This is a question bandied about frequently in geothermal circles. Recently, a panel chaired by Jeff Tester from MIT set out to answer that question and they presented their results at the 32nd Stanford Geothermal Conference yesterday.

Let’s first setup the measurement system, it’s in exa-joules (EJ.) A kilowatt hour is approximately 3.6M joules. An exa-joule is 10 to 18th power joules, or 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 joules. The entire US electric consumption for a year is around 100 EJ. Now that this is a nice easy way to think of it, 1 EJ = 1% of annual US electricity consumption, I’ll tell you what they discovered.

That if only 2% of the US geothermal potential was tapped, we would be able to access some 28,000 EJ in electric power generation. This statement is grand and requires some explanation. There are two flavors of geothermal power, hydrothermal and enhanced or engineered geothermal systems. This combines the output of both methods and predicts that resources at deep as 10km will be exploited over the next 50 years.

Even if this estimate is wrong by two orders of magnitude, it’s still 28x our current annual electricity consumption for the entire country. That is sufficient to cause even the most jaded person to stop and think. What could we achieve if we diligently work to tap and harvest this resource inside our own borders, with no carbon emission, and maintain our energy system with baseload power? What’s the impact of simply displacing old coal plants with new geothermal plants?

The study goes on to say that they believe 100,000 MWe (generation capacity) is entirely feasible by 2050, which is only 10% of the current electricity consumption per year in the US. There’s now a nice article posted on the MIT website that references this study available here.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, each megawatt hour of electricity generated by burning coal yields a ton of carbon and 14 kg of SOx and NOx into the atmosphere. To produce a new “clean” coal plant is a $1B+ investment. Fuel cost of coal has increased 35% over the past 6 years. Our ability to transport new coal in the US is constrained by railroad capacity, which is at capacity. Why invest in coal now?

Why not invest in clean power generation where the fuel is free and local. Nothing gets vented into the atmosphere (in a closed system) and start solving our dependence and climate impact. This isn’t rocket science….

If you liked this entry, Digg It!
Technorati Tags: Geothermal | Potential | EGS

Not a bad ploy really. The Boston Globe reports that a coalition of environmental groups are doing just that as the Texas Utility Corporation (TXU) seeks $11B for funding the construction of 11 new pulverized coal plants which would release some 78 million tons of carbon monoxide into the atmosphere per year.

What else could one do with $11B of investment? Here’s a list:

• Add 3,600 MW of geothermal power generation (note, this would increase the US geothermal production by 164%) – or –
• Add 9,200 MW of wind power generation (and one could do this in Texas) – or –
• Add 1,375 MW of solar power generation (this could work in Texas too) – or –
• Or if one must do fossil fuel, add 14,600 MW of natural gas power generation

Yes, coal is relatively speaking cheap to acquire, transport, and use. But the cost of the atmospheric impact is huge. Until and unless coal burners have to pay that cost, the true economic impact isn’t being factored in. Even with that, coal prices are up 35% this decade and the rail lines are at (or over) capacity to transport it from point A to point B. Sooner or later, the fact that the fuel is free will make the economics of renewable power generation too attractive to pass up. The environmental benefit will be a nice synergistic effect.


If you liked this entry, Digg It!
Technorati Tags: Coal | Electricity | Funding

According to the American Heritage Dictionary, a suicidal act is one that is “dangerous to oneself or to one’s interests; self-destructive or ruinous.” By this standard, the coal boom that is currently sweeping America is the atmospheric equivalent of a swan dive off a very tall building. At precisely the moment that scientists have reached a consensus that we need to drastically cut climate-warming pollution, the electric-power industry is racing to build more than 150 new coal plants across the United States. Coal is by far the dirtiest fossil fuel: If the new plants are built, they will dump hundreds of millions of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere each year for decades to come — virtually guaranteeing that the U.S. will join China in leading civilization’s plunge into a superheated future.

That’s a quote straight from Jeff Goodell contributor to Rolling Stone magazine. Now I know there are technologies (gasification for instance) that can make coal cleaner than it has been, but that’s still orders of magnitude more polluting than renewable options available. What if, instead of doing “the easy thing” of investing in more coal plants we did “the right thing” and rechanneled that money into renewable plants (a mix of geothermal, wind, biomass, and solar?)

Here’s the thing, according to the US Department of Energy, for each 1,000,000 kwh (1 MWh) of electricity generated by burning coal, 1,000 kg of carbon and around 14 kg of NOx and SOx are released into the atmosphere. Let’s say we make coal 50% less polluting, great. But that would still result in 507 kg of pollutants produced per MWh.

We’re obviously not as smart as we purport to be…


If you liked this entry, Digg It!
Technorati Tags: Energy | Pollution | Coal

In 2004 the Center for Biological Diversity filed suit against the wind producers operating in the Altamont Pass in California. During the ensuing time period, a study was completed showing that 45 of the 7,000 turbines were responsible for the vast majority of the deaths and a compromised was reached with the producers that during the migration time 50% of the turbines would sit inactive. Last October, a judge tossed the lawsuit saying the Center for Biological Diversity had no legal standing in the case.

This is a classic case of cross purposes. I don’t think anyone wants to see raptors (Golden Eagles, Hawks, etc.) killed unnecessarily, that’s just silly. The producers took many steps to study and attempt to remedy the problem. But the problem was also blown out of proportion as mobile phone towers and buildings kill more raptors each year by far than these turbines, yet we see no action against mobile phone providers. Regardless, the hypothesis is that the lattice towers were good perches for the birds and that’s what contributed to the higher mortality rate than experienced at other wind farms.

The solution seems pretty straight forward to me, shut down and demolish the 45 problematic turbines and allow the producers to “repower” using larger turbines with tubular towers which would serve to reduce the number of turbines, likely increase the output of the farm, and lower the avian mortality rate. What’s lost in a suit like this is that for each MWh of coal generation displaced by technologies like wind, around 1,000kg of carbon and around 13kg of NOX and SO2 is kept from entering the atmosphere. After all, climate change is likely to kill far more species than all the wind farms on the globe combined.

Given the outcome of the court case, I’d expect the producers to be back in business and hopefully taking steps to further reduce the avian mortality rate at the site.


If you liked this entry, Digg It!
Technorati Tags: Wind Power | Avian Death | Case Dismissed

This entry from A Thrilling Wonder website has it all, wind farm construction, turbine failure, storms, etc. on a HUGE scale. If you want to see a big wind farm, read this. It’s a very informative and interesting read punctuated with nice photos. Highly recommended.




If you liked this entry, Digg It!
Technorati Tags: Wind Farm | Ocean | Construction