Solution to the oil problem

[Mr.Dysfunctional]

The only problem I keep coming up against is the AMOUNT of energy generated Per plant when it comes to Geothermal. From everything I have read typical yeilds are roughly between 90 to 100 MWs which is only 1/10 of the power produced from 1 nuclear plant.

I think that in itself is the problem.. Geothermal .. while useful is certain places does not produce enough energy to run everything we need.

As of 2007 in the United States, there are 104 (69 pressurized water reactors and 35 boiling water reactors) commercial nuclear generating units licensed to operate, producing a total of 97,400 megawatts (electric), which is approximately 20% of the nation's total electric energy consumption. The United States is the world's largest supplier of commercial nuclear power.

So ..... Lets whip out the caculator. So... 100,000/.2 = 500,000 - 100,000 = 400,000/100 OHH DAMNN!!! We would need 4000 Geo thermal plants to run current electric to be completely carbon free. HOLY SMOKES!!! ok .. so NO!!! ok lets say that was fesablie and we found 4000 locations nation wide.
And we rather check up on just how much we would have to spend per plant

How much does a geothermal power plant cost?
An economically competitive geothermal power plant can cost as low as $2800 per kilowatt installed. While the cost of a new for geothermal power plant is higher than that of a comparable natural gas facility, for natural gas construction costs account for only one third of the total price of the facility, while the cost of the fuel at a natural gas facility represents two thirds of the cost. The initial construction costs of a geothermal facility, in contrast, represent two thirds or more of total costs. So while initial investment is high for geothermal, natural gas and geothermal are still economically comparable over a long term.

http://www.geo-energy.org/aboutGE/powerPlantCost.asp#cost

ok so... plug in the math $2800PerKW*100,000 = 280 MILLION OMG?!?!?! roflmao!!

but wait.. its gets better.... so... 280 Million*1000 plants = 280 trillion dollars.. more then 6 times the nation DEBT HAHHAHHAHAHHA....

Any questions ?!?!
((god I hope i did the math right or else I just might have proved Sil's case ))

 

[Sihouette]

The only problem I keep coming up against is the AMOUNT of energy generated Per plant when it comes to Geothermal. From everything I have read typical yeilds are roughly between 90 to 100 MWs which is only 1/10 of the power produced from 1 nuclear plant.

Which nuke plants are you getting your comparisons from? The old ones when nuke power was just getting started or the cutting edge ones now after decades of them being around? Because geothermal is about 30 years behind in our country as to R&D.

Moreover, your ONLY problem you have with nukes vs geothermal is this?

Hello. Did you read any of the data I provided on safety or corrosion concerns with radioactive water? Costs of mining uranium, workers transport, injury and illness claims, transportation, housing and waste storage, not to mention permitting processes and safety precautions for communities within the wide-range of potential poisoning should a nuke plant, for instance, become a terrorist target?

And then consider that ALL amenities for geothermal production exist benignly...AT SITE. There is not logical comparison in MW production between the two powers. In short, one is insanity personified, and the other good business sense.

 

[GenSeneca]

geothermal is about 30 years behind in our country as to R&D.

Nukes and Geo both work on steam... the source of that steam is the only difference, as you have pointed out....

Exactly what will 30 years of R&D accomplish for Geo? Both Geo and Nuke plants use the SAME top-o-the-line steam turbine technology... so where do you get the idea that Geo's R&D is 30yrs behind Nuclear? The heat under the surface is constant, technology won't change that and it hasn't for Nuclear, the Turbines will become more efficient but thats equally true for the Nuke plants...

Please explain how throwing money at Geo will improve its performance and how the advances made in Turbine and Steam technology for Nuclear Plants haven't been fully implemented for use in Geo Plants.

 

[Sihouette]

so where do you get the idea that Geo's R&D is 30yrs behind Nuclear? The heat under the surface is constant, technology won't change that and it hasn't for Nuclear, the Turbines will become more efficient but thats equally true for the Nuke plants...

(Tongue in cheek) You kinda made my point for me.

The whole point is that steam technology is simple, unless you're talking about making it from nuclear reactors, then it is more complex (compared to geothermal), more expensive per MW and more dangerous..

The only reason the steam plants from geothermal aren't producing the same as nuclear is that most geothermal plants are small, physically speaking, compared to nukes.

Let's say for argument sake that for some reason the same temperature steam coming from geothermal as nukes, for some reason couldn't be pressurized as well as nuclear (which is goofy, but bear with me for argument's sake). Let's say then that a comparable-sized (but in no way comparable cost-wise) geothermal plant only produced 1/3 the energy a nuke plant does.

Then we build 3 times as many geothermal plants. Duh!

In the Owen's Valley alone we could have the way way way less expensive geothermal plants sitting shoulder to shoulder for a hundred miles, three abreast if we needed...

Then we wouldn't be having this debate about which type produces more MW would we?

And we could do that quickly if we had to, because licensing and construction for geothermal plants is child's play compared to nukes, due to it's simplicity and benign nature...steam...already coming from the ground.. Just put a building around it and drill some pipe holes. Done.

No additional fossil fuels needed for transportation, no mining, no high worker death and injury rates, no terrorist threat...just simple easy steam technology without hardly any effort at all...

Thanks for pointing that out...

 

[Jarlaxle]

Jarlaxle

It's neat you can be so brave to announce your lonely stance.

Most americans surveyed don't want nuclear. You are an army of one!

I'm not a fool who hears the word "nuclear" and immediately screams, "THE SKY IS FALLING!!!!!!" I live near several nuke plants, a good friend of mine WORKED on one (Millstone, in CT). About a third of my electricity is generated by nuclear power. And, last I checked, geothermal is pretty much a non-starter in New England. Sorry.

 

[Sihouette]

Your sorry won't wave it away in the West though will it? And they can find hot rock in some spots where the near-surface action isn't so apparent, as in the East.

Do you object to wide-scale implementation of geothermal in the West? Why? The cost to MW ratio beats nuclear hands down....let alone the safety issues..

There's a few populated areas out West that would hugely take the drain of dependance off foreign oil should geothermal go big there. And we have grids too ya know..

There's no reason why everything West of the Mississippi couldn't be geothermal.

 

[Sihouette]

This thread now has a sister thread called "Why I don't like geo(thermal) energy" or some such..

The new thread was started to divert readers from seeing evidence in this one that might lead them to the realization that nuclear is just a steam producer + radioactivity, where geothermal vents straight from the ground..

Source: http://www.owensvalleyhistory.com/casa_diablo/page75.html

This is just one of hundreds of vents and bubble pots dotted all over the Owen's valley east of the Sierras in CA. It's Casa Diablo.

And the weird thing is I don't see any big concrete containment tower with concertina wire all around it. No nuclear hazard signs. No trucks coming and going under armed guard, delivering hazardous terrorist target material. No three-eyed fish nearby. No skyrocketing cancer rates in the nonexistant "waste field" where this vent's nonexistant waste isn't dumped.. to poison generations..

Strange, that..

Put a building around it, some pipes in the underground reservoir, pipe the steam to a turbine and call it a day.

Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy cheaper and easier than nuclear...

 

[Sihouette]

And when the temperatures are low, at slightly more cost a different type of turbine-running process can be used...sans radioactivity and still at a fraction of the total costs of producing power from nuclear..from mining the ore, transporting it, building the plants, maintenance and waste storage (how many vehicles or machines burn precious gas to do this day in and day out?)

Electricity generation usually requires higher temperature fluids, above 140 degrees Celsius, although in California electricity is currently being generated using geothermal water resources that are as low as 100 degrees Celsius.

Geothermal power plants use wells to draw water from depths of 1 to 3 kilometers and then produce electricity in one of two types of plants.

1) Steam turbine plants release the pressure on the water at the surface of the well in a flash tank where some of the water "flashes" or explosively boils to steam. The steam then turns a turbine engine which drives a generator to produce electricity. The water that does not boil to steam is injected back into the ground to maintain the pressure of the reservoir.

2) The second type of plant is called a binary plant. Instead of being flashed to steam, the water actually heats a secondary working fluid such as isobutane or isopentane through a heat exchanger. This secondary fluid is then vaporized and sent through a turbine to turn a generator after which it is cooled and condensed into a liquid again. It is then sent back through the heat exchanger to be vaporized again - it is not consumed in the process. The water is injected back into the reservoir to recharge the system.

Because the working fluids vaporize at lower temperatures than water, binary plants can produce electricity from lower temperature geothermal resources. Although binary plants are more expensive to build than steam-turbine plants, they are becoming more common.

Source: http://www.climate.org/2002/topics/green/geo.shtml

 

[Andy]

And when the temperatures are low, at slightly more cost a different type of turbine-running process can be used...sans radioactivity and still at a fraction of the total costs of producing power from nuclear..from mining the ore, transporting it, building the plants, maintenance and waste storage (how many vehicles or machines burn precious gas to do this day in and day out?)

A very very small amount of uranium is need to make a ton of power. They have even discovered a way to extract it from sea water. One truck of uranium could supply power for many years. Fuel changes are either bi-yearly or yearly. Meaning, not very much mining or transportation is required.

Better still, new reactors can use reprocessed fuel rods. Meaning, we can cancel that whole yucca mountains thing, and not need to mine at all. Just reprocess and use all those old fuel rods we were storing.

BTW, the 2.8¢ per kWh, is the total cost of nuclear power, including mining and transportation. (even the oil used). Why do you think Europe has invested the most into nuclear power?

Ironically, the opposite of your claim is true. In geothermal, we lead the world. In Nuclear, because of retards that can vote, we are behind the entire planet. While we have less stable, less safe reactors still in operation, the rest of the world has more efficient, more cost effective, and safest in the world, nuclear reactor power plants. Our nuclear technology is still back in the 70s. The crumbled former soviets have more advanced power plants than us.

 

[Sihouette]

One truck of uranium could supply power for many years.

Yeah, and it could poison generations for many more if it becomes a terrorist target. I don't care how reinforced those silo stacks are, you fly a 747 into one of those, it's goin' down..

And we have a whole lot more potential power in the ground in the form of natural steam than just one truck load of uranium.

Why let it just go to waste in favor of poisonous and vastly more expensive power production?

There is no argument. Anyone who argues in favor of a more expensive and dangerous power source over a cheaper, natural, plentiful and safe one is not going to be elected to my board of directors.

In fact, they need to check into the rubber-room hotel...

 

[PLC1]

Yeah, and it could poison generations for many more if it becomes a terrorist target. I don't care how reinforced those silo stacks are, you fly a 747 into one of those, it's goin' down..

And we have a whole lot more potential power in the ground in the form of natural steam than just one truck load of uranium.

Why let it just go to waste in favor of poisonous and vastly more expensive power production?

There is no argument. Anyone who argues in favor of a more expensive and dangerous power source over a cheaper, natural, plentiful and safe one is not going to be elected to my board of directors.

In fact, they need to check into the rubber-room hotel...

Do you have figures on the relative cost of producing power via nuclear as opposed to geothermal?

 

[UShadItComing]

Sihouette- For some reason you have lost the ability to reason. It's not a conspiracy theory by others when they tell you that you are on the wrong track. You honestly and simply are! It is a bid by others to help you. When so many people tell you the same thing do you ever even stop to think for a minute that they could be right and you could be wrong?

 

[Sihouette]

Do you have figures on the relative cost of producing power via nuclear as opposed to geothermal? ~ PLC1

Like I said before, we don't have enough large-geothermal plants in operation to make a fully accurate comparison.

But for your sake let's just take one nuclear plant, just a hypothetical one that represents the basic nuke setup vs one geothermal plant of equal output.

We have to look at what runs the nuke plant as to expense
1. Mining uranium, the equipment, personelle, fossil fuels to run them, containment, contamination, affected surrounding populace near mines.
2. Transportation of uranium fuel. Terrorist risk. Personell. Fossil fuels. Machinery, maintenance. Security escort.
3. The startup costs: the safety features, containment vessel, widgets and whatnots of keeping radioactivity from poisoning surrounding populaces. Permits, appeals, more permits.
4. Personelle to monitor, run and deal competantly with nuclear power, accident claims, health issues, exposure etc. Compensation claims.
5. Waste disposal: facility construction, monitoring (for several generations), transportation. Security escort.
6. Terrorist target: potential disaster scope: immense

Now if you can put a guestimate on all those costs, then we'll compare them to geothermal
1. Drilling to underground reservoirs once. No distant ongoing mining. Steam sources are never "spent" like uranium fuel rods.
2. No transportation, steam already at site.
3. Startup costs, basic safety features, building permits, no containment for "waste" since there is none. No storage needed. No threat to generations of people.
4. Personelle to monitor, run and manage steam turbines. No claims related to radiation sickness or cancer from steam. Usual number of industry claims.
5. No waste disposal
6. No terrorist target.

Now guestimate those figures.

Compare the two.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Your sorry won't wave it away in the West though will it? And they can find hot rock in some spots where the near-surface action isn't so apparent, as in the East.

Do you object to wide-scale implementation of geothermal in the West? Why? The cost to MW ratio beats nuclear hands down....let alone the safety issues..

There's a few populated areas out West that would hugely take the drain of dependance off foreign oil should geothermal go big there. And we have grids too ya know..

There's no reason why everything West of the Mississippi couldn't be geothermal.

I don't object to geothermal power at all (I'm in favor of any power generation method NOT involving oil), except in the sense it is not and cannot be a universal solution...it simply isn't workable in too many areas.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Yeah, and it could poison generations for many more if it becomes a terrorist target. I don't care how reinforced those silo stacks are, you fly a 747 into one of those, it's goin' down.

Actually, they're hardened to withstand a strike by a fully-loaded plane. Have you ever seen the way they are built? If not, you cannot comprehend how unbelievably tough they are. IIRC, Millstone's silos will withstand a hit from a 16" battleship round (2500lbs of HE traveling half a mile per second) without failure. My friend was on the crew overhauling one of them...they may be the closest thing to indestructible that has ever been built.