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.
True, but the vast majority of single and multistation smoke detectors in residential occupancies are and will continue to be ionization type. The typical PI detector for resi use is $8 +/-, and PE will run about $25. Since both are approved, absent building codes to the contrary, which one do you think the tract developer is going to install?
Geothermal power generation is the objective of Australian company Geodynamics. But the firm has found that translating theory into practical power generation to be anything but straight forward. Deep drilling for “green energy” in the Australian outback has proved to be fraught with problems as company share holders (including government climate alarmist Prof. Tim Flannery) have discovered.
Sure this form of power generation may be practical at some time in the future, but I think many of us are concerned that this will become yet another gravy train for rent seekers – call it underground windmills if you like. Or as Andrew Bolt puts it your millions for a hole in the ground
No problem with the concept provided it is developed without the distortions of green taxes an anti-competitive legislation, in other words it is a private commercial development that “stands on it’s own two feet”.
You watch, they are going to drill for geo-thermal heat sources and hit oil and gas at every hole.
ROFL
1. Many locations are have underground reservoirs of superheated water or are otherwise high flux. The transfer coefficient of rock isn’t necessarily a show-stopper. A look at the map shows many areas in the 200C range at 6.5 km depth (approx 21,000 ft).
2. A concentric pipe doesn’t have more severe insulation issues than a two-pipe system. The fact that the rising hot fluid pre-heats the down flowing cold fluid is not a disadvantage. In fact, it helps ensure the maximum heat transfer efficiency via a simple pipe-in-pipe heat exchanger.
3. For a system with an inner pipe of 16″ OD and an outer pipe of 24″ ID, you can pump 1000 gallons per minute a distance of 21,000 feet with a head loss of about 150 psig. Hardly insurmountable.
The problem with geothermal is that the superheated water flowing through the rocks down there carry minerals in solution. Even with a closed loop geothermal system, you are cooling the rock adjacent to the wellbore. As the superheated water is cooled, the minerals it carries fall out of solution and are deposited in the pores in the rock. eventually the rock near the wellbore is no longer porus, so the water which carries the heat to the wellbore no longer flows near the wellbore and the system loses efficiency.
Geothermal wells are not any more sustainable than an Oil & Gas Well.
But the same people who are global warming alarmist think that drilling causes earthquakes. They also think that global warming causes earthquakes. Since they also think that earthquakes cause nuclear power plants to meltdown, what are we to do?
AlaskaHound says:
October 26, 2011 at 2:34 pm
> We can put a man on the moon, but can’t tap an 11-14 mile hole?
We used to be able to put a man on the Moon, but cannot do so any longer.
Heck, the US can’t even put a man in low Earth orbit any more….
Ric Werme;
We used to be able to put a man on the Moon, but cannot do so any longer.
Heck, the US can’t even put a man in low Earth orbit any more….>>>
Yes, just how sad is that? From a Democrat president who encouraged his nation to reach for the stars, and was willing to put his finger on the “button” to turn back the Soviet nuclear threat, to one who believes that by disarming he will encourage his enemies to do so as well, and that the agency established to reach for the stars would better serve the nation as a “muslim outreach” society.
Beware the purple dot!
Most of that geothermal energy is in the Rocky Mountains (ring of fire). Not exactly the nicest place to be drilling and not where you want the power.
This map gives an idea of where we actually need the power (you can click on the USA) http://eoimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/ve/1438/earth_lights.gif
The best idea I ever heard for “geothermal” was a home heat exchanger type idea though I would want to see one that had worked for a decade before I actually tried it. http://mb-soft.com/solar/saving.html
Thorium mini-nuclear is still my favorite choice.
I can only imagine the precipitate problems the geothermal plants have with that dirty water coming up flashing to steam. I would imagine the feed pipes would get coated over time reducing their flow rates as well.
The wiki article on geothermal says the utilization rate worldwide is about 70% of rated capacity with very high capital costs leading to capex costs of 5-10 cents per KWH alone.
Wholesale electricity prices in TX average around 4.5 cents per KWH,
I do not see how it would be economical at this time.
The next step is to apply to that Geothermal map a mask that cuts out all National Parks, National Monuments, Wilderness areas, and any other place where drilling permit have been denied in the past 10 years.
Next, let’s see the footprint of a geothermal power station on the land compared to a gas or oil well as viewed 1 year after the drilling completion.
Austin, I have an apocryphal story from geophysics professor Dr. Maurice Major of the Colo. School of Mines in 1977. He was explaining in class just that problem of mineral deposition within the pipes and heat exchangers. He finished by implying that the true source of any profit from geothermal electrical plants might be from cutting up the pipes and selling the scrap as geodes.
@vboring on October 26, 2011 at 1:32 pm
“”Most of the heat is in the West. Generation uses lots of water. The West doesn’t have a lot of extra water lying around”
“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.”
The main water issue is not finding water to pump into the ground and back up to the surface. The main water concern is for cooling, e.g. condensing the steam that exits the turbine. Geothermal power plants are relatively low-pressure and hence have a low thermal efficiency. That means that most of the energy in the steam to the turbine is not converted to electric power, but is lost to the cooling water when the steam is condensed. Locating geothermal power projects where water is scarce is a show-stopper.
This is also true of nuclear power plants, where the low steam temperature yields a low thermal efficiency. Typically, a nuclear power plant produces one-fourth of the energy as electric power, and three-fourths to evaporating water in the cooling tower or other cooling medium (sometimes a lake, or ocean). In contrast, a modern gas-fired combined cycle plant will use far less water than a nuclear plant or geothermal plant, for the same electric output. This water usage is a critical consideration in dry states.
Re costs of geothermal power, a recent study shows the cost of produced power to be 10 – 11 cents per kWh. The study is from California’s Energy Commission, “Comparative Costs of California Central Stations Electricity Generation” dated January 2010. Figure 14 shows the relative costs of several generating technologies.
http://www.energy.ca.gov/2009publications/CEC-200-2009-017/CEC-200-2009-017-SF.PDF
Austin says:
October 26, 2011 at 6:18 pm
Wholesale electricity prices in TX average around 4.5 cents per KWH,
I do not see how it would be economical at this time.
Maybe there’s a silver lining that can offset some of the cost? Well more like a gold lining really. I understand that hydrothermal systems related to active subduction zones, such as encountered in New Zealand, have been known to cause gold plating (epithermal deposition) on the heat transfer pipework of geothermal power plants.
Mark Twain’s characterization of a mine likely applies to geothermal workings as well.
Anyone locate Hot Springs, Arkansas?
Re: Roger Sowell says:
Re costs of geothermal power, a recent study shows the cost of produced power to be 10 – 11 cents per kWh.
First, be very leery of any California Energy Commission study comparing technology costs. The Commission is notorious for showing such results OUT IN THE FUTURE where staff’s assumed fuel costs and other guessed at escalators determine the comparative outcome.
Second, as always the real issue is realistically bearable cost. The California numbers of 10-11-cents per Kwh “at the fence” would possibly be bearable, even though the current average wholesale spot price for all electric power is around 4-cents at the trading hubs. But the California numbers represent mostly the “low hanging fruit” of geothermal that has been exploited in the 325 deg F. and above range. Unfortunately, the vast majority of geothermal resources identified in the U.S. are far below 325 deg F. and mostly reside in 200-300 degree F. territory. At those lower temperature ranges, plant capital costs become almost as unrealistic as photovoltaic solar.
NZ Geothermal website, there are a lot of inter-related links, equipment/cycles/generation capacity.
http://www.nzgeothermal.org.nz/elec_geo.html
http://www.nzgeothermal.org.nz/generation_technologies.html
How about drilling down into the mantle? It’s plenty damn hot enough that the puny heat loss caused by the removed heat would not effect thermodynamic efficiency or even cool the surrounding magma enough to solidify.
Of course there are huge technical difficulties in drilling that deep. The high temperatures would present a challenge for heat exchanger materials and maybe you create a mini volcano!
But I say if you want energy you’ll get plenty of it.
The real question is how stable these geothermal sources are. If tectonic activity shifts the heat flux you have a dry well. Any research on this issue??
D. J. Hawkins says:
October 26, 2011 at 3:04 pm
vboring says:
October 26, 2011 at 1:32 pm
Most of the heat is in the West. Generation uses lots of water. The West doesn’t have a lot of extra water lying around
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.
Details is right. It’s the condensing that uses all the water. The condensation pipes are cooled by water mist and fans. Just like all the current power plants that use steam driven turbines.
Total US shale output is “set to expand dramatically” as fresh sources come on stream, possibly reaching 5.5m b/d by mid-decade. This is a tenfold rise since 2009. The US already meets 72pc of its own oil needs, up from around 50pc a decade ago.
http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/2011/10/america-is-on-mend.html
Since they also think that earthquakes cause nuclear power plants to meltdown,
Fukushima.
I’d like to see nukes designed to be safe despite a 10 day loss of electrical power. Until then I’m against more nukes.
Simon – Naval Nuke in another life.