- Status
serendipiti
Distinguished
- Aug 9, 2010
- 33
- 0
- 18,580
While oil and coal was that cheap it was easier to burn them (what a sin will tell the grandchildren of our granchildren) than to find alternatives. Basically you need to put an thermohidroelectric plant in a hole on the earth (a really deep hole), pour down water to the hole and get steam outside, perhaps it could be done in a closed circuit (depending if it is cheaper than getting the water carried to the hole). So your expenses are mainly drilling the hole, getting the water source and putting the equipment to work (I aknowledge that modern equipment will get better performance... and because it has to do with balance: once you get enough performance through its lifetime compared to your competitors, things get done. Probably this balance is there now, not 20 years ago and probably someone else guessed that this could be done but not at the moment. Probably he/she (in fact, Apple has) should had got a patent on it.
[citation][nom]svdb[/nom]100 years after everybody else, Americans discover the use of geothermal energy... what an accomplishment![/citation]
USA had geothermal installations back in the 1800s. And currently 1/3 largest user of geothermal. As with most energy sectors it was annihilated by cheap Oil.
USA had geothermal installations back in the 1800s. And currently 1/3 largest user of geothermal. As with most energy sectors it was annihilated by cheap Oil.
There is no definitive scientific evidence that there is a nuclear reactor at the Earth's core, although it has been put forth as a theory by some scientists. The heat generated from nuclear processes in the Earth is best described as a natural decay of radioactive elements, which is quite different from a nuclear reactor.
palladin9479
Distinguished
- Jul 26, 2008
- 193
- 0
- 18,640
[citation][nom]au_equus[/nom]geothermal heat is not derived from nuclear reactions, fusion or fission. read a science book[/citation]
Actually it is. Over 80% of the earth's geothermal energy is created through fissioning of the heavy metals at the earths core. The center of the earth is a giant natural fission engine, gravity forces heavy atoms to fission and produce the neutrons that heat the earth's core. That heat then slowly transfers to the top over the course of a few centuries. Similiar to how the sun works, but on a smaller scale using fission instead of fusion. So technically, Geothermal is nuclear by proxy (the earth does the reaction, we collect the power).
Problem with Geothermal is that power transfer efficiency is limited by carnot. Thermal power transfers at the most efficient when two maters have the greatest difference in thermal power. This close to the surface it's simply not hot enough to get amazing efficiencies. Binary cycle plants have made it much easier now, and indeed part of the plant is deep underground with the thermal engine being ground level if not slightly underground. Hydro-sheering and dry rock techniques also greatly enhance the viability of geo-thermal. Only negative side effect is that you'll create slight seismic activity in the local area during construction.
Honestly we should be using Geothermal much more then we are, it's one of the few "renewable" energy sources that is actually viable. No matter the time of day, or the weather, the earth is always fissioning energy.
Actually it is. Over 80% of the earth's geothermal energy is created through fissioning of the heavy metals at the earths core. The center of the earth is a giant natural fission engine, gravity forces heavy atoms to fission and produce the neutrons that heat the earth's core. That heat then slowly transfers to the top over the course of a few centuries. Similiar to how the sun works, but on a smaller scale using fission instead of fusion. So technically, Geothermal is nuclear by proxy (the earth does the reaction, we collect the power).
Problem with Geothermal is that power transfer efficiency is limited by carnot. Thermal power transfers at the most efficient when two maters have the greatest difference in thermal power. This close to the surface it's simply not hot enough to get amazing efficiencies. Binary cycle plants have made it much easier now, and indeed part of the plant is deep underground with the thermal engine being ground level if not slightly underground. Hydro-sheering and dry rock techniques also greatly enhance the viability of geo-thermal. Only negative side effect is that you'll create slight seismic activity in the local area during construction.
Honestly we should be using Geothermal much more then we are, it's one of the few "renewable" energy sources that is actually viable. No matter the time of day, or the weather, the earth is always fissioning energy.
palladin9479
Distinguished
- Jul 26, 2008
- 193
- 0
- 18,640
As an addendum to the above comment.
Currently there is no proven theory on exactly how the earth get's it's heat, we don't have a way to get that deep. The older theory was that all of that heat was produced by spontaneous fission, aka beta decay of heavy metals in the mantle. Recent number crunching and measurements have demonstrated that this isn't possible, that at most only 50% of current heat could come from these sources and the other 50% is unaccounted for.
A newer theory that is slowly gaining ground is that there is chained nuclear fission happening (not just beta decay) in the core and that's responsible for the greater amount of heat produced. Now there isn't a single big fission reaction but instead billions of small reactors that happen when enough heavy metals clump together. After it runs it's course it dies off and disperses. Thus you get a cycle of constantly starting and stopping nuclear fission, and that this is responsible not only for the tremendous amounts of heat coming from the core but also the frequent but semi-random fluctuations and switching of the earth's magnetic field (as measured on planetary time scales). It also explains the tectonic activity and the random volcanic activity present on our planet. The estimate is that between 50 to 80% of the earth's heat is generated through these reactions, either through direct neutron absorption or via the decay of newly created non-fissionable metals.
The difference between the two theory's comes with how the earth was formed. The first assumes that nearly all the uranium stayed at the top of the mantle or in the crust because uranium and other heavy metals are chemically predisposed to attract silicates. As the core contains large amounts of iron they believe the uranium wouldn't of made it to the core. The second theory refutes that in primordial times the earth was mostly gas and molten liquid and that, as there hadn't been a silicate formed layer yet, the primordial uranium and other heavy metals would of been pulled to the center due to gravitational forces (the same ones that pulled iron to the center). Then after the outer earth cooled and hardened the heavy metals would of been trapped in the center and unable to easily move to the top. Gravity then dominates and whenever enough of these heavy metals get near each other and with the natural heat and pressure of the core, you get the starting conditions of chained fission reactions. Now since these are uncontrolled with no reactor vessels present the reaction only lasts long enough that all nearby fissionable material is exhausted. Of course with the core spinning you get a constant movement of material and thus a constant starting / stopping of chained fission reactions.
Currently there is no proven theory on exactly how the earth get's it's heat, we don't have a way to get that deep. The older theory was that all of that heat was produced by spontaneous fission, aka beta decay of heavy metals in the mantle. Recent number crunching and measurements have demonstrated that this isn't possible, that at most only 50% of current heat could come from these sources and the other 50% is unaccounted for.
A newer theory that is slowly gaining ground is that there is chained nuclear fission happening (not just beta decay) in the core and that's responsible for the greater amount of heat produced. Now there isn't a single big fission reaction but instead billions of small reactors that happen when enough heavy metals clump together. After it runs it's course it dies off and disperses. Thus you get a cycle of constantly starting and stopping nuclear fission, and that this is responsible not only for the tremendous amounts of heat coming from the core but also the frequent but semi-random fluctuations and switching of the earth's magnetic field (as measured on planetary time scales). It also explains the tectonic activity and the random volcanic activity present on our planet. The estimate is that between 50 to 80% of the earth's heat is generated through these reactions, either through direct neutron absorption or via the decay of newly created non-fissionable metals.
The difference between the two theory's comes with how the earth was formed. The first assumes that nearly all the uranium stayed at the top of the mantle or in the crust because uranium and other heavy metals are chemically predisposed to attract silicates. As the core contains large amounts of iron they believe the uranium wouldn't of made it to the core. The second theory refutes that in primordial times the earth was mostly gas and molten liquid and that, as there hadn't been a silicate formed layer yet, the primordial uranium and other heavy metals would of been pulled to the center due to gravitational forces (the same ones that pulled iron to the center). Then after the outer earth cooled and hardened the heavy metals would of been trapped in the center and unable to easily move to the top. Gravity then dominates and whenever enough of these heavy metals get near each other and with the natural heat and pressure of the core, you get the starting conditions of chained fission reactions. Now since these are uncontrolled with no reactor vessels present the reaction only lasts long enough that all nearby fissionable material is exhausted. Of course with the core spinning you get a constant movement of material and thus a constant starting / stopping of chained fission reactions.
C.E.R.N in Europe has shown that global warming is due to solar radiation, sunspot cycles. Why would you want to release added heat from the Earths core? Oil is dirt cheap, cheaper than milk by the gallon.
- Sep 6, 2008
- 3,485
- 0
- 20,730
Of course if you count the total amount of wind blowing across this planet it would be thousands of times more than the coal plants installed on this planet, but the problem becomes: is it viable?
The most obvious reason is that unlike coal and other non-renewable resources, power generation by wind and geothermal are finicky at best and downright unpredictable and inefficient at worst.
For instance, wind power generation requires vast swaths of land that will have its landscape soiled by the huge spinning blades. Not to mention that creates turbulence near the site as well as killing a lot of migrating birds.
The most obvious reason is that unlike coal and other non-renewable resources, power generation by wind and geothermal are finicky at best and downright unpredictable and inefficient at worst.
For instance, wind power generation requires vast swaths of land that will have its landscape soiled by the huge spinning blades. Not to mention that creates turbulence near the site as well as killing a lot of migrating birds.
geothermal heat? thats for tree huggers 😛
in all seriousness it can be done, its just a matter of profitability, because that is the only motivation of a company to do it... so... choice A, do nothing now, make trillions of dollars per quarter, and wait for someone else (the government) to put up money when we run out of (profitable) oil. or B spend billions now to make some unknown amount of money later, and quite possibly cut the track (so to speak) for your competetors.
as a stockholder, i clearly want option A cuz i want my loot
in all seriousness it can be done, its just a matter of profitability, because that is the only motivation of a company to do it... so... choice A, do nothing now, make trillions of dollars per quarter, and wait for someone else (the government) to put up money when we run out of (profitable) oil. or B spend billions now to make some unknown amount of money later, and quite possibly cut the track (so to speak) for your competetors.
as a stockholder, i clearly want option A cuz i want my loot
warmon6
Distinguished
- Jul 24, 2009
- 190
- 0
- 18,640
[citation][nom]ctmk[/nom]I Just wondering if tapping into ground thermal energy also prevent volcano eruption? It might well worth if we can suck heat energy directly from magma without melting the pipes.[/citation]
with the way things are now and most likely for a very very very (did i forget to mention "very") long time,so no.
To cool a magma chamber, you'll need a super huge pipe just to do cool down a small volcano down just a little bit. If we look at yellow stone "super volcano", where if i heard/remember is correct, the magma chamber powering that beast has a volume that's 3x larger than the volume of Lake Michigan.....well you get the picture.
Although IMO, you really dont want to "cool" volcano........ While im no volcano expert, if you were to cool 1 part volcano, another part would still have heat that you cant reach and/or prevent. That part you cant reach/prevent will have not only heat but pressure. Pressure is what cause explosions around violent volcano's. If you have more rock between the surface and the chamber, the more pressure it will have to generate to release all of that energy. Once the rocks between the surface and the chamber cant take the pressure, they'll brake. Once that happens, there would be a Really Massive Explosion.
Basic example would be like a inflated balloon and a air tank. Both can hold air but there materials can hold different amount of air back before they pop.
Balloon would be like a normal volcano.
Your attempt on cooling a volcano is like the air tank.
Air tank can hold more back vs the balloon. Although when the balloon gives up, it not as violent as the air tank would..... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWivPYuLiOE
Now there more to it than heat and pressure that makes a volcano, but im just seeing it with those 2 factors alone as a problem with cooling these volcanos artificially...
with the way things are now and most likely for a very very very (did i forget to mention "very") long time,so no.
To cool a magma chamber, you'll need a super huge pipe just to do cool down a small volcano down just a little bit. If we look at yellow stone "super volcano", where if i heard/remember is correct, the magma chamber powering that beast has a volume that's 3x larger than the volume of Lake Michigan.....well you get the picture.
Although IMO, you really dont want to "cool" volcano........ While im no volcano expert, if you were to cool 1 part volcano, another part would still have heat that you cant reach and/or prevent. That part you cant reach/prevent will have not only heat but pressure. Pressure is what cause explosions around violent volcano's. If you have more rock between the surface and the chamber, the more pressure it will have to generate to release all of that energy. Once the rocks between the surface and the chamber cant take the pressure, they'll brake. Once that happens, there would be a Really Massive Explosion.
Basic example would be like a inflated balloon and a air tank. Both can hold air but there materials can hold different amount of air back before they pop.
Balloon would be like a normal volcano.
Your attempt on cooling a volcano is like the air tank.
Air tank can hold more back vs the balloon. Although when the balloon gives up, it not as violent as the air tank would..... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWivPYuLiOE
Now there more to it than heat and pressure that makes a volcano, but im just seeing it with those 2 factors alone as a problem with cooling these volcanos artificially...
[citation][nom]Anonymous[/nom]C.E.R.N in Europe has shown that global warming is due to solar radiation, sunspot cycles. Why would you want to release added heat from the Earths core? Oil is dirt cheap, cheaper than milk by the gallon.[/citation]
And I don't use milk to power my car, computer, lights, ect.
And I don't use milk to power my car, computer, lights, ect.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Question
- Locked
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
Question Keyboard key presses are very delayed or entirely unresponsive
- Started by Troika
- Replies: 3
-
-
-
-
-
Question Youtube and Spotify not loading- Started by Georginabaird
- Replies: 5
Facebook
Twitter