Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Volcano Power Plan Gets US Go-Ahead

Posted by samzenpus on from the lets-get-cooking dept.

cylonlover writes "Having successfully negotiated the challenging regulatory slopes of the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, the U.S. Forest Service, the U.S. Department of Energy, and a host of Oregon state agencies, the Newberry Enhanced Geothermal Systems (EGS) demonstration project is in the process of creating a new geothermal reservoir in central Oregon. The core of the new reservoir is a two mile (3.2 km) deep well drilled about four miles (6.4 km) from the center of Newberry Volcano. The rock surrounding the wellbore reaches temperatures in the order of 600 F (300 C), and is nearly impermeable to water. That, however, is about to change. Newberry Volcano is one of the largest and youngest volcanoes in the United States. Having last erupted about 1,300 years ago, it consists of over 400 individual volcanic vents, which, when combined, form a broad mounded landform referred to as a shield volcano. The Newberry EGS Demonstration geothermal reservoir is being formed in the high-temperature, low-permeability deep lava of the volcano's northwest flank."

16 of 114 comments (clear)

  1. Fracking is dangerous... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    But drilling holes into a live volcano is perfectly fine.

    Yeah, I know. One is "green" and the other is "EEEVUL petroleum".

    1. Re:Fracking is dangerous... by Defenestrar · · Score: 5, Funny

      Oh come on. What could possibly go wrong?

    2. Re:Fracking is dangerous... by ByOhTek · · Score: 5, Informative

      I think the volume of ground affected by fracking is quite a bit larger than that hole being drilled into the volcano, and the goal with fracking is to mess around with the pressure under the surface, where ideally this is close a pressure neutral (volume changing, and that, I suspect will happen at/above surface level) system. Lastly, waste products from fracking tend not to be well controlled/cleaned except maybe on paper, the water (or other liquid) use here should be in a fairly closed system and shouldn't be introduced to toxic chemicals. Not that this is the wisest idea either, but an experimental site should provide interesting details as to the danger.

      Your comment could similarly read as:

      Stalin (who was once a baby) is horrible
      but other people are perfectly fine.

      Yeah, I know. One is "human" the other is "a madman".

      --
      Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
    3. Re:Fracking is dangerous... by alen · · Score: 4, Informative

      Iceland does this
      They get lots of power from geothermal

    4. Re:Fracking is dangerous... by ByOhTek · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That's exactly what I'm arguing the OPs comment leads towards.

      Just because one kind of messing around underground is dangerous, doesn't mean all kinds are. Fracking and this type of geothermal piping are rather different beasts.

      --
      Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
    5. Re:Fracking is dangerous... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Informative

      Oh come on. What could possibly go wrong?

      Other than some barely perceptible tremors in an unpopulated area? By drawing heat out of the volcano, it will make it less likely to erupt. The waste water will have lots of sulfer, but that also occurs naturally. I don't see any serious concerns.

      Unlike other green energy sources, geothermal can provide reliable 24/7/365 baseload power. We should be encouraging projects like this.

       

    6. Re:Fracking is dangerous... by Tator+Tot · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I think the volume of ground affected by fracking is quite a bit larger than that hole being drilled into the volcano, and the goal with fracking is to mess around with the pressure under the surface, where ideally this is close a pressure neutral (volume changing, and that, I suspect will happen at/above surface level) system. Lastly, waste products from fracking tend not to be well controlled/cleaned except maybe on paper, the water (or other liquid) use here should be in a fairly closed system and shouldn't be introduced to toxic chemicals. Not that this is the wisest idea either, but an experimental site should provide interesting details as to the danger.

      It bothers me when people discuss their uninformed opinions relating to a topic as fact.

      1) The amount of fluid used in these deep shale formations is quite large, but even when you drill horizontally for a mile and then fracture 1000+ feet above and below the hole, you're still typically 12,000 feet below the surface (therefore the "frac zone" is from 11,000 to 13,000 feet). So even if you have DEEP water table of 2000 feet below the surface (where nearly none are this deep), the alleged "toxic chemicals" would have to travel a distance of around 9,000 feet (in this case) in order to taint the water supply. I've sat through enough presentations with REAL data obtained in the field to know that the fractures occur nowhere near these water zones.

      2) The purpose of fracking is to increase the permeability of low-permeability shales (traditional reservoirs are in the mili-darcy range were unconventional reservoirs are more in the micro to nano-darcy range). They use high pressure fluid to open up the shale. Has nothing to do with adding pressure under the surface.

      3) Waste products tend not to be controlled? Are you fucking nuts? The amount of regulation on what to do with the waste water is HUGE (and the assfucks that attempt to dump these fluids are massively fined), not to mention that a good chunk of fracking research goes into figuring out how to best reclaim and reuse of the fluid. Besides being 99% water and sand, the other additives are typically guar, biocides, polyacrylamides for friction reduction, corrosion inhibitors, citric acid, and ethylene glycol.

      By the way, I work in a plant that makes a variety of additives for drilling and fracking fluids. Would you believe me if I told you that our facility is not capable or certified to handle any type of hazardous materials? That would mean that our company is going to get shut down by the government if they find out.... or maybe that the majority of additives for drilling and fracking fluids are non-hazardous?

      --
      To all you virgins: Thanks for nothing.
    7. Re:Fracking is dangerous... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The biggest concerns are around the history of this type of work. Geothermal power in the US hasn't been very economical due to the rather fast "cooling" of the material. See the mostly failed geothermal work done in Napa and Sonoma counties in California. Yes, they still operate - and even give tours. But they never made money and have shutdown most of their plants. Hopefully this one works better. I imagine they have learned from past mistakes, but my gut reaction is "not this again.".

    8. Re:Fracking is dangerous... by khallow · · Score: 3, Informative

      The waste water will have lots of sulfer, but that also occurs naturally.

      Well, there's a serious concern right there. Dose makes the poison.

      And we need to consider what's attached to that sulfur. It usually isn't elemental sulfur. Metals such as iron, lead, copper, etc are usually attached. They're naturally occurring as well, but not in the concentrations dealt with in hydrothermal fluid.

      Having said that, it's merely a serious problem that adds cost to the system, not an insurmountable one.

    9. Re:Fracking is dangerous... by Solandri · · Score: 5, Informative

      The waste water will have lots of sulfer, but that also occurs naturally.

      Well, there's a serious concern right there. Dose makes the poison.

      Ideally, your primary water loop is self-contained and thus never leaves the system (volcano and primary geothermal equipment in this case). You send the water down, it picks up heat and sulfur and other stuff, it comes up. Then you run it through a heat exchanger where the heat (and only the heat) is transferred to a second water loop. That second loop is what drives your turbine generators. The reason for this isn't environmental protection. It's to protect the generators from corrosion and all sorts of crud that might be in the primary loop water.

  2. Now the power company's going to buy it by Quila · · Score: 4, Funny

    And shut it down. Earl's never going to get rich.

  3. Drilling two miles into a live volcano? by badzilla · · Score: 4, Funny

    The story has the words in the wrong order.

    Having last erupted about 1,300 years ago... That, however, is about to change.

    Fixed it for you.

    --
    "Don't belong. Never join. Think for yourself. Peace." V.Stone, Microsoft Corporation
  4. Someone comment on the Hawaii experience by cvtan · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Puna Geothermal Ventures has been operating for decades. http://www.hawaiisenergyfuture.com/articles/Geothermal.html
    Power from the geothermal plant is sold to Hawaii Electric at the same price as power from oil-fired sources.
    Oil and naphtha generated electric capacity has been increased so that power from wind/geothermal is not needed (this was a few years ago though).
    Geothermal power has been unreliable with many mechanical problems. There are environmental issues: http://cleantechnica.com/2012/04/28/hawaii-residents-raise-serious-concerns-about-pgv-geothermal-energys-clean-energy-credentials/

    --
    Sorry, but gray text on gray background is making my eyes bleed.
    1. Re:Someone comment on the Hawaii experience by biodata · · Score: 5, Informative

      On the other hand, Iceland generates all its power from geothermal and hydro AFAIR, and has no oil or naptha power (whatever that is). I think there might be an issue with who does it rather than the underlying technology. Incidentally, Iceland has also sent top bankers to jail for fraud over the financial crisis, and recently come out of recession and into positive growth with reducing unemployment. I think they just do things differently.

      --
      Korma: Good
  5. This is stupid... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    What they need to do is get rid of the volcano by filling it up with cement and then build a nuclear power plant on top of it.

  6. Re:They actually duplicate by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Politicians in California had to be threatened wih political death before they backed off much of the costly, time-consuming regulatory bullshit in the way of new electric plants.

    Let that be a lesson for the cumulative weight of piecemeil-that-sounds-good ideas adding up to grind things to a halt. You don't need a corrupt system of government officials for government to end up in the same place -- smashed economy because nobody can do anything without permission.

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.