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.
@D. J. Hawkins…October 27, 2011 at 9:54 am…
You say:
Remember, the efficiency is based on the temperature difference at the two ENDS of the heat pipe…
And you are correct. Two formulas are available to calculate efficiency:
ε =1 – Tlow/Thigh
And
ε = (Thigh- Tlow)/Thigh
The results of both procedures must coincide one to another. For example, the temperature of soil (dry clay) in a pot, whose surface is 1 m^2 and whose volume is 1 m^3, at 16:30 hrs (CST) is 295.25 K, while the temperature of the atmosphere is 297.35 K. The efficiency of thermal radiation transfer from the atmosphere to the soils is:
ε = (Thigh- Tlow)/Thigh = (297.35 K- 295.25 K)/(297.35 K)= (2.1 K)/(297.35 K)= 0.0071
Using the first formula it is:
ε =1 – (Tlow/Thigh) = 1- (295.25 K/297.35 K) = 1 – (0.99294) = 0.0071
In this case, the usable thermal radiation -i.e. the absorbed thermal radiation that is convertible to usable thermal energy- would be 0.0115 W/m^2.
Petroleum still drives our vehicles. The vast majority of our oil needs is for transportation and plastics.
How in heck is geothermal going to affect our need for carbon in plastics and the fact that cars are not anchored in the ground.
If they think it’s a source of electricity, heh, electric cars will always suck big time, unless we can master fuel cells. The energy density of batteries simply cannot come close to that of hydrocarbons, particularly as half of the fuel, the oxygen, does not have to be carried around with the car, but pulled from the atmosphere as needed.
@ur momisugly Brian H
I’ve seen the big dawgs lose lots of money! I particularly enjoy when I runnoft with some. It’s speculative and has competition with in place infrastructure.
CCJ is up over $2 today btw.
the engineers want steam turbine blades to pass through the driving fluid at .95 of the speed of sound in that medium.
that means that if you have any solid particles in the fluid then its really hard on the blades.
the main culpret is silica. even with multiple strainers (that slow the flow incidentally) particles punch holes in the blades until they resemble the finest belgian lace of centuries ago. (and as a matter of fact turbine mechanics call this “Lacework”).
metal surface treatments such as malcomizing, ionization nitriding, carburizing or carbide coating just don’t carry the day.
remember guys its the dumb little details (like cloudy days and dead bats) that will get you.
C
TRM’s comments stimulated my thinkolator, you wouldn’t really even have to bury the pvc into the ground. How about a big pile of decomposing sawdust from a local sawmill? A larger scale variation of this…
http://mb-soft.com/public3/globalzl.html
But much less maintenance required, hopefully.
Areas of particular geothermal interest include… the areas of radioactive basement granites beneath sediments such as those found in northern Illinois and northern Louisiana.
Is there a source for more information about the how the radioactive basement granites are being used for energy? Are there websites that discuss this technology and where they may be located?
Ed Mertin:
if you have that large a pile of sawdust why don’t you burn it in a boiler and use that steam for a turbine………
oh yeah i forgot that.
that college in north carolina tried that.
nevermind……..
C
Ed Mertin:
if you have that large a pile of sawdust why don’t you burn it in a boiler and use that steam for a turbine……..
oh yeah that college in north carolina tried that.
nevermind.
c
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.
____________________________________________________
It looks like that type of nuclear power plant (thorium) is in the works. (If it is not ad hype)
From Physics.org
“…In addition, the Hyperion modules have no moving parts to wear down, and never need to be opened on site. Even if opened, the small amount of enclosed fuel would immediately cool, alleviating safety concerns. “It is impossible for the module to go supercritical, ´melt down,´ or create any type of emergency situation,” the company states on its Web site. Because the Hyperion plants would be buried underground and guarded by a security detail, the company explains that they´ll be out of sight and safe from illegitimate uses. Further, the material inside wouldn´t be appropriate for proliferation purposes……” http://www.physorg.com/news145561984.html
Diagram of reactor at top of page: http://www.thorium.tv/en/thorium_reactor/thorium_reactor_1.php
The world Nuclear Assoc. has a lot of info with links to papers: http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/default.aspx?id=448&terms=thorium
American Chemical Society Article: http://pubs.acs.org/cen/science/87/8746sci2.html
Reintroducing Thorium
“….thorium-fueled reactors don’t provide the opportunity to make and collect materials that can be used to build nuclear bombs…. ..
Last month, (2009) the group convened its first conference, which drew about 50 people to Washington, D.C. At the same time that the Washington conference was in session, the International Thorium Energy Organization, a brand-new European group with the same goals as the U.S.-based alliance, announced its existence by launching the IThEO.org website. And just one month earlier, the Chinese Nuclear Society ran a thorium workshop in Baotou, Inner Mongolia….
Thorium itself is not actually a nuclear fuel. But it can be converted (transmuted) into one by exposing it to low-energy neutrons. Neutron capture converts 232Th into 233U, a material that liberates enormous amounts of energy when it undergoes nuclear fission.
Sorensen explains that the same “shortcoming” that led government officials during the Cold War to decide against pursuing thorium-reactor technology—namely the inability to generate weapon materials—is clearly recognized as an advantage today. At no point in the thorium cycle, from mining thorium minerals to preparing and “burning” reactor fuel to managing the waste, can fuel or waste products be converted into nuclear bomb materials. Unlike uranium, thorium is nuclear-proliferation proof.
…the element is roughly four times more abundant than uranium and accessible via mining techniques that are simpler and less costly than the ones used to extract uranium. …. Not only is thorium more plentiful than uranium, it also does not need to undergo a costly and complex enrichment process ….Thorium exists in nature almost entirely as 232Th…..
Proponents also point out that although waste products from thorium usage are radioactive, radiotoxicity persists for just tens of years rather than thousands of years as uranium waste does….
…..One design idea that’s generating a big buzz ….grew out of an uncompleted project to design a nuclear-powered military airplane…..
A key source of interest in LFTR is the design’s inherent safety features. David LeBlanc, a staff physicist at Carleton University, in Ottawa, and a nuclear reactor specialist, points out several safety-related differences between LFTRs and today’s commercial reactors. To begin with, LFTRs would operate at low pressure. Furthermore, an increase in the temperature of LFTR fuel (a molten salt) would reduce the medium’s density and thereby lower its nuclear reactivity. In addition, if the reactor leaked or was drained of its fuel, the molten salt would solidify. In the event of reactor malfunction, those features would terminate nuclear reactions and prevent the spread of radioactive material without the need for plant-operator intervention.
…. Lightbridge is scheduled to insert three test fuel-rod assemblies into commercial light-water reactors in Russia in the 2012–13 time frame.
Meanwhile, India is developing its own thorium-fueled nuclear industry…..”
I think resources (dollars) are better spent developing thorium nuclear than in developing Geothermal. Geothermal looks like it could be a lot more dangerous (earthquakes) in addition to the siting problems. (away from where the power is needed)
Given the non CO2 producing energy sources I would rank them:
#1 Hydro but it is fully exploited and the environuts are having dams removed.
#2 Thorium Nuclear – tarred with Uranium nuclear scare brush but most viable.
#3 Geothermal – useful in select applications
#4 Solar – useful in select applications
#5 Windmills – over hyped bird/bat shredders. Wastes more materials/energy than they are worth except as water tank fillers for open range.
Oil/gas are best saved for transportation and chemical precursors
Entomologist says:
October 27, 2011 at 12:26 am
AND
TRM says:
October 27, 2011 at 7:59 am
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. ….
____________________________
Yes I, also linked to a “Homemade version” (Professionally engineered) of what you guys are talking about.
I see it as having one major problem. It is only good for homes with a decent yard and a large amount of soil cover. It would be fine for my house in NC since we have a big pasture in front and the bedrock is pretty far down.
The article calls for a trench at least 12 to 16 feet deep. ( (forget New England with LEDGE or bedrock all over the place) It suggests 900 ft of 4″ pipe and the compact design is a 50′ X 50′ yard for a single family home. Whether you can run it in the same place as the septic system would probably be up to your local inspector.
If I had the money (I don’t) and lived in a good spot (I do) I would certainly look into this as a major cost savings project for my home since it would knock over $1000 a year off my electric bill.
Now I want my Obama money to pay for it……
Here in San Diego County, California are dealing with eco-nuts who are opposing a power line to bring clean, US-sourced geothermal & solar to market from the desert in south-east California into western San Diego County. They say a power line will somehow “destroy” our environment….
This despite a legal mandate from our morons in state government that utilities MUST utilize more green energy, promoted by the very same people opposing the power line…
This is why I am convinced that these greenies have there heads firmly ensconced inside their rectums & should NEVER be taken seriously.
Thorium ‘thusiasts need to get a reality check. It’s about those “molten salts”. Sadly, they corrode the ever-lovin’ crap out of their containment piping, and those are a royal b**** to replace.
I’m afraid the hot corrosive stuff is going to have to be circulated in unobtainium. Check back when you have some.
It would be all thru if you werent forgetting one thing . USE THE HEAT. In the cold area’s houses/buildings use fast amounts of energy just to keep warm (at 21 Celsius). All water warmer than that can be used for heating and this is found much shallower. Also closed systems can be used to extract only the heat not water. ( like a fridge)
About nuclear power: If the taxpayer stopped paying for the building and demolition of powerplants, storage of waist (10 000 years long) and the effects of a nuclear disasters, all companies will stop today. How much cost Tjernobyl? and how much power do you have to sell to become costeffective?????
Brian H,
“Sadly, they corrode the ever-lovin’ crap out of their containment piping, and those are a royal b**** to replace.”
think shovel ready jobs!!! 4 times the needed number of reactors so they can be rotated into and out of service for maintenance and backup duties!! 8>)
try pebble bed reactors that are a large improvement in most respects.
de Haan,
Chernobyl cost wasn’t anywhere near the alarmists projections. You also need to consider that it wasn’t just an accident. They were EXPERIMENTING when they had their accident, inept operators who turned off safety overrides. You also need to remember Chernobyl had NO CONTAINMENT PRESSURE VESSEL!!!!
There were no recorded deaths outside of the immediate workers dealing with the mess. Thyroid cancers among children happened in half the time expected in the general area of Chernobyl and are thought by some to have been caused by previous contamination, not the accident.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/chernobyl/inf07.html