Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Geothermal energy could outperform nuclear power

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 78 posts

Re: Geothermal energy could outperform nuclear power

#11

Post by Veedrac »

MichaelNolan wrote: post #5

I wish the best for the geothermal industry, but the phrase “could outperform” is doing a lot of heavy lifting. Geothermal thermal has essentially zero growth, in the US, in the last 20 years. And there is basically no growth planned in the near future, or at least nothing on the EIA’s or FERC’s upcoming generation list. I’m skeptical that geothermal will ever make a significant impact in the US. Though it might make…

The problem is dominantly that with traditional techniques the US doesn't have useful geothermal energy resources, so not having geothermal energy historically doesn't mean that newer approaches that aim to work in far more areas will also fail to scale.

Skepticism is reasonable around any new technology, but the arguments for geothermal are convincing enough that it seems easily worth the attempt.

Re: Geothermal energy could outperform nuclear power

#12

Post by tonyarkles »

cinntaile wrote: post #6
MichaelNolan wrote: post #5

I wish the best for the geothermal industry, but the phrase “could outperform” is doing a lot of heavy lifting. Geothermal thermal has essentially zero growth, in the US, in the last 20 years. And there is basically no growth planned in the near future, or at least nothing on the EIA’s or FERC’s upcoming generation list. I’m skeptical that geothermal will ever make a significant impact in the US. Though it might make…

Nuclear also has essentially zero growth, whichever turtle is fastest still wins.

I mean… somewhat true in the west but https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_China

Re: Geothermal energy could outperform nuclear power

#13

Post by OutOfHere »

Nuclear fission is basically pushed by those who don't think to worry about: (1) nuclear accidents/terrorism (2) nuclear waste.

Th hallmark of a great civilization is one that saves its future self from problems, not one that piles on problems for its future self to deal with. In this light, nuclear is not great.

Geothermal using fracking toxins is not great either if it irreversibly pollutes the water supply as fracking often does.

Solar and wind have no such issues for us to deal with, considering we don't domestically produce the solar panels anyway.

Re: Geothermal energy could outperform nuclear power

#14

Post by cinntaile »

tonyarkles wrote: post #12
cinntaile wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nuclear also has essentially zero growth, whichever turtle is fastest still wins.

I mean… somewhat true in the west but https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_China

He specifically mentioned the US so that is what I responded to.

Re: Geothermal energy could outperform nuclear power

#15

Post by Reason077 »

theluketaylor wrote: post #8
MichaelNolan wrote: post #5

I wish the best for the geothermal industry, but the phrase “could outperform” is doing a lot of heavy lifting. Geothermal thermal has essentially zero growth, in the US, in the last 20 years. And there is basically no growth planned in the near future, or at least nothing on the EIA’s or FERC’s upcoming generation list. I’m skeptical that geothermal will ever make a significant impact in the US. Though it might make…

Yeah, I'm not sure large scale geothermal electrical production will ever be a thing outside some specialized locations like Iceland. I do think geothermal has a part to play, specifically for heating and cooling of neighbourhoods and multifamily developments. The construction has to move a ton of dirt anyway, so might as well install some ground loops while you're at it. If you're forced to drill due to site conditi…

> "I'm not sure large scale geothermal electrical production will ever be a thing outside some specialized locations like Iceland."

You may be underestimating the extent of geothermal power production that already exists around the world. For example, California's Geysers[1] and Salton Sea[2] geothermal complexes are some of the largest in the world, generating more electricity than all of Iceland's geothermal power plants combined.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Geysers

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_Valley_Geothermal_Pro...

Re: Geothermal energy could outperform nuclear power

#16

Post by jandrewrogers »

theluketaylor wrote: post #8
MichaelNolan wrote: post #5

I wish the best for the geothermal industry, but the phrase “could outperform” is doing a lot of heavy lifting. Geothermal thermal has essentially zero growth, in the US, in the last 20 years. And there is basically no growth planned in the near future, or at least nothing on the EIA’s or FERC’s upcoming generation list. I’m skeptical that geothermal will ever make a significant impact in the US. Though it might make…

Yeah, I'm not sure large scale geothermal electrical production will ever be a thing outside some specialized locations like Iceland. I do think geothermal has a part to play, specifically for heating and cooling of neighbourhoods and multifamily developments. The construction has to move a ton of dirt anyway, so might as well install some ground loops while you're at it. If you're forced to drill due to site conditi…

> outside some specialized locations like Iceland

I think you underestimate the scale of geothermal available. The US is the largest geothermal power producer in the world though no one thinks of the US as that. Not coincidentally, it also sits on top of the largest high-quality geothermal basin in the world, essentially the entire Mountain West.

The US barely taps these resources at all despite leading the world. Ironically, much of the pushback on developing these geothermal resources in the US comes from environmental activists.

Re: Geothermal energy could outperform nuclear power

#17

Post by rabf »

MichaelNolan wrote: post #5

I wish the best for the geothermal industry, but the phrase “could outperform” is doing a lot of heavy lifting. Geothermal thermal has essentially zero growth, in the US, in the last 20 years. And there is basically no growth planned in the near future, or at least nothing on the EIA’s or FERC’s upcoming generation list. I’m skeptical that geothermal will ever make a significant impact in the US. Though it might make…

"Our gyrotron-powered drilling platform vaporizes boreholes through rock and provides access to deep geothermal heat without complex downhole equipment.

Based on breakthrough fusion research and well-established drilling practices, we are developing a radical new approach to ultra-deep drilling."

This company looks promising in the geothermal space. They are looking to be able to create 10km boreholes in 100 days. This would make geothermal viable anywhere in the world. Bonus points if you create the borehole next to an existing coal plant to use the existing turbine and infrastructure.

https://www.quaise.energy/

Re: Geothermal energy could outperform nuclear power

#18

Post by rpmisms »

rabf wrote: post #17
MichaelNolan wrote: post #5

I wish the best for the geothermal industry, but the phrase “could outperform” is doing a lot of heavy lifting. Geothermal thermal has essentially zero growth, in the US, in the last 20 years. And there is basically no growth planned in the near future, or at least nothing on the EIA’s or FERC’s upcoming generation list. I’m skeptical that geothermal will ever make a significant impact in the US. Though it might make…

"Our gyrotron-powered drilling platform vaporizes boreholes through rock and provides access to deep geothermal heat without complex downhole equipment. Based on breakthrough fusion research and well-established drilling practices, we are developing a radical new approach to ultra-deep drilling." This company looks promising in the geothermal space. They are looking to be able to create 10km boreholes in 100 days. Th…

Looks amazing as a disruptor in the space, but I also want to say that Gyrotron is an excellent name for a device. Very industrial.

Re: Geothermal energy could outperform nuclear power

#19

Post by hungie »

OutOfHere wrote: post #13

Nuclear fission is basically pushed by those who don't think to worry about: (1) nuclear accidents/terrorism (2) nuclear waste. Th hallmark of a great civilization is one that saves its future self from problems, not one that piles on problems for its future self to deal with. In this light, nuclear is not great. Geothermal using fracking toxins is not great either if it irreversibly pollutes the water supply as frac…

How much nuclear waste would be generated, across 100 years of American levels of energy use, per person?

I'll save you the effort, it's about one chicken egg, maybe as large as a tea cup.

For your whole life, all the energy you'll use across all sectors. Over 100 years you don't think we capable of finding a space to safely fritter away a chicken egg? Or even 300 million chicken eggs?

And even more amazingly, that "waste"? It's still fuel, we could reprocess it.

Coal, you'd need 50-60,000 kilograms to create the same energy. The waste disposal for 60k kg of coal's ash is non trivial (and much harder to prevent from spreading). To say nothing of the 150-180,000 kg of CO2 emitted.

Solar panels would need to be replaced 2-5 times in that timeframe. They are a whole lot less wasteful than coal, but that'd still be a significant volume of difficult to reprocess material.

So, before wringing your hands about waste from nuclear, make sure you understand just how small the amount of waste is and think about the waste of alternatives. There's not a free lunch here, but waste just isn't a material concern compared against other power sources.

Re: Geothermal energy could outperform nuclear power

#20

Post by hungie »

davidu wrote: post #9
johnea wrote: post #7

Two hamsters on a treadmill could outperfom nuclear power 8-/ Nuclear is the biggest boondogle in electric generation history. And a huge fraction of that bloated cost is still hidden in externalities, as the overwhelming majority of all spent fuel is still sitting in "temporary" storage onsite with the reactor where it was used. Geothermal aside, using money to increase grid storage is a vastly better investment tha…

The word temporary is only used to placate people who don't understand nuclear / nuclear waste (waste is a bad term) and who have been badly influenced by 70 years of misinformation from The Sierra Club and others. None of this spent fuel is really that spent, has plenty of other use cases, and should be used. Also, storing it in concrete casks for 40 years is perfectly safe and has caused 0 harm. The cost is largely…

It's also minuscule. A US person would generate roughly a chicken egg worth of waste across their entire lifetime.
Post reply on HN