Great day today. Drove down to play some paddle tennis with Tom Blakeslee of the Clearlight Foundation. There may be finer, smarter, more enlightened people on this planet, but I sure haven’t met many.
From there it was a straight shot down the California coast to San Diego where I’m attending the EV Infrastructure Show. Just got here, but the end-of-day reception was very warm and cozy. Good series of meetings tomorrow.
In 2010, the U.S. installed only 15 MW of geothermal (in Nevada) and that plant will actually have a total 25 MW capacity when finished in 2011. However, more than 500 MW of projects are under development in the U.S. and will come online in 2011 and 2012 – not counting projects that may begin work in 2011.
According to a report “The Future of Geothermal Energy“ written by an MIT panel in the fourth quarter of 2010, total generating capacity of energy sources in the U.S. are currently as shown in the chart below (statistics sourced from EIA in 2004). As gas and coal deplete over time, the capacity of those sources will reduce. (more…)
Today, Ralph Avallone, the president of the National Green Energy Council, received a response to the very specific letter he had written to Barack Obama in which he urged the president’s support of green technology and renewable energy, and the “green jobs” they will create. Avallone notes:
“My letter … has facilitated nothing but a generic response. Most unfortunate….”
To which I respond:
Ralph: Speaking for all of us, I appreciate your effort. And yes, that’s unfortunate, though not at all surprising. I think we’ve seen ample evidence that the federal government – all three branches, btw — is stuck in neutral with respect to energy policy. We support whatever notions bring in votes, whether it’s as destructive and toxic as coal, or as unsafe and financially untenable as nuclear. Where we feel we need to, and that we can get away with it with our constituencies, we pay lip service to renewables – though we’re terrified that we’re doing so at the risk of being ridiculed from the right as socialists or tree-huggers.
There are some people who believe mainstream candidates’ promises to tear into the nation’s problems (of which energy, obviously, is only one) with passion, objectivity and honesty. There are people who believe in the Easter Bunny, too.
If you’re looking for spine and integrity, I’m afraid you’ll need to look elsewhere.
In an average week, I get a couple of invitations to be on radio programs whose hosts want a guest to speak on clean energy. Here’s a typical request that I got just a few hours ago, to which I gladly assented:
I’m a talk radio host/producer at … and would like to set up an interview regarding clean energy. With the nuclear crisis in Japan, and renewed worries concerning plants in the US, Middle East unrest and rising oil prices, and the demonization of wind & solar energy from the right, I think there’s plenty of ample reasons to discuss your book and thoughts on these and other topics. The station number is ..
OK, the guy’s grammar is an issue.
“There’s plenty of reasons” needs to read “there are plenty of reasons” (agreement of subject and verb)
and
“plenty of ample reasons” needs to read “ample reasons” (“ample” means “plenty”)
Just kidding here of course; this isn’t a website on grammar. And that’s a good thing, because readers sometimes point out errors in mine.
But I am interested in exploring the “demonization of wind & solar energy from the right.” Though many readers have suggested that such a trend exists, I can’t believe it’s true. What’s to demonize? Energy that doesn’t kill people? An energy policy that doesn’t impoverish our country, empower our sworn enemies — and leaves the planet clean and safe for coming generations? Wouldn’t it be a kind of warped person who would attack this notion?
I host “Clean Energy Radio,” a weekly interview program. I have to say that the station on which it airs, WebTalkRadio, is a wonderful concept in Internet broadcasting. The other 50-or-so hosts have their own areas of expertise: dog training, marital relationships, deer hunting, natural medicine, etc.; I’m the only renewable energy guy. And I totally approve of the organization; in my experience, the staff at WebTalkRadio — the business folks, the techies, etc. – are, to a person, terrific, super-professional people. (more…)
Many experts state clearly that geothermal energy could provide all the energy the world needs. 99% of the planet has a temperature above 1,000 degrees C. The earth’s heat is an inexhaustible source of energy, available 24 hours per day (night or day, in windy or calm conditions), it is practically emission-free, and it is within reach. And, geothermal power plants generate more energy over time than an equivalent solar or wind plant. Baseline power is also better; the Energy Information Administration (EIA) says that 3,150 MW of geothermal capacity generated 15.2 Gwh of electricity in 2009, while 35 GW of wind capacity generated 70.7 Gwh of electricity.
Geothermal applications are quietly growing around the world. In 2005, there was 8,933 MW of installed capacity generating 55,709 GWh per year of energy, says the International Geothermal Association (IGA). By 2010, 10,715 MW capacity is online generating 67,246 GWh. IGA projects that by 2015, about 18,500 MW will be installed, based on projects that have begun or are under consideration.
The top countries with worldside capacity between 2005 and 2010 were the U.S., Indonesia, Iceland, New Zealand and Turkey. The IGA reports that dramatic planning and growth is occuring in Europe and Africa. For instance, while only 10 countries in Europe had geothermal projects under development in 2007, that number jumped to 24 by 2010.
Why the Slow Growth and Slow Recognition?
However, geothermal isn’t growing as quickly as it could, according to most experts. Why? The capital costs and time to get a project complete is much longer than other green energy technologies, such as wind or solar projects. A geothermal plant can take 3 to 7 years to develop. As many clean energies compete for attention and dollars in the U.S., geothermal hasn’t gotten the attention of other clean technologies. Is this because we typically look for the quick fix and don’t focus on the long-term gains? Perhaps.
The potential and long-term benefits seems clear. Some analysts believe the oil & gas industry will start to invest more into geothermal with the clear cross-over in technologies and drilling, which may help the geothermal industry on some level.
What About the Earthquakes?
But there is another potential issue, which may slow down deeper drilling and geothermal development. Just a few years ago, the now-infamous geothermal project in Basel, Switzerland, which drilled three miles into Earth’s crust, set off a magnitude 3.4 earthquake, rocked the town and shut the operation down entirely. The drilling had caused the quakes. Although no serious injuries were reported, Geothermal Explorers’ insurance company ultimately paid more than $8 million in mostly minor damage claims to the owners of thousands of houses in Switzerland and in neighboring Germany and France.
Human induced earthquakes are a concern. In another case, the area near the town of Anderson Springs, CA about 90 miles north of San Francisco, which is home to natural geothermal vents, has some cause for concern. The area was nicknamed The Geysers by early visitors who saw the steam vents there. It has exploited the steam for clean natural energy over the last century. However, in the 1970s with improved technology, engineers started to crank up the production levels. Small earthquakes began shortly thereafter.
Geothermal energy that comes from 150-200 meters below surface is called “low temperature geothermal energy, and is exploited at a relatively larger scale than drilling deeper. Energy is extracted with heat pumps and/or coils. Power companies have long produced limited amounts of geothermal energy by tapping shallow steam beds, often beneath geysers or vents. While those projects can induce earthquakes, most are small. But for geothermal energy to be used more widely and more effectively, engineers need to find a way to draw on the higher heat at deeper levels percolating in the earth’s core. Some companies are working on pilot plans at depths of 5,500 meters, and some researchers believe reaching depths of 10,000 meters or more –where temperatures reach 170 degrees C –can exploit geothermal energy to a maximum. But at what cost and risk?
Iceland – a volcanic hotbed — is a testing ground, and the world is learning from its experiences. It has been using geothermal energy since 1930. In fact, 60% of the population is connected to geothermal heating in some way. Applications include harnessing geothermal in pipes below roads, keeping them free of ice and snow in the long winters. Many technologies are applications in Iceland have helped educate those elsewhere.
New safeguards in the U.S. for geothermal projects include a requirement to install and monitor ground-motion sensors, and develop a plan to shut down quickly if earthquakes generated by drilling prove larger than expected. The new rules apply to projects applying for or receiving government funding. Seismology experts must review place prior to approval for drilling.
Speaking on the subject of developing deeper drilling for geothermal, SINTEF Materials & Chemistry researcher O. Lademo said, “If we can manage to produce this kind of energy, it would clearly be a “moon landing.“
I would like to reply to the three very thoughtful comments of 2GreenEnergy reader James Gover, who writes:
1) We can talk about the oil subsidies and toss numbers around, but I have yet to see defensible, detailed comparisons of the magnitude of subsidies to various energy sources. If someone in this group has defensible data, please send me a reference. I do not consider special interest groups that start with the answer to be credible.
Without a doubt, this is a problem – and for several reasons. First, as you suggest, anyone trying to ascertain that number has a reason for doing so which normally carries with it a financial or political interest in the matter and taints the legitimacy of the findings. And we need also to understand that there are over a dozen different kinds of subsidies, some extremely nebulous and debatable by their very nature. As you look down this list, you’ll see what I mean: (more…)
As I’ve mentioned, I’m proud to be a partner (albeit a small minority interest) in EVWorld.com, and privileged to be an associate of its founder and editor-in-chief Bill Moore, who has ably run the site for the benefit of an ever-growing readership since its 1998 inception. Though the site is focused on electric transportation, visitors will find references to a great number of more general topics within the realm of sustainable living. (more…)
Apparently, I’m wrong about the plug-in version of the Toyota Prius. When I first saw the prototype at the “Plug-In” show a year ago, I thought to myself (and actually asked the representative in the booth) “Are you sure this car is actually going into production? It seems like something that will never be built.” But it looks like they’re moving forward with it.
The problem with the car is that it offers essentially nothing to the customer of any real value: higher cost, two drive trains to maintain, the necessity of both filling up and plugging in, and an improvement in gas mileage that will virtually never pay for itself. And keep in mind that the car will enter the market a full year from now at the earliest (spring 2012 ) while companies like Ford, Mitsubishi, BMW, GM, and, of course, Nissan, are making improvements in their much better thought-through EVs.
I don’t like to irritate the innocent folks assigned to attend their companies’ tradeshow booths; they’re normally fairly junior, and certainly not a part of the decision-making cycle for bringing products to market. This is why I withheld my suggested name for the car: “The Prius Irrelevant” or “The Toyota Yawn.”
Of course, one question is how safe natural gas actually is, given that its extraction relies on hydraulic fracturing of the bedrock in the Earth’s crust. As journalist Marie Baca notes in her response to the Times article: “What about the concerns that hydraulic fracturing can mobilize radioactive material in bedrock? Or the documented cases of methane migration? Or the San Bruno disaster, anyone? Any of these worth mentioning, maybe?”
But again, the most shocking thing about the piece is its blatent ignoring of the alternatives that truly are safe. Most of the rest of the world is moving quickly toward clean energy. Not only are we refusing to play a leadership (or even an effective followership) role here, some of us, apparently, would like to pretend it doesn’t exist.
![[The Vector] On Geothermal](https://www.2greenenergy.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/us-energy-capacity1.jpg)
Today, Ralph Avallone, the president of the National Green Energy Council, received a response to the very specific letter he had written to Barack Obama in which he urged the president’s support of green technology and renewable energy, and the “green jobs” they will create. Avallone notes:
In an average week, I get a couple of invitations to be on radio programs whose hosts want a guest to speak on clean energy. Here’s a typical request that I got just a few hours ago, to which I gladly assented:
![[The Vector] Geothermal and Its Potential – But What About Earthquakes?](https://www.2greenenergy.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/geothermal-coils-istock.jpg)
