| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Andrew" |
| Date: |
24 May 2004 02:55:12 PM |
| Object: |
The Inexhaustible Energy Source Beneath Our Feet |
According to the expert Willy Gehrer, the environmentally friendly
generation of electricity from geothermal sources is going to play an
important role in the future of energy production. "I'm convinced that in 20
years geothermal power plants will be delivering ten percent of the total
electricity produced worldwide," Gehrer told Pictures of the Future, the
Siemens research magazine. Gehrer is President of ETG Electrosuisse (Swiss
Electrotechnical Association) and is the head of Power Systems at Siemens
Switzerland.
Full story available here: http://www.physorg.com/news105.html
Do you believe it's possible to use this geothermal energy on that scale?
.
|
|
| User: "Karl Johanson" |
|
| Title: Re: The Inexhaustible Energy Source Beneath Our Feet |
24 May 2004 03:02:32 PM |
|
|
"Andrew" <andrew_zi@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c8tju0$v95$1@netlx020.civ.utwente.nl...
According to the expert Willy Gehrer, the environmentally friendly
generation of electricity from geothermal sources
All energy sources have human and environmental consequences. Geothermal
power plants in California are estimated to emit up to 5 trillion
pico-Curies of radiation every day (I don't think that's of concern, but
some are worried about any human caused radiation releases). Chemicals are
released from geothermal plants as well, such as hydrogen fluoride.
Some feel that geothermal power plants in California has lead to hundreds of
earthquakes.
is going to play an
important role in the future of energy production. "I'm convinced that in
20
years geothermal power plants will be delivering ten percent of the total
electricity produced worldwide," Gehrer told Pictures of the Future, the
Siemens research magazine. Gehrer is President of ETG Electrosuisse (Swiss
Electrotechnical Association) and is the head of Power Systems at Siemens
Switzerland.
Full story available here: http://www.physorg.com/news105.html
Do you believe it's possible to use this geothermal energy on that scale?
Geothermal will be one of several types of energy used. I doubt it will be
producing 10% of our energy any time soon. If we include geothermal 'heat
pumps' then geothermal will do better, but I still doubt it'll get to 10%.
Regardless, invest now if you like.
The most significant form of geothermal energy I've personally used, is
sitting in geothermal pools at Ainsworth, Banff & Radium.
Karl Johanson
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisin" |
|
| Title: Natural radiation from bedrock |
24 May 2004 04:05:13 PM |
|
|
"Karl Johanson" <karljohanson@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:sxssc.575524$oR5.160805@pd7tw3no...
All energy sources have human and environmental consequences. Geothermal
power plants in California are estimated to emit up to 5 trillion
pico-Curies of radiation every day (I don't think that's of concern, but
some are worried about any human caused radiation releases). Chemicals are
released from geothermal plants as well, such as hydrogen fluoride.
There are houses around here (SE British Columbia) with ~1 million picoCuries.
Just how much radon does the earth emit per km2 in areas with igneous bedrock?
Does it most travel with water to the surface?
.
|
|
|
| User: "G. R. L. Cowan" |
|
| Title: Re: Natural radiation from bedrock |
24 May 2004 05:30:09 PM |
|
|
Eric Gisin wrote:
"Karl Johanson" <karljohanson@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:sxssc.575524$oR5.160805@pd7tw3no...
All energy sources have human and environmental consequences. Geothermal
power plants in California are estimated to emit up to 5 trillion
pico-Curies of radiation every day (I don't think that's of concern, but
some are worried about any human caused radiation releases). Chemicals are
released from geothermal plants as well, such as hydrogen fluoride.
There are houses around here (SE British Columbia) with ~1 million picoCuries.
Just how much radon does the earth emit per km2 in areas with igneous bedrock?
Does it most travel with water to the surface?
Knowing that it all spends itself with a half-life of 3.824 days
(aka a mean lifetime, the time in 1 percent of which it loses 1 percent,
of 5.517 days) and googling how much there is in air,
you can figure out how much must be effusing in 5.517 days.
--- Graham Cowan
http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/Paper_for_11th_CHC.doc --
fireproof fuel, real-car range, no emissions
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rusty" |
|
| Title: Re: Natural radiation from bedrock |
24 May 2004 06:31:34 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 24 May 2004 18:30:09 -0400, "G. R. L. Cowan"
<gcowan@eagle.ca> wrote:
Eric Gisin wrote:
"Karl Johanson" <karljohanson@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:sxssc.575524$oR5.160805@pd7tw3no...
All energy sources have human and environmental consequences. Geothermal
power plants in California are estimated to emit up to 5 trillion
pico-Curies of radiation every day (I don't think that's of concern, but
some are worried about any human caused radiation releases). Chemicals are
released from geothermal plants as well, such as hydrogen fluoride.
There are houses around here (SE British Columbia) with ~1 million picoCuries.
Just how much radon does the earth emit per km2 in areas with igneous bedrock?
Does it most travel with water to the surface?
Knowing that it all spends itself with a half-life of 3.824 days
(aka a mean lifetime, the time in 1 percent of which it loses 1 percent,
of 5.517 days) and googling how much there is in air,
you can figure out how much must be effusing in 5.517 days.
--- Graham Cowan
That is not the meaning of "half life". Half life is the time taken
for the emitted radiation to fall to half of the initial level.
Since radiation from a radioactive source never falls to zero, this
is the most convenient method of expressing the level of radiation
after a period of time.
.
|
|
|
| User: "G. R. L. Cowan" |
|
| Title: Re: Natural radiation from bedrock |
24 May 2004 07:32:03 PM |
|
|
Rusty wrote:
On Mon, 24 May 2004 18:30:09 -0400, "G. R. L. Cowan"
<gcowan@eagle.ca> wrote:
Eric Gisin wrote:
"Karl Johanson" <karljohanson@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:sxssc.575524$oR5.160805@pd7tw3no...
All energy sources have human and environmental consequences. Geothermal
power plants in California are estimated to emit up to 5 trillion
pico-Curies of radiation every day (I don't think that's of concern, but
some are worried about any human caused radiation releases). Chemicals are
released from geothermal plants as well, such as hydrogen fluoride.
There are houses around here (SE British Columbia) with ~1 million picoCuries.
Just how much radon does the earth emit per km2 in areas with igneous bedrock?
Does it most travel with water to the surface?
Knowing that it all spends itself with a half-life of 3.824 days
(aka a mean lifetime, the time in 1 percent of which it loses 1 percent,
of 5.517 days) and googling how much there is in air,
you can figure out how much must be effusing in 5.517 days.
--- Graham Cowan
That is not the meaning of "half life". Half life is the time taken
for the emitted radiation to fall to half of the initial level.
Since radiation from a radioactive source never falls to zero, this
is the most convenient method of expressing the level of radiation
after a period of time.
You are right. I should have written,
Its half-life is 3.824 days.
That implies the mean lifetime,
the time in 1 percent of which it loses 1 percent,
is 5.517 days.
Googling how much there is in air,
and knowing that virtually none of it originates there,
you know that effusion from the ground must replace
all of that once every 5.517 days.
--- Graham Cowan
http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/Paper_for_11th_CHC.doc --
fireproof fuel, real-car range, no emissions
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Henry" |
|
| Title: Re: Natural radiation from bedrock |
24 May 2004 11:29:44 PM |
|
|
"G. R. L. Cowan" <gcowan@eagle.ca> wrote in message
news:40B29403.129B4CF2@eagle.ca...
Rusty wrote:
On Mon, 24 May 2004 18:30:09 -0400, "G. R. L. Cowan"
<gcowan@eagle.ca> wrote:
Eric Gisin wrote:
Just how much radon does the earth emit per km2 in areas with igneous
bedrock?
Does it most travel with water to the surface?
Knowing that it all spends itself with a half-life of 3.824 days
(aka a mean lifetime, the time in 1 percent of which it loses 1
percent,
of 5.517 days) and googling how much there is in air,
you can figure out how much must be effusing in 5.517 days.
That is not the meaning of "half life". Half life is the time taken
for the emitted radiation to fall to half of the initial level.
Since radiation from a radioactive source never falls to zero, this
is the most convenient method of expressing the level of radiation
after a period of time.
You are right. I should have written,
Its half-life is 3.824 days.
That implies the mean lifetime,
the time in 1 percent of which it loses 1 percent,
is 5.517 days.
Googling how much there is in air,
and knowing that virtually none of it originates there,
you know that effusion from the ground must replace
all of that once every 5.517 days.
That was _much_ better.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brian Whatcott" |
|
| Title: Re: Natural radiation from bedrock |
25 May 2004 08:39:11 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 24 May 2004 21:29:44 -0700, "Richard Henry" <rphenry@home.com>
wrote:
Its half-life is 3.824 days.
That implies the mean lifetime,
the time in 1 percent of which it loses 1 percent,
is 5.517 days.
Googling how much there is in air,
and knowing that virtually none of it originates there,
you know that effusion from the ground must replace
all of that once every 5.517 days.
That was _much_ better.
Au contraire - that was no better.
This explanation is attempting to define a half life in terms
of a decay time constant. These two give a constant ratio, no problem
so far.
The difficulty is with the implication of a mean lifetime of a time
constant .
Brian W
.
|
|
|
| User: "Old Man" |
|
| Title: Re: Natural radiation from bedrock |
25 May 2004 11:25:42 PM |
|
|
"Brian Whatcott" <betwys1@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:css7b0h7d4q02412519433h5d1tpl5iah8@4ax.com...
On Mon, 24 May 2004 21:29:44 -0700, "Richard Henry" <rphenry@home.com>
wrote:
Its half-life is 3.824 days.
That implies the mean lifetime,
the time in 1 percent of which it loses 1 percent,
is 5.517 days.
Googling how much there is in air,
and knowing that virtually none of it originates there,
you know that effusion from the ground must replace
all of that once every 5.517 days.
That was _much_ better.
Au contraire - that was no better.
This explanation is attempting to define a half life in terms
of a decay time constant. These two give a constant ratio, no problem
so far.
The difficulty is with the implication of a mean lifetime of a time
constant .
Brian W
And you know the source without a doubt, knowing that
virtually none of it originates in the atmosphere ?
Does Brian know the flux of cosmic ray nuclei ? Does he
know that none of the primary nuclei survive the trip to
Earth's surface ? They fragment and cause fragmentation
of air molecules. What is the source of radioactive carbon
in Earth's atmosphere ?
The ultimate secondarys, energetic cosmic ray muons, make
it to the Surface. They're so energetic that they deposit little
energy in a thin scintillator, and will penetrate from head to
heel without stopping, leaving a damaging ion track. Old
Man estimates the head to heel rate at about once an hour for
every standing human on Earth. Shorter pass-through tracks
at various angles are much more frequent ( ~ 20 per second).
Most damaging are lower energy muons that stop in the body
(not at all likely). [Old Man]
.
|
|
|
| User: "bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Natural radiation from bedrock |
26 May 2004 10:29:38 AM |
|
|
"Old Man" <nomail@nomail.net> wrote:
"Brian Whatcott" <betwys1@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:css7b0h7d4q02412519433h5d1tpl5iah8@4ax.com...
On Mon, 24 May 2004 21:29:44 -0700, "Richard Henry" <rphenry@home.com>
wrote:
Its half-life is 3.824 days.
That implies the mean lifetime,
the time in 1 percent of which it loses 1 percent,
is 5.517 days.
Googling how much there is in air,
and knowing that virtually none of it originates there,
you know that effusion from the ground must replace
all of that once every 5.517 days.
That was _much_ better.
Au contraire - that was no better.
This explanation is attempting to define a half life in terms
of a decay time constant. These two give a constant ratio, no problem
so far.
The difficulty is with the implication of a mean lifetime of a time
constant .
Brian W
And you know the source without a doubt, knowing that
virtually none of it originates in the atmosphere ?
Does Brian know the flux of cosmic ray nuclei ? Does he
know that none of the primary nuclei survive the trip to
Earth's surface ? They fragment and cause fragmentation
of air molecules. What is the source of radioactive carbon
in Earth's atmosphere ?
The ultimate secondarys, energetic cosmic ray muons, make
it to the Surface. They're so energetic that they deposit little
energy in a thin scintillator, and will penetrate from head to
heel without stopping, leaving a damaging ion track. Old
Man estimates the head to heel rate at about once an hour for
every standing human on Earth. Shorter pass-through tracks
at various angles are much more frequent ( ~ 20 per second).
Most damaging are lower energy muons that stop in the body
(not at all likely). [Old Man]
I love the smell of muons in the morning.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "tj Frazir" |
|
| Title: Re: Natural radiation from bedrock |
25 May 2004 10:50:42 PM |
|
|
1900 and still works ,,,in italy .
the philipines makes 27 % of electric from geoelectric
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Natural radiation from bedrock |
25 May 2004 11:50:01 PM |
|
|
tj Frazir <GravityPhysics@webtv.net> wrote:
1900 and still works ,,,in italy .
the philipines makes 27 % of electric from geoelectric
Bzzzt, wrong answer.
"Geothermal power currently makes up around 16% of the Philippines'
installed power generation capacity, most of which has been developed
by the PNOC - Energy Development Corporation (PNOC-EDC)."
"The Philippines is the world's second largest producer of geothermal
power, with an available capacity of 1,931 MW, according to the
Philippine government."
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/philippi.html
Total generation capacity: ~13,000 Megawatts
California alone is ~50,000 Megawatts and could use more.
California has one pitiful volcano and it is in a National Park.
Most new construction in the Philippines is gas fired.
"The Philippines has 3.8 trillion cubic feet (Tcf) of proven natural gas
reserves, but had no significant production until late 2001. While in the
past the country's natural gas sector has not been developed extensively,
the government has made expanding gas use a priority, particularly for
electric power generation, in an effort to cut oil import expenses."
--
Jim Pennino
Remove -spam-sux to reply.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "tj Frazir" |
|
| Title: Re: Natural radiation from bedrock |
25 May 2004 10:45:22 PM |
|
|
1995 ,,,50 plants produced 6000 megawatts .
2000 62 plants produced 14000 mgw.
Thats 14000 mw more than some ignorant people thinks posible .
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Brian Whatcott" |
|
| Title: Re: Natural radiation from bedrock |
24 May 2004 09:13:55 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 24 May 2004 20:32:03 -0400, "G. R. L. Cowan" <gcowan@eagle.ca>
wrote:
Rusty wrote:
Just how much radon does the earth emit per km2 in areas with igneous bedrock?
Does it most travel with water to the surface?
Knowing that it all spends itself with a half-life of 3.824 days
(aka a mean lifetime, the time in 1 percent of which it loses 1 percent,
of 5.517 days) and googling how much there is in air,
you can figure out how much must be effusing in 5.517 days.
--- Graham Cowan
That is not the meaning of "half life". Half life is the time taken
for the emitted radiation to fall to half of the initial level.
Since radiation from a radioactive source never falls to zero, this
is the most convenient method of expressing the level of radiation
after a period of time.
You are right. I should have written,
Its half-life is 3.824 days.
That implies the mean lifetime,
the time in 1 percent of which it loses 1 percent,
is 5.517 days.
Googling how much there is in air,
and knowing that virtually none of it originates there,
you know that effusion from the ground must replace
all of that once every 5.517 days.
--- Graham Cowan
That is not the meaning of "half life". Half life is the time taken
for the emitted radiation to fall to half of the initial level.
Brian Whatcott Altus OK
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tony" |
|
| Title: Re: Natural radiation from bedrock |
24 May 2004 07:17:24 PM |
|
|
Eric Gisin wrote:
"Karl Johanson" <karljohanson@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:sxssc.575524$oR5.160805@pd7tw3no...
All energy sources have human and environmental consequences. Geothermal
power plants in California are estimated to emit up to 5 trillion
pico-Curies of radiation every day (I don't think that's of concern, but
some are worried about any human caused radiation releases). Chemicals are
released from geothermal plants as well, such as hydrogen fluoride.
There are houses around here (SE British Columbia) with ~1 million picoCuries.
Just how much radon does the earth emit per km2 in areas with igneous bedrock?
Does it most travel with water to the surface?
I had a few snide comments for the poster, like "Sure we can do that,
but I would not want to pay the light bill", but Unc.Al and a few others
got in first.
To Answer the Question:
They do not call New Hampshire the "Granite State" for nothing.
Deep earth uranium deposits decay and heat up, rock heats, expands,
softens, floats upwards. That is the formation of granite domes.
Granite domes are then mined for building material, and trouble
starts. The New Hampshire Capitol was made from "Goode Olde New
Hampshire Granite" and is now classified as radioactive waste.
If the building is ever demolished, the debris will have to be
treated the same as waste from a nuclear power plant. Given
the politics of Nukes vs.the Greens vs Seabrook vs. poor
NH ratepayers, the whole thing is a hoot. We Love It.
OTOH: I was friendly with a family with 3 out of 4 children with
birth defects, cancer, benign turmors, allergys, skin disorders,
and a host of other problems. Turns out, their house and water
was full of radon, to the tune of 5 to 50 Rads per year.
!!! That's right folks, that's Rads with a big R, not
rads with a little r. !!!
Unused camera film used to go black in that house after
2 years or so. Scary. I should have realized what was wrong,
knowing how radiation was discovered in the first place.
Cheers,
Tony
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Henry" |
|
| Title: Re: The Inexhaustible Energy Source Beneath Our Feet |
24 May 2004 04:41:07 PM |
|
|
"Andrew" <andrew_zi@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c8tju0$v95$1@netlx020.civ.utwente.nl...
According to the expert Willy Gehrer, the environmentally friendly
generation of electricity from geothermal sources is going to play an
important role in the future of energy production. "I'm convinced that in
20
years geothermal power plants will be delivering ten percent of the total
electricity produced worldwide," Gehrer told Pictures of the Future, the
Siemens research magazine. Gehrer is President of ETG Electrosuisse (Swiss
Electrotechnical Association) and is the head of Power Systems at Siemens
Switzerland.
Full story available here: http://www.physorg.com/news105.html
Do you believe it's possible to use this geothermal energy on that scale?
One of the messages in the forum includes the description "...up to 5
trillion picocuries...". Is there some problem with saying "5 curies"?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Karl Johanson" |
|
| Title: Re: The Inexhaustible Energy Source Beneath Our Feet |
24 May 2004 09:29:21 PM |
|
|
"Richard Henry" <rphenry@home.com> wrote in message
news:WZtsc.22722$PU5.21315@fed1read06...
"Andrew" <andrew_zi@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c8tju0$v95$1@netlx020.civ.utwente.nl...
According to the expert Willy Gehrer, the environmentally friendly
generation of electricity from geothermal sources is going to play an
important role in the future of energy production. "I'm convinced that
in
20
years geothermal power plants will be delivering ten percent of the
total
electricity produced worldwide," Gehrer told Pictures of the Future, the
Siemens research magazine. Gehrer is President of ETG Electrosuisse
(Swiss
Electrotechnical Association) and is the head of Power Systems at
Siemens
Switzerland.
Full story available here: http://www.physorg.com/news105.html
Do you believe it's possible to use this geothermal energy on that
scale?
One of the messages in the forum includes the description "...up to 5
trillion picocuries...". Is there some problem with saying "5 curies"?
Intentionally ironic units (few people notice, well done). Radiation
releases from annother type of power plant are sometimes listed in trillions
of pico-Curies so I find it interesting to see the same units related to
other power types.
Karl Johanson
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "mars" |
|
| Title: Re: The Inexhaustible Energy Source Beneath Our Feet |
24 May 2004 10:44:24 PM |
|
|
"Andrew" <andrew_zi@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<c8tju0$v95$1@netlx020.civ.utwente.nl>...
According to the expert Willy Gehrer, the environmentally friendly
generation of electricity from geothermal sources is going to play an
important role in the future of energy production.
Geothermal energy has never been environmentally friendly. If you only
make an audit on all the chemicals it extracted and dumped into our
environment, you will find that there are highly toxic chemicals
spewed out into the atmosphere add to it the carbon dioxides, hydrogen
sulfides,.... How fast do you think the fluid extracted is replaced by
fresh ones? And what happens when there is an imbalance? It could even
contribute to global flooding already happening around us.
"I'm convinced that in 20 years geothermal power plants will be
delivering ten percent of the total electricity produced worldwide,"
Gehrer told Pictures of the Future, the Siemens research magazine.
Gehrer is President of ETG Electrosuisse (Swiss Electrotechnical
Association) and is the head of Power Systems at Siemens Switzerland.
This shows how much interested they are to promote their products in
the industry. This is pure marketing strategy. They're ignorant of the
adverse effects of the geothermal fluids to us and the environment.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: The Inexhaustible Energy Source Beneath Our Feet |
24 May 2004 05:03:03 PM |
|
|
Andrew wrote:
According to the expert Willy Gehrer,
***** aleady
the environmentally friendly
generation of electricity
More *****
from geothermal sources is going to play an
important role in the future of energy production.
So is controlled thermonuclear fusion and ringing the Great Lakes with
20-story Dippy Birds with their asses tied to generators,
<http://www.backstreet.demon.co.uk/oddstuff/drinkingbirds/drinkingbirds.htm>
< "I'm convinced that in 20
years geothermal power plants will be delivering ten percent of the total
electricity produced worldwide,"
1) It's the power source of the future! Alway was, always will
be. Hey git, how do you tap a 1-10 gigawatts thermal for 20-40 years
continuous from a pool of magma without cooling it? That's the scale
of a modern coal-fired or nuclear power plant. Ever hear of
"thermodynamics?"
2) How much radon is there in lava at that scale of processing?
Mercury? Other noxious volatiles like arsenic, tellurium, cadmium...?
[snip]
Do you believe it's possible to use this geothermal energy on that scale?
No. It is, however, possible to receive government subsidies on that
scale. Save the children.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm
(Do something naughty to physics)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The Inexhaustible Energy Source Beneath Our Feet |
24 May 2004 05:34:18 PM |
|
|
In sci.physics Andrew <andrew_zi@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote:
According to the expert Willy Gehrer, the environmentally friendly
generation of electricity from geothermal sources is going to play an
important role in the future of energy production. "I'm convinced that in 20
years geothermal power plants will be delivering ten percent of the total
electricity produced worldwide," Gehrer told Pictures of the Future, the
Siemens research magazine. Gehrer is President of ETG Electrosuisse (Swiss
Electrotechnical Association) and is the head of Power Systems at Siemens
Switzerland.
Full story available here: http://www.physorg.com/news105.html
Do you believe it's possible to use this geothermal energy on that scale?
"environmentally friendly", my *****; ever been around a geothermal source?
Any steam hot enough to be useful for driving a turbine is going to
wash out a lot of stuff you would rather keep underground.
--
Jim Pennino
Remove -spam-sux to reply.
.
|
|
|
| User: "G. R. L. Cowan" |
|
| Title: Re: The Inexhaustible Energy Source Beneath Our Feet |
24 May 2004 05:46:27 PM |
|
|
wrote:
In sci.physics Andrew <andrew_zi@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote:
According to the expert Willy Gehrer, the environmentally friendly
generation of electricity from geothermal sources is going to play an
important role in the future of energy production. "I'm convinced that in 20
years geothermal power plants will be delivering ten percent of the total
electricity produced worldwide," Gehrer told Pictures of the Future, the
Siemens research magazine. Gehrer is President of ETG Electrosuisse (Swiss
Electrotechnical Association) and is the head of Power Systems at Siemens
Switzerland.
Full story available here: http://www.physorg.com/news105.html
Do you believe it's possible to use this geothermal energy on that scale?
"environmentally friendly", my *****; ever been around a geothermal source?
Any steam hot enough to be useful for driving a turbine is going to
wash out a lot of stuff you would rather keep underground.
Hence my comment here -- http://tinyurl.com/33p4w --
and I seem to recall this new talk does involve CO2,
not just from Gehrer's mouth, but as the heat transfer fluid.
--- Graham Cowan
http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/Paper_for_11th_CHC.doc --
fireproof fuel, real-car range, no emissions
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Greenfield" |
|
| Title: Re: The Inexhaustible Energy Source Beneath Our Feet |
24 May 2004 08:18:59 PM |
|
|
"G. R. L. Cowan" <gcowan@eagle.ca> wrote in message news:<40B27B43.CDA8E398@eagle.ca>...
jimp@specsol-spam-sux.com wrote:
"environmentally friendly", my *****; ever been around a geothermal source?
Any steam hot enough to be useful for driving a turbine is going to
wash out a lot of stuff you would rather keep underground.
--- Graham Cowan
http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/Paper_for_11th_CHC.doc --
fireproof fuel, real-car range, no emissions
A commercial project is currently underway in northern South
Australia, to drill
THROUGH a hydrocarbon layer, in order to extract (heat) energy from
the underlying hot rock
Jim G
.
|
|
|
| User: "Don Libby" |
|
| Title: Re: The Inexhaustible Energy Source Beneath Our Feet |
25 May 2004 11:12:26 PM |
|
|
"Jim Greenfield" <greenfield_7@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3c4afb26.0405241718.1a3587be@posting.google.com...
A commercial project is currently underway in northern South
Australia, to drill
THROUGH a hydrocarbon layer, in order to extract (heat) energy from
the underlying hot rock
Jim G
Hmm... Difficult to imagine the magnitude of government subsidy necessary
to make THAT project "commercially" feasible (and in Australian dollars, no
less...)
So, how is the Australian nuclear power industry coming along, then? Moving
ahead, is it?
-dl
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The Inexhaustible Energy Source Beneath Our Feet |
24 May 2004 06:58:54 PM |
|
|
In sci.physics G. R. L. Cowan <gcowan@eagle.ca> wrote:
jimp@specsol-spam-sux.com wrote:
In sci.physics Andrew <andrew_zi@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote:
According to the expert Willy Gehrer, the environmentally friendly
generation of electricity from geothermal sources is going to play an
important role in the future of energy production. "I'm convinced that in 20
years geothermal power plants will be delivering ten percent of the total
electricity produced worldwide," Gehrer told Pictures of the Future, the
Siemens research magazine. Gehrer is President of ETG Electrosuisse (Swiss
Electrotechnical Association) and is the head of Power Systems at Siemens
Switzerland.
Full story available here: http://www.physorg.com/news105.html
Do you believe it's possible to use this geothermal energy on that scale?
"environmentally friendly", my *****; ever been around a geothermal source?
Any steam hot enough to be useful for driving a turbine is going to
wash out a lot of stuff you would rather keep underground.
Hence my comment here -- http://tinyurl.com/33p4w --
and I seem to recall this new talk does involve CO2,
not just from Gehrer's mouth, but as the heat transfer fluid.
--- Graham Cowan
http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/Paper_for_11th_CHC.doc --
fireproof fuel, real-car range, no emissions
Not according the original link:
"With this process, water is pumped into strata of crystalline rock that
lie four to six kilometers deep in the earth and have a temperature of
about 200 degrees Celsius. Production wells tap the heated, pressurized
water and transport it to a heat exchanger on the surface. Finally, the
heat exchanger drives a steam turbine with a generator for electricity
production. After it has cooled, the water is pumped back into the earth."
200 degrees C (assuming no loss getting it to the surface or in the
heat exchanger) seems to me to be a bit on the cool side for driving a
turbine.
And geothermal water tends to leave deposits that clogs the pipes
meaning frequent and expensive maintenance.
--
Jim Pennino
Remove -spam-sux to reply.
.
|
|
|
| User: "G. R. L. Cowan" |
|
| Title: Re: The Inexhaustible Energy Source Beneath Our Feet |
24 May 2004 07:59:31 PM |
|
|
wrote:
In sci.physics G. R. L. Cowan <gcowan@eagle.ca> wrote:
wrote:
In sci.physics Andrew <andrew_zi@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote:
According to the expert Willy Gehrer, the environmentally friendly
generation of electricity from geothermal sources is going to play an
important role in the future of energy production. "I'm convinced that in 20
years geothermal power plants will be delivering ten percent of the total
electricity produced worldwide," Gehrer told Pictures of the Future, the
Siemens research magazine. Gehrer is President of ETG Electrosuisse (Swiss
Electrotechnical Association) and is the head of Power Systems at Siemens
Switzerland.
Full story available here: http://www.physorg.com/news105.html
Do you believe it's possible to use this geothermal energy on that scale?
"environmentally friendly", my *****; ever been around a geothermal source?
Any steam hot enough to be useful for driving a turbine is going to
wash out a lot of stuff you would rather keep underground.
Hence my comment here -- http://tinyurl.com/33p4w --
and I seem to recall this new talk does involve CO2,
not just from Gehrer's mouth, but as the heat transfer fluid.
Not according the original link:
"With this process, water is pumped into strata of crystalline rock ...
That would definitely be stupid.
There have been *two* recent stories about this.
Here's the one I must have been thinking of:
http://www.lanl.gov/worldview/news/releases/archive/04-031.shtml
--- Graham Cowan
http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/Paper_for_11th_CHC.doc --
fireproof fuel, real-car range, no emissions
.
|
|
|
| User: "Don Libby" |
|
| Title: Re: The Inexhaustible Energy Source Beneath Our Feet |
25 May 2004 09:47:01 PM |
|
|
"G. R. L. Cowan" <gcowan@eagle.ca> wrote in message
news:40B29A73.7DAE018A@eagle.ca...
In sci.physics Andrew <andrew_zi@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote:
According to the expert Willy Gehrer, the environmentally friendly
generation of electricity from geothermal sources is going to play
an
important role in the future of energy production. <...> > > > >
Siemens research magazine. Gehrer is President of ETG Electrosuisse (Swiss
Electrotechnical Association) and is the head of Power Systems at
Siemens
Switzerland.
Full story available here: http://www.physorg.com/news105.html
There have been *two* recent stories about this.
Here's the one I must have been thinking of:
http://www.lanl.gov/worldview/news/releases/archive/04-031.shtml
--- Graham Cowan
http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/Paper_for_11th_CHC.doc
Not to distract from the serious business of geothermal energy production,
but there are a few strange eddys in the ol' stream of consciousness:
1) Hawaiian Goddess Pele: Eh?
2) How is NNSA coping with the wildfire and Chinese guest scientist issues
these days?
3) Is it true that some local building codes prohibit electric heating, thus
inhibiting the expansion of electric-powered geothermal (ground-source)
heat-pump industry sales volumes [thus depressing the long-run rate of price
decline]?
4) Boro-turbine nuke-mobile? Make mine a plug-in hybrid (it's a freedom of
choice thingy).
5) My city is second only to San Francisco in US electric-petrol hybrid
sales. Whoopie.
-dl
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The Inexhaustible Energy Source Beneath Our Feet |
24 May 2004 07:20:32 PM |
|
|
In article <c8u27u$9gu$1@mail.specsol.com>, writes:
In sci.physics G. R. L. Cowan <gcowan@eagle.ca> wrote:
wrote:
In sci.physics Andrew <andrew_zi@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote:
According to the expert Willy Gehrer, the environmentally friendly
generation of electricity from geothermal sources is going to play an
important role in the future of energy production. "I'm convinced that in 20
years geothermal power plants will be delivering ten percent of the total
electricity produced worldwide," Gehrer told Pictures of the Future, the
Siemens research magazine. Gehrer is President of ETG Electrosuisse (Swiss
Electrotechnical Association) and is the head of Power Systems at Siemens
Switzerland.
Full story available here: http://www.physorg.com/news105.html
Do you believe it's possible to use this geothermal energy on that scale?
"environmentally friendly", my *****; ever been around a geothermal source?
Any steam hot enough to be useful for driving a turbine is going to
wash out a lot of stuff you would rather keep underground.
Hence my comment here -- http://tinyurl.com/33p4w --
and I seem to recall this new talk does involve CO2,
not just from Gehrer's mouth, but as the heat transfer fluid.
--- Graham Cowan
http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/Paper_for_11th_CHC.doc --
fireproof fuel, real-car range, no emissions
Not according the original link:
"With this process, water is pumped into strata of crystalline rock that
lie four to six kilometers deep in the earth and have a temperature of
about 200 degrees Celsius. Production wells tap the heated, pressurized
water and transport it to a heat exchanger on the surface. Finally, the
heat exchanger drives a steam turbine with a generator for electricity
production. After it has cooled, the water is pumped back into the earth."
200 degrees C (assuming no loss getting it to the surface or in the
heat exchanger) seems to me to be a bit on the cool side for driving a
turbine.
And geothermal water tends to leave deposits that clogs the pipes
meaning frequent and expensive maintenance.
That's not the biggest problem. Consider thermal conductivity of
rock. Then estimate for how long the walls of the region containing
the water will remain at 200 C.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: The Inexhaustible Energy Source Beneath Our Feet |
24 May 2004 08:55:49 PM |
|
|
wrote:
In article <c8u27u$9gu$1@mail.specsol.com>, writes:
In sci.physics G. R. L. Cowan <gcowan@eagle.ca> wrote:
wrote:
In sci.physics Andrew <andrew_zi@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote:
According to the expert Willy Gehrer, the environmentally friendly
generation of electricity from geothermal sources is going to play an
important role in the future of energy production. "I'm convinced that in 20
years geothermal power plants will be delivering ten percent of the total
electricity produced worldwide," Gehrer told Pictures of the Future, the
Siemens research magazine. Gehrer is President of ETG Electrosuisse (Swiss
Electrotechnical Association) and is the head of Power Systems at Siemens
Switzerland.
Full story available here: http://www.physorg.com/news105.html
Do you believe it's possible to use this geothermal energy on that scale?
"environmentally friendly", my *****; ever been around a geothermal source?
Any steam hot enough to be useful for driving a turbine is going to
wash out a lot of stuff you would rather keep underground.
Hence my comment here -- http://tinyurl.com/33p4w --
and I seem to recall this new talk does involve CO2,
not just from Gehrer's mouth, but as the heat transfer fluid.
--- Graham Cowan
http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/Paper_for_11th_CHC.doc --
fireproof fuel, real-car range, no emissions
Not according the original link:
"With this process, water is pumped into strata of crystalline rock that
lie four to six kilometers deep in the earth and have a temperature of
about 200 degrees Celsius. Production wells tap the heated, pressurized
water and transport it to a heat exchanger on the surface. Finally, the
heat exchanger drives a steam turbine with a generator for electricity
production. After it has cooled, the water is pumped back into the earth."
200 degrees C (assuming no loss getting it to the surface or in the
heat exchanger) seems to me to be a bit on the cool side for driving a
turbine.
And geothermal water tends to leave deposits that clogs the pipes
meaning frequent and expensive maintenance.
That's not the biggest problem. Consider thermal conductivity of
rock. Then estimate for how long the walls of the region containing
the water will remain at 200 C.
It's still worse. The steam has to travel upwards against a 4-6
kilometer pneumatic head. It's a nightmare. It's a FUBAR. 200 C
steam is ludicrous in a powerplant. It's OK for co-generation.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The Inexhaustible Energy Source Beneath Our Feet |
25 May 2004 12:51:32 AM |
|
|
In article <40B2A7A5.11FA62A2@hate.spam.net>, Uncle Al <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> writes:
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
In article <c8u27u$9gu$1@mail.specsol.com>, writes:
In sci.physics G. R. L. Cowan <gcowan@eagle.ca> wrote:
wrote:
In sci.physics Andrew <andrew_zi@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote:
According to the expert Willy Gehrer, the environmentally friendly
generation of electricity from geothermal sources is going to play an
important role in the future of energy production. "I'm convinced that in 20
years geothermal power plants will be delivering ten percent of the total
electricity produced worldwide," Gehrer told Pictures of the Future, the
Siemens research magazine. Gehrer is President of ETG Electrosuisse (Swiss
Electrotechnical Association) and is the head of Power Systems at Siemens
Switzerland.
Full story available here: http://www.physorg.com/news105.html
Do you believe it's possible to use this geothermal energy on that scale?
"environmentally friendly", my *****; ever been around a geothermal source?
Any steam hot enough to be useful for driving a turbine is going to
wash out a lot of stuff you would rather keep underground.
Hence my comment here -- http://tinyurl.com/33p4w --
and I seem to recall this new talk does involve CO2,
not just from Gehrer's mouth, but as the heat transfer fluid.
--- Graham Cowan
http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/Paper_for_11th_CHC.doc --
fireproof fuel, real-car range, no emissions
Not according the original link:
"With this process, water is pumped into strata of crystalline rock that
lie four to six kilometers deep in the earth and have a temperature of
about 200 degrees Celsius. Production wells tap the heated, pressurized
water and transport it to a heat exchanger on the surface. Finally, the
heat exchanger drives a steam turbine with a generator for electricity
production. After it has cooled, the water is pumped back into the earth."
200 degrees C (assuming no loss getting it to the surface or in the
heat exchanger) seems to me to be a bit on the cool side for driving a
turbine.
And geothermal water tends to leave deposits that clogs the pipes
meaning frequent and expensive maintenance.
That's not the biggest problem. Consider thermal conductivity of
rock. Then estimate for how long the walls of the region containing
the water will remain at 200 C.
It's still worse. The steam has to travel upwards against a 4-6
kilometer pneumatic head.
Yes, there is this little detail too.
It's a nightmare. It's a FUBAR. 200 C
steam is ludicrous in a powerplant. It's OK for co-generation.
Heck, you take a government subsidy for eco-correctness, drill for the
next 20 years, then retire. No prob:-)
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "tj Frazir" |
|
| Title: Re: The Inexhaustible Energy Source Beneath Our Feet |
24 May 2004 09:34:35 PM |
|
|
Well Hell yes ....they WORK.
It wont COOL of the rock uncle idiot.
Dont worry about making a cold spot ,,it never will.
They are NOT sci fi ,,they are real and they are at work SOOOOOO any
idiot tat says they wount is ignorant of the fact they do work very very
well.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The Inexhaustible Energy Source Beneath Our Feet |
24 May 2004 11:17:48 PM |
|
|
tj Frazir <GravityPhysics@webtv.net> wrote:
Well Hell yes ....they WORK.
It wont COOL of the rock uncle idiot.
Dont worry about making a cold spot ,,it never will.
They are NOT sci fi ,,they are real and they are at work SOOOOOO any
idiot tat says they wount is ignorant of the fact they do work very very
well.
Won't cool the rock?
Care to tell us the thermal conductivity of rock, or do you even know
what that means?
If they work so well, why does it take massive government subsidies to
build one?
Geothermal power for the masses is just another wet dream like the
wonderful wind generators that, even with goverment subsidies, cost
2 to 3 times any rational generation method, make your ears ache for
miles, and wear out and fall apart long before they pay for their
construction even with the subsidies.
You want power from the ground, stick a pipe in a natural gas deposit,
the planet has lots of them, and fire up a gas turbine.
--
Jim Pennino
Remove -spam-sux to reply.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
