Geothermal - will it happen?
- Thread starter One Brow
- Start date
Gyp Rosetti
Banned
How about a nice game of Global Thermonuclear War?
That's encouraging. I personally think wind is a solution that is worse then the problem. How many millions of acres of windmills do we want in previously untouched wilderness?
A few solar farms would be okay if they actually pumped out a considerable amount of energy, but it's not something that could replace our current sources of energy completely.
A few solar farms would be okay if they actually pumped out a considerable amount of energy, but it's not something that could replace our current sources of energy completely.
LogGrad98
Well-Known Member
Contributor
2020-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
This is pretty cool.
https://www.solarplaza.com/news/spain-abengoa-fires-up-worlds-largest-solar-tow
https://www.solarplaza.com/news/spain-abengoa-fires-up-worlds-largest-solar-tow
larryselbows
Banned
Haven't heard much about it, but it sounds encouraging!
From what I've heard though, is that it is expensive to implement and there are few places with the type of subsurface thermal gradient that would make it attractive.
From what I've heard though, is that it is expensive to implement and there are few places with the type of subsurface thermal gradient that would make it attractive.
larryselbows
Banned
Hope I'm wrong though!
If the lockout doesn't end, I'm going Geothermal!!!
As technology improves, and we can dig deeper, gradients will improve.
larryselbows
Banned
More likely, in my opinion, is that oil and gas become more cost prohibitive to extract in the future, thus making geothermal more attractive. You have to remember that these are energy companies, not oil companies. The only reason why we are in the fossil fuel age is because it is the cheapest and most practical form of energy. When that changes we will no longer use it. Maybe the next era will be geothermal!
Gyp Rosetti
Banned
I thought the one post to the article was even more interesting than the article itself. See quoted below.
"There is no such thing as “Green Energy”. All energy sources have adverse environmental impacts., including geothermal. Fossil fuels like coal of course release Green House Gases (GHGs) as well as all sorts of toxic substances (mercury) and particulates and these are bad. Wind energy, while releasing not GHGs does kill birds (mostly raptors) and bats. Solar energy blocks the ground from receiving sunlight, altering the delicate (is there some other kind?) ecosystems beneath.
Geothermal is no different. First, if it is not a hot spring, substantial amounts of water have to be injected. When the water comes back up, it is full of all sorts of hazardous materials, most metals (arsenic, antimony, chromium, silver &c) and radioactive substances (radon, uranium, radium &c.). Since these materials will deposit on the heat exchangers and scale up the system, they have to be removed. As a result, there is a substantial waste stream of fairly hazardous materials. Additionally, aesthetically challenging power lines need to be run from where the geothermal resources are to where the power is needed.
None of this is to argue against geothermal power but rather to suggest that it, like all other alternative energy sources, has non-inconsequential environmental impacts."
"There is no such thing as “Green Energy”. All energy sources have adverse environmental impacts., including geothermal. Fossil fuels like coal of course release Green House Gases (GHGs) as well as all sorts of toxic substances (mercury) and particulates and these are bad. Wind energy, while releasing not GHGs does kill birds (mostly raptors) and bats. Solar energy blocks the ground from receiving sunlight, altering the delicate (is there some other kind?) ecosystems beneath.
Geothermal is no different. First, if it is not a hot spring, substantial amounts of water have to be injected. When the water comes back up, it is full of all sorts of hazardous materials, most metals (arsenic, antimony, chromium, silver &c) and radioactive substances (radon, uranium, radium &c.). Since these materials will deposit on the heat exchangers and scale up the system, they have to be removed. As a result, there is a substantial waste stream of fairly hazardous materials. Additionally, aesthetically challenging power lines need to be run from where the geothermal resources are to where the power is needed.
None of this is to argue against geothermal power but rather to suggest that it, like all other alternative energy sources, has non-inconsequential environmental impacts."
We're working on a house that is using this type of idea as his heating/cooling system. What this system does is run an antifreeze type liquid through pipes a couple hundred feet into the earth. In the winter, this will heat the liquid, then it flows over a fan that blows air over the pipes. This warms the air and then goes through the ducting like your normal furnace (forced air) heating system. In the summer, it is supposed to have the opposite effect. By going through the pipes into the earth, it is supposed to cool the liquid, essentially becoming an air conditioner. Supposedly, it's supposed to considerably reduce the cost of the electric bill. I'm not at all convinced it will work. I know the guy is getting a huge tax credit for putting it in to help offset the cost of the installation. It cost him tens of thousands of dollars to install this system.
We've also worked on a couple houses that installed some solar panels on the roof. The problem here is that they are just ugly, and I've heard that the technology of the solar panels isn't quite where it needs to be. They got a federal grant to install them, but they told us that if they had to purchase them, you can expect to get about enough savings in electricity out of them to pay for them before you have to replace the panels.
A number of years ago, I watched a documentary where a family in California installed a bunch of solar panels on their roof. They created enough electricity that they actually sent some back to the power company. Their electrical meter(the old, non-digital kind) actually spun backward. They were getting a check from their power company every month.
I've talked to a guy who installed a wind mill in his yard. His basis for doing this over solar panels was that the wind blows at night, during storms, etc when the sun isn't out. He says he pays about $15 a month for electricity in the summer. Again, the problem here is pure ugliness.
We've also worked on a couple houses that installed some solar panels on the roof. The problem here is that they are just ugly, and I've heard that the technology of the solar panels isn't quite where it needs to be. They got a federal grant to install them, but they told us that if they had to purchase them, you can expect to get about enough savings in electricity out of them to pay for them before you have to replace the panels.
A number of years ago, I watched a documentary where a family in California installed a bunch of solar panels on their roof. They created enough electricity that they actually sent some back to the power company. Their electrical meter(the old, non-digital kind) actually spun backward. They were getting a check from their power company every month.
I've talked to a guy who installed a wind mill in his yard. His basis for doing this over solar panels was that the wind blows at night, during storms, etc when the sun isn't out. He says he pays about $15 a month for electricity in the summer. Again, the problem here is pure ugliness.
larryselbows
Banned
Well put, man. Despite all these side-effects, we need energy. At least there will always be nuclear... oh wait...
SalmonHobo,
I agree that if they are not going to install piping, but just dig a tunnel, that could be bad for many reasons (although many of those waste materials will have industrial uses, so the scraping would pay for themselves in that way). Among other things, a tunnel will simply erode, reducing the effectiveness of the energy removal over time.
I agree that if they are not going to install piping, but just dig a tunnel, that could be bad for many reasons (although many of those waste materials will have industrial uses, so the scraping would pay for themselves in that way). Among other things, a tunnel will simply erode, reducing the effectiveness of the energy removal over time.
Last edited:
LogGrad98
Well-Known Member
Contributor
2020-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
Here the local schools use a form of wind-generation fans that are actually pretty cool to look at. One school has a set that looks like trees (painted different shades of green so it resembles foliage when in motion, kind of, if you squint just right, and the sun hits it just so).
Something similar to this in design.
My understanding is that a little forest of these in the playground at the school can generate as much as 40-60% of the electricity needs of the school, depending on wind of course. The principal at my daughters school said it accounts for substantial savings yearly that they turn into funds for the school for other purposes (books, computers, etc.).
Something similar to this in design.
My understanding is that a little forest of these in the playground at the school can generate as much as 40-60% of the electricity needs of the school, depending on wind of course. The principal at my daughters school said it accounts for substantial savings yearly that they turn into funds for the school for other purposes (books, computers, etc.).
larryselbows
Banned
Here's and interesting excerpt from one of the world's leading climate scientists.
Everyone understands that even if climate change causes really bad problems it will not wipe out human life or life on Earth in general, right?
What I find funny is that the green movement is really an economic stability movement. Keeping the environment the same means that farming land held by giant conglomerates continues to be what they invested in it to be. It means that ocean levels stay the same so we don't lose very valuable real-estate along the coasts. It means that the majority of the human population, which is near coastal areas, can stay where they are and continue to do what they're doing now.
If the environment changed substantially we'd all have to (gasp) adjust to the new situation. Some plant and animal life would not survive, others would flourish. Much like things have been on this planet for hundreds of millions of years. Pardon me for not wringing my hands about it and demanding action.
The problem with the science of global climate change is that there is a pre-established political solution to the "problem." And the solution, in my opinion, is worse than the problem. So to me the question of the validity of the science is not important. I will not support the solution no matter what.
I'm a frequent listener to NPR. When scientists present their case they almost always follow it up with "we know this is true, only ignorant morons don't believe it. So we need to start implementing X to do what we can to stop it right now." Only X is a political solution, not a scientific one. Just as there is no possibility that global climate change theory is wrong, in specifics or in general, the solution also can only be one thing.
What I find funny is that the green movement is really an economic stability movement. Keeping the environment the same means that farming land held by giant conglomerates continues to be what they invested in it to be. It means that ocean levels stay the same so we don't lose very valuable real-estate along the coasts. It means that the majority of the human population, which is near coastal areas, can stay where they are and continue to do what they're doing now.
If the environment changed substantially we'd all have to (gasp) adjust to the new situation. Some plant and animal life would not survive, others would flourish. Much like things have been on this planet for hundreds of millions of years. Pardon me for not wringing my hands about it and demanding action.
The problem with the science of global climate change is that there is a pre-established political solution to the "problem." And the solution, in my opinion, is worse than the problem. So to me the question of the validity of the science is not important. I will not support the solution no matter what.
I'm a frequent listener to NPR. When scientists present their case they almost always follow it up with "we know this is true, only ignorant morons don't believe it. So we need to start implementing X to do what we can to stop it right now." Only X is a political solution, not a scientific one. Just as there is no possibility that global climate change theory is wrong, in specifics or in general, the solution also can only be one thing.
LogGrad98
Well-Known Member
Contributor
2020-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
Well said GF. Repped.
I always wondered, and have not yet found an answer to this, if there is a theoretical upper limit to rising temperatures. Do the climate scientists believe that if we leave it unchecked that it will just climb infinitely high. Will excess CO2 eventually turn the earth into the sun itself, or is there a limit to the temperatures our atmosphere can support, given our distance from the sun? Or are these theoretical highest tempertures on the order of 130 degrees fahrenheit average, or 300 degrees? Will it reach a point where the planet is simply completely uninhabitable, or just damn hot?
I still find it interesting, to GF's point, that in earth history the time period with the absolute highest CO2 concentrations we know of was also the period with the absolute highest diversity and flat out volume of life, as well as higher temperatures than we have had yet.
I always wondered, and have not yet found an answer to this, if there is a theoretical upper limit to rising temperatures. Do the climate scientists believe that if we leave it unchecked that it will just climb infinitely high. Will excess CO2 eventually turn the earth into the sun itself, or is there a limit to the temperatures our atmosphere can support, given our distance from the sun? Or are these theoretical highest tempertures on the order of 130 degrees fahrenheit average, or 300 degrees? Will it reach a point where the planet is simply completely uninhabitable, or just damn hot?
I still find it interesting, to GF's point, that in earth history the time period with the absolute highest CO2 concentrations we know of was also the period with the absolute highest diversity and flat out volume of life, as well as higher temperatures than we have had yet.
larryselbows
Banned
I agree with you, in speaking with the paleoclimate group at A&M, most of our scientists assert that we're probably not going to be able to stop global climate change. On the flip side, although I am concerned about unborn generations, what about people that are here now? It's obvious that there is no other realistic alternative to fossil fuels, and to be honest, I don't think most of us could, nor would it be moral to force people to adjust to a zero carbon world.
We are in for some slow moving, but immensely forceful changes that are not identifiable at any discernable resolution, but we really have no other choice. That said, the next 50 years are going to be interesting.
Last edited:
Climate scientists are not sure. Some models have a runaway effect where the heat increases to past the boiling point, others have reactions that give us an atmosphere high in methane. So, it may wipe out all *human* life, although probably not all life.
Economic stability means that food production continues and improves. If the climate changes cut our ability to produce food by half, that's a lot of starvation in the world, and a lot of chaos.
Wring your hands, or don't, but at least be aware of the consequences.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runaway_climate_change
There are many possible political solutions, but American scientists tend to put forth the ones that will be least unpalatble to Americans. Supporting renewable energy sources, sequestration, and carbon taxes are much less unpalatable than nationalization of the oil industries or rationing of petroleum.