Geothermal Industry in the US Remains Up-beat for Future Expansion

[jpak]

http://home.businesswire.com/portal/site/google/index.jsp?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20070328005436&newsLang=en

DUBLIN, Ireland--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Research and Markets (http://www.researchandmarkets.com/reports/c52782) has announced the addition of The Geothermal Report Ed 4 2007 to their offering.

Geothermal heat is a significant provider of energy in a small number of countries, all located in regions subject to earthquakes and volcanoes. This report provides an excellent introduction and understanding of the three technologies for exploiting geothermal energy; power generation, GSHPs (ground source heat pumps), direct use (excluding GSHPs). It the industry’s development and use of technology, power generation, efficiency and location of resources. It provides an overview of geothermal energy, capacity and utilisation. The geothermal power industry is reviewed looking at the power operators and equipment manufacturers. Geothermal revenue and costs are analysed, including generation, construction and equipment costs.

The report looks at country use and development of geothermal energy with an analysis of the major market places – North America, Central America & Caribbean, Europe, Asia, Africa. A significant new geothermal technology is also reviewed for the first time, GSHPs (ground source heat pumps). This technology made its debut in the last five years and is already the largest single exploiter of geothermal energy. The principles on which it operates are completely different from power generation or all other forms of direct use of geothermal heat. A listing of major geothermal manufacturers with address and telephone and fax numbers where available is provided at the end of the report.

<more>

[necso]

1. I googled,

and I found this.

Depending on how lossy this process is, it might have some (limited) potential for CO2 "sequestration" in a form other than pump/dump-it-and-forget-it (which, in the absence of adequate information on the long-term consequences and performance thereof, I am uncomfortable with).

And as some loss of the "fluid" (here, CO2) wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing, then maybe geothermal plants using this technology could serve as "sinks" (if only partial "sinks") for a conventional, collocated, CO2-producing power-plant (perhaps a peak-demand power-plant).

But I don't know.

[hunter]

2. The "fear factor" of this sort of technology is very similar to nuclear power.

Not radioactive waste, but earthquakes and carbon dioxide blowouts.

If we adopt technologies such as carbon dioxide sequestration or supercritical geothermal heat extraction, eventually we're going to face the sort of accident that smothers a town, and/or the public will blame deadly earthquakes on such technology.

On a positive note, if we are in the habit of pumping carbon dioxide around in pipelines it may prove to be a useful feedstock for hydrocarbon synthesis. I don't believe a "hydrogen economy" will ever exist, but it's possible that energy from wind, solar, etc., might be used to make hydrocarbons from carbon dioxide and water.

[necso]

3. There's potentially a big difference between

"sequestration" in the form of slow-diffusion into "country"-rock and pumping big "reservoirs" full of it (specifically, that are just "capped", left). However, it's a lot more complicated than this: storage in interstitial spaces versus fractures/chambers; motility; groundwater effects; acidity; "country"-rock reactivity; "basin" settling (like with oil/gas removal); stratigraphic and tectonic considerations; etc.

But yeah, you'd have to take measures to mitigate the hazard, and you might not want to put such a plant in the middle of town. However, pumping water into the ground for geothermal has issues; dissolved minerals, water reactivity with the "country"-rock, and water loss come to mind. (Still, as long as you have the water, generally you can deal with the other issues.) In any event, you have to go where the heat gradient makes it worthwhile; and I'm thinking relatively remote areas with long-haul transmission (another issue, but with "sustainables" generally you have to get used to "going" to them (even solar is not equally distributed over time and geography) and "exporting" electricity, as opposed to bringing them to some convenient place and then using them).

And it'd be nice to "productize" CO2 -- while decreasing it's production. Recycling it (which is what nature does) somehow would be great; and as would "mineralizing" it (which is also what nature does), however, this also requires permanent "deposition".

It's worth experimenting with different paths, as opposed to committing prematurely to one path or the other.

[necso]

5. I don't wish to

leave the impression that geothermal-energy is water-hungry.

Generally, the goal of modern geothermal-energy production is to be closed-system: that is, heat is extracted; fluids are not. However, there are various historical variations from this model; and condensate can be attractive as a water source. There is also the minor issue of mass-loss through deposition and solute extraction (commercially viable extraction of minerals is possible in some locations, like the Salton Trough). And pressures need to kept up in the thermal-source (a particular concern where you're relying on permeability/porosity), rather like for oil extraction. (In either case if you remove "fluids" and don't replace them, production-dropoff and basin settling are possible; although the situation for oil is typically rather more complicated, as gas, oil and water are all typically involved.)

Speaking of the Salton Trough (a brine operation), there is apparently considerable room for growth in production there; although estimates vary considerably. However, long-term generation in the 5-6 GW range (or more) may well be practical.

I understand that expansion of production there is in progress, but that future expansion may await assurances that the production will be marketable.

Again, I'd be happy to pay 2 or 3 cents more per kwhr for (developing) electricity generated this way.

...

Oh, and Verizon sux.

[Dogmudgeon]

4. So do we pro-nuclearists

:evilgrin:

--p!