West Virginia Is Geothermically Active

sciencehabit writes "Researchers have uncovered the largest geothermal hot spot in the eastern United States. According to a unique collaboration between Google and academic geologists, West Virginia sits atop several hot patches of Earth, some as warm as 200C and as shallow as 5 kilometers. If engineers are able to tap the heat, the state could become a producer of green energy for the region."

Comments

Welcom heavy metals

[giorgist]

Great stuff, so long as they don't bring any of it up top. Othewise find sombody's back yard to dump it ... heavy metals and other goodies.

Re:Welcom heavy metals

[Anonymous Coward]

And radioactivity.
In Australia the hot spots are hotter and shallower, yet zero serious business interest - as the powerlines to somewhere useful is a fair way away.

The there is the fact were hot spots were tapped, this has been blamed for causing earthquakes.

Re:Welcom heavy metals

[WindBourne]

Yeah, it would never dawn on a mining state to be interested in obtaining lithium, Rare Earths, etc. Nor would they or the EPA know how to handle this correctly.

Skipping the sarcasm, the drilling will likely be a binary system, and would be a good way to obtain minerals, elements since it is a by-product. Then what is left can be re-injected back in. Basically, it turns a well from a energy producer into a energy and mineral producer.

Re:Welcom heavy metals

[MichaelSmith]

Thats okay. Our brown coal won't run out for thousands of years at the current rate!

But seriously we have so much flat, empty and hot land in this country we should be getting in to photovoltaic and solar thermal energy production. Transmission losses aren't really a big deal.

Re:Welcom heavy metals

[hairyfeet]

Uhhh...have you actually SEEN the slushpits around the mines here in the USA? It ain't like the EPA has had any teeth in years buddy, sad to report. Instead of doing what would be sensible, forcing mines to pay into a fund so when the ore runs out the money for cleanup will be there, no our corporate booty kissing government just gives them carte blanche to do as they please, and then when the mine runs dry they just dissolve the company and leave We, The People, to clean up the mess. As an example you might want to read up on a little slice of heaven known as a superfund site.

I'm not a NIMBY, which especially don't apply here since I'm not in WV (thank Jebus), and I'm all for nuclear and mining, but I'm just as much for corporate responsibility which sadly has been DOA here for a couple of decades here at least.

Re:Welcom heavy metals

[drinkypoo]

Yeah, it would never dawn on a mining state to be interested in obtaining lithium, Rare Earths, etc. Nor would they or the EPA know how to handle this correctly.

They know, but they don't care.

Skipping the sarcasm, the drilling will likely be a binary system, and would be a good way to obtain minerals, elements since it is a by-product. Then what is left can be re-injected back in. Basically, it turns a well from a energy producer into a energy and mineral producer.

It doesn't work that way. What comes out of the earth is usually heavily contaminated and it's not cost-effective to try to separate it. Separating the metals takes a lot of big stuff that you don't want to build next to a geothermal hotspot because they're seismically active. When you start pumping stuff into the ground you increase the seismic activity. In order to pump the stuff into the ground at all you'll need to add water, which is going to have to be pumped in.

I live near to (formerly right next to) The Geysers, the most geothermally active spot on the planet. There is a geothermal plant there which is perpetually over budget and under-producing power compared to expectations. The turbine blades build up with heavy metals including arsenic. When there's enough to interfere with efficiency the turbines are suspended over an open pit and pressure-washed. The water is permitted to evaporate off the pit, and when it's full enough they pour a concrete cap on the pit, build the walls higher, and start again. This is an EPA-approved plan.

Before the EPA got involved they were filling up drums with the stuff and burying it in a field on Butts Canyon road. Then we started having cows born with two heads and stuff like that. They dug it up, put in a plastic liner, and reburied it. In another few decades we can have the same problem all over again.

When the steam started to run low due to overuse we started pumping sewage into the ground to add steam pressure. This worked, but seismic activity was multiplied by a factor of two or three. A massive lawsuit resulted in a payback program for local homeowners who can show seismic damage.

In short, the only kind of geothermal even suitable for use is heat pipe heating/cooling. It's not useful for large-scale power generation. We simply do not have the scruples necessary as a species to do geothermal power correctly. Also, the EPA is a bad fucking joke with no teeth, and suggesting that the EPA will protect us is preschool-level naivety.

Re:Welcom heavy metals

[Anonymous Coward]

What's wrong with the concrete pit design? You're not going to get a much better disposal solution than locking something into concrete. It's not like we can just magically wish for something to disappear.

Not trying to support the geothermal effort per se - I'm merely trying to figure out what your point on that complaint was.

Re:Welcom heavy metals

[Anonymous Coward]

I live near to (formerly right next to) The Geysers, the most geothermally active spot on the planet.

I think the birthplace of the word "geyser" would disagree with you on that assessment.

Re:Welcom heavy metals

[drinkypoo]

What's wrong with the concrete pit design? You're not going to get a much better disposal solution than locking something into concrete. It's not like we can just magically wish for something to disappear.

Concrete and earthquakes don't mix particularly well. Nothing is "locked" into the concrete, they didn't mix the radioactives into it, it's a layer cake. If the cake breaks, then we'll have a worse release than anything we've seen in the region before, and we already have two superfund sites! So far the history at the plant is one of incompetence, so there is every reason to believe that it will fail eventually. The pit is built right next to the power-generating site, which means it's near the epicenter of all geyser-related seismic activity.

Not trying to support the geothermal effort per se - I'm merely trying to figure out what your point on that complaint was.

I don't believe anything a coward says. I think your actual goal is to make me look like an ass. Until you log in I will assume you are a lying troll.

Re:Welcom heavy metals

[TheMidget]

Yeah, it would never dawn on a mining state to be interested in obtaining lithium, Rare Earths, etc. Nor would they or the EPA know how to handle this correctly.

Exactly. If you actually read google's press release about this, you'd know that collateral mining is integral part of the project.

Re:Welcom heavy metals

[drinkypoo]

I think the birthplace of the word "geyser" would disagree with you on that assessment.

And yet, you lack the courage of your convictions necessary to log in.

"The Geysers" is the most geothermally active region in the world acre for acre. If you measure a country, which is too large to build a single geothermal plant on, you will get another result. If you measure a 1x1 inch area, you can probably come up with still another result. In practical terms, The Geysers is the most geothermally active spot that there is. This doesn't mean it's the best place to build a geothermal plant, of course; there are other considerations.

Re:Welcom heavy metals

[endymion.nz]

I used to live near a geothermal plant in New Zealand and it worked a treat. Guess it depends on who's in charge.

Re:Welcom heavy metals

[ikkonoishi]

Yeah it would totally provide 6 of each!

Re:Welcom heavy metals

[drinkypoo]

I used to live near a geothermal plant in New Zealand and it worked a treat. Guess it depends on who's in charge.

Well, I've not checked up on your environmental record, AFAIK it's quite good though. However, ours is not, and since both the location we're talking about and the plant I'm talking about are in the same country, it's probably safe to assume that any new plants on the site would also be mismanaged.

Re:Welcom heavy metals

[WindBourne]

Hairy,
I live here in COlorado. Believe me, we have loads of mine and loads of wells. A coal mine IS dirty. Gold, Uranium, etc are even dirtier. We have loads of issues with irresponsible companies that have been here and the fact that they do not restore the land.
BUT, a MINE is not a well. Wells biggest issues are those that are fracking and having taken shortcuts. Those shortcuts save a few bucks, but typically allow leaks (think of the recent gulf oil spill). But geo-thermal is different. Compared to mining (and compared to solar PV/wind/etc), it is clean.

Re:Welcom heavy metals

[WindBourne]

Actually, each state combined with EPA decides how and what to enforce. It is up to WV to take the needed actions

Now, as to seperating the minerals, that is already being looked at. Today, it is expensive, but in the geysers, they are working on making this cheap. In addition, that same approach is used in Canada and here in the west to extract uranium from the soil.
Short answer, it may be expensive today, but will be cheaper with time.

Re:Welcom heavy metals

[WindBourne]

Oh, on a side note; arsenic is non-mutagenic. If you have cattle with 2 heads, then you have an issue. But it is not arsenic.

Re:Welcom heavy metals

[drinkypoo]

Short answer, it may be expensive today, but will be cheaper with time.

I have every confidence that if it does become cheaper it will become that way at the expense of some additional environmental devastation, especially if it is being done at the geysers, which has a frankly horrible record and which is STILL causing problems today; the shit-pumping continues, the increased seismic activity continues. The Geysers would have shut down by now if not for the shit-pumping. The whole thing is a ridiculous boondoggle that ought to have been long since scrapped.

Re:Welcom heavy metals

[cnkurzke]

I live near to (formerly right next to) The Geysers, the most geothermally active spot on the planet.

You probably also still believe that the pizza around the corner really is the WORLDS BEST PIZZA!!! sure.

Once you travel outside your county, come visit the "Blue Lagoon Spa" in Iceland.
http://goscandinavia.about.com/od/thebluelagooniniceland/ss/bluelagoonphoto.htm

Last time i was there, we spent an amazingly relaxing afternoon soaking in - effectively - the runn-off of a geo-thermal power plant.
It's built out as a spa resort.
They sell the sludge as "skin care product" to visitors, and i'm sure you'll find some or it in a high end spa of your choice.

I guess it just depends on who's propaganda you listen to this morning.

Re:Welcom heavy metals

[CitizenPlusPlus]

Really?  Government estimates dirty coal's got less than 50yrs world supply left at current consumption.  The often cited 200 yr figure is if the US adopts Kyoto and Climate Change legislation with the rest of the civilized world and uses 40% renewable energy by 2020, and 80% by 2040.

Re:Welcom heavy metals

[operagost]

It ain't like the EPA has had any teeth in years buddy

Yes they do. They're just bureaucrats who answer to the regime, not the people. For example, when Congress failed to pass cap and trade, they unilaterally decided to call carbon dioxide a harmful substance so they could regulate it without legislation. This benefits the President's friends who have all made investments in carbon credit exchanges.

Re:Welcom heavy metals

[Marxist Hacker 42]

It doesn't work that way. What comes out of the earth is usually heavily contaminated and it's not cost-effective to try to separate it. Separating the metals takes a lot of big stuff that you don't want to build next to a geothermal hotspot because they're seismically active. When you start pumping stuff into the ground you increase the seismic activity. In order to pump the stuff into the ground at all you'll need to add water, which is going to have to be pumped in.

I live near to (formerly right next to) The Geysers, the most geothermally active spot on the planet. There is a geothermal plant there which is perpetually over budget and under-producing power compared to expectations. The turbine blades build up with heavy metals including arsenic. When there's enough to interfere with efficiency the turbines are suspended over an open pit and pressure-washed. The water is permitted to evaporate off the pit, and when it's full enough they pour a concrete cap on the pit, build the walls higher, and start again. This is an EPA-approved plan.
 
Sounds like a business opportunity to me. Build a solar still, contract with a lead-acid battery company to deliver your pure arsenic to, get the geothermal company to pay you to drain the tanks, get the lead-acid battery company to pay you for the profit.

Same idea as Guiness and Kraft Marmite.

Re:Welcom heavy metals

[SETIGuy]

At the temperatures that this would run at, most of what you're going to get in the return is sulfides and halides. Extracting anything interesting is going to leave you with a bunch of sulfur and chlorine. It's going to be far more economical and ecological to just pump it back down than to try and extract minerals. But even then there's going to be continual release of hydrogen sulfide, at least, and accumulation of sulfur compounds and salts in solid form.

That's not to say it shouldn't be done. Everything has an environmental cost, and this beats taking the top of a mountain and filling the valleys with the rubble by a long shot.

Re:Welcom heavy metals

[AshtangiMan]

You make good points, esp. with regard to the current state of EPA regulations in the US there perhaps is no way to do geothermal production. But there certainly are ways to do it and to do it cleanly, even here in the US. We just need to adopt proven models for doing so, adapting them as necessary given the local conditions.

Re:Welcom heavy metals

[Kymermosst]

The Geysers, the most geothermally active spot on the planet.

[citation needed]

Re:Welcom heavy metals

[Anonymous Coward]

You have yet to cite your source for that claim.

Re:Welcom heavy metals

[rthille]

Small correction. We're not pumping "sewage" into the geysers, we're pumping tertiary treated waste water, which I've drunk, straight out of the Santa Rosa water treatment plant's little fountain.

Certainly geothermal can be workable, but it's probably better done somewhere like Nevada which is sparsely populated. Of course there, water needs become an issue.

Re:Welcom heavy metals

[shadowbearer]

  I'm right along with you when it comes to incompetence by the plant officials; they should be storing those heavy metals adequately, particularly in one of the most seismically active regions of the country. But I would like to point out that most active, near surface, geo-thermally usable areas tend to have high seismic activity naturally, so it's kind of tough to build plants where there isn't earthquake activity.

  You're right about the EPA not having any teeth, but that really isn't the fault of the EPA per se, now is it?

    GIven the population demands out there, I suppose the only other short-term option would be nuclear...

  (BTW, I'm not the anonymous coward you were responding to; this is something of an interest, I was out that way in '91 and loved the country there, almost moved there and would have if I hadn't been saddled with college debt. Beautiful country, for the most part really great people. )

SB

Re:Welcom heavy metals

[Securityemo]

"In the borehole pressure mines 100km beneath Planetsurface, at the Mohorovicic Discontinuity where crust gives way to mantle, temperatures often reach levels well in excess of 1000 degrees Celsius. Exploitation of Planet's resources under such brutal conditions has required quantum advances in robotic and teleoperational technology."

Morgan Industries, Ltd.
"Annual Report"

Re:Welcom heavy metals

[drinkypoo]

You're right about the EPA not having any teeth, but that really isn't the fault of the EPA per se, now is it?

It's the environment we exist in, though.

(BTW, I'm not the anonymous coward you were responding to; this is something of an interest, I was out that way in '91 and loved the country there, almost moved there and would have if I hadn't been saddled with college debt. Beautiful country, for the most part really great people. )

Really? I mostly hate the people, they're a bunch of dumb ignorant rednecks who don't want to know anything. Ignorance is curable, willful ignorance is pathetic. There ARE some GREAT people here but as far as I can tell, they are well into the minority. After ignorant rednecks we have racist natives, then neocon retirees. The local government is as corrupt as you could imagine; this is one of those many California towns full of streets still named after the Mafia families who used to run the place, who built the private airfields, et cetera. We still have Mafia road repair which is why it blows. Every year they keep paying the same fuckers to make the roads more lumpy than they were before they worked on 'em.

This used to be a cool place to hunt and fish but you can't eat any large fish you catch from the lake because of mercury toxicity and the public hunting lands are considered dangerous because of Mexican nationals illegally growing marijuana; the death count is still pretty low, but it's rising yearly. Oh yeah, and traffic accidents keep rising, usually on the highway 20, typically around blue lakes but anywhere on the northwest side of the lake is common, mostly due to grey-hairs pulling out in front of people who are doing highway speed, as they are supposed to be, and to texters and drunks and texting drunks coming over the line between Ukiah and Upper Lake.

Don't even get me started on the city of Clearlake, the Mercury-contaminated shallow end of the gene pool of Lake County.

In short, go somewhere else. That's my plan. I moved here because I had family here and I was over a barrel at the time; the family turned out to be more trouble than help so I have no reason to stay. There's good people everywhere but the concentration around these parts is pretty low. And if you don't own an amphibious car then the lake which is too gross to swim in becomes a major hindrance any time you want to get some errands done.

Earthquakes

[Anonymous Coward]

While I'm very happy to hear about anything that will get us off our addition to oil, unfortunately I'm concerned about any earthquakes that might be triggered (as was what caused a major venture in California to be shuttered).

This is unfortunate especially because of the enormous amount of energy that could be tapped (60K times yearly consumption).

Re:Earthquakes

[hairyfeet]

Which makes me think of a question maybe someone here at /. can answer: Can miners/drillers set off enough "little ones" to cause a big one? The reason I ask is I was recently shown a map I found most disturbing. A friend is working processing geological data for a wildcat drilling company, which since 2003 or so these groups have been given the keys to the kingdom around here since the economy has been down here since the factories closed ( which BTW we have lost 42 THOUSAND in the USA since 2001, thanks greedy corporations!) and the earthquake data was scary. Before they showed up we are talking an average of 1.4 on the Richter scale, and only one every decade. Since 2004 we are talking dozens in the 2.4-3 scale, all concentrated in tiny areas near the wells.

So my question is this: If these guys set off enough earthquakes in that range, can they set off New Madrid, which we are on? Not that it really matters much in the end I suppose, as we are so "corporation yay!" here they could dump their garbage on the court house steps and everyone in the chamber of commerce would pretend its roses, but those places that aren't complete corporate whores might want to watch out if it is possible. Of course if they did cause a disaster I have no doubt they'd just fold the corporation and walk away with the cash, which is why I think we need serious corporate reform in this country, not that it will ever happen.

Re:Earthquakes

[Anonymous Coward]

If they are setting off earthquakes they would be releasing tension which would have only amounted to a larger earthquake at a later date.

Re:Earthquakes

[Anonymous Coward]

One thing to point out is the that geologists would actually be worried about less earth quakes or even smaller earth quakes because it would mean that energy is building up underground for a bigger earth quake. The earth quakes being set off by wildcat may actually be preventing a bigger earth quake from building. Basically imagine a car doing 60 mph hitting reinforced brick wall as a major earth quake. Now imagine that same car traveling through several sheets of plywood stack a few feet from each other and you see why releasing energy slowly is very good thing. That being said if drilling sets off a major earth quake remember that earth quake would probably have happened anyway at latter date with a higher magnitude. It is believed that cooling the earth's crust may help reduce earth quakes.

I love your hate for corporations as long as it's balanced with an equal hate for government because fuck you over for the same reasons. Remember bigger government = bigger corporations.

Re:Earthquakes

[forand]

As far as I am aware of your statement has not been shown to be true. It is often stated as truth by reasonable people who think about it for a short time but the evidence is that smaller Earthquakes before a larger one appear to be uncorrelated (again as far as I am aware). If you have evidence of such a correlation I would be grateful for a link to it.

Re:Earthquakes

[schwit1]

Have you been to West Virginia? What a dump. Earthquakes could only make things better.

Re:Earthquakes

[JustABlitheringIdiot]

If they are setting off earthquakes they would be releasing tension which would have only amounted to a larger earthquake at a later date.

Yes some energy will be dissipated in the process of fracturing the rock but it breaks the equilibrium and creates a new stress point elsewhere which could trigger the "main" fault (discovered or not).

Re:Earthquakes

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, this is a big problem in other parts of the world. It wasn't that long ago that drilling near Haiti set off the chain of earthquakes that rocked that island and Mexico. Of course the Government would like use to believe this is all just so much bunk thought up by tinfoil hat wearing nut cases, but there is evidence. Problems like this are never well thought out by corporations and as long as there is money no one will ever really care. Why, right now the careless Japanese government is setting up the world's largest butterfly ranch just outside of Hiroshima. As if our hurricanes weren't bade enough already. People just don't think!

I'll be here all week, folks. Tip your waitresses.

Re:Earthquakes

[smellsofbikes]

Which makes me think of a question maybe someone here at /. can answer: Can miners/drillers set off enough "little ones" to cause a big one?

Yes. Doesn't even have to be mining. Deep well injection set off a series of earthquakes in Denver in the 1960's -- when what they were injecting was millions of liters of nerve gas from Rocky Mountain Arsenal. Yes, indeed, your government funds at work: make hundreds of thousands of pounds of wildly toxic weapons of mass destruction in contradiction to signed treaties, and then when you have them all and don't know what to do with them, pump them into a 25,000-foot-deep hole. They lubricated an old slip fault and caused a half a dozen earthquakes.

The thing is: it's not easy to tell, prima facie, whether you're going to cause a bunch of little earthquakes, or one big one, by doing this. It has been proposed that we should try to set off small earthquakes on purpose, to reduce the strain on tectonic plate boundaries and reduce the chances of a much larger quake, but there's no way to ensure that it would do that rather than just setting off the larger quake right now. If we do that, even if it just sets off small quakes, the situation is no longer an earthquake that's an act of God, but an earthquake that's an act of man, meaning even if it's much smaller than it would have been, specific people are now liable for causing an earthquake, and that's a legal minefield.

Re:Earthquakes

[fishbowl]

West Virginia backcountry is extraordinarily nice. Fields of wild orchids. Cranberry glades. Warm springs. Relatively mild weather year round. Easy to find woods or open spaces where you will encounter *no one*.

I wouldn't want to live there, due to politics and economic considerations, and I wouldn't be interested in going to any WV cities. But it's some nice country for hiking and camping.

Re:Earthquakes

[Anonymous Coward]

If they are setting off earthquakes they would be releasing tension which would have only amounted to a larger earthquake at a later date.

That assumes a closed system. They could be releasing strain locally and building up stresses in surrounding areas.

Re:Earthquakes

[KDR_11k]

Would earthquakes really hurt those things? Seems to me it's mostly man-made structures that suffer.

Re:Earthquakes

[eh2o]

Expected earthquake power is entirely predictable from the buildup of potential energy, which is a constant factor over time (inches per year). This energy is held in the elastic property of the plates and retained by a friction "potential well". Occasionally the friction coefficient is overcome and the plate "snaps" converting potential into kinetic energy, and the magnitude of the energy conversion follows an exponential distribution.

The accumulated stress since the last "big one" is more or less exactly equal to the predicted magnitude of the next "big one", the only unknown is when. For example the magnitude of the recent quake in Haiti exactly correlates with the last 200 years of stress build up since the last major quake in that area, and similar predictions will be true for the San Francisco area which is "due" since it has been over 100 years since the last major quake.

Anyways the point is that if it were possible to trigger a small earthquake, this would actually be beneficial since it reduces stress at the fault in a controlled way, although very many small earthquakes would be needed to prevent a large earthquake. Furthermore, if someone were to manage to trigger a large earthquake then it would be no worse than the amount of potential energy stored in the fault line, which is going to be released at some point anyways, which in term of culpability is sort of like blaming someone for causing a fire by dropping a cigarette into a field of dry grass. In other words, mining and drilling cannot cause earthquakes, it can only trigger them.

Re:Earthquakes

[shadowbearer]

  It's also possible that relieving the strain on one fault can trigger another one - injection isn't necessarily the only thing that can cause earthquakes.

  However, it's difficult to gain an understanding of how manipulation of fault systems can change their dynamics without attempting to do so. Fault systems are often fiendishly complicated, and even with modern tools and the terabytes of data they produce, we still don't have adequate enough models nor enough computer resources.

  (Disclaimer: I'm not a geologist but I correspond with a few of them and read voraciously)

SB

Re:Earthquakes

[riverat1]

As long as you avoid the areas where they've been doing mountain top removal coal mining.

Re:Earthquakes

[Anonymous Coward]

Murphy's Law of the Internet: No matter what example you give of corporate irresponsibility there will be a Libertarian present to explain how it's actually good for you.

Re:Earthquakes

[Anonymous Coward]

If they are setting off earthquakes they would be releasing tension which would have only amounted to a larger earthquake at a later date.

I'm a Seismologist working in California, and my research is focused on the San Gabriel Fault zone. Simply stated, the idea that setting off some small earthquakes on a fault to prevent a larger one is false, and a stupid idea. The moment magnitude scale (based off of the older Richter magnitude scale) numbers are a measurement of energy released by a fault along a logarithmic scale (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moment_magnitude_scale). For each increase in magnitude by 1, the equivalent amount of energy released is increased by about 32x. For every increase of 2, the released energy is increased by 1000x. Basically, in order to release the equivalent energy of a 5.0 magnitude would take 1000 3.0 magnitude earthquakes. As an example, the 1971 San Fernando earthquake was a 6.6. In order to release the same energy as that earthquake, you would have to cause approximately 251000 magnitude 3.0 small quakes. This is impossible, not to mention the associated problems:

-How do we reliably create these smaller quakes, and not accidentally trigger the larger one that we were trying to avoid?
-How do we create so many?
-How would the localized damage of these quakes be covered? (Even 3.0's can cause some damage)
-Pressure relief in one area can cause more pressure in another
-NIMBY
-Etc.

The idea that releasing tension through small quakes, man made or not, is just false.

Thats...

[Anonymous Coward]

what the CIA Cantina wants to make us think after "brussel sprouts night"...

Are they sure?

[srussia]

Maybe its just coal burning underground.

Re:Are they sure?

[arivanov]

5km is a bit too deep for coal fires.

In any case, 200C at 5 km is also quite deep for economically viable hydrothermals. That is "deep drilling" territory which is quite expensive. As the article notes Nevada has it at sub-2km, so does most of Europe along the Alps fault line.

Re:Are they sure?

[mischi_amnesiac]

Where I live they drill 1,5km deep just to get black coal to fuel a coal plant. If they wouldn't cut the state funding in a few years I imagine they would drill even deeper when the current reserves are depleted. It is all just a matter of being dependent on other countries natural reserves vs. funding it with tax money.

Anyways, I wish my government would invest more in this kind of energy and not give the energy producing companies a 100 billion check over the next 12 years for keeping the nuclear plants running longer and waste taxpayers money by taking care of the waste. (my government being that of germany). You made that waste, you should have to pay for it being taken care of. But well, then you couldn't rake in billions of profits each year and claim that nuclear energy is oh so cheap and green energy oh so expensive.

Re:Are they sure?

[Gordonjcp]

...and waste taxpayers money by taking care of the waste.

There's no such thing as nuclear waste, only nuclear fuel you haven't configured your reactor to burn yet.

Re:Are they sure?

[Anonymous Coward]

Whoosh

Re:Are they sure?

[Hatta]

This is West Virginia, chances are it's moonshine stills.

Re:Are they sure?

[CitizenPlusPlus]

Why does 'economically viable' always mean: supporting fossil fuels at all costs.

Re:Are they sure?

[skine]

No, that's up in Centralia, PA.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centralia,_Pennsylvania

Re:Are they sure?

[Dare nMc]

here's no such thing as nuclear waste, only nuclear fuel you haven't configured your reactor to burn yet.

you could say that about all waste, all waste could be used for something useful, it just costs less to bury it, than to turn it into something useful, that's why it is waste.
Since their are a very few reactors (and those are very small) that can re-use current nuclear waste, and they cost 10* more in all respects than conventional plants, nuclear waste is almost certainly going to remain nuclear waste until we nearly exhaust our current sources of energy, and that drives energy prices at least 10* higher than they are now.

Re:Are they sure?

[CrimsonAvenger]

You made that waste, you should have to pay for it being taken care of.

Note, for reference, that one of the main objections to civilian processing (as opposed to government) of nuclear waste is that there is a certain amount of Pu-239 in that waste.

For some reason, governments seem to have a problem with letting that stuff wander around outside their own direct control.

Re:Are they sure?

[mischi_amnesiac]

Well, then the government should send them a bill. Than we would really see how expensive or inexpensive nuclear power is compared to wind, water and solar energy.

Re:Are they sure?

[Anonymous Coward]

There are several existing wells that have been drilled for oil and gas that are that deep or deeper... they can either be reused to harvest geothermal energy, or new ones can be drilled. The question still remains though whether we really should be accelerating the cooling of Earth in order to use more energy than the Sun delivers. We should focus on capturing the only energy that is renewed daily.

http://www.wvgs.wvnet.edu/www/faq/faq.htm

Re:Are they sure?

[KDR_11k]

You're running into a perfect solution fallacy, the methods we use right now are quite a bit worse than geothermal so the upgrade is worth it.

Re:Are they sure?

[Gordonjcp]

you could say that about all waste, all waste could be used for something useful, it just costs less to bury it, than to turn it into something useful, that's why it is waste.

It costs less *today* to use it as fuel. Maybe not tomorrow...

Since their are a very few reactors (and those are very small) that can re-use current nuclear waste, and they cost 10* more in all respects than conventional plants, nuclear waste is almost certainly going to remain nuclear waste until we nearly exhaust our current sources of energy, and that drives energy prices at least 10* higher than they are now.

This is because we have so much pressure from big "green" energy companies to build wasteful, inefficient wind turbines instead of investing in modern nuclear reactors. Most of the reactors currently in operation are at least twenty years old, with designs that may be fifty years old. Think about it this way - would you buy a car with a 1960s diesel engine? Why would you even consider anything but a modern diesel?

Re:Are they sure?

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe its just coal burning underground.

Coal burning underground ..... I like that ....... prolly ingnited by spontaneous catalytic reaction from all the spilled hootch that has migrated to the bedrock ......

Hutchatelli

Since it's West Virginia, I suggest we all...

[Anonymous Coward]

Squeal like a pig!

Warm River Cave

[Anonymous Coward]

Makes me think researchers are idiots; folks who live there have known about the hot springs for hundreds of years.

Places with names like 'White Sulphur Springs' suggest anything? And there's a cave I've been in nearby (admittedly over the line in Virginia) with water temperatures over 100F.

Re:Warm River Cave

[hairyfish]

If anyone's an idiot, it idiot's who don't RTFA before making idiotic comments. The research wasn't simply to find hot springs, it was to identify which locations in the US were the most favourable for Geothermal Energy production.

Re:Warm River Cave

[Anonymous Coward]

Makes me think researchers are idiots

Yep, you're an idiot if you're one of these researchers. Folks around these parts'll tell you that every single one of them has been everywhere in the country looking for hotter spots than in West Virginia. And I've personally let my body soak in Death Valley Californy and inside the volcanic spots of Hawaii. And by God, West Virginia is the best. If you think otherwise, you're an idiot.

Tell me, what makes them so much better than other hot springs in other parts of the country? Or do you have to be an idiot researcher to know that?

Re:Warm River Cave

[WindBourne]

Yup, 200C is quite close to 100F.
Personally, I think that postings like the parent makes a good case that America really needs to invest and increase the spending on education. Without it, we will continue to churn out ppl like this. Of course, s?he is from West Virgina (the land of dueling banjos in far too many places).

Re:Warm River Cave

[nwmann]

i think the indication was that the above ground water was 100f, indicating a much hotter source of the heat made likely of molten rock. were the water 200c i don't believe it would be considered a hot spring any more so much as a deathly vapor spring. choke and die on your pompous cock please and thank you.

Re:Warm River Cave

[WindBourne]

There are LOADS of hot springs in which the water is 100F, but underneath it, the water remains relatively low temp (say 150F). The reason is that you can have relatively porous ground that allows the heat up there. Out here in the west, we have loads of hot springs, with the heat being down at 20-30K and even then, it is only at 160F. Basically, there is no real correlation of a hot spring at 100F and temps below.

The pompous remark was the original poster calling researcher idiots. Since they had only 4 data points for the state throughout history, nobody had looked at the state. Yet, the poster either did not read the article (could not read it?), or just decided to put down others without a single intelligent thought. I am guessing that you were the original poster.

Re:Warm River Cave

[Sockatume]

What part of the summary, never mind the article, suggests that simply finding geothermal activity was the research goal here? I mean, here's your first sentence:

Researchers have uncovered the largest geothermal hot spot in the eastern United States.

Did you seriously stop after reading title? And then criticise the researchers for not noticing things?

Re:Warm River Cave

[TheMidget]

choke and die on your pompous cock please and thank you

Do you really think GP is that supple?

Re:Warm River Cave

[TheRaven64]

choke and die on your pompous cock please and thank you

Do you really think GP is that supple?

He didn't stipulate that said member had to be attached at the time...

Re:Warm River Cave

[syousef]

Did you seriously stop after reading title? And then criticise the researchers for not noticing things?

You're both missing the point. The point is that with a bit of luck the earth could swallow WV!

Re:Warm River Cave

[PopeRatzo]

Personally, I think that postings like the parent makes a good case that America really needs to invest and increase the spending on education.

Or pre-emptive euthanasia, South of the Mason-Dixon.

By the way, today I read a Business Week article about how people live a lot longer in the Northern States. They listed the states where peoples' life expectancy is the shortest and they were all Southern, deep-red states. Of course the Hawaii is first for longest life and the District of Columbia is dead last (but they're not a state). But if you look at numbers 40-50 it's all like Georgia, Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky, North Carolina, Tennessee, West Virginia, South Carolina, Mississippi, etc.

So maybe natural selection is doing it's work.

Re:Warm River Cave

[pspahn]

Warm River Cave is kind of a weenie name, dontcha think?

If we're basing facts on things like this, I'm keeping my money in Wyoming on the Firehole River. That's much more macho sounding.

Re:Warm River Cave

[CaptainAmerica1941]

What rapier wit! I'll bet if Shakespeare were still alive, he would be working that one into his next play. Bravo!

Re:Warm River Cave

[Anonymous Coward]

Not only researchers, the slashdot editors as well. There is no Geothermically Active, but Geothermally Active

Re:Warm River Cave

[ThurstonMoore]

West Virginia is not a southern state. It was split from Virgina during the Civil War to join the North.

Re:Warm River Cave

[ThurstonMoore]

Why would you want the earth to swallow West Virginia? What did it's inhabitants ever do to you?

Re:Warm River Cave

[PopeRatzo]

West Virginia is not a southern state.

Somebody better tell the West Virginians.

Re:Warm River Cave

[ThurstonMoore]

Speaking as a West Virginian I am not from the South.

Re:Warm River Cave

[PopeRatzo]

Speaking as a West Virginian I am not from the South.

No, you're definitely not. As a West Virginian, I mean.

Are you South of the Mason-Dixon, by the way? Do you live in that little upright panhandle that juts up the side of the state?

Last time I was in West Virginia (the Spring of 2009) I saw a fair number of Confederate battle flags. To me, that indicates "The South".

How's this for a rule: If I see a confederate battle flag more than once a week somewhere besides a history book, it's the South.

How 'Green'?

[DynaSoar]

Will they be scraping even more mountains off the planet to get to it? Will they fill the remaining creek beds up with the effluvia from getting to it? Will they keep even more public roads under a permanent state of "repair" and detour to disguise the fact that they're simply ruining more tax funded roadway with heavy machinery? Will they drive residents out of even more entire towns due to blasting damages and constant noise from heavy machinery? Are they going to do anything with the energy rather than find cheaper ways to dig coal? WV has two industries, coal and railroad. If they replaced coal money with energy money the railroads would die. They won't let that happen. They've been fighting off a 3/4 MV high tension line for years, you think they're going to allow an energy exporting industry to pop up, string wire for multi MV lines and sell electricity to its neighbors now that they're got them hooked on WV coal? I lived there are loved it. But I realized the state is owned by stockholders for whom green is considered a place to dig. Even of they took advantage of a chance to do something good, they wouldn't do it right -- they'd do it cheaply to maximize profits and the population would suffer the effects. WV *was* green. It's owners don't give a shit about green.
   

Re:How 'Green'?

[WindBourne]

OTH, somebody like Google will have no issue with putting in their OWN system, setting up a data center, and shipping bits/bytes out. What would that do to WV? It would lead to a massive influx of money seeking to do the same. And that would lead to the high tension lines as well. For WV, this is the best thing possible.

Re:How 'Green'?

[fl!ptop]

It would lead to a massive influx of money seeking to do the same.

I'm a resident of WV, and what you've said will probably never happen. There are a ton of reasons businesses don't locate in my state. The State Chamber of Commerce has come out with suggestion after suggestion as to what needs to be done to attract more business, and it's ignored every time. The state legislature is run by attorneys and lobbyists for the coal and timber industries.

There's a reason Forbes magazine ranks WV at the bottom or near the bottom in all categories that are good (like ability to attract new business), and there's a reason WV is ranked at or near the top in all categories that are bad (percentage of obese, smokers, etc.).

This news will be good news only for those who wish to exploit it for their own greed.

Re:How 'Green'?

[pesho]

Honey, that's how things have always been and it ain't changing anytime soon.

Re:How 'Green'?

[Veetox]

I think there are easy ways to get around these issues, even for the greediest of coal moguls. Investments will have to be moved away from coal soon anyway, because demand for this raw material will decrease due to the search for alternatives, increased value and safety of nuclear energy (that could be backed by a natural gas system - a plenteous resource in the US), and government policy. Owners of oil production in the Middle East have already moved to investment in other natural resources - they saw this coming.

Coal companies could use already mined land for construction of geothermal facilities. That's an investment, a recovery, AND probably a tax break. Or they could rest on their laurels and wait for the rest of the US to completely abandon coal, thus leaving them with defunct facilities, raped land, and a hefty clean-up bill from the EPA. They've got time to make a decision, sure. But I wouldn't give them any more than 10 years to figure it out.

Re:How 'Green'?

[WindBourne]

I have spent some time teaching there. Believe me, if you have geo-thermal close to the top, rather than deep, then you will see money chasing it. 200C on a binary system is pretty good.

Re:How 'Green'?

[Qzukk]

thus leaving them with defunct facilities, raped land, and a hefty clean-up bill from the EPA

I think you mean leaving US with these things, since the coal companies will simply declare bankruptcy and leave the government holding the bag.

Re:How 'Green'?

[Doctor Faustus]

There's a reason Forbes magazine ranks WV at the bottom or near the bottom in all categories that are good (like ability to attract new business), and there's a reason WV is ranked at or near the top in all categories that are bad (percentage of obese, smokers, etc.)

Considering I was born in West Virginia and now live in Detroit, I have to wonder if maybe I'm the problem...

Re:How 'Green'?

[sjames]

Geothermal is actually far far less damaging to the environment than coal mining. Ideally, the wells will be drilled in depleted coal mining areas. If the energy is kept in-state, that means more coal available for export. The railroads should be OK with that.

That's not to say the political process there can't mess it up, politics can turn practically anything into a disaster.

Re:How 'Green'?

[KDR_11k]

Railroads are also major electricity consumers.

Everyone will be happy

[Issarlk]

It's green energy and you have to drill to get it.

Re:Everyone will be happy

[Charliemopps]

What if they strike oil on the way down?

Re:Everyone will be happy

[Sponge Bath]

Burn it off with massive open fires so you can get to the green energy.

Re:Everyone will be happy

[operagost]

Give Brazil and Mexico money to pump it out.

Re:Everyone will be happy

[Anonymous Coward]

But I like my light bright yellow...

Amazing how short-sighted dems and pols are

[WindBourne]

Oil Well drillers want to put a hole in the ground and get money out of it. Simple as that. Most oil wells last about 20 years (if lucky). A binary geo-thermal well will last 50+ years assuming that you do not pump it too fast.

Dems run around throwing money at Wind (meh) and Solar PV (a waste of money). Yet, the simple answer here is to not just support geothermal, but do it in a smart way. Most dry wells are ran down to about 10'K feet. Yet most heat is in the 10-20'K feet arena. So who not offer up a tax break for dry wellers to drill down to that region to locate heat. This would not occur everywhere, but it would occur where ever heat is generally known to exist. With this approach, drilling companies bear the first half of the risk while gov. then helps in the second half.

Re:Amazing how short-sighted dems and pols are

[mean pun]

Dems run around throwing money at Wind (meh) and Solar PV (a waste of money).

This is what I always admire about the political climate in the US. There is always someone willing to come up with a well-considered, polite, nuanced, and rational treatise of the pro's and con's of a problem, even for a complicated problem such as alternative energy. No wonder that the US is universally considered the best-functioning democracy in the world.

Re:Amazing how short-sighted dems and pols are

[WindBourne]

Just because somebody does not offer up a full explanation of the issue or thoughts on it does not mean that it was not considered.

Re:Amazing how short-sighted dems and pols are

[vlm]

does not mean that it was not considered.

Then how did you get it so wrong or at least out of date?

Re:Amazing how short-sighted dems and pols are

[drinkypoo]

Dems run around throwing money at Wind (meh) and Solar PV (a waste of money).

Wind is a proven technology, although all these horizontal-axis wind turbines are stupid. Solar PV could pay back the energy cost of its production in 7 years in the 1970s, and can safely be assumed to be much better today. There really are things more important than money. Unfortunately, those in charge do not agree.

Yet, the simple answer here is to not just support geothermal, but do it in a smart way.

Oh, so you mean, only do it on a small scale with heat pipes?

Most dry wells are ran down to about 10'K feet. Yet most heat is in the 10-20'K feet arena.

Most of the time, if you dig down to where it's really hot, you're going to be making a steam vent. And then you're going to bring up radioactives. We don't need a copy of The Geysers anywhere in the world, it's an ecological disaster.

With this approach, drilling companies bear the first half of the risk while gov. then helps in the second half.

Why should government help at all? All they need to do is stop hindering. Government is against green power anyway; otherwise we'd have not just strip mining on BLM land, but also solar plants and the like; numerous entities would like to build them there but are being stymied while clear cutting is A-OK.

Geothermal is not the answer. Solar would be far more useful, as it produces power when we need it most, and we have control over the pollution inherent to the process... which we do NOT have over geothermal.

Re:Amazing how short-sighted dems and pols are

[tehcyder]

Just because somebody does not offer up a full explanation of the issue or thoughts on it does not mean that it was not considered.

So GP's one-word "meh" to Wind power was in fact the crystallization of a carefully thought out and cogent argument weighing up the pros and cons of that particular energy source?

Re:Amazing how short-sighted dems and pols are

[Rockoon]

I don't think that it could be put any more cogently than 'meh.'

You act like you think that wind power is new, novel, innovative, or some combination of those. Its none of that. Its just 'meh'

Re:Amazing how short-sighted dems and pols are

[Anonymous Coward]

>> So who (sic) not offer up a tax break

Just what we need in this country. Another tax break. That usually solves the problem.

Re:Amazing how short-sighted dems and pols are

[Rockoon]

Solar PV could pay back the energy cost of its production in 7 years in the 1970s, and can safely be assumed to be much better today. There really are things more important than money. Unfortunately, those in charge do not agree.

I'll support Solar Power sometime after the manufacturers of Photovoltaics start powering their factories with Photovoltaics. Until then, STFU about Photovoltaics. Really. Even the manufacturers don't use it, AND THEY GET THE HARDWARE AT COST.

Re:Amazing how short-sighted dems and pols are

[Smallpond]

Dems run around throwing money at Wind (meh) and Solar PV (a waste of money).

Wind is a proven technology, although all these horizontal-axis wind turbines are stupid. Solar PV could pay back the energy cost of its production in 7 years in the 1970s, and can safely be assumed to be much better today. There really are things more important than money. Unfortunately, those in charge do not agree.

Those "in charge" are the people investing in the technology and hoping for a payback on their investment. Government funding of the energy infrastructure is small in the US. Investment money will not go into a technology with a 7-year payback when there is plenty of opportunity for supplying energy with a shorter payback.

Yet, the simple answer here is to not just support geothermal, but do it in a smart way.

Oh, so you mean, only do it on a small scale with heat pipes?

Most dry wells are ran down to about 10'K feet. Yet most heat is in the 10-20'K feet arena.

Most of the time, if you dig down to where it's really hot, you're going to be making a steam vent. And then you're going to bring up radioactives. We don't need a copy of The Geysers anywhere in the world, it's an ecological disaster.

With this approach, drilling companies bear the first half of the risk while gov. then helps in the second half.

Why should government help at all? All they need to do is stop hindering. Government is against green power anyway; otherwise we'd have not just strip mining on BLM land, but also solar plants and the like; numerous entities would like to build them there but are being stymied while clear cutting is A-OK.

Geothermal is not the answer. Solar would be far more useful, as it produces power when we need it most, and we have control over the pollution inherent to the process... which we do NOT have over geothermal.

The best sites for large scale solar are not necessarily on old strip mines. Nevada has lots of sun and old copper mines but I'm not sure how much is BLM. Here's a map of all the renewable projects the Nevada BLM knows about.

Re:Amazing how short-sighted dems and pols are

[Shugart]

I think my sarcasm detector just went off. I'm not sure because it's too polite, nuanced and rational. Perhaps you can hit me over the head with it? That I'd understand.

Re:Amazing how short-sighted dems and pols are

[Anonymous Coward]

You act like you think that wind power is new, novel, innovative, or some combination of those. Its none of that. Its just 'meh'

First of all, those three words mean roughly the same thing. And since when is novelty the overriding criterion of an energy source's usefulness? Wind is a proven method, who cares that it's old?

Re:Amazing how short-sighted dems and pols are

[drinkypoo]

I'll support Solar Power sometime after the manufacturers of Photovoltaics start powering their factories with Photovoltaics.

Is your support somehow interesting?

Until then, STFU about Photovoltaics. Really.

Telling me what to do? Fail.

Even the manufacturers don't use it, AND THEY GET THE HARDWARE AT COST.

We are still permitting secondary effects to be ignored. If you count the cost of cleaning up the pollution produced by coal and oil plants then the cost of using that type of energy is MUCH higher. Unfortunately, we do NOT count that cost. We do not even hold power plants to our own EPA standards. You can find out-of-compliance plants as fast as you can pay people to climb stacks and drop probes in them. If we were to actually force the industry to pay the cost of its own monitoring, and then further actually force them to be in compliance, the cost of solar would become more attractive.

Your protests basically amount to making excuses for the entrenched energy monopolies. I am not interested.

Re:Amazing how short-sighted dems and pols are

[Anonymous Coward]

There is always someone willing to come up with a well-considered, polite, nuanced, and rational treatise of the pro's and con's of a problem,

There is also always someone willing to insert apostrophes into perfectly good plurals.

Re:Amazing how short-sighted dems and pols are

[Idiomatick]

PV may eventually become useful but it isn't there yet, and won't be any time soon. Wind power never will unless physics changes which seems rather unlikely. His concise descriptions weren't far off.

Re:Amazing how short-sighted dems and pols are

[drinkypoo]

The best sites for large scale solar are not necessarily on old strip mines. Nevada has lots of sun and old copper mines but I'm not sure how much is BLM. Here's a map of all the renewable projects the Nevada BLM knows about.

The vast majority is "Pending". Is this stuff still waiting on Bush's moratorium or something?

Re:Amazing how short-sighted dems and pols are

[LWATCDR]

While I too feel that wind and solar have limited potential right now, but they do not have zero.
I wouldn't dismiss them so quickly. Geothermal like you are talking about is also not really currently practical. The depth makes the cost actually higher than wind and or solar.
We should exploit geothermal where it is practical as well as wind, solar, and nuclear.
Only the ignorant dismisses the idea that we need to diversify our sources of energy.

Re:Amazing how short-sighted dems and pols are

[WindBourne]

Solar PV STILL has not been able to pay for itself within 20 years. ANd in the 70's, the costs of cells were much higher (lower yields, lower efficiency, etc) and competing against much lower costs energy. Solar THERMAL, OTH, pays for itself. In fact, it has a cost below Nukes, and natural gas, though still higher than Coal. In fact, one of the smartest things to do is to add solar thermal

And then there is geo-thermal. Much lower cost than Coal. And much cleaner. Geysers has had issues, but that is because it is an open system. They and Iceland are one of the few that run an open system. Most have moved to closed systems, which solves all of those issues. And right now, America and the world needs LOADS of geo-thermal.

Re:Amazing how short-sighted dems and pols are

[WindBourne]

Actually, I am a fan of wind. The problem is that it is not a 24x7 solution, and without storage, it suffers the same problem as Solar PV. I am a fan of allowing a real open market with, subsidies/breaks/etc ONLY for issues that need to be solved i.e. any energy that does not emit a certain amount of pollution gets a time-limited and time decreasing subsidies; Likewise, another subsidy for any of the above that are baseload capable (geo-thermal, nukes, etc); And another subsidy for storage of energy that can be called up upon demand.

Re:Amazing how short-sighted dems and pols are

[WindBourne]

Actually, meh DOES sum it pretty well. Wind will get a little bit cheaper, but overall, it can not come too far down. OTH, things like Solar Thermal, used as an add-on to Coal/Gas plants, will pay for themselves quickly. We just need scale of manufacturing. Likewise, geo-thermal is cheaper than any other form of energy. It has 2 problems: The first is that it competes against heavily subsidized Fossil fuel as well as heavily subsidized Wind/Solar PV. Gov, needs to get out of being market picker and offer subsidy for any solution that offers solution for govs. needs. For example, we NEED to lower our emissions. First, remove all current subsidies. Then, offer a time-limited, time-decreasing subsidy for ANY power that is clean (basically below a certain amount of energy). Likewise, offer another subsidy for any of the above that is also base-load. Finally, a third subsidy for Energy Storage. Wind will plat a part of the solution, but geo-thermal, solar-thermal, etc, will play bigger roles. Interestingly, the 3rd subsidy would actually encourage electric cars that can provide storage to be used. Obviously, you would not want to use that with a battery that has short lifetimes (100-2000 charges), but cars with ultra-caps (millions of charges) would be interesting.

Re:Amazing how short-sighted dems and pols are

[WindBourne]

Look up Potter Drilling and Foro Energy.

Re:Amazing how short-sighted dems and pols are

[Rockoon]

We are still permitting secondary effects to be ignored. If you count the cost of cleaning up the pollution produced by coal and oil plants then the cost of using that type of energy is MUCH higher.

Ah, the old citation-less "much higher" statistic. Thats great. Meanwhile, lets never factor in the pollution caused by Photovoltaic manufacturing, or the batteries they require to provide power round-the-clock.

You must have a sugar-high with all that kool-aid you've been drinking. You decry a grand conspiracy by the entrenched energy monopolies, but the reality is that those same energy monopolies dont really give a shit how the energy is generated. They draw from nuclear, coal, gas, hydro, geothermal, wind, solar, and even garbage incinerators.

Did you think that your local electric company gives a rats ass how the electricity is produced given that they buy from the cheapest sources they can until they fill demand? Your conspiracy theory rings as bullshit to someone like me whose eyes are open to the existing reality of the current market.

Not only are you drinking the eco-kool-aid, you are also a fucking conspiracy nut.

Re:Amazing how short-sighted dems and pols are

[mrfrostee]

I'll support Solar Power sometime after the manufacturers of Photovoltaics start powering their factories with Photovoltaics.

It was done a few decades ago, before the oil companies bought the PV manufacturers.

http://www.green-energy-news.com/arch/nrgs2010/20100020.html

Re:Amazing how short-sighted dems and pols are

[Anonymous Coward]

What?? Photovoltaic plants are silicon crystal plants, at least at the moment. These run day AND NIGHT. At night it tends to be DARK. Second, most already have supplemented their power via photovoltaics.

Photovoltaics work very well for the typical daily peak power curve . Power consumption tends to be the most during the DAY. Photovoltaics can supplement that. On the other hand, they will only be very useful once we install them on the roof like shingles. That tech will be here only if we keep investing in it. Not your retarded point of view. It's akin of not buying a computer in 1990, because you want a i7 equivalent and will just wait. Enough do that and tech does not progress.

But it seems a large section of the world doesn't share your opinion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Solar#Installations

Some example,

• September 8, 2009 - signed Memorandum of Agreement for 2GW solar plant in Ordos City, China
• Construction of a 10 MW plant in the Nevada desert began in July 2008.[39][40] The plant will be expanded in 2009-2010 to over 40 MW total capacity. First Solar is partnering with Sempra Generation, which will own and operate the PV power-plant, being built next to their natural gas plant. Cost installed will be among the lowest ever, approximately 3.50 dollars per watt.

On the other hand, *cheap* nuclear power is $1500/kW for capital costs only. $3500/kW for this is *very* cheap. Assuming ONLY 20-year life span of this system and only 5h production per day, it costs 9.5 cents/kWh!!!!! Normally these installations are 30+ years.

Re:Amazing how short-sighted dems and pols are

[Delarth799]

That's why I voted for the people I voted for. They told me the other guy called me a was going to destroy my way of life and that was all I needed to hear to form a complete opinion about the person and vehemently oppose them and support the guy who told me about him. I will make up false statements about him and act as though they are true because I am too busy watching TV to take a few minutes out of my day and look up the facts and form a rational argument against the person, or maybe even learn the facts about the guy who told me he wanted to destroy my way of life.

Re:Amazing how short-sighted dems and pols are

[drinkypoo]

You must have a sugar-high with all that kool-aid you've been drinking. You decry a grand conspiracy by the entrenched energy monopolies, but the reality is that those same energy monopolies dont really give a shit how the energy is generated.

That is an incredibly stupid thing to say. Of course they care. They want to generate energy by the most profitable means possible. So long as they are not forced to pay for their pollution, or indeed even to maintain reasonable standards of emissions (I am personally acquainted with a former public sector plant inspector who was paid to climb stacks and virtually everything out there is over spec because it's profitable to be) then it is more profitable to burn coal and oil. And indeed, the current price of those commodities is predicated on being permitted to produce significant pollution while producing them, or put another way, not being prevented from doing so — which is effectively the same thing.

This is of course not to say that PV solar panel production is clean and green. However, it can be so. The more solar we put on line, the more power for the production of additional solar will come from solar. It is a pity not to have started in the 1970s when it first became feasible.

Re:Amazing how short-sighted dems and pols are

[Rockoon]

It is the speculation that in the future the maintenance costs of the windfarm will be less than the cost of getting the energy elsewhere that is mostly at issue.

Unlike a coal/gas power plant which have a small physical footprint and thus a relatively low decommissioning cost, those wind farms are very expensive to remove. If the cost of maintenance exceeds other generation methods, or if demand falls sharply, the owning corporations will just disappear leaving a massive bill for the community where the farm resides. You will note that it is never an established energy corporation that owns these things.. its always a shell corporation owned by an established corporation that owns these things.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates the cost of removing a 34m diameter wind turbine at $120,000 and restoration of the land around one costing another $205,000. In 1997 the cost of removing California's existing first generation turbines was estimated to potentially exceed $100,000,000.

Its as bad as Nuclear in terms of decommissioning costs per kwh, but unlike Nuclear these sites are so massive that the communities they reside in can't just let the properties they sit on be held hostage.

Re:Amazing how short-sighted dems and pols are

[drinkypoo]

Photovoltaics can supplement that. On the other hand, they will only be very useful once we install them on the roof like shingles.

Some years ago I saw on a broadcast television program the installation of self-adhesive thin-film solar panels on metal roofing. The solar panels are rolled out onto the roofing panels before they are lifted. The cords hang over the top end. They plug into one another and the wiring is covered with the roof cap, providing excellent protection of all kinds. IIRC the inverter mounts inside in the attic area, but you can probably run some fat bus bars down the wall. I often imagine using strips of stainless for this purpose, drilled and bolted together with stainless hardware, and encased inside PVC pipe. (PVC wiring insulation is required for code compliance in many cases... But I don't know what kind of blessing you need to do custom work like that and get it signed off, or if it is even possible.)

Metal roofing is considerably lighter and more durable than the usual paper and asphalt shingle crap, and the panels are supposed to last twenty years or so.

After this long comment I did an applicable google search which turned up some pretty good-looking results here including videos and what looks like some sites selling something.

Re:Amazing how short-sighted dems and pols are

[Rockoon]

That is an incredibly stupid thing to say. Of course they care. They want to generate energy by the most profitable means possible.

The company that obtains and delivers my electricity does not own the generation methods. So yea, they do only care about profits, but no that does not mean that there is monopoly generation entrenchment. It means the exact opposite. It means that any company that can generate electricity for less, REGARDLESS OF HOW IT IS GENERATED, will be able to sell 100% of their capacity.

So yeah.. you are drinking the fucking kool-aid, and no its not stupid to observe that. Whats stupid is that you didn't know that this is how the current market works. I guess you don't actually pay an electric bill.

Re:Amazing how short-sighted dems and pols are

[Anonymous Coward]

"although all these horizontal-axis wind turbines are stupid."

Not if you live in a region where everything you put up on your land contributes to your property tax, has to be registered/permitted/inspected, and neighbors still complain.

I have a couple at ground level I made myself out of stretched tyvek. Not efficient but cheap and they work. People think they're flags or lawn decorations. 10 feet high, produce some power on the hill peak I'm on. Less likely to be robbed or vandalized too, and easy to repair or replace if they are. They're less likely to "walk away" than a ground level panel setup.

And many attic vents use horizontals. Verticals are certainly better and more efficient, cheaper if you buy than a horizontal, but in some areas of the country, people see them as an eyesore and the municipal government comes running because some soccer mom think the vanes are going to fly off and kill someone.

"Geothermal is not the answer."

Of course not. Nuclear wasn't an answer. Geothermal is now not seen as an answer. Wind has been held up. So it's solar, so equipment makers make money. Hell, some people have gone back to wood and coal for home heating, no matter how they foul the air in your local community.

Geothermal IS more of an answer than solar in many situations.

If every home with a lawn had a vertical vents or horizontal, home heating bills in the NE would be slashed. They are VERY efficient. You're talking average $300 heating and cooling bills per month going to $50, or roughly 100+ gallons of home heating oil or generator fuel savings a month. I don't see how the hell that's not a damn good answer.

With geothermal, the installation comes out to half the cost of solar setup, and the solar setup still doesn't output the energy savings of the geothermal. Of course, having both is ideal and makes the heating and cooling of the home at least completely carbon neutral.
I could panel the entire roof of my barn and house, and not come close to

Re:Amazing how short-sighted dems and pols are

[Doctor Faustus]

and Solar PV (a waste of money)

Photovoltaics do have the advantage of being deployable very close to where the electricity will be used, which could (partly) pay for itself in reduced power grid work.

Re:Amazing how short-sighted dems and pols are

[mean pun]

You're right. Sorry for the mental agony that must have caused.

Re:Amazing how short-sighted dems and pols are

[Angst Badger]

Yet, the simple answer here is to not just support geothermal, but do it in a smart way.

When someone comes up with a "smart way", I'll be all ears. In the meantime, they seem to only have the dumb way, which generates lots of earthquakes.

Re:Amazing how short-sighted dems and pols are

[WindBourne]

Hmmm. Actually, I never really thought about that. It is a good point for it.

Re:Amazing how short-sighted dems and pols are

[falconwolf]

PV may eventually become useful but it isn't there yet, and won't be any time soon. Wind power never will unless physics changes which seems rather unlikely. His concise descriptions weren't far off.

A lot of people use solar and/or wind quite successfully.

Falcon

Re:Amazing how short-sighted dems and pols are

[falconwolf]

Wind is a proven technology, although all these horizontal-axis wind turbines are stupid.

Not all wind turbines are horizontal axis. There are vertical axis turbines as well. Actually there's a Best Buy in my area that has had a vertical axis wind turbine for years, the last tyme I went there they had added another one.

Out of curiosity when I went in I asked the greeter if they were selling them. He didn't know.

Geothermal is not the answer. Solar would be far more useful, as it produces power when we need it most, and we have control over the pollution inherent to the process... which we do NOT have over geothermal.

Solar is not the answer either. The answer is to use what is available in a given location. That means solar where solar is feasible, wind where it is plentiful, and geothermal where it is. Right now geothermal provides 30 MW, 20% of Hawaii's Big Island's energy. New York State has case studies of geothermal used in the state. Geothermal sources provide 27% of the Philippines energy. In 2007 California produced 13 terawatthours of energy, 4.5% of the energy the state used. Not only does geothermal provide 24% of Iceland's energy but it heats 87% of all buildings.

It is totally hogwash to discount the energy geothermal sources can provide.

Falcon

Re:Amazing how short-sighted dems and pols are

[falconwolf]

Solar PV STILL has not been able to pay for itself within 20 years.

Solar PVs can and do pay for themselves, in some locations though not all. Warranties on components last longer than the payback period, after which the energy is "free".

Falcon

Re:Amazing how short-sighted dems and pols are

[falconwolf]

The company that obtains and delivers my electricity does not own the generation methods.

You're in California then? In many places the transmitter is the generator. For instance where I am the power company is Xcel and they own the powerlines and the generators.

Falcon

Re:Amazing how short-sighted dems and pols are

[WindBourne]

The only place that large scale solar has paid for itself is in very remote locations. The fact is, that within the continental USA, because we are electrified, the ONLY places that Solar pays for itself is on extreme rural areas, such as the cabin that I stayed at in Colorado (just under 14; 13,988'). And how many of those are there? I would guess less than 1000 through the USA.

Re:Amazing how short-sighted dems and pols are

[falconwolf]

The fact is, that within the continental USA, because we are electrified, the ONLY places that Solar pays for itself is on extreme rural areas

The fact is is solar may be more competitive if it received as much in subsidies as conventional energy gets. Coal receive billions of dollars in subsidies. Add in external costs, such as co2 and mercury emissions, and coal will cost more. Require nuclear power to buy it's own insurance, get rid of the Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act, and make companies pay their own disposal costs and nuclear power will cost more too.

Between 2002 and 2008 coal received around $17 billion in subsidies. Obama's 2011 budget proposal even cuts coal subsidies $2.3 billion over the next decade. But it's hard to see exactly how much subsidies are, as State coal subsidies and US subsidies of oil and coal more than double the subsidies of renewable energy says, it's hard to add up all the subsidies because while some are purely handouts on taxpayer dollars others are deductions on taxes owed. And nuclear power would not exist without subsidies, it is Hooked on Subsidies:

"How do France (and India, China and Russia) build cost-effective nuclear power plants? They don't. Governmental officials in those countries, not private investors, decide what is built. Nuclear power appeals to state planners, not market actors."

Falcon

Collaboration?

[pedantic bore]

Although very generous, I think it's a bit of a stretch to call Google's grant to SMU a "collaboration", or to only mention Google and omit any mention of USDOE and other entities that have been funding this research at SMU and elsewhere for many years. For example, this this report from 2006, which points out the potential of the thermal hotspot in West Virginia...

It doesn't have the cool Google Earth graphics, however.

Tax them

[sphazell]

Got to be due to global warming so we better have a great big tax on West Virginia

http://www.jordanshoes-discount.com

[Anonymous Coward]

Cheap Authentic air jordans shoes for sale online.We sold all the jordans shoes with discount off 60% and free shipping.Buy Air Jordan Shoes now! 1. visit websites of jordanshoes-discount.com,you will find jordans shoes are of good quality.We contain Nike Jordan 2010 Shoes,Air Jordan 2009 shoes ,Air Jordan 1 (I) shoes,Air Jordan 2 (II) shoes,Air Jordan 3 (III) shoes,Air Jordan 4 (IV) shoes,Air Jordan 5 (V) shoes,Air Jordan 6 (VI) shoes,Air Jordan 7 (VII) shoes,Air Jordan 8 (VIII) shoes,Air Jordan 9 (IX) shoes,Air Jordan 10 (X) shoes,Air Jordan 11 (XI) shoes,Air Jordan 12 (XII) shoes,Air Jordan 13 (XIII) shoes,Air Jordan 14 (XIV) shoes,Air Jordan 15 (XV) shoes,Air Jordan 16 (XVI) shoes,Air Jordan 17 (XVII) shoes,Air Jordan 18 (XVIII) shoes,Air Jordan 19 (XIX) shoes,Air Jordan 20 (XX) shoes,Air Jordan 21 (XXI) shoes,Air Jordan 22 (XXII) shoes,Air Jordan 23 (XXIII) shoes,Jordan Mix Shoes,Nike Jordan Melo shoes,Jordan OL School shoes,Jordan L Style One shoes,Nike Jordan True Flight shoes,Nike Air Jordan All Day shoes,Nike Walter Ray Allen shoes.

Dammit it's not green energy

[stevegee58]

West Virginia is a wild, beautiful place. They'll go in there and further exploit and destroy the natural beauty, like they have with coal mining (especially mountain top removal).
It's unconscionable.

Re:Dammit it's not green energy

[WindBourne]

Actually, drilling is far more environmentally cleaner than is mining. Mining normally involves tailings, except for Coal. With coal, they simply strip mine it as you have pointed out. Geo-thermal, is a fairly clean operation. Yeah, it has its issues, but they are SOOO much less than Coal. In fact, it is around the same as Solar PV, and even less than Wind. Solar PV involves some pretty wicked chemicals. Likewise, Wind requires loads of Rare Earth Elements, iron, etc. In the end, you have to pick your poison on where you are going to get your energy. Myself? I will take geo-thermal. Ideally, we would allow all energy to compete on a level field, rather than allowing politicians to pick it by who lines their pockets.

Re:Dammit it's not green energy

[couchslug]

It's also a hopelessly poor area that will never have jobs based on anything but digging up or drilling for the stuff under it.

Re:Dammit it's not green energy

[Anonymous Coward]

It's ok, they're just poor white folks. If they were niggers, Dems would be falling over themselves to see who could shovel the most welfare candy on them, tell them how smart they are, and boot strap them into the White House.

Re:Dammit it's not green energy

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, drilling is far more environmentally cleaner than is mining. Mining normally involves tailings, except for Coal. With coal, they simply strip mine it as you have pointed out. Geo-thermal, is a fairly clean operation. Yeah, it has its issues, but they are SOOO much less than Coal. In fact, it is around the same as Solar PV, and even less than Wind. Solar PV involves some pretty wicked chemicals. Likewise, Wind requires loads of Rare Earth Elements, iron, etc. In the end, you have to pick your poison on where you are going to get your energy. Myself? I will take geo-thermal. Ideally, we would allow all energy to compete on a level field, rather than allowing politicians to pick it by who lines their pockets.

The most 'green' power source would be nuclear fusion. We're already got one reactor on-line, and haven't had any problems at all with producing fuel or disposing waste. The only two issues right now are that we're only capable of harnessing a fraction of a percentage of the total energy output, and a lot of people end up with skin cancer from sitting in front of the reactor without any shielding.

And I maintain that oil and coal are more 'green' than most people are willing to admit. It is, after all, nothing more than recycled plant and animal material. The only drawback is the recycling process is somewhat lengthy which makes it less than ideal in the short term. But there is nothing inherently "Bad" about using carbon fuels for energy, and calling them 'non-renewable' is inaccurate.

In any event, most people who say they want to save the planet really mean they want to STOP the planet's natural processes and keep it frozen in this moment in time where it just so happens to be a nice place for humans to live. It hasn't been that way for most of Earth's history, or even the part where life was present, or even the part where complex life was present, or even the part where mammals were present. In other words, we can ruin this planet for humans and life will continue along with out us just as it has in the past.

Re:Dammit it's not green energy

[BLKMGK]

You might want to read above from the poster talking about a local Geothermal plant near his home that has huge issues with Arsenic clogging up the turbines - and the truly scary "EPA Approved" methods for cleaning and encapsulating it. It seems that Geothermal can bring with it a host of heavy metal issues :-(

Re:Dammit it's not green energy

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you ever been to West Virginia? Much of the economy is based on mining, forestry, tourism, and agriculture. It's not hopelessly poor and dead end; many parts of it are quite nice. Even the low income areas are orders of magnitude better than inner cities in more populous areas.

Re:Dammit it's not green energy

[dbIII]

If properly handled it's a potential byproduct to use in CCA etc. There are plenty of ways of dealing with heavy metal contaminated water so long as you have a lot of water, a lot of spare land and vast amounts of clay. Of course it makes everything more expensive, but all energy sources have consequences.

Re:Dammit it's not green energy

[WindBourne]

Exactly. Solar PV has some of the most wicked chemicals going. Wind? LOADS of mining back it. And the mining is esp true for the REE that goes into each generator. Just because it has been shifted to another nation does not mean that it has zero consequence. In the end, geo-thermal really is one of the cleanest energy going and will only get cleaner.

Re:Dammit it's not green energy

[d0nster]

Not every place in WV is like Coalwood of Rocket Boys fame. The chemical industry employs a ton of chemical engineers here in the Kanawha valley, also known as the chemical valley. It is true that the mining communities are often poor, but at least they are actually working instead of just collecting welfare. Still, to say that all of WV is hopelessly poor is a lousy generalization. With $250,000 considered a cheap house in Martinsburg, WV, I would say that's a pretty wealthy town.

Re:Dammit it's not green energy

[dbIII]

Exactly. Solar PV has some of the most wicked chemicals going

It's nothing like the oil industry (HF and a pile of very nasty hydrocarbons) but in all cases you just need to make sure nobody eats or breaths the stuff. Even margarine has quite toxic stuff involved with it's manufacture. The "toxic" argument against photovoltaics really could be applied to most manufactured goods so it's not worth going there. Photovoltaics don't scale up well anyway - double the size of the installation and you only get twice the power.
Geothermal is nice but to get the large temperature differences that make it better than solar hot water you often have to go somewhere deep or volcanic. Having to drill expensive deep holes has meant that the initial capital costs for a small prototype aren't a lot less than you would expect for a large installation. Politics has also slowed it down a lot (ten years and counting in one place) because it's hard to get a permit for anything related to mining that hasn't been done much before.
As for the other stuff, I'm a very big fan of not having too many eggs in the one energy basket. Wind is expensive, has small unit sizes, has a short maintainance schedule (2 years?) and is rarely reliable close to populated areas but it still has it's uses. One very promising option is offshore wind compressing air in large underwater balloons, and when you need peak power you use that air. The same sort of idea has been used with wind and old salt mines in the past. Other stuff like solar thermal preheating in coal fired power stations has cut down on coal comsumption in the plant where it is being trialed.

Re:Dammit it's not green energy

[WindBourne]

Dbill,
Geo-thermal has many shallow well locations around the world. We have not looked for them. In addition, deep drilling is about to get REAL CHEAP. Two companies: Potter Drilling and foro energy (heck the pdf)

Re:Dammit it's not green energy

[falconwolf]

Mining normally involves tailings, except for Coal. With coal, they simply strip mine it as you have pointed out.

Tell that to people in Roane County, Tennessee, who's land was contaminated by the Kingston Fossil Plant coal fly ash slurry spill in 2008, the coal s Tell that tolurry spill in southern Belmont County, Ohio last week, or any number of other coal slurry spills. Tell that to those who see mountain removal in action. Google has some before and after photos of it. Or tell it to those miners trapped in that Chilean mine. How about the 13 miners who died when the Sago Mine Disaster happened in West Virginia in 2006.

In the end, you have to pick your poison on where you are going to get your energy. Myself? I will take geo-thermal.

You pick the energy source by what's available in any given location. Use geothermal where it is available, solar, where it is sunny, and wind where it's windy. The one advantage geothermal has over others is that it can provide a baseload, it can constantly generate electricity.

Ideally, we would allow all energy to compete on a level field, rather than allowing politicians to pick it by who lines their pockets.

That is something I've been advocating for years.

Falcon

Re:Dammit it's not green energy

[falconwolf]

You might want to read above from the poster talking about a local Geothermal plant near his home that has huge issues with Arsenic clogging up the turbines - and the truly scary "EPA Approved" methods for cleaning and encapsulating it. It seems that Geothermal can bring with it a host of heavy metal issues :-(

Unfortunately all energy sources have problems and introduce pollution. You say what those are for geothermal, for solar there's toxic soups, and for wind rare earth metals are needed. Which China is a major producer of, however China is restricting their export. Even hydroelectric dams have problems, they too need have blades cleaned. Because water flow is restricted silt builds up at the base and has to be removed. The Hoove Dam on the Colorado River was used as an example of American prowess and the capability of dams for electrical generation. However water shortages may put it out of commission.

Quite simply, there is no truly clean or non-polluting energy source, some produce less than others, that's it.

Falcon

Re:Dammit it's not green energy

[WindBourne]

Right. But the flyash is NOT mining. They are two separate things. However, the problem with the flyash is that the company was saving money by not addressing the issue. They simply ignored it for decades. Now as the Chilian miners, they were not coal. They were Goal miners. The strip mining issue is that the companies are not restoring the way that they should be. Why? Because everybody is trying to save money.

Wolf, you are mixing up everything in here. Yet, they are all different issues. As to using what is 'best', well, Geo-thermal appears to be usable everywhere. It still needs some more testing and work for EGS, but it is coming. Personally, I am amazed at all the geo-thermal tests so close to cities. That never made sense. Instead, geo-thermal makes sense in Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, etc. Why? Because we have lots of open area with very little population. In addition, the hot spots are under some nice rock (traps heat). It is why Australia is drilling where they are drilling. Now, we just need to back Potter drilling and Foro Energy.

Re:Dammit it's not green energy

[falconwolf]

you are mixing up everything in here. Yet, they are all different issues.

I am not mixing things up. To use coal, it has to be mined, burned, then the slag has to disposed of. And that's just the use of coal, not building the power plant, maintaining it, then decommissioning it. All are related to the use of coal as a fuel. Without reprocessing nuclear power has those and other requirements. Natural gas doesn't have all the same requirements but pipelines are needed.

As to using what is 'best', well, Geo-thermal appears to be usable everywhere.

Sure geothermal can be used everywhere, but it does not make economic sense to use it in some places as compared to other energy sources. Otherwise the same can be said about solar and wind.

With enough money solar can be used at the poles, North and South. Alaska, along with much of Canada, has good wind potential. In the 48 contiguous US states the Rocky Mountains from Canada through to northern Texas alone has enough potential wind energy to electrify the US from coast to coast. However that's not the only places with good potential. All along the Pacific coast from British Colombia to southern CA wind potential is good. Actually while there was the energy crisis in California with the rolling blackouts, there was also an idle wind farm capable of producing 10 megawatthours, 240 megawatts per day. Hook an eastward turn in SC and go through AZ, NM, into west Texas. That route has good potential as well. Over on the east, Atlantic, coast from Maine on down to Cape Hatteras is good offshore. Onshore through the Appalachian, Catskills, and other mountain ranges of NY is good too.

For solar there are good places too. California may be the Saudi Arabia of Solar but Nevada may have more potential. Quite simply different energy sources can be used in different places. What ties them all together though is that their use will require a national smart grid. High Voltage Direct Current powerlines running from coast to coast and Canada to Mexico will be needed. Even better, hook up Canada's and Mexico's grid.

Then expand net metering. Originally I wanted to build my own home off the grid, and I may still but right now I'd like to remodel an existing place. If so then I'd like to use geothermal or solar thermal heating, space and water, depending on which may be more effective in my area. I know both are used around here now. I may also install solar PVs.

Falcon

Hrm...

[Anonymous Coward]

"If engineers are able to tap the heat..."

I never thought I'd say this about *anything* from West Virginia but...

*I'd tap that!*

Where is Senator Byrd?

[kenh]

Too bad Senator Byrd passed away, he could have diverted tens of billions of dollars to WV to fund this effort, then we could have had the Robert Byrd Hot Air Energy Generation Facility, and his legacy would live on!

Re:Where is Senator Byrd?

[ralphdaugherty]

...then we could have had the Robert Byrd Hot Air Energy Generation Facility, and his legacy would live on!

      Robert Byrd left us his namesake Hot Air Energy Generation Facility. It's called the United States Senate.

  rd

Reminds me of a half dozen made for TV bad movies

[Howard2nd]

I am an engineer and know Murphy is an optimist.

I live in Florida, you already know how I feel about drilling for energy.

Be sure they have Tommy Lee Jones and Bruce Willis on retainer.

Just don't do it near cities..

[Splab]

They tried it in Basel (Switzerland), didn't work out too well for them.

Re:Just don't do it near cities..

[Ksevio]

That shouldn't be a problem in West Virginia

another benefit of the obama presidency

[argStyopa]

They should check other states. Maybe they too have former state senators/KKK members spinning in their graves at the idea of a black US president?

Either that, or Satan finally came to collect his due.

Take Me Home, Lava Flows

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

Near Inferno, West Virginia
Fiery Mountains, pyroclastic rivers
Life is doomed there, 'midst the blackened trees
See the mighty mountains tremb'lin like leaves

Lava flows, take me home
To the place that erupts
West Virginia, baleful mama
Take me home, Lava flows.

Re:Take Me Home, Lava Flows

[fprintf]

I wonder how many younguns won't know the tune to sing this to. Made me laugh, we used to play the original song really loudly on the 8-track in my parent's Ford Capri while driving to the beach. Thanks for the earworm!

Re:Take Me Home, Lava Flows

[Anonymous Coward]

Good parody of the song by John Denver but I think the first line could be improved somewhat to

"Almost Hades, West Virginia"

It rhymes better and is more in keeping with the original verse.

Gotta Love the URL

[lyonsden]

- west-virginia-is-a-geothermal-ho.html

WV has a bad reputation, and story URLs like that are not going to help

Re:Gotta Love the URL

[Anonymous Coward]

That is actually pretty accurate. Energy companies have been raping WV for a long time and she just let's them.

Re:Gotta Love the URL

[Anonymous Coward]

Energy companies have been raping WV for a long time and she just let's them.

It's just like apostrophe abusers and verbs.

No, no, no

[ThatsNotPudding]

No filthy drilling required. Just removing a mountaintop or two.

Earthquakes?

[ThatsNotPudding]

I thought this was tried both in Switzerland and Texas, with both resulting in very out of the ordinary earthquakes. Or was it caused by adding water to dry hot rock...

A West Virginia virgin

[Anonymous Coward]

Q: What's a West Virginia virgin?
A: A girl who can run faster than her dad and brothers.

Almost heaven? Not any more.

[Anonymous Coward]

So they made this discover *after* strip mining everything. The West Virginia of the song is long, long gone. For us all that remains is a poster on the wall, a terrible view outside the window, a few sweet memories and a bottle of whisky.

Hover over that link again

[Anonymous Coward]

...Your MOM is a geothermal ho.

Geothermal Ain't Green

[Spinlock_1977]

How much heat can we suck out of the earth before we start noticing effects? When we first sipped from oil deposits we thought the supply was unlimmited - so we built billions oil-fueled cars and painted ourselves into a corner. Would someone with real credentials please stand up and say what needs to be said: Geo-thermal is a finite supply - and at some level of human consumption mining it will destabilize our planet.

Re:Geothermal Ain't Green

[kraigory]

That's what I was wondering- if we take heat out, will it cool the earth? Global cooling?

Re:Geothermal Ain't Green

[chadplusplus]

Indeed, all energy sources are of finite supply, but its a question of scale. There's a finite amount of fossil fuels, the sun only puts on a finite amount of light and the lifetime of the Sun is limited, and there is a finite amount of trapped heat inside of the Earth. In fact, there is a finite amount of hydrogen available in the universe with which to form stars. But we as a species are trying to maintain our style/standard of living out as far as possible - currently, our efforts are at extending our society beyond the availability of fossil fuels. One day, hopefully, we will be trying to extend our society beyond the life of the Sun. The issue now, is how do we get beyond fossil fuels?

The ultimate energy source, for which we all hope, is to master controlled fusion. We're not there yet. So we look to other sources to fill the need as fossil fuel supply dwindles. Together, solar, wind and geothermal may be able to bridge the gap. If, as some suggest, fusion will forever be illusive, then I'm afraid we're already screwed.

As to your question, IIRC, at current consumption rates, we would barely make a dent into the stored heat inside the Earth; however, you are correct, if we continue to grow consumption and suck heat out indefinitely, it will eventually make a difference, but that is hopefully far enough out into the future that it permits us to perfect fusion.

Re:Geothermal Ain't Green

[operagost]

we thought the supply was unlimmited

While some people are perfectly functional morons (like Congress), I'm pretty sure the rest of us know that nothing is "unlimited".

Re:Geothermal Ain't Green

[Anonymous Coward]

Well if fusion doesn't work we could always try thorium fission which is a lot cleaner and less dangerous than traditional fission.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium_fuel_cycle

Of course we would probably need 10 to 20 years to finish the research and get it to production.

question about geothermal energy

[shadowofwind]

Much of the earth's internal heat is not generated by radioactive decay or tidal forces, but is transient, left over from when the earth formed. Its necessary for plate techtonics, which helps keep the surface chemically in balance despite erosion and natural forms of pollution. Its also necessary for the magnetic field and its shielding effect.

If we drill for geothermal energy for power on a large scale, do we hasten the earth's cooling by any appreciable amount? The effect must be tiny, and adverse results would be very, very, long term. But people don't seem to care very much about the very long term, and hastening the geological death of the earth would seem to me to be a very bad thing.

Maybe someone who's done a crude estimate could answer this. I haven't seen it discussed anywhere on the net.

Re:question about geothermal energy

[penguinchris]

I have not done, nor seen, any estimates, but I did tectonics research as a grad student and know a little bit about heat in the earth. Frankly there is so much of it down there that I would suspect the only long-term problems would come after thousands and thousands of years of continuous global leaching of heat on a huge scale - like most of the world's energy usage coming from geothermal. Obviously, that's not the most likely scenario for the long term once other things come online (like fusion).

Think about how much waste heat the earth puts out as it is, through volcanoes, mid-ocean-ridges, geyser fields, and other geothermal areas. Quite a lot is literally thrown away through these processes. It's certainly prudent to think about the long-term effects but I just don't see geothermal scaling up to the point where we'd have to worry about it. The supply is on a vastly different scale than any other resource on the planet.

Re:question about geothermal energy

[shadowofwind]

I would suspect the only long-term problems would come after thousands and thousands of years of continuous global leaching of heat on a huge scale - like most of the world's energy usage coming from geothermal. Obviously, that's not the most likely scenario for the long term once other things come online (like fusion).

Yes, I was thinking of use over a longer time frame than that actually. Degradation that develops over a million years is too long for most decision makers to worry about, yet its still pretty fast geologically.

Its not obvious to me that fusion is ever going to be practical, but I hope you're right.

Since the heat that's already being 'thrown away' will be the easiest to get at, maybe that's all people will go after, since the more difficult tapping won't be competitive with other things like windmills.

Re:Welcome heavy metals

[dbIII]

Actually brown coal can act as a nice insulating blanket over geothermal heat sources so you can find the hot stuff closer to the surface than expected. There is research looking at that in the Latrobe Valley in Australia. Also in Australia is an ongoing project to map likely geothermal sites along the path of existing power transmission lines.
Transmission losses ARE a big deal NOW since most lines are made of aluminium and consumers may be 1000km from a power source. There's also weird stuff with harmonics I don't understand that means it's best not to try to push those electrons too far if you want to get some use out of them.

WVU sofa fires...

[Corporate Drone]

Here we were, blaming undergrads for those couches pulled off of porches and set ablaze after WVU football games... and all along, it was just spontaneous combustion as hot spots poked through the surface...!

It's a hell of a lot more than double the price

[dbIII]

Drilling deep holes is astonishingly expensive and the price goes up just about exponentially with depth. You find what you are looking for AND THEN drill. Even in Australia where the best geothermal site is under the Cooper oil basin it's still a lot deeper than the oil and costs millions more to drill the test holes.

Re:It's a hell of a lot more than double the price

[WindBourne]

Many of the oil-gas sites here in America are around 7-10 K feet. Ok heat is also found in a number of these. However, a number of the sites have very good geo-thermal in the 10-20K feet range. The heat is typically 150-200C. Not the best, but good enough. More importantly, there are several techs on the horizon that will change the costs of geo-thermal. Potter Drilling is One. Also, Foro Energy is coming as well. Both of these will drop the price of drilling to 30K to below what it costs to drill to 10K today.

"shallow"

[v1]

and as shallow as 5 kilometers

Their definition of "shallow" varies greatly from mine.

Is it even practical to do geothermal energy at that depth?

Re:"shallow"

[Smidge204]

Current drilling tech gets us to 10 kilometers or so, so the short answer is "yes."

Considering we're willing to (and do) drill for oil that deep I can't see depth being the real problem here.
=Smidge=

Re:"shallow"

[mujadaddy]

These measurements mean NOTHING to me. How many Volkswagen buses down is it?

Re:"shallow"

[confused one]

End to end or standing on top of each other?

Re:"shallow"

[v1]

I should have clarified, I'm talking practical, and someone was bound to read that as possible.

Yes I know we can dig a deep hole, but it's very expensive. And once we have the hole, how easy is it to either lower the exchanger down there and run it there, or sustainably bring the heat up in a usable form?

Re:"shallow"

[Smidge204]

I didn't misread you;

"Considering we're willing to (and do) drill for oil that deep I can't see depth being the real problem here."

You drill a couple of holes. You pump water into one of them and high pressure steam comes up out of the others. To pipe the steam into a turbine and presto - geothermal power. Convection and pressure take care of extracting the heat for you. Depth is largely irrelevant.

It's almost exactly like how we extract oil, hence the above quote: dig a hole, attach pipe to hole. (And if there isn't enough pressure to get the oil out on its own, dig another hole and pump something into it to force the oil out the other)
=Smidge=

A crack in the world?

[PolygamousRanchKid]

You mean, like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crack_in_the_World ?

Well, at least Hollywood in the 60's believed that scientists with nukes could do it.

Protected Land

[daedae]

Not that this comment will get read, you know, being so far down the page...

Presumably, the hotter the temperature, the better, in terms of generating geothermal energy. That means that the eastern part of the state (with the exception of the panhandle) would be the best for generating geothermal. However, a lot of that land along the WV/VA border is protected: state parks, national forests, national rec areas, and a large number of caverns that are declared off-limits. The Greenbanks radio astronomy telescope is also in that area, and a couple miles around it are restricted from having wireless communications or other serious electrical equipment that could interfere with radio astronomy.

On the other hand, if coal ever goes out of fashion, I guess the state will have to make a decision - with coal and tourism being our two biggest sources of money, I guess they'll have to decide whether the state parks are more valuable for tourism or generating power.

Re:Protected Land

[Anonymous Coward]

Obviously they'll just swap them around. Turn the strip mines into tourist traps and museums (where else are you going to see the bottom of the inside of a mountain?) and cut down the forests to make room for geothermal plants. The rivers were already full of shit so they're not going to change all that much, the companies will still let the toxic runoff flow downhill.

Re:Protected Land

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do you believe that state parks and geothermal power generation are mutually exclusive in WV?

While some above ground facilities are needed for harness this type of energy, it certainly would not preclude vast areas of WV from remaining a natural resource. This is in stark contrast to say coal generated power which tends to pollute far more both visually and environmentally. While geothermal is not necessarily the most ideal form of energy to tap, it is certainly preferable to most other forms.

From what I have read, this would be a great step forward for the entire region. WV is not exactly a well built economic powerhouse.

Re:Protected Land

[falconwolf]

On the other hand, if coal ever goes out of fashion, I guess the state will have to make a decision - with coal and tourism being our two biggest sources of money, I guess they'll have to decide whether the state parks are more valuable for tourism or generating power.

It doesn't have to be an "either/or" situation. You can go to LA, CA, and not realize the city sits on one of the US's largest oil fields, Wilmington Oil Field. The city has a lot of operating oil wells but they are hidden. Actually that's where the La Brea Tar Pits come from.

Falcon

Watch out for those volcanos in LA

Re:Protected Land

[neminem]

Not in Long Beach... out here, there are oil wells all the frack over the city, not terribly well hidden. There's one right out behind our office, and some nice-looking houses right on the other side of a small fence from it. They just installed one up the hill from my apartment, too.

Re:Protected Land

[falconwolf]

Not in Long Beach... out here, there are oil wells all the frack over the city, not terribly well hidden. There's one right out behind our office, and some nice-looking houses right on the other side of a small fence from it. They just installed one up the hill from my apartment, too.

I bet many people don't realize how much oil Long Beach produces though. And those wells that are visible can be hidden from view. Build a small building around one and plant some shrubs, vines, around that. Landscaping can it less noticeable if not "invisible".

Falcon

Iceland

[Trip6]

Just got back from Iceland, the whole country is powered by geothermal wells. In fact, the main power plant has a pipe feed of hot water to supply Rejykavik, and when you take a shower there you smell like rotten eggs.

Re:Iceland

[LWATCDR]

I guess if you are willing to live on volcano there must be some benefits.
"and when you take a shower there you smell like rotten eggs". And that is not one of them IMHO.

Re:Iceland

[operagost]

Rotten egg showers! I'm all for that.

Re:Iceland

[Trip6]

True, the whole island sits on a column of molten lava that leads right down to the magma chamber. Every other year or so the place just erupts somewhere, like it did in April.

West Virginia Already Has the Needed Technology

[DieByWire]

All they have to do is remove the top 5 kilometers of mountain top and then that hot water will be at the surface for easy pickins.

Re:West Virginia Already Has the Needed Technology

[Anonymous Coward]

Orange Gold, West Virginia Tea

hotttt

[Anonymous Coward]

"Dude, that West Virginia is soooo hot. I gotta tap that."

Shame on you America

[Anonymous Coward]

"West Virginia due to its abundant coal, so geothermal energy probably can't compete for business from utilities there. But Hohn says the state's extensive network of power lines makes it a good candidate for exporting electricity produced by geothermal power to nearby states such as Maryland, Virginia, and Pennsylvania."

When electricity created using coal is so cheap that geothermal energy is to expensive your eletricity is really way to cheap.

Well, I did RTFA

[sean.peters]

And I have to say I was a little amazed. Geoscientists were surprised to find geothermal activity... in WV? The land of hot springs? Yes, you are correct that hot springs don't necessarily imply good geothermal energy production... but it's certainly suggestive. I still don't understand why anyone found this surprising.

it idiot's who don't RTFA

And speaking of idiots - don't use an apostrophe to form a plural.

Re:Well, I did RTFA

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, there's no "u" in favorable.

Re:Well, I did RTFA

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope you are trolling intentionally.

That will come as a great surprise

[sean.peters]

... to all the currently operating PV and wind energy generating systems out there. Seriously, have you ever driven in the US? There are wind farms all over the freaking place. Lots of home solar PV installation businesses are going like gangbusters. And all of this activity is useless (or even against the laws of physics)? I don't think so.

Re:That will come as a great surprise

[Anonymous Coward]

If I install a solar PV system on my home, how long before the energy I have saved pays for the cost of manufacturing and installation of the PV system?

I'm not filthy rich and it has to make good economic sense for me to install a $35,000 5 kW PV system that would meet my electrical needs (assuming I also spent thousands more on a new heating system). So how long is it? A year? I could probably manage that for a $16,000 2 kW system that might meet most of my energy needs...

Oh wait... it is 10-15 years...

So yeah, basically useless for most people. Basically only guilty rich people can afford them.

Re:That will come as a great surprise

[Idiomatick]

Pokemon didn't need to be economically viable to sell either....

So what you're saying...

[sean.peters]

... is that PV companies can make more money sellling their PV systems than they can save by putting them in themselves. Which is not exactly an indictment of PV systems.

Call me when you think of an actual argument.

Geothermically

[Anonymous Coward]

"Geothermically". Are we making up words now. The term is "Geothermal" so "Geothermally" active. Jeesh.

What concerns me

[kilodelta]

Is that the FBI's Criminal Justice Information Systems (CJIS) unit is in West Virginia. Were we to loose that law enforcement around the country would loose the ability to identify subject based on ten-print. So lets relocate it to a geologically less active area of the country, like the northeast.

Geothermal Power vs Exchange

[CitizenPlusPlus]

Geothermal Power for electricity generation which may need specific geological conditions should not be confused with Geothermal Exchange for home heating and cooling which everyone can do almost everywhere.  For Geothermal Exchange, basically bury the AC unit a few hundred feet into the ground and homes can be heated and cooled for pennies on the dollar compared with gas and electric.

Are there no urban elitists on here anymore???

[dirtydog]

How did this thread get so far without any derogatory references to the redneck hillbillies of West Virginia? Surely someone could come up with a joke about how they'll end up using the wells to make moonshine, or something...

Altarock...

[slew]

[SARCASM]
Apparently the obama administration thinks it has more supporters in northern california than west virginia... http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/12/science/earth/12quake.html
[/SARCASM]

Geothermal Project in California Is Shut Down

The company in charge of a California project to extract vast amounts of renewable energy from deep, hot bedrock has removed its drill rig and informed federal officials that the government project will be abandoned.

The project by the company, AltaRock Energy, was the Obama administration's first major test of geothermal energy as a significant alternative to fossil fuels and the project was being financed with federal Department of Energy money at a site about 100 miles north of San Francisco called the Geysers.

...

The project's apparent collapse comes a day after Swiss government officials permanently shut down a similar project in Basel, because of the damaging earthquakes it produced in 2006 and 2007. Taken together, the two setbacks could change the direction of the Obama administration's geothermal program, which had raised hopes that the earth's bedrock could be quickly tapped as a clean and almost limitless energy source.

Re:Welcome heavy metals

[MichaelSmith]

There's also weird stuff with harmonics

Western Australia has this problem in a few places. Its a big state and some of their transmission lines approach a resonant length at the 50Hz mains frequency. The story is that this is part of the reason why the normal mains voltage in other states is 240V but in WA its 260.

Re:Welcome heavy metals

[haruchai]

If you're using HVDC - and you'd be crazy not to over long distances - typical transmission losses over 1000 KM are 3-5%.

might as well name it then

[ILuvRamen]

I'll be the first to name the coming catastrophe...core cooling! It will destroy us all! We need to stop taking energy from the core or the Earth is DOOMED! What's that you say? One thermal tapping well is insignificant? Yeah, so is one can of hairspray and one car.
Oh and global wind stoppage! All those power generating windmills are stopping too much wind and ruining the climate!
Okay, that one's moderately stupid but if we went big with it and drilled like 10 million geothermal wells, I bet it would make a difference. Who doesn't want to hop in a time machine and slap Henry Ford or whatever in the face for deciding on gasoline? And whoever made coal big time too. Isn't this right around the correct time that we ought to be thinking of the impact of new technologies? Now solar is the one that obviously doesn't make a damn ounce of difference and never well no matter how high it scales up.

Meanwhile, back in reality

[dbIII]

But first you need to convert your power produced from spinning generators from AC to DC, then you need to push it down conductors of huge diameter and then you need to convert it back to AC so it ends up more than your 3-5% in total. Of course after a certain length it is worth it.
There isn't a lot of HVDC around yet so my argument about transmission losses stand. I'm talking about the present situation without your misleading assumption that the entire electrical transmission system has been replaced.

Hop on over to THIS reality

[haruchai]

It's not as if it was invented yesterday and is only being used for trivial projects.
Here a Wikipedia list of HVDC projects, presumably in this space-time continuum, dating back over a hundred years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_HVDC_projects

Read your own link before making accusations!!!!!

[dbIII]

It's a big world out there and very little of it uses HVDC no matter how long it has been in use. That is why Transmission losses ARE a big deal NOW just about everywhere.

funding energy

[falconwolf]

It is all just a matter of being dependent on other countries natural reserves vs. funding it with tax money.

Bullshit!!! Coal gets more federal subsidies than any other energy source in the US. That is unless the cost of war is included, in which case it's petroleum. Nuclear power is second, unless farm subsidies for corn, which is a bad feedstock, based ethanol is included. Each receives multiples of billions of US dollars in taxpayer money. Yet until Obama became president all alternative source, except the fore mentioned corn based ethanol, had to share about $1 Billion. Rep Edward Markey brags "My Climate Bill 'Has Huge Subsidies For Clean Coal! Huge!'" In it he lists some of the subsidies various energy sources get. And Chevron CEO Dave O'Reilly agrees to lobby with Sierra Club to end coal subsidies. The article originally published in Reason: Free Minds and Free Markets" then published online by CATO Institute: Individual Liberty, Free Markets, and Peace titled "Nuclear Energy: Risky Business" starts with "Nuclear energy is to the Right what solar energy is to the Left: Religious devotion in practice, a wonderful technology in theory, but an economic white elephant in fact (some crossovers on both sides notwithstanding)." Another CATO article, Hooked on Subsidies, first published in "Forbes" says how the Nuclear Power industry is as the title says, "hooked on subsidies". Even in countries where nuclear power is big, China, France, India, and Russia it's state actors or the government and not the market that decides what gets built. In brief the US Department of Energy answers the question How much does the Federal Government spend on energy-specific subsidies and support? By fiscal year 2007 all forms of renewable energy got $4.9 billion in subsides, $3 billion of that for ethanol. All other sources had to share the other $1.9 billion. Now how much did coal get? Refined coal got about $2.4 billion and with another $854 million on other coal. And nuclear power got $1.267 billion.

You say you're in Germany. The article Spain slashes solar energy subsidies laments that Berlin decided to continue to use nuclear power. And that Madrid slashed solar subsidies. Another says the same in Germany, Germany to cut subsidies for solar energy .

Personally I'd rather see all energy subsidies eliminated. ALL!!! Let a freer market decide winners and losers not government. What governments can do is make sure the markets are kept open as long as they can compeat, and they pay all their costs including external costs.

Falcon

Railroads are also major electricity consumers.

[falconwolf]

Yea, railroads can use that geothermal energy to power those high speed maglevs.

Falcon

location, location, location

[falconwolf]

Photovoltaics do have the advantage of being deployable very close to where the electricity will be used, which could (partly) pay for itself in reduced power grid work.

I support solar, and wind, and geothermal, but solar PVs are not practical everywhere. Neither are concentrators. Use what energy is practical in each location.

Falcon

Everyone will be happy

[DiEx-15]

...Even Lord Xenu!

Re:Welcome heavy metals

[Lanteran]

That's why you create cryogenically frozen superconductor lines. Assuming the power savings are worth it...

when the Sun dies

[falconwolf]

One day, hopefully, we will be trying to extend our society beyond the life of the Sun.

While the sun is thought to have billions of years before it burns out, men as in the male sex may only have on the order of a few hundred thousand years before they become extinct. A debate is going on as to whether man can continue without intervention, as in genetic engineering.

we as a species are trying to maintain our style/standard of living out as far as possible

I'm no Malthusian but I don't think the whole world can live as people in the US do today.

Falcon

Re:Read your own link before making accusations!!!

[haruchai]

Transmission loss numbers that I can find for the US are 6.7% in 1997 and 6.5% in 2007.
HVDC is becoming increasing popular for new projects, which is a good thing, and it may be worth it to retrofit existing links, which, of course, will take decades but, at least those jobs can't be outsourced.

Re:Read your own link before making accusations!!!

[dbIII]

Transmission loss numbers that I can find for the US are 6.7% in 1997 and 6.5% in 2007.

Without context that unfortunately means nothing unlike the HVDC figure you provided before which was an estimate for a known distance, and most likely optimum load. I'll assume it's an average and get back to it below.
AC transmission losses are dependant upon distance, cross section of the conductor, current and frequency, and those losses can be very significant. For one example I observed when four local units went offline there was ~840MW of spare capacity at one end of an 800km line which was unusable because any extra current would have increased the losses to the point where less power would be transmitted (extra resistance from heat). That line typically ran close to maximum load normally so the losses were huge. There's now another parallel line but that's a good example of trying to shift a lot of power a long way on the existing grid. It doesn't work very well.
If those numbers above are an average those low losses are due to keeping the power generation capacity close to where it's being used and wouldn't be losses at peak times (the losses are not linear).
It's not a matter of saying losses are low so we can have long lines everywhere - the average losses are low BECAUSE we DON'T have long lines everywhere.


You are right that HVDC changes that and it turns previously stupid ideas like getting thermal solar power from the Sahara into Europe or tidal hydro from Newfoundland to New York into ideas that are no longer so stupid so long as new transmission infrastructure goes in as well. We just don't have a lot of HVDC yet which is why I said losses are important.

All this because I mentioned a geothermal survey following existing transmission lines!

Coal supplies

[falconwolf]

Our brown coal won't run out for thousands of years at the current rate!

Are Reserves of the Largest US Coal Field Overstated by 50%? Coal reserves: "Perhaps no question has more relevance to strategies for dealing with the global warming crisis than the distribution and quantity of coal available for future mining." How much coal is out there?

Falcon

electrical transmission losses

[falconwolf]

Transmission losses ARE a big deal NOW since most lines are made of aluminium and consumers may be 1000km from a power source.

Electrical transmission losses over long distances is only a problem if the electricity is AC. Over long distances the losses from transmission is much lower using High Voltage Direct Current, HVDC. Now there are losses for conversion from AC to DC but those losses are less than the losses from transmitting via AC. And conversion is getting more efficient. But using the right stuff what is converted can be reduced. That computer you're using, it's power supply converts the AC power from the wall socket to DC. Radios and TVs do the same. Those who build Off the Grid take all that into consideration when designing their system.

Heck, Thomas Edison's Con Edison power company transmitted DC. It was only after Nicoli Tesla came along when AC was used. In an attempt to discredit AC Edison went so far as to electrocute an elephant, Topsy. Because Topsy had killed 3 men she was sentenced to death and Edison saw that as a good way to show how dangerous AC was. However he was not successful right away, Topsy had to be executed a few tymes before she died, in agony.

Falcon

Re:electrical transmission losses

[dbIII]

Oh no. Another one that didn't pay attention :(
Please read my other comments on this thread and you'll see I'm talking about losses NOW (hence me using the word "now" in CAPITAL LETTERS in the post above) and not in a theoretical future where we can afford to replace all existing long lines with HVDC.
Edison transmitted low voltage DC over huge conductors with large losses which was a far inferior solution to AC. He was ultimately a far more evil and greedy bastard than Bill Gates will ever be - torturing an elephant to death and defaming Tesla as a mad scientist just to try to get some commercial advantage. Most of the weird voodoo evil genius vibe we get about Tesla today came directly from Edison's PR campaign.

Re:electrical transmission losses

[falconwolf]

Please read my other comments on this thread and you'll see I'm talking about losses NOW

Try that yourself, read what I said. Right NOW AC transmission is losing power. Again that is NOW though it will continue in the future.

Edison transmitted low voltage DC over huge conductors with large losses which was a far inferior solution to AC. He was ultimately a far more evil and greedy bastard than Bill Gates will ever be - torturing an elephant to death and defaming Tesla as a mad scientist just to try to get some commercial advantage. Most of the weird voodoo evil genius vibe we get about Tesla today came directly from Edison's PR campaign.

Now I know you didn't bother to read my post as you just repeated what I just said, though without the Bill Gates part. I even named and provided a link to wiki page on the elephant, Topsy.

I see no reason to continue, you accuse me of doing what you did.

Falcon

The Canucks can

[haruchai]

Having spent a considerable amount of time in Canada, long transmission lines don't seem at all unusual. Quebec alone has tens of thousands of kilometres of AC long lines at outrageously high voltages and sells power to US states even though the hydro stations are a long way from the province's major cities as well as the US customer base.
Their claimed transmission losses are 4-8%. In the course of fact-checking, I've come across something I'd not heard of before - HVDC light. Seems to be an interesting compromise but I haven't had time to dig beneath the hype.