Sadly, probably true... guess that means, IF their claims are true (and the panels last long enough) then it's time to jump on them now before someone figures out a way to tax them to make up for it...
And their longevity ISNT something I considered... thanks for pointing that out... if a (conventional) solar panel lasts up to 30 years - but these new ones last up to 3... then there really isnt any savings at all... and even at 10 years, the savings gets minimized considerably...
Great points, and thanks for new insights into it!
But what if instead of large scale projects many small scale projects were done? What's needed to solve the energy problem isn't a large one size fits all approach but many little things together. Geothermal is just another piece of the puzzle.
THAT is a damn good question. BUT, would it be cost effective to say... drill a hole to right above the magma layer to run your own power station for your house? Or a small town?
My *GUESS* is for a house... no. For a small town? Dont have a clue... you? I'd guess probably not though... only the method of finding good geothermal locations has become cheaper... not the method for building those geothermal plants when a location is found.
For home use - or even small town/city use, I think this discovery is moot anyway... for home use, it is generally a heat pump... barely a dig at all in comparison.
For a small town... I dont know what they'd use geothermal for (no sense in heating water before resident delivery - and probably not worth the cost of deep drilling and big expensive turbines for electricity generation)... maybe a mid-sized town? OR a small town that has a good geothermal location who wants to sell off that energy back into the "big-grid"?
Ah but TFA says "And it doesn't even have to require drilling." But you're right I wouldn't want to see Yellowstone despoiled.
Ugh... no one is reading the article correctly...:-(
The article says FINDING geothermal resources no longer requires drilling. It also says and infers that USING those resources requires conventional power plants - which are all deep drilling powerplants...
Two important reasons this storehouse of energy has not been tapped is that locating the specific energy hot spots is difficult and expensive.
"This suggests that, as deformation increases, fluids circulate more deeply into the Earth, thus scavenging up more of the mantle helium," van Soest says. "Areas where we can sample fluids near the surface provide a way of getting a relatively cheap and easy indication of what's happening deep down. Applying what we know about the helium ratios makes the exploration for geothermal resources cheaper and faster."
Well, it is a Sunday night... long weekend and all for everyone...:-)
Geothermal energy is so named because it derives from the Greek words for "earth heat", "geo" and "therme". Extreme amounts of heat are generated in the Earth's core, which reaches temperatures of up to 9,000 degrees Fahrenheit. The Earth's core then transfers heat to the mantle, a crust of rock surrounding the core. This rock liquefies due to the intense heat becoming magma (molten rock). In this magma layer, water collects in columns or reserves. This trapped water, which can be heated to temperatures of about 700 degrees Fahrenheit, is known as a geothermal reservoir. When engineers want to use geothermal energy, they "tap" in to this geothermal water and use the resulting hot water and steam for various purposes.
Which shows the hot side very close to the magma layer, with the injection well being farther away...
So, it's either close (drill to) or on/in (drill INto) it depending on which article/method...
For the type of power station you are talking about (EGS) the articles interest in 3He isotopes in water is irrelevant. Ergo, they are not talking about type of plant you are, they are talking about conventional designs. Take particular note of the line which says "And it doesn't even have to require drilling." I repeat: they are not talking about EGS plants. Do not be taken in by their total resource claims - that is just a nice attention getting statement to lead with.
The article speaks of using that method to find suitable locations that are "deep down" (from article)... not as a method of creating power... which still requires drilling and a geothermal plant. A conventional Geothermal Plant *is* a deep drill plant... check out all the large scale ones around the world. The depths are different because the magma layers are at different depths... but they all drill to really close - or into that layer.
I think you just misread the article. The title sums it up nicely though... "Helium isotopes point to the best sources of geothermal energy"
"Often when people thought there might be a geothermal resource below the surface the only way to determine if their assumption was correct was drilling and drilling is extremely expensive," he says.
...(blah blah blah... but can now find what is deep below using this new Helium Isotope method... etc... etc...)...
"This suggests that, as deformation increases, fluids circulate more deeply into the Earth, thus scavenging up more of the mantle helium," van Soest says. "Areas where we can sample fluids near the surface provide a way of getting a relatively cheap and easy indication of what's happening deep down. Applying what we know about the helium ratios makes the exploration for geothermal resources cheaper and faster."
However I heard some years ago that Bush wants to allow oil companies to drill in Yellowstone for oil.
Now I KNOW drilling in Yellowstone is a bad idea!:-)
While oil drilling isnt that deep in comparison to deep drilling for geothermal, I dont think I'd wanna do it... heck, safety (or smarts) aside, I'd rather not see such a beautiful area despoiled by the greedy.
Yes, sorry, they are not Google... Some Google owners backing them... my apologies for that innaccuracy.
As for the cost portion... not MY claimed price. From a PopSci article just recently on Nanosolar's claims and product:
The company produces its PowerSheet solar cells with printing-press-style machines that set down a layer of solar-absorbing nano-ink onto metal sheets as thin as aluminum foil, so the panels can be made for about a tenth of what current panels cost and at a rate of several hundred feet per minute.
A minute or two of production would easily power my house!:-)
Thanks for the links... there is a bunch of conflicting info on the site... though what you pointed out is the most recent. Some of it was cited by the Discovery Channel and various colleges involved who came to different conclusions... (overdue, and 10 years to 10,000 years), but regardless, even assuming you are correct and they are not... (and I'll gladly concede that point... because frankly, I dont think any of them are sure... hence working on better methods of predicting such things)...
...it still makes the context of my original point somewhat valid. Lets assume Yellowstone is in no danger of eruption... it is active. Most of that activity is underground (with the aboveground stuff being exhibitted as geysers and hot springs). "Accelerated uplift and magmatic intrusion of the Yellowstone Caldera, 2004 to 2006".
So, my point being, *I* dont think anyone in their right mind would drill to the magma layer of a super-volcano that is showing uplift - and magmatic intrusion (magma flowing upwards into other layers it previously wasnt in?).
I'd rather it be 250,000 years before the next eruption... not "Ooops, our drilling seems to have fractured the dome (that is already leaking) over the magma layer. Gee I wonder if that'll cause a sudden pressure release (ie: eruption)?"
Can you provide a link to the page where Nanosolar alleges that their products from the San Jose, California plant will be sold exclusively to Europe? I have read their press releases and blogs and not seen such a claim.
Check out the announcement in Popular Science... and no, not exclusively... but FIRST to Europe...
In San Jose, Nanosolar has built what will soon be the world's largest solar-panel manufacturing facility. CEO Martin Roscheisen claims that once full production starts early next year, it will create 430 megawatts' worth of solar cells a year--more than the combined total of every other solar plant in the U.S. The first 100,000 cells will be shipped to Europe, where a consortium will be building a 1.4-megawatt power plant next year.
It does mean they will be selling elsewhere eventually... it would be nice if it was now - and they had bigger distribution channels (and contractors who were trained in installing) in the US.
I even understand the reasons... many countries in Europe are more "alternative power" friendly... so go with the big sale - wherever it is - to fund continuing operation.
Second, if you care about the net carbon footprint of the human population then it shouldn't matter whether the first sales are to commercial users or to home users. If anything, large commercial installations will be better able to work out the inevitable kinks in a Version 1.0 project, and companies (guided by the profit motive) are more likely to deploy the panels efficiently (in sunny areas, think Nevada) where they can generate the most energy possible -- consumers may choose to install panels wherever they happen to live (think New York) even if that's not the most efficient place for solar energy.
Very true. And I agree with those statements and sentiments. I am being somewhat greedy in wanting it available now, as my family is looking for "green alternatives" - but then again, we have (and have had for over a decade) the highest electric rates in the country - bar none. With another rate hike in the works. And there's also the hope that a solution available for both large scale generation - and home use - will impact that carbon footprint quicker than one available to just one of those groups.
They are talking about "accessible" geothermal energy - anything requiring drilling to the magma layer is not accessible (in fact we don't have the tech to drill to the magma layer). What they are talking about is finding places where water is being naturally circulated deep into the crust (where it picks up H3e) and back. Those locations are ideal for Flash and Binary Cycle geothermal plants. You are probably thinking of the EGS/Hot Dry Rock type of geothermal plant, but you don't need to look for 3He in water for good locations for those plants - pretty much anywhere will work.
Actually, we do have the resources to do deep drilling to the magma layer...
The heat from the earth's own molten core can be converted into electricity. This core consists primarily of extremely high temperature liquid rock known as magma. This "geothermal" heat circulates within the rock or is transferred to underground reservoirs of water, which also circulate under the earth's crust. Because of the near limitless ability of the earth to produce magma, and the continuous transfer of heat between subsurface rock and water, geothermal energy is considered a renewable resource.
Geothermal resources have been harnessed as an energy source since the dawn of civilization, when natural hot springs were first used for cooking and bathing. The geothermal resources tapped to generate electricity are far more intense than those used for space heating and can reside as deep as 10,000 feet below the earth's surface. Capital costs for the construction of geothermal power plants are much higher than for large coal-fired plants or new natural gas turbine technologies. But geothermal plants have reasonable operation and maintenance costs and no fuel costs. Though more expensive than wind power in most cases, new geothermal electricity generation facilities are increasingly competitive with fossil options.
Check out the US DOE's site and other Geothermal sites for more info (the DOE site lists to a bunch worldwide - and of course there is Google). For the type of power generation (ie: amount of power) the article is discussing, there is no other known way to generate that level of power without deep drilling to the magma layer. But it is because countries have done it, and because such sites in their technical section in discussing feasibility, that I made reference to such an operation in Yellowstone being dangerous... the studies already made reference to the need to avoid such areas due to the possible "damage" it could trigger (volcanic, etc).
For smaller setups, (a house, a small town/small city) it might be different... but require a lot more "holes" and power equipment...
As for Yellowstone... it's protected parkland anyway... (though I guess that could be changed).
Why would there be a tax collapse anyway? Is somebody going to suddenly start giving away power for free?
Let's say Nanosolar's claims are accurate - and as they are already making sales, I would think they would know... so... now, solar setups for a home are available at 1/10th the cost that it used to be (well, if they would sell them to consumers). All electric vehicles now are more enticing. Why? Because it costs nothing to run them (after the initial, far cheaper outlay for solar for your house). So... if solar is now affordable, and more people consider electric vehicles, gas tax revenue starts to decline...
Many states' major tax income is from the gas tax. Many states are barely keeping afloat (financially)...
Now... add to that... you are no longer paying tax on the oil/coal/whatever fossil fuel that the electric company uses to create power because you are no longer using their power - again, less taxes going to states that depend on those taxes. (Whether you pay a tax or surcharge on your bill or not, a tax on the fuel IS being paid to the state).
Then add to that, with a decent solar setup (and there are a bunch online where people are doing this) properly set up, can be feeding power back into the grid... that means perhaps your neighbor's house (or portion thereof) is not being powered by fossil fuels either... again less tax revenue.
Then consider that since you are creating your own "free" electric, why bother having a gas/oil/propane water heater or dryer or home heater? Do it all electric... ooops... more lost tax revenues.
This hasnt been an issue because solar has been too expensive. But if panels are now 1/10th the cost, it's really easy and relatively cheap to set up a solar unit that will both power your own house and send power back into the grid, meaning you are making money every month... starts getting really attractive to a lot more people who wouldnt even consider it at this time. More contractors realize that it is a market they can get into to make more money (installations in new houses, retrofitting old houses to run off-grid, etc)... and start marketing it as well, increasing public awareness...
The snowball starts rolling down the mountain... how long before it triggers that avalanche?
Solar is expensive and can't be built (on a large scale) just anywhere.
Solar WAS expensive. Here, it still is expensive... but Nanosolar's claims (which again, since they already seem to have sold them, I'd assume they know the cost) are that it is now 1/10th the cost for the same amount of power. That means solar WAS expensive (at least in the places Nanosolar is choosing to sell the panels), and solar WAS difficult to install (while now you can just unroll the solar sheets, plug them in to your storage/inverter setup and be done).
Wind is somewhat less expensive, but also needs a special site, and unreliable to boot. Geothermal tends to be best in remote areas -- hard to build and staff the power plant, and you lose a lot of power sending it over the wires to the cities.
Perhaps, but according to the USGS's data on the matter, most of the geothermal sites they have mapped are in the "not that remote" category... for instance, on the east coast, there are a number of sites far closer to NYC than Niagra Falls... and on the west coast, there are tons of sites up and down it - with "remote" locations in that mix that would be ideal for a geothermal plant - that is with in a couple hundred miles of multiple major metro areas.
Not that it's impossible, but it's not quite the cakewalk/slam dunk (except for the conspiracy) that the grandparent would have us believe.
I dont think there is a conspiracy involved. As another/.er and I were discussing back and forth, what sense would it make for a "big oil" company to invest in geothermal? Why spend a lot of money investing in something that
Yes, it is NanoSolar... but according to their very own release, the Cali plant is near completion and the Cali plant will be selling the panels in Europe... and worse - not to consumers.
I wish it werent so... I'd love to have one of their setups myself.
Hopefully they will change their plans in the near future. Then... I could see there being affordable and viable options in this country.
Explain to me why Google is able to produce solar panels at 1/10th the power - but isnt selling them to consumers - much less anyone in the US - even though they are made here.
That should have read:
Explain to me why Google is able to produce solar panels at 1/10th the COST at the same POWER OUTPUT - but isnt selling them to consumers - much less anyone in the US - even though they are made here.
You ARE correct - about the drilling part - IF this wasnt a DEEP DRILL scenario. Creating enough power to power the US via Geothermal requires DEEP DRILL setups... not near surface setups such as are used for smaller implementations (small towns, individual houses, etc).
My statement is based on assuming (by the article's reference about creating enough power for the world) that they are talking about large scale geothermal plants which drill through to the magma layer...
Taking geothermal energy out of ground makes an eruption less likely, if anything. Actually it probably won't make any difference in terms of magma eruptions, though it could reduce the amount of geothermal activity (particularly geysers) in the area and make a steam eruption less likely.
Yes it does... but drilling through that pressure cap (rock, etc) creates a the risk of releasing that pressure in a massive blast or blasts. Besides, it's more than geothermal energy release that needs to be worried about in that area... it's a Volcano - that drives the geysers... not a geyser system that is just a geyser/spring system.
Such an issue (if you knew ANYTHING about geothermal power) is something that gets considered in EVERY deep drill geothermal setup. There is always the risk of the drilling area fracturing and thus letting out magma. The choice is to find a stable area, and STILL study it to determine if such a risk is likely. Yellowstone is NOT stable in any sense. (1) it is geothermally and volcanicly active (oops, that already gets it off the possible location list), (2) it is changing and geophysically active (surface deformities), (3) it's VERY VERY tectonically active (4) (based off #1-3) the rock structure (composition, fracturing and motion) is a "softer", easier to crumble/fracture material (unlike bedrock or other rock types).
Check Wiki and The US National Geological Survey pages for more info. THEY disagree with your assessment of a quarter million years... the site is recently increasingly active... moving whole mountain ranges and plateaus.
Please... feel free to take this post out of context too...
Not one of them is offering power to the masses (as a Power Company) or providing an affordable alternative off-grid power option for consumers... I think I spelled that out clearly... so... now evaluate the statement I made that you quoted out of context.
Explain to me why Google is able to produce solar panels at 1/10th the power - but isnt selling them to consumers - much less anyone in the US - even though they are made here.
Explain to me which company is big enough to implement a geothermal solution for a big portion of the power grid... the power is available (ie: plenty of geothermal in this country to power the world thousands of times over), but there is NO company that can set up the power plants or power grid to deliver it - EXCEPT for the fossil fuel based power companies already in existence.
It's not a conspiracy. Why would a fossil fuel company want to go geothermal when they already have so much invested in their infrastructure, and their profits would decrease due to lower costs? Just good business sense that they only adopt such methods as quickly as is required of them.
As for government *credits* for installing solar, etc... the cost is so prohibitive for most people, that the government can afford to look quite generous with it's incentives - because almost no one can afford it (check how many installations there really are...).
As for other incentives... did you know there was a law passed in Baltimore almost a decade ago that stated BGE had to reimburse people who were generating excess power and feeding it back into the grid? Guess how many got money or a credit? None. Why? According to BGE *AND* the state, because no law has been passed stating HOW or HOW MUCH money the people are entitled to... so... legally they are entitled to SOMETHING... but until a law is written saying how much, they will never see the money... maybe they should wait another decade for that law to be written? Or maybe *AVAILABLE* off-grid power is soo expensive (even though there are solutions like Google's that aren't) that there arent enough people to complain that they arent getting paid for generating excess power back into the grid.
And here's a little something to add to that... if everyone could either (a) generate their own power, or (b) buy it very cheaply from an electric company that used cheaper non-fossil fuel methods, how do you think that would effect the gas car market? I know *I* would own an electric car - since other than maintenance, it would cost me nothing to drive it. Many states LIVE off the tax revenues from gasoline... maybe it's just coincidence, but plenty of govt watchdogs (heck even the govt itself) have stated or speculated that is part of the reason for slow adoption of other power sources...
The (unstable) Yellowstone caldera is actually one of the largest Super Volcanos in the world... and due for an eruption. Probably NOT the place I would mess with... the whole mass-extinction level eruption thing and all...
Good thought though.
The problem I have is regardless of this research, "we" already have mapped plenty of areas to provide the US and plenty more places) with geothermal power (plenty of geological surveys on the subject already... a bunch of sites even got listed in a recent US News magazine)... for some reason though, we just havent tapped them yet.... maybe something to do with the fact that our fossil fuel based economy would be destroyed... tax revenues and corporate investments and corporation financial collapse and all.
There are more than one viable fossil fuel alternative already... geothermal is only one. New solar collectors developed by a Google owned company are another (which are being built in California - to be shipped and used in Europe - but for some reason (a) not here, and (b) not available for consumers to buy here). They cost 1/10th the cost of traditional panels, are easier to maintain and install (flexible sheets - not heavy glass and metal panels) and produce the same power.
The research means nothing when there aren't companies set up to implement them for actual use - and I dont know of any company that could afford to beat out the fossil fuel companies to do so.
The U of O has refused to help the RIAA, and the AG is helping them out. I don't think this filing will have much effect beyond this case.
As the investigation does include such things as (from NewYorkCountyLawyers' page):
--MediaSentry appears to have been conducting an investigation without an investigator's license, in violation of ORS 703.405 and ORS 703.993(s), which is a crime
...I would think that it *may* be the basis of criminal charges against them. Now, while this is an issue specific to Ohio law, the good thing is most states have very similar laws/statutes regarding such matters... that means, if OH makes this into a criminal case against the RIAA, two things happen: (1) They can no longer use such "investigative" tactics in OH, and (2) other states with similar laws can (a) by their own volition follow in similar footsteps, or (b) at the behest of people being sued by the RIAA look into that exact same manner - with, in both cases, much of the groundwork already done for them by the OH AG.
IANAL, so this is just my speculation, but it does seem to be a sensible progression of things (assuming the OH AG follows up on the criminal activities indicated - and wins).
A bill appointing the RIAA and its investigators as deputy federal marshals.
Though sconeu's comment was humorous, keep in mind that the RIAA is trying to do the equivalent by getting the government to sanction/approve their actions or grant them the power to do such things. That effort is focusing on multiple methods of ensuring it, from (1) granting them immunity from prosecution for using such illegal tactics/abusing the court system and/or (2) making it legal for them to use such methods that would otherwise be considered circumventing due-process and abusing/railroading the legal/justice system.
Sadly, it's only humorous until the RIAA gets something new (and more idiotic) passed by Congress to allow them even greater powers than the ones they are questionably abusing. So, while currently, they stretch (or outright break) various discovery and investigative laws; if they have their way, the laws will be re-written so that is no longer an issue.
I guess the questions that remain are (a) will the RIAA be destroyed before that happens? (b) will the record companies learn that such tactics are hurting their business and costing them money for no rewards (financial or piracy deterrent) or (c) will it soon become a moot point because the RIAA manages to get ridiculous laws passed that allow their current actions - and worse ones?
Sorry, but you forgot to follow the link (http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=61798) on that very page and then follow those links for each update when you came up with your "25" figure. You'll notice it puts it much more on par with a regular Service Pack. This (http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=307041) sublink alone (one of MANY on that second page you missed) contains more fixes than you counted (39 additional). I *do* know what I am talking about - but then again, I *read* the Apple page (which I actually posted in one of my previous posts - WITH the 2nd link that you missed).
So, here's the two main links for the 10.5.1 Update. On the second link, then go through each link on that page and count if you like...
-http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=306907
-http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=61798
So, go back and add them back up if you want... when you are done, you'll find I am quite accurate in comparing the 10.5.1 update to a Service Pack.
Re:Leopard is buggy and Apple has few excuses
on
Leopard as the New Vista?
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Re:Leopard is buggy and Apple has few excuses
My post had nothing to do with excusing Apple for the bugs in Leopard - nor did I make any claim about Leopard NOT being buggy... actually I pointed out links that show just how many (and it isnt a small list) fixes Leopard needed - from Apple's very own web pages.
Um, you do realize that Microsoft has been releasing Vista fixes for months now via Windows Update, right? Fixes don't have to come as SPs or.0.1 updates.
Yeah, but Apple's 10.5.1 update seems quite similar to what MS would call a Service Pack... comparing it to the individual fixes MS releases isnt fair. That is why I even put links into my posts that showed what was fixed (BIG list for each link) - so the comparison to a Service Pack could be made (which is a far more accurate comparison).
Vista has to work probably 3 orders of magnitude more configurations than OSX does, yet Leopard is still very buggy, even with 10.5.1, BTW.
Ah... well, I am waiting to see those reports hit the net... (still buggy). As for the "magnitude more configurations" - yes, that is true... but wasn't the point. Saying 1 month (Apple) is equal to 12+ months (MS) as the author tried alluding to, simply isnt accurate.
And make no mistake: The author's complaints are not an isolated case.
I never disputed the validity of his complaints about OSX... I said the comparisons weren't accurate. I even said that the piece was fair in it's criticism of Leopard - but off the wall in it's comparison of the two (Leopard and Vista).
There are plenty of different reasons to gripe about Leopard from what I have read - also a reason I pointed out the links I did (because it LISTS all the issues that were resolved - and thus that were RELEASED in Leopard). Again, the point is, the comparisons dont make sense - even though his criticism of Leopard *by itself* may be accurate... and the comparisons make that criticism inccorect or skewed in some of the cases(for instance the GUI enhancements and networking - as I also pointed out).
I think perhaps you just misread my post... check out my followup posts as well - as they may help you to understand the first post a little better.
AND... (for me) to be more fair... Apple's 10.5.1 update hasn't been out long enough to judge what problems it may create. So who knows? But even going on the expectation that 10.5.1 is as good/buggy as XP SP1/Vista SP1... the release timeframe is the real issue.
And even in that, (to be once again fair to MS on this issue... which I think many people overlook), I'm not saying there aren't reasons MS needs longer - they do have a lot more hardware and software to support... what I was trying to say was for the author to actually claim that the wait for fixes (as he did) was similar was absurd. I truly EXPECT MS to need more time (is a year unreasonable? Dunno... that's a discussion for another topic I think)... but the author doesnt seem to realize, that even if that is true, 1 month isnt equal to one year.:-)
Ugh... let me summarize that for the idiot who modded it "Troll"...
There are less Apple users (that alone means the appearance of less complaints than Windows users)
Apple deals with issues quicker... meaning it is easier to forget those issues since you werent stuck with them for many months or a year.
Even if their market shares were 50/50... lets assume 12,000 machines sold in a year each... if Apple takes a month to release an update into the channel and MS takes a year for an equivalent update, then it affects 12,000 Windows users and 1,000 Apple users...
Since their market share is grossly different, that means (using the 24,000 total units in the above example) only 1/12 of 960 users will experience problems.
I think the post was quite fair and accurate... or maybe you didnt like the part that said (paraphrased) that since Apple has a small fraction of the marketshare, it means a small fraction of that small fraction (in a given year) will experience problems, making it seem that Apple users have shorter memory?
It's just math anc consumer expectations... there wasnt a single troll like comment in there... math is your friend... dont let it scare you into marking posts "Troll" (or learn to read).
Slashdot Mirror
Sadly, probably true... guess that means, IF their claims are true (and the panels last long enough) then it's time to jump on them now before someone figures out a way to tax them to make up for it...
And their longevity ISNT something I considered... thanks for pointing that out... if a (conventional) solar panel lasts up to 30 years - but these new ones last up to 3... then there really isnt any savings at all... and even at 10 years, the savings gets minimized considerably...
Great points, and thanks for new insights into it!
THAT is a damn good question. BUT, would it be cost effective to say... drill a hole to right above the magma layer to run your own power station for your house? Or a small town?
My *GUESS* is for a house... no. For a small town? Dont have a clue... you? I'd guess probably not though... only the method of finding good geothermal locations has become cheaper... not the method for building those geothermal plants when a location is found.
For home use - or even small town/city use, I think this discovery is moot anyway... for home use, it is generally a heat pump... barely a dig at all in comparison.
For a small town... I dont know what they'd use geothermal for (no sense in heating water before resident delivery - and probably not worth the cost of deep drilling and big expensive turbines for electricity generation)... maybe a mid-sized town? OR a small town that has a good geothermal location who wants to sell off that energy back into the "big-grid"?
Ugh... no one is reading the article correctly... :-(
The article says FINDING geothermal resources no longer requires drilling. It also says and infers that USING those resources requires conventional power plants - which are all deep drilling powerplants...
Two important reasons this storehouse of energy has not been tapped is that locating the specific energy hot spots is difficult and expensive."This suggests that, as deformation increases, fluids circulate more deeply into the Earth, thus scavenging up more of the mantle helium," van Soest says. "Areas where we can sample fluids near the surface provide a way of getting a relatively cheap and easy indication of what's happening deep down. Applying what we know about the helium ratios makes the exploration for geothermal resources cheaper and faster."
Well, it is a Sunday night... long weekend and all for everyone... :-)
I didnt bookmark that one.. but here are a few:
DEEP GEOTHERMAL DRILLING ON THE REYKJANES RIDGE...
Or
Geothermal energy is so named because it derives from the Greek words for "earth heat", "geo" and "therme". Extreme amounts of heat are generated in the Earth's core, which reaches temperatures of up to 9,000 degrees Fahrenheit. The Earth's core then transfers heat to the mantle, a crust of rock surrounding the core. This rock liquefies due to the intense heat becoming magma (molten rock). In this magma layer, water collects in columns or reserves. This trapped water, which can be heated to temperatures of about 700 degrees Fahrenheit, is known as a geothermal reservoir. When engineers want to use geothermal energy, they "tap" in to this geothermal water and use the resulting hot water and steam for various purposes.From: http://ezinearticles.com/?Producing-Energy-From-Geothermal-Resources&id=243735
Or
http://www.crest.org/geothermal/geothermal_brief_geothermal_resources.html
Which shows the hot side very close to the magma layer, with the injection well being farther away...
So, it's either close (drill to) or on/in (drill INto) it depending on which article/method...
For the type of power station you are talking about (EGS) the articles interest in 3He isotopes in water is irrelevant. Ergo, they are not talking about type of plant you are, they are talking about conventional designs. Take particular note of the line which says "And it doesn't even have to require drilling." I repeat: they are not talking about EGS plants. Do not be taken in by their total resource claims - that is just a nice attention getting statement to lead with.The article speaks of using that method to find suitable locations that are "deep down" (from article)... not as a method of creating power... which still requires drilling and a geothermal plant. A conventional Geothermal Plant *is* a deep drill plant... check out all the large scale ones around the world. The depths are different because the magma layers are at different depths... but they all drill to really close - or into that layer.
I think you just misread the article. The title sums it up nicely though... "Helium isotopes point to the best sources of geothermal energy"
"Often when people thought there might be a geothermal resource below the surface the only way to determine if their assumption was correct was drilling and drilling is extremely expensive," he says....(blah blah blah... but can now find what is deep below using this new Helium Isotope method... etc... etc...)...
"This suggests that, as deformation increases, fluids circulate more deeply into the Earth, thus scavenging up more of the mantle helium," van Soest says. "Areas where we can sample fluids near the surface provide a way of getting a relatively cheap and easy indication of what's happening deep down. Applying what we know about the helium ratios makes the exploration for geothermal resources cheaper and faster."
Now I KNOW drilling in Yellowstone is a bad idea! :-)
While oil drilling isnt that deep in comparison to deep drilling for geothermal, I dont think I'd wanna do it... heck, safety (or smarts) aside, I'd rather not see such a beautiful area despoiled by the greedy.
Yes, sorry, they are not Google... Some Google owners backing them... my apologies for that innaccuracy.
As for the cost portion... not MY claimed price. From a PopSci article just recently on Nanosolar's claims and product:
The company produces its PowerSheet solar cells with printing-press-style machines that set down a layer of solar-absorbing nano-ink onto metal sheets as thin as aluminum foil, so the panels can be made for about a tenth of what current panels cost and at a rate of several hundred feet per minute.A minute or two of production would easily power my house! :-)
Thanks for the links... there is a bunch of conflicting info on the site... though what you pointed out is the most recent. Some of it was cited by the Discovery Channel and various colleges involved who came to different conclusions... (overdue, and 10 years to 10,000 years), but regardless, even assuming you are correct and they are not... (and I'll gladly concede that point... because frankly, I dont think any of them are sure... hence working on better methods of predicting such things)...
...it still makes the context of my original point somewhat valid. Lets assume Yellowstone is in no danger of eruption... it is active. Most of that activity is underground (with the aboveground stuff being exhibitted as geysers and hot springs). "Accelerated uplift and magmatic intrusion of the Yellowstone Caldera, 2004 to 2006".
So, my point being, *I* dont think anyone in their right mind would drill to the magma layer of a super-volcano that is showing uplift - and magmatic intrusion (magma flowing upwards into other layers it previously wasnt in?).
I'd rather it be 250,000 years before the next eruption... not "Ooops, our drilling seems to have fractured the dome (that is already leaking) over the magma layer. Gee I wonder if that'll cause a sudden pressure release (ie: eruption)?"
:-)
Check out the announcement in Popular Science... and no, not exclusively... but FIRST to Europe...
http://www.popsci.com/popsci/flat/bown/2007/green/item_59.html
In San Jose, Nanosolar has built what will soon be the world's largest solar-panel manufacturing facility. CEO Martin Roscheisen claims that once full production starts early next year, it will create 430 megawatts' worth of solar cells a year--more than the combined total of every other solar plant in the U.S. The first 100,000 cells will be shipped to Europe, where a consortium will be building a 1.4-megawatt power plant next year.It does mean they will be selling elsewhere eventually... it would be nice if it was now - and they had bigger distribution channels (and contractors who were trained in installing) in the US.
I even understand the reasons... many countries in Europe are more "alternative power" friendly... so go with the big sale - wherever it is - to fund continuing operation.
Second, if you care about the net carbon footprint of the human population then it shouldn't matter whether the first sales are to commercial users or to home users. If anything, large commercial installations will be better able to work out the inevitable kinks in a Version 1.0 project, and companies (guided by the profit motive) are more likely to deploy the panels efficiently (in sunny areas, think Nevada) where they can generate the most energy possible -- consumers may choose to install panels wherever they happen to live (think New York) even if that's not the most efficient place for solar energy.Very true. And I agree with those statements and sentiments. I am being somewhat greedy in wanting it available now, as my family is looking for "green alternatives" - but then again, we have (and have had for over a decade) the highest electric rates in the country - bar none. With another rate hike in the works. And there's also the hope that a solution available for both large scale generation - and home use - will impact that carbon footprint quicker than one available to just one of those groups.
THAT would be an ideal method of decreasing our dependence on fossil fuels without damaging the existing financial "infrastructures."
I'd love to see such a solution implemented...
They are talking about "accessible" geothermal energy - anything requiring drilling to the magma layer is not accessible (in fact we don't have the tech to drill to the magma layer). What they are talking about is finding places where water is being naturally circulated deep into the crust (where it picks up H3e) and back. Those locations are ideal for Flash and Binary Cycle geothermal plants. You are probably thinking of the EGS/Hot Dry Rock type of geothermal plant, but you don't need to look for 3He in water for good locations for those plants - pretty much anywhere will work.
Actually, we do have the resources to do deep drilling to the magma layer...
The heat from the earth's own molten core can be converted into electricity. This core consists primarily of extremely high temperature liquid rock known as magma. This "geothermal" heat circulates within the rock or is transferred to underground reservoirs of water, which also circulate under the earth's crust. Because of the near limitless ability of the earth to produce magma, and the continuous transfer of heat between subsurface rock and water, geothermal energy is considered a renewable resource.Geothermal resources have been harnessed as an energy source since the dawn of civilization, when natural hot springs were first used for cooking and bathing. The geothermal resources tapped to generate electricity are far more intense than those used for space heating and can reside as deep as 10,000 feet below the earth's surface. Capital costs for the construction of geothermal power plants are much higher than for large coal-fired plants or new natural gas turbine technologies. But geothermal plants have reasonable operation and maintenance costs and no fuel costs. Though more expensive than wind power in most cases, new geothermal electricity generation facilities are increasingly competitive with fossil options.
Check out the US DOE's site and other Geothermal sites for more info (the DOE site lists to a bunch worldwide - and of course there is Google). For the type of power generation (ie: amount of power) the article is discussing, there is no other known way to generate that level of power without deep drilling to the magma layer. But it is because countries have done it, and because such sites in their technical section in discussing feasibility, that I made reference to such an operation in Yellowstone being dangerous... the studies already made reference to the need to avoid such areas due to the possible "damage" it could trigger (volcanic, etc).
For smaller setups, (a house, a small town/small city) it might be different... but require a lot more "holes" and power equipment...
As for Yellowstone... it's protected parkland anyway... (though I guess that could be changed).
Why would there be a tax collapse anyway? Is somebody going to suddenly start giving away power for free?
Let's say Nanosolar's claims are accurate - and as they are already making sales, I would think they would know... so... now, solar setups for a home are available at 1/10th the cost that it used to be (well, if they would sell them to consumers). All electric vehicles now are more enticing. Why? Because it costs nothing to run them (after the initial, far cheaper outlay for solar for your house). So... if solar is now affordable, and more people consider electric vehicles, gas tax revenue starts to decline...
Many states' major tax income is from the gas tax. Many states are barely keeping afloat (financially)...
Now... add to that... you are no longer paying tax on the oil/coal/whatever fossil fuel that the electric company uses to create power because you are no longer using their power - again, less taxes going to states that depend on those taxes. (Whether you pay a tax or surcharge on your bill or not, a tax on the fuel IS being paid to the state).
Then add to that, with a decent solar setup (and there are a bunch online where people are doing this) properly set up, can be feeding power back into the grid... that means perhaps your neighbor's house (or portion thereof) is not being powered by fossil fuels either... again less tax revenue.
Then consider that since you are creating your own "free" electric, why bother having a gas/oil/propane water heater or dryer or home heater? Do it all electric... ooops... more lost tax revenues.
This hasnt been an issue because solar has been too expensive. But if panels are now 1/10th the cost, it's really easy and relatively cheap to set up a solar unit that will both power your own house and send power back into the grid, meaning you are making money every month... starts getting really attractive to a lot more people who wouldnt even consider it at this time. More contractors realize that it is a market they can get into to make more money (installations in new houses, retrofitting old houses to run off-grid, etc)... and start marketing it as well, increasing public awareness...
The snowball starts rolling down the mountain... how long before it triggers that avalanche?
Solar is expensive and can't be built (on a large scale) just anywhere.
Solar WAS expensive. Here, it still is expensive... but Nanosolar's claims (which again, since they already seem to have sold them, I'd assume they know the cost) are that it is now 1/10th the cost for the same amount of power. That means solar WAS expensive (at least in the places Nanosolar is choosing to sell the panels), and solar WAS difficult to install (while now you can just unroll the solar sheets, plug them in to your storage/inverter setup and be done).
Wind is somewhat less expensive, but also needs a special site, and unreliable to boot. Geothermal tends to be best in remote areas -- hard to build and staff the power plant, and you lose a lot of power sending it over the wires to the cities.
Perhaps, but according to the USGS's data on the matter, most of the geothermal sites they have mapped are in the "not that remote" category... for instance, on the east coast, there are a number of sites far closer to NYC than Niagra Falls... and on the west coast, there are tons of sites up and down it - with "remote" locations in that mix that would be ideal for a geothermal plant - that is with in a couple hundred miles of multiple major metro areas.
Not that it's impossible, but it's not quite the cakewalk/slam dunk (except for the conspiracy) that the grandparent would have us believe.
I dont think there is a conspiracy involved. As another /.er and I were discussing back and forth, what sense would it make for a "big oil" company to invest in geothermal? Why spend a lot of money investing in something that
Yes, it is NanoSolar... but according to their very own release, the Cali plant is near completion and the Cali plant will be selling the panels in Europe... and worse - not to consumers.
I wish it werent so... I'd love to have one of their setups myself.
Hopefully they will change their plans in the near future. Then... I could see there being affordable and viable options in this country.
From my earlier post...
Explain to me why Google is able to produce solar panels at 1/10th the power - but isnt selling them to consumers - much less anyone in the US - even though they are made here.That should have read:
Explain to me why Google is able to produce solar panels at 1/10th the COST at the same POWER OUTPUT - but isnt selling them to consumers - much less anyone in the US - even though they are made here.
Sorry.
You ARE correct - about the drilling part - IF this wasnt a DEEP DRILL scenario. Creating enough power to power the US via Geothermal requires DEEP DRILL setups... not near surface setups such as are used for smaller implementations (small towns, individual houses, etc).
My statement is based on assuming (by the article's reference about creating enough power for the world) that they are talking about large scale geothermal plants which drill through to the magma layer...
Yes it does... but drilling through that pressure cap (rock, etc) creates a the risk of releasing that pressure in a massive blast or blasts. Besides, it's more than geothermal energy release that needs to be worried about in that area... it's a Volcano - that drives the geysers... not a geyser system that is just a geyser/spring system.
Such an issue (if you knew ANYTHING about geothermal power) is something that gets considered in EVERY deep drill geothermal setup. There is always the risk of the drilling area fracturing and thus letting out magma. The choice is to find a stable area, and STILL study it to determine if such a risk is likely. Yellowstone is NOT stable in any sense. (1) it is geothermally and volcanicly active (oops, that already gets it off the possible location list), (2) it is changing and geophysically active (surface deformities), (3) it's VERY VERY tectonically active (4) (based off #1-3) the rock structure (composition, fracturing and motion) is a "softer", easier to crumble/fracture material (unlike bedrock or other rock types).
Check Wiki and The US National Geological Survey pages for more info. THEY disagree with your assessment of a quarter million years... the site is recently increasingly active... moving whole mountain ranges and plateaus.
Please... feel free to take this post out of context too...
Not one of them is offering power to the masses (as a Power Company) or providing an affordable alternative off-grid power option for consumers... I think I spelled that out clearly... so... now evaluate the statement I made that you quoted out of context.
Explain to me why Google is able to produce solar panels at 1/10th the power - but isnt selling them to consumers - much less anyone in the US - even though they are made here.
Explain to me which company is big enough to implement a geothermal solution for a big portion of the power grid... the power is available (ie: plenty of geothermal in this country to power the world thousands of times over), but there is NO company that can set up the power plants or power grid to deliver it - EXCEPT for the fossil fuel based power companies already in existence.
It's not a conspiracy. Why would a fossil fuel company want to go geothermal when they already have so much invested in their infrastructure, and their profits would decrease due to lower costs? Just good business sense that they only adopt such methods as quickly as is required of them.
As for government *credits* for installing solar, etc... the cost is so prohibitive for most people, that the government can afford to look quite generous with it's incentives - because almost no one can afford it (check how many installations there really are...).
As for other incentives... did you know there was a law passed in Baltimore almost a decade ago that stated BGE had to reimburse people who were generating excess power and feeding it back into the grid? Guess how many got money or a credit? None. Why? According to BGE *AND* the state, because no law has been passed stating HOW or HOW MUCH money the people are entitled to... so... legally they are entitled to SOMETHING... but until a law is written saying how much, they will never see the money... maybe they should wait another decade for that law to be written? Or maybe *AVAILABLE* off-grid power is soo expensive (even though there are solutions like Google's that aren't) that there arent enough people to complain that they arent getting paid for generating excess power back into the grid.
And here's a little something to add to that... if everyone could either (a) generate their own power, or (b) buy it very cheaply from an electric company that used cheaper non-fossil fuel methods, how do you think that would effect the gas car market? I know *I* would own an electric car - since other than maintenance, it would cost me nothing to drive it. Many states LIVE off the tax revenues from gasoline... maybe it's just coincidence, but plenty of govt watchdogs (heck even the govt itself) have stated or speculated that is part of the reason for slow adoption of other power sources...
Now perhaps you understand what I am saying?
The (unstable) Yellowstone caldera is actually one of the largest Super Volcanos in the world... and due for an eruption. Probably NOT the place I would mess with... the whole mass-extinction level eruption thing and all...
Good thought though.
The problem I have is regardless of this research, "we" already have mapped plenty of areas to provide the US and plenty more places) with geothermal power (plenty of geological surveys on the subject already... a bunch of sites even got listed in a recent US News magazine)... for some reason though, we just havent tapped them yet.... maybe something to do with the fact that our fossil fuel based economy would be destroyed... tax revenues and corporate investments and corporation financial collapse and all.
There are more than one viable fossil fuel alternative already... geothermal is only one. New solar collectors developed by a Google owned company are another (which are being built in California - to be shipped and used in Europe - but for some reason (a) not here, and (b) not available for consumers to buy here). They cost 1/10th the cost of traditional panels, are easier to maintain and install (flexible sheets - not heavy glass and metal panels) and produce the same power.
The research means nothing when there aren't companies set up to implement them for actual use - and I dont know of any company that could afford to beat out the fossil fuel companies to do so.
Thanks for the correction... staring at too many letters today I guess (or I need more coffee).
The U of O has refused to help the RIAA, and the AG is helping them out. I don't think this filing will have much effect beyond this case.
As the investigation does include such things as (from NewYorkCountyLawyers' page):
--MediaSentry appears to have been conducting an investigation without an investigator's license, in violation of ORS 703.405 and ORS 703.993(s), which is a crime
...I would think that it *may* be the basis of criminal charges against them. Now, while this is an issue specific to Ohio law, the good thing is most states have very similar laws/statutes regarding such matters... that means, if OH makes this into a criminal case against the RIAA, two things happen: (1) They can no longer use such "investigative" tactics in OH, and (2) other states with similar laws can (a) by their own volition follow in similar footsteps, or (b) at the behest of people being sued by the RIAA look into that exact same manner - with, in both cases, much of the groundwork already done for them by the OH AG.
IANAL, so this is just my speculation, but it does seem to be a sensible progression of things (assuming the OH AG follows up on the criminal activities indicated - and wins).
Next in Congress
A bill appointing the RIAA and its investigators as deputy federal marshals.
Though sconeu's comment was humorous, keep in mind that the RIAA is trying to do the equivalent by getting the government to sanction/approve their actions or grant them the power to do such things. That effort is focusing on multiple methods of ensuring it, from (1) granting them immunity from prosecution for using such illegal tactics/abusing the court system and/or (2) making it legal for them to use such methods that would otherwise be considered circumventing due-process and abusing/railroading the legal/justice system.
Sadly, it's only humorous until the RIAA gets something new (and more idiotic) passed by Congress to allow them even greater powers than the ones they are questionably abusing. So, while currently, they stretch (or outright break) various discovery and investigative laws; if they have their way, the laws will be re-written so that is no longer an issue.
I guess the questions that remain are (a) will the RIAA be destroyed before that happens? (b) will the record companies learn that such tactics are hurting their business and costing them money for no rewards (financial or piracy deterrent) or (c) will it soon become a moot point because the RIAA manages to get ridiculous laws passed that allow their current actions - and worse ones?
Sorry, but you forgot to follow the link (http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=61798) on that very page and then follow those links for each update when you came up with your "25" figure. You'll notice it puts it much more on par with a regular Service Pack. This (http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=307041) sublink alone (one of MANY on that second page you missed) contains more fixes than you counted (39 additional). I *do* know what I am talking about - but then again, I *read* the Apple page (which I actually posted in one of my previous posts - WITH the 2nd link that you missed).
So, here's the two main links for the 10.5.1 Update. On the second link, then go through each link on that page and count if you like...
-http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=306907
-http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=61798
So, go back and add them back up if you want... when you are done, you'll find I am quite accurate in comparing the 10.5.1 update to a Service Pack.
My post had nothing to do with excusing Apple for the bugs in Leopard - nor did I make any claim about Leopard NOT being buggy... actually I pointed out links that show just how many (and it isnt a small list) fixes Leopard needed - from Apple's very own web pages.
Um, you do realize that Microsoft has been releasing Vista fixes for months now via Windows Update, right? Fixes don't have to come as SPs orYeah, but Apple's 10.5.1 update seems quite similar to what MS would call a Service Pack... comparing it to the individual fixes MS releases isnt fair. That is why I even put links into my posts that showed what was fixed (BIG list for each link) - so the comparison to a Service Pack could be made (which is a far more accurate comparison).
Vista has to work probably 3 orders of magnitude more configurations than OSX does, yet Leopard is still very buggy, even with 10.5.1, BTW.Ah... well, I am waiting to see those reports hit the net... (still buggy). As for the "magnitude more configurations" - yes, that is true... but wasn't the point. Saying 1 month (Apple) is equal to 12+ months (MS) as the author tried alluding to, simply isnt accurate.
And make no mistake: The author's complaints are not an isolated case.I never disputed the validity of his complaints about OSX... I said the comparisons weren't accurate. I even said that the piece was fair in it's criticism of Leopard - but off the wall in it's comparison of the two (Leopard and Vista).
There are plenty of different reasons to gripe about Leopard from what I have read - also a reason I pointed out the links I did (because it LISTS all the issues that were resolved - and thus that were RELEASED in Leopard). Again, the point is, the comparisons dont make sense - even though his criticism of Leopard *by itself* may be accurate... and the comparisons make that criticism inccorect or skewed in some of the cases(for instance the GUI enhancements and networking - as I also pointed out).
I think perhaps you just misread my post... check out my followup posts as well - as they may help you to understand the first post a little better.
Yeah, I'd say that is long enough... :-(
AND... (for me) to be more fair... Apple's 10.5.1 update hasn't been out long enough to judge what problems it may create. So who knows? But even going on the expectation that 10.5.1 is as good/buggy as XP SP1/Vista SP1... the release timeframe is the real issue.
And even in that, (to be once again fair to MS on this issue... which I think many people overlook), I'm not saying there aren't reasons MS needs longer - they do have a lot more hardware and software to support... what I was trying to say was for the author to actually claim that the wait for fixes (as he did) was similar was absurd. I truly EXPECT MS to need more time (is a year unreasonable? Dunno... that's a discussion for another topic I think)... but the author doesnt seem to realize, that even if that is true, 1 month isnt equal to one year. :-)
Dear Idiot Mod(ed me a Troll):
Ugh... let me summarize that for the idiot who modded it "Troll"...
There are less Apple users (that alone means the appearance of less complaints than Windows users)
Apple deals with issues quicker... meaning it is easier to forget those issues since you werent stuck with them for many months or a year.
Even if their market shares were 50/50... lets assume 12,000 machines sold in a year each... if Apple takes a month to release an update into the channel and MS takes a year for an equivalent update, then it affects 12,000 Windows users and 1,000 Apple users...
Since their market share is grossly different, that means (using the 24,000 total units in the above example) only 1/12 of 960 users will experience problems.
I think the post was quite fair and accurate... or maybe you didnt like the part that said (paraphrased) that since Apple has a small fraction of the marketshare, it means a small fraction of that small fraction (in a given year) will experience problems, making it seem that Apple users have shorter memory?
It's just math anc consumer expectations... there wasnt a single troll like comment in there... math is your friend... dont let it scare you into marking posts "Troll" (or learn to read).