Renewable Energy Solar Energy Wind Energy Geothermal Energy Bioenergy Hydropower
 

The Geothermal Paradox: Success Means More Challenges

By Stephen Lacey, Editor
November 4, 2010   |   13 Comments
America's first commercial-scale geothermal power plant was built in 1960 at the Geysers. But 50 years on, the industry is still experiencing growing pains.

Do you like this news?

Email   Bookmark Bookmark   Print   Feed   Share
 
13 Reader Comments
Comment
1 of 13
November 4, 2010
It sounds like the needs of the Geothermal industry is the same needs of all America - creating jobs for unemployed people. It costs $50 billion dollars to build one class 4 nuclear power plant. The money for the building of one nuclear power plant can provide for all the Geothermal needs.
Comment
2 of 13
November 5, 2010
Help, I'm confused. One of the recent articles on this website paints a rosier scenario. (http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/podcast/2010/10/enhanced-geothermal-frack-or-friction).
Sometimes the same article even goes from positive outlook to conflicting statement from one sentence to the next.

Could you guys put up some graphs and numbers so we can see how much geothermal capacity we have created over the past 25 years or so. Something that will show the rate of growth or lack thereof?

Thanks,
Comment
3 of 13
November 5, 2010
@Rojello -- That article was also written by me.

Yes, there are definitely two conflicting things happening. The incredible government support has given companies a huge opportunity to build projects. However, as outlined in both articles, there are numerous technical, financial and workforce challenges to address.

EGS and traditional hydrothermal are facing different problems. In EGS, the big challenge is technical -- drilling, fracturing, figuring flow rates, monitoring, etc. Because of these technical challenges, there are still no operating commercial plants in the U.S.

In conventional, well-established hydrothermal (which is what we're talking about in this article) the challenges are financial and workforce-related. Is there enough capital and people available to build these projects that are getting started because of government assistance?

So you're right -- these trends do conflict somewhat, which is what we've tried to highlight. Perhaps you were confused about the lack of distinction between EGS and Hydrothermal?

If you want some really good figures, check out the Islandsbanki report we linked to in the story. It's a good read.
Comment
4 of 13
November 5, 2010
As far as I know geothermal energy production does not need rare earth that's 97% produced in China. Wind turbine production will be paralyzed without those rare earth if China were to severely limit its export. EGS should be used in relatively isolated areas because of suspected seismicity and water contamination.
There's nothing wrong with conventional geothermal exploration.
No image available
Comment
5 of 13
Anonymous
November 6, 2010
All generators need a magnetic field which could be created by electrical current or rare earth magnets. I think the rare earth magnets are used for higher efficiency so I don't see any advantage that geothermal has in this area except it is not weight sensitive like wind gens.
Comment
6 of 13
November 7, 2010
JamesDavis - Please provide references to your comment; "It costs $50 billion dollars to build one class 4 nuclear power plant". Do you mean something like AP1000 type reactors, how many? How do you equate safety classes to compare EGS induced seismicity and water table contamination risks to radioactive risks of a nuke? We don't want to compare Apples to Onions here or PV cells to jet engines do we? My ref: http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf02.html

I like Lacey's article; "Enhanced Geothermal: Frack or Friction?" Slobbering over vast deep geothermal energy resources is one thing, collecting it is another. What many ignore is scalability. For example, Silicon PV solar cells are vastly scalable but weak, a coal plant is scalable but carbon deadly, a wind turbine is sort of scalable but geothermal is NOT scalable. It is a vertical site specific market each depending on site geology, luck and bank-roll.

To compare EGS geo-power to nuclear power, look at the N. Calif. Geysers steam fields. In 1989, total generating capacity of this environmentally devastated 25,600 acre site peaked at about 2,000 MW with 27 plants. This was about equivalent to a base load nuke like the 750 acre Diablo Canyon 2,220 MW plant site on the CA central coast, started about the same time in 1986. Today the combined capacity of the remaining newer 19 Geyser plants are 55% depleted down to 900MW. In 1997 they started injecting treated sewage effluent (EGS) and then the Induced Seismic (IS) quakes began. If you want to watch, 24/7, the IS quake swarms (M1 to M4), go to this USGS Web site. Note the IS swarm in the upper left of the map: http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/recenteqsus/Maps/US2/37.39.-123.-121.php

Diablo Canyon however is still quietly running at near full capacity 24/7 after 25 years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diablo_Canyon_Power_Plant

Long term EGS reality, "Frack or Fiction?" I vote "Fiction". Wake up America!
Comment
7 of 13
November 7, 2010
@ probeon: It is obvious that you are convinced that nuclear will save the world, so I won't confuse you with the facts. Actually, I hope you are right, because many many other people think that too. So many, in fact, that there is an astounding amount of lobbying money being supported by the nuclear industry to convince them. You and they also think that nuclear is safe. I sincerely hope that you all are right about that also. Unfortunately, that's also what people thought about Chernobyl up until that fateful day almost 25 years ago. Did you know that thousands of people are still suffering from the effects of that mis-calculation? The Belarus government (http://chernobyl.undp.org/english/docs/belarus_23_anniversary.pdf) claims that it is still spending more than $1 million per day to counter the damages from the Chernobyl disaster. I know, I know: it can never happen here.

I agree with you about the scalability of geothermal (I understand "traditional hydrothermal" by this), and that is why my colleagues and I have been developing GEOCOGEN over the past years. Like the other renewable energy sources you mentioned, GEOCOGEN is not scalable either - it only starts to be economically feasible at about 700 or 800 MW electrical potential, and goes upwards from there to produce electricity at costs that nuclear can only dream about - how about less than $0,02/kWh including capital charges? A mini-GEOCOGEN would be a dismal failure from a commercial point of view. But then, why build a mini-model when the real thing is such a winner? probeon, I only ask you to take a look at GEOCOGEN at http://geocogen.net and see what you think. I'm not asking you to change your mind, only to get better informed about what's coming in the future.

By the way, why do you publish your comment(s) with only a pen name?
Comment
8 of 13
November 11, 2010
Green-Charley: That website of yours looks like a classic penny stock pump and dump site. You are probably not a public company yet, but once you are, your website will look just great for that purpose.

Some advise: Go out and spend about 1000 Sfr on a web designer who knows what they are doing and at least give yourself some creditability. It looks like your 64 year old sister's best friend patched that site together for you.

So Mr. J. Craig Hesser, why do you publish your comments with only a pen name ? seems to be quite hypocritical.
Comment
9 of 13
November 11, 2010
There is something really odd about that site GEOCOGEN.

The CEO of that company appears to have a remarkably similar name to the name of the the owner of this site. http://greenhomemegastore.com/about/ which in this site he claims to be a web designer since 2009. You can see Craig Hesser masquerading as a web designer again here. All very odd.
http://jimmycraig.info/our-websites/gree-websites

"The Vice President of GEOCOGEN AG is Mr. J. Craig Hesser, who is also CEO for the Company, and a member of the Board of Directors."

"Best regards,
Craig Hesser
Jimmy Craig Websites "
Comment
10 of 13
November 11, 2010
Oh look, Craig is into Bulgarian real estate as well.

http://good2004.biz/_index.htm

He even claims to be an oil industry expert.
http://good2004.biz/oil.htm


Trying to keep up with what craig/charley claims he is or is doing, is too hard. I will stop now, but his credibility is gone.
Comment
11 of 13
November 11, 2010
Stephen
I'm not sure if it's your area of expertise or intersts but I would like to pose a question to you. Would "marrying" differant renewable technologies enable a more efficient and viable industry than the one we have now? I'm thinking of your article tittled "The Geothermal Paradox: Success Means More Challenges" in which you mentioned several problems this area faced as an example. This also brought to mind the fact that many of the renewable energy companies seem intent on persueing their side of the road only. By this I mean "What if as an example GeoThermal and Solar Thermal interests were to try and utilize their technologies together to maximize energy output and profits while minimizing costs and environmental footprints?" It seems to me that we must explore every angle if we are to build an energy industry that is environementaly sustainable and cost effective. Another area is Hydro and wind working in conjunction to produce energy with each other rather than competing for the same land and markets. I would relly appreciate an article to this effect.
Regards
Angus Campbell
Comment
12 of 13
November 15, 2010
Hi Angus --
Well, there are certainly a lot of companies doing work across different technologies. To name one related to this topic, the geothermal leader Ormat just got into solar PV...

The simple answer to your question is "yes." If a particular technology is consistent with a company's core strengths, it can make sense to integrate it. The same goes with an actual project: There are so many opportunities to mix and match technologies depending on the site characteristics.
Comment
13 of 13
November 18, 2010
" It costs $50 billion dollars to build one class 4 nuclear power plant. "
Since when has anyone spent $50billion for a nuclear plant?
Never heard the term class 4. Perhaps he means Gen 4? Cost of plant is not affected much by gen, but by size. Last plant commissioned in Japan came in at roughly $3000 per kw, or
$3 billion per GW. The plant itself was 1.6 GW as I recall, producing more than ten times the amount of power produced by a 1.7 GW solar plant, at a lifetime power cost of less than 4.5 cents per kWhr, and producing power when required, not just when the sun shines, which , in addition, increases the costs of necessary back up power. The solar plant desecrated thousands of acres of fragile desert environment and was subsidized heavily by the Feds in their granting of low tax sweetheart leases. The feds have subsidized rather useless solar and wind power to the tune of over $400 million. Less than $40 million has been allocated towards nuclear, a technology that can actually produce carbon free power when required and doesn't require thousands of acres to do so. Or cost a fortune. Aren't things swell when politics determines which technologies are to be encouraged?
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

The Stella Group, Ltd. Enphase Energy Solar Energy International (SEI) Concepts NREC Stoel Rives LLP Sharp Solar Energy Solutions Group AWS Truepower, LLC
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