Why isn't geothermal energy more common?

[thelabdude]

@DSeid

Except that there are funded plans already in progress to increase geothermal from just over 3,086.6 MW capacity to between 5,256 and 7,877MW - roughly doubling it. The cost of geothermal turns out to be about 5 to 10 cents a kWh, pretty much the same as nuclear and wind. And like nuclear it is baseload power, 24/7. The Western United States have ample areas in which it is technically easy to exploit the resource. (see links above)

Hard to compete with coal or even natural gas though, until the carbon is monetized. And that’s why we don’t use it more.

Remote yes, but so are some of the best wind areas.

[naita]

@boytyperanma

The Russians had a super-bore project that took 20 years to drill 7 miles, that was eventually stopped due to the excessive heat. It’s estimated to be only 1/3 the way into the mantle. From what I’ve read that heat still wouldn’t be sufficient to drive any practical power plant.

1/3 of the way into the crust.

[Chronos]

It’s more efficient than an ambient air heat pump because the temperature two meters down is pretty much constant.

That, and because air has a lousy heat capacity.

[Balthisar]

@Chronos

That, and because air has a lousy heat capacity.

That’s actually a very good point that I shouldn’t have neglected to point out. It’s akin to trying to hard cook (for example) an in-shell egg in a 212 F oven versus doing so in boiling water. The oven will not produce a hard-cooked egg in 10 minutes.