Renewable Energy Solar Energy Wind Energy Geothermal Energy Bioenergy Hydropower
 

Geothermal Energy Could Provide All the Energy the World Will Ever Need

By Unni Skoglund, GEMINI
September 16, 2010   |   29 Comments
Researchers in Norway believe that with help from oil and gas extraction technologies, geothermal energy could be tapped more readily.

Do you like this research & reports?

Email   Bookmark Bookmark   Print   Feed   Share
 
29 Reader Comments
No image available
Comment
1 of 29
Anonymous
September 16, 2010
Those darn socialist countries; they keep doing things that us "market driven" economies can't seem to manage.
Comment
2 of 29
September 16, 2010
It is amazing how these democratic socialist countries are much more productive than those republican market driven economies like the U.S.. Since BP is now an expert on goofing up on oil drilling, they should convert over to geothermal and help these democratic socialist countries like Norway who is making tremendous progress in geothermal advance their progress much faster. Maybe the whole world can benefit from these socialist countries rapid advancements in geothermal.
Comment
3 of 29
September 16, 2010
First of all, @ Anonymous, these market driven (as you put it, an educated way of putting it is Capitalist) economies don't do these deep drill wells because (and I quote from the article above):"Deep geothermal heat from thousands of metres deep could be promising. But the cost picture here is still uncertain." This is the same story as ALL other renewables. Solar PV is not cost effective yet, that is why the US government give out cash grants (as in free money) based on 30% of your investment costs (if that isn't socialistic I must not know what it means), plus additional PTC (look it up) and state incentives. Businesses don't exist for rushing into projects without understanding the entire picture, if they did, most of them would fail pretty quickly.

My job is to figure out how renewable energy projects can be profitable (so people will do them) and it is not easy all the time. This all boils down to grid parity: when it is just as cost effective to do this as other technologies, it will happen. Have patience!!

And I know JamesDavis' comment on BP was just a jab at the oil spill, but don't be an idiot. Please.
Comment
4 of 29
September 16, 2010
The article says:

"The normal lifespan for a well like this is approximately 30 years. After that the rock will be so cooled by the cold water that has been injected into the wells that it will no longer produce enough heat. However, after 20-30 years, the heat will have built up again, and the well can be used once more. The Rock Energy facility will be a major step forward in exploiting Norway's geothermal heat resources."


I've been thinking longer about this, and wouldn't it be smarter not to run the plant 30 years on/30 years off, but winter on/summer off. With increasing penetration of PV, winter shortages will become an issue. In the summer there is enough solar energy, and the winter shortfall is covered by geothermal.

Geothermal then takes on the role of balancing power as hydro is doing nowadays. Is that feasible?
Comment
5 of 29
September 17, 2010
I'm convinced already that geothermal energy is an available, safe, and non-polluting source. The main problem is the initial capital needed to make it happen. I'm a little bit uneasy when the drilling is quite deep. I read about the deepest drilling in the Kola Peninsula and there were some unexpected surprises.
Comment
6 of 29
September 17, 2010
One question. In the first segment here you speak of a "so called radiator". How will this fracture in the rock be made???
Maybe with good old oilfield tech called "fracking".
Which this site seems to run down because of the supposed problem it causes with ground water??
Comment
7 of 29
September 17, 2010
The author briefly discusses the current designs for enhanced geothermal system (EGS) technology when he discusses the Rock energy plant.

However, what he choses to brush over is the fact that: though the EGS plant will indeed last 15-30 years... the actual recoverable energy will constantly diminish over that 15-20 years, and require constant re-fracturing of the rock.

First, let's review what is actually happening here (the illustration provided here helps, just look at the left portion in the 1000-2000 meter range, not the imaginary ultra-deep pipe nonsense on the right portion of the illustration).

Two wells are drilled, and the rock between those wells are fractured. Then cool water is pumped down one well with sufficient pressure that it seeps through the fractured rock into the recovery well - having gained plenty of thermal energy along the way.

So we have a super-massive water heater. The problem is, the energy is being stripped away from the rock faster than it can be replenished. Rock is pretty good insulation. If you had a blast furnace at 2000 C, and insulated that furnace with 1 meter of granite, it would take days before the outside of the granite was warm to the touch. If, once that granite was glowing hot, you used water to cool the granite, you would quickly strip away the heat from the outside wall, at a much faster rate than it could be replenished.

Such is the way of EGS... the water strips heat from the rock immediately surrounding the fractures, and the temperature around those fractures gradually drops. Then the rock has to be re-fractured, so the water can find new, hotter channels to creep through on the way to the recovery well... Then the rock must be refractured again as those paths cool.

The O&M for such a facility alone is more, on a per unit basis, than many people pay for energy as a final consumer. Eventually, they "run out of heat" when it becomes too inefficient to further fracture the rock.

This is not competitive.
Comment
8 of 29
September 17, 2010
@ Howard Hull,

The concern over "fracking" for natural gas is because there are almost always some liquids in any natural gas reservior... So if they fracture the rock, so as to connect small pockets of gas into an economically recoverable whole, they might expose some ground water to contamination by natural gas liquids...

The concern is probably excessive due to the fact that most fracking occurs far deeper than ground water can be found, and the crust is relatively resilient... but I believe that is the crux (I don't mind being corrected if I'm wrong, I don't have concerns about fracking, which means I certainly might not fully understand others' concerns about fracking).

With deep thermal energy, there's no known hydrocarbon reserve that you're exposing the water to, so if my understanding of the concerns over fracking are correct (which would mean they're vastly overstated), then those concerns aren't valid for thermal energy recovery.

What is a concern is cost, as I mentioned in my comment above.
Comment
9 of 29
September 17, 2010
Set the uncertain cost issue aside, the sustainability of this is not documented.

If we change the temperature of a section of the inner crust of the earth enough that it takes 30 years for it to come back to a reasonable temperature again - What other consequences will we have to deal with that no one cared to look at. If it would take 30 years to recover from 30 years of use, then wouldn't it make more sense to use a shorter duty cycle, 5years on 5years off or even better 1 year on 1 year off. Maybe the increased efficiency would pay for the down time. Plus with temperature staying closer to the natural temperature, there would be less impact on the subterranean environment (or doesn't that one matter since we can't see it?) And if it is able to recover in a 1 year after using it for a year, then the resource could potentially be indefinitely sustainable. The truth is that it may or may not come back up to temp after just 30 years. And 60years (30 on and 30 off)from when the plant originally opened is the existing equipment going to be useful, or will an entirely new plant need to be constructed - why should it be constructed there - or will the power company just leave it there as an eye sore on the community?

I think it geothermal power is an awesome idea, but I'm interested more in documented sustainability than I am about being "green" or "carbon neutral" or whatever. When money is the main concern or being able to use the trendy buzz words, big corporations will not be doing what is best for anyone but the stock holders - forget the environment. This is what we need to watch out for
Comment
10 of 29
September 17, 2010
Glen,

I think that the gripe is the chemicals added to the water for the frack. But you are correct that if done correctly there is no way the water and chemicals can reach the ground water.

I was looking at the depth which was stated in the above and it is well within ground water depth, 150 200 meters.
Comment
11 of 29
September 17, 2010
Consider Old Faithfuls duty cycle
Comment
12 of 29
September 17, 2010
Thanks for the geothermal articles, you people at REW do a great job. I take the view that all our energy needs can be found above ground. There are many variables involved with energy production/extraction/conversion/ distribution. The one that will not be overcome is natural earth occurances, like earthquakes and volcanos (totally unpredictable ). Fracking is typically done with high explosives detonated down the well. This will cause new fault lines and pathways for lava to flow and other bad things that man cannot fix.It's just a matter of time.
Comment
13 of 29
September 17, 2010
What is also not considered is the water that would be necessary for EGS systems. Currently, the steam field in the Geysers (which is the largest production quality field currently in production in North America) is being diminished between 2-3% a year. This is why they built a pipeline over the Mayacamas mountains to pump millions of gallons of reclaimed water from Sonoma County and another pipeline from the Lake which also pumps millions of gallons of reclaimed water...just to keep the systems at commercially operable levels. Any EGS system would have to pump water from another source, most likely in the thousands of acre feet per year. This water would also have to treated to be usable.

The energy is there. However, we must look to all of the consequences of tapping these amazing resources before we claim it to be the world's energy panacea.
Comment
14 of 29
September 17, 2010
Its a pitty that this type of exploration hasn't been put on a war footing to accelerate its development. We are continually being advised that the use of fossil fuels could eventually lead to the demise of our species. This threat seems to me to be at least equal to that of mass destruction brought about inter country confrontations.
Comment
15 of 29
September 18, 2010
Re EGS cost structure--the biggest cost factor is the drilling itself--new drilling technology will lower the cost--drilling is getting faster and less expensive. Not mentioned above is co-gen--getting electric production off the top with Pure Cycle (United Technologies) type equipment combined with district heating changes the equation. Distributed electrical generation also becomes a factor.
Comment
16 of 29
September 18, 2010
Finance-green,"If that isn't socialism I must not know what it means",apparently not.Socialism is for society,you pay in as group and receive services in return.What you were pointing out was actually one of the principals of Fascism, industry and corporations for the strength of the nation.Also see "nationalism","republicans" and or "Hitler".
Comment
17 of 29
September 18, 2010
It's axiomatic that there's a virtually endless supply of energy on earth and geothermal is certainly one exciting area. The problem is that we probably won't be able to harness enough of it before we run low on cheap oil, which makes the next 5 or so years look pretty scary.
Comment
18 of 29
September 18, 2010
virtually endless, but it's work better in a ORC rankine cicle, and if in a condensation tower we will be using a DEEP lake water (alltime cold)
see a Toronto cooling....or better a OTEC
Comment
19 of 29
September 19, 2010
Hi:

Of course, there is no big worry with fracking. They just exempted themselves from the Clean Air and Water Acts in the 2005 energy bill because they had nothing better to do with their time, and didn't mind using up a whole bunch of high power political favors....

.....Bill
Comment
20 of 29
September 19, 2010
Mr. Skoglund has written an interesting article that paves the way for a new generation of power plants - around the World - that will create no pollution and use no fuel. A remarkable situation, I fully agree.

Unfortunately, he and his colleagues, as well as the people at Rock Energy, have limited their expectations by using the limits of present-day oil drilling technologies. What this does is produce a facility that produces too little energy and for too short a period to be economically viable when compared to installation costs.

This is the same problem that traditional hydro-geothermal energy harvesting comes up against, except in their case, the problem is compounded by insufficient energy supplies close enough to each other to allow commercial-scale energy production. That's why we are seeing projects that yield 2-5 MW electrical and 20-40 MW thermal energy production capabilities and are only economically feasible because they enjoy very nice feed-in tariffs.

We at GEOCOGEN are going a different route. This system will provide GigaWatt-scale electricity - as a base load facility - plus the district heating energy of the Deep Rock proposal at the same time, and at production costs that compete with hydro-power (try USD 0,02/kWh as a measuring stick).

In the near (I hope!) future, we will publish a paper on just how it all works, but in the mean time, you can take a sneak peek at our website for a preview (see the signature box).
Comment
21 of 29
September 19, 2010
From the diagramatic view at the top of the article, I deduce that whereas the fracking is proposed at 3km; at 5+km they propose actually drilling a capillary network between the hot and cold pipes to the surface. The latter sounds more sensible, if it is physically achieveable; however, I too would be very worried by the rock fracking process. It seems to me that this would result in a perhaps considerable area of 'broken rock' thus weakening the crust at that point. Plus, would this not mean that the heat was lost (gained by the water) very quickly after the fracking process? Plus there is the risk of damaging deep water sources, and even draining important aquifers into deeper levels. I feel that fracking could have a very high risk to water use at the surface, even if there was no oil or gas to create a water pollution event.

Regards the longevity of a Geothermal site, I believe that the site in northern Italy at Larderello was developed for Geothermal in 1911. Currently it is said to be producing 4,800GW/ann. Not bad for such an old plant!
Comment
22 of 29
September 19, 2010
The deep water sources are all salt water, so they are not of any use at any rate. The diagram does not show that all shallow water sources are protected with steel casing and cement thereby isolating them from draining into the deeper levels. Fracking at deeper levels is also isolated from the surface water by the same method.
Comment
23 of 29
September 20, 2010
WE NEED ALL WIND ,SOLAR AND GEOTHERMAL ,THE SOONER THE BETTER!
Comment
24 of 29
September 20, 2010
@ Howard Hull,

Sorry for the delayed response.

The stated 150-200 meter depth is not the topic of conversation here... The low-temperature depths are used heavily for geothermal heat pumps, but that's more a question of thermal energy storage than "geothermal heat" - despite the name.

With geothermal heat pumps, two wells are drilled side-by-side, often only ~5 ft apart, and the wells are then connected via diagonal or horizontal drilling. Then very heavy tubing is used to form a loop, down one well and up the other. That loop is filled with an anti-freeze solution, and connected to an air-liquid heat exchanger. When the house is cooled during the summer, the heat that is removed from the house is transferred into the anti-freeze solution, which delivers that heat into the ground... During the winter, when the house is being warmed, heat is transferred from the liquid to the air... So it works effectively by storing the heat in the summer to draw upon later during the winter.

That's most of the shallow geothermal stuff being done.

For the EGS power production that's being done, the depths are between 1-4 km. There are very few water concerns at that depth. There are, however, extraordinary cost concerns.

@ Alison-M-Tottenham
The problem with the capillary network is that the rock immediately surrounding those capillaries would quickly be cooled. It cost far more to drill horizontally than it does to simply frack the rock structure... and one method allows thousands of pathways through the stone for much slower flow rates - longer duration before the rock is cooled.
The only way that channeled pipes could ever work is if you punched deep enough that the rock was more liquid - so convection currents could continually allow the rock immediately surrounding those pipes to be re-heated. 10k isn't nearly deep enough, so what is drawn in the illustration is an unrealistic fantasy.

None of this deep geothermal is remotely viable with today's technology.
Comment
25 of 29
September 21, 2010
Hi all:

Glenn, I don't know what country you are from, but here in the USA, residential GEO well systems do not utilize horizontal drilling. A well or wells are sunk and a PEX U pipe goes down and up the same well. Multiple wells may be in series or parallel depending on the system design and desired throughput. The drilling is done by the same outfits that sink "regular" wells for potable water. If any horizontal drilling had to be done, the price for an install would be out of site, and well drilling is not cheap as it is.
Horizontal ground loop, as opposed to wells, is much less expensive on the front end, where land resources permit.

.....Bill
Comment
26 of 29
September 21, 2010
Thanks William.

That means the outfit that gave me a quote for a geothermal heat pump was trying to seriously fleece me. Not that it worked, at the price they quoted - $24,000 - I wouldn't be able to justify the system through the FHA's energy efficient mortgage program, which means they didn't get a sale.
Comment
27 of 29
October 4, 2010
Just curious: To what extent can oil drilling equipment be cross-utilized for geothermal? I didn't quite get this from the article. Also, as deep ocean oil becomes more difficult (think BP), do we expect this to drive certain oil companies to diversify into more geothermal? Presumably, the geothermal won't deplete (is that true?), thus a more reliable investment in the long-run.
Comment
28 of 29
October 6, 2010
Sounds great, and geothermal is so clean and quite, you don't even know it is there. I think we have to be sure to utilize closed systems only. I have read that an open system relying on steam produced a few kilometers down caused earth quakes.
Comment
29 of 29
October 6, 2010
And all this energy work is producing jobs, jobs that will never be obsolete if we keep producing energy.
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

Advertise With Us

Midwest Renewable Energy Association Johnson Controls, Inc. Upsolar Black & Veatch Corporation AREDAY Solar Energy International (SEI) Mannvit
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