Quaise Energy – Unlocking the true power of clean geothermal energy(quaise.energy)
quaise.energy
Quaise Energy – Unlocking the true power of clean geothermal energy
https://www.quaise.energy
97 comments
You'll be happy to know that movie has been made :). I watched it as a young kid and found it pretty scary. Years later I saw it again and it was of course laughably bad.
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0059065/
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0059065/
Oh my! I think I saw that as a kid! Haha. Thank you.
A concern I have with the mm-wave scheme is material agglomerating onto the drilling shaft, causing clogs or even causing it to get stuck.
There has been some effort on going to really deep depths in IDDP (Icelandic Deep Drilling Project) - see https://iddp.is/about/
If I remember correctly, they were never able to hit their goals because of drilling down into magma chambers. The steam coming up was also of a different scale than regular geothermal steam, causing corrosion that has not been dealt with before.
As far as I know, the main problem is coming up with casing materials that can withstand the extreme corrosive environment at scale and at cost, and for IDDP that's one of the main focuses.
If I remember correctly, they were never able to hit their goals because of drilling down into magma chambers. The steam coming up was also of a different scale than regular geothermal steam, causing corrosion that has not been dealt with before.
As far as I know, the main problem is coming up with casing materials that can withstand the extreme corrosive environment at scale and at cost, and for IDDP that's one of the main focuses.
From what I saw on an earlier post about this technology is that the mm wave drilling technique actually causes the bedrock walls of the bore hole to turn to a type of glass and then no casing is needed. I will try and find the source on that.
Vitrification of the rock is what it's labeled in the pictures and some of the notes I've seen.
Yeah, so drilling into magma chambers might not be the best approach.
Iceland sits on a big magma chamber, so they would need to proceed differently. Still, they have a lot of practical experience with utility-scale geothermal energy extraction the rest of us ought to learn from.
Iceland sits on a big magma chamber, so they would need to proceed differently. Still, they have a lot of practical experience with utility-scale geothermal energy extraction the rest of us ought to learn from.
Seems like hitting a magma chamber would simply shorten the depth you have to drill to, or am I missing something? Geology and drilling are decidedly outside my areas of expertise.
Liquid rock is much messier to deal with than hot, solid rock. In particular, it is often under pressure, and full of dissolved volatiles, and wants to force its way up your borehole and all over your equipment, personnel, and neighborhood.
the germane point is we've tried just about every kind of land, at this point, and none of them play out.
could it work in 50 years? maybe. probably not.
it's not working in 7 years, which is the climate change timeline.
it's time to stop trying to chase new inventions, and just build 1970s nuclear.
could it work in 50 years? maybe. probably not.
it's not working in 7 years, which is the climate change timeline.
it's time to stop trying to chase new inventions, and just build 1970s nuclear.
Or abandon failed ideas like nukes, and build out what has proven overwhelmingly better on every axis.
A very respectable amount of utility power is generated geothermally, and has been for decades without mishap. What is new here is a drilling method. Power extraction from a hot borehole is mature tech.
A very respectable amount of utility power is generated geothermally, and has been for decades without mishap. What is new here is a drilling method. Power extraction from a hot borehole is mature tech.
> Or abandon failed ideas like nukes
which produce 778 billion kwh in the united states
.
> A very respectable amount of utility power is generated geothermally
16 billion kwh
.
> and has been for decades without mishap.
More deaths have occurred from geothermal, total, than nuclear, despite that nuclear delivers 48x the power.
Guatemala City: 33.
Dieng: 41.
Fenton Hill: 12.
Sorik Marapi: 5.
Soultz-sous-Foretz: 19.
Calpine: three times. 1, 5, 4.
El Salvador: 12.
Sumatera: 6.
Leyte: two incidents: 5, 17.
Sarulla: 18.
Brisbane: 14.
Reykavik: 2.
It'll get worse. AltaRock had to be stopped twice for causing earthquakes. Strasbourg was permanently stopped. So was dover. Pohang's earthquakes put a city under lockdown and killed two people.
There exists no decade since the launch of geothermal power where at least 25 people didn't die. Nuclear has only had that count once.
which produce 778 billion kwh in the united states
.
> A very respectable amount of utility power is generated geothermally
16 billion kwh
.
> and has been for decades without mishap.
More deaths have occurred from geothermal, total, than nuclear, despite that nuclear delivers 48x the power.
Guatemala City: 33.
Dieng: 41.
Fenton Hill: 12.
Sorik Marapi: 5.
Soultz-sous-Foretz: 19.
Calpine: three times. 1, 5, 4.
El Salvador: 12.
Sumatera: 6.
Leyte: two incidents: 5, 17.
Sarulla: 18.
Brisbane: 14.
Reykavik: 2.
It'll get worse. AltaRock had to be stopped twice for causing earthquakes. Strasbourg was permanently stopped. So was dover. Pohang's earthquakes put a city under lockdown and killed two people.
There exists no decade since the launch of geothermal power where at least 25 people didn't die. Nuclear has only had that count once.
I am sure you have also totted up all the accidents that occurred mining, refining, or transporting uranium. And, everybody poisoned by runoff from mine tailings leaching into their water supply. (Some American Indian tribes, for example, have lawsuits on over that.) And, deaths in construction accidents during plant construction, and in transporting the thousands of tons of concrete and steel. And, mining the limestone, manufacturing the concrete, and mining and making the steel.
Oh, you haven't? My mistake.
Oh, you haven't? My mistake.
MMW systems can potentially‘case-while-drilling’using rock melt or can post-drill install rock melt liners for significant well cost savings over steel casing and cement.
https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2014/02/f7/mmw_drill...
I hate to play the Cassandra again, but the deepest hole ever drilled by anyone was 7Km (edit: 12Km), a far cry from drilling 20Km holes everywhere on the earth. I’ve worked in oil and gas for over 10 years, including on the largest rotary drilling rig in North America, and it is insane what kind of machinery it takes to get 6,000 feet down and push a tool 15,000 feet out.
Just as insane is convincing anyone that your drilling activities aren’t causing earthquakes, screwing up water tables, or leaking gas and other chemicals out of the ground.
I still hope it works lol!
Just as insane is convincing anyone that your drilling activities aren’t causing earthquakes, screwing up water tables, or leaking gas and other chemicals out of the ground.
I still hope it works lol!
Ah, good. Someone from the drilling industry. Has anyone ever tried microwave drilling?
Using gyrotrons to generate enough microwave power to cut and weld glass has supposedly been tried. The company that was doing it seems to have disappeared.[1] Ticker symbol changed from GYTI to GYTIE, indicating failure to file financial statements, and the stock price went to zero. They were talking about this as a precision heat source, like a laser cutter. That would be useful. But apparently it didn't work out.
It seems a big stretch to take that technology from nowhere to something you can push down a drill hole. That's close to the toughest application. You'd expect industrial applications first.
Now, if you could make that technology work, there's a cool application. This August, NASA is sending a probe to the asteroid Psyche, which supposedly has large amounts of heavy metals, possibly including gold.[2] If NASA finds valuable metals, there will be serious interest in asteroid mining. If you want to mine an asteroid, you need cutting tools. But you don't have any useful gravity to hold them to the surface. So, drilling with some kind of energy beam looks worth the trouble. Might be the killer app for gyrotron drilling.
[1] https://www.gyrotrontech.com/gyrotron/
[1] https://www.nasa.gov/psyche
Using gyrotrons to generate enough microwave power to cut and weld glass has supposedly been tried. The company that was doing it seems to have disappeared.[1] Ticker symbol changed from GYTI to GYTIE, indicating failure to file financial statements, and the stock price went to zero. They were talking about this as a precision heat source, like a laser cutter. That would be useful. But apparently it didn't work out.
It seems a big stretch to take that technology from nowhere to something you can push down a drill hole. That's close to the toughest application. You'd expect industrial applications first.
Now, if you could make that technology work, there's a cool application. This August, NASA is sending a probe to the asteroid Psyche, which supposedly has large amounts of heavy metals, possibly including gold.[2] If NASA finds valuable metals, there will be serious interest in asteroid mining. If you want to mine an asteroid, you need cutting tools. But you don't have any useful gravity to hold them to the surface. So, drilling with some kind of energy beam looks worth the trouble. Might be the killer app for gyrotron drilling.
[1] https://www.gyrotrontech.com/gyrotron/
[1] https://www.nasa.gov/psyche
> Has anyone ever tried microwave drilling?
yes, many times. as you would expect, it obviously doesn't work.
.
> Using gyrotrons to generate enough microwave power to cut and weld glass has supposedly been tried. The company that was doing it seems to have disappeared.
that's correct. they weren't able to cut two inches of well controlled non-porous dry material.
.
> You'd expect industrial applications first.
honestly, you wouldn't. it's technical nonsense. lasers are more efficient and easy to build.
the reason we use microwaves to cook is they pass through most material harmlessly, and mostly interact with the water.
which is kind of a dealbreaker here.
.
> So, drilling with some kind of energy beam looks worth the trouble.
no, it's really not. it's just science fiction bs.
if we want to save the planet, just build regular 1970s nuclear power, and quit it with the "i'll invent something new with less than ten years on the clock" stuff.
yes, many times. as you would expect, it obviously doesn't work.
.
> Using gyrotrons to generate enough microwave power to cut and weld glass has supposedly been tried. The company that was doing it seems to have disappeared.
that's correct. they weren't able to cut two inches of well controlled non-porous dry material.
.
> You'd expect industrial applications first.
honestly, you wouldn't. it's technical nonsense. lasers are more efficient and easy to build.
the reason we use microwaves to cook is they pass through most material harmlessly, and mostly interact with the water.
which is kind of a dealbreaker here.
.
> So, drilling with some kind of energy beam looks worth the trouble.
no, it's really not. it's just science fiction bs.
if we want to save the planet, just build regular 1970s nuclear power, and quit it with the "i'll invent something new with less than ten years on the clock" stuff.
So what is the secret sauce here? Is it a scam? Are they bringing anything new to the table?
Their timeline is pretty tight with first rig in 2 years and commercial level first power plant in another 2. They should have demonstrated at least a couple of holes deeper than a few km by now you'd assume.
Their timeline is pretty tight with first rig in 2 years and commercial level first power plant in another 2. They should have demonstrated at least a couple of holes deeper than a few km by now you'd assume.
> So what is the secret sauce here?
There isn't one.
.
> Is it a scam?
It won't work.
I do not have the ability to tell if it's a scam. They might really believe it. A scam would require them to know they were wrong.
.
> Are they bringing anything new to the table?
No.
.
> Their timeline is pretty tight with first rig in 2 years and commercial level first power plant in another 2.
You can't even build a bog standard coal plant that fast.
.
> They should have demonstrated at least a couple of holes deeper than a few km by now you'd assume.
If you believed in them, yes, I'd agree.
There isn't one.
.
> Is it a scam?
It won't work.
I do not have the ability to tell if it's a scam. They might really believe it. A scam would require them to know they were wrong.
.
> Are they bringing anything new to the table?
No.
.
> Their timeline is pretty tight with first rig in 2 years and commercial level first power plant in another 2.
You can't even build a bog standard coal plant that fast.
.
> They should have demonstrated at least a couple of holes deeper than a few km by now you'd assume.
If you believed in them, yes, I'd agree.
They have tried it out before but most, if not all, industrial oil and gas drilling activities are performed with Rotary drilling or a Coiled Tubing rig (which still drills via a rotating cutting bit). I do not work at a drilling technology center, so I cannot speak to what innovations are currently being examined next, but if it was proved cheaper or better petrochemical companies would be using it.
Wouldn't the energy beam push you away from the surface just as well? I get that you don't need to exert torque, but you'd need to stabilise it somehow.
> Wouldn't the energy beam push you away from the surface just as well?
do you believe lasers have thrust?
you could cut through a planet with a laser and still not lift a one ounce weight off the ground with the "push back"
laser ablation is the result of heat, not force
do you believe lasers have thrust?
you could cut through a planet with a laser and still not lift a one ounce weight off the ground with the "push back"
laser ablation is the result of heat, not force
>do you believe lasers have thrust?
Absolutely. How do you think solar sails work? Light has inertia. If you emit large amounts of energy with any form of light, you'll get a thrust.
Absolutely. How do you think solar sails work? Light has inertia. If you emit large amounts of energy with any form of light, you'll get a thrust.
"Absolutely. How do you think solar sails work?"
By accumulating tiny pressure over decades in zero gravity where they face no friction.
It is not coincidental that you had to go to this extreme of an example.
.
"Light has inertia."
I see you missed the part where I gave a factual accounting of how much inertia is dispensed.
.
"If you emit large amounts of energy with any form of light, you'll get a thrust."
At the entire output of the Sun, you do not produce enough thrust to lift an average adult male human being in the gravity of the Earth.
Go do the math.
By accumulating tiny pressure over decades in zero gravity where they face no friction.
It is not coincidental that you had to go to this extreme of an example.
.
"Light has inertia."
I see you missed the part where I gave a factual accounting of how much inertia is dispensed.
.
"If you emit large amounts of energy with any form of light, you'll get a thrust."
At the entire output of the Sun, you do not produce enough thrust to lift an average adult male human being in the gravity of the Earth.
Go do the math.
Lasers do have thrust, yeah. I guess I haven't done the maths to work out how much would be produced by a mining one :P
The whole point is that microwave ablation of these materials does not require drilling mud and is self-stabilizing by the pressures and molten material generated, while also sealing the bore hole and preventing quite a lot of water table, H2S, etc contamination. In theory it should allow substantially deeper boreholes.
The technology is real, and the required power density is surprisingly low.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/286571247_Penetrati...
The technology is real, and the required power density is surprisingly low.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/286571247_Penetrati...
Vaporized into what? Something that you’ll have to keep heated to 5000c for 20km until you can vent it?
They'll be pumping neutral gas (probably N2 or argon) to purge the borehole. I would expect the ablated material to resolidify as fine particulate, which would get carried to the surface at ambient temperature and trapped in a filter.
A 20km borehole with a 10cm diameter is only ~157m3 of rock. If the dig takes four weeks (which would be unprecedentedly fast), you only need to purge ~64cm3/s, which is pretty trivial.
They'll need to do something like mix the dust into concrete. Silicate dust is a respiratory hazard. But that doesn't strike me as a significant hurdle.
A 20km borehole with a 10cm diameter is only ~157m3 of rock. If the dig takes four weeks (which would be unprecedentedly fast), you only need to purge ~64cm3/s, which is pretty trivial.
They'll need to do something like mix the dust into concrete. Silicate dust is a respiratory hazard. But that doesn't strike me as a significant hurdle.
Apparently that's what they intend. I wonder how you can keep 20km oven warm enough.
>the deepest hole ever drilled by anyone was 7Km
12.2 km - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kola_Superdeep_Borehole
12.2 km - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kola_Superdeep_Borehole
And that was over three decades ago, you'd kind of expect technology to advance a bit in that time.
> earthquakes, screwing up water tables, or leaking gas and other chemicals out of the ground
You seem to be describing fracking which is a completely different technology.
You seem to be describing fracking which is a completely different technology.
Actually, I’m describing peoples misconceptions and fears to any process that penetrates deep below ground for resources (energy included). The general public will always be bringing up perceived or real dangers to drilling that deep (as they should, there is a lot of dangerous chemicals and radioactive materials that come from large well bores).
Is the reason they have to drill down 20 km to 500C rather than say 7 km to 175C (presumably a far simpler task) is the equilibrium heat flow?
That is, the water/steam cycle is extracting heat from the surrounding rock. That can only be extracted at a rate that matches the heat inflow, or ideally, ever so slightly less, so as to maintain equilibrium over decades over cubic miles of rock.
Yes, I understand that larger temperature differences increase thermodynamic efficiency. But if the energy produced is constant, efficiency may not matter as much as ease of construction etc.
That is, the water/steam cycle is extracting heat from the surrounding rock. That can only be extracted at a rate that matches the heat inflow, or ideally, ever so slightly less, so as to maintain equilibrium over decades over cubic miles of rock.
Yes, I understand that larger temperature differences increase thermodynamic efficiency. But if the energy produced is constant, efficiency may not matter as much as ease of construction etc.
Interesting point, what would explain it is non linearity. If you get 20% efficiency at 5 but 35% at 7km depth it might still be worth it. Would still have to outperform exponential drill cost with depth
For anybody curious, they seem not to be the only player in this space. http://altarockenergy.com/ also seems to be partnered with MIT on this.
They also appear to be working with Quaise. Scroll down to "projects" and click on the mmWave picture.
'AltaRock Energy,” in partnership with Quaise Energy, is developing millimeter wave (mmWave) technology...'
'AltaRock Energy,” in partnership with Quaise Energy, is developing millimeter wave (mmWave) technology...'
Sounds promising. How realistic is the depth target of 20km really? Also, I would assume this infrastructure will be less applicable in locations with frequent earthquakes.
Considering that the current deepest borehole in the world is 12km [1], 20km is a lofty goal.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kola_Superdeep_Borehole
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kola_Superdeep_Borehole
> The deepest reached 12,262 meters (40,230 ft) in 1989
Hopefully those 30 years of technology will be of service
Hopefully those 30 years of technology will be of service
I don’t know how to reason on the magnitudes and indirect effects here. If we are using the temperature differential, don’t we have to vent that into the atmosphere? Does that heat eventually go into the atmosphere anyway?
Any use of energy eventually results in heat; that’s just the Second Law of Thermodynamics in operation.
But this effect is orders of magnitude smaller than the greenhouse effect.
But this effect is orders of magnitude smaller than the greenhouse effect.
I am aware of the 2nd law. I am looking for data on the magnitudes involved. Every time there is a promise of very cheap energy, I wonder how we will deal with the waste heat.
I cannot vouch for the quality of this model, but I remembered I had bookmarked this tweet, having wondered the same:
https://twitter.com/anderssandberg/status/145528744318439424...
https://twitter.com/anderssandberg/status/145528744318439424...
The waste heat will be radiated away to space. The premise of global warming is that CO2 (and other "greenhouse" gasses such as methane) cause more of the heat to be retained in the atmosphere.
Yes, I am aware of the 2nd law and the greenhouse effect. I was asking about the magnitudes. It is okay if nobody has any idea about them.
The magnitude is the same as current power sources that they would be replacing i.e. 100's of MWs to 1-10s of GWs. The amount of heat being brought up would have to be about the same as you would otherwise be getting from coal, gas etc and so the same amount of heat would be vent to the environment.
The claims about geothermal and fusion are that they will make energy ridiculously cheap. Won't we use much more if it is cheap?
Maybe, but what it will do first is replace our usage of other more expensive forms of energy (fossil fuels, presumably)
Fusion will never be cheap, or used.
Geothermal will not be as cheap as solar, so if we use a lot more power, it will mostly be solar. (Geothermal would be used mainly for baseline, at night.)
Solar intercepts energy already arriving, to use before it is then re-radiated to space. It arrives regardless.
So, no problem. What we have now is a catastrophically big unfolding climate crisis. Even if there were a problem, any small problem is a wonderful substitute for a catastrophically big problem.
Geothermal will not be as cheap as solar, so if we use a lot more power, it will mostly be solar. (Geothermal would be used mainly for baseline, at night.)
Solar intercepts energy already arriving, to use before it is then re-radiated to space. It arrives regardless.
So, no problem. What we have now is a catastrophically big unfolding climate crisis. Even if there were a problem, any small problem is a wonderful substitute for a catastrophically big problem.
Seems that solar panels can work at night too:
https://www.saurenergy.com/solar-energy-news/arriving-soon-s...
https://www.saurenergy.com/solar-energy-news/arriving-soon-s...
However bringing heat from in the earth to the surface (while not creating new heat) does increase atmospheric heat.
Global energy production in 2019 across all sectors was ~18TW. Excess radiative forcing from anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions was ~560TW.
So we have room to ~20x our energy consumption before we start having to worry about climate change from direct heating, so long as we draw down the excess CO2 we've emitted.
Wind doesn't contribute to that total, as it's harvesting energy already in the system. Solar mostly doesn't contribute to that total, but it does increase surface albedo.
So we have room to ~20x our energy consumption before we start having to worry about climate change from direct heating, so long as we draw down the excess CO2 we've emitted.
Wind doesn't contribute to that total, as it's harvesting energy already in the system. Solar mostly doesn't contribute to that total, but it does increase surface albedo.
Stupid question but is it possible to cool the earth’s core if this tech was scaled out and used massively?
No. (1) because just how massive the Earth is a number you don't fully comprehend, and (2) because the Earth is actively warming itself from ongoing decay of nuclear isotopes which sunk to the center during it's molten phase, so really we're just tapping into a big pile of decay heat.
There's also a huge amount of internal friction created by the moon stretching and squeezing the earth, I believe that accounts for more heat than nuclear decay. Regardless, there's no way we can realistically impact planetary dynamics by blowing some cold water down tubes to the mantle, there's simply too much thermal mass - so yeah geothermal is a fantastic and reliable energy source.
>There's also a huge amount of internal friction created by the moon stretching and squeezing the earth
Wow, I hadn't even thought of that. How much heat does this produce, roughly? For context, the total heat lost from the earth's interior is about 47 TW according to another comment, so in order for the earth to not heat up I assume that moon friction heat + nuclear decay heat < 47 TW?
Wow, I hadn't even thought of that. How much heat does this produce, roughly? For context, the total heat lost from the earth's interior is about 47 TW according to another comment, so in order for the earth to not heat up I assume that moon friction heat + nuclear decay heat < 47 TW?
Not today, but maybe someday.
(1) - The geothermal heat flow from the Earth's interior is estimated to be 47 terawatts
(2) - Human production of energy is even lower at an estimated 160,000 TW-hr for all of year 2019. This corresponds to an average continuous heat flow of about 18 TW
[1]- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_energy_budget#Earth'...
(1) - The geothermal heat flow from the Earth's interior is estimated to be 47 terawatts
(2) - Human production of energy is even lower at an estimated 160,000 TW-hr for all of year 2019. This corresponds to an average continuous heat flow of about 18 TW
[1]- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_energy_budget#Earth'...
Wow 47 TW of heat for the entire earth is so much lower then I ever would have guessed.
The wiki says that its about .08W/m^2. That means it an area of 2-3 football fields only puts out as much heat as a single space heater.
The wiki says that its about .08W/m^2. That means it an area of 2-3 football fields only puts out as much heat as a single space heater.
No, because the heat comes out regardless. The difference is whether it is used on the way out.
Likewise for solar and wind.
Likewise for solar and wind.
There's the heat that comes out regardless, and the additional heat that comes out if you drill a bunch of boreholes down to let it out, accelerating the transfer.
That being said, it doesn't look like we'll get to a significant magnitude of effect for a long time.
That being said, it doesn't look like we'll get to a significant magnitude of effect for a long time.
The short answer is no, the long answer is no, but the really long answer is that everybody pretends that it's 100% safe but I guarantee nobody predicted global warming occurring when fossil fuels first started being used. There will be secondary effects, we just don't know what they are yet
Global warming was proposed in the early 19th century. A wee bit after fossil fuels started to be used, but still a long time ago.
The present trumps the future. The past kicks us in the arse
The present trumps the future. The past kicks us in the arse
People predicted global warming occurring when fossil fuels started being used.
A very simple reality left in the footnotes of newspapers at the time, and then tabled to giant research papers and committees as this was the only consensus that was able to be reached by fossil fuel addicted committees. "lets plan to form a commission in a few years, to do a study in a few years and look at the results in a few years for re-evaluation".
A very simple reality left in the footnotes of newspapers at the time, and then tabled to giant research papers and committees as this was the only consensus that was able to be reached by fossil fuel addicted committees. "lets plan to form a commission in a few years, to do a study in a few years and look at the results in a few years for re-evaluation".
"Secondary effects" is meaningless put up against well-known global catastrophe. Everything has secondary effects. New shoes means your old shoes go unused. Eating now makes you crap later.
What matters is the magnitude of the effect: how much difference does it make?
There will be no secondary effect of geothermal energy extraction even noticeable compared to the present unfolding global climate catastrophe. The latter is what deserves attention. Anything else is a petty distraction. Raising petty distractions from it is a fundamentally evil activity.
What matters is the magnitude of the effect: how much difference does it make?
There will be no secondary effect of geothermal energy extraction even noticeable compared to the present unfolding global climate catastrophe. The latter is what deserves attention. Anything else is a petty distraction. Raising petty distractions from it is a fundamentally evil activity.
No one can predict anything when they don't have access to the larger model. Assuming the real world corresponds to big models rather than the small models and understanding people usually have.
Can anyone with experience comment on how realistic that is? Both in term of drilling, and in terms of how much power we could extract per drill.
Drilling the hole is the hard part and something this company is claiming they have a new solution for. It will be interesting to see if they manage to drill holes.
Once you have that, the rest is easy. But drilling deep is hard. When I say hard, think expensive. The problem with geothermal so far has been not that it is impossible but that it is expensive to drill holes. Also pumping water in and out holes requires pumps and pipes and machinery that needs maintaining. So, there's a cost associated with that as well. And of course the amount of energy you can get out is proportional to the diameter of the hole. To scale you need to drill more holes. Which is expensive.
That's why geothermal is mainly used in places where you don't have to drill very deep.
So, technically feasible, maybe. But the real question is whether it will be economically feasible.
Once you have that, the rest is easy. But drilling deep is hard. When I say hard, think expensive. The problem with geothermal so far has been not that it is impossible but that it is expensive to drill holes. Also pumping water in and out holes requires pumps and pipes and machinery that needs maintaining. So, there's a cost associated with that as well. And of course the amount of energy you can get out is proportional to the diameter of the hole. To scale you need to drill more holes. Which is expensive.
That's why geothermal is mainly used in places where you don't have to drill very deep.
So, technically feasible, maybe. But the real question is whether it will be economically feasible.
It looks like one of those projects that are built to get billionaires to invest with the use of computer graphics.
I hope it's more than that.
I hope it's more than that.
My response here is the same as what I say to proponents of new nuclear technologies: it's gotta work on a balance sheet, not just in a pitch deck. This isn't a new technology enabling new markets and new kinds of growth here, it's just... electricity. And even as a renewable option, it needs to be able to compete not just with fossil fuel generators with-all-the-externalities-factored-in, but with dams and windmills built with century-mature technology.
That's just a tall order. Should this be a legitimate research topic? Absolutely. Would I put my money down as an investor on this being a win? No. Should we be throwing public money at this? Hell no, we should be building more turbines with that money. Start on the weird stuff only once we've picked the low hanging fruit.
That's just a tall order. Should this be a legitimate research topic? Absolutely. Would I put my money down as an investor on this being a win? No. Should we be throwing public money at this? Hell no, we should be building more turbines with that money. Start on the weird stuff only once we've picked the low hanging fruit.
Geothermal power is a non-nuclear baseload source of energy though. Unlike all others, it just sits there and makes electricity/heat without other inputs: we should absolutely be throwing public money at it, we should've been doing this all along.
Geothermal that you can sink pretty much anywhere would be a gamechanger - it doesn't create local pollution, and it does produce waste heat: built in or neat town areas, you can make electricity and completely clean town heating that works all year round.
Geothermal that you can sink pretty much anywhere would be a gamechanger - it doesn't create local pollution, and it does produce waste heat: built in or neat town areas, you can make electricity and completely clean town heating that works all year round.
When the Swiss tried to build a geothermal power plant, they had quite a few earthquakes which lead to the discontinuation of the whole project: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_seismicity_in_Basel
Boring this deep does have significant risks, especially when we are pumping fluids in and out.
Boring this deep does have significant risks, especially when we are pumping fluids in and out.
> it's gotta work on a balance sheet, not just in a pitch deck.
It shouldn't have to work on either of those things, because neither of those things take any account of externalities.
This attitude that no energy project is worth doing if it's not profitable is how we're going to kill our entire civilization in a few decades. We need to be thinking longer term than "is it cheaper than coal right now?" when the cost of co2 emitting energy sources is literal death and destruction down the line.
It shouldn't have to work on either of those things, because neither of those things take any account of externalities.
This attitude that no energy project is worth doing if it's not profitable is how we're going to kill our entire civilization in a few decades. We need to be thinking longer term than "is it cheaper than coal right now?" when the cost of co2 emitting energy sources is literal death and destruction down the line.
I didn't say "profitable". I said "cheaper than a windmill". That's the standard in this industry. And windmills are really, really cheap. Pick the low hanging fruit, then get fancy. Exotic energy technologies are at best an exercise in premature optimization, and more likely an attempt at soaking the woke masses to fund someone's startup.
Why not both? Windmills are intermittent, hugely dependent on location, short lifespan, requires a lot of space, dangerous to service etc etc. It's not a full solution.
Jeder Euro fürs Atom fehlt uns beim echten Ökostrom.
Because if you habe finite resources, you better invest them in something that works than waste a considerable part to do something that probably maybe should work.
Because if you habe finite resources, you better invest them in something that works than waste a considerable part to do something that probably maybe should work.
Money is a 'finite' resource in the sense that we have largely agreed that it is finite. Funnily enough, we only manage to agree that it's finite for some things (education, health care, climate change) but not others (police, militaries, extravagant government buildings).
In terms of actual physical and labour resources, they're not fungible. People working on nuclear power or geothermal are not going to be terribly useful to advance the state of the art on wind power, which is already a largely mature technology that needs money and effort put into deployment not research. They also use largely different materials, technology, and equipment.
Likewise, you can't just take "money spent on geothermal" and throw it at "building windmills" because there are other bottlenecks involved in windmills that aren't just magically solved with money. And, of course, likewise.
Anyways, every advance in materials science all of these things engage in helps all of them advance.
In terms of actual physical and labour resources, they're not fungible. People working on nuclear power or geothermal are not going to be terribly useful to advance the state of the art on wind power, which is already a largely mature technology that needs money and effort put into deployment not research. They also use largely different materials, technology, and equipment.
Likewise, you can't just take "money spent on geothermal" and throw it at "building windmills" because there are other bottlenecks involved in windmills that aren't just magically solved with money. And, of course, likewise.
Anyways, every advance in materials science all of these things engage in helps all of them advance.
Killing our entire civilization now. Now.
In case you thought I disagree with you, this might clarify why this is just a difference in tense: If you have malignant cancer, it is "killing you now" (you are in the process of dying of something) but only later on will it actually "kill you" (ie. you will become dead).
Here in Denmark we have two large scale projects being built and several others in development. The projection is that 30% of district heating of can be provided by geothermals. https://innargi.com/en/project/
> Geothermal has the power density and scalability of fossil fuels
This has the same vibe as hydrogen cars. Don't buy battery EVs, wait a decade and buy hydrogen cars that will be just as good as ICE!
Or, I can just buy an EV today that's already better than ICE.
This has the same vibe as hydrogen cars. Don't buy battery EVs, wait a decade and buy hydrogen cars that will be just as good as ICE!
Or, I can just buy an EV today that's already better than ICE.
We never know which tech will be commercially successful until we try
That's fine, just announce it as "we have X, Y and Z solutions to the problems caused by fossil fuels and are investigating A to see if it's even better".
Don't take the Bill Gates route of talking down existing, proven solutions to talk up your speculative investment in some unproven tech or the fossil fuel approach of funding weird future research aa an excuse to spend lots of time talking about how amazing fossil fuels are.
Don't take the Bill Gates route of talking down existing, proven solutions to talk up your speculative investment in some unproven tech or the fossil fuel approach of funding weird future research aa an excuse to spend lots of time talking about how amazing fossil fuels are.
[deleted]
At what point do we need to worry about heart from the earth's core into the atmosphere at a faster than normal rate?
Maybe it's my ignorance but I've always been a little terrified by this technology. I truly expect a major disaster within months, maybe a few years, after someone drills too deep at the wrong place.
Plus, isn't it a bit shortsighted to suck up the planet's heat? Eventually something is gonna give. But that could be centuries from now so who cares, huh?
Plus, isn't it a bit shortsighted to suck up the planet's heat? Eventually something is gonna give. But that could be centuries from now so who cares, huh?
What an inadequate website for such bold claims.
Here in New Zealand we found that geothermal is not "non polluting". There are a lot of unforeseen consequences with bringing deep water to the surface.
Still much better than nuclear that makes our children pay for current consumption or coal that means we are paying for our ancestors consumption....
Here in New Zealand we found that geothermal is not "non polluting". There are a lot of unforeseen consequences with bringing deep water to the surface.
Still much better than nuclear that makes our children pay for current consumption or coal that means we are paying for our ancestors consumption....
Iterating over past failures is how progress happens. There will be negative consequences from anything, but the reason for geothermal is that it doesn't have the negative consequences fossil fuels do, and it's cleaner than wind or solar. Also, I'll take localized pollution over global disruption any day.
How is geothermal cleaner than wind or solar?
In Taupo, if my memory serves, the geothermal fluid was found to have high concentrations of arsenic (?) that was seriously polluting rivers.
The subsidence of surrounding land was a problem too
They developed ways of re-injecting the fluid into the well which they hoped would fix both problems, and time will tell.
In Taupo, if my memory serves, the geothermal fluid was found to have high concentrations of arsenic (?) that was seriously polluting rivers.
The subsidence of surrounding land was a problem too
They developed ways of re-injecting the fluid into the well which they hoped would fix both problems, and time will tell.
Sound too good to be true.
2024: First full-scale hybrid drilling rig -> 2026: First Super Hot Enhanced Geothermal System rated to 100 MW... -> 2028: First powerplant.
This false prophet reminds me of Theranos/Elizabeth Holmes. Always skeptical when hearing about such unicorns hunting for idiots' money.
2024: First full-scale hybrid drilling rig -> 2026: First Super Hot Enhanced Geothermal System rated to 100 MW... -> 2028: First powerplant.
This false prophet reminds me of Theranos/Elizabeth Holmes. Always skeptical when hearing about such unicorns hunting for idiots' money.
Well we don't even have to wait very long to see if that prediction is accurate.
Full steam ahead!
EDIT: tbh I did also think that this concept sounds like the opening plot for a b-grade disaster movie - "The Day The Earth Cracked Open".