Nominate Your Favorite Renewable Energy Project for The 2009 Excellence in Renewable Energy Awards
click here for more information
Close
 
Photo Credit: Warren Gretz
article tools
Increase Text Size Increase Text Size Decreate Text Size Decrease Text Size
Share Email This Story Share Share This Story Reader comments Reader Comments (12) View image gallery Image Gallery (1) Add to favorites Add to Bookmarks Printer friendly version Printer Friendly Version
Article Tool Sponsor:

Advertise with us

More Jobs
0 ratings - Sign-in to rate this article
April 1, 2009

Western U.S. Entities Move Quickly on Geothermal Mapping

by Charles W. Thurston, Correspondent
California, United States [RenewableEnergyWorld.com]

Several large geothermal resource mapping projects are heading toward conclusion so that finally, the power source can be more accurately considered in siting new electricity transmission lines for renewable power development.

New geothermal plants are being considered along each of these renewable power transmission corridors under development. As city, county and regional utilities seek to increase their renewable energy source portfolios, geothermal projects will likely provide an increasing volume of power, along with wind and solar.

Given the Obama administration's investment focus on new transmission line development, the result of the mapping efforts should be a relatively rapid increase in the number and size of commercial-scale geothermal projects.

The states of California and Nevada, along with the Western Governors Association, are moving rapidly to improve the mapping of geothermal resources in their regions, in part to facilitate the approval and construction of several new transmission lines in the West. And over the next few months, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) expects to unveil the data supporting its new assessment of mid-and high-temperature geothermal resources, which was released in summary form last fall.

These efforts are expected to lead to four or five new transmission lines in the West, with construction on at least one to begin as early as next year, reckons John McCaull, the western states representative for the Geothermal Energy Association, in Sonoma, CA.

One key resource mapping effort near completion is that of the joint Western Governors Association-U.S. DOE Western Renewable Energy Zones Initiative (WREZ), for which the technical committee is expected to identify final zones in late April, having considered the environmental impact of multiple zones in over a dozen western U.S. and Mexican states, as well as Canadian provinces.

By this fall, the WREZ then expects to complete a conceptual transmission line report, which would lead to discussions with line developers. An important aspect of the WREZ mapping is that all temperature range geothermal resources are being considered, including low-temperature enhanced geothermal system (EGS) sources, McCaull notes. WREZ also is mapping wind and solar resource sites as part of its renewable focus mandate.

Similarly, California's Renewable Energy Transmission Initiative (RETI) is completing a state-wide survey of geothermal resources with an overlay of best-option transmission corridors minimizing environmental impact. Elsewhere in California, the California Geothermal Energy Collaborative is developing high-resolution three-dimensional geothermal mapping, and expects to release its first area map by the end of this year, including high-, medium- and low-temperature sources, says William Glassley, the executive director of the group, in Santa Fe. "Transmission line locations are an integral part of what we are doing," he says.

In Nevada, a program similar to RETI is underway, focusing on northern and central regions of the state, says McCaull. Like California, Nevada primarily has considered proven, or higher-temperature resources for mapping.

Both states are expected to complete their surveys by late April, about six months ahead of the WREZ effort in terms of overlaying potential transmission lines, McCaull notes.

The USGS may begin releasing data from its new geothermal survey this spring, including both mid- and high-temperature resources. The prior survey included only high-temperature resources, says Colin Williams, a geothermal researcher in the Menlo Park, CA, agency office. Some low-temperature resources, like those in Alaska and other northern states — where a high differential between surface water and subsurface water temperatures exists — also will be included in the survey, he notes,

As a result of these cumulative efforts, four potential corridors have emerged as contenders for renewable power transmission in the West, McCaull suggests. These projects include:

  • Sunrise Powerlink, from the Imperial Valley to San Diego; this corridor has already received California approval.

  • Green Path, from the Imperial Valley to Las Vegas.

  • A North-South Nevada line to Las Vegas. Nevada Energy is already in the planning stages for a $30 million transmission line in Churchill County, which would serve both Vulcan and Ormat geothermal projects.

  • Northern California, potentially linking Oregon and Nevada to the San Francisco Bay area, serving not only geothermal but also wind and solar generators.

Apart from these four likely corridors, Vulcan Power of Bend, Ore., also is moving forcefully with its plan for a transmission line from northwest Nevada to Las Vegas and Los Angeles. The company's G3 power line project is being touted as a means of delivering a "green gigawatt" of energy, and likely can expect the support of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), who has recently announced a proposed bill to build transmission lines for the delivery of renewable energy to urban areas. Reid has suggested a consolidation of transmission line authority among the two-hundred-plus government agencies now involved to a single federal agency.

New geothermal plants are being considered along each of these renewable power transmission corridors under development. As city, county and regional utilities seek to increase their renewable energy source portfolios, geothermal projects will likely provide an increasing volume of power, along with wind and solar.

Image Gallery (1)
 
Reader Comments (12)
 
No image available
April 3, 2009
Gret news , although I live in Canada and have a Geothermal site that I am working on here , this demonstates the need .
Regards
Chuck Davison
Davison1@shaw.ca
Comstock Energy
Comment 1 of 12
No image available
April 3, 2009
The article states that geothermal mapping "with an overlay of best-option transmission corridors minimizing environmental impact" are being done, hopfully these include a wider view t'ward wind and solar piggy-backing transmissions. It would be nice to know whether these typically myopic beaurocrats have transitioned into a more "whole-istic" view of resource siting, instead of the "One-Tech:One-Site" arcane way of thought.

What's interesting is that some of the same sites for Hydro-Electric generating have excellent wind funneling effects and transmission lines inplace, yet the placement of wind generators (and solar PV on the face dams) in not the "rule of thumb".

Admittedly some do (coincidently) include multiple inputs, unfortunately they are usually brought about by seperate entities on seperate agendas and there seems to be no co-opertive effect. Slowing Hydro-generating during High Wind Output and the converse seems like a no-brainer.
Comment 2 of 12
No image available
April 3, 2009
I am curious: doesn't geothermal, like natural gas, like coal plants all require water to turn the turbines to create electricity? It seems to me that I am told that California is in a major draught--that fruit growers can't water their trees, farmers can't irrigate; and, I am told that there is a small fish that would get chewed up in the pumps--so there is a court order to prohibit the use of the water that's flowing by that add insult to injury. Also, I understand that California has some tremendously large cattle farms, and of course big cities that need a fresh water supply. And, I understand that wrenching oil from the tar sands requires loads of fresh water. So, when there is choice of developing geothermal plants in California are there any restrictions as far as a supply of fresh water is concerned?
Comment 3 of 12
No image available
April 3, 2009
Hello Douglas Johnson--Closed-loop geothermal doesn't lose water. Also, if the temperature is a bit lower, sometimes refrigerants are used in some systems, rather than water. In addition, building swales and catching water onsite can change climate to more humid over time, especially with judicious plantings. See Gaia's Garden by Toby Hemenway, the chapter on mushrooms in the desert. It is quite remarkable what can be done. Another interesting article can be searched on TED, Technology Entertainment Design, where a guy named Willie Smits recovered habitat for orangs by judicious use of plantings and water management, from land that not only had been desertified, but was actually burning in peat fires that seemed unmanageable. If ever you are bummed about humans, this is a story to watch. The potential for recovery is huge once the attention and energy are focused.
Comment 4 of 12
No image available
Wow, Mary, so if geothermal doesn't require water, then how come the Owens Valley just had to sacrifice up to an ADDITIONAL 4000 acre feet (1.3 billion gallons) of water a year to keep their mid-sized geothermal plant running? And what is "renewable" about that in a state that is starting water rationing? the same goes for concentrating solar, which, ironically, performs less and less as temperatures (and power demand) rise. There are so many dirty little secrets that the Greenwashers don't want us to know. Water waste, ecosystem decimation, increased GHGs and inefficiencies during peak usage are just a few.

Also, deserts are vastly different than "desertification." Deserts are intentional, functional, perfect ecosystems that offer the planet's counterpoint to oceans. They are not "failed" ecosystems that are blighted and destroyed by man's activities, which is what "desertification" is, although they will be if Big Energy mercenaries are allowed to destroy them (yeah, thanks Salazar). The Mojave absorbs as much CO2 as temperate forest, so we probably need to go ahead and leave it alone, and focus on point of use solutions like geothermal heat exchange, rooftop solar and microwind, conservation and storage.

Geothermal is just another Big Energy scam, and so are the Big SF-6 spewing power lines these Robber Barons are promoting. NONE of them is needed (do you like how one runs power TO las vegas from LA, and the other runs power FROM las vegas to LA? what crap!), and they are total boondoggles intended to make guaranteed profits for utilities. period.
Comment 5 of 12
No image available
April 3, 2009
Wow - "stop killin our wilderness" - Obviously your using power right now - are you grid connected? I'm certainly not part of Big Energy. What is so harmful about geothermal? Do you understand that lots fewer resources are used in a large scale system than if we were to put them in everyone's backyard? $1 spent on utility grade projects is much more effective than $1 spent at your home.
Its about time we opened up vast swaths of empty land for RE projects. I'm an environmentalists but I'm also practical.
Comment 6 of 12
No image available
April 3, 2009
Stop killing... is against everything. I assume he lives off grid. However, that is no excuse to bitch everybody else out. "Little" energy has to become "big and myopic" to compete and do "any good" (even solar panel factories). It's that simple, isn't it. So maybe that person should instead redirect his anger into a more positive solution.

Here is a suggestion: Since we all have to deal with CO2 and peak oil issues, people should promote CSP on the largest scale imaginable, BUT, such that NO BULLDOZING of the lands are allowed! Then the only issues would be like nothing compared to expanding fossil fuels usage.

Here's a link to what else positive people can do with mirrors and greenhouses (and unlimited ocean water)!

http://www.seawatergreenhouse.com/Downloads/Sahara%20Forest.pdf
(It is a 1.2 mb pdf)
Comment 7 of 12
No image available
April 5, 2009
Dear "stop killin our wilderness":

I find your comments falling on deaf ears simply because you offer nothing as a solution. Just complaining about everything helps no one including yourself. Please try and offer some constructive solution the next time you post and then maybe you will get a more positive response. Negativity is just so old school. Here is one of my solutions and it deals with desert conservation.

Power companies frequently go in and strip the vegetation off the desert where they intend to build Photovoltaic or Concentrating Solar Plants [CSP]. Instead of stripping off the vegetation I recommend that CSP builders use driven piles to mount the CSP systems on. The alignment, spacing and vertical elevation of each pile can be easily controlled simplifying construction. Except for the areas where concrete must be poured for the tanks, valves, turbines, transformers, etc. there would be much less damage done to the desert. Also using a pile driving device would facilitate much faster and less expensive construction. Also dust control and CSP cleaning cost would be significantly reduced.

That's one of my ideas for improvement - what's yours?

tomgarven@hotmail.com
Comment 8 of 12
No image available
April 5, 2009
Well o.k. so I got that off my chest LOL [previous comment]

I worked at a public utility for 22 years and yes we even had some base load geothermal power but not very much. Geothermal will become even more important in the future. Wind is great but doesn't blow consistently. Solar works and I can't wait to install 3 Kw of panels on my roof and will as soon as the price drops. Conservation is important and I have already reduced my energy consumption by about 35%.

What geothermal does is gives us base load 24/7 power. Base load geothermal will allow us to shut down some of the other less desirable source of power we use.

tomgarven@hotmail.com
Comment 9 of 12
No image available
April 5, 2009
The water loss in a geothermal plant is mostly from the cooling system. Most power plants use evaporative type cooling. The reason for this is it cost the least to operate. When water transitions from a liquid to steam it removes a lot of BTUs. The remaining water can be used for power generation.
Now when it comes to a binary geothermal power plant water is pumped up from the hot rocks. Then threw heat exchanger, and back down to the hot rocks. The heat exchanger heats a liquid that has a lower boiling point than water. The vapors from the liquid drive a turbine that generates power. The liquid is then cooled to a liquid in a heat exchanger. Then the liquid is reheated by the hot water heat exchanger. This is a closed loop system so none of the liquid is lost. This system should use very little water since the water is returned back under ground.
Comment 10 of 12
No image available
April 5, 2009
You good folks missed the most important dirty little secret: Line loss. An article indicated that energy produced on the Colorado River lost half of the energy while in transmission to Los Angeles. Line loss is a direct loss of energy and makes most large electricity generators poor candidates for long distance transmission.

Utility companies will dispute this fact or seek to diminish the line loss. Consider the millions of miles of overhead lines, all leaking power from the heat generated within the wires.

What we need is locally generated and locally distributed electricity. Such can be done. See: http://centralpud.wetpaint.com/page/PROPOSED+CPP+PLAN.
Comment 11 of 12
No image available
April 6, 2009
To Mr. James Miller:

I recommend you go to this MIT website and listen to Prof. Lewin who discusses transmission losses. I believe the numbers you quote are a little high but the point you make about local generation and distribution is valid.

I for one believe that most of the homes in the U.S. should have photovoltaic panels grid connected when ever possible. Here in Arizona local utilities pay $2.75/watt for grid connected power.

http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/Physics/8-02Electricity-and-MagnetismSpring2002/VideoAndCaptions/detail/embed14.htm

=================================================
The following text is part of his lecture on this subject and indicates transmission losses are about 2%
=================================================

And to make the numbers a little easy, if we have a current say of three hundred amperes, then the power that the power station produces, if you take the three hundred kilovolts for now, that power would be the three hundred kilovolts times the three hundred amperes and that is about ninety megawatts.

That's close to my hundred that I had in mind earlier.
So you can calculate now what the loss is.
The loss is I squared R.
You know R is twenty ohms, you know I, three hundred amperes, and so you'll find now that you have about two megawatt loss.
That's not bad. Two out of ninety.

So we have about two percent energy loss in transportation.

You can also calculate now what the difference is in potential between the power station and Boston, VA minus VB is IR.
You know that I is three hundred amperes and you know that R is twenty ohms, so VA minus VB [pause] is about six kilovolts.

In other words, if the power station puts it on the line at three hundred kilovolts, then you would get it here with only four six kilovolts less.
Comment 12 of 12
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
Featured Total Access Partners
Click company logos to learn more
Financial Research Associates, LLC BP Solar The Wall Street Green Trading Summit Solar Power Partners, Inc. Schüco Trina Solar Ltd.
WORLD'S #1 RENEWABLE ENERGY NETWORK
World's #1 Renewable Energy Network Logo