The problem is the Woke DEI philosophy applied to energy. Some forms of energy are oppressors of the environment and they must be eliminated and replaced non-oppressors. Facts need not play a part in this transition -- only virtue signaling is permitted.
This was fabulous and I can't stop thinking about it. I spent my career in the electric utility industry and have only the most basic understanding of line pack for natural gas. I wish NARUC would ask you to come speak to them - every public utility commissioner in attendance needs to hear this.
Likely because it is not cost-effective, particularly as the number of installations in a particular area increases. Geothermal energy in general is a function of heat flow from the center of the Earth. It is typically a diffuse resource. This phenomenon is clearly shown by the year over year decrease in generation from The Geysers Geothermal Field in California. See Table 1 from The Geysers Geothermal Field Update 1990-2010 at https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1048267. The startup total was 1,590 MW. By 2010, the total had dropped to about half at 844 MW. A number of wells had been abandoned.
Berkshire Hathaway is proposing to increase California geothermal production by increasing water injection into the fields they own near the Salton Sea. This location is at the southern end of the San Andreas Fault. Recall that Oklahoma earthquakes increased when fracking which injected water into deep strata was introduced in the state. The rupture of the southern section of the San Andreas Fault is overdue. The last time it ruptured was circa 1600 A.D. Thus, increasing Salton Sea geothermal production will likely increase the risk of "The Big One" in southern California. The populous Los Angeles basin is particularly vulnerable. See https://www.shakeout.org/california/scenario/ for details, including ground motion animations.
You clearly did not read what I wrote. The Salton Sea project is not closed loop geothermal - which has the potential to provide all of humanity's energy needs 100 times over for the next 5 billion years. Closed loop geothermal poses zero risk of "the big one."
The very first closed loop geothermal commercial plant is being built now by Eavor (dotcom) and will complete midyear next year in Germany. True, the first ones will not be cheaper than natural gas - but the IEAA and several other energy agencies around the world project that it has the potential to do so with a bit more experience with the technologies - the ONLY form of clean energy technology currently possible showing such promise. Nuclear MIGHT manage it, but none of even the newest designs possess that potential (to compete on cost).
As a former science and engineering professor, I would appreciate a reference for your claim.....The Salton Sea project is not closed loop geothermal - which has the potential to provide all of humanity's energy needs 100 times over for the next 5 billion years. Closed loop geothermal poses zero risk of "the big one..... I'm skeptical of several of the claims. Iceland has abundant geothermal resources and obtains most of its energy from hydroelectricity. Hawaii has significant geothermal capability and mostly uses imported fossil fuel for electricity generation.
"I would appreciate a reference for your claim.....The Salton Sea project is not closed loop geothermal..."
Simple. The Salton Sea project is not closed loop geothermal because there are are no commercial closed loop geothermal plants in existence - yet. Eavor has a pilot plant in Canada.
I'm not going to research the heat of the earth for you. As a former science and engineering professor, your training should have taught you to look up publicly available information. I suggest you start by calculating how much heat the earth has, and how much it would take to power humanity. Then factor in that the orbital stress of our moon mechanically renews some if that internal heat. You get the idea. Others have done these calculations, use Google.
I lived in Iceland for a year, and used to frequent the Blue Lagoon before they put a fence around it and called it a health spa. Can you guess why the water is blue, or why they dump it into a pond? Hint: It's not because it is a closed loop system.
Your claim that "The Salton Sea project is not closed loop geothermal - which has the potential to provide all of humanity's energy needs 100 times over for the next 5 billion years." is not supported by facts. The amount of the Earth's heat available from the Salton Sea project is an insignificant fraction of the large amount you claim. BTW, about half the heat energy inside the Earth is from the decay heat of long-lived radio-isotopes including potassium, uranium, and thorium. Your claim that "orbital stress of our moon mechanically renews some if (sic) that internal heat" is also a questionable claim.
Try reading again. I said the Salton Sea project is not closed loop geothermal because there are are no commercial closed loop geothermal plants in existence - yet.
The Earth's heat is more than enough to power humanity for the next 4+ billion years - until our sun goes red nova burning us all to a crisp.
My understanding is geothermal, closed loop, is an add-on energy/heat generation technology but nothing that could be scaled to the required levels. Not to mention that for the times of year where the temps fluctuate around 50 degrees F energy/heat production is basically nil because the heat exchange tech is based on the differential between the ambient temp and the below ground temp which stays around 50 year round. This means for the Spring and Autumn months in much of the world geo does not produce significant quantities of heat/energy. Can you explain where I'm wrong on this?
I recommend you upgrade your understanding. That is not a criticism - the technologies enabling us to even try this with any hope of making it economical have just emerged in the past decade or so, and really are still somewhat immature. Ironically, they all emerged from the oil industry. Even if you've been a lifelong follower of geothermal in general, it would have been REALLY easy to miss Eavor - they only emerged from "stealth mode" last fall, and there hasn't been a SINGLE article about them that I've been able to find in any of the major news outlets until the past few weeks - and a couple of those were completely riddled with incorrect information (like conflating it with open loop) and down playing the work. But, SOMEONE knows about them - they have over 3 billion Euros and hundreds of millions of dollars in commitments for around 30 plants now. There are some nice videos and articles linked from Eavor's site, I suggest you start there.
In answer to your question, it all depends on how deep they go. All the heat we could possibly need is in the earth. If you drill deep enough, temperature fluctuations are not a consideration. In a closed loop system, the vertical portion of the drilling is only a fraction of the total drilling - the only real limitation is that too deep = too hot for the drilling equipment (really not "drills," but microwave emitters which vaporize rock like something out of Star Trek). Other than that, drilling down another km or two gives you the extra 50F you are speaking of - and "too hot" is not really a problem from a generation standpoint. It IS possible to deplete the heat in a "radiator" segment temporarily - which is why for each vertical drop they plan to build 4 collection fields at 90 degrees to each other (i.e. N, S, E, W) so that they can "rotate" between the fields, allowing the most recently used to recuperate their heat through ground conduction.
I'm not going to respond to you again on this topic until you show you have some basic understanding of the technology. You clearly haven't bothered to read the info. For one example, Eavor does not use pipes below a few kilometers of the upper vertical bores. They vaporize the rock bore and then inject a sealant, isolating the working fluid from external corrosive substances such as acids. So, the "pipe" won't corrode even if it WERE acidic - which it won't be. If you had even a layman's knowledge of chemistry, you would understand that in a closed loop system you can counter things like acid with "antacids" which neutralize the acid, or other processes to either neutralize or remove contaminants just like we filter pools. Such contaminants are only an issue in an open loop system where you cannot act to remove the contaminants and keep them under control. So many more mistakes in your post, including the Geretsried plant - which is focused mostly on heat for homes and businesses. The electrical output is low because it is simply a bonus for that installation, which is intentional as they are making their first plant a "shallow" dig specifically to work on "ironing out the bugs." However, if you sized the plant correctly you would have included the energy value of the homes and businesses being heated - which puts it much closer to a 100MW output plant. That's a baby plant, their first child.
I will however respond to your comments on nuclear. What studies do you have suggesting the world governments are about to suddenly change 80 years of political opposition to nuclear power, and what proven nuclear design has proven an ability to deliver energy for less than 3-5 times the cost of natural gas? I love the idea of nuclear, but until I see some REAL evidence that both of those two factors have changed, it will remain just like "clean, cheap, reliable fusion power: Only 30 years away!!!" - just as it was in 1950.
Usually, the utility company or their designees inspect the building's gas piping for damage and leaks. See this 2019 Boston Globe article for some details following the Newport, Rhode Island gas outage. Newport has only a single pipeline supplying natural gas. "Newport, R.I., suffers through days-long natural gas outage" By Michael Levenson and Matt Rocheleau, January 25, 2019, The Boston Globe
Below-freezing temperatures damage residential and commercial buildings. I recall a poorly-designed just-opened all-electric residence hall in 1975 at the University of Buffalo in Amherst, NY that had rooms that froze during low temperatures. There were icicles all over everything! (I was a resident advisor in this complex.)
I wonder what % of the population understands the ramifications of a wide area gas outage. They probably assume a 1/2 day, similar to most electric grid outages. If many did fully understand they would be marching on the DOE, State capitols and the billionaire funded NGOs demanding the leaders’ heads on stakes.
Perhaps with another Texas event we can finally begin a conversation on the fast tracking of nuclear generation instead of the constant half truths being thrown around in favor of wind and solar.
The problems of having waited too long before starting to tax CO2 emissions. If we had passed the (imperfect but improvable) fossil fuel BTU tax in the '70s, we would be farther along with the transition to solar-wind-geothermal-nuclear power.
And while having some coal fired power available as a backup may be a good idea, the point of the report seems like the importance of having more spare capacity in the gas transmission system.
Getting rid of fossil fuels would be a catastrophically bad idea. Reduced reliance is inevitable however. Wind and solar are irregular and suffer from all manner of problems in adverse weather conditions (ie they don't produce anything) AND are dirty to produce and install AND have no good end of life disposal. Geothermal, while useful individually in homes is very expensive...I love it though! Go small scale nukes.
I'm sure that our "leaders" don't even realize the full impact. And if they do, it's criminal. Here, too, I miss the times when we had people in power who had the necessary foresight to tackle social issues. Too much noise, waffle and too little signal. If the only strategy is hope, you've already lost.
Perhaps a journalist or sub-stack writer could find out where Mr. Bloomberg gets his power (electric, heat and influence) from and publish the facts. It seems to not make sense but Faith is a mystical, even for lemmings.
The problem is the Woke DEI philosophy applied to energy. Some forms of energy are oppressors of the environment and they must be eliminated and replaced non-oppressors. Facts need not play a part in this transition -- only virtue signaling is permitted.
Re below question, I tried and failed to find Con Ed document G-4530, “Limiting Gas
Use and Load Shedding During a Supply Curtailment or
Emergency”; I was wondering if you might have found it?
Thanks!
Amazing indeed. Question: Report states (P87) "Con Edison had 11 steps to mitigate a supply
shortage or to limit gas during an emergency, which
progresses from taking steps to increase the supply of
natural gas to firm customer load shedding. Con Edison
implemented actions through at least step 7, public
appeals to reduce demand, before the Gas System
Emergency abated"
Do you know what are these11 steps?
Crikey!!!
Willful ignorance looks like this.
Everyone is happy to eat the sausage and not give a F about how it's made, until there is no sausage.
The Greens are sounding off on nukes What Drives This Madness On Small Modular Nuclear Reactors? https://cleantechnica.com/2023/11/30/what-drives-this-madness-on-small-modular-nuclear-reactors/
This was fabulous and I can't stop thinking about it. I spent my career in the electric utility industry and have only the most basic understanding of line pack for natural gas. I wish NARUC would ask you to come speak to them - every public utility commissioner in attendance needs to hear this.
Excellent idea. The next Winter Policy Summit of the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC) https://naruc.org/meetings-and-events/naruc-winter-policy-summits/2023-winter-policy-summit/ is on February 12-15, 2023 in Washington, DC. The contact for Sponsorship and the Agenda is Director of Meetings Michelle A. Malloy at (202) 898-2214 email: mamalloy@naruc.org
Is there no more common sense in our world? If the current grid failed they would want heat and lights from whatever source they could get it from!!
From a frustrated citizen in our society!!!
Don’t complain with your mouth full!!
Dear Robert,
Please write an article about closed loop geothermal, asking why NONE of the "green supporters" are talking about it?
Likely because it is not cost-effective, particularly as the number of installations in a particular area increases. Geothermal energy in general is a function of heat flow from the center of the Earth. It is typically a diffuse resource. This phenomenon is clearly shown by the year over year decrease in generation from The Geysers Geothermal Field in California. See Table 1 from The Geysers Geothermal Field Update 1990-2010 at https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1048267. The startup total was 1,590 MW. By 2010, the total had dropped to about half at 844 MW. A number of wells had been abandoned.
Berkshire Hathaway is proposing to increase California geothermal production by increasing water injection into the fields they own near the Salton Sea. This location is at the southern end of the San Andreas Fault. Recall that Oklahoma earthquakes increased when fracking which injected water into deep strata was introduced in the state. The rupture of the southern section of the San Andreas Fault is overdue. The last time it ruptured was circa 1600 A.D. Thus, increasing Salton Sea geothermal production will likely increase the risk of "The Big One" in southern California. The populous Los Angeles basin is particularly vulnerable. See https://www.shakeout.org/california/scenario/ for details, including ground motion animations.
You clearly did not read what I wrote. The Salton Sea project is not closed loop geothermal - which has the potential to provide all of humanity's energy needs 100 times over for the next 5 billion years. Closed loop geothermal poses zero risk of "the big one."
The very first closed loop geothermal commercial plant is being built now by Eavor (dotcom) and will complete midyear next year in Germany. True, the first ones will not be cheaper than natural gas - but the IEAA and several other energy agencies around the world project that it has the potential to do so with a bit more experience with the technologies - the ONLY form of clean energy technology currently possible showing such promise. Nuclear MIGHT manage it, but none of even the newest designs possess that potential (to compete on cost).
As a former science and engineering professor, I would appreciate a reference for your claim.....The Salton Sea project is not closed loop geothermal - which has the potential to provide all of humanity's energy needs 100 times over for the next 5 billion years. Closed loop geothermal poses zero risk of "the big one..... I'm skeptical of several of the claims. Iceland has abundant geothermal resources and obtains most of its energy from hydroelectricity. Hawaii has significant geothermal capability and mostly uses imported fossil fuel for electricity generation.
"I would appreciate a reference for your claim.....The Salton Sea project is not closed loop geothermal..."
Simple. The Salton Sea project is not closed loop geothermal because there are are no commercial closed loop geothermal plants in existence - yet. Eavor has a pilot plant in Canada.
I'm not going to research the heat of the earth for you. As a former science and engineering professor, your training should have taught you to look up publicly available information. I suggest you start by calculating how much heat the earth has, and how much it would take to power humanity. Then factor in that the orbital stress of our moon mechanically renews some if that internal heat. You get the idea. Others have done these calculations, use Google.
I lived in Iceland for a year, and used to frequent the Blue Lagoon before they put a fence around it and called it a health spa. Can you guess why the water is blue, or why they dump it into a pond? Hint: It's not because it is a closed loop system.
Your claim that "The Salton Sea project is not closed loop geothermal - which has the potential to provide all of humanity's energy needs 100 times over for the next 5 billion years." is not supported by facts. The amount of the Earth's heat available from the Salton Sea project is an insignificant fraction of the large amount you claim. BTW, about half the heat energy inside the Earth is from the decay heat of long-lived radio-isotopes including potassium, uranium, and thorium. Your claim that "orbital stress of our moon mechanically renews some if (sic) that internal heat" is also a questionable claim.
Try reading again. I said the Salton Sea project is not closed loop geothermal because there are are no commercial closed loop geothermal plants in existence - yet.
The Earth's heat is more than enough to power humanity for the next 4+ billion years - until our sun goes red nova burning us all to a crisp.
My understanding is geothermal, closed loop, is an add-on energy/heat generation technology but nothing that could be scaled to the required levels. Not to mention that for the times of year where the temps fluctuate around 50 degrees F energy/heat production is basically nil because the heat exchange tech is based on the differential between the ambient temp and the below ground temp which stays around 50 year round. This means for the Spring and Autumn months in much of the world geo does not produce significant quantities of heat/energy. Can you explain where I'm wrong on this?
I recommend you upgrade your understanding. That is not a criticism - the technologies enabling us to even try this with any hope of making it economical have just emerged in the past decade or so, and really are still somewhat immature. Ironically, they all emerged from the oil industry. Even if you've been a lifelong follower of geothermal in general, it would have been REALLY easy to miss Eavor - they only emerged from "stealth mode" last fall, and there hasn't been a SINGLE article about them that I've been able to find in any of the major news outlets until the past few weeks - and a couple of those were completely riddled with incorrect information (like conflating it with open loop) and down playing the work. But, SOMEONE knows about them - they have over 3 billion Euros and hundreds of millions of dollars in commitments for around 30 plants now. There are some nice videos and articles linked from Eavor's site, I suggest you start there.
In answer to your question, it all depends on how deep they go. All the heat we could possibly need is in the earth. If you drill deep enough, temperature fluctuations are not a consideration. In a closed loop system, the vertical portion of the drilling is only a fraction of the total drilling - the only real limitation is that too deep = too hot for the drilling equipment (really not "drills," but microwave emitters which vaporize rock like something out of Star Trek). Other than that, drilling down another km or two gives you the extra 50F you are speaking of - and "too hot" is not really a problem from a generation standpoint. It IS possible to deplete the heat in a "radiator" segment temporarily - which is why for each vertical drop they plan to build 4 collection fields at 90 degrees to each other (i.e. N, S, E, W) so that they can "rotate" between the fields, allowing the most recently used to recuperate their heat through ground conduction.
Jonathan: As you note in your post in response to https://www.carbonbrief.org/qa-how-china-is-using-nuclear-power-to-reduce-its-carbon-emissions/ Eavor will likely be bringing its first plant online in a year. Thus, there will be problems with being "first of a kind." There always are problems. The big problem is see is the subsurface environment tends to be corrosive with materials like sulfuric acid being challenges. Thus, all piping and heat exchangers must be high-quality materials for long operational lifetimes. You allude to the diffuse nature of the energy supply with your mention of the north - east - south- west collection fields. As my above geothermal production data regarding the Geysers shows, even in environments with higher thermal conductivity to the Earth's mantle, the steady-state available energy is modest. According to this article about the Geretsried plant https://www.merkur.de/lokales/wolfratshausen/geretsried-ort46843/geothermie-in-geretsried-2024-zum-ersten-mal-strom-moeglich-91680655.html, the power output will be 8.4 MW. I strongly recommend sticking with nuclear power instead. Emission-free Diablo Canyon Power Plant reliably produces 2,256 MW for about 4 cents / kWh https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/business/story/2023-11-29/keeping-diablo-canyon-open-will-be-add-to-customer-utility-rates-across-california-including-sdg-e In the U.S., the capacity factor for nuclear plants is in excess of 90%. The U.S. has the benefit of over six decades of operational experience.
I'm not going to respond to you again on this topic until you show you have some basic understanding of the technology. You clearly haven't bothered to read the info. For one example, Eavor does not use pipes below a few kilometers of the upper vertical bores. They vaporize the rock bore and then inject a sealant, isolating the working fluid from external corrosive substances such as acids. So, the "pipe" won't corrode even if it WERE acidic - which it won't be. If you had even a layman's knowledge of chemistry, you would understand that in a closed loop system you can counter things like acid with "antacids" which neutralize the acid, or other processes to either neutralize or remove contaminants just like we filter pools. Such contaminants are only an issue in an open loop system where you cannot act to remove the contaminants and keep them under control. So many more mistakes in your post, including the Geretsried plant - which is focused mostly on heat for homes and businesses. The electrical output is low because it is simply a bonus for that installation, which is intentional as they are making their first plant a "shallow" dig specifically to work on "ironing out the bugs." However, if you sized the plant correctly you would have included the energy value of the homes and businesses being heated - which puts it much closer to a 100MW output plant. That's a baby plant, their first child.
I will however respond to your comments on nuclear. What studies do you have suggesting the world governments are about to suddenly change 80 years of political opposition to nuclear power, and what proven nuclear design has proven an ability to deliver energy for less than 3-5 times the cost of natural gas? I love the idea of nuclear, but until I see some REAL evidence that both of those two factors have changed, it will remain just like "clean, cheap, reliable fusion power: Only 30 years away!!!" - just as it was in 1950.
They trust you with mirrors now, eh?
Why does the utility company need to relight an individuals pilot light? Is it that difficult for a person to do it themselves?
Usually, the utility company or their designees inspect the building's gas piping for damage and leaks. See this 2019 Boston Globe article for some details following the Newport, Rhode Island gas outage. Newport has only a single pipeline supplying natural gas. "Newport, R.I., suffers through days-long natural gas outage" By Michael Levenson and Matt Rocheleau, January 25, 2019, The Boston Globe
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2019/01/25/rhode-island-community-suffers-through-days-long-natural-gas-outage/LsRGhqefBH4vNlwQOUrWmJ/story.html
Below-freezing temperatures damage residential and commercial buildings. I recall a poorly-designed just-opened all-electric residence hall in 1975 at the University of Buffalo in Amherst, NY that had rooms that froze during low temperatures. There were icicles all over everything! (I was a resident advisor in this complex.)
For Demunists, certainly.
I wonder what % of the population understands the ramifications of a wide area gas outage. They probably assume a 1/2 day, similar to most electric grid outages. If many did fully understand they would be marching on the DOE, State capitols and the billionaire funded NGOs demanding the leaders’ heads on stakes.
Perhaps with another Texas event we can finally begin a conversation on the fast tracking of nuclear generation instead of the constant half truths being thrown around in favor of wind and solar.
Nice Work!! If policy makers and infrastructure owner operators don’t sort out this mess, a rolling disaster is just a matter of time. 🙈
The problems of having waited too long before starting to tax CO2 emissions. If we had passed the (imperfect but improvable) fossil fuel BTU tax in the '70s, we would be farther along with the transition to solar-wind-geothermal-nuclear power.
And while having some coal fired power available as a backup may be a good idea, the point of the report seems like the importance of having more spare capacity in the gas transmission system.
Getting rid of fossil fuels would be a catastrophically bad idea. Reduced reliance is inevitable however. Wind and solar are irregular and suffer from all manner of problems in adverse weather conditions (ie they don't produce anything) AND are dirty to produce and install AND have no good end of life disposal. Geothermal, while useful individually in homes is very expensive...I love it though! Go small scale nukes.
I'm sure that our "leaders" don't even realize the full impact. And if they do, it's criminal. Here, too, I miss the times when we had people in power who had the necessary foresight to tackle social issues. Too much noise, waffle and too little signal. If the only strategy is hope, you've already lost.
Perhaps a journalist or sub-stack writer could find out where Mr. Bloomberg gets his power (electric, heat and influence) from and publish the facts. It seems to not make sense but Faith is a mystical, even for lemmings.
I'm sure he's covered whatever happens, the old monster.
Mr. Bloomberg is secretive regarding his investments. However, in the past he has made investments in natural gas.