Slashdot Mirror


Pouring Water Into a Volcano To Generate Power

Hugh Pickens writes "Until recently, geothermal power systems have exploited only resources where naturally occurring heat, water, and rock permeability are sufficient to allow energy extraction. Now, geothermal energy developers plan use a new technology called Enhanced Geothermal Systems (EGS) to pump 24 million gallons of water into the side of the dormant Newberrry Volcano, located about 20 miles south of Bend, Oregon, in an effort to use the earth's heat to generate power. 'We know the heat is there,' says Susan Petty, president of AltaRock Energy, Inc. of Seattle. 'The big issue is can we circulate enough water through the system to make it economic.' Since natural cracks and pores do not allow economic flow rates, the permeability of the volcanic rock can be enhanced with EGS by pumping high-pressure cold water down an injection well into the rock, creating tiny fractures in the rock, a process known as hydroshearing. Then cold water is pumped down production wells into the reservoir, and the steam is drawn out. Natural geothermal resources only account for about 0.3 percent of U.S. electricity production, but a 2007 Massachusetts Institute of Technology report projected EGS could bump that to 10 percent within 50 years, at prices competitive with fossil-fuels. 'The important question we need to answer now,' says USGS geophysicist Colin Williams, 'is how geothermal fits into the renewable energy picture, and how EGS fits. How much it is going to cost, and how much is available.'"

30 of 321 comments (clear)

  1. Not just that by aglider · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Why not throwing the waste there instead of the landfill?

    --
    Sent as ripples into the electromagnetic field. No single photon has been harmed in the process.
    1. Re:Not just that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think this would be a great idea if it could work. The problem would most likely be polution. There is also the political issues of the fact that burning trash would emit CO2. I personaly think AGW is a load of crap, but I do recognize that some people would feel it important enough to bring the government down on this practice.

      The other problem is that wouldn't want everything that goes into a landfill being burned and put into the atmosphere, quite a lot would be toxic. I think that if you started seperating what's OK from what's bad, you'd end up with a pile of landfill waste, a pile of recyclable items, and a very small if not nonexistant pile of volcano fuel.

      Plus there shouldn't be any need. If what I've read is correct, the energy created by the (inactive)volcano would far surpass our ability to extract energy.

    2. Re:Not just that by oiron · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Forget AGW - though I don't agree with you on that (that's another discussion)

      The real problem is that when you indiscriminately burn junk like plastics and other long-chain polymers, you end up with dioxins and furans. Those are some seriously toxic chemicals coming out of that mix. It's essentially burning an unholy mess of everything known to man that we ever throw out. Any of those toxins get into the water supply somewhere, you've got SERIOUS problems!

      And why burn the compostable solids, anyway? We've got a better use for them; really composting, and then using the compost as manure for our gardens and farmlands...

    3. Re:Not just that by QuantumRiff · · Score: 4, Informative

      Newberry crater isn't like a volcano in the movies.. the caldera at the top has two lakes, a resort, campgrounds, etc. There is also a very large obsidian lava flow (100 feet of glass rocks, its pretty cool).. It also has awesome views from the top. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newberry_Volcano

      --

      What are we going to do tonight Brain?
  2. They're going to frack a Volcano? by aoeu · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What could possibly go wrong . . .

    --
    All your database are belong to U.S.
    1. Re:They're going to frack a Volcano? by lightknight · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Part of me agrees with you; however, another part of me thinks that until we try, we'll never know whether our fears are just that, fears.

      So I, for one, think we should consider it.

      --
      I am John Hurt.
    2. Re:They're going to frack a Volcano? by fafaforza · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I wouldn't want a profit driven corporation in charge of something like this. They'll have an interest in making it work no matter if there are warning signs or risks.

    3. Re:They're going to frack a Volcano? by semi-extrinsic · · Score: 4, Interesting

      This reminds me of one of the stories about the Manhattan Project. Before the first (Trinity) test, Enrico Fermi began offering anyone listening a wager on "whether or not the bomb would ignite the atmosphere, and if so, whether it would merely destroy New Mexico or destroy the world." They still went through with it.

      --
      for i in `facebook friends "=bday" 2>/dev/null | cut -d " " -f 3-`; do facebook wallpost $i "Happy birthday!"; done
    4. Re:They're going to frack a Volcano? by JWW · · Score: 4, Funny

      Look at it this way. It's a low emissions way to generate power which will help combat global warming.

      OR

      It will set off the volcano and release particles into the atmosphere which will combat global warming.

      It's all good!

    5. Re:They're going to frack a Volcano? by tgd · · Score: 5, Funny

      What could possibly go wrong . . .

      Michael Bay is inspired for a new movie?

    6. Re:They're going to frack a Volcano? by Jawnn · · Score: 4, Insightful

      At least you can sue the corporation when they fuck up. good luck with the government

      You mean... there's a difference?

    7. Re:They're going to frack a Volcano? by poity · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't understand why many on slashdot are against this. We mock anti-nuclear power alarmists for blowing fears out of proportion, yet here we are saying "Oh no we shouldn't do this because there might be a catastrophe"

      --
      your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
  3. Water shortages? by acoustix · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I didn't RTFA, but with our projected water shortages coming in the future do we really want to be pumping millions of gallons for energy? Surely there's a better way to get usable energy.

    --
    "A plan fiendishly clever in its intricacies"- Homer Simpson
    1. Re:Water shortages? by tomhath · · Score: 4, Insightful
      The volcano is right between two decent sized lakes so there's plenty of water available.

      As far as water "shortages", it's really a water distribution problem. There's plenty of fresh water flowing down rivers into the ocean. But people like to live in desert climates like Phoenix and Las Vegas where they don't have to worry about rainy days messing up the golf they play on irrigated fairways.

  4. Head to Hawaii... by TrailerTrash · · Score: 5, Informative

    They've been there, done that:

    http://www.punageothermalventure.com/

    A 30 MW plant producing heat and energy from the world's most active volcano. An 8 MW addition was just approved, and the utility (HELCO) is looking to expand even further:

    http://www.hawaii247.com/2012/01/06/helco-announces-plans-to-expand-geothermal-energy-on-the-big-island/

    If there is an area that has a shot at 100% of their electricity from non-petroleum sources, it's the Big Island, with abundant wind, solar and geothermal options.

  5. yea by unity100 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    sue, and do what, exactly ? gain a $5 bn award in damages ? after a volcano erupts, kills a few thousand, poisons a few more million mildly through what it releases ?

    what happened when bp fucked up the entire mexico gulf ecosystem ?

    1. Re:yea by postbigbang · · Score: 4, Interesting

      And no one's gone to the trouble of modeling what happens when you chill down part of a lava dome. Does it harden, then blow sky high? Does it pressure masses underneath the caldera to cause nice earthquakes? Do you get a nice fissure opening up somewhere else to flow the lava into new and vulnerable areas? How long before the solidification means you have drill new spots? How are you going to stabilize the old spots? I don't think there are any lava-eating bacteria to help save the day here. There is nothing we have that's going to repair a newly active caldera. Look at what St Helens did, just a few miles up the road. Talk about playing with matches....

      --
      ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
    2. Re:yea by unity100 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      - 1) There's now incentive to stop really harmful activities

      there is ?!?!!?! do you think gulf spill was the first dumbfounding disaster in corporate history ? what makes it any different now ?

      - 2) Those private businesses that cause harm pay compensation for their harm

      will that bring back 2000 or so dead people ?

      - 3) Those businesses go away, if they cause enough harm.

      did exxon mobil go away ? did pfizer go away after poisoning hundreds of thousands in india ? have bp gone away ?

    3. Re:yea by luis_a_espinal · · Score: 4, Interesting

      And no one's gone to the trouble of modeling what happens when you chill down part of a lava dome. Does it harden, then blow sky high? Does it pressure masses underneath the caldera to cause nice earthquakes? Do you get a nice fissure opening up somewhere else to flow the lava into new and vulnerable areas? How long before the solidification means you have drill new spots? How are you going to stabilize the old spots? I don't think there are any lava-eating bacteria to help save the day here. There is nothing we have that's going to repair a newly active caldera. Look at what St Helens did, just a few miles up the road. Talk about playing with matches....

      Are you making the question in the rhetorical sense because you know for a fact that no one is doing just that, or are you asking the question because that is what you are assuming?

    4. Re:yea by khipu · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Somebody has to drill for oil, and they are going to create oil spills, that's just a fact of life. We (humans) try to do the best we can when weighing costs and benefits, and when we get it wrong, we try to correct it. But doing nothing because it might be too risky is just as bad as not regulating things at all.

      I suspect BP and Exxon both had a much harder time getting new contracts, but in the end, there are few companies that can do these kinds of jobs. So what alternative do you suggest?

    5. Re:yea by khallow · · Score: 4, Funny

      I recommend you find a new pet peeve to be peeved about. I'm not changing my lingo for that weak a jibe.

  6. Re:Renewable energy is a myth. by lightknight · · Score: 4, Funny

    From what we have observed of the universe, yes, that does appear to be the long term diagnosis.

    In the short-term, though, I'm more worried about the Sun undergoing its projected expansion phase (in a few billion years), or human beings accidentally finding a way to stop the Earth's dynamo (that one actually keeps me up at night).

    --
    I am John Hurt.
  7. Re:stop messing with nature! by semi-extrinsic · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Sounds like someone took The Day After Tomorrow a little too seriously...

    Seriously, though, any method of producing energy will necessarily have a negative impact on something. Here in Norway, we have a lot of "clean" hydropower, but that has always faced opposition from environmentalists worrying about salmon and other fish, and from the native Sami people in the north. If you want to reduce global CO2 emissions, you are inevitably going to damage something else in some way. It is always a tradeoff, trying to find the least total negative impact.

    --
    for i in `facebook friends "=bday" 2>/dev/null | cut -d " " -f 3-`; do facebook wallpost $i "Happy birthday!"; done
  8. Pouring water into volcanos... by nxcho · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...is also useful to generate cobblestone, especially on some pvp maps.

    --
    When asked why, the answer is almost always: "It's 2014".
  9. I heard the same thing about the German V2 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    There were apparently theories that the upper atmosphere was uncombined hydrogen
    and oxygen, and that there was a chance a V2 going high enough would set it off.
    Lotta nerve there.

    1. Re:I heard the same thing about the German V2 by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 4, Funny

      There were apparently theories that the upper atmosphere was uncombined hydrogen and oxygen, and that there was a chance a V2 going high enough would set it off. Lotta nerve there.

      They also must have thought that all those countless meteors must be really polite to respect the "no smoking" warnings every time they are flying throught that layer.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
  10. Volcano God want ... by PPH · · Score: 5, Funny

    ... virgins! Not cold shower.

    Volcano God plenty angry now. Flatten peasants' puny city.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
    1. Re:Volcano God want ... by HornWumpus · · Score: 5, Funny

      You are recruiting in the right place.

      If the volcano gods want attractive virgins I think you are out of luck.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  11. Re:Not again? by dj245 · · Score: 5, Informative

    The turbines are produced by Halliburton — I've seen the red Halliburton truck dragging one up Bottle Rock Rd. on a massive flatbed.

    Sorry but no. Most of the Geysers turbines were manufactured by Toshiba Corp (sorry, PDF), with the exception of 2 turbines which were manufactured by GE (these may be retired now). New or replacement turbines are definitely competitively bid, since my company bids on them. Halliburton doesn't make steam turbines. If indeed you have seen Halliburton at the geysers, they must have been a transportation contractor or something like that.

    As for the "superfund site", I can't find anything on this that is less than 15 years old. And this report from 1983 says there is nothing hazardous at the Geysers. I'll agree it is a very old report and standards have changed since then, but the only other EPA document available is in 1995- they seem to have capped some wells that had the potential of a hydrogen sulfide explosion. Hardly the "drums full of toxic chemicals" that you are implying.

    --
    Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
  12. Well... by denzacar · · Score: 4, Interesting

    When the person representing the corporation in charge says something like this:

    "We know the heat is there," said Susan Petty, president of AltaRock.
    "The big issue is can we circulate enough water through the system to make it economic."

    And the expert seismologist says something like this:

    We've been monitoring [The Geysers] since 1975.
    All the earthquakes we see there are [human] induced.
    When they move production into a new area, earthquakes start there, and when they stop production, the earthquakes stop.

    Well... You kinda have a reason to fear.

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens