Via Slashdot, drill baby drill, but for heat, not oil.
The Google funded Enhanced Geothermal Systems research at the Southern Methodist University has produced a coast-to-coast geothermal potential map of the United States. Having invested over $10 million on geothermal energy, Google seems to believe that it is our best bet at kicking the oil habit (especially now that nuclear power has suddenly become disproportionately unpopular).
Details and how to view it:
DALLAS (SMU) – New research from SMU’s Geothermal Laboratory, funded by a grant from Google.org, documents significant geothermal resources across the United States capable of producing more than three million megawatts of green power – 10 times the installed capacity of coal power plants today.
Sophisticated mapping produced from the research, viewable via Google Earth at www.google.org/egs, demonstrates that vast reserves of this green, renewable source of power generated from the Earth’s heat are realistically accessible using current technology.
The results of the new research, from SMU Hamilton Professor of Geophysics David Blackwell and Geothermal Lab Coordinator Maria Richards, confirm and refine locations for resources capable of supporting large-scale commercial geothermal energy production under a wide range of geologic conditions, including significant areas in the eastern two-thirds of the United States. The estimated amounts and locations of heat stored in the Earth’s crust included in this study are based on nearly 35,000 data sites – approximately twice the number used for Blackwell and Richards’ 2004 Geothermal Map of North America, leading to improved detail and contouring at a regional level.
Based on the additional data, primarily drawn from oil and gas drilling, larger local variations can be seen in temperatures at depth, highlighting more detail for potential power sites than was previously evident in the eastern portion of the U.S. For example, eastern West Virginia has been identified as part of a larger Appalachian trend of higher heat flow and temperature.
Conventional U.S. geothermal production has been restricted largely to the western third of the country in geographically unique and tectonically active locations. For instance, The Geysers Field north of San Francisco is home to more than a dozen large power plants that have been tapping naturally occurring steam reservoirs to produce electricity for more than 40 years.
However, newer technologies and drilling methods can now be used to develop resources in a wider range of geologic conditions, allowing reliable production of clean energy at temperatures as low as 100˚C (212˚F) – and in regions not previously considered suitable for geothermal energy production. Preliminary data released from the SMU study in October 2010 revealed the existence of a geothermal resource under the state of West Virginia equivalent to the state’s existing (primarily coal-based) power supply.
“Once again, SMU continues its pioneering work in demonstrating the tremendous potential of geothermal resources,” said Karl Gawell, executive director of the Geothermal Energy Association. “Both Google and the SMU researchers are fundamentally changing the way we look at how we can use the heat of the Earth to meet our energy needs, and by doing so are making significant contributions to enhancing our national security and environmental quality.”
“This assessment of geothermal potential will only improve with time,” said Blackwell. “Our study assumes that we tap only a small fraction of the available stored heat in the Earth’s crust, and our capabilities to capture that heat are expected to grow substantially as we improve upon the energy conversion and exploitation factors through technological advances and improved techniques.”
Blackwell is releasing a paper with details of the results of the research to the Geothermal Resources Council on October 25, 2011.
Blackwell and Richards first produced the 2004 Geothermal Map of North America using oil and gas industry data from the central U.S. Blackwell and the 2004 map played a significant role in a 2006 Future of Geothermal Energy study sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy that concluded geothermal energy had the potential to supply a substantial portion of the future U.S. electricity needs, likely at competitive prices and with minimal environmental impact. SMU’s 2004 map has been the national standard for evaluating heat flow, temperature and thermal conductivity for potential geothermal energy projects.
In this newest SMU estimate of resource potential, researchers used additional temperature data and in-depth geological analysis for the resulting heat flow maps to create the updated temperature-at-depth maps from 3.5 kilometers to 9.5 kilometers (11,500 to 31,000 feet). This update revealed that some conditions in the eastern two-thirds of the U.S. are actually hotter than some areas in the western portion of the country, an area long-recognized for heat-producing tectonic activity. In determining the potential for geothermal production, the new SMU study considers the practical considerations of drilling, and limits the analysis to the heat available in the top 6.5 km (21,500 ft.) of crust for predicting megawatts of available power. This approach incorporates a newly proposed international standard for estimating geothermal resource potential that considers added practical limitations of development, such as the inaccessibility of large urban areas and national parks. Known as the ‘technical potential’ value, it assumes producers tap only 14 percent of the ‘theoretical potential’ of stored geothermal heat in the U.S., using currently available technology.
Three recent technological developments already have sparked geothermal development in areas with little or no tectonic activity or volcanism:
- Low Temperature Hydrothermal – Energy is produced from areas with naturally occurring high fluid volumes at temperatures ranging from less than boiling to 150°C (300°F). This application is currently producing energy in Alaska, Oregon, Idaho and Utah.
- Geopressure and Coproduced Fluids Geothermal – Oil and/or natural gas are produced together with electricity generated from hot geothermal fluids drawn from the same well. Systems are installed or being installed in Wyoming, North Dakota, Utah, Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas.
- Enhanced Geothermal Systems (EGS) – Areas with low fluid content, but high temperatures of more than 150°C (300°F), are “enhanced” with injection of fluid and other reservoir engineering techniques. EGS resources are typically deeper than hydrothermal and represent the largest share of total geothermal resources capable of supporting larger capacity power plants.
A key goal in the SMU resource assessment was to aid in evaluating these nonconventional geothermal resources on a regional to sub-regional basis.
Areas of particular geothermal interest include the Appalachian trend (Western Pennsylvania, West Virginia, to northern Louisiana), the aquifer heated area of South Dakota, and the areas of radioactive basement granites beneath sediments such as those found in northern Illinois and northern Louisiana. The Gulf Coast continues to be outlined as a huge resource area and a promising sedimentary basin for development. The Raton Basin in southeastern Colorado possesses extremely high temperatures and is being evaluated by the State of Colorado along with an area energy company.
SMU’s Geothermal Laboratory in Dedman College of Humanities and Sciences conducted this research through funding provided by Google.org, which is dedicated to using the power of information and innovation to advance breakthrough technologies in clean energy.
Editor’s Note: To explore the new Enhanced Geothermal Systems maps built on SMU’s research via Google Earth, you will need to download the latest version of Google Earth here and then download and open the file at http://www.google.org/egs/downloads/EGSPotential.kmz.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I’ve seen geothermal plants in New Zealand. The “fuel” is spare parts as the hot water with all sorts of dissolved stuff is highly corrosive. Stainless steel isn’t under those conditions.
Another pathetic energy source that might be Ok in a few remote areas close to such geothermal sources.
Just build nukes.
Lateral drilling via super cooled robotic power heads and robotic conveyor tailing discharge is the answer. Put the power to the drill directly via a 25kV shaft line and we can drill anywhere, not just the “near surface” potentials…
The Russians burnt up their drill shafts and after many years could only tap down to 7 miles.
We can put a man on the moon, but can’t tap an 11-14 mile hole?
More low density energy. Like wind only ten times more difficult and expensive to exploit. With shale gas available it just won’t happen.
Basel, Switzerland can tell a story about drilling for geothermal energy. Ignored the clear warning in the consultant’s report, drilled, had a 3+ earthquake, then tried to sue the consultant for negligence andcausing the earthquake.
One more gov. project, one more unintentional outcome.
Paul Nevins says:
October 26, 2011 at 1:29 pm
I am all for geothermal production. I wouldn’t be surprosed if quietly and under the radar it isn’t already producing more power than wind.
If you go here
http://www.caiso.com/green/renewableswatch.html
You can review the daily production figures for California. Wind seems to have picked up quite recently, but if you check back through September you’ll find many days when GT did much more than wind and solar combined. Of course as noted in the post above much of that capacity was built long ago. Nowadays adding new capacity for GT is just as problematic from the NIMBY and enviro-fascist viewpoint as any other new energy source.
Have we found Trenberth’s “missing heat”?
It doesn’t have to. You could use a closed loop; pump water down one pipe and up another (could be concentric pipes) and extract usefull work from the steam; send the condensate back down and keep going. The devil is in the details, but the principles aren’t difficult.
reply to D.J Hawkings…
I have been on 2 plant tours with the 2 different owners of the power plants at the Geysers (calpine, bottlerock power) Its not that simple apparently. They have supply wells and separate steam wells, what comes up is more than just steam, includes rock, and lots of nasty stuff. I THINK (from what I hear) they process that down and ship out the nasty stuff. We got lots of greenies around here who want to shut it down, go figure, they love renewables, accept ones in their own back yards. Bottlerock even diverts rainwater, runoff from the roads/wellpads to capture any water they can to put in the ground since they are not apart of the effluent program I mentioned above.
@D. J. Hawkins The water piped down picks up whatever minerals are down there and brings them up with the steam. A closed cycle is difficult at best. You have to clean out the condensate to some degree before you re-use it.
Wind may make MORE energy, but it blows the hardest when you need it the least and requires balancing reserves that Geothermal does not.
those of us in the power industry prefer the Geo. Its a baseload, reliable renewable power source. Not like wind or solar. There is a ton of it on line and in service in Northern Nevada.
Interestingly enough, the latest GeoTherms brought on line in show up as a really unfavorable location on this map. In addition several known mining locations that had trouble with hot spots also show up as unfavorable. Makes me wonder where they got their data??
Wow and people are concerned about ground water contamination from the fluids used in “Fracking” Gas wells. The contaminants in the “water” coming back up the hole from geothermal sources are can be worse by orders of magnitude.
Brian H at 2:17pm has the best question…
It boils down to what the life expectancy is for such a plant…
Nuclear plants now are built with a 60-year life, and will produce
100% of capacity fore that period. Nothing compares.
What is capacity Vs life…give us a chart, at the beginning, however
good or poor..
It was curious to find geothermal stations as one of the EPA listed sources of mercury emissions.
The closed loop idea is an interesting workaround. I’d rather see taxpayer money in geothermal than in solar and wind farm deployments but I’d honestly love to see us dump the politicians in favor of Statesmen and start over with an engineered energy plan that has some hope of working.
“…especially now that nuclear power has suddenly become disproportionately unpopular…”
Suddenly? It has been demonised for years. Berkeley has been a “nuclear-free zone” since 1986; they don’t even allow nuclear medicine.
I wonder if their ban includes smoke detectors.
We can put a man on the moon, but can’t tap an 11-14 mile hole?>>>
We can’t get rid of mosquitos either. Completely different problem.
Sigh, another pipe dream to drain the pockets of the public and make people believe there is a more cost-effective measure other than our traditional sources of energy. Digging a hole several miles deep doesn’t seem to make much sense when we can get fuel for our energy measured by feet.
As a couple of people have already mentioned, gas is too readily available…… but then so is coal if we would just get over this irrational fear of CO2. What gets me is why we’ll subsidize all of this crap we know won’t work but we can’t subsidize a nuke plant?
The longer we continue to throttle our cheap, reliable, and available energy, the longer we’ll dwell in the economic doldrums that we’re in.
Of course, as soon as you reach Canada or Mexico, there is no geothermal… I mean, it’s not like having a complete mapping of the entire continent would be more useful or anything.
So what I’m reading here is comments is that geothermal is a nice idea that doesn’t quite work out as easily in real life? Because it IS a nice idea… drop in wastewater or even seawater, get out hot water and/or steam, generate power. Simple, no? Heck, seems to me that would be a great way to desalinate, too.
Although I can’t understand why it isn’t self evident that eventually you cool the rock in the area of your activity…
It seems there are rivers of metallic lead flowing across California. Is this Earth´s America or is it Venus?
The crude idea of using dirty steam from underground to run a generator in conditions of highly corrosive fluid is crazy. The only safe way to extract geothermal heat is through a heat exchanger at depth. It would have to be highly engineered to resist the corrosive environment which is destructive of stainless steels. The working fluid would be completely isolated from the heat source except via the heat exchanger. Otherwise it would be like putting the smoke from a steam generator through the turbines with the steam, a sure way to wreck it quickly. The engineering problems of installing a heat exchanger at a depth of several miles are enormous, and won’t be solved for a long time.
@ur momisugly doug s
@ur momisugly Shr Nfr
I see, so the usual method is a field of separate injection and extraction wells. Well no wonder it’s such a nasty business! My thought was more along the lines of a heat pipe, sealed at the downhole end so nothing is piped up but the heat. Imagine a pipe, said pipe sealed within a larger pipe. The larger pipe is capped at the end, the smaller is not and is positioned some little distance shorter than the large pipe. Pump water down the small pipe. It enters the annular space between the small and large pipe where it is heated by conduction by the surrounding rock/gravel/superheated water/what-have-you and then rises to the surface. As it rises, the pressure drops in the casing, and some portion of the water in the steam/water mix will flash to steam, increasing the quality of the steam. Send it through a knock-out drum to remove the remaining water (if any) and then off to the turbines. Collect the condensate at the turbine exit and send it back down the hole. I suppose it can’t be quite that easy, but how much harder (in concept) can it be?
Again, simple physics, engineering and reality combine to defeat a SIMPLE concept. Tau Tona, the worlds deepest mine at 2 miles has rock temperature of 130F. The Russian Kola drill site at 40,000 ft had temperature of 350F. The transfer coefficient of rock is indeed low, meaning the heat removed is only slowly replaced. There are pumping losses and concentric piping has hot supply and cold return insulation problems. Non closed systems do absorb enormous amounts of minerals and have strata leakage. The heat from Geothermal is indeed NUCLEAR as is the feedstock of all hydrocarbons. These processes are described in a series of articles at http://www.FauxScienceSlayer.com.
On May 10, 2011 the CEO of google met with the president and they managed to “resize” the web. In the words of our fearless leader, “Too much information is dangerous for our democracy”. Pity, for it would take our GREATEST minds with free access to information to solve some of our intractable problems, like SIMPLE Geothermal energy recovery. Support the FREE exchange of information and you support the best that our Earth has to offer.
Oil isn’t used in this country to produce electricity anymore, so even if geothermal were able to generate substantial power, it would displace natural gas or coal, not oil.
I’m curious, what are the hotspots?
OK, one is the Raton Basin in southeastern Colorado. But the other, in north-western Wyoming?
Mark and two Cats says:
October 26, 2011 at 3:31 pm
I wonder if their ban includes smoke detectors.
____________________________________
Most new heads in commercial applications are all photoelectric. It has become almost impossible to get ionization smoke detectors shipped into the US. Customs have some huge issues with it. So yeah they may have achieved a ban on them.
Ramon Leigh says:
October 26, 2011 at 4:21 pm
Oil isn’t used in this country to produce electricity anymore, so even if geothermal were able to generate substantial power, it would displace natural gas or coal, not oil.”
They probably are following the myth that by creating “green” power that they can then supply electric cars with it reducing oil imports… of course this is a near complete myth as we would still import almost the same amount its just we would either ship the gas overseas or burn it at the refiner.