@@elli003Entrepreneurs are good for developing an existing market, ie fracking to get at oil, when the oil market already exists. Its low risk. But to take on an unproven market such as fracking for geothermal energy needs Governments to to get behind it. Entrepreneurs won’t touch high risk projects or technology for which non one is even sure how it could be used yet. The same was true for solar and wind power. Most of the expensive initial investments were taken on by the US and European governments, unfortunately for the west it was Chinese Entrepreneurs who had the vision to see that the market for those technologies was on the horizon. But without the initial investment by US and European governments neither technology would be where it is today. We ignore the value of our governments investment in technology at our peril, they take on the risk that no entrepreneur will initially touch. Space travel, nuclear fission, nuclear fusion….. And of course as is always the case with high risk projects, sometimes they fail, but maybe we should cut our governments some slack as without them, there is quite simply a lot of technology that may never have gotten off the ground for decades, maybe even longer…
Supporting research is one thing but supporting technology that is labelled as green but barely fit for purpose and expensive is quite another which is what government often does. If this technology proves to be successful and cost effective then the the government should let the private sector take over. When the private sector doesn't take over something without the carrot of government incentives, its's a sign that you don't have a viable technology from an affordability perspective. We only prosper with the cheapest energy possible.
True, as close to 100% as possible is ideal. The cost of the electricity produced by the EavorLoop coming online soon in Germany were 2-3x what Fervor’s currently are at Cape (correct me if I’m wrong). Not sure if that’s more due to a challenging regulatory environment in the EU, or the differences in tech/engineering.
From what I understand, the Eavorloop drills two boreholes a few thousand feet apart that actually meet to create a “loop” through which they circulate a chemical fluid, like a big heat pump. They don’t use water to generate steam like Fervo/EGS does. Does that answer your question?
Geothermal is a great energy source. However there are also problems. The EGS here is "fracking" the stones. This should only be done outside populated areas. Also could cause a problem if there is an aquifer that can become polluted. An alternative is a closed loop system, where water or glycolic fluid stays in a pipe and the pipe is heated by the surrounding earth. This can be used for house heating. Drilling is only some hundred meter deep, or even less if used in combination with a heat pump.
Thanks for the comment, I originally had this in my script but cut it for brevity. I agree that fracking is a concern, but FORGE/FERVO have designed a system that minimizes this risk. Fervo uses sensors to real-time monitor and apply a Traffic Light Protocol based on strict seismic risk to ramp up/down fracking. They’ve rarely had to pause for very long. Its geophysicist described their approach at the 55:00 min mark-worth a watch to fully understand the state of the industry. vimeo.com/1009184419 The closed loop system is also promising. I’m looking forward to seeing the project in Germany come online (when is that?) and the costs come down. www.eavor.com/blog/eavor-loop-technology-changing-energy-consumption-in-germany/
"Drilling some hundred meter deep, or even less if used in combination with a heat pump" is different from "geothermal energy" the world efforts are directed. Shallow depth have only marginal heat which is good but not what expectations are.
There really is no current system of energy generation that isn’t costly that gives the freedom needed. Stopping and reversing human caused climate change needs to be the number one priority. And that means shutting down hydrocarbon based energy production as quickly as possible. And then, in the meantime, developing ways to minimize environmental impacts of things like energy storage with more sustainable battery tech, or, in this case, the impacts of EGS processes. I know you’re just educating us, I just like… idk I think we are such dire straights as a planet that anything but pure, almost stupid positivity surrounding green energy techniques needs to be shouted down lol
You realize what they're talking bout here right? There are no aquifers where the heat reaches 300-400 degrees. Any water will only exist in the form of very high pressure steam. I don't recall mention of the depth of these wells but unless they are sitting on top of a natural hotspot related to magma, those wells are very deep to reach those temperatures.
@@beebop9808 When you drill deep you drill through layers with aquifers. Unless you take special care and install pipes you will pollute the aquifers, even if your final drilling is much deeper.
There is another company that is doing this idea of geothermal energy called Eavor. They have an active project setting up in Germany already. A big difference however is that Eavor has a closed loop and they don't try to fracture the ground around, they make a radiator to absorb heat. There are a few videos on them online.
A lot of folks don't understand how much cleaner fracking is now than it was thirty years ago. For those who weren't paying quite close enough attention to what was being said, this technology allows the potentil to piggyback on *already-fracked rock* once the kinks are ironed out. That means a hydrocarbon fracking play (which is short-lived) suddenly has vastly more value, particularly if the energy can then be used with molten-salt batteries useful for industrial-scale projects. It takes the energy production that is most-unfairly-maligned by environmentalists and turns it into something environmentalists can immediately cheer for -- the re-use of existing, played-out fracking sites to slowly make most of the rest of them unnecessary/non-viable. (Most not all, we need hydrocarbons for other things, unless you want your artificial heart parts made from leather).
"Most not all, we need hydrocarbons for other things" Better idea: use DAC to generate hydrocarbon feedstock for the plastics industry. If you shut down all oil wells, that creates a market for DAC for the most necessary applications of plastics (like medicine) plus disincentivizes single-use plastics, and since plastics take ages to break down, it solves the sequestration and storage problem too.
@@CesarAnton while there are downsides to this process, it's not the same as oil and gas because methane wouldn't be burned or released into the environment.
@@northernouthouse that has nothing to do with it. The problem with fracking it's not the oil or gas you get out, it's the fracking itself which may cause several damages to the environment. Specially contamination of groundwater, earthquakes and sink holes. Read or watch some videos about the problems with FRACKING (not oil or gas). That being said, it can be a much better solution than coal or gas in some areas if done responsibly.
The have geothermal power plants in both Southern Calif desert and as shown in the video in northern Calif working for decades now. Also Norway gets most of it's energy from geothermal. Apparently it actually does work. On the flip side the oil industry never stops creating pollution and having problems with drilling for and transporting oil meaning lots more maintenance. All for a product that that just constantly pollutes, the opposite of clean steam making clean electricity.
"They never tell you the negatives." We already know the negatives and have dealt with them. The cost of energy calculations already include all the operations and maintenance costs of the plant over its lifetime.
Granite and radon gas go together, in Cornwall UK in the 1970's, they tried doing just this and came to the conclusion they had no plans in place to handle the increasing radioactivity of the circulating water.
"increasing radioactivity of the circulating water." Water cannot be made radioactive but of course contaminants IN the water could be radioactive. If it is in a closed cycle steam generator, who cares about it? Radon emits alpha particles if I remember right; a sheet of paper is sufficient to block it. Radon has a halflife of only 3.8 days and is indeed alpha particles (protons, in other words). www.epa.gov/radiation/radioactive-decay
@@asinglemaleinuk "Problems have solutions, its called scientific evolution" This is the first time EVER in my long life I have encountered the phrase "scientific evolution". Perhaps that is why problems continue to exist.
Kenya is the leading producer of geothermal energy in Africa and ranks among the top globally. On the world stage, the United States remains the largest producer of geothermal energy, followed by Indonesia and the Philippines.
@@TheDailyConversation You're welcome! 😊 Yes, countries like Kenya and others are constantly innovating in geothermal energy. In Kenya, they’re exploring direct uses of geothermal energy for agriculture, like heating greenhouses and drying crops, as well as industrial processes. Globally, new methods include enhanced geothermal systems (EGS), which can generate energy in areas without natural geothermal reservoirs, and hybrid systems that combine geothermal with solar or wind. These innovations aim to make geothermal energy more efficient and accessible!
Sustainable power generation at The Geysers is possible today because of two large-scale wastewater injection projects from Lake County and the City of Santa Rosa. Together, these projects provide approximately 20 million gallons of reclaimed water per day for injection into The Geysers reservoir.
New Zealand first started using geothermal in 1958. And I have been posting that it is the cleanest cheapest way to generate electricity. Glad someone has finally caught on
The combination of this and Quaise's deep borehole rock vaporisation technique has the potential to reduce the cost of installing geothermal to the point where other technologies simply cease to make economic sense.
Great point. Utah is dry and will become drier. 95+% of the water is now captured and reused in the loop (based on the 📊 as I remember it). I envision using the electricity to power systems that efficiently capture and store water from the air for many uses in the arid west, along with much improved rainwater/runoff capture systems...and more efficient farming practices to recharge over-pumped aquifers. If we really get desperate, we can buy and pipe water down from Canada. And of course, we’ll be able to transmit great amounts of this cleanly-generated electricity (and heat and water), over long distances, so it’s generation can occur far away from where it’s consumed. (Although from an efficiency standpoint this isn’t ideal.) One thought sinks in as I research these projects: our ancestors went big to put us in the dominant societal position we’re in now (living standards, geopolitics, etc.), so to deal with the collateral challenges, we need to keep thinking and going big. Use science to engineer solutions to every problem to increase everyone’s quality of life, while minimizing collateral damage now and in the future. Good news is our research and development system so on-point that the tools we need continually emerge, we just need to continue funding programs that find them and put them to good use! 🤓🥸😎
I've heard that roughly 2 to 4k gallons of water are needed per kW-hr produced. If losses are under 5% in a closed circuit system, it's just a drop in the bucket. Even out here in the desert southwest.
Great post on you tube and great presentation about geothermal energy. Drilling geothermal wells on underground hot rocks is a challenge, and these shows the strength of drilling companies. Geothermal energy is great even have different challenges. Surprisingly on company papers (not peer review) the estimate of rock power 8.4 MWe/km3 estimated from companies is 9 time higher than previous estimates from department of energy (0.7 to 0.9 MWe/km3) even the project is based on lower temperatures than 300 deg C. Who can explains about these estimates?
When it comes to conventional drilling and fracking there are other options. One is "Plasma deep drilling technology " which uses a powerful laser to burn through rock. This method allows for deeper well and higher temperatures. Plasma drilling also creates a sealed borehole. By creating a loop, very hot water can be circulated to run an electrical turbine.
That’s very interesting! I came across the work Quaise is doing on this. They are DOE funded too I believe. Looking forward to seeing them prove it is affordable. Does the plasma use a lot of energy? www.quaise.energy/
The advance in the FORGE research wells were as much in drill rate as production concepts. These specific types of geothermal concepts have been uneconomic. Drilling rigs charge by the day, and drill rates were increased at FORGE from 30 to 300 feet per hour with conventional bits. This is stunning in thousands of feet of granite rock that's almost identical to your kitchen counter top, except it's even harder. Lasers, plasma, and other cutting technologies might cut it, but they aren't even close to being competitive with 300fph, even if you could work out some serious technical challenges.
The armchair experts are alive and well in the comments. “We need to save the planet, but here’s a thousand reasons why you can’t do anything as horrible as drill a well!!”
Closed loop systems could developed in many areas like Idaho to heat greenhouses for growing year round organic crops. Food is trucked in from far away during winter months. Additional grow lights would be necessary in winter months.
I support Geothermal energy harvesting only if we use a closed loop system rather than the fracting technique which can cause tremors. My question is how big the fractures will be that would be created? Would the factures create tremors or Earthquake? I believe that we should use the safest method as possible and that we shouldn't get too excited to make bad decisions. 😎💯💪🏾👍🏾
A closed loop project following research here in Taupo NZ’s geothermal field was announced about 3 weeks ago. But not fracturing the rock. Laurie. NZ. 😊
The video felt like an ad for Fervo and ARPA-E. All technologies have pros and cons yet you only talked about the pros. They are concerns about the water table and earthquakes that are legitimate and should be discussed as part of any honest discussion of enhanced geothermal.
Thanks for the feedback. Tho I am a fan of the work both Fervo and ARPA-E do, my approach is intended to hold the audience’s interest rather than oversell any person or org. I recognize this is a fuzzy line, especially when I’m putting as much production into it, and that sometimes I could dial it back a bit. I do enjoy getting a little carried away with the edit 😉 In terms of the seismic monitoring, Fervo addressed this well in their tech day I linked to in more info. They recycle 95% of the water they pump up to pump through the system, and I expect this to improve through innovation/reclamation (they pump wastewater down for geothermal at the geysers now). But for sure there are concerns and companies need to do things carefully and by the book with good oversight.
@@TheDailyConversation I sometimes have the opposite problem with my videos, being overly negative. It's a hard balance. I'm a huge fan of ARPA-E and I think Fervo is doing interesting work that might pay off. But I've been following EGS since Altarock about 20 years ago, so I'm not as optimistic as some. Someone recently suggested I do a video on Fervo, but I really liked Engineering with Rosie's take on geothermal, so I'm not sure I'll bother. In case you're curious, here's my channel. www.youtube.com/@Decarbonize11?sub_confirmation=1
The question though is what are the alternatives? A strictly solar, wind, and hydropower future requires a lot more mining of critical minerals, often in poor countries or on indigenous land. It's their water table that's contaminated by concentrated pollution from mine tailings and hypersaline brine. Solar eats up land, disturbing natural habitats in the process, and hydropower destroys riparian ecosystems and requires CO2 emissions from concrete manufacturing. And don't even get me started on batteries! I think that the internalization of the risks of an energy source is a thoroughly positive thing. We cannot continue to push environmental costs onto marginalized people and the developing world.
What are the long term maintenance costs as a geothermal well gets older and or does it loose the ability to produce? How far down is the average well? Is there any likelihood of using this for deep water wells in less geothermal areas for uncontaminated water wells, like those capped in California in the 1960's?
It'll be great to have clean free or cheap energy. All those oil states will continue to charge a lot for oil bills and gass. clean energy and heat is right here though. And it can be accessible to us all! It's great to see UT listening to people. A lot of us have seen the horrific effects of climate change. We don't want to have it destroy our homes and lives.
You charts shows just the opposite of what I would expect, on being economically viable. The Permian Basis, in West Texas, already as holes drilled on a zillion oil and gas well, already fracked. Is it not hot underground there too, with zero drill costs?
Eavor loop seems like a better geothermal system as it's a closed loop system and doesn't involve fracking, and doesn't absorb radon etc. The Eavorloop system is more expensive up front because you'd need to do more expensive drilling.
The water in the well isn't what's evaporating, what you're seeing is condensation of exhaust from the turbine loop. The way these plants work is that the water in the well never makes contact with the outside world. The heat is instead transferred from the well water to the turbine loop which generates steam to turn the turbine. The only time you'll see actual underground steam coming from a geothermal plant is if it's tapping into a natural hot spring in which steam is being produced from an underground water source, not pumped into a well.
Sounds amazing but I'm skeptical. I hope it turns out. The video was light on specifics and big on possibilities. Basically like having an idea, without demonstration of viability. I would have appreciated hearing the obstacles to the technology rather than a plug that this is possible everywhere while at the same time having only the smallest proof of concept
This is the future. The heat is free and it's hot 365 days a year and 24 hours a day. Solar panels and windmills never make power 24 hours a day. Oil companies can help drill these holes. They have experience for drilling. If each state in the future drilled and made electricity from these sites, one day they could even drill more holes to make hydrogen for cars, trucks and planes. And then even solar panels and windmills would not be needed one day in the future,,,,,,,,,,,,
The money is in the actual saving of the energy. We are gaining more ways to capture it all the time. Piggy Banks of energy is where it's at. No more huge oil storage tanks. Modular Gravity battery and flywheel installations. Gravity batteries are Zero loss. 99% of losses are on the collection end. Can be constructed in fully charged position.
I was watching a video about mechanical batteries earlier so my though now obviously is to add a spinning mechanical battery to a geo thermal plant. It would handle rapid load changes and most of all could be charged and reboosted from the steam directly (without going through a generator and motor). It feels neat, but I suppose it is too much steam hardware and they could just use normal batteries, or simply dynamically adjust the throttle on the main generator to deal with load changes.
Geothermal wells are about 2 miles deep (9,000 ft or more). Your drinking water is above 1,000 ft, likely only a few hundred feet). I'm more concerned with micro plastic in our water than anything else.
I'm literally copy-pasting my response at this point b/c everyone seems to be hung up on the name: Most of the risks of fracking for oil and gas are from 1) the additives used to coax these substances from the rocks and have them flow smoothly and 2) the risk of oil and gas leaching into groundwater sources. B/c the only thing being transferred is heat, not hydrocarbons, the only additives that are needed for geothermal fracking are disinfectants (to prevent build ups of bacteria) and brine (to make it harder for underground metals and minerals to dissolve into the water). On top of that, it's much easier to treat water for heavy metal contamination than for hydrocarbons, which can be carcinogenic at very small concentrations. If contamination does occur, it's relatively easy to plug the well and move on than with oil wells. Once the well is plugged, there's no more hot water moving through the rock to find its way into groundwater.
1. Not evil, just not ideal. 2. What do you mean? Cooling the earth as in the soil/rock underground (seems fine) or cooling the air (we’re warming it unnaturally so why not)?
#1 fracking to extract oil and gas is not ideal. Burning oil and gas produces ghg which warms the planet which in turn creates more intense storms. It's also well documented that oil and gas infrastructure leaks methane which is one of the most potent ghg. Economically, nations can not afford to continue to burn carbon and pollute the environment freely. Oceans are warming to a significant extent that earth is losing biodiversity and that will ultimately affect the food chain. Further, nations simply can't afford to pay for the damages that these storms cause to households and businesses. Take hurricane Helene and it's destruction. There are going to be parts of states that will take years to recover. Yet, hurricane season happens every year and the storms are getting more intense as time passes. Damage from severe storms, on a cumulative basis, could wipe out national treasuries in the future if the world doesn't transition to low carbon economy. If a person has a leaky roof, the prudent action is to fix the roof and not ignore the problem. At the end of the day, this is about saving people and governments $$$. #2 No risk of this happening as the core has retained this heat for billions of years and the core constantly regenerates the heat. It is a potential unlimited energy source.
Oil and methane pollute far more. The difference is same as digging a mine tunnel and drilling an oil well through the aquifer you get your drinking water from: Even if you completely failed to look into what is down there and tunnel into an aquifer the potential for contamination is tiny compared to mixing millions of barrels of oil into your water source. And after that burning the oil and gas spreads massive amounts of CO2 and other pollutants all over while the heat and electricity from geothermal will be as close to 100% clean as realistically possible. Also, if you failed to account for other ground conditions and the mine collapses the damage above will be small compared to emptying the huge underground reservoir of oil and gas which will allow the fractured earth to move causing an earthquake. Both could cause earthquakes but the potential is lower and the likely scale smaller with geothermal.
So what are current and target estimates of this type of energy source? Is this really practical yet or are there still major obstacles to overcome? Geothermal has always been nice when there is easy access but too costly to expend effort. I don't think anyone wants to pay gasoline prices for electricity, wind and solar by comparison seems cheaper although efficient and cheap storage is still needed to be 24/7/365.
See graph at th-cam.com/video/jxICYjBEsvo/w-d-xo.html&si=0seQT0U7HzxmZzvC No, not really any obstacles as I see it when done smartly and by the book, just scale and streamlining the finding of new rock/heat zones to maximize generation-which should be plentiful. Good thing we know how to drill, baby drill! Plus we have plenty of rigs, which can be reused (as can their crews).
That sounds very similar to fracking and waste water injection that the oil/gas companies were doing OK and North Texas which triggered minor earthquakes though out the region
LCOE of hydropower is around $60/MWhr. Based on the map, EGS LCOE could be as low as $45/MWhr. Huge improvement. The NW needs to wean off of hydropower anyway b/c its consistency is threatened by climate change.
How do we get projects started in my home state of Montana? I think this technology is amazing and we are located in the "hot rock" zone. What can I do as an advocate? What can YOU do to help me?
Tell your governor, congresspeople, and state-level representatives that Montana could become an industrial powerhouse with energy this cheap. B/c of the state's small population, they don't really have any current need for energy and export almost all of the gas oil and coal they extract. States like Colorado and Washington get wealthy by using those exports to add value to products they manufacture. If Montana can tap into cheap geothermal energy, it could attract more industries and keep more of those jobs and income for Montanans + attract more ppl to the state.
If you actually listened to the video, you'd have the answer: the grant was only for initial research and small-scale test projects, and that too only the capital costs not the operating costs, which isn't what a subsidy is. After the 400MW installation is built, everything will be downhill b/c they'll have proven the technology for grid-scale use which is where the real money is.
This is nuts. The canadian firm That is drilling a closed loop Is a much better solution. Modifying the earth when you could just drill thru with a sealed system is a crazy way to go about it.
If and when this scales, the whole paradigm shifts. Every shuttered coal plant could be the site of a future EGS plant, mitigating the need for endless tracts of wind and solar.
This method recaptures 95% of the same water, over what period? How is that loss compensated? Does continuous boiling in that fractured region not break down rock to the point that it travels up the return pipe or begins to clog the inlet? I imagined a closed heat exchanger would be able to be placed in hole but of course it would be hard to fit a large/long enough one when you're only dealing with 300-400F... What are the pipes made of - a stainless steel or mild steel? I imagine a sCO2 turbine would make it possible to extract adequate heat from the hole with a closed loop heat exchanger, maybe even with one hole, using supercritical CO2 as the working fluid. Then, you don't have any water consumption but a large ambient radiator. With an unfractured region filled with oil or something, you could possibly still get adequate heat transfer through the heat exchanger for comparable electrical generation due to the relatively high efficiency of a sCO2 turbine compared to steam... less heat but comparable electricity... and much smaller turbinonachinery... and no water.
The water doesn't actually boil. It's under pressure, and at higher pressures than 1 atm, water boils at higher temps meaning it would still be in the liquid phase. At 400degF, the water would have to be under at least 17.5atm of pressure to stay liquid. That prolly sounds dangerous but the fact is that the water would not stay in the well if it wasn't under pressure b/c the rocks exert their own pressure. This is how geothermal wells work all over the world, and I bet you haven't heard of an explosive decompression disaster at a geothermal plant before. They're safe. As for supercritical CO2, that goal is still pretty far away. To really get enough efficiency from sCO2 you would have to drill even deeper like down to 12 mi. Quaise Energy, a new startup that's using a gyrotron emitting a millimeter wave laser for drilling, has the capability to drill down that far but I don't think they have plans for sCO2 any time soon.
Just because there is a lot does not mean it is endless The faster we cool the planets core the quicker we loose our magnetic field then turn into Mars
What portion of the investment money is from government funding, which is from our taxes? It is a source of money for a large amount of fraudulent investment.
The heat source is not unlimited, the heat can only move through the crust at a certain rate, take too much and the power draw will drop off, then you would have to move on to another site far away. Also all that heat is mostly coming from the decay of nuclear elements like uranium, thorium, potasium isotopes. It would be far better to mine the ores and just put it into a reactor, preferably a Molten Salt Reactor, that way all the energy will be captured from the ore rather than than low energy dense well. A kg or so of uranium or thorium can power a human life for a lifetime for perhaps $100.
They show a heatmap of per MWh costs. In the Pacific NW, it would be ~$45/MWh (divide by 1,000 for /kWh). At the high end, it would be about $90/MWh but the areas where it's that expensive are few and far apart, so it would be easy to generate in places where it costs ~$65/MWh and then send it to areas which don't have cheap access.
Wind and solar are cheaper still but fossil fuels are around the same or more expensive in cost. The important thing isn't the cost, it's the fact that it's basically a drop-in replacement for some kinds of base load fossil fuel plants. You could actually convert existing FF plants that use a steam turbine by heating the steam using the superheated water from the geothermal well instead of burning coal or gas.
So it's using underground water & condensing it into the atmosphere through turbines.. at least it isn't burning oxygen.. I'd like to see what opposition says..
If this energy technology proves to be successful and cost effective then the the government should let the private sector take over. When the private sector doesn't take over something without the carrot of government incentives, it's a sign that you don't have a viable technology from an affordability perspective. We only prosper with cheap energy.
1: Australian politicians are idiots thoroughly bribed by the coal industry so even if some company wanted to invest their permits might have been denied. 2: The reason this is now in the news are the new drilling techniques that allow for deeper wells and better access to the underground heat. Lower costs make geothermal viable enough to compete with solar and wind. Australia is great place for wind and solar so there would have been little reason to focus on geothermal.
To bad they can't get more heat I mean turbines like 500c... .they have to come up with equipment that can work that lower temp range in order to cover drilling/operational cost
I still don't understand why ThermoPhotoVoltaics are not the answer. You drill. You drop a string of TPV cells into the hole connected to a high voltage power cable. You seal the hole. Tranformer..Plug in.
What is the impact on the planet's core temp? You need to know that if we change the average temp of the core, it will have a significant effect on the world, which you may not like in the end. The core temp is very important, and playing with it may significantly impact climate more than burning carbon fuels. Be very careful.
Even if we were to put EGS wells on every single spot on earth, even underwater, the amount of power we'd be drawing would NEVER EVEN COME CLOSE to the amount of heat the earth produces. The US only needs around 1,500 of these 400MW EGS installations to replace all gas and coal power plants
There's no mention here of what cocktail of chemicals would be injected to create the fractures. If they're anything like what's used for oil or natural gas fracking, the prospect of doing this across the eastern seaboard is pretty eepy. Also, earthquakes.
I'm literally copy-pasting my response at this point b/c everyone seems to be hung up on the name: Most of the risks of fracking for oil and gas are from 1) the additives used to coax these substances from the rocks and have them flow smoothly and 2) the risk of oil and gas leaching into groundwater sources. B/c the only thing being transferred is heat, not hydrocarbons, the only additives that are needed for geothermal fracking are disinfectants (to prevent build ups of bacteria) and brine (to make it harder for underground metals and minerals to dissolve into the water). On top of that, it's much easier to treat water for heavy metal contamination than for hydrocarbons, which can be carcinogenic at very small concentrations. If contamination does occur, it's relatively easy to plug the well and move on than with oil wells. Once the well is plugged, there's no more hot water moving through the rock to find its way into groundwater.
Iceland has the potential to create hydrogen fuel from their excess GT energy and export it for cash. I believe parts of Japan and Indonesia can do the same.
I Say Directional Drill. For Example :- Drill Two Holes at an Angle so They Intersect Deep in the Hot Zone. Sure this Requires Accuracy and Clever Drilling. Once You Perfect this Method, You can Parallel Drill for More Capacity.
Seriously, it seems like a great idea except the government part. Just let private companies do it on their own. No taxpayer funding. If individuals want to invest, let them buy stock. Once you let the government’s foot in the door, everything goes to pot.
Interesting information, much of it true at the macro level. But the reality of the state immigrant labor is lacking a fuller picture. The population of America is declining (as is much of the world) if immigration is removed from the census which means our labor pool is declining. Most people including immigrants seek upward mobility for their children. Coupled with as stated “toxic masculinity”, emasculating the labor pool, demeaning the value of the manual labor. These factors, as well have created a demand for labor. Additionally many immigrants do find success. This can be particularly seen in construction, illegal immigrants were successful construction businesses homeownership. Many immigrants without proper visas purchase homes with cash earned from their wage earning job. Correct me if I’m wrong, did labors and make packing jobs ever get high wages? I would be careful of calling Candace Owens full on antisemite. On this matter, it’s absolutely factual that Israel has very deep tentacles in the American political establishment. And these are matters that are never addressed due to the great influence that Israel has in our nation, and politics and business.
This is a GREAT example of why government is indispensible in developing new technologies.
You can thank George Mitchell for developing fracking technology.
@@elli003Entrepreneurs are good for developing an existing market, ie fracking to get at oil, when the oil market already exists. Its low risk. But to take on an unproven market such as fracking for geothermal energy needs Governments to to get behind it. Entrepreneurs won’t touch high risk projects or technology for which non one is even sure how it could be used yet. The same was true for solar and wind power. Most of the expensive initial investments were taken on by the US and European governments, unfortunately for the west it was Chinese Entrepreneurs who had the vision to see that the market for those technologies was on the horizon. But without the initial investment by US and European governments neither technology would be where it is today. We ignore the value of our governments investment in technology at our peril, they take on the risk that no entrepreneur will initially touch. Space travel, nuclear fission, nuclear fusion….. And of course as is always the case with high risk projects, sometimes they fail, but maybe we should cut our governments some slack as without them, there is quite simply a lot of technology that may never have gotten off the ground for decades, maybe even longer…
Government is the stumbling block of progress.
@@alfredfleming3289 So federal financing of University research is a stumbling block?....Take a think before commenting.
Supporting research is one thing but supporting technology that is labelled as green but barely fit for purpose and expensive is quite another which is what government often does.
If this technology proves to be successful and cost effective then the the government should let the private sector take over. When the private sector doesn't take over something without the carrot of government incentives, its's a sign that you don't have a viable technology from an affordability perspective. We only prosper with the cheapest energy possible.
Even a 5% loss in water is a huge water demand - in Canada, a company named Eavor has a closed-loop solution that looks very promising
True, as close to 100% as possible is ideal. The cost of the electricity produced by the EavorLoop coming online soon in Germany were 2-3x what Fervor’s currently are at Cape (correct me if I’m wrong). Not sure if that’s more due to a challenging regulatory environment in the EU, or the differences in tech/engineering.
@@TheDailyConversation why is that technology 100% closed looop, while this one is 95%
From what I understand, the Eavorloop drills two boreholes a few thousand feet apart that actually meet to create a “loop” through which they circulate a chemical fluid, like a big heat pump. They don’t use water to generate steam like Fervo/EGS does. Does that answer your question?
Eavor heats it's fluid in an underground manifold. This fluid heats water in a heat exchanger to produce steam.
closer loop will be neither the solution. physic say no
Geothermal is a great energy source. However there are also problems. The EGS here is "fracking" the stones. This should only be done outside populated areas. Also could cause a problem if there is an aquifer that can become polluted.
An alternative is a closed loop system, where water or glycolic fluid stays in a pipe and the pipe is heated by the surrounding earth. This can be used for house heating. Drilling is only some hundred meter deep, or even less if used in combination with a heat pump.
Thanks for the comment, I originally had this in my script but cut it for brevity. I agree that fracking is a concern, but FORGE/FERVO have designed a system that minimizes this risk. Fervo uses sensors to real-time monitor and apply a Traffic Light Protocol based on strict seismic risk to ramp up/down fracking. They’ve rarely had to pause for very long.
Its geophysicist described their approach at the 55:00 min mark-worth a watch to fully understand the state of the industry.
vimeo.com/1009184419
The closed loop system is also promising. I’m looking forward to seeing the project in Germany come online (when is that?) and the costs come down.
www.eavor.com/blog/eavor-loop-technology-changing-energy-consumption-in-germany/
"Drilling some hundred meter deep, or even less if used in combination with a heat pump" is different from "geothermal energy" the world efforts are directed. Shallow depth have only marginal heat which is good but not what expectations are.
There really is no current system of energy generation that isn’t costly that gives the freedom needed. Stopping and reversing human caused climate change needs to be the number one priority. And that means shutting down hydrocarbon based energy production as quickly as possible. And then, in the meantime, developing ways to minimize environmental impacts of things like energy storage with more sustainable battery tech, or, in this case, the impacts of EGS processes. I know you’re just educating us, I just like… idk I think we are such dire straights as a planet that anything but pure, almost stupid positivity surrounding green energy techniques needs to be shouted down lol
You realize what they're talking bout here right? There are no aquifers where the heat reaches 300-400 degrees. Any water will only exist in the form of very high pressure steam. I don't recall mention of the depth of these wells but unless they are sitting on top of a natural hotspot related to magma, those wells are very deep to reach those temperatures.
@@beebop9808 When you drill deep you drill through layers with aquifers. Unless you take special care and install pipes you will pollute the aquifers, even if your final drilling is much deeper.
There is another company that is doing this idea of geothermal energy called Eavor. They have an active project setting up in Germany already. A big difference however is that Eavor has a closed loop and they don't try to fracture the ground around, they make a radiator to absorb heat. There are a few videos on them online.
closer loop will never work
@@olivierb9716 It already is, Grande Prarie Alberta, and Barvaria.
Agree that closed loop is the preferred method for Geothermal.
A lot of folks don't understand how much cleaner fracking is now than it was thirty years ago. For those who weren't paying quite close enough attention to what was being said, this technology allows the potentil to piggyback on *already-fracked rock* once the kinks are ironed out. That means a hydrocarbon fracking play (which is short-lived) suddenly has vastly more value, particularly if the energy can then be used with molten-salt batteries useful for industrial-scale projects.
It takes the energy production that is most-unfairly-maligned by environmentalists and turns it into something environmentalists can immediately cheer for -- the re-use of existing, played-out fracking sites to slowly make most of the rest of them unnecessary/non-viable. (Most not all, we need hydrocarbons for other things, unless you want your artificial heart parts made from leather).
Amen
"Most not all, we need hydrocarbons for other things" Better idea: use DAC to generate hydrocarbon feedstock for the plastics industry. If you shut down all oil wells, that creates a market for DAC for the most necessary applications of plastics (like medicine) plus disincentivizes single-use plastics, and since plastics take ages to break down, it solves the sequestration and storage problem too.
Excellent video, Bryce!!! I really hope the government encourages massive growth into this sector and does it quickly.
Absolutely! Thanks Robin 😁
Hope you guys are well and looking forward to 🎅🏻 🤶
Iceland became wealthy off geothermal energy, so this is very promising.
I didn’t know we could drill deep enough in none-volcanic regions.
It's not the same, here they are using fracking so it's not green at all, it has the same issues as using fracking to extract oil and gas.
With this I think y’all will keep getting mad money
@@CesarAnton while there are downsides to this process, it's not the same as oil and gas because methane wouldn't be burned or released into the environment.
@@northernouthouse that has nothing to do with it.
The problem with fracking it's not the oil or gas you get out, it's the fracking itself which may cause several damages to the environment. Specially contamination of groundwater, earthquakes and sink holes.
Read or watch some videos about the problems with FRACKING (not oil or gas).
That being said, it can be a much better solution than coal or gas in some areas if done responsibly.
@CesarAnton that's why fracking shouldn't be done near populated areas.
Geo thermal water/steam is corrosive. Lots of maintenance, upkeep. Short well, pipe, valve and turbine lifetimes. They never tell you the negatives.
The have geothermal power plants in both Southern Calif desert and as shown in the video in northern Calif working for decades now. Also Norway gets most of it's energy from geothermal. Apparently it actually does work. On the flip side the oil industry never stops creating pollution and having problems with drilling for and transporting oil meaning lots more maintenance. All for a product that that just constantly pollutes, the opposite of clean steam making clean electricity.
@cre8tvedge Google "geothermal corrosive"
Google 'geothermal corrosive'.
Google geothermal corrosive.
"They never tell you the negatives." We already know the negatives and have dealt with them. The cost of energy calculations already include all the operations and maintenance costs of the plant over its lifetime.
Granite and radon gas go together, in Cornwall UK in the 1970's, they tried doing just this and came to the conclusion they had no plans in place to handle the increasing radioactivity of the circulating water.
Couldn't you store it in another underground void made in likewise manner?
"increasing radioactivity of the circulating water."
Water cannot be made radioactive but of course contaminants IN the water could be radioactive. If it is in a closed cycle steam generator, who cares about it? Radon emits alpha particles if I remember right; a sheet of paper is sufficient to block it.
Radon has a halflife of only 3.8 days and is indeed alpha particles (protons, in other words). www.epa.gov/radiation/radioactive-decay
Just put settling tanks in the radon will evaporate out and head to space.@@Uncanny_Mountain
Problems have solutions, its called scientific evolution
@@asinglemaleinuk "Problems have solutions, its called scientific evolution"
This is the first time EVER in my long life I have encountered the phrase "scientific evolution". Perhaps that is why problems continue to exist.
Kenya is the leading producer of geothermal energy in Africa and ranks among the top globally. On the world stage, the United States remains the largest producer of geothermal energy, followed by Indonesia and the Philippines.
Thanks for the info! Are they trying any new methods in these countries?
Iceland is the largest
@@GregariousAntithesis
These were the 10 leading geothermal countries in 2023
1. United States - 3,900 MW.
2. Indonesia - 2,418 MW.
3. Philippines - 1,952 MW.
4. Turkey - 1,691 MW.
5. New Zealand - 1,042 MW.
6. Kenya - 985 MW.
7. Mexico - 976 MW.
8. Italy - 916 MW.
9. Iceland - 754 MW.
10. Japan - 576 MW.
@ because its based on MW not also factoring in Icelands direct usage of geo thermal for heating, etc.
@@TheDailyConversation You're welcome! 😊 Yes, countries like Kenya and others are constantly innovating in geothermal energy. In Kenya, they’re exploring direct uses of geothermal energy for agriculture, like heating greenhouses and drying crops, as well as industrial processes. Globally, new methods include enhanced geothermal systems (EGS), which can generate energy in areas without natural geothermal reservoirs, and hybrid systems that combine geothermal with solar or wind. These innovations aim to make geothermal energy more efficient and accessible!
Sustainable power generation at The Geysers is possible today because of two large-scale wastewater injection projects from Lake County and the City of Santa Rosa. Together, these projects provide approximately 20 million gallons of reclaimed water per day for injection into The Geysers reservoir.
New Zealand and IceLand have been harnessing this for decades
New Zealand first started using geothermal in 1958. And I have been posting that it is the cleanest cheapest way to generate electricity. Glad someone has finally caught on
geothermal energy can produce a lot of co2 look at the ones in turkey
The combination of this and Quaise's deep borehole rock vaporisation technique has the potential to reduce the cost of installing geothermal to the point where other technologies simply cease to make economic sense.
I love how the Permian Basin, where drilling technology was developed for oil, is exactly where it's not economical to drill for heat.
Looks great but I dont understand how you get the fresh water, in Utah.. Is it a closed circuit? Surely there will be water losses in each cycle
Great point. Utah is dry and will become drier. 95+% of the water is now captured and reused in the loop (based on the 📊 as I remember it). I envision using the electricity to power systems that efficiently capture and store water from the air for many uses in the arid west, along with much improved rainwater/runoff capture systems...and more efficient farming practices to recharge over-pumped aquifers. If we really get desperate, we can buy and pipe water down from Canada. And of course, we’ll be able to transmit great amounts of this cleanly-generated electricity (and heat and water), over long distances, so it’s generation can occur far away from where it’s consumed. (Although from an efficiency standpoint this isn’t ideal.)
One thought sinks in as I research these projects: our ancestors went big to put us in the dominant societal position we’re in now (living standards, geopolitics, etc.), so to deal with the collateral challenges, we need to keep thinking and going big. Use science to engineer solutions to every problem to increase everyone’s quality of life, while minimizing collateral damage now and in the future. Good news is our research and development system so on-point that the tools we need continually emerge, we just need to continue funding programs that find them and put them to good use!
🤓🥸😎
Pipeline from the Great Lakes?
@@stewyoung8523nah that would ruin the Great Lakes
Once the created cracks are filled with water, there's no loss below ground.
I've heard that roughly 2 to 4k gallons of water are needed per kW-hr produced. If losses are under 5% in a closed circuit system, it's just a drop in the bucket. Even out here in the desert southwest.
Great post on you tube and great presentation about geothermal energy. Drilling geothermal wells on underground hot rocks is a challenge, and these shows the strength of drilling companies. Geothermal energy is great even have different challenges.
Surprisingly on company papers (not peer review) the estimate of rock power 8.4 MWe/km3 estimated from companies is 9 time higher than previous estimates from department of energy (0.7 to 0.9 MWe/km3) even the project is based on lower temperatures than 300 deg C. Who can explains about these estimates?
When it comes to conventional drilling and fracking there are other options. One is "Plasma deep drilling technology " which uses a powerful laser to burn through rock. This method allows for deeper well and higher temperatures. Plasma drilling also creates a sealed borehole. By creating a loop, very hot water can be circulated to run an electrical turbine.
That’s very interesting! I came across the work Quaise is doing on this. They are DOE funded too I believe. Looking forward to seeing them prove it is affordable. Does the plasma use a lot of energy?
www.quaise.energy/
It isn't a laser. It's a gyrotron and it beams 500kw of directed microwaves down the borehole and vaporizes the rock via dielectric heating.
The advance in the FORGE research wells were as much in drill rate as production concepts. These specific types of geothermal concepts have been uneconomic. Drilling rigs charge by the day, and drill rates were increased at FORGE from 30 to 300 feet per hour with conventional bits. This is stunning in thousands of feet of granite rock that's almost identical to your kitchen counter top, except it's even harder. Lasers, plasma, and other cutting technologies might cut it, but they aren't even close to being competitive with 300fph, even if you could work out some serious technical challenges.
The armchair experts are alive and well in the comments. “We need to save the planet, but here’s a thousand reasons why you can’t do anything as horrible as drill a well!!”
The Russian/oil industry funded trolls have arrived as well. I guess that means the video is gaining traction. Cool, it contributes to the algorithm.
Closed loop systems could developed in many areas like Idaho to heat greenhouses for growing year round organic crops. Food is trucked in from far away during winter months. Additional grow lights would be necessary in winter months.
Now this is a Drill Baby Drill I can get behind.
I support Geothermal energy harvesting only if we use a closed loop system rather than the fracting technique which can cause tremors. My question is how big the fractures will be that would be created? Would the factures create tremors or Earthquake? I believe that we should use the safest method as possible and that we shouldn't get too excited to make bad decisions. 😎💯💪🏾👍🏾
I support this idea
A closed loop project following research here in Taupo NZ’s geothermal field was announced about 3 weeks ago. But not fracturing the rock. Laurie. NZ. 😊
Would be awesome if we can get large scale geothermal energy.
The video felt like an ad for Fervo and ARPA-E. All technologies have pros and cons yet you only talked about the pros. They are concerns about the water table and earthquakes that are legitimate and should be discussed as part of any honest discussion of enhanced geothermal.
Thanks for the feedback. Tho I am a fan of the work both Fervo and ARPA-E do, my approach is intended to hold the audience’s interest rather than oversell any person or org. I recognize this is a fuzzy line, especially when I’m putting as much production into it, and that sometimes I could dial it back a bit. I do enjoy getting a little carried away with the edit 😉
In terms of the seismic monitoring, Fervo addressed this well in their tech day I linked to in more info. They recycle 95% of the water they pump up to pump through the system, and I expect this to improve through innovation/reclamation (they pump wastewater down for geothermal at the geysers now). But for sure there are concerns and companies need to do things carefully and by the book with good oversight.
@@TheDailyConversation I sometimes have the opposite problem with my videos, being overly negative. It's a hard balance.
I'm a huge fan of ARPA-E and I think Fervo is doing interesting work that might pay off. But I've been following EGS since Altarock about 20 years ago, so I'm not as optimistic as some.
Someone recently suggested I do a video on Fervo, but I really liked Engineering with Rosie's take on geothermal, so I'm not sure I'll bother.
In case you're curious, here's my channel.
www.youtube.com/@Decarbonize11?sub_confirmation=1
The question though is what are the alternatives? A strictly solar, wind, and hydropower future requires a lot more mining of critical minerals, often in poor countries or on indigenous land. It's their water table that's contaminated by concentrated pollution from mine tailings and hypersaline brine. Solar eats up land, disturbing natural habitats in the process, and hydropower destroys riparian ecosystems and requires CO2 emissions from concrete manufacturing. And don't even get me started on batteries! I think that the internalization of the risks of an energy source is a thoroughly positive thing. We cannot continue to push environmental costs onto marginalized people and the developing world.
Awesome!
What are the long term maintenance costs as a geothermal well gets older and or does it loose the ability to produce?
How far down is the average well?
Is there any likelihood of using this for deep water wells in less geothermal areas for uncontaminated water wells, like those capped in California in the 1960's?
About time
Interesting way of creating energy, it’s clean and doesn’t need refining. 🤙
I bought stock in ca geothermal in the 90s. Never moved😮😮
It'll be great to have clean free or cheap energy. All those oil states will continue to charge a lot for oil bills and gass. clean energy and heat is right here though. And it can be accessible to us all! It's great to see UT listening to people. A lot of us have seen the horrific effects of climate change. We don't want to have it destroy our homes and lives.
You charts shows just the opposite of what I would expect, on being economically viable. The Permian Basis, in West Texas, already as holes drilled on a zillion oil and gas well, already fracked. Is it not hot underground there too, with zero drill costs?
Where do they get the water? Utah is already hurting for water. Even if they “reuse” the water there’s still loss to steam to the atmosphere.
Truly a ground breaking technology.
They are Fracking. My father worked on this Stuff in the Desert of CA . There is Hot Springs From Mexico to Alaska. 😅
Eavor loop seems like a better geothermal system as it's a closed loop system and doesn't involve fracking, and doesn't absorb radon etc. The Eavorloop system is more expensive up front because you'd need to do more expensive drilling.
hundred kilometer of downhole open hole "sealed" with a chemical barrier is not cheap nor safe!
The water is constantly evaporating. Where will you find enough water to keep these wells running?
The water in the well isn't what's evaporating, what you're seeing is condensation of exhaust from the turbine loop. The way these plants work is that the water in the well never makes contact with the outside world. The heat is instead transferred from the well water to the turbine loop which generates steam to turn the turbine. The only time you'll see actual underground steam coming from a geothermal plant is if it's tapping into a natural hot spring in which steam is being produced from an underground water source, not pumped into a well.
Careful! If it’s cheap and plentiful they will make it disappear
Sounds amazing but I'm skeptical. I hope it turns out. The video was light on specifics and big on possibilities. Basically like having an idea, without demonstration of viability. I would have appreciated hearing the obstacles to the technology rather than a plug that this is possible everywhere while at the same time having only the smallest proof of concept
I see the right investment is build it out in the west till it's profitable and consistent then move it out east over time
This is the future. The heat is free and it's hot 365 days a year and 24 hours a day. Solar panels and windmills never make power 24 hours a day. Oil companies can help drill these holes. They have experience for drilling. If each state in the future drilled and made electricity from these sites, one day they could even drill more holes to make hydrogen for cars, trucks and planes. And then even solar panels and windmills would not be needed one day in the future,,,,,,,,,,,,
The money is in the actual saving of the energy. We are gaining more ways to capture it all the time. Piggy Banks of energy is where it's at. No more huge oil storage tanks. Modular Gravity battery and flywheel installations. Gravity batteries are Zero loss. 99% of losses are on the collection end. Can be constructed in fully charged position.
I was watching a video about mechanical batteries earlier so my though now obviously is to add a spinning mechanical battery to a geo thermal plant. It would handle rapid load changes and most of all could be charged and reboosted from the steam directly (without going through a generator and motor).
It feels neat, but I suppose it is too much steam hardware and they could just use normal batteries, or simply dynamically adjust the throttle on the main generator to deal with load changes.
Good thoughts all! Which video?
@@TheDailyConversation 'How This Mechanical Battery is Making a Comeback' by Undecided with Matt Ferrell
Thanks!
Add that idea to the Gravity Battery and the flywheel and you have it all.
This issues are the chemicals you're forcing in to frack. That's where people get sick
Geothermal wells are about 2 miles deep (9,000 ft or more). Your drinking water is above 1,000 ft, likely only a few hundred feet). I'm more concerned with micro plastic in our water than anything else.
They’re pumping PFAS in to lubricate the fractures. That’s criminal.
I'm literally copy-pasting my response at this point b/c everyone seems to be hung up on the name:
Most of the risks of fracking for oil and gas are from 1) the additives used to coax these substances from the rocks and have them flow smoothly and 2) the risk of oil and gas leaching into groundwater sources. B/c the only thing being transferred is heat, not hydrocarbons, the only additives that are needed for geothermal fracking are disinfectants (to prevent build ups of bacteria) and brine (to make it harder for underground metals and minerals to dissolve into the water). On top of that, it's much easier to treat water for heavy metal contamination than for hydrocarbons, which can be carcinogenic at very small concentrations. If contamination does occur, it's relatively easy to plug the well and move on than with oil wells. Once the well is plugged, there's no more hot water moving through the rock to find its way into groundwater.
Disovered? Kid, I've been following the development of enhanced geothermal for 20 years myself, and it's been worked on since the 1970's.
Let's do this thing. Free power in Oregon
Two things
#1 Its great to frack for geo thermal but evil to frack for oil?
#2 Is it a really a good idea to cool the earth in a non natural way?
1. Not evil, just not ideal.
2. What do you mean? Cooling the earth as in the soil/rock underground (seems fine) or cooling the air (we’re warming it unnaturally so why not)?
#1 fracking to extract oil and gas is not ideal. Burning oil and gas produces ghg which warms the planet which in turn creates more intense storms. It's also well documented that oil and gas infrastructure leaks methane which is one of the most potent ghg. Economically, nations can not afford to continue to burn carbon and pollute the environment freely. Oceans are warming to a significant extent that earth is losing biodiversity and that will ultimately affect the food chain. Further, nations simply can't afford to pay for the damages that these storms cause to households and businesses. Take hurricane Helene and it's destruction. There are going to be parts of states that will take years to recover. Yet, hurricane season happens every year and the storms are getting more intense as time passes. Damage from severe storms, on a cumulative basis, could wipe out national treasuries in the future if the world doesn't transition to low carbon economy. If a person has a leaky roof, the prudent action is to fix the roof and not ignore the problem. At the end of the day, this is about saving people and governments $$$.
#2 No risk of this happening as the core has retained this heat for billions of years and the core constantly regenerates the heat. It is a potential unlimited energy source.
Oil and methane pollute far more. The difference is same as digging a mine tunnel and drilling an oil well through the aquifer you get your drinking water from: Even if you completely failed to look into what is down there and tunnel into an aquifer the potential for contamination is tiny compared to mixing millions of barrels of oil into your water source. And after that burning the oil and gas spreads massive amounts of CO2 and other pollutants all over while the heat and electricity from geothermal will be as close to 100% clean as realistically possible.
Also, if you failed to account for other ground conditions and the mine collapses the damage above will be small compared to emptying the huge underground reservoir of oil and gas which will allow the fractured earth to move causing an earthquake. Both could cause earthquakes but the potential is lower and the likely scale smaller with geothermal.
That's what I said but somehow my reply got deleted.
@@northernouthouse YT weirdness again.
That drilling rig still requires a tremendous amount of diesel. We can go cleaner but oil is still king!
So what are current and target estimates of this type of energy source? Is this really practical yet or are there still major obstacles to overcome?
Geothermal has always been nice when there is easy access but too costly to expend effort. I don't think anyone wants to pay gasoline prices for electricity, wind and solar by comparison seems cheaper although efficient and cheap storage is still needed to be 24/7/365.
See graph at th-cam.com/video/jxICYjBEsvo/w-d-xo.html&si=0seQT0U7HzxmZzvC
No, not really any obstacles as I see it when done smartly and by the book, just scale and streamlining the finding of new rock/heat zones to maximize generation-which should be plentiful. Good thing we know how to drill, baby drill! Plus we have plenty of rigs, which can be reused (as can their crews).
That sounds very similar to fracking and waste water injection that the oil/gas companies were doing OK and North Texas which triggered minor earthquakes though out the region
If it all works then what is the cost of that electricity going to be in relation to hydro in the northwest?
LCOE of hydropower is around $60/MWhr. Based on the map, EGS LCOE could be as low as $45/MWhr. Huge improvement. The NW needs to wean off of hydropower anyway b/c its consistency is threatened by climate change.
How do we get projects started in my home state of Montana? I think this technology is amazing and we are located in the "hot rock" zone. What can I do as an advocate? What can YOU do to help me?
Contact your congressperson, senator, and governor and ask if they’re aware of this development.
Tell your governor, congresspeople, and state-level representatives that Montana could become an industrial powerhouse with energy this cheap. B/c of the state's small population, they don't really have any current need for energy and export almost all of the gas oil and coal they extract. States like Colorado and Washington get wealthy by using those exports to add value to products they manufacture. If Montana can tap into cheap geothermal energy, it could attract more industries and keep more of those jobs and income for Montanans + attract more ppl to the state.
Is it commercially viable WITHOUT Government Subsidies??
If you actually listened to the video, you'd have the answer: the grant was only for initial research and small-scale test projects, and that too only the capital costs not the operating costs, which isn't what a subsidy is. After the 400MW installation is built, everything will be downhill b/c they'll have proven the technology for grid-scale use which is where the real money is.
This is nuts. The canadian firm That is drilling a closed loop Is a much better solution. Modifying the earth when you could just drill thru with a sealed system is a crazy way to go about it.
If and when this scales, the whole paradigm shifts. Every shuttered coal plant could be the site of a future EGS plant, mitigating the need for endless tracts of wind and solar.
This method recaptures 95% of the same water, over what period? How is that loss compensated?
Does continuous boiling in that fractured region not break down rock to the point that it travels up the return pipe or begins to clog the inlet?
I imagined a closed heat exchanger would be able to be placed in hole but of course it would be hard to fit a large/long enough one when you're only dealing with 300-400F...
What are the pipes made of - a stainless steel or mild steel? I imagine a sCO2 turbine would make it possible to extract adequate heat from the hole with a closed loop heat exchanger, maybe even with one hole, using supercritical CO2 as the working fluid. Then, you don't have any water consumption but a large ambient radiator.
With an unfractured region filled with oil or something, you could possibly still get adequate heat transfer through the heat exchanger for comparable electrical generation due to the relatively high efficiency of a sCO2 turbine compared to steam... less heat but comparable electricity... and much smaller turbinonachinery... and no water.
Interesting, I have no idea. 🤷🏼 Favoriting so hopefully someone from the industry jumps in and adds their thoughts. Thanks for sharing!
The water doesn't actually boil. It's under pressure, and at higher pressures than 1 atm, water boils at higher temps meaning it would still be in the liquid phase. At 400degF, the water would have to be under at least 17.5atm of pressure to stay liquid. That prolly sounds dangerous but the fact is that the water would not stay in the well if it wasn't under pressure b/c the rocks exert their own pressure. This is how geothermal wells work all over the world, and I bet you haven't heard of an explosive decompression disaster at a geothermal plant before. They're safe. As for supercritical CO2, that goal is still pretty far away. To really get enough efficiency from sCO2 you would have to drill even deeper like down to 12 mi. Quaise Energy, a new startup that's using a gyrotron emitting a millimeter wave laser for drilling, has the capability to drill down that far but I don't think they have plans for sCO2 any time soon.
@lozoft9 so you're saying geothermal power generation does already use a closed cycle with water, so it does not need to replenish its working fluid
I would like to see this just outside Yellowstone park
Just because there is a lot does not mean it is endless
The faster we cool the planets core the quicker we loose our magnetic field then turn into Mars
Geothermal is great if you can capture the resources
Take us to the top boss man Chris
I love the concept hate that the government has to be involved🤔🤔🤔😔 should be private industries
Roads,rail, aviation pathways, military , footpaths its what makes a country, a country
"Trust in the agency"....
Somehow, I worry that many of the viewers of this are NOT understanding what that REALLY means.
What portion of the investment money is from government funding, which is from our taxes? It is a source of money for a large amount of fraudulent investment.
The heat source is not unlimited, the heat can only move through the crust at a certain rate, take too much and the power draw will drop off, then you would have to move on to another site far away. Also all that heat is mostly coming from the decay of nuclear elements like uranium, thorium, potasium isotopes. It would be far better to mine the ores and just put it into a reactor, preferably a Molten Salt Reactor, that way all the energy will be captured from the ore rather than than low energy dense well. A kg or so of uranium or thorium can power a human life for a lifetime for perhaps $100.
Why not just do it cheaper near “Old faithful” geyser?
So it’s fracking. The same process we aren’t allowed to use for natural gas. Hmmm
What does it cost per kWh compared to coal, oil, gas, wind and solar?
They show a heatmap of per MWh costs. In the Pacific NW, it would be ~$45/MWh (divide by 1,000 for /kWh). At the high end, it would be about $90/MWh but the areas where it's that expensive are few and far apart, so it would be easy to generate in places where it costs ~$65/MWh and then send it to areas which don't have cheap access.
Wind and solar are cheaper still but fossil fuels are around the same or more expensive in cost. The important thing isn't the cost, it's the fact that it's basically a drop-in replacement for some kinds of base load fossil fuel plants. You could actually convert existing FF plants that use a steam turbine by heating the steam using the superheated water from the geothermal well instead of burning coal or gas.
The good thing about this tech is it can be used in almost anywhere on the planet. Sure better than nuclear with none of the tailings, etc.
How many fracking chemicals are used to fracture the earth to make the stream to power this clean energy wave. Fracking fluids are not green.
Where does the original water come from that is injected into the ground?
If they used liquids, other than water, with a lower boiling point, they wouldn’t have to dig as deep🔥🥸
What a fabulous discovery and implementation 🎉🎉🎉
Some people will make billons with this, but as always the savings will never reach the people.
Drill baby drill
So it's using underground water & condensing it into the atmosphere through turbines.. at least it isn't burning oxygen.. I'd like to see what opposition says..
source for image at 8:28?
So the big breakthrough is fracking?
What about all the concern with drinking water aquifers…. Oh yeh this is a “green” project! Just asking 😊
If this energy technology proves to be successful and cost effective then the the government should let the private sector take over. When the private sector doesn't take over something without the carrot of government incentives, it's a sign that you don't have a viable technology from an affordability perspective. We only prosper with cheap energy.
There are just as good enegy at the suface. Solar thermal energy. Together with organic rankine cycle you got endless of energy.
"Wise government investments" is when you know this is going to be promises and projections, not power.
Watched a documentary a decade ago about this type of geothermal rock in most of Australia and yet nothing about it being developed . Why??
1: Australian politicians are idiots thoroughly bribed by the coal industry so even if some company wanted to invest their permits might have been denied.
2: The reason this is now in the news are the new drilling techniques that allow for deeper wells and better access to the underground heat. Lower costs make geothermal viable enough to compete with solar and wind. Australia is great place for wind and solar so there would have been little reason to focus on geothermal.
To bad they can't get more heat I mean turbines like 500c... .they have to come up with equipment that can work that lower temp range in order to cover drilling/operational cost
I still don't understand why ThermoPhotoVoltaics are not the answer. You drill. You drop a string of TPV cells into the hole connected to a high voltage power cable. You seal the hole. Tranformer..Plug in.
That sounds pretty efficient!
A mini ⭐ star in the centre of earth 🌎 hydrodynamic 🌋 ☁️
💥 🎉
What is the impact on the planet's core temp? You need to know that if we change the average temp of the core, it will have a significant effect on the world, which you may not like in the end. The core temp is very important, and playing with it may significantly impact climate more than burning carbon fuels. Be very careful.
@@raymondwalters3072 5 miles down 2 million years worth of energy. being replaced by radioactive decay.
Even if we were to put EGS wells on every single spot on earth, even underwater, the amount of power we'd be drawing would NEVER EVEN COME CLOSE to the amount of heat the earth produces. The US only needs around 1,500 of these 400MW EGS installations to replace all gas and coal power plants
There's no mention here of what cocktail of chemicals would be injected to create the fractures. If they're anything like what's used for oil or natural gas fracking, the prospect of doing this across the eastern seaboard is pretty eepy.
Also, earthquakes.
I'm literally copy-pasting my response at this point b/c everyone seems to be hung up on the name:
Most of the risks of fracking for oil and gas are from 1) the additives used to coax these substances from the rocks and have them flow smoothly and 2) the risk of oil and gas leaching into groundwater sources. B/c the only thing being transferred is heat, not hydrocarbons, the only additives that are needed for geothermal fracking are disinfectants (to prevent build ups of bacteria) and brine (to make it harder for underground metals and minerals to dissolve into the water). On top of that, it's much easier to treat water for heavy metal contamination than for hydrocarbons, which can be carcinogenic at very small concentrations. If contamination does occur, it's relatively easy to plug the well and move on than with oil wells. Once the well is plugged, there's no more hot water moving through the rock to find its way into groundwater.
Iceland has the potential to create hydrogen fuel from their excess GT energy and export it for cash. I believe parts of Japan and Indonesia can do the same.
Indeed, developments in hydrogen sound very promising as well.
How are you not going to repeat the problems as in Austin TX
"Earth-Shattering Clean Energy Source Discovered"
Let us not shatter the Earth.
This tech should be priority..but money has its own rule
I Say Directional Drill.
For Example :-
Drill Two Holes at an Angle so They Intersect Deep in the Hot Zone.
Sure this Requires Accuracy and Clever Drilling.
Once You Perfect this Method, You can Parallel Drill for More Capacity.
Sounds good, but how is that different from what Fervo is doing?
@TheDailyConversation You have to watch the Video.
Interesting, looks like they are leveraging all the fracking technology developed in the oil and gas industry.
Seriously, it seems like a great idea except the government part. Just let private companies do it on their own. No taxpayer funding. If individuals want to invest, let them buy stock. Once you let the government’s foot in the door, everything goes to pot.
I wanted to do this for some time. I hope that they can get investment for growth.
Interesting information, much of it true at the macro level. But the reality of the state immigrant labor is lacking a fuller picture. The population of America is declining (as is much of the world) if immigration is removed from the census which means our labor pool is declining. Most people including immigrants seek upward mobility for their children. Coupled with as stated “toxic masculinity”, emasculating the labor pool, demeaning the value of the manual labor. These factors, as well have created a demand for labor. Additionally many immigrants do find success. This can be particularly seen in construction, illegal immigrants were successful construction businesses homeownership. Many immigrants without proper visas purchase homes with cash earned from their wage earning job. Correct me if I’m wrong, did labors and make packing jobs ever get high wages? I would be careful of calling Candace Owens full on antisemite. On this matter, it’s absolutely factual that Israel has very deep tentacles in the American political establishment. And these are matters that are never addressed due to the great influence that Israel has in our nation, and politics and business.
What could possibly go wrong?