- #1
trini
- 217
- 0
sooo, i was thinking, why don't we use the heat from underground magma channels to boil water and drive steam turbines, seems like a pretty stable way to make power. has anyone tried this before?
You'd be surprised. Environmentalist interference is a major problem for wind power, for example.trini said:maybe, but i think even environmentalists would approve of it when weighed against the equivalent fossil fuel savings.
I'm not sure what you mean by that. You mean in the ground, cooling some of the media you're getting the heat from? Yes, proper sizing and placement and understanding the source is critical to proper operation of geothermal energy extraction.The biggest problem i could see arising would be formation of a 'cold spot' around the heat exchanger which would basically shut the plant down, though i suppose smart placement would eliminate this.
Well, another issue is that I'm not sure all of those are necessarily all that accessible. If the volcano isn't active, the heat could be quite deep underground and difficult and expensive to access.a google search shows that north america's volcanoes are in a chain along the entire west coast, running up through Canada. i don't think its unreasonable to say a large chunk of the grid load could be supplied by these systems.
trini said:sooo, i was thinking, why don't we use the heat from underground magma channels to boil water and drive steam turbines, seems like a pretty stable way to make power. has anyone tried this before?
trini said:hm i saw it said 181 MW, which i assumed meant a per second basis. i guess if its MWh then its not as great as i thought, though still a viable power source.
propalo said:I’m going on thinking: when you get energy from volcano you discharge a bit of its energy potential. What about discharging 10-50% of this potential? even 100%? We kill two birds with one stone: a) prevent eruption with its catastrophic consequences; b) get a global amount of energy.
Possible ways: drainage well; special chamber; volcano’s own chamber or caldera. Moreover: the 3rd bird is application of volcanoes for energy storage, may be artificial ones.
trini said:I don't believe eruptions are caused solely by the heat of the magma, but more from the buildup of pressure as the tectonic plates move around.
propalo said:It's not told about mentioned plates. We are working only with energy they cause : heat and pressure
Drakkith said:I don't think I can understand you here. What exactly are you saying?
propalo said:Tectonic plates’ interaction causes volcano activity. It’s inner pressure and temperature erase that leads to eruption and release inner energy. Certainly it causes catastrophic consequences.
I want:
a) Prevent catastrophe (drainage);
b) Accumulate and make to work volcano’s energy (partially it implemented: geothermal plants are working over the world for decades. But they absorb only insignificant part of potential charge.)
Sorry, it was error. Read "increase".Drakkith said:What does "erase" means in this context?
Drakkith said:...I don't think draining magma buildup sites is a feasible solution. QUOTE]
Dear Drakkith, your remarks are very reasonable.
Draining is, before and over all, the way (probably just one) for preventing catastrophe. You marked quite right any of problems and challenges sequential from this way.
The basic mechanism is that in cause of excessive pressure, lava runs out through drainage canals that decrease the pressure and prevent eruption.
How to make lava to work? I have not immediate answer. Variety of solutions as manufacturing straight in the camera or enhanced heat exchange needs an immense work, but the main thing is to know it is possible.
I believe our little discussions help to bring them closer.
trini said:sooo, i was thinking, why don't we use the heat from underground magma channels to boil water and drive steam turbines, seems like a pretty stable way to make power. has anyone tried this before?
trini said:maybe, but i think even environmentalists would approve of it when weighed against the equivalent fossil fuel savings. The biggest problem i could see arising would be formation of a 'cold spot' around the heat exchanger which would basically shut the plant down, though i suppose smart placement would eliminate this.
a google search shows that north america's volcanoes are in a chain along the entire west coast, running up through Canada. i don't think its unreasonable to say a large chunk of the grid load could be supplied by these systems.
mheslep said:They're very pesky indeed if they can't tolerate cutting out 20-30 acres of wilderness here and there for a zero emissions geothermal power plant.
klimatos said:You bet we're pesky! That "20-30" acres becomes ten or a hundred times greater when you add in roads, power lines, living quarters for operational crews, and the like. Add to this the disruption of ecological patterns and the sheer ugliness of the facilities and the cost becomes even greater. And all of this just to gain a few megawatts of power for a wasteful culture.
Moreover, that "zero emissions" power plant is no such thing. How many gallons of fuel will be transformed into carbon dioxide during construction, and how many more for the maintenance and supply of a facility that may well be at the end of eighty miles of mountain road.
Yellowstone is our largest thermal area, and I know it well. Developing those thermal areas will not come cheaply. Best of all, however, the people of the United States are simply not going to allow you to do it. Not when enormous savings in power can be made by simple conservation measures.
http://www.nrel.gov/gis/images/geothermal_resource2009-final.jpg" must all rank higher than Wyoming in terms of favorable geothermal area.klimatos said:You bet we're pesky! That "20-30" acres becomes ten or a hundred times greater when you add in roads, power lines, living quarters for operational crews, and the like. Add to this the disruption of ecological patterns and the sheer ugliness of the facilities and the cost becomes even greater. And all of this just to gain a few megawatts of power for a wasteful culture.
Moreover, that "zero emissions" power plant is no such thing. How many gallons of fuel will be transformed into carbon dioxide during construction, and how many more for the maintenance and supply of a facility that may well be at the end of eighty miles of mountain road. Yellowstone is our largest thermal area, ...
No one said said anything about National Park land, which I assume you know well from driving or flying there often in some combustion vehicle or other, along with the three million other annual visitors. I myself can not speak for the people of the United States, but I think the current 30% of US land area owned by the federal government is a bit much.... and I know it well. Best of all, however, the people of the United States are simply not going to allow you to do it.
timman_24 said:But you are not taking into account all the coal mining locations and facilities that will also shut down, plus the damages they do to the atmosphere. Geothermal combined with hydro, wind, solar, and advanced nuclear could make for a beautiful future.
mheslep said:No one said said anything about National Park land, which I assume you know well from driving or flying there often in some combustion vehicle or other, along with the three million other annual visitors. I myself can not speak for the people of the United States, but I think the current 30% of US land area owned by the federal government is a bit much.
mheslep said:While building new alternative power source B might not cause the closure of existing fossil power source A in the near term, it almost certainly will preclude the construction of new fossil power source C in an expanding demand for energy.
mheslep said:Yellow stone's geysers create numerous mineral pools. Are they ugly? They are certainly lethal to fish and birds. Should it be shut down?
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_YZF8hY__8...SC_4823--dave+at+morning+glory+pool+en+wy.jpg
Of course they are and should be preserved. I'm looking for a common standard for mineral pools whether native or created by a remote geothermal well, and not a double standard to protect a private interpretation of nature.klimatos said:I am very familiar with Yellowstone's thermal pools. I believe the one shown in your photo is called "Morning Glory Pool". I find most of them attractive, although some are ugly. Ugly or attractive, the people of the United States have chosen to preserve them, and I applaud that decision.
I meant such a pool would be just as lethal to fish and birds entering them as one created by a geothermal well.Where did you pick up the notion that these pools kill birds and fish? The Yellowstone River is one of the prime trout streams in the world, and it contains dozens of thermal springs. I have seen numerous birds (mostly gulls) picking at trash right at the margins of these pools. If some genetic mutation brought forth a bird dumb enough to dive in, yes it would die. The process is termed natural selection.
Once the initial capital cost constructing a renewable power plant is sunk, the operating cost is typically far lower than any high fuel cost plant. C.f. the O&E costs in the chart in post 22. All types fossil energy O&E is higher than geothermal.klimatos said:I don't believe that to be true. I suspect that new fossil power source C will be built whenever and wherever it is both legal and profitable.
The process involves drilling deep into the Earth's crust to access pockets of magma. The heat from the magma is then used to generate steam, which in turn powers turbines to produce electricity.
Yes, it is considered a sustainable energy source because magma is constantly being replenished by the Earth's natural processes. However, proper monitoring and management of the resource is necessary to ensure its sustainability.
The main risk is the potential for volcanic eruptions or earthquakes caused by the extraction of magma. There is also a concern for the release of harmful gases and chemicals during the drilling process.
Compared to other renewable energy sources, harnessing underground magma has the potential to produce a large amount of power with a smaller footprint. However, it is still a relatively new and untested technology, so its efficiency and cost-effectiveness are still being evaluated.
One of the main limitations is the high cost of drilling and extracting magma. It also requires specialized technology and expertise, making it less accessible to smaller communities. Additionally, the location and accessibility of suitable magma reservoirs may also be a limiting factor.