What is Digg?56 Comments
- iptib, on 08/11/2008, -0/+20Ok, that's crazy!
- ohnoerino, on 08/11/2008, -0/+17I like the "old meets new" theme of the story. It's cool that a historic seminary is tapping into this cutting edge resource.
- acmaurer, on 08/11/2008, -1/+15...Uh, so why aren't we doing this more often? (Other than the initial cost - but who cares??)
- inactive, on 08/11/2008, -1/+14Does that include Las Vegas, and my sister's apartment?
- jamessavik, on 08/12/2008, -0/+11Geothermal energy is one of the best choices in alternate, renewable energy supplies.
Unlike solar power, it'll work 24/7, it's clean, safe and requires nothing magical to happen or a technological breakthrough to make it happen. - inactive, on 08/12/2008, -5/+15I plan on coming out of the closet to my entire family over dinner tonight... wish me luck.
- SilverBlade2k, on 08/12/2008, -0/+8Enough power to last for 30,000 years?...At the rate things are going, we would have destroyed ourselves by that point..
- hiPpymIck, on 08/11/2008, -0/+8some info on ground heat pumps - the ones that only go 6ft - 400 ft deep..
basic types
http://www.eere.energy.gov/consumer/your_home/spac ...
benefits
http://www.eere.energy.gov/consumer/your_home/spac ...
from wiki
"Undisturbed earth below the frost line remains at a relatively constant temperature year round. This temperature equates roughly to the average annual air-temperature of the chosen location, so is usually 7-21 degrees Celsius (45-70 degrees Fahrenheit) depending on location.
so i think that means the more extreme the temperature difference between summer and winter the more useful theyll be - YoYoBlah, on 08/11/2008, -0/+7I know, right. It makes me hopeful though...
- ironeus, on 08/11/2008, -0/+7Everything has an initial cost, we must look towards the bigger picture and it seems to clearly make sense!
- SomeHobo, on 08/12/2008, -1/+6Sounds really cool - but out of curiosity, what happens after the 30,000 years? Does the earth run out of thermal energy?
- Scienceisfun, on 08/12/2008, -0/+5One thing that this article gets wrong is that there are really two types of geothermal power. One is the more commonly known version, where heat flows from the center of the Earth and can then be used to run a steam turbine, for instance. This is the kind of geothermal power that Iceland is famous for. There is another version though, where you run heat exchange lines 1 - 200 meters underground to where the ground has a roughly constant temperature of 5-20 degrees Celsius year-round, dependent on your latitude. In winter, you can extract heat from the relatively warmer ground at a cheaper energy cost than generating that heat by burning fuel; in summer, you can easily move heat back into the relatively colder ground (as opposed to the much warmer outdoor environment) to air condition your house. The energy stored in the ground initially does not come from the center of the Earth, but rather from the sun -- the Earth simply acts as a huge thermal mass. As a result, this type of geothermal energy is really just solar power in disguise, and is a seriously viable solution for a number of heating/cooling applications.
- samthurston, on 08/12/2008, -1/+6forgive me for expecting people making definitive statements to know what the hell they're talking about, but can you clarify why geothermal is "dumb?" Meanwhile, explain Iceland.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_power_in_I ... - KingPhallus, on 08/12/2008, -1/+5If this is actually true, then right the ***** on!
- spriggig, on 08/12/2008, -1/+5The heat is not a finite quantity. It's not just warm and cozy down there 'cause it's out of the wind, the heat is generated by the pressure caused by gravity. All the the CLEAN, RENEWABLE energy we could possibly use sits SIX miles beneath our feet.
- bikeidaho, on 08/12/2008, -0/+3There is already a facility in operation in Southwestern Idaho. It is called Raft River and is operated by U.S. Geothermal. It is up to 8 MW I believe from a small facility.
- ryancxx, on 08/12/2008, -0/+3I was asking myself the same question. I'm thinking that they're estimating the U.S will need more power that geothermal can provide at that point.
- afruff23, on 08/12/2008, -1/+4Do you have a boyfriend? *looks at username*
Oh, I see.
/not gay
//not that there's anything wrong with that - Kumaku, on 08/12/2008, -1/+4Good luck man!
- pensel, on 08/12/2008, -0/+2I wouldn't worry about it. It's ChinaWorld's problem.
- D1ckFace, on 08/12/2008, -2/+4Truth is always the best policy. good luck
- bincoder, on 08/12/2008, -0/+2All it is.. is a nuclear reactor missing the uranium and waste products that they generate.
One facility lasts maybe 20-30 years, but then, its cheaper, better, faster than a nuke and a whole lot of places exist where this can work very well. 30,000 years would not surprise me at all, and who cares if it drains the earth of heat (like that is ever going to happen) if we get too chilly, just burn some oil, fixed. Considering technology can let you drill what maybe one zillionth of the way to the core of the planet (where all that power is coming from) nobody on earth nor god himself can possibly remove that much heat.
Geothermal rules. In all ways. - timbuktu22, on 08/12/2008, -0/+2Geothermal has enormous potential. Indeed over the next decade, the U.S. geothermal generating capacity is expected to increase by 8,000 to 15,000 MW. That's huge. But we could do even better. There's between 95,000 and 150,000 MW of potential geothermal sources in the U.S.:
http://www.brightfuture.us/new/index.php?option=co ... - robertlankford, on 08/12/2008, -0/+2Or (and this isn't really worded this way), they mean that you could get enough energy per year to power America for 30K years.
- TheBigBentley, on 08/12/2008, -0/+2Shame too cause I like magnets
- scottsutherland, on 08/12/2008, -0/+2$4.69 / gallon ?
- init100, on 08/13/2008, -0/+2"the heat is generated by the pressure caused by gravity."
It is? I thought that it was heated by the nuclear reactions in the Earth's core. - jenshik, on 08/12/2008, -0/+1We already have a geothermal plant here in New Zealand near taupo. I don't know how much it contributes to the grid though.
- JettaMan, on 08/12/2008, -2/+3While it may be more realistic than solar power, it's still a dumb power source. Nuclear and hydro are the most efficient.
- samthurston, on 08/13/2008, -0/+1See, there you go again making unfounded claims. see if you can follow my logic here:
Nuclear and geothermal are both means of producing heat for a steam-based generation system. The steam generation system costs are going to basically be equal between the two.
In the case of geothermal, you have to drill some deep holes to get the heat. This can be expensive, but over time, the heat generated from one drilled hole does not decrease, so the cost is amortized to infinity and is basically free.
In the case of nuclear, you have to drill some holes to get your uranium or buy your uranium. Then you have to process that uranium into fuel, or pay to have it processed. uranium is spent fairly quickly. it's expensive. it's hazardous, and you have to pay people to handle its security. you have to pay nuclear engineers to make sure you don't have an accident and that the reaction continues in a controlled fashion. if, god forbid, you do have an accident, the costs of cleanup are astronomical. even if you don't have an accident, you still have to store and secure the spent fuel, for upwards of 10,000 years.
How can you possibly claim that nuclear power is "cheaper?" - init100, on 08/13/2008, -0/+1"You will loose maybe an important habitat for insects"
Insects live far underground? - ligyron, on 08/12/2008, -2/+3I'd tap it, assuming it's not a trap
- SiXiam, on 08/12/2008, -1/+2Cool! Wake me when it doesn't cost 20 Million to power a campus....
- JettaMan, on 08/12/2008, -0/+1It's easy to explain Iceland: if they used nuclear instead they would be producing far cheaper electricity.
- BillE3, on 08/12/2008, -0/+1In California on Cobb Mountain there is an electricity generation plant powered by geothermal steam. The mountain has many natural steam vents. The primary problem with the steam is that it is heavily contaminated with dissolved heavy metals like arsenic, lead, and other toxic compounds. Not only is it very toxic, it is extremely corrosive. The maintenance costs are very high. The environmental laws require that the spent hot water must be treated and the toxins removed before returning the water to the earth it came from. Therefore the total cost for a kilowatt hour of electricity generated is very high and it is not a competitive resource for electricity. Even coal fired power plants are much more cost effective.
- webman77, on 08/12/2008, -0/+1"Say "alternative energy" and the images that spring to mind are probably huge wind turbines spinning above a farm field, or a vast array of solar panels".
But there are more advantages for using wind energy or solar energy than geothermal power. That`s a fact and reason why we don`t more focus on geothermal power. The disadvantages are that you had to do a drill and therefore you need a huge drilling capacity. You will loose maybe an important habitat for insects or a territory for the infiltration from rainwater. There could be also a danger of landslide. Just think over that...
In my opinion the "right" alternative energy just depends on the landscape. In this way I would prefer solar panels. - df12, on 08/12/2008, -0/+1So, 20 wells, to provide for a 275,000 square foot building. That works out to about 1 well for every 13750 Sqft, or 1 well for between 5 and 10 homes... That would be about 2 to 4 wells for every city block here where I live, significantly more for high density areas like Apartment buildings and etc.
- wertach, on 08/12/2008, -0/+1Ditto hiPpymIck, I learned a lot about this when Mother Earth news had the Eco Village in NC. They had "earth tubes" on a house and it was cool in the summer, warm in the winter without any heat/AC.
- jenshik, on 08/12/2008, -1/+1I think that's what he's referring to.
- mnky9800n, on 08/12/2008, -0/+0Not to mention terribly inefficient.
- Virgule, on 08/12/2008, -1/+1The description tickled me. What does it really mean to tap all the heat?
Is it like for water where if I take a liter out then there is a liter less available (leaving the underground cold as a rock, so to speak) or is it is the sense if I use ALL my liter to power a turbine?
Im not sure Im making sense.... - Kanten, on 08/12/2008, -1/+1"are just too plain stupid to think before they give any sort of plan."
As opposed to the Iraq invasion? - zacharytelschow, on 08/12/2008, -2/+2You echo this assertion made in the article: FTA: "It's like deciding between two cars, one that costs $10,000 and one that costs $35,000," he said. "But the $35,000 car comes with a lifetime supply of gas. Now that energy prices are high, people are beginning to think about what they pay for fuel."
Unfortunately, that analogy will still make me buy the $10,000 car (and use fossil fuels for power generation) hands down. The purchase cost of a vehicle accounts for approximately half the total cost of lifetime ownership, meaning that the car for which I must purchase fuel is still significantly cheaper than the $35,000 car that comes with free fuel for the life of the car.
Which is the entire problem with this technology and the reason it isn't used more. Its more expensive. "All" we'd have to do to power our country is drill 2 mile holes in the earth all over the place. Sounds really freaking easy to me; I'll grab a shovel and dig one by lunch.
In addition, geothermal is ideal for heating and cooling, but what about actual power generation? Do you intend to use luke warm water to power your lamps, computer, and television? - bruce86, on 08/12/2008, -1/+1Actually, I've never seen the core. Just taken a few geology classes in my time
- inactive, on 08/12/2008, -1/+1What a surprise...ANOTHER "VIABLE ALTERNATIVE". Uh huh..and how long to bring it online? At what cost? Oh..and how do we tap this without, yet again, pissing off the environmental loons who control the liberal leftist Dems? Yeah, that's what I thought. Anything to avoid drilling. Never mind that drilling now gives us a cushion to fully vet out the lame "alternatives" and bring viable ones to market. But then again, environmentalists aren't about saving the planet as much as they are about ruining the economy and everyone else's lives.
- D1ckFace, on 08/12/2008, -1/+1Initial cost of securing Iraqi oil fields which are still dormant $3 trillion
Compare that to digging a hundred 2 mile shafts in the US without the loss of life would be far easier. - TheBigBentley, on 08/12/2008, -2/+1Time to warm this bitch up. Global Warming +1
- robsonde, on 08/12/2008, -2/+1sound much like the story I submitted a week ago........
http://digg.com/world_news/underground_heat_to_pow ... - sadhesati, on 08/12/2008, -3/+2Why is he getting dugg down? He brings up a very interesting point to consider
-
Show 51 - 57 of 57 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is