ronwagn

Green Groups Thwarting Geothermal Solutions to Energy Problems

Recommended Posts

53 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

https://freebeacon.com/policy/green-groups-thwarting-geothermal-solutions-to-energy-problems/

Green Groups Thwarting Geothermal Solutions to Energy Problems

Pro-geothermal bill would make it easier to generate affordable, renewable energy

rsz_gettyimages-1150177302-736x514.jpg

Great photo choice, by all means let's scrap Yellowstone and put a geothermal plant on top of Old Faithful. 

The article claims that geothermal resources are resistant to adversarial attack! What a load of absolute rubbish. The thermal generator at the top of the wells is a single easy target for a small bomb. That same bomb would do almost no damage to a solar or wind farm. But of course the real threat is to the transmission system and computer controls which makes all forms of energy equally subject to threat.

The article gives absolutely no reason why the law needs to be changed at this time. It alludes to a lot of undeveloped technology and the fact that there is plenty of access to land for it to be proven on. So the real question is what does that bill really have in it that will benefit the oil industry?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

While there is certainly an opportunity in geothermal energy for petroleum extraction (drilling) operations, I suspect there's nothing to fill a pipeline with, or refine and transport.

I think you gotta drill really deep, too, (except on Hawaii or near Yellowstone) to obtain sufficient "delta T" to make it work well enough to sell product at a profit.

Edited by turbguy
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, turbguy said:

While there is certainly an opportunity in geothermal energy for petroleum extraction (drilling) operations, I suspect there's nothing to fill a pipeline with, or refine and transport.

I think you gotta drill really deep, too, (except on Hawaii or near Yellowstone) to obtain sufficient "delta T" to make it work well enough to sell product at a profit.

Iceland: A supervolcano with its own core tap is hard to beat. More and more industry is slowly moving to Iceland due to CHEAP geothermal power.  Aluminum smelting plants have moved in and are growing.  Gotta love fresh water saturated hot rock eh.... Good times.  Now if Russia and USA could get off their fat asses and geothermal prospecting in Kamchatka and Aleutian islands respectively... I'll bet they too could have massive amounts of dirt cheap(neaerly free) power as well.  Probably not ever as good as Iceland though.  A supervolcano with its own core tap is hard to beat.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One problem with geothermal is lack of readily available surface heat unless you live in Iceland or Indonesia. I have three patents to enhance steam temperatures  at the surface.   No one looks at bottom hole temps to see to see what you have to work with. We have two spots that are or would be commercially viable at $80/mwh.  Blue Mountain in Nevada and Lightning Dock in NM are busts at a and Yellowstone. you Also have one spot in Alaska. I have patents fpr gehtermal.  These two are specific to geothermal and  made since in 2008. Steam-based electric power plant operated on renewable energy Patent issuer and number us Patent # 8,281,590 Methods for enhancing efficiency of steam-based generating systems Patent issuer and number us Patent # 8,256,219h

You need a bottom hole temp on an oil well reentry. of 200C to have enough heat to spin the turbine an d300C to hope to make a profit. A project from scratch like Blue Mountain  or Lightning Dock takes 400C bottom hole.  . As per usual know nothings who don't know how to do the thermo.  Congress said don't waste any more money .

Headline is a lie. Cost of construction and operation are stopping geothermal .  We could  impost a special surtax on whiners and complainers so they pay the extra cost.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, nsdp said:

One problem with geothermal is lack of readily available surface heat unless you live in Iceland or Indonesia. I have three patents to enhance steam temperatures  at the surface.   No one looks at bottom hole temps to see to see what you have to work with. We have two spots that are or would be commercially viable at $80/mwh.  Blue Mountain in Nevada and Lightning Dock in NM are busts at a and Yellowstone. you Also have one spot in Alaska. I have patents fpr gehtermal.  These two are specific to geothermal and  made since in 2008. Steam-based electric power plant operated on renewable energy Patent issuer and number us Patent # 8,281,590 Methods for enhancing efficiency of steam-based generating systems Patent issuer and number us Patent # 8,256,219h

You need a bottom hole temp on an oil well reentry. of 200C to have enough heat to spin the turbine an d300C to hope to make a profit. A project from scratch like Blue Mountain  or Lightning Dock takes 400C bottom hole.  . As per usual know nothings who don't know how to do the thermo.  Congress said don't waste any more money .

Headline is a lie. Cost of construction and operation are stopping geothermal .  We could  impost a special surtax on whiners and complainers so they pay the extra cost.

Looks like you better go after these guys, then. 

https://majorprojects.alberta.ca/details/Greenview-Geothermal-Power-Plant-Alberta-No-1/3916

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

[Removed]

Edited by KeyboardWarrior

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, KeyboardWarrior said:

Except that nobody is going to bother bombing a power plant. If they're serious about doing damage, they'll bomb a substation. Solar is just as susceptible to attack as any other power source, because all power sources share the same major weakness: the grid.

Which I said in the subsequent sentence that you did not quote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, Jay McKinsey said:

Which I said in the subsequent sentence that you did not quote.

Very nice. Removing Reply.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, nsdp said:

You need a bottom hole temp on an oil well reentry. of 200C to have enough heat to spin the turbine an d300C to hope to make a profit.

With what working fluid? Water? Better use something else. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

On 10/28/2021 at 5:01 PM, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Iceland: A supervolcano with its own core tap is hard to beat. More and more industry is slowly moving to Iceland due to CHEAP geothermal power.  Aluminum smelting plants have moved in and are growing.  Gotta love fresh water saturated hot rock eh.... Good times.  Now if Russia and USA could get off their fat asses and geothermal prospecting in Kamchatka and Aleutian islands respectively... I'll bet they too could have massive amounts of dirt cheap(neaerly free) power as well.  Probably not ever as good as Iceland though.  A supervolcano with its own core tap is hard to beat.

They do have geothermal plants on Kamchatka. Since way before it became fashionable in the West (1966) Eq

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauzhetskaya_Power_Station (oldest)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutnovskaya_Power_Station (largest)

from

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_power_in_Russia#List_of_geothermal_power_stations

Also, on the Kurils. There is not that much local population to build more. In US, the best geothermal potential is actually in Nevada. The Fly Geyser is actually man-made (by accident)

Fly_Geyser.png

https://flyranch.burningman.org/we-bought-fly-ranch/

I think there is potential for those Technicolor germs as pets living in nuclear reactor pits :)

Edited by Andrei Moutchkine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In general, environmentalists are opposed to energy solutions that work: nuclear, hydro, and geothermal.

There are many reasons for this, but I think the largest is the fact that their overlords are interested in making serious cash off the stupid amount of panels and turbines required for our energy consumption. 

 

  • Rolling Eye 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, KeyboardWarrior said:

In general, environmentalists are opposed to energy solutions that work: nuclear, hydro, and geothermal.

There are many reasons for this, but I think the largest is the fact that their overlords are interested in making serious cash off the stupid amount of panels and turbines required for our energy consumption. 

 

No. Some of them want to tax the developing economies for developing and some of them don't like people in general and want them to go significantly extinct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Andrei Moutchkine said:

No. Some of them want to tax the developing economies for developing and some of them don't like people in general and want them to go significantly extinct.

I agree that those are reasons. I can't be bothered to rank them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, KeyboardWarrior said:

With what working fluid? Water? Better use something else. 

No longer an issue.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_Rankine_cycle

Has heavy, but volatile organic working fluid in a closed loop. Basically, a glorified fridge.

This stuff will make extra energy out of the cooling circuit of a larger diesel engine. Think about it - if your car were properly designed, it'd be more efficient to run with the aircon on! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, KeyboardWarrior said:

@Jay McKinsey I'm having trouble remembering. Did you ever tell me that solar uses less land than nuclear?

I never told you that. But it is an interesting question. You don't have a nuclear reactor on your roof do you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

I never told you that. But it is an interesting question. You don't have a nuclear reactor on your roof do you?

On the need to know basis!

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

On 10/27/2021 at 6:49 PM, turbguy said:

While there is certainly an opportunity in geothermal energy for petroleum extraction (drilling) operations, I suspect there's nothing to fill a pipeline with, or refine and transport.

I think you gotta drill really deep, too, (except on Hawaii or near Yellowstone) to obtain sufficient "delta T" to make it work well enough to sell product at a profit.

This is why I keep pondering saline flow batteries. If you can get enough energy density, why can't you charge up an electrolyte, fill a rubberized/HPDE pipeline or tanker and ship it like oil?

Edited by Strangelovesurfing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, QuarterCenturyVet said:

No, he better go after whatever idiot patent lawyer who took his money convincing him that BS he typed up as a patent is actually a patent.  Reminds me of the genius's who continually "invent" the stink free toilet and there are now ~ 50 patents spanning 100 years on something that is unpatentable... AKA put a fan on the toilet seat/bowl etc to suck the fumes directly from the bowl.  This genius "invented flight" and pretends this is a patent.

This idiot thinks that if you combine energy sources this is patentable... Or if you use a hydraulic sprint and a torsion spring this is somehow patentable.....

PS: Patent office doesn't bother rejecting patents unless piss poorly written usually and a waste of their time.  They just take the fee and rubber stamp nearly everything unless they think 1 patent should actually be several patents.  If overlap, they do not care; go to court.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

4 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

I never told you that. But it is an interesting question. You don't have a nuclear reactor on your roof do you?

I'd like to have a small reactor if that were practical. I was just going to say that the Bruce Generating Station, in Canada, occupies 2200 acres. A solar farm matching its output of 6.2 GW (actual output, not installed capacity) would occupy more than 15,000 acres. 

EDIT: It's actually a lot more than that, but you can figure it out. 

Edited by KeyboardWarrior

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, KeyboardWarrior said:

I'd like to have a small reactor if that were practical. I was just going to say that the Bruce Generating Station, in Canada, occupies 2200 acres. A solar farm matching its output of 6.2 GW (actual output, not installed capacity) would occupy more than 15,000 acres. 

Ok...   How much does that nuke station cost vs. the solar farm?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

3 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Ok...   How much does that nuke station cost vs. the solar farm?

 

Hang on, I just used the wrong number. 

Edited by KeyboardWarrior

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

@Jay McKinsey Over 18 billion adjusted for (current) inflation. If the capacity factor for solar up there is 20%, then the solar farm would cost $26 B to match actual power output. 

Assumption of $0.80 per watt of solar. 

Edited by KeyboardWarrior

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, KeyboardWarrior said:

@Jay McKinsey Over 18 billion adjusted for (current) inflation. If the capacity factor for solar up there is 20%, then the solar farm would cost $26 B to match actual power output. 

Assumption of $0.80 per watt of solar. 

So you caught your mistake on the nuclear costs before I could get it posted but you then mysteriously pulled a much higher solar number out of thin air to maintain your position. Solar is running at $30-40/MWh for a big project.

"Power for all electricity generated from 2016 to 2064 (covering the entire refurbishment period for Units 3–6 plus the entire expected remaining post-refurbishment lifetimes of all eight Bruce Power reactors (including the two that were already refurbished)) was estimated to be approximately CA$80.6/MWh in 2017 dollars by the Financial Accountability Office of Ontario." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Nuclear_Generating_Station

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.