Harnessing Underground Magma for Power: A New Idea?

Click For Summary
Harnessing underground magma for power generation has potential, as it could utilize heat to drive steam turbines, similar to geothermal energy systems already in use, like those in Iceland and New Zealand. However, challenges include the accessibility of active volcanic sites and environmental concerns regarding the construction of power plants in protected wilderness areas. The formation of 'cold spots' around heat exchangers could hinder efficiency, but strategic placement may mitigate this issue. Economic factors also play a significant role, as traditional energy sources like coal remain cheaper without subsidies for alternative energy. Overall, while the concept is promising, practical and political hurdles need to be addressed for implementation.
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
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.

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.
 
  • #33
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

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.
 
  • #34
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.
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.
 
  • #35
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.
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
 
  • #36
mheslep said:
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.
 

Similar threads

Replies
17
Views
4K
Replies
69
Views
15K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
5K
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
17
Views
3K