Renewable Energy Solar Energy Wind Energy Geothermal Energy Bioenergy Hydropower
 

How Long Will It Take to Apply Enhanced Geothermal Systems?

Do you like this opinion & commentary?

Email   Bookmark Bookmark   Print   Feed   Share
 
"The assumption that deriving power from EGS technology is decades away is simply incorrect. Developing EGS technologies will provide expanded power production both in the near-term and even more in the long run."

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.

13 Reader Comments
Comment
1 of 13
September 24, 2008
Are there any resources on how to drill your own Geothermal Well? All the time it takes to get drilling equipment and the money to build a plant...I bet I could get the job done years ahead of time, with just my back and a shovel.... With this Financial Melt Down in the USA we really think anything is going to change for the better any time soon? There is no confidence in the American Way...

You technical people really irk me at times with nothing but talk and a lot of hot air in comparison to actually doing it... To bad hot air and BS can't make electricity.
Comment
2 of 13
September 24, 2008
I hope we can ignore the distraction of low-tech posters and prevent this intelligent conversation from devolving into politics (see above example by Dominic).
Comment
3 of 13
September 24, 2008
There is a decent article in Forbes Sept. 15th 2008 issue pg. 48 on EGS which also references this MIT study. You could probably find it on forbes.com. The title is "Journey to the Center of the Earth" by Jonathan Fahey.

It lists the cost of $0.15/KWh could fall to $0.05 over time with better efficiencies on drilling etc. Furthermore, this is w/o subsidies.

A promising technology.
Comment
4 of 13
September 24, 2008
I was surprised not to see references to Iceland, Southern Oregon, and New Zealand in the article above. Use of hot spots from volcanic activity have a long and successful history in particular parts of the world.

The real sleeper story seems to me to be ground-source. With a constant 55 degrees at 5 feet or so nearly everywhere in North America, ground-source has a high initial capital cost whether one uses trenches or drilling, but once installed, it is quiet, has the benefit of being underground and not noisy like air-source heat pumps, and if installed correctly, has minimal maintenance costs.

As with solar in the 70's, there have probably been some improper installations that gave the technology some challenges. However, in Oregon where I live, there are now vetting processing that allow careful checking of backgrounds of installers and of previous installations before springing for the high initial costs.

There is great potential for this technology in places other than just hot spots.

The most difficult part of an installation, from what I understand, is making sure the underground pipes or PEX properly contact the ground. Air contact decreases efficiency.

I look forward to more reports on this technology.
Comment
5 of 13
September 24, 2008
This is a promising technology deserving of tax credits and more federal support, financial meltdown notwithstanding. The main problem is the consumption of water, since pumping water underground and recovering the heat is never really a closed loop. Then again, nothing is perfect. Reclaimed wastewater, or otherwise useless brackish water, are potential resources for this. Although there is a challenge with wells being exhausted after years of use, I understand there is a solution. In a facility with multiple wells, indivdual wells can be turned off for a few years on a rotating basis, which allows them to recover.

The main benefits of geothermal are the steadiness of the power and the relatively small physical footprint of the facility (relative to hundreds of wind turbines, for example).

In regards to the skeptics above, there are numerous multiple-megawatt geothermal sites now up and running in the US, with many more planned or under construction. Most of these are not truly EGS, in the sense that they use natural hot water fields, but EGS development is really just an extension of traditional geothermal, such as The Geysers facility.
Comment
6 of 13
September 24, 2008
The time delay to develop EGS technology to routinely provide significant amounts of power is completely dependent on how much money we spend on development. So far, fossil fuel and nuclear interests have stolen billions in subsidys and left practically nothing for geothermal research. Google.org has finally put some of its money into advanced drilling technology, which is the key to EGS. Perhaps the election will bring a change of attitude that will give EGS the support it deserves. Australia, Germany and Iceland are way ahead of us in this and will hopefully sell us their technology someday. This is a political problem caused by coal and oil interests. Let's hope the election can wake us up to this fabulous solution to our energy problem.
Comment
7 of 13
September 24, 2008
The output of geo-thermal installations seems small. What is needed is not 30MW or less, but 100MW or more. How scalable is geo-thermal technology?
Are the volcanoes in the NW Cascades Range exploitable?

The one big advantage is that geo-thermal generates output 24/7, while solar only works when the sun shines, and wind units when the wind blows.

It's going to take major installations utilizing all three before really significant output can be achieved.
Comment
8 of 13
September 24, 2008
Short answer, 1 year with an intense focused effort. My company, Sannerprojects, Inc is intent to commercialize its high efficiency Renewable Energy Turbine (RET) technology. RET expands the scale of usable temperature differentials, and enables viable low temperature gradients to be tapped (150 F). On the higher end (212 or more), it is able to ingest an impure working fluid (steam) with dissolved gasses, and other substances, bypassing heat exchangers, complexity, cost and efficiency cost. RET is considerably less expensive to mass manufacture, a very critical element as the cost per kWh is the determinant, and by-passes the multi-year backlog in turbines. Imagine the backlog once EGS power is delivered for less than fossil fuel pricing, and the power stock is, without hyperbole, everywhere. "Heat mining" is the term used, and can greatly accelerate the geothermal paradigm across its entire range. Interim "EGS" systems include heat pumps (CHP) providing heating/ cooling today at a cost/kWh (3,412 BTU's/kWh) below fossil fuel, and an ROI if sold intelligently in mass production of 3 or so years. RETs role in CHP, increases the efficiency, and decreases the manufacturing price. The bottom line is, copious amounts of Geothermal produced (or co-produced) energy can be had today, with a $.05 /kWh starting price tag, and a $.025/kWh price tag on a decent industrial/ mass scale. A big problem is the grid, although deep drilling technology will enable energy extraction, where the energy need is. Due to our system, foreign nations are, and will be crossing the finish line with GT (Geothermal, EGS or not) first; as seen in the "beta" references above, the magnitudes of the sites will easily exceed 1 GW. Of course that is 365 x24 times 1 GW versus other renewable forms that produce only a fraction of each day yet proudly espouse the same rating!. Sannerwind@gmail.com; JR CEO.
Comment
9 of 13
September 24, 2008
Germany is commercializing EGS at 3 to 10 MW . They have 4 prototypes up & running (not all at that scale) and are planning 100. They are designed for elec off the top and district heating for housing as a secondary benefit. 3MW will heat 20,000 houses. These projects were referenced in this forum a couple of months ago. I'll try to add exact reference later. This is essentially distributed generation. Writer above may not be aware of the roughly 7% losses large scale generation loses in transmission. Large scale would also have a more difficult time using the secondary heat. Our large scale plants now are very inefficient because the heat is wasted. Thomas Edison's original power plant was much more efficient because he captured the heat. The European are much more advanced about capturing heat from their power plants.
Comment
10 of 13
September 25, 2008
So Don Pafu....you made my point....you said a whole lot of nothing.
Comment
11 of 13
September 26, 2008
EGS is a sleeper in the Alternative Energy World. Once a top CEO of a exstremly Knowlegable company in this industry stated to me This is or thought of as the Bastard Alternative in the industry. I believe he is right because most people have not taken the time to not only investigate but to become a student of this Alternative. I know because I was such a person till I investigated and started learning this really magnificent source of Energy. Clean Energy that has tax credits to boot. As a Senior Account Manager for AlternativesI have Study as many Alternatives as I can. This is a sleeper but in my opinion a keeper.
Comment
12 of 13
In comment to the first posting; to say "You technical people irk me." is like saying, "It bugs me when someone knows more about a subject than I do."

I'm glad there are technical people that know much more than me. It's also good to see advances in this field. What a great 24/7 renewable energy technology. I'm happy to watch my tax money going into it.

Occasionally I see posts where people are railing on renewable subsidies. This amazes me. These subsidies effect each of us about as much as going to the movies and getting popcorn once or twice a year. Isn't it worth spending this much to provide for our future?
Comment
13 of 13
October 3, 2008
There are some townhouses in lower Manhattan that have been using geothermal for a few years. The architect, John Petrarca (unfortunately now deceased), called up a well-driller in the northern suburbs and got him down for a couple of weeks and the result is a fully functioning system. High-tech? Not overly.

I wrote about this at my blog on climate change for the Foreign Policy Assn. (http://climatechange.foreignpolicyblogs.com/2007/05/05/urban-planning-as-a-powerful-tool-against-climate-change/). See also this from the "NY Times" (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9902E1DE113BF937A35752C0A9679C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all) and this from "Inhabitat" (http://www.inhabitat.com/2006/02/12/geothermal-manhattan-townhouse/)

This is DG at its finest.
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!

Register Now   Sign-In

Karl Gawell

View Karl Gawell's Profile
About: Karl has been the Executive Director of the Geothermal Energy Association since 1997. He was formerly Director of Government Affairs for the American Wind Energ... more »

Advertise With Us

PLANSEE SE ONTILITY Solar Training Richardson RFPD, Inc. American Council On Renewable Energy (ACORE) RES Offshore Mannvit Rolls Battery Engineering
World's #1 Renewable Energy Network
PennWell
Renewable Energy World Magazine International Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo North America Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Europe Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Asia Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo India Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Africa
RenewableEnergyWorld.com Solar Power Gen Conference & Expo Hydro Review Magazine Hydro Review World Magazine
HydroVision International HydroVision Brazil HydroVision India HydroVision Russia
Twitter Facebook Linked In RSS Feeds e-Newsletters