Harnessing Underground Magma for Power: A New Idea?

[trini]

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?

 

[SteamKing]

A safer version of this is called geothermal energy. Iceland uses quite a bit of geothermal energy because of the volcanic activity on the island.

 

[russ_watters]

I suppose for the US, a lot of it is political: who wants to see a bunch of power plants at Yellowstone?

 

[trini]

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.

 

[russ_watters]

maybe, but i think even environmentalists would approve of it when weighed against the equivalent fossil fuel savings.

You'd be surprised. Environmentalist interference is a major problem for wind power, for example.

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.

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.

Note; electricity isn't the only use for geothermal. Heating and air conditioning is sometimes done this way, but you don't need magma, a 50F aquafier will do nicely.

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.

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.

 

[trini]

what i meant was that if u had say a tungsten vessel buried in a hole next to a lava channel as your HX system, and enough heat was removed to allow the lava to solidify, the channel would plug up and the heat flow would be directed away from the HX.

you're right about the active volcanoes, though it would still be interesting to see how much power such a system could potentially generate. i mean you could boil HUGE amounts of water.

 

[davenn]

New Zealand also uses geothermal energy generation. The upper centre of the North Island is volcanically active and with the crust being quite thin, access to to heat is very easy.

from wikipedia...
"The power station was built in 1958, the first of its type (wet steam) in the world, and it is currently owned and operated by Contact Energy. A binary cycle power plant was constructed in 2005 to use lower-temperature steam that had already gone through the main plant. This increased the total capacity of the power station to 181MW. The Wairakei power station is due to be phased out from 2013, replaced by the Te Mihi geothermal power station. The Poihipi Power Station was built in 1996 at a nearby site in the same field."

Dave

 

[Integral]

One issue in the US is that most of those volcanoes along the west coast are in Wilderness areas. It is not easy to drill the wells needed when motor verticals are prohibited.

 

[trini]

wait a second, if the production capacity of that station is 181 MW, and according to wiki the total US energy consumption was 29.26 PWh in 2006, which equates to a power requirement of (29.26e+9/(365*24*3600))=927 MW, then 6 of these stations could power the entire US?

 

[russ_watters]

No, you need to get that "3600" out of there.

 

[trini]

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]

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?

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.

 

[Drakkith]

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.

The watt is defined as 1 joule per second. So 181 MW is simply 181 million joules per second produced. You either can't have watts per second, or it would be 181 MW seconds I guess. 181 MW over 1 hour is 181 MWH.

 

[Drakkith]

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.

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]

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.

It's not told about mentioned plates. We are working only with energy they cause : heat and pressure

 

[Drakkith]

It's not told about mentioned plates. We are working only with energy they cause : heat and pressure

I don't think I can understand you here. What exactly are you saying?

 

[propalo]

I don't think I can understand you here. What exactly are you saying?

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.)

 

[Drakkith]

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.)

What does "erase" means in this context?

As for the rest, I don't think draining magma buildup sites is a feasible solution. Don't they usually sit pretty far underground until right before an eruption as they push to the surface? Also, you aren't going to be able to remove the heat from that much magma. Even if you could, the only place it would have available to transfer to would be the surface, and I think we have plenty of problems with too much heat in the climate already. But, as I always say, I don't know everything so I could be wrong.

 

[propalo]

What does "erase" means in this context?

Sorry, it was error. Read "increase".

 

[propalo]

...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.

 

[klimatos]

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?

Magma would dissolve most materials exposed to it and would severely degrade others. The use of less extreme geothermal energy is a better alternative.

Geothermal production of energy has been tried (sometimes successfully, sometimes not) many times and is still being developed in several locations.

The problem is not physical but economic. It is far more economical to produce electricity by burning coal than almost any other way. Consequently, most alternative energy production is heavily subsidized and would not exist except for those subsidies. Whether or not these subsidies are justified is a political question, not a scientific one.

 

[mheslep]

I think the days of using the superlative 'far' when comparing coal based generation costs to other generation sources are over. According to EIA at least, almost any of the combined cycle technologies, hydro of course, and now even onshore wind are on par or better with coal. And that's ignoring the costs of coal emissions (mercury, SO2, radioactivity,etc) and mining.

 

[Integral]

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.

The major issue on the US west coast is that most of the area with geothermal resources lies in our wilderness areas. So indeed you will have significant resistance from those pesky conservationists if you attempt to exploit geothermal energy.

 

[mheslep]

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]

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.

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.

 

[timman_24]

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.

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]

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, ...

http://www.nrel.gov/gis/images/geothermal_resource2009-final.jpg" must all rank higher than Wyoming in terms of favorable geothermal area.

... 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.

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.

 

[klimatos]

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.

You are assuming that the development of power source B will result in the closure of power source A. Economics does not work that way. Power source A will remain in operation as long as the profits outweigh the costs. And now you have two blots on the landscape where before you only had one.

"Geothermal combined with hydro, wind, solar, and advanced nuclear could make for a beautiful future." And the Easter Bunny lays chocolate eggs! These alternative power sources also produce ugly mineralized cooling ponds, fish kills, bird kills, disfigured landscapes and nuclear wastes!

 

[klimatos]

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.

No, I know it well from some seven summers working in the Yellowstone backcountry, including spending two full summers evaluating each of the 250-odd backcountry campsites for environmental impacts. I traveled it on foot, carrying my pack on my back.

I prefer to think of that 30% of the land as being owned by me and my fellow Americans. And I would like to see that percentage increase.

 

[mheslep]

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]

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

 

[klimatos]

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.

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.

 

[klimatos]

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

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.

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.

 

[mheslep]

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.

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.

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.

I meant such a pool would be just as lethal to fish and birds entering them as one created by a geothermal well.

 

[mheslep]

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.

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.
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3521797&postcount=22

 

[klimatos]

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.

I see nothing wrong with double standards. Such standards are well established in law, in traditions, and in the very fabric of most societies. I see no reason why I should treat man-made disasters and natural disasters the same.