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

21–30 of 78 posts

Re: Geothermal energy could outperform nuclear power

#21

Post by jbm »

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…

While I agree with you generally, the price I was given was $50k for geothermal heat pump all in. Considering my house has risen in value by 200k over the past 3 years and I intend on it being a permanent family home, it's really not out of the question, especially considering the potential increase in extreme heat events and the impacts on energy.

I understand people see this as an underperforming investment but I instead see it as de-risking.

Re: Geothermal energy could outperform nuclear power

#22

Post by pydry »

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

From 1% to 5% of Chinese power is hardly a standout success either.

Re: Geothermal energy could outperform nuclear power

#24

Post by ViewTrick1002 »

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 has so many other uses that is has been sitting without uses for 40 years.

The problem is that you need to keep it for thousands of years before it becomes tractable to more easily deal with it.

Re: Geothermal energy could outperform nuclear power

#25

Post by ViewTrick1002 »

hungie wrote: post #19
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 "…

The problem is not how small the waste is, it is the effects.

High level radioactive waste can cause Goiânia like outcomes, or leach into the groundwater.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goi%C3%A2nia_accident

It is quite intellectually dishonest to try frame it as pixie dust rather than the true problem it poses.

Re: Geothermal energy could outperform nuclear power

#26

Post by pb1729 »

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…

Bhauth wrote an analysis of this idea, and tldr is that trying to get an energy payback on literally vaporizing such a long cylinder of rock is brutally difficult, probably enough to make the economics of the plan unworkable.

https://www.bhauth.com/blog/flawed%20ideas/microwave%20drill...

Re: Geothermal energy could outperform nuclear power

#27

Post by OutOfHere »

hungie wrote: post #19
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 "…

Nuclear waste slowly leaks into the groundwater and river water. Also, waste is only one of the two major concerns I noted.

Comparing it with coal is 100% disingenuous. Coal is never an option going forward.

Re: Geothermal energy could outperform nuclear power

#28

Post by bluescrn »

ViewTrick1002 wrote: post #23

Near everything outperforms nuclear power. Nuclear power is unfathomably expensive. Come back when it is in the same league as renewables or CCGTs.

We don't do nuclear because it's expensive, and that's why it stays expensive. No economies of scale, minimal opportunities to iteratively improve designs.

Solar was expensive until we started building a lot of it (often due to heavy subsidisation)

Re: Geothermal energy could outperform nuclear power

#29

Post by sschueller »

Two not insignificant earthquakes (3.4 and 3.5) were triggered in two attempts to drill for geothermal power plants in Switzerland. Switzerland is a seismically active area and it should theoretically be possible to generate significant power but these man made earthquakes set back projects for many years.

Re: Geothermal energy could outperform nuclear power

#30

Post by outofpaper »

OutOfHere wrote: post #27
hungie wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 "…

Nuclear waste slowly leaks into the groundwater and river water. Also, waste is only one of the two major concerns I noted. Comparing it with coal is 100% disingenuous. Coal is never an option going forward.

Nuclear waste only slowly leaks if its stored improperly. The better option is to use it, reacted fuel is still super useful stuff. N breeder reactors have been developed to decrease fuel requirements by a factor of 100. Instead of one egg of "spent fuel per person... one egg per 100!
Post reply on HN