Geothermal Costs Coming Down, Along with All Others Flavors of Renewable Energy
Gary Tulie, who made huge contributions to Bullish on Renewable Energy, points out, “One of the technologies discussed was Spallation Drilling (pictured) – a technique for speeding up drilling through hard rock for use in geothermal projects. The use of hypersonic projectiles is an alternative possibility. If the people from Hypersciences really can drill 10 times faster than conventional drilling, and can deep drill without the cost rising exponentially, their technique could be a game changer.”
It certainly would be great if we could expand the use of geothermal by lowering the costs of drilling. Like OTEC (discussed the other day), geothermal is baseload power, which counts for something—even in the presence of economical energy storage.
It’s funny how no one in the geothermal industry sugar-coats the challenge here. The Ormat people, whom I interviewed for Renewable Energy – Facts and Fantasies, were practically bragging about how they were drilling through the very hardest parts of the Earth’s crust, as opposed to the oil and gas people who have it much easier.
Sometimes just changing the way we consider a problem allows for different solutions. Would it sometimes be more useful for energy systems to think and work in terms of all energy as a supply based equation something like:
energy production + storage (energy potential) – pollution _ (time?)
rather than the more typical base load or load following formula which is demand based and ignores pollution to be an externality. The first conclusion might be that pollution needs to be restated in terms of energy. (The energy required to reduce the compounds to harmless in the environment? The energy required to re establish carbon sequestration?) There also seems to be some need of a time component if we are going to consider the time required to reduce pollution and storage time. Perhaps you can see I am thinking of something a bit beyond the LCOE, and more like a total system utility to society (which makes a poor acronym.)
Fossil fuels come with built in energy storage which “has to count for something” but leave behind their chemical by-products when energy is extracted.
Solar Thermal can easily add energy storage at an additional cost. There are multiple categories and technologies for grid level energy storage.
Geothermal seems based upon tapping natural nuclear thermal energy in-bedded in sensible heat storage in rock.
Breath you make a nice thought provoking point to a degree.
Yes energy should be re thought – but the reality is the Carbon folks own the game. They own the politicians and there fore NO Including the Externalities into the real cost of a BTU is going to be included any time soon to change the equation dynamics.
You may want to rethink or restate your words on demand not mattering , as without demand then no load or need to produce ?? Demand is the Root Essence of everything. Supply needs to be shaped to optimize serving Demand, that was not done in the past due to cheap fuel etc.
I pray and hope and wish I am Wrong. Because we need to change but the Wrong people carbon heads and hyper capitalists , they own the House and the public is too fickled to vote consistently for real Progressive policies. Continuity in energy evolution and development requires consistency in Policy and that is sorely lacking in the broken american system – we finally get a Clean Power Plan after 25 years or haggling and trumpet and the gomers want to kill it. There it is.
Necessary Reality:
Non polluting base load ( not as much as we once needed ) but a critical piece of the Energy Stack Mix. Anyone with any real deep level understanding of the operations and needs of a functioning electric grid understands these realities.
More Geo Thermal like from the Salton Sea area in California would be a major needed asset that would give California a realistic chance of going 100 % renewable. This would allow them to reach that goal with out any nuclear power for the dead of night. Reality. I have copies of the studies done 5 or more years ago.
Go Check out the CASIO Cal Grid Duck Curves and one can conclude that the Need for massive batteries to off set the steep ramps of the gas turbines or other generation is going to COST serious Redundancy costs and drive up everyone s utility costs more.
Yes Breath batteries are making huge cost reductions in cost etc. So they should be part of mix. use excess solar generation to charge them but the Duck curves keep getting steeper as each year or more solar is deployed.
Geo thermal can prevent the need for massive levels of costly redundant power sources. Many RE enthusiasts over look this technical and economic reality.
The German politicos are doing this now with their flawed lets all go drive a EV when the base load is aging nukes or dirty coal . Studies show they will raise their CO @ emissions by switching to EV s from gasoline engines. Charging EV s w dirty coal power is not a winning Environmental Strategy !!
Inconvenient Truths but many liberals are fuzzy wuzzy on power economics and that is why so many of their programs FAIL!
In Germany’s case I reluctantly support continued use of base load nukes and adoption of SMR nukes there so they can go carbon free with their Wind, solar, CHP, Efficiency and the SMRs for the nite time.
Load following or tracking is not a FAD – it is a reality. A technical reality.
Breath I concur with you that Yes large solar thermal w storage in Molten Salts is a great long term answer as they can load follow . Baseload power reduces Duck curve in late afternoon.
But economic reality is that these plants need $ 4.50 to $ 5.500 per MCF something in that range to compete from the perspective of the Banksters! No finance No plants !!!
That is why most Solar Thermal CPS are being built in areas where access to cheap natural gas is not a option. Morocco , S Africa and Peru , to name a few.
Location matters more than one might think. Location or wrong location has retarded geo-thermal development in the US – its not close to the load centers or transmission lines. Wind had and still has some of that constraint as well, but the Wisdom of the PTC tax credit helped to create the market momentum to get the transmission piece built. etc.
Maybe ORMAT and others should have gotten a PTC credit all these years ??
Maybe enhanced drilling techniques will help geo thermal over come cost issues. The Salton sea does not have this problem it just needs a coordinated build out schedule from the various stake holders so that True Economies of Scale could be brought to bear and both AZ and Cal and Nevada would all benefit. Re growth could continue and that would be great and the Liberals would have their Dream realized and the CONS and deplorables would be saved from their short sighted ignorance.
I support that Dream but it must be done from a technical viable perspective and not a fuzzy wuzzy caffe latte view.
Breath it is True that Solar Reserve the developer of the first CPS plants in US has recently announced that they are going to build a 1,500 megawatt plant in Nevada. Makes me pleased and smile. This is huge as Gas is still cheap!
So Maybe they have made a cost reduction break through and the economic break point has changed for the better??? I dont have any more information.
If this is true then Gov Jerry Brown’s current scheme to merge 6 states into a CASIO driven Grid may not need to be done. The price of the scheme or Un intended consequence will be to allow both UTAH and WY dirty coal plants to have a longer than needed or desired lease on life.
So bring on the Geo thermal as Base load is needed from a practical system generation and operational realistic position. No amount of Philosophical machinations can change Physics.
Then there is the barriers of the speculative commercial and industrial ( whats left of that ???) real estate market where low first costs reign. How many batteries can their low margin businesses afford is the question to ask???
Germany is learning these hard lessons but their political leaders are too political correct or fuzzy wuzzy to make good rational decisions.
The people in Cal are going to be paying over $ 10 Billion more in redundancy costs for the GRID unless the transition to RE is done more effectively ! it can be done but it needs modifications.
If the purveyors of SMR can deliver they will fill the load following gap and the night time load backup gap. Then the march to all RE is really opened up and the death to carbon fuels is determined and hastened.
Utility Grids like Germany are becoming unstable and Cal will also be difficult to manage if real effective load backup is not made available. I hate to see that remain coal or even lots of gas as it is only around 40 % cleaner than coal. Germany buys their gas from Russia too !!! Gas is Not 50 % cleaner like gas Industry hypes it ! The related environmental damages from excessive fracking is going to raise its ugly and destructive consequences in the mid term. Those Black Swans are still busy Breeding their consequences.
As a society we can’t continue to pursue Fools Errands policies ! we got trumpet to deal with now !!
In contrast, Fuzzy Wuzzy mealy mouse liberal excess will not cut it. never has. It is no time to WISH Upon A Star when it comes to Utility Generation and Operational System of Systems Planning.
Until the right wing and hyper capitalistic control of our political system is over turned and under progressive control , the dirty externalities will remain externalities sad and seriously wrong but REALITY! This real Constraint is not going to pass away any time soon , I say with deep sad resignation.
I am a progressive and support the Liberal side until they cross the line into wishy washy land’ ! Then its back to Mt Olympus or some sort of similar place to rest and SIGH!
BTW Tesla is in deep financial RED Line straits! Needs more cash to burn! go read Bloomberg !
Peace
Silent, my previous comment was a bit of an experiment. I was curious to see if it might be possible to diverge from attacking each other’s perspectives here, to taking an idea and expand on it through multiple contribution.
What I posed was a question but you seemed to have set it up as a position. Regardless, I will continue to mull over the implications to see where it leads, in fairness, this is not the sort of thinking many are practiced in pursuing.
Load following is done. There is no argument. In a similar way, I can look at my expenses and determine how much I need to earn. (Or more typically what I can afford) But there is another approach to simply earn as much as practical and then see what can be afforded hopefully beyond the necessities. Practically speaking both of these things lead have a similar goal of balancing.
Another example. I could figure out how strong I need to be in my daily activities. Then I could go to a gym and prepare to maintain that strength level. IE load following. But we don’t do that. We take an entirely different approach and this necessarily has different implications. As I previously mentioned this is not the sort of thinking most will commonly pursue and the expression here is a bit of an experiment that seems topical.
Much of what you have mentioned follows classic arguments with many sources. One however I have not been able to justify, that coal burning power plants supplying electricity to an EV will produce more pollution, and I have crunched the numbers multiple times. Most of the studies are not completely clear on their methods and assumptions. The difference seems to hinge on 3 factors: 1. whether they consider the electrical cost of refining gasoline, 2. the high pollution cost of having high energy mix levels of base load coal which can’t be turned off or turned down to match demand (to follow the load) and 3. the market penetration levels of the EV relative to the off peak load of the base load power plants. Additional factors often assumed is a limited look into the fuel supply chain and other forms of pollution like oil spills in land and sea. This kind of discussion quickly gets into lots of numbers and I am intentionally keeping it limited to this simply summary.
It could be that with a more extensive supply side understanding of electrical systems we might raise the value of OTEC and enhanced geothermal relative to solar and wind which additionally need some level of storage that would balance grid demand variability (the bathtub) and intermittency (15%?) The value of coal would rise due to inherent chemical energy storage but decrease due to pollution. We do this with a lot of words, in any event but to my knowledge there is no metric (term)that would include these elements and so tend to force this type of discussion.
Searching to define such a term would require some numbers to make it exact but it is essentially a linguistic enhancement to the language and if it is in the language it is on the way to being inculcated into the thought and energy considerations.
Dear Breath – forgive me if my detailed over view of generation and environment and the tragic reality that Externalities remain external was not adequately explained.
You are consistent in your positions so what I was saying was not directed to you. Speaking to the bigger picture and there is a dearth of real understanding to the complexity of our Grid. and various supply sources as well as demmand for power.
Demand needs to be reduced as job one.
Was not taking a position against you at all. Trying to fill in the large gap that exists in this area.
As for gasoline costs and the trade off between gas refinery pollution versus coal pollution – just reviewed a German study and using 75 % more Efficiency is the driver in the calculations for EV versus IC engines.
Germans have figured out – well real engineers not clouded with green wave thinking , emotional blinders ( maybe I am sounding like Marco Polo and that cases the confusion – he does make some real pts here and there God bless our Mate)
They have done the calculations and EV with coal is not good.
the numbers would apply every where else comparing to coal as night time energy source.
Now if people had more money and could buy more batteries for home. then charge the EV in the morning off of solar or wind. Then charge your battery also during the day and then draw from it at night.
That gets real expensive and lots lots of batteries probably a fools errand.
In California policy may direct consumers to charge EV s in morning and mid day as solar over generation must go some where ?? besides trying to make dastard deals with WY and Utah for some late afternoon wind to meet the rising duck curve.
I can visualize scenarios where the night from 7 pm thru Midnite or late could become the peak times and early morning and mid day becomes charging times for EVs and batteries from soalr over geenration.
As of right now there are days whhen CASO th eCAL Grid operator has 5,000 megs of excess power. oregon wnats it but it gets real complicated .
I regret that Craig does not create discussions on these Integrated Grids and the trade offs and road blocks etc. its fascinating to examine and discover it makes one realize how complex our Grids are and many many solar enthusiasts that I work with God bless for Being Green but they are real Green when it comes to Reality and are Clueless as to how most of this comes together like a large Mosaic Puzzle.
We need Geo thermal and solar W Storage Thermal that is a good path.
For more on Germany there were some good articles in VOX and Energy & Environmental recently on the challenges Germany faces. they are curtailing wind expansion due to GRId instability.
I share this type of information with the local soalr activist group that fights the utility over net metering issues etc. Mo0st of it goes over their collective minds number 1.
Worse they seem uninterested in learning and as a result they do not know how to position solar energy as a integrated part of the Grid mix. if they ever figure that out they will be light Years ahead.
So Breath go check out those articles and studies on Germany they transfer with the caveat we have Cheap gas.
And if you want to get into paralysis analysis then factor in the carbon cost of the gas pipeline that Germany is having built that goes under the Baltic sea to bring gas from trumpers cronies the Russians.
its simple we must find ways off coal -retire it as fast as we can even the super critical coal plants while they reduce air pollution they are not cost effective and create other carbon waste streams or more carbon from oil etc. They have very low EROEI too.
Flex Generation new GAS CC are reaching 62 % in the field thermal efficiency now with C cycle. GE and siemens and Mitsubishi all think they can level out at 66 % blowing coal any kind of coal away . Nuke as well.
But by reducing excess demand many of these plants can be downsized and usage reduces which is a good thing.
The nuclear Genie followers need to be aware that SMR s must get their over night KW cost down to a level where they can compete with Batteries at least. Solar, Wind, Gas Blow away SMR’s in capital costs. Gas will lose its price position sometime in 2030’s Best estimate.
Large scale nukes well FRP Light just got denied two new nukes 2,200 new megawatts as the estimated capital costs was close to $ 18 Billion – So the PUC denied them said it was UN Economic so there you go.
Globally it is a soft market but there are some new builds around 40 or 50 max. No gas areas etc.
Breath I would like to see your take on those German studies – coal is not a good way to charge EV s.
Take Care where ever you may be.
Silent, I have looked into studies done all over the world. I am not convinced that the conclusion that EV is more polluting is accurate or includes all the relevant considerations and assumptions. I don’t think I have taken a look at any recent German study. You seem to have some familiarity is there one in English that you would reference?
It’s really a function of one variable: what happens when a predictable, incremental load hits the grid at the time of day when the EV is being charged. As long as the answer is coal, EVs actually pollute more than ICEs. At night in the U.S., that’s often the case, but fortunately, it’s becoming less prevalent all the time. EVs are often charged with solar that was put in place purely and only for that purpose, which (obviously) makes them extremely clean.
Craig, I would have to agree that the status of the existing grid is not the only consideration when advocating EV implementation. The way an EV can leverage grid improvements is to my mind more significant as it looks to a brighter future.
But as an academic exercise, I have not found any study that seems to fully justify concerns of a higher pollution level for the EV. I suppose I could simply repeat the findings without looking at the details but somehow it does not satisfy.
This seems like a strangely convoluted wording:
“It’s really a function of one variable: what happens when a predictable, incremental load hits the grid at the time of day when the EV is being charged. As long as the answer is coal,…”
As I understand it you are concerned with what will be the energy source for the additional electrical load demanded by an EV charging. To say it will be coal and that is the only variable completely bypasses any comparison and analysis of coal fired electrical generation vis a vis the petrol energy supply chain and use in an ICE and assumes it will be more polluting.
It is precisely that assumption I find troubling. But as already stated it is in the scheme of things less and less a factor.
Back at it Craig and Breath ,
Craig you are on it for one scenario.
The guiding principle of what I have read over adn heard at conferences and sorta knew for years.
If you are burning coal at night to charge EV s that makes them the EV mo9re polluting than IC engines w gasoline ( given modern engines etc.)
The German report I read just early last week used a EV efficiency factor of 75 % versus 25 % for IC engine.
Then siemens was referenced with their new well 3 year old Integrated Flex Gen GAS C Cyckle that is reaching 62 % thermal efficiency in the field and may top off at 65 or 66 % with some Tweaking.
Since I know that Russia and Germany are collaborating on some nat gas pipeline that goes under the Baltic and avoids Ukraine – interesting bypass of political or territorial issues with Ukraine perhaps) so they seem to have gas in their future for nite baseload.
I will look in my EV folder and see if I did copy the short report Breath and get you some reference. I will get on it.
Craig as solar reaches greater saturation and out of the consequence of the rising Duck curves in Cal we will see the TOU pricing tiers shifted around in Cal. From 4 pm to 10 or 11 pm is becoming the peak not met by solar until CPS solar thermal can compete. So the utilities are going to be trying to encourage charging from the solar or the GRid.
Some of the new residential TOU rates and Commercial are now charging more for power in the 5 pm to 10 pm or so period. Night time power could become the peak pricing how things have Evolved since I cut my teeth in this field too many Moons ago. LOL !!!
The beginning of the so called Transactive energy Grid market with other interfaces like batteries and of course wind. California is getting real clean with GAs their prime fossil fuel.
@ A interesting side development is Gas merchant plants owned by Dynegy and Cal Pine are closing after only 14 years or so due to the declining wholesale price of electricity due to the explosive growth of Solar utility m Community solar and Solar Dg .
Their Big Cousin NRG is also losing money and also in Texas they are losing . Their CEO says the merchant power plant market is a broken money losing business model. They have similar issues that parallel retail stores that make most of their money from Nov 1st thru Christmas. In wholesale Power generation the same hard fact is setting in, they make money in 1225 to 175 hours of peak summer demand. That is the limited time they are fully loaded and make real money.
The rest of the year it is up and down like a yo you and that hurts operations and Revenues. So utility scale solar that tracks can catch those late afternoon Sun Rays and clip that duck curve down so it helps the Grid.
Solar and wind are pushing carbon hard now and that is a big reason for the political Pushback They the carbon heads know that RE is not a FAD it has matured and is ramping much faster than they ever feared. Expect big political pushback and EVs are targeted also.
Subtract the incremental efficiency of the new CC gas 62 % versus a 35 to 42 % coal plant. 62 minus 42 ( I am being very generous to coal here) = 20 % added to the 75 % EV to the wheels efficiency. So EV is 95 % more efficient from the starting line or gross value.
GAs IC engines get 25 % to the wheels. 75 % EV minus the comparable 25 % in IC = 50 % net perhaps. 50% plus the gas 20 % advantage over coal = 70 % net operating starting point before other variables are included.
I will look and get back with you Breath.
Breath and Craig and others who may be following:
Excuse my mis spell – the peak hours when they running hard is 125 hours to 175 hrs depending on extreme hot weather which drives AC usage.
take care