oil pulls up the exact same sediments. In fact worse, because most are drilling FAR deeper these days. But by using a closed system, esp. with binaries, the pollution on the land and in the air is gone. So that leaves just that below. And since the way of the hole is piping, you really do not interfere with the local water table (barring a shallow heat reservoir). As to the multiple holes, that is also a none issue. Slant drilling works wonders. A single pad with 5 holes will do the trick. Even the EPA says it is one of the cleanest form of energy.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
In a heat engine, there is a maximum theoretical efficiency which may be achieved. This is dependent on the difference in absolute temperatures between the hot and cold reservoirs. For example, if your hot reservoir is 1000K, and your cold is 300K, the maximum theoretical efficiency is 1-300/1000 = 70%. In the coal plant you were referring to, the actual efficiency is likely very near the theoretical efficiency (mechanical engineers have done a good job at achieving high efficiencies with mechanical systems). It is impossible to improve upon that without violating the laws of thermodynamics.
Of course, no moving parts means that you may be able to operate at much higher temperatures (you'd need a ceramic PEM to sustain the higher temperatures).
"Scary, isn't it? Unless we carefully condense the steam even geothermal energy doesn't solve global warming. And at present, we don't."
Sorry but you have been misinformed (probably by those who are not geothermal fans). There is no need to condense the steam, yes it's true that H20 is a powerfull GHG but that is only part of the strory. The atmosphere is already more or less saturated with H20 (eg: dew drops form in desrerts every night and evaporate in the heat of the day), adding more H20 won't affect the temprature because it simply falls out somewhere else as rain/dew.
In other words the total amount H20 in the atmosphere stays relatively constant regardless of how much steam we pump into it.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Same applies to Iceland, of course.
PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!