Renewable Energy Solar Energy Wind Energy Geothermal Energy Bioenergy Hydropower

Free Power from the Earth 24/7

By Thomas R. Blakeslee
February 19, 2008 | 29 Comments

Do you like this opinion & commentary?

Bookmark

Feed

From our home on the earth's thin crust, it's hard to believe that 99.9% of the earth's volume is hot enough to boil water. Atomic decay inside of the earth heats its molten core to a temperature that is hotter than the surface of the sun! To harness this geothermal power, we need only drill through the crust and use that heat to boil water to drive turbine generators. This water can be reinjected into the earth in a closed loop.

The world's first geothermal power plant was built in Larderello, Italy in 1911. It is still producing enough power for a million homes today. Geothermal power already supplies 26% of electrical power in Iceland and the Philippines and 5% of California's at prices that are competitive with coal power. Geothermal power plants run 24 hours a day with an uptime of over 90%. They require no fuel and produce no pollution. Coal and atomic power plants need much more maintenance downtime, so they only operate an average of 75% and 65% of the time. Wind and solar power are even worse, producing an average of only 30% and 24% of their rated power.

Why then, do we use coal to produce most of our power? We dig thousands of miles of tunnels or blast the tops off of mountains and ship the coal thousands of miles just to burn it to make steam. Every step of this process is an environmental nightmare so bad that we have ruined the earth and upset the entire climate balance of our planet. Acid rain has killed our forests and coral reefs and mercury emissions have made it dangerous to eat most fish.

We started burning coal because it was easy at first. The environmental problems didn't become apparent until the scale of coal burning became massive. Coal became big business with lots of political clout that squeezed out all competitors including geothermal. Energy policy today spends billions to subsidize coal and develop "clean coal" technology but nothing at all on geothermal development. The fossil fuel Juggernaut tramples all alternatives that threaten the status quo.

Geothermal power today is mostly done in natural geyser or hot spring areas where underground water in contact with hot rocks below produces steam near the surface. However, deep drilling methods developed by the oil industry make is theoretically possible to build geothermal plants in places where the earth's crust is deeper, like the eastern United States. Old oil wells are often rehabilitated by drilling another hole nearby and injecting water to push the oil out. The mixture of oil and water that comes out is very hot. This hot water is now considered a nuisance but if it's heat were used to generate power, tens of thousands of megawatts (MW) could be generated in Texas alone with a cost payoff of only three years.

A recent MIT report studies the potential of similarly injecting water into hot rocks purely for the purpose of generating power in non-thermal areas like the Eastern U.S. The report concludes that hot rocks are a rich resource that should be developed now. The research cost of such a development would be much less than the billions already being spent on "clean coal" and nuclear power. Since the water used is recirculated back into the ground, geothermal power consumes a tiny fraction of the massive water consumption of a coal or atomic power plant.

Atlantic Geothermal has a very ambitious plan using tunneling technology similar to that used to construct the tunnel under Mont Blanc to build a 50 foot wide tunnel 80 miles long and three deep. Using 1500 ft. boreholes laterally to expand the heat extraction field, the system could generate 1600 MW of power, nearly matching the output of Hoover dam. Since the entire system except for input and output facilities is underground and maintained by hydrostatic pressure, the visual impact above ground would be insignificant. While this project sounds grandiose, it is no more so than Hoover Dam itself. It is a much better use for government money, which is now being wasted on hydrogen and "clean coal" projects.

Early in this century energy technology took a wrong turn when geothermal power was overshadowed by cheap coal and oil. Now the oil is running out and the unintended consequences of coal are killing people and ruining the planet. The problem now is a political one. Energy policy is determined by experts and lobbyists from the fossil fuel industry. We must derail the fossil energy juggernaut before it is too late.

Thomas R. Blakeslee is president of The Clearlight Foundation, a non-profit organization that invests in renewable energy and other socially useful companies and issues cash grants to individuals who are working effectively for change.

Additional Information

Inside the earth 11,000 deg F

Geothermal Energy

The information and views expressed in this article are those of the author and not necessarily those of RenewableEnergyWorld.com or the companies that advertise on its Web site and other publications.

29 Reader Comments

Comment
1 of 29

dominic-jermano-62365

February 19, 2008

Our cars could be charging and gaining energy power as we drive. Unlike how we do today in always seeing the fuel needle move toward empty. Maglev Cars and the new road system would be safer to drive, and provide a means to the end of bad roads during the winter. No more worry about black ice, or snow removal because the roads or tracks would melt the ice or snow pack.It is very possible and real to have Geothermal Plants built across America tapping into our homes and road system. We could use Oil and gas for our Agriculture and Construction Industries. This diversity would save billions of gallons of loss Oil used primarily for transportation.We need leaders with vision and determination to make these great methods work for our society. I'm all for GEOTHERMAL

Comment
2 of 29

dominic-jermano-62365

February 19, 2008

<div>I agree Thomas. And the fears of Hydrogen Sulfide Gas are hype for the Oil drillers and Oil companies, who would rather have us buy their oil instead of hooking into Geothermal.; See here.</div><div><a href="http://www.wellowner.org/awaterquality/hydrogensulfide.shtml" target="_blank">http://www.wellowner.org/awaterquality/hydrogensulfide.shtml</a></div><div></div><div>I like Geothermal because really think about what that means not only for our home electric power but also for transportation. Maglev Trains are the coming choice of transportation in Asia, due to high coal resources, and think about how Geothermal will give us an endlesss supply of energy to run Maglev Trains in the US. The same principle can be used to make Maglev Cars or trucks.</div>

Comment
3 of 29

Jonathan_Cole

February 19, 2008

While geothermal may be well worth consideration, it is inaccurate to suggest that it is entirely without any environmental threats. In Hawaii, poorly managed geothermal installations have caused significant emission of hydrogen sulfide gas, sufficient to drive those living down wind out of their homes. There is tremendous pressure in geothermally active layers and this is combined with gases and vapors dissolved by heated water which has seeped in. These gases and vapors can be very toxic and corrosive as anyone living near an active volcano can tell you. Unleashing these vapors through the leakage of wells and even from well-heads blowing out from unexpected pressure surges could pollute the atmosphere beyond belief if we suddenly started using geothermal to supply a large fraction of our energy. I believe that major geothermal development is not the best way to go to create a healthful yet modern lifestyle.

Comment
4 of 29

mary-saunders-73470

February 20, 2008

I like the story from The Economist about Heat from the Street, where they ran pipes beneath asphalt roadway.  They then made their own geothermal heat in the summer and stored it in an acquifir for winter for heating building interiors and the roadway.  A second acquifir stored cold water for cooling interiors and the roadway in summer.  Another way to heat water without having to drill is with composting facilities.  Of course, you would have to do this in areas with huge surplus biomass, like the Pacific Northwest.  Perhaps you could compost kudzu in the South as well.  David Blume says you can harvest any part of kudzu and it just comes back. Keeping pipes clear of muck can be a challenge using deep hot water.

Comment
5 of 29

terrence-thompson-49487

February 20, 2008

Geothermal power is about to take off in Australia with  The Company Geodydamics Having just completed drilling of Hallberno 3 well in the Cooper Basin of South Australia.The company is backed by Origin Energy and other Mainstream power suppliers. <a href="http://www.geodynamics.com.au/IRM/content/hfr_hfrexplain_highheat.html" target="_blank">http://www.geodynamics.com.au/IRM/content/hfr_hfrexplain_highheat.html</a>Go to this site for a very thorough explanation of their technology and details of the comparative cost of production.This resouce in S.A. alone Has reserves of heat sufficient to supply the entire australian economy fo 100 years at its present size.Its not cheap to set up and commercialy untested on a large scale but so far every pointer indicates it will be a winner.Terrence Thompson

Comment
6 of 29

todd-cory-1927

February 20, 2008

Kudos to Jonathan Cole for his wisdom about "clean, green" geothermal power. We have been fighting CalPine's medicine lake geothermal project for years. http://www.mountshastaecology.org/12medicinelake.html Todd

Comment
7 of 29

tblakeslee

February 20, 2008

Greg,Yes there are many people making money doing geothermal. Probably the most impressive is Ormat, which has been profitable since 2003 and has tripled their revenue during that time. They are valued at almost $2 billion. <a href="http://www.ormat.com/" target="_blank">www.ormat.com</a>If you're into stocks here is a list of symbols of companies in the business: SRA.V WGP.V WFI.TO NGP.V GEO.TO ECLN.PK 260018.TA PTR.AX GDY.AX EDE.AX ORG.AX G8A.BE TEY.AX EVOMY.PK RZ CPN UGTH.OB GHH.F PAX.AX

Comment
8 of 29

l-day-74627

February 20, 2008

William Bunter expresses what seems to be a common and persistent misunderstanding about hydrogen. Hydrogen is not a power source. It is potentially a renewable and storable carrier of chemical energy. However, on Earth there are no significant naturally occuring sources of free hydrogen. Hydrogen can be produced from fossil fuels such as coal and methane, or by electrolysis of water using electricity from any source. The latter may become a useful adjunct for intermittant sources of electric power such as wind and solar, but is not particularly relevant for geothermal electricity, which (whatever its other merits or drawbacks) does have a relatively high capacity factor, making it suitable for baseload power generation.

Comment
9 of 29

rick-jenkins-64292

February 20, 2008

People like Johnathan Coal really make me grumpy. They are here to take the wind out of our turbines. They are quick to point out possible side effects of clean technologies which don't offer their stockholders proffit opportunities. They say wait, move slowly, carefully unless it benefits them. Wait on geothermal because it might have side effects like caols proven problems but want the government to subsidisise unproven technology like mis-labeled "clean coal technologies." Jonathan, go smoke some lite cigarettes and move in next to a coal plant or nuclear plant.

Comment
10 of 29

greg-mcquay-40731

February 20, 2008

Thomas,Interesting story. I am interested in those who are working in this area and showing results. Please list solutions, products and business models that can be examined. If this works and are responsible solutions then lets get working on it with less discussion on theory and politics.  We need working solutions based on sound principles. Obstacles are for those still considering the possibilities. Solutions are from those with focus. I look forward to hearing and seeing more.

Comment
11 of 29

chuck-conover-55161

February 20, 2008

I completely disagree that "if someone could make money ... they would already be doing it."  Let's just curb innovation completely then.  Also, since when is it about money?What worries me is that the article states that we did not see the implications of coal harvest/burning on our environment in the beginning.  Now, you want to mess with the Earth's core?  What happens if the Earth's core cools by 3 degrees?  We have no idea.  I'm not saying give up, just do some math... BEFORE we start digging this time.

Comment
12 of 29

paul-johnson-34828

February 20, 2008

Free power is a bit of a misnomer.  Drilling deep enough is not easy or free.  Bottom line is that if someone could make money generating power from geothermal, they would already be doing it!  The places where geothermal is currently in operation is where it was an easier installation and therefore profitable.  Saying there is a conspiracy by "big oil" is just silly.  If oil & gas companies could make money from it, they would.

Comment
13 of 29

rick-kolb-56367

February 20, 2008

Mr. Blakeslee states tha coal and "atomic" plants "only operate an average of 75% to 65% of the time".  On the US Energy Information Administration website it informs you that in 1980 nuclear plants' capacity factor (time available to generate electricity) was 56% and over the years has improved dramatically to where in 2002 the nuclear plants average capacity factor exceeded 90%. 

Comment
14 of 29

tblakeslee

February 20, 2008

Brian,Rated power for photovoltaics is the power produced at the peak of the day. At night no power is produced. If you average throughout the day the total energy produced is only a fraction of the rated power. This is called capacity factor. 24% is a generous estimate of the capacity factor for solar. The actual capacity factor depends on latitude, cloudiness and many factors. 14% is common. What this means is that it would take 6 megawatts of solar power to put as much energy into the grid as 1 megawatt of geothermal. does. Wind similarly varies through the day and seasons. Capacity factor varies with location but 25-30% average over the year is common. This means that 3-4 megawatts of wind power is needed to put the same amount of energy into the grid as one megawatt of geothermal.

Comment
15 of 29

sigitas-cemeska-80919

February 20, 2008

I agree with Mr. Domonic J. That Gas and oil magnats striving to twist our arms. Only one (unique) in the Baltics 43 MW Electro power station with 17 MW Geothermal system in Klaipeda is near the bankrupt margin, some people are kiking-up a racket about terra alba(gypsum) concentration in the abyssal(deep) water, etc.  This working system with four   1135 m borings ,+38 deg.C, can give an advantage-free power from the Earth.Sigis.

Comment
16 of 29

brian-ballek-52819

February 20, 2008

This is what Germany has achieved with its renewable energy law (the "EEG") and that is the reason why countries accross Europe are evolving their renewable energy policies to emulate the EEG ever more closely. I can only hope the USA follows their lead.By the way, the EEG is not a subsidy. The only costs to the German government are the costs of administering the program and these are regarded to be quite low. For those interested, an english version of the EEG is available at: http://www.erneuerbare-energien.de/inhalt/6465/5982/p.s. the EEG also supports Geothermal Power.

Comment
17 of 29

brian-ballek-52819

February 20, 2008

The right way to move renewable energy foreward is with policies that:- base support on the amount of power produced - offer different levels of compensation based on the technology's position on the cost/learning curve - reduce this support (for newly installed systems) slightly and consistently each year to force the industry to plan for and achieve cost & price reductions - guarantee the level of compensation from the year of installation for a time period long enough to assure an attractive financial return for the system owner

Comment
18 of 29

brian-ballek-52819

February 20, 2008

In Germany, the remuneration for a solar power array is 100% performance based. Solar arrays there rarely produce less than the rated power output because the companies that sell and install systems where they can't achieve this output level  soon go broke. In the United States, the bulk of the market support for solar power comes in the form of rebates based on - you guessed it - the rated power output....regardless of where or how they are installed and how much (if any) power they produce. This has lead to a great number of horrendously "sub-optimal" systems that do indeed produce substantially less than their rated power levels. But this is not the result of any flaws in solar power as such. It is the result of human error and poorly conceived policies.

Comment
19 of 29

brian-ballek-52819

February 20, 2008

Thomas,Thanks for highlighting the potential of Geothermal power but please be wary of misleading statements regarding other renewable energy forms. It is misleading, for example, to state that solar power only produces 24% of its rated power. The power rating of a solar power array is based on an assumed average level of sunlight and that the panels are installed and oriented properly. If you install the panels in an area with poor levels of sunlight or where they are regularly shaded during sunlight hours, the system will produce less than its rated power. Likewise, I'm sure you can think of improper locations and poor building methods for geothermal power plants, that would lower their output and raise their price per kilowatt hour substantially.

Comment
20 of 29

william-bunter-51105

February 20, 2008

I have always been a great fan of Hydrogen power, however I would also champion any other power source which would move us away from Oil, Coal, and Nuclear power, such as Geothermal Power etc.The problem is and always has been that our politicians and their back slapping cohorts have huge investments in foreign oil and petrochemical sources beyond our borders, so with that being the case don't expect anything dramatic or dynamic to happen to ease the pain of the average American who is paying through the nose for something which America should not need anymore.America is playing "Catch-Up" to the rest of the Western World with renewables, and it does not look as if that will change in the near future

Comment
21 of 29

paul-johnson-34828

February 21, 2008

Chuck, are you suggesting it's not about money?  Power is generated by companies.  Can you please name a company that doesn't exist to make a profit?Even non-profit outfits have to generate enough $ to cover expenses.  The fuel source is only one cost of power generation.

Comment
22 of 29

tblakeslee

February 21, 2008

You seem to be unaware that geothermal already provides more energy than solar and wind combined. Geothermal is already doing the job cleanly in many parts of the world. You are focusing on a few places where mistakes were made. See the notes in this reference: <a href="http://hdrstats.undp.org/indicators/226.html" target="_blank">http://hdrstats.undp.org/indicators/226.html</a>

Comment
23 of 29

Jonathan_Cole

February 21, 2008

In response to "Dick" Jenkins, who reminds me of how the world got into the mess it is in, I would respond that I have no problem with well managed, well-designed and well thought out geothermal. There are certainly places like Iceland where the resource is close to the surface and is seeping anyway, to make use of it while at the same time relieving the pressures that cause the seepage of vapors. But this article is suggesting that deep wells drilled on a widespread basis would be preferable to clean solar, wind, tidal, wave and other low impact technologies. The fact is that the vapors created in many geothermal situations are highly corrosive making it very difficult to engineer durable systems at a reasonable cost. This is because if you combine minerals, high temperature, water and high pressure, thousands of feet underground,  you get an uncontrollable chemical factory. That's just the laws of science/nature.

Comment
24 of 29

dominic-jermano-62365

February 22, 2008

Direct Use Direct geothermal use taps hot water or heat from below the ground, near the earth's surface, to generate electricity for industrial heating needs, fish farming, food processing facilities, pasteurizing milk, spas and hot springs, nurseries, and residential and commercial heating. The hot water can also be piped directly under roads and sidewalks to melt snow, and even to heat a network of buildings in a community. Dehydration, the drying of onions and garlic, is the largest industrial use of geothermal energy. See this DOE article, Direct Use of Geothermal Energy. This is a great site showing areas across the USA for Geothermal Plants. <a href="http://www.seco.cpa.state.tx.us/re_geothermal.htm" target="_blank">http://www.seco.cpa.state.tx.us/re_geothermal.htm</a>

Comment
25 of 29

dominic-jermano-62365

February 22, 2008

People worry about the hydrogen sulfide gas which is poisonous when drilling and afterward in its management. But I think once the drilling has reached the level where the hot water core is located the principle of bringing that water to the surface should be changed. That being; insert heat exchanger pipes that are enclosed and capping the well so the gas can't escape. Now you have enclosed tubes that circulate water from above down to the core, without losing core pressures or changing dramatically affecting the temperature. This will assure safe and very hot steam for turbines. We can then build electric Maglev Cars that travel on roads where cars and trucks actually charge while driving instead of losing fuel energy. Pretty darn sweet deal if you ask me.

Comment
26 of 29

steven-mielke-81365

February 23, 2008

Blakeslee also writes (comment #22) "You seem to be unaware that geothermal already provides more energy than solar and wind combined"
While this may be true, if we restrict attention to electricity production wind has overtaken geothermal. According to table 3 of this report http://www.iea.org/textbase/papers/2006/renewable_factsheet.pdf
2004 global electricity production from geothermal was 56 TWh and wind production was 82 TWh. SInce 2004 wind production has more than doubled whereas geothermal electricity production is increasing at much more modest levels.

Comment
27 of 29

steven-mielke-81365

February 23, 2008

Blakeslee writes "t is a much better use for government money, which is now being wasted on hydrogen and "clean coal" projects."
"Clean coal" or more generally CO2 sequestration would hardly seem like a waste of money IF one is worried about global warming. Even if no new coal power plants are ever built one would still have to worry about all the extant plants; you will never convince power companies to decommission these but it just may be possible to retrofit them for sequestration. Geothermal power is interesting and may have a niche in the power mix but CO2 sequestration seems like a much more important component of controlling CO2 emissions in the near term.

Comment
28 of 29

tblakeslee

February 24, 2008

Steve,It would be nice if we could just adapt existing coal power plants to get rid of the CO2 and other garbage they belch forth. However that is impossible and the much more modest Futuregen goal of desinging a new power plant that sequesters the CO2 produced has been cancelled because it was too expensive. Every ton of coal burned produces 3.7 tons of CO2 so it's just a bad idea to waste money on it. Why blast the tops of all our mountains just to boil water when the earth has all the heat we need? If we had spent that billion dollars on geothermal we could have super-sized goethermal plants working today.

Comment
29 of 29

phil-manke-79191

March 5, 2008

Why burn stuff or risk cooling the globe at great expense. There is a fire in the solar system that generates all the power we can use. It is not controlled by those who would profit from it, tho they are already moving to make it seem so. The technology is available for each individual on many fronts and scales, if we decide to make it so, and step aside from the status quo. Many people see the collectors on my roof and have NO IDEA of what they are. What are we seeing instead? We all get exactly what we ask for. It is an irrefutable law. The cause of our unrest is not outside ourselves. We must all make choices for the only kingdom we must rule. Our mind. If we abdicate that control to others we will die. Nay, we are already dead.

Add Your Comment

Registered users, please make sure to Sign-In. We and others want to know your ideas and opinions. If you are not yet Registered -- it's quick and easy. Just click below.
Thanks!

NEW Smart Phone App

Thomas Blakeslee

About: Thomas R Blakeslee’s books have been published in nine different languages. After serving for three years in the U.S. Navy, he earned a degree from CalTech in P... more »