The NGDS will also include research from more than 200 projects funded by $300 million in 2009 DOE stimulus funding. "The DOE decided if it is going to spend this money, then the research needs to be accessible to everyone," Petty says. "So, essentially, if you are a private company that takes money from the DOE for geothermal development, you have to feed your surveys and research data back into system." Petty says that AltaRock is getting ready to post its research on the Newberry Volcano pilot project into the data system and that the geophysical, seismic, and research data is worth around $8 million.
The AZGS is working with Microsoft Research on visualization tools to make interactive 3D maps of the data. Allison says that the ultimate goal is to capture the full geologic and geophysical profile of geothermal energy reserves across the country. "All of these data will be live and accessible to anyone, using nothing more than a Web browser and open-source software."
View the Interactive Map at State Geothermal Data 
See what we're tweeting about
40 Comments
Add CommentNow we're talkin. There is geothermal and/or geopressurized energy stored under every square inch of the planet. The question is how far down and through what kind of materials. Once we know what’s there, there’s no reason not to go for it where it is the most accessible. It will take some time and work to find out what the best and least expensive method is, for converting the raw energy to electricity in a given situation. But as we get better at accessing and using this energy, it will surely become cheaper and easier to get to and use.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere have been reports of earthquakes being induced by a geothermal project in Europe (Basil, Switzerland). I wonder why this report does not address the possible risks that some geothermal methods can cause?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnother interesting article about the Google/Southern Methodist University is located here:
http://spectrum.ieee.org/green-tech/geothermal-and-tidal/geothermal-energys-promise-and-problems
When I lived on the big Island of Hawaii there were geothermal wells on the east side of the island. And of course in true NIMBY fashion the locals (there was a housing development - Leilani Estates - not too far away) complained about noise and smells and everything else they could think of. There is no perfect source of energy, alternative or not.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNice work Mr. Ferguson! I had no idea that such a resource was coming online. Good to know that geothermal is still being explored as a viable alternative to fossil fuels- despite the minimal coverage by the main-stream media.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI wonder if there's any way to vent the energy in the Yellowstone supervolcano over the course of a few decades (or centuries!) using geothermal power plants. We'd prevent it from going off AND get a lot of clean energy in the process. We'd loose Old Faithful, but we'd prevent a mass extinction event too.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe would have to increase the heat flux going through the caldera by several times with these geothermal plants in order to stabilize the area. It is possible to "exhaust" a geothermal resource temporarily by taking out too much heat and that would be kind of the point of this undertaking, except it would be for the entire Yellowstone hotspot. I have NO IDEA about the heat fluxes involved or if it's even feasible, but we should give it a try.
This truly is a cutting edge program and the US-DOE and those involved with NGDS should be commended. As an exploration geologist in geothermal energy this is very valuable tool.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI look forward to hearing more about this work and other global geothermal mapping programs at the upcoming CanGEA conference/mapping workshop in Calgary in March 2013. www.cangea.ca/2013conference
Sounds like an EXTRAORDINARILY dangerous proposal. Pumping high pressure cold water into fissures lubricates and opens passages for magma to escape as well as causing Earthquakes that might initiate a chain reaction, and massive eruptions. What will be your Price-Anderson type liability protection for that misadventure? Nobody would touch that mission with a ten foot pole without 100% public liability. Amazing how reckless Renewable advocates are until "the N-word" is mentioned, at which point there is "no Limit" to safety requirements.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGeothermal is already subsidized to the hilt, with Renewable Portfolio Standards, State & Federal production credits, huge tax incentives, and favorable PPA's with generous State utilities. And yet it remains a trivial source of energy.
In the USA, Federal subsidies for non-carbon emitting electricity, 1950-2006, (renewable subsidies have increased exponentially since 2006):
tinyurl.com/Federal-subsidies-for-clean
Solar & Wind subsidies: $45B for 0.7% of USA Electricity production
Geothermal: $7B for 0.3%
Hydro: $81B for 7%
Nuclear: $65B for 19%
Thus Hydro received 3.5X the Nuclear Subsidies per TWh of Electricity produced.
Geothermal 6.9X the subsidies of Nuclear.
Wind & Solar 19X.
I get tired of all this hype, that is incessantly spouted about renewables:
"..shows that geothermal energy can generate three million megawatts of renewable electricity—approximately 10 times the capacity of U.S. coal power plants.."
Yep, and there is enough thorium & uranium in the fly ash of USA coal power plants to produce 13X the output of those same power plants if burnt in High-Burn reactors like LFTR, the IFR or ADS. What is the cost of developing those lower grade Geothermal resources? Total Geothermal heat flow over the entire surface of the Earth is only 42 TW or 6 miserly watts per sq. meter. If you trapped every bit of Geothermal heat flow on the entire planet, it wouldn't be enough to power our civilization today, never mind in the future. Never will be a significant world energy supply.
Even Iceland with its centuries of experience in Geothermal, and the best resources on the planet, and the huge advantage of year round building heat needs, only gets 20% of its Electricity from Geothermal, the rest from conventional Hydro - and that ain't cheap. Geothermal, in excellent areas, is best for low grade heating applications, that is the Icelandic experience, and that is the best usage of that resource. So focus should be giving Alaskans Geothermal District Heating & Hot Water.
There you go again...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI was just trying to flesh out an idea about the Yellowstone Supervolcano and I admitted that there are many unknowns. However, you're a fool if you think these enhanced geothermal systems will go anywhere NEAR the depth where the magma resides. All I was suggesting is that, if we pump a lot of the heat out of the upper 2 km or so of rock with lots of geothermal power, maybe could it reduce the buildup of heat in the caldera. I'm not a geologist, but there's already plenty of water percolating around above the lava dome and earthquakes MUCH more powerful than what humans could cause happen often in the area.
But then you go into your pro-nuclear tirade, posting nonsense that's now 7 years(!) out of date that tries to put nuclear power, a technology with over 60 years of development and government support, on the same level as clean energy, which only had a brief period of government support in the late 70's followed by on-again, off-again support since the 90's. If you think nuclear has no incumbency, political or subsidy advantages over clean energy, you're delusional!
The one thing about your source that isn't out of date is the figures it presented for breeder reactors. Apparently, nearly $60B in federal energy supports "has been for R&D for breeder reactors and other reactor types that have never gone on line commercially in the US."
So, why are you freaking out about the paltry subsidies going towards clean energy when all those "next generation" reactors you fantasize about have gobbled up $60B WITH NOTHING TO SHOW FOR IT? Did you EVEN READ your own link?
And if you drill down to the ACTUAL PAPER your source used for its numbers, a paper commissioned by the Nuclear Energy Institute mind you, you'll find that it goes to great lengths to hide the fact that it lumps all those wasteful ethanol subsidies in with solar energy!
http://www.misi-net.com/publications/2008energyincentives.pdf
Yep, out of $19B in R&D supports, biofuel got $3B of it. But out of the $20B in tax breaks given to "renewables" during that time, ethanol got $15B of it!!!!
http://www.treehugger.com/corporate-responsibility/76-of-federal-renewable-energy-support-went-to-ethanol-in-2007.html
Man, this take-down was too easy!
Some years ago I thought geothermal could be the one renewable 24/7 energy source worth investing in. I lost my shirt. A company called Geodynamics has lost hundreds of millions of dollars in investor’s funds plus over 100 million in tax payer’s money over the past 13 years. It is not as simple as the promoters make out. The combination of high temperatures & mineral content eats bore casings for a start. When they are about 13 kilometres deep, in a remote area, it does not take long to blow your investment.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere goes Sault having a hissyfit whenever someone points out the hypocrisy of his position. Always demanding the Nuclear has ZERO liability protection, but when it comes to his dangerous, hair-brained Geothermal experiments or Renewable Hydro not once has Sault ever asked for the same. Double standard against Nuclear, once again. And I can 100% guarantee you, not even a chance of being wrong, that Sault and his Greenie comrades, will happily accept a low-grade, mediocre risk analysis for any Geothermal projects, including his supervolcano scheme, or for Hydro, while demanding an incredible, perfect, zero-chance of error risk analysis for any Nuclear projects. Perfect example was the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository. The most extensive & expensive environmental analysis in World history, vastly larger than Gulf Oil-Spill rigs or the Tar Sands, but to Sault & his ENGO buddies, it was NEVER good enough.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs for the subsidies, yep it is out-of-date which is EXTREMELY favorable to Wind & Solar, since their subsidies have expanded exponentially since then, whereas commercial Nuclear long before 2006 and since then have shrunk to NIL. 2004-2006 show a paltry ~$200M, including a supposed "tax subsidy" for a lower tax on the Nuclear Waste Fund interest that Nuclear Industry is forced to accumulate. And Nuclear never has had the MASSIVE state subsidies that Wind & Solar are getting.
As for your breeder reactor claims, you are as usual wrong. Once again Sault displays reading comprehension difficulties. $60B for breeder AND OTHER non-commercial Nuclear R&D, such as medical isotope production, submarine/naval reactors, fusion projects that the DOE has admitted were for Weapons purposes, and plutonium production/breeding for MILITARY applications. The actual prototype for a commercial IFR build was developed but blockaded by Clinton for political reasons. But it lives on with the GE PRISM which GE has offered to supply to Britain.
Notable how Sault refuses to breakdown Nuclear subsidies into commercial (i.e. $6B out of $65B) but blows a gasket over the addition of COMMERCIAL RENEWABLE Biofuels to his pet Solar & Wind Renewables. Greenies/ENGO's were the original pushers for Nutty, Renewable fuels scams. Now Sault is backtracking, don't want to take responsibility once again for something his buddies started. Still Wind & Solar subsidies per unit energy produced are VASTLY greater than any other energy source, and that is growing even larger.
Correction: I should have said average Geothermal heat flow over the Earth's surface is a paltry 0.06 watts/sq meter.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWow, you have a habit of building strawman arguments and putting words into my mouth, don't you? I never said nuclear must have ZERO liability protection, but I do want Price Anderson Act supports counted in with government support for nuclear energy. While the industry cannot get adequate liabilty coverage on the private market at ANY price, the fact that the government steps in to fill the gap makes nuclear power artificially cheap. It also presents an oportunity cost to the government when they have to plan for covering the liability from a nuclear incident. Since clean energy doesn't get this preferential treatment, it means that the government has unfairly tilted the market in nuclear's favor, so any discussion of the merits of different energy technologies needs to take this into account.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSince the effects of a nuclear incident could potentially contaminate thousands of square kms and require EXTENSIVE cleanup (good luck finding anybody that would be eager to live in the contamination zone...), you'd better believe that safety and risk management should be very stringent when considering nuclear power. The last I heard, when a wind turbine breaks down, it doesn't spew a cloud of toxic radionuclides all over the place. Or when a solar cell is disconnected from the grid for more than a day, it doesn't explode from hydrogen buildup, scattering radioactive debris all over the place either.
And you need to blame Republicans for the death of the IFR in 1994. They OVERWHELMINGLY voted to kill it off:
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=103&session=2&vote=00175
Republicans accounted for 36 out of 52 "YEAs" that killed the funding while Democrats accounted for 38 / 46 "NAYs" in support of continued funding for the IFR.
And look on page 21 of the source report I posted:
"The compilation excludes defense atomic energy R&D programs (except for the portion that was directly applicable to the civilian nuclear program) as well as the fusion program."
And check this out on page 55:
"Of the total nuclear R&D expenditures over this period, more than half, 52 percent($14.5 billion), were devoted to the breeder program. Since 1950 the breeder program consumed 35 percent—$23.7 billion of $67 billion—of civilian nuclear energy R&D, and over half of the funds expended since 1976."
The article you quoted got it wrong, but breeder reactors have STILL burnt through $23.7B with nothing to show for it.
And if you think ethanol subsidies weren't anything but an artifact of the presidential primary calendar and the influence of farm-state legislators, you're crazy. It is HIGHLY disingenuous to lump ethanol pork in with renewables and then complain about how much money wind and solar recieve. I mean, if you want to include spending on the Manhattan Project in with support for nuclear power, then maybe we'll talk, but I don't think you're capable of that kind of intellectual honesty.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSault you keep making false clams about the Price Anderson Act. As I read it, it is at no cost to the taxpayer. The nuclear industry must repay the Federal Government for any claims that exeed the industry funded insurance pool.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSault claims: "..get adequate liabilty coverage on the private market at ANY price, the fact that the government steps in to fill the gap makes nuclear.."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd yet your hypocrisy remains. Show us a link where you have ever complained about the MUCH HIGHER liability protection of Carbon Capture, Geothermal, Hydro, Oil & Gas wells, Aircraft, Weapons and of course the emissions of your Coal, NG, biomass & Oil which kills millions per yr, as well as protection against Global Warming liability.
Sault claims: "..effects of a nuclear incident could potentially contaminate thousands of square kms and require EXTENSIVE cleanup (good luck finding anybody that would be eager to live in the contamination zone.."
Yeah, so does chemical, oil, coal and shale gas. Only Nuclear is required by Greenie/Big Carbon imposed regs to clean up to levels 1/300th of what would cause any adverse health effects. And I am knowledgeable and trained in Radiation Safety, and would have NO PROBLEM living within almost the entire (as in 99%) of the Chernobyl or Fukushima areas. But I would NOT want to live, in fact I would refuse to live near one of your Coal power plants.
And you're wrong on the IFR. Clinton initiated and espoused the termination of the program, and presented false information on it, claiming proliferation concerns that were bogus. And of course, Repugs on Big Oil's payroll are just as anti-Nuclear as Dems.
Sault claims: "..burnt through $23.7B with nothing to show for it.."
$23.7B is for the IFR, including complete no-proliferation-risk fuel reprocessing, is a bargain. Vs many 100's of $billions thrown down the sewer on your Wind Scams which have been shown in Ontario, Ireland, Colorado, Texas and Holland to have not reduced emissions. A total waste of money.
Whereas there were considerable developments in fuel reprocessing, computer simulation of Nuclear processes, metal coolants, safety systems, metal fuels, risk assessment and a good deal more with the IFR program. Meanwhile the IFR lives on with the GE PRISM, and Bill Gates has adopted the tech for his Traveling Wave Reactor. As well as a number of metal cooled SMRs, including Sandia Labs version. Hardly "nothing to show for it". However, many claim there was a bias in DOE research, due to the domination of the Weapons programs for plutonium reactors rather than the Thorium Molten Salt Reactors advocated by ONR, for which miniscule funds were allocated.
world-nuclear-news.org/WR-Prism_proposed_for_UK_plutonium_disposal-0112114.html
bravenewclimate.com/category/ifr-fad/
Sault claims: "..It is HIGHLY disingenuous to lump ethanol pork in with renewables.."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUh, no it ain't. Ethanol is classified as a renewable. So it should be included. I didn't say it is a fair indictment of Wind & Solar, nor did I say a more detailed analysis is false. Just as I did for the total Nuclear subsidy. A detailed analysis for Wind & Solar would show vastly more subsidies per unit energy than commercial Nuclear, Hydro, Coal, NG or Oil.
Notice Sault always includes Biofuels when he looks at total renewable energy production of Greenie countries like Germany.
It is interesting how Sault & his Greenie/ENGO comrades, constantly harp about how desperately important GHG mitigation is, the terrible Global Warming threat, how urgent action is until the "N-word" is mentioned, then suddenly its "what's the hurry", "we need to be cautious", "safety is #1", "we can't afford the [zero-cost] liability protection". $26B for the unlimited clean energy IFR, oh that's way too expensive, we can't afford that. The LFTR, MSR, oh we can't afford to develop that, and if we did, Sault/Big Oil/Greenies/ENGO's would only allow trivial levels of funding. Amounts the Wind & Solar industries call "pocket change" or "coffee money".
Notice you never hear Sault complain about the trivial R&D on GenIV nuclear, a couple hundred million/yr total, peanuts, in spite of Nuclear producing 7X the clean zero-CO2 energy of Wind, Solar & Geothermal in 2009. Here I won't include the renewable Biofuels, as Sault wishes. You would think Sault and his Greenie buddies would be screaming for as rapid expansion as possible for all Nuclear tech - to save the world.
Makes you figure, Sault & his Greenie comrades REALLY could care less about Global Warming, they just want to use it as an excuse to shove their Wind & Solar scams down our throats. Probably they make money on that, or they are malthusians/primitivists who want to see industrial civilization collapse and replaced with some oppressive Greenie Religious dictatorship. Many of Sault's Greenie buddies, of course, expect to be the high priests, living in the lap of luxury, while the ignorant masses are starving.
LOL Geodynamics gave EGS a bad name. Next time learn the technology before you invest. Yeah there's lots of hype regarding EGS including this article. EGS has been around since 1970s. It's still a promise like fusion power. The one in France produces 5 MW. That's a far cry from the 3 million MW this article is hyping about.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTruth is there's geothermal energy anywhere at 10 km depth. But at that depth it won't be economical. No free lunch just cheap promises.
Here's from the wiki article:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"The Act establishes a no fault insurance-type system in which the first approximately $12.6 billion (as of 2011) is industry-funded as described in the Act. Any claims above the $12.6 billion would be covered by a Congressional mandate to retroactively increase nuclear utility liability or would be covered by the federal government."
If a reactor incident caused over $12.6B in damages, you'd better believe the other 100 or so reactors around the country would be shut down for a number of months AT LEAST. Meanwhile, the damages over and above the $12.6B would have to be paid out immediately, so there would be zero revenue to "retroactively increase nuclear utility liability".
But I don't really care who pays. My main point is that the government is involving itself in the insurance coverage of a (barely) PRIVATE industry, lowering their insurance bills and giving the nuclear industry an advantage that many other energy sources do not enjoy. When people talk about how great nuclear power is and how cheaply it can generate electricity, they routinely leave out this little tidbit of info. If we were talking about the pure technical merits of an energy technology, this wouldn't be an issue. But "dwbd" keeps bringing up government supports for clean energy while papering over the support that nuclear power has gotten as well. "dwbd" also conveniently ignores the fact that government support for nuclear power (admittedly mostly in the form of R&D, but also through policy decisions like Price Anderson among others) has been MUCH more consistent and has gone on for decades longer than support for renewable energy, giving nuclear power another leg up than renewables don't have.
Just looking for honest discussion here without any emotionally-charged rhetoric, that's all.
In the news, weapons manufacturers get 100% public liability coverage by act of congress. So why is that OK? No GHG emissions reductions there.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNuclear is better insured than any industry in the USA. Who paid the >$1 trillion that 9/11 cost? The airlines - Nope. Even the Airbus 380 - basically a flying targetable nuclear bomb has insurance liability of $1 billion. Funny how you have no problem with that. Nuclear has an insurance pool in the USA of $12B, no other industry can claim that. What is the insurance pool on Hydro which has caused the biggest energy disasters in history, in one case killed 230,000 people? Answer Nil - 100% public insured. What is the liability on CCS, quite capable of wiping out an entire city? Answer Nil - 100% public insured.
What is the insurance pool on LNG tankers? Any self-respecting terrorist could hijack one, release the contents into the sewer of a major city and wipe out the entire city.
And any industry is only protected to the extent of its insurance, usual low, and assets. Big Gold Mine cyanide spill in Colorado. 100's of $million in damage. The Mining company just declared bankruptcy. Left the public to pay. Similar thing happened in Canada, $500M cleanup cost, company declared bankruptcy, 100% public liability. That's for some mickey mouse gold mines not for an industry that displaces billions of tons of CO2 emissions. I thought you cared about Global Warming. Why have I never heard you complain about the 100% public liability, ZERO COST to industry protection for Carbon Capture. Thousands of miles of liquid CO2 pipelines are a terrorists dream come true. Easy to blow up and wipe out a city.
The facts on Nuclear Insurance:
www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/funds-fs.html
atomicinsights.com/2012/01/real-story-about-nuclear-plant-liability-insurance.html
www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf67.html
Why does the fossil fuel industries get 100% liability protection on the ~30-50,000 people they kill each year in the USA due to pollution, and ~ 3 million people worldwide each year, and 100% liability protection for all the $trillions in damage for Climate Change effects? Why do you never complain about that.
How about a liability credit for Nuclear for all the pollution related deaths, Climate Change effects, Oil War costs & Military costs avoided, Economy Destroying Foreign Job losses benefits due to expensive fossil fuel imports, avoidance of Terrorist funding Oil & Gas imports from the Middle East and Peak Oil worldwide economic catastrophe avoiding benefits?
Sure, I'm all for incorporating the TRUE costs of energy into the calculations. But can you calm down a little bit? Your rhetoric is jarring and makes it hard to have a good discussion.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnyway, if we regulated fossil fuels adequately, a lot of these costs would go down and nuclear / renewable energy would be a lot more prevalent. The Clean Air Act was supposed to take care of things, but as usual, lobbyists mucked things up and the American Public is stuck with the bill while the fossil fuel companies laugh all the way to the bank.
Look, I do think nuclear power is going to have a place on our energy future and LFTRs seem promising. It'll take 10 - 20 years to get a few commercial demonstration LFTRs up and running though, and regardless of what you think causes it, LWRs take around a decade or more to build. Without a doubt, nuclear power cannot be installed quick enough to prevent the worst effects of climate change.
And before you downplay the role of renewable energy, you have to realize the disadvantages it comes to the party with that are no fault of its own. First of all, the aforementioned costs of pollution getting offloaded onto society as a whole give fossil fuels an unfair advantage. In addition, fossil fuels have benefited from over a century of government support and have scooped up the lion's share of subsidies over that time. Nuclear energy has benefited from 60 years of consistent government R&D / policy support too. Renewables have had a roller coaster-like experience with government support and have really only been really supported since 2005. Shouldn't we give renewable energy even just ONE more decade of support before we make any sweeping judgments about its viability to let things even out? And look at how the utilities building nuclear reactors get to charge their ratepayers billion$ for years before a reactor is even finished! Does renewable energy get to do this? NO WAY! It looks KINDA like a feed-in tariff like they have in Germany, but it's even a bigger boon to nuclear because the reactor doesn't even have to generate output to get paid! If regulators will let utilities building reactors to make their customers pay up-front for something that may or may not even get built, why can't we have a small feed-in tariff for renewables too? At least in this case, the customers are paying for electricity that's ACTUALLY BEING DELIVERED instead of promises to deliver electricity at some uncertain date in the future if at all.
There's lots of geothermal energy in Yellowstone but it's a national park so you can't put up a geothermal plant unless you change US federal law. Other good prospects are near active volcanoes and aren't being develop for safety reason.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you want an honest debate why do you use dishonest arguments such all your previous claims about Government subsidies to the nuclear industry citing this act. At least you have finally admitted your previous claims were false in this regard.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisdwbd:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Sounds like an EXTRAORDINARILY dangerous proposal."
You mean like fracking?
"If you trapped every bit of Geothermal heat flow on the entire planet, it wouldn't be enough to power our civilization today, never mind in the future."
Please revisit your geology. Our entire planet below the crust is hot to very hot. Accessing that immense internal heat is just a matter of technology.
Haven't done anything of the sort. Do you even read my posts? The Price Anderson Act forces the government to involve itself in providing liability insurance for nuclear reactors, lowering the cost of nuclear energy. In the case of a Fukushima-style disaster, the government would most likely be on the hook for a huge chunk of damages. Reading comprehension...it's a useful skill.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSault it is you that has all the emotionally charged rhetoric, so don't accuse others of what you are doing. And you consistently just ignore arguments that are contrary to your claims, while myself and others point by point refute your statements.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd how is it you have all this time to post 10X as many comments all day, including the daytime, as anyone else? Just what kind of job do you have anyway?
And as usual you didn't answer one point I made, but instead immediately changed the subject. I destroyed your argument on Price-Anderson and you just avoid the fact. Fact remains Nuclear is better insured and a lower public liability than virtually any heavy industry in the USA, while Nuclear ACTUALLY does something about CO2 and other toxic emissions. Once again, Sault could care less about Global Warming as soon as the "N-Word" is mentioned.
I don't need to revisit any Geology, that happens to be a fact, avg Geothermal heat flow to the surface of the Earth is 0.06 watts per sq. meter.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisen.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_gradient#Heat_flow
Sure you can deplete the store of heat in areas of the Earth's crust, who knows what potential environmental consequences that has, but heat has to be replenished and earth/rock is a good insulator. So it is very difficult to access that heat. I know, i was involved in a project that attempted that and failed. You just need to find a perfect location where the ground is heavily fractured that you can send high pressure water through a vast volume of rock in an efficient way. That is not easy and only a very few places on this earth are economical to do that. Do you have any idea how expensive those deep drill holes are?
I love reading you guys comments on energy. Anyways, I think geothermal is overall a good idea, and should be pursued in addition to thorium nuclear, solar, and wind. I would say I am pro most forms of energy that don't involve coal, oil, natural gas, or damming rivers.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHave you read the latest news?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Southern Co. said Thursday it will exceed its original budget to build a first-of-its-kind nuclear plant, a troubling development for an industry long plagued by cost overruns.
The Atlanta-based utility formally asked regulators to raise its budget to build two more nuclear reactors at Plant Vogtle (VOH'-gohl) by about $737 million to roughly $6.85 billion. Additional costs are possible. Companies designing and building the plant have sued the utility seeking $425 million for unexpected project costs, though the utility has filed its own suit and denies responsibility for those expenses.
The 2.4 million customers of Southern Co. subsidiary Georgia Power will ultimately reimburse the utility for its costs.
Years ago, state utility regulators blocked Georgia Power from charging customers $951 million incurred while building the first two reactors at Plant Vogtle. That project was originally budgeted at $660 million. By the time the reactors were finished, the price tag approached $8.9 billion."
http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_22688771/utility-new-nuclear-plant-ga-over-budget
Is history repeating itself? I mean, 10x or more cost overruns are not very likely now, but it looks like nuclear power costs are chronically lowballed and ratepayers always foot the bill.
The (serious) conquest of other bodies in space, if nothing else, will require nuclear energy. Right now offshore wind, associated to some sort of dams or artificial islands, is cheaper than coal. Of course, there are not windy shores everywhere...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGeothermal has been associated to quakes in many countries. So it has been exploited in a low key fashion in California, for several decades. Augmenting the wells has augmented the quakes. So further development is now stopped.
Yeah so now the total cost is $14B for 2.2GW @ 90% CF = $7.1k per kwavg for First-of-a-kind Nuclear in the USA, with Zero supply chain, an incompetent, hostile regulator (which of course can be changed with the stroke of a pen), Zero factory construction or assembly-line production. And learning curve at 0% right now.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisVs your cheapest new renewable, Wind at $9k to $40k per kwavg, and a mostly useless power that typically is max when demand is min, particularly absent during the summer heat spells. And that is >1000th-of-a-kind assembly line produced, 100% learning curve.
And your best Solar PV in the USA right now is $24k per kwavg output. Again >1000th-of-a-kind assembly line produced, 100% learning curve. More useful power than the Wind but still replaces zero capacity, only saves fossil fuel consumption which has a current value of 2.6 cents per kwh.
neinuclearnotes.blogspot.ca/2013/03/vogtle-and-truth-of-another-year.html
"...But the company’s analysis continues to show that adding more nuclear energy to Georgia Power’s portfolio would be a better deal for customers by $4 billion over the life of the plant than any other available energy source, said Buzz Miller, Georgia Power’s executive vice president for nuclear development. “We have a very good project for our goals of building it right with quality and compliance ,.."
"...Miller said the additional costs will be offset by federal production tax credits Congress passed in 2005 to incentivize the nuclear industry, potential federal loan guarantees, and less-than-anticipated financing costs due to low interest rates.."
"...Approximately 2,300 people are now on site at Vogtle units 3 and 4 near Waynesboro. At peak construction, the project is expected to create 5,000 onsite jobs, making it the largest job-producing project in Georgia. There will be 800 permanent jobs when the facility is operational.."
The following article discusses the entirely solvable, mostly political problems that have caused way excessive Nuclear costs (but still much cheaper than any low carbon alternative):
ansnuclearcafe.org/2013/01/24/how-can-nuclear-construction-costs-be-reduced/
Of course it would help if Sault's buddies, ENGO's with unlimited funding (who's paying these guys?), would quit their incessant fear mongering, legal challenges, roadblocks, media blitz, NRC submissions and other delaying tactics. Cash rich ENGO's using every trick in the book to push Nuclear costs up, and then they complain "Nuclear is way too expensive". The definition of Sleazy, bottom feeders.
"..Right now offshore wind, associated to some sort of dams or artificial islands, is cheaper than coal.."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is? Are you kidding me? Offshore wind is considerably more expensive than onshore wind, at $9-$40k per kwavg output. Coal is $4-5k per kwavg (for a baseload plant). And windpower is mostly a useless form of intermittent energy that replaces zero grid capacity, it only replaces some fuel - hopefully - which is only worth 2.6 cents per kwh. And a lot of added costs on top of that. A total loser and waste of money.
I've never heard of solar or any other energy source produce "average" Watts. Energy sources produce WATTS when they are generating, so trying to cook the books with the "average" nonsense that NOBODY in the electrical power industry uses outside of nuclear fanbois is just plain silly. You obviously know NOTHING of the difference between RETAIL and WHOLESALE electricity or what PEAK demand is vs baseload. Please try to learn just a little bit of what you're talking about before blathering on endlessly.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"...Miller said the additional costs will be offset by federal production tax credits Congress passed in 2005 to incentivize the nuclear industry, potential federal loan guarantees, and less-than-anticipated financing costs due to low interest rates.."
Thanks for posting that. You cannot complain about government incentives for clean energy EVER again!
"Georgia Power’s portfolio would be a better deal for customers by $4 billion..."
This is another lie being put forward by Georgia Power. Georgia Power's customers only save $4B if you don't count all the money they've already sunk on this risky reactor construction project. And with this extra $700M and counting, these 2 reactors are going north of $15B actually. Since the legal issues concerning the construction delays are still being hashed out, Georgia Power's customers will be paying up for million$$$ more in legal fees and are on the hook for any more cost overruns too. Considering the industry's HORRIBLE track record for meeting cost and schedule milestones, I feel sorry for all those ratepayers that got corralled into a money-sucking reactor that isn't really necessary. Since efficiency and renewable energy can be installed 10x faster (lowering risk and financing costs), the utility only wants nuclear because it is the only energy source that can lock in their antiquated business model for another few decades.
Sorry Sault, you have yet to learn the difference between Power and Energy. Avg watts is a convenient expression of Energy, whereas Peak or Instantaneous Watts are Power. It is true that more commonly Energy will be shown as GWh/yr, as your NREL likes to do. So you divide that by 8670 hrs and you get AVG POWER = or kwavg. Very simple-minded, and gives a more succinct way to compare REAL COST per Unit Energy of high capital cost energy sources such as Solar, Wind, Hydro & Nuclear. Otherwise Levelized Cost is used but that is so dependent on financing details that it is not as useful for comparing high capital cost power sources.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou're wrong about Solar supplying retail power. The correct & actual cost of supplying Grid power, is the cost of all grid infrastructure, administration, power generation capacity, taxation & other fixed costs. The ONLY thing residential Solar is replacing is the minor Fuel cost of fossil fuel power sources, that's it. That's about 2.6 cents/kwh avg, in the USA. And worse than that, intermittent sources, like Solar, increase fuel consumption in the shadowing fossil fuel power plants. And it ain't peak demand, that occurs usually around 3-9pm vs Solar pks at noon, and is low by 5pm. Solar also increases the proportion of low efficiency, low capital cost OCGT, vs high efficiency, high capital cost, slow spooling CCGT. More fuel consumption. So the Solar is worth maybe 2.6 cents per kwh and it gets paid retail of 10-30 cents per kwh, even more with FITs and other subsidies.
As for the Federal PTC of 2.2 cents/kwh, well NO nuclear has received that yet, and it is only for the 1st 6 GWe of new Nuclear and only for 8 yrs. For Renewables the PTC, has been received and is unlimited. And additional huge tax subsidies Nuclear doesn't get. And open loan guarantees, which Nuclear doesn't get, unlike Wind & Solar they must pay upfront a $billion non-refundable fee in order to get the loan guarantee. In spite of the fact that these utilities, unlike fly-by-night Solandra specials, have huge assets. And of course renewables get massive state subsidies, especially the incredible RPS subsidy that Nuclear doesn't get - now why is that? - since Nuclear ACTUALLY DOES replace Coal energy/emissions one-to-one, unlike Solar & Wind.
As for your spurious comments on the Vogtle costs you still don't understand the basics of finance and I tried to make it simple for you by a capital cost $/kwavg that is 25% < best wind for FOAK nuclear and 30% < best solar. Those are the facts which you use aimless rhetoric to evade.
Nope, you still don't get it. Power is purchased NEARLY INSTANTANEOUSLY. An energy producer sells either on the spot market, where peak solar electricity is already at parity with grid electricity at many locations, or they sign long-term power purchase agreements. One advantage of renewable energy is that it can guarantee a price for electricity for 10 or even 20 years into the future as opposed to the traditional centralized plants that will continue to have fuel price and capital return uncertainty that constantly drives up the cost of their delivered electricity a few percent a year. The long-term price certainty that renewables offer is a big draw, regardless of what you might think.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd seriously, you think somebody with a rooftop solar array isn't producing retail electricity? The solar array owner is displacing their own consumption and feeding the excess back into the grid where their neighbors consume it. If you want to think about it a certain way, this is appears like a negative load to the utility, displacing retail demand during peak hours of the day.
It's all about supply and demand. If the utility needs all that infrastructure and dirty peaker plants to supply demand in the middle of the day, that's their problem. If all I need is an inverter and a grid connection to do it, then I've just undermined their business model a little bit. Keep in mind that they and their dirty energy pals have a HUGE financial incentive to keep their guaranteed monopoly profits coming is as long as possible, so I wouldn't put it past them to be generating a lot of the negative propaganda against renewables you are reading.
Do I have to walk you through this AGAIN?!?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe first lesson you need to learn is what Milton Freidman calls Economics in one line: "there ain't no free lunch".
So repeating, your Solar DOES NOT replace one iota of Grid Infrastructure or Power Generation or Power Plant Fuel Infrastructure. The best it does is replace some fuel consumption which is worth 2.5 cents/kwh, avg. So paying 10->80 cents/kwh for Solar and saving max 2.5 cents/kwh means somebody, meaning the lowly citizen, poor & middle class is going to end up paying for the 10->80 - 2.5 PLUS other added subsidies to Renewables. That's "the NO FREE LUNCH" part. You can try to hide the costs, and pretend they don't exist in some convoluted story of market pricing - but somebody ALWAYS has to pay. Where I live and many other places, there is no Electricity market, so those fables would not apply. Most efficient electricity production & delivery is one monopoly public utility. And they do work great if managed by engineers, but unfortunately our corrupt politicians have either deliberately destroyed the public utilities and/or ensured that incompetent political appointees run them, with extraordinary rip-off salaries & pensions.
As for your rooftop Solar generating retail electricity - um, no it doesn't. My retail utility contract expressly forbids me generating power. Yep, it would be great for me to put in a gas CHP generator, and generate all my heat & power. And when my generator is down for maintenance just pull power from the utility for one day a whopping $6 worth of electricity. And you figure that $6 will pay for the big pole transformer I have, all the heavy cable, all the grid power plants I share, all the maintenance, including expensive linemen, bucket trucks, helicopters on call 24/7, and administration. Your Free Lunch renewable fantasy again.
So if it weren't for corrupt Big Oil politicians forcing Solar & Wind down their throats, the utility would change ALL solar customers to a standard commercial/industrial contract which would have a high 12 month ratcheting demand fee - which would pay for all those fixed utility costs of supplying your power. So every evening, when your demand peaks, and your Solar is nil, you will get NAILED for 12 months peak demand, and your Solar will be paid 4-5cts market price. Most of your Bill will be a demand charge.
Unlike your Electricity Market fantasy, the reality is that your Solar is unfairly given pride-of-place on the grid or the utility would just refuse it, as they will with any other uneconomical provider.
Sault: "..this is appears like a negative load to the utility.."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm glad you brought that up. Now put your thinking cap on, and consider how you have that best case, cheapest, most efficient, flat baseload demand & supply of electricity. Now throw in your negative load, which the utility is FORCED to accept, say one at time A, & another at time B. So what is in between A&B, yep, an artificial peak demand. You've just converted cheap, 24/7 baseload power into expensive peaking power generation. So us lowly consumers are being forced to pay 2-3X, even 4X nighttime baseload cost for our peak power consumption. Now you've just created more peak demand with your intermittent Solar & Wind and you AIN'T PAYING for it. Even worse you get giant subsidies on top of that cost you imposed on us lowly consumers. A free ride plus NO FREE LUNCH = WE PAY!
Most efficient way to supply daytime peak/shoulder load is by having an expensive Coal or CCGT high efficiency generator ramp up in the morning following that load and slowly ramp down in the evening. More expensive than baseload, since you have all the baseload infrastructure without the 24/7 utilization. Now you come along with your Solar ramping up in the morning - don't need the Coal or CCGT then but you will need it after 1pm when the Solar starts declining. Now you have same infrastructure and you using it even less, and you have to have it maintained and ready every day plus whenever Solar craps out due to cloudy weather. Probably need added spinning reserve for that. That means higher costs. That means swap out expensive efficient baseload CCGT/Coal for fuel guzzling cheap OCGT = wasted fuel = more CO2.
And it gets worse. So like Germany, you are so bloody stupid that you add loads & loads of Solar capacity, to the point that those Solar peaks even cut into baseload power. So that leads to spilling Hydro, dumping Nuclear @ ZERO cost savings, ZERO CO2 savings, total energy inefficiency & waste, or cutting back the high efficiency baseload Coal & CCGT power plants, may reduce some fuel but reducing efficiency as well, a very expensive way to cut emissions. And makes using the most efficient, expensive Coal & CCGT power plants less economical, leads to using more fuel guzzlers.
So for renewables, Geothermal, Hydro makes sense if available. Wind & Solar without storage is an idiotic waste of money. And with storage they are so expensive that Nuclear or Efficiency are FAR CHEAPER ways to reduce emissions.
Wind & Solar = TOTAL LOSERS apart from niche applications.
So in spite of that, I believe there may be a way to make Solar viable for Residential (not Commercial/Industrial) customers. It's all about creating a local, grassroots, non-globalist, work creating economy. Very important part, replacing globalist debt currency with a local credit currency, I described that here:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisscientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=can-solar-challenge-natural-gas&posted=1&posted=1&posted=1&posted=1#comment-21
Coal is cheaper than wind. But I believe in wind power especially when coupled with energy storage like batteries or magnetic flywheels.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBig earthquakes were associated with the EGS in Switzerland. No problem with other EGS in France and Germany. The micro earthquakes caused by conventional geothermal are so small they are imperceptible. Geothermal is good but limited by economics.
Seriously, I don't know how to explain this to you. You do know that a lot of electric utilities have moved to time-of-use & peak / off-peak pricing, right? Do you also know that spot market electricity prices during the middle of the day, especially in the summmer, are some of the highest rates of the year? Either the utility has to buy on the spot market or fire up expensive and dirty peaker plants to meet demand.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSolar PV can satisfy a portion of that peak demand, lowering the utility's power buying costs on the spot market and lowering the number of hours they have to fire up those expensive and dirty peaking plants. And going forward, the utility doesn't have to build as many peaking plants because solar output is half a sine wave with a period of 24 hours. As such, it's rate of change system-wide is slow enough for a large, combined-cycle gas plant to "spool" down during daylight hours and then "spool" up as solar output goes down in the evening.
Look, it's unfortunate that your utility is backwards and inflexible. And I'm sorry, but you STILL pay for peak electricity, it's just that they lump in all their costs into the price of all the kWhrs they sell instead of letting market forces determine the price of electricity.
You need to calm down and look at the REAL data. Wholesale electricity prices in Germany have gone DOWN because wind and solar have ZERO fuel costs. As such, other players in the spot market have to lower their prices to be competitive. Over 90% of the electricity price increases over the last 10 years can be explained by the 4 major utilities there increasing their profit margin on electricity sales by 700% over that time (while NOT passing on the cost savings that renewables' zero fuel costs provide BTW) and the 1 - 2% annual increases that happens regardless of any energy policy. Germany is an energy miracle and would be doing much better if China wasn't illegally dumping clean energy technology on the world market below cost or the Eurozone hadn't instituted the disasterous Austerity measures that have been PROVEN time and time again to not work.
Nope, you still are avoiding the issue, and haven't answered one point I've made. I showed you how an optimally configured grid would be built. That would provide for baseload all peak demand and spinning reserve at the LOWEST COST and LOWEST emissions. And that has NO ROOM or NO RATIONALE for Wind or Solar. None, ZIP, ZERO. And that is how any rational, as in not political/big oil/big green/green religion, utility would operate. Now that can be done most effectively with a public utility, no problem and is done that way in most locations, or you can have an electricity market, and if that is working properly the same result = NO WIND & NO SOLAR. Except in areas that are reliant on diesel, or off-grid small scale, that is about the only places where Wind & Solar are practical. Solar Hot Water/Solar Heat I can see could be practical.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAll you are doing is dumping heavily subsidized Wind & Solar on the Grid, forcing the utility to accept them by political edict, and yep that pushes prices down temporarily but lowers the efficiency and raises the costs of ALL peaking power generation, which means added costs that MUST be payed by someone - and that will be John Q Public. That NO FREE LUNCH part, that you keep ignoring.
"Germany is an Energy miracle". One of the stupidest statements ever posted here at SCIAM. The worst emissions and highest electricity prices in Europe. Some miracle that is. Industries closing or moving because they can't afford the high electricity prices, even though the German gov't is subsidizing industrial electricity prices.
Wind & Solar may have zero fuel costs, but they have similar maintenance and operating costs to other sources, and Nuclear fuel costs are trivial. Wind & Solar DO HAVE huge capital costs and terrible reliability. And that has to be paid for. And MAJOR COST OVERRUNS due to the necessity of added long distance, quadruple oversized transmission lines, added storage, declining capacity factors, overbuild total waste & energy inefficiency, grid stabilization, underutilization waste & inefficiency due to peaks occuring when demand is low, i.e. Spring when Hydro is max, solar & wind are max and demand is min. And in spite of all those huge cost overruns, Wind & Solar are more expensive than any other power source, including Nuclear, in just capital cost, and O&M cost similar to Nuclear & more than Hydro. And a much shorter lifetime than Nuclear or Hydro.