# Could Geothermal Energy Make a Bg Contribution? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [June 11, 2009, 11:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-geothermal-energy-make-a-bg-contribution/499507 "2009-06-11T23:49:05Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![ralph124c](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8797f3/32.png) [@ralph124c](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralph124c)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2009, 11:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-geothermal-energy-make-a-bg-contribution/499507/1 "2009-06-11T23:49:05Z")
(to the USA’s alternative energy sources)? I ask because outside of California, there seems to be few sites for geothermal energ available. I know, if you drill deep enough, you will hit hot rock. However, is GE all that cheap? Extracting the energy involves the use of heat exchangers, pumps, and possibly low pressure turbines. Wind energy looks like a less complicated situation. ---
**Author:** ![Public\_Animal\_No.9](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Public\_Animal\_No.9](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Public_Animal_No.9)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2009, 12:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-geothermal-energy-make-a-bg-contribution/499507/2 "2009-06-12T00:37:59Z")
According to the [US Department of Energy](http://www1.eere.energy.gov/geothermal/egs_animation.html): > [@](#): > > More than 100,000 MWe of economically viable capacity may be available in the continental United States, representing a 40-fold increase over present geothermal power generating capacity. Wind energy is certainly less complex in the generating phase, but it’s a lot more difficult in normal system operation, since you can’t turn it off and on (what’s called “dispatch”) like you can with geothermal. ---
**Author:** ![ethelbert](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/958977/32.png) [@ethelbert](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ethelbert)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2009, 12:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-geothermal-energy-make-a-bg-contribution/499507/3 "2009-06-12T12:48:19Z")
Much of what is referred to as “geothermal” does not involve drilling down to a “hot rock”. It simply takes advantage of the difference in temperature between the air and a few feet below the surface. a typical installation will have a gridwork of pipes in the ground. Water is circulated and warmed (or cooled, depending on the season) to about 54 degrees (the exact temperature will depend on your lattitude). Here is a [link](http://www1.eere.energy.gov/geothermal/heatpumps.html) with a better explanation. This style of geothermal energy can be used to heat (and cool) individual homes. ---
**Author:** ![Oukile](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/13edae/32.png) [@Oukile](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oukile)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2009, 9:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-geothermal-energy-make-a-bg-contribution/499507/4 "2009-06-13T09:00:41Z")
> [@Public\_Animal\_No.9](#): > > According to the [US Department of Energy](http://www1.eere.energy.gov/geothermal/egs_animation.html): Which is about 10% of US production, according to the same site. Not bad. That’s also the equivalent of 100 nuclear reactors. ---
**Author:** ![HorseloverFat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8e8cbc/32.png) [@HorseloverFat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HorseloverFat)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2009, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-geothermal-energy-make-a-bg-contribution/499507/5 "2009-07-06T14:42:15Z")
Considering how cheap nuclear power is and how it doesnt contribute to global warming, I would think the future is going to be big on nuclear, not geo. > [@](#): > > I know, if you drill deep enough, you will hit hot rock. Depth isnt the issue, the site really needs to be good for geothermal. These plants are not cost efficient unless theyre on natural formations that lend themselves to geothermal power. You cant really build one in the middle of Chicago. It needs to be near plate boundaries or near the [“ring of fire”](http://www.eia.doe.gov/kids/energyfacts/sources/renewable/geothermal.html) to be competitive. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2009, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-geothermal-energy-make-a-bg-contribution/499507/6 "2009-07-06T15:26:48Z")
The advantages of geo-thermal technology is on the user side and not the production side. There are no limitations to location and the savings are substantial. I just visited a guy who built a house that was twice the size of his last house and the geo-thermal system in it uses much less electricity. It would make more economic sense to install geo-thermal pumps in houses than it would be to install solar cells. ---
**Author:** ![HorseloverFat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8e8cbc/32.png) [@HorseloverFat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HorseloverFat)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2009, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-geothermal-energy-make-a-bg-contribution/499507/7 "2009-07-06T16:19:40Z")
> [@](#): > > Which is about 10% of US production, according to the same site. Not bad. That’s also the equivalent of 100 nuclear reactors. Thats incorrect. My link claims .5% not 10%. In your link, I see this: “This **potentia** l is about 10% of the overall U.S. electric capacity today” So in other words, if we tapped all the geothermic areas we could, we could get 10%. ---
**Author:** ![thelurkinghorror](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7c8e57/32.png) [@thelurkinghorror](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/thelurkinghorror)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2009, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-geothermal-energy-make-a-bg-contribution/499507/8 "2009-07-06T18:26:28Z")
About 26% of Iceland’s electricity is [geothermal](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_power_in_Iceland), and 87% of their heating is geothermal. For the most part, geothermal electrical generation is limited by location, location, location. ---
**Author:** ![Askance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/askance/32/8281_2.png) [@Askance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Askance)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2009, 1:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-geothermal-energy-make-a-bg-contribution/499507/9 "2009-07-07T01:59:19Z")
> [@HorseloverFat](#): > > Considering how cheap nuclear power is and how it doesnt contribute to global warming Both demonstrably false. > [@](#): > > Depth isnt the issue, the site really needs to be good for geothermal. These plants are not cost efficient unless theyre on natural formations that lend themselves to geothermal power. You cant really build one in the middle of Chicago. It needs to be near plate boundaries or near the [“ring of fire”](http://www.eia.doe.gov/kids/energyfacts/sources/renewable/geothermal.html) to be competitive. No it doesn’t. It only needs to be near, well, hot rocks: [Central Australia](http://www.mckinlay.qld.gov.au/news/2009/Geothermal%20Hot%20Rocks.shtml) [Texas](http://blog.smu.edu/research/2009/06/geothermal_heat_will_earths_ho.html) [Cornwall, France and Portugal](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enhanced_geothermal_systems) ---
**Author:** ![HorseloverFat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8e8cbc/32.png) [@HorseloverFat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HorseloverFat)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2009, 2:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-geothermal-energy-make-a-bg-contribution/499507/10 "2009-07-07T02:13:50Z")
Huh? How does nuclear power contribute to global warming? It doesnt put an CO2 in the air. As far as it not being cheap, Id like a cite on that too. [It is cheap.](http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/nuclear-power-is-cheapest-option-558107.html) ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2009, 2:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-geothermal-energy-make-a-bg-contribution/499507/11 "2009-07-07T02:40:46Z")
One stab at [an answer.](http://www.greencarcongress.com/2007/01/mitled_study_ge.html) > [@](#): > > A comprehensive new MIT-led study of the potential for geothermal energy within the United States has found that Enhanced Geothermal System (EGS) technology could supply a substantial portion of US electricity well into the future, probably at competitive prices and with minimal environmental impact. > > Overall, the panel concluded that EGS can likely deliver cumulative capacity of more than 100,000 MWe within 50 years with a modest, multiyear federal investment for RD&D. The panel estimated the total EGS resource base to be more than 13 million exajoules (EJ), with an estimated extractable portion to exceed 200,000 EJ—about 2,000 times the annual consumption of primary energy in the United States in 2005. … Many details at the site and more following its link to the actual report I am sure. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2009, 3:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-geothermal-energy-make-a-bg-contribution/499507/12 "2009-07-07T03:56:01Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > One stab at [an answer.](http://www.greencarcongress.com/2007/01/mitled_study_ge.html)Many details at the site and more following its link to the actual report I am sure. That site was a whole lot of coulda woulda’s with a heaping spoonful of government R&D. When I see a quote of 2000 TIMES the energy produced in 2005 I have to call shenanigans on the article. ---
**Author:** ![Askance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/askance/32/8281_2.png) [@Askance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Askance)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2009, 6:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-geothermal-energy-make-a-bg-contribution/499507/13 "2009-07-07T06:39:09Z")
> [@HorseloverFat](#): > > Huh? How does nuclear power contribute to global warming? It doesnt put an CO2 in the air. Every form of power generation puts some CO2 in the air. Think of the effort and expenditure to build such a plant (minimum 10 years), of mining, refining and transporting the fuel, and so on. Less than coal or gas, certainly, but more than solar or geo. > [@](#): > > As far as it not being cheap, Id like a cite on that too. [It is cheap.](http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/nuclear-power-is-cheapest-option-558107.html) Let me quote from your (5 year old) cite: > [@](#): > > \*\*Building \*\*new nuclear power stations would be cheaper than **building** new coal or gas power stations > [@](#): > > Stewart Gray, the vice-president of gas and power at Wood Mackenzie, estimates that it would cost £37 per megawatt/hour of electricity generated to finance, build, operate and decommission a nuclear reactor. This, based on industry projections, assumes the reactor operates for 25 years. > > He estimates it now costs around £37MW/h to generate electricity from coal, compared with a historic cost of £29.50 per MW/h. But next year this is set to increase to £41.30MW/h because of the emissions tax. > > Current gas generating costs are £26.1MW/h, almost £10 more expensive than it was a year ago. If current gas prices increased by another 10 per cent, he estimates, generating costs, could reach £37.2MW/h for gas power stations in 2015, when carbon taxes are to rise to €40/ton. So at best on par at the time, assuming all his guesses about future prices and carbon taxes were correct. But as always he ignores some of the the true costs of building a nuclear plant; not one has ever been built anywhere in the world without massive government subsidies. One of the most significant of those hidden costs is for public liability insurance; no insurance company will cover a nuclear plant for this so governments have to. If the plant owners had to bear this cost (as do other power plant operators) none could even be built. Then we come to decommissioning costs. The Sellafield site in the UK is currently costing £1.1bn a year to do so, projected cost £73 billion over the next 112 years. None of this cost is carried by the plant owners; the UK government has even agreed to pay the clean-up costs for any accidents caused by the commercial company doing the work. [Costs of and lack of funds for decommissioning](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_decommissioning#Cost_of_decommissioning). They are not “cheap”. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2009, 12:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-geothermal-energy-make-a-bg-contribution/499507/14 "2009-07-07T12:27:18Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > That site was a whole lot of coulda woulda’s with a heaping spoonful of government R&D. > > When I see a quote of 2000 TIMES the energy produced in 2005 I have to call shenanigans on the article. As the op requested an answer to a “could” question, the article’s (prepared by a government sponsored MIT-led panel) informed speculation of "coulda"s seem to fit the bill. The “accessible” geothermal resource is huge so it “could” provide for all we need and more … theoretically. Whether or not it is practical to do, or cost effective to do so is a different question which they do not seem to analyze as comprehensively. Minimally geothermal is one good answer that is already begining to be applied to good effect in the best locations. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2009, 2:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-geothermal-energy-make-a-bg-contribution/499507/15 "2009-07-07T14:11:21Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > As the op requested an answer to a “could” question, the article’s (prepared by a government sponsored MIT-led panel) informed speculation of "coulda"s seem to fit the bill. The “accessible” geothermal resource is huge so it “could” provide for all we need and more … theoretically. Whether or not it is practical to do, or cost effective to do so is a different question which they do not seem to analyze as comprehensively. Minimally geothermal is one good answer that is already begining to be applied to good effect in the best locations. I’m not doubting it’s usefulness in areas that will support it but when I saw the figure of 2000 times the energy we currently produce my bullshit meter pinged to the right, exploded and is currently circling the planet. ---
**Author:** ![R.P.McMurphy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/7993a0/32.png) [@R.P.McMurphy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/R.P.McMurphy)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2009, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-geothermal-energy-make-a-bg-contribution/499507/16 "2009-07-07T15:03:57Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > The advantages of geo-thermal technology is on the user side and not the production side. There are no limitations to location and the savings are substantial. I just visited a guy who built a house that was twice the size of his last house and the geo-thermal system in it uses much less electricity. It would make more economic sense to install geo-thermal pumps in houses than it would be to install solar cells. The ideal way to do it is to install the geothermal heating and cooling system at the time of initial construction. The system is powered by electrical heat pumps. Then install a PV (solar) electrical system and you can have a house that is heated and/or cooled year around and is basically self-sufficient from an energy standpoint. The house will use no oil and will be comfortable while staying environmentally “clean”. ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2009, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-geothermal-energy-make-a-bg-contribution/499507/17 "2009-07-07T16:53:02Z")
The OP is talking about geothermal power generation which is different then the geothermal heat pumps people use as part of a home heating system that some seem to mention here. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2009, 1:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-geothermal-energy-make-a-bg-contribution/499507/18 "2009-07-16T13:12:07Z")
[A timely update:](http://www.greencarcongress.com/2009/07/pnnl-mohc-20090716.html#more) > [@](#): > > Scientists at the US Department of Energy’s Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) have developed a new method for capturing significantly more heat from low-temperature geothermal resources… The goal of the project is to enable power generation from low-temperature geothermal resources at an economical cost. … > > … A new study by NYU Stern found that geothermal and wind energy are more efficient, and are yielding greater returns on the R&D invested in them, than most other renewable energy alternatives. > > NYU Stern Professor Melissa Schilling found that the cost of generating electricity with geothermal or wind energy is a fraction of the cost of solar energy. Additionally, the performance of both is improving much more per dollar of R&D invested in them than solar technologies. … > > … Geothermal energy is the most efficient renewable energy alternative and is improving the fastest. Wind energy is second. ---
**Author:** ![HorseloverFat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8e8cbc/32.png) [@HorseloverFat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HorseloverFat)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2009, 2:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-geothermal-energy-make-a-bg-contribution/499507/19 "2009-07-16T14:09:38Z")
\>Every form of power generation puts some CO2 in the air. Nuclear power deosnt fill the air with CO2. Coal does. If you playing the “but look at building and transportation costs” game then geothermal is just as bad. When people say nuclear doesnt put CO2 in the air, they mean compared to all the fossil fuels we are burning at a unsustainable rate. Continue with the anti-nuclear nuttiness, thats how we got here in the first place. If it wasnt for the idiots at greenpeace we’d be living in a nuclear utopia, but instead we’re breating in emissions from coal fired plants and guaranteeing ourselves lung problems. We also would have the capacity for electric cars by now too, something the status quo cannot give us, en masse. Geothermal, like I cited above, can at BEST give us 10% of our current power needs. Considering the move to electric cars will add quite a bit of power demand, then we’re looking at what? 8 or 5% of our needs. Geothermal is a novelty. We need massive amounts of power from something other than coal. Nuclear is the way to go. We can burn our waste in breeder reactors too, if that concerns you. ---
**Author:** ![smiling\_bandit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9a140/32.png) [@smiling\_bandit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smiling_bandit)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2009, 2:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-geothermal-energy-make-a-bg-contribution/499507/20 "2009-07-16T14:18:21Z")
Agree with nuclear. Seriously, saying that it contributes to carbon emissions is rather like saying that a bandage contributes to bleeding. In any case, the real problem with gethermanl is that it’s not practical in most locations _where people want power_. A similar but more serious problem plagues wind and most solar energy projects. It’s not wholly impractical, but it can’t really be used with current technology very easily or efficiently.