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.
Scavenging dispersed energy from the environment is a crock. Concentrated energy sources are and always will be the future.
And here’s my favorite dark horse (getting lighter by the month):
A form of “Dense Plasma Fusion” called “focus fusion”. See LawrencevillePlasmaPhysics.com for some detail. 10X++ closer to scientific breakeven than any other project, could achieve it this winter. If so, within 3-5 yrs. small dispatchable (variable on command) 5MW powerplant/generators could be on the market world-wide, under ½ $million each, putting out power at under ½¢/kwh.
No waste or radioactive debris. Direct current, no steam generators needed.
Geothermal and all other “renewables” idiocies will be immediate economic roadkill.
I’m not about to invest in it, not the way green energy has been performing. Example: First Solar FSLR was a $300+ stock that now struggles to not drop below $40. Sure hope you’re wrong about the nuclear popularity in the future. India and China building nearly 100 reactors unless things change. I loaded up with Cameco Corp CCJ when it was beaten down to $17. *Crossed fingers it’s up… pays you to wait too
Interesting, what Brian H commented on. But you need a deep wallet.
http://www.lawrencevilleplasmaphysics.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=94&Itemid=116
Ed;
Yes, by most people’s standards. But “accredited investors” are defined by the SEC etc. as those presumed able to do their own due diligence. Compared to the monies flowing into the alternative approaches, LPP’s costs are minute (and have all been met by private sources to date.)
I see that the general consensus (and I do apologize for using this word!) forming in this discussion thread is that geothermal is by and large not a viable technology in most regions where deep drilling is necessary.
In this regard, it might be interesting to know that in some Scandinavian countries (Sweden, Finland) small-scale “ground source heating” installations have been used for years, and are in fact increadsing in popularity, to provide heating of homes. The energy source is somewhat different from true geothermal in that heat energy in the latter comes from deeper within the earth, whereas “ground-source” heat is energy from the sun stored in the subsurface ground layer. Depending on the conditions, drilling either may not be necessary or is typically less than 200 m. The initial investment is high, but so is the return on it – keeping in mind that in the said countries, energy prices, taxation and standard of living are high, and ‘environmental awareness’ (for better or worse) is widespread.
The oporeating principle is illustrated here (disclaimer: I am in no way affiliated with the said company nor am I their customer):
http://www.gebwell.fi/eng/products/ground-source-heat-pumps/operating-principle/
True geothermal is not a miracle energy source, but I have little doubt that by perfecting existing technologies and developing new ones, it can be tapped safely and profitably in the future in a wider range of geographical and socio-economical conditions.
So the Geothermal energy is NOT where the people are. Who would have thunk it??
More Green fail !!
.
>>Peter
>>However, a 100,000 wind turbines might be preferable to being a catalyst
>>for a Yellowstone super volcano (now overdue).
But if you cooled the Yellowstone magma chamber, by extracting its heat, you could possibly prevent the next super-eruption. Just make sure the seals on the drill-string are a bit more secure than the Gulf of Mexico one. 😉
.
I didn’t read every comment and I”m sure it is mentioned somewhere up there, but Iceland runs their country completely on Geothermal energy. When I was stationed there, it always amazed me how hot their water was and how cheaply it was produced. In areas where this is feasible, what a fantastic idea it would be.
“Mark says:
October 27, 2011 at 1:52 am
I didn’t read every comment and I”m sure it is mentioned somewhere up there, but Iceland runs their country completely on Geothermal energy. When I was stationed there, it always amazed me how hot their water was and how cheaply it was produced. In areas where this is feasible, what a fantastic idea it would be.”
Spot on, electric transmission is simple and getting better, compare with an Oil Pipeline. Iceland has the technology, heat exchangers, wow real rocket science. Low level heat, well just take a little look at how many industrial processes pay a fortune for low level heat. No reason why a well sited plant cannot run for 60 years. No new technology.
Mark says:
October 27, 2011 at 1:52 am
“I didn’t read every comment and I”m sure it is mentioned somewhere up there, but Iceland runs their country completely on Geothermal energy.”
True only for heating; most of the electricity comes from hydropower.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icelandic_hydroelectric_power_stations
M. Simon says: October 26, 2011 at 9:49 pm
____________________________________
Unenriched uranium is stable. If the deuterium bath doesn’t go away on its own as a result of the disaster, there are many simple ways to get gravity to do the job. Why anyone would use enriched uranium in unstable surroundings is beyond me. Must have been politics.
I wonder if by tapping the geothermal heat in Yellowstone, it would be possible to take enough energy out of the system to make the next eruption less likely.
Fukushima.
The problem with Fukishima wasn’t the earthquake, it was the tsunami that knocked out the back up generators.
For reactors that are in areas where 30 foot tsunamis are likely, put your backup generators in water tight rooms.
For the rest, no changes needed.
@ur momisugly Brian R
@ur momisugly Roger Sowell
Water mist cooling towers aren’t the only game in town. In urban areas, especially the east, land is pretty pricey. You want your generating station as compact as possible. If you can put it next to a river, so much the better. Out west, at least, land price/availability isn’t as much of an issue. Use air-cooled heat exchangers to condense the left over steam. Remember, we don’t need to chill the water, just condense it. If it goes back down the hole at 210F, so much the better.
It is important to realize that, with the singular exception of Iceland, geothermal energy in practical terms is not a renewable resource. That is, to extract heat at a rate that is high enough to be economically useful, you are pulling out heat from the location faster than the deep earth can replenish that heat there. You are really “mining heat”, and the well will “play out” just as an oil or gas well will. (Yes, Iceland is geologically unique.)
I always wonder why the obsessive deep hole, megaproject mentality for geothermal? The low grade geothermal is available everywhere and can offset your heating and cooling needs if not replace them.
http://www.citrusinthesnow.com/
Geo-Air instead of liquid. He uses 1100 feet of 6″ PVC pipe buried 10 feet.
@D.J. Hawkins
“Remember, we don’t need to chill the water, just condense it. If it goes back down the hole at 210F, so much the better.”
Except for the fact that efficiency of a steam generator is based on the equation e = 1-tmax/tmin. So if the water going back down into the hole is at 210F then your plant well be very inefficient.
@ur momisugly D JHawking & Roger Sowell
There is a HUGE problem with ‘concentric’ piping for heat exchangers. The “rising hot fluid pre-heats the down flowing cold fluid” means the inverse is also true….THE RISING HOT FLUID IS COOLED. The object and efficiency rating of all energy systems is based on the maximum difference between entering and leaving temperatures, in accordance with the Carnot Cycle. The Faux Science Slayer will release an indepth study of the Geothermal Dilemma soon, in the meantime read “Motive Force fo All Climate Change” and “Fossil Fuel is Nuclear Waste” on the climate impact and Abiogenic Oil production from Earth’s Variable Cold Fission process.
“Education is not a bucket that you fill….education is a fire that you light”.
May your ‘fire’ be ignited and you do all you can to share this new light with those around you.
Here in Iceland five major geothermal plants exists and two more are being designed and will be started in about 3 years. They currently produce more than 25% of the nations energy.
In addition, geothermal heating meets the heating and hot water requirements of almost 90% of all buildings.
Apart from geothermal energy, about 75% of the nation’s electricity is generated by hydro power, and 0.1% from fossil fuels.
Some links:
http://www.nea.is/geothermal
http://www.verkis.com/media/frettabref/Gangverk-enska-litid.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_power_in_Iceland
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=iceland-geothermal-power
http://www.verkis.is/media/frodleikur/Geothermal-Energy-as-Replacement-for-Oil-and-Gas.pdf
http://www.verkis.is/media/frodleikur/Heat-pump-enhanced-district-heating-in-low_temperature-geothermal-area.pdf
@Lloyd:
You completely misunderstand the applicability of the Carnot efficiency equation you present. Here it applies to the input (Tmax) and output (Tmin) temperatures of the device that produces useful work — the steam turbine in this case. (And you’ve got the equation wrong — it’s 1-Tmin/Tmax)
Since in a steam turbine, you cannot let the steam condense before it exits the turbine (or it will tear apart the turbine blades), the output temperature must be above 212F/100C/373K.
This equation does not apply to the efficacy (which is not efficiency) of heat transfer of the rocks to the working fluid. The hotter the working fluid starts, the less heat must be transferred from the rock to the fluid to get it to a high temperature, which is desirable.
“>>Peter
>>However, a 100,000 wind turbines might be preferable to being a catalyst
>>for a Yellowstone super volcano (now overdue).
But if you cooled the Yellowstone magma chamber, by extracting its heat, you could possibly prevent the next super-eruption. Just make sure the seals on the drill-string are a bit more secure than the Gulf of Mexico one. ;-)”
Yellowstone is indeed a ticking bomb. When it goes off, all bets on the future are called.
A friend of mine wrote a quixotic but well researched sci-fi book, Edge of Heaven, about how the Chinese figured out the trigger points and at one moment launched an attack via scramjet mini-nukes launched from their “peaceful” space station. Taking the long view (we, the Chinese, have over 4,000 years of history, what’s a couple of hundred lost to nuclear winter?) they aim to own it all in the end. Turns out different though…
I suspect you could heat the whole US red-hot with the amount of energy you would need to take out to prevent the eruption, since the magma is coming up from the mantle. Just ask, What would Hansen do? /sarc
See Curt’s response to Lloyd as to why I believe you are mistaken. Remember, the efficiency is based on the temperature difference at the two ENDS of the heat pipe, not what’s happening in the middle. In a closed pipe system such as I suggest, you will reach a steady state where the temperature gradient at any given elevation of the system does not change, all other things being equal. Note that there is still flux, but dQ/dt where t is time is constant.
@DJ Hawkins:
FSS is correct in this one. A “counterflow” heat exchanger like you propose would be counterproductive because it cools the working fluid BEFORE it enters the turbine, where it can produce useful work.
The Carnot efficiency limit (and it is just a theoretical upper limit) applies to a situation where you are generating useful “work” through cooling of a substance. In this case, the useful work energy is in the spinning of the turbine, and the cooling is accomplished by letting the pressurized steam expand. The hotter the steam can be entering the turbine, the higher the possible efficiency.
97% of the volume of the earth is hotter than 1000 C. The delta T between what is below our feet and the cold blackness of space could power civilization until we are able to construct a Dyson Sphere around the solar system and capture ALL of the energy of the Sun. Jupiter and Titan of course, are the ultimate sources of fossil fuel, which we will use to terraform Mars and Venus, but I digress.
Geothermal was first explored over 100 years ago, at the dawn of the Electric Age. It lost out to coal because of the transportability issue (railroads use fossil fuels to efficiently transport fossil fuels, creating positive feedback) a problem that afflicts all natural electricity generation sources – wind, solar, hydro, geo.
Left at the alter 100 years ago, geothermal is at the same state as oil exploration at that time – you get it where it bubbles up out of the ground. Today of course, Transocean makes oil drilling rigs that hold position in the open ocean, pass through 6,000 feet of water and drill 20,000 feet into the crust of the earth to get at the oil. The rig that BP managed to sink in the gulf cost over $2 billion to build. Given that same level of technological investment and development over the last hundred years, geothermal would look a great deal more promising today.
However, given the low cost of fracked natural gas, there is zero chance that geothermal will acquire the required level of investment from private sources. Whether the government should invest is an open question (I say no), as any money spent will be too little, too late. It will remain the ultimate answer, for exploitation perhaps 100 years from now. Or maybe not…
Over the last hundred or so years, human civilization has rocketed forward, powered by the Fossil Fuel Age. A substantial fraction of the people on earth have been lifted to a comfortable life style (de facto, all the readers of this blog for example) thanks to fossil fuels. I would argue that the future of humanity hinges on not only lifting people into a more productive life style, but properly developing their brains (our only unique human feature). But it will be difficult to do so on a global basis using the existing fossil fuel model.
So we stand at a crossroads – on the one hand, a world of diminishing resources and capabilities, billions of wasted human brains, poverty and unhappiness. On the other hand, a world with the forward-looking prospects of the last century, for exponential advancement and the maximum development of human potential. All it takes is a new energy source with the possibility of exponential growth over the next 100 years.
“Alternative green” energy sources are a joke, all about making do with less. Fossil fuels will allow the developed nations to continue with business as usual for awhile, but I don’t see the prospect for exponential expansion to meet global demands. There are three possibilities that I see – geothermal for real, not the half hearted efforts so far, fusion in some form and possibly Thorium. So, we have the diffuse, low delta T(at least until we drill really deep), not transportable geothermal and the concentrated, portable, unlimited fuel source of fusion or the big infrastructure, not transportable but concentrated Thorium. Which will it be? Any bets?
M. Simon says: October 26, 2011 at 9:49 pm
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.
**************************
They were designed to survive with the loss of the grid/power for something like ten days. (I was a civilian instructor at S-5-G and then in operator training on a Westinghouse PWR and a GE BWR, but that was some 30 years ago.)
Unfortunately, having a Tsunami flood the fuel supply was not a part of the design basis accident. If you really care, libraries in the vicinity of commercial nuclear power plants have a copy of the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR). Or, you can slog through the FSAR for Watts Bar 2 here (the table of contents run some 50 pages!):
http://adamswebsearch2.nrc.gov/idmws/ViewDocByAccession.asp?AccessionNumber=ML091400068
Regards,
Steamboat Jack (Jon Jewett’s evil twin)