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

71–78 of 78 posts

Re: Geothermal energy could outperform nuclear power

#71

Post by ViewTrick1002 »

Krssst wrote: post #70
ViewTrick1002 wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Spending 3-10x as much depending on if you compare with offshore wind or solar? Given the differences in cost investing nuclear power today prolongs our fight against climate change. For every dollar invested in nuclear power we get less effect and need to wait longer for the effect to materialize compared to renewables. https://www.lazard.com/media/xemfey0k/lazards-lcoeplus-june-...

Yet a grid scale replacement for coal/gas using NREs still failed to materialize in the last decade. NREs definitely help with decarbonizing (and pushing NREs is better than doing nothing), but for some reason countries deploying NREs never seem to retire almost all fossil fuel production from the grid.

It is simply economics. In most grids the renewable penetration has been low enough to not warrant any storage, or they have hydro to balance it in for example Portugals case.

Now the battery revolution has begun and gas is being forced off the grids.

https://theprogressplaybook.com/2024/06/20/gas-power-output-...

We also need to understand that we are not aiming for perfection. We are aiming for good enough.

If the emergency reserve for the extremely cold winter week in 2040 is fossil fuels that is good enough. We are talking 1% of our total consumption.

As long as we can force it to transition to efuels or be replaced when those are the most pressing issues still to tackle.

Re: Geothermal energy could outperform nuclear power

#72

Post by xnx »

natenatenate3 wrote: post #54
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…

Look up Fervo Energy, I think you will be surprised how quickly their method will grow and expand as they gain more experience with their current projects.

Came here to say this. Google has a test project with them: https://blog.google/outreach-initiatives/sustainability/goog...

Re: Geothermal energy could outperform nuclear power

#73

Post by davidu »

ViewTrick1002 wrote: post #24
davidu wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's untrue.

Re: Geothermal energy could outperform nuclear power

#74

Post by davidu »

ViewTrick1002 wrote: post #25
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 "…

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.

That ranks as one of the worst nuclear disasters in history, and it was really not bad on a human or planetary scale. Carbon-based power plants kill far more on an annual basis.

Re: Geothermal energy could outperform nuclear power

#75

Post by bhauth2 »

Veedrac wrote: post #59
bhauth2 wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's entirely possible that EGS just doesn't work at really deep depths as you state here, but this seems like a qualitatively different argument to the one presented in the article. A different argument to the one presented in the article, you say. Huh. I suppose I can't claim to know more about geothermal than the author of that blog post, but if you check again, you'll find it does mention EGS. Apparently someth…

cf. "but I wish they finished writing the equations out" The article mentions EGS but, as far as I could tell, only seemed to present it to contrast it with the claim that Quaise is using a worse single-bore strategy. If I'm just misreading, and it sounds like you're saying I am?, it'd be really helpful to show your working so I can see where the models are differing. There is a factor 100 difference somewhere, it sh…

This has been amusing and all, but I'm the author of that blog post, and since arguments in a mere comment aren't as reputable I'd updated the post.

Re: Geothermal energy could outperform nuclear power

#76

Post by Veedrac »

bhauth2 wrote: post #75
Veedrac wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

cf. "but I wish they finished writing the equations out" The article mentions EGS but, as far as I could tell, only seemed to present it to contrast it with the claim that Quaise is using a worse single-bore strategy. If I'm just misreading, and it sounds like you're saying I am?, it'd be really helpful to show your working so I can see where the models are differing. There is a factor 100 difference somewhere, it sh…

This has been amusing and all, but I'm the author of that blog post, and since arguments in a mere comment aren't as reputable I'd updated the post.

Thanks, that makes the position much clearer.

Some questions:

You say, “if there's enough pressure to make a little crack, then the fluid can instantly expand and immediately make a big crack”. My admittedly quite surface level view of the research is that it is viewed as feasible in this regime.

“Close to the brittle-ductile transition conditions of pressure and temperature, new findings suggest that fractures are sufficiently permeable to allow fluid circulation and, in case of insufficient fracture density, enhancement strategies are likely to be successful”

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-12146-0

I also believe that EGS fracture enhancement marginally prefers hydro-shearing (crack expansion) rather than hydro-fracking (crack formation), so if creating cracks is problematic, that leaves options open.

I also note that to my understanding gas fracking is already a thing, cf. nitrogen fracking. So gaseous behavior doesn't obviously seem like an instant write-off to me.

I'm sure that isn't convincing to you, but it's a bit challenging for me as a layman wrt. geothermal to see why I should trust your gut here, so to speak, and I'm wondering if you have a concrete argument I can evaluate on merits?

For example,

"The hypothesis that the brittle–ductile transition (BDT) drastically reduces permeability implies that potentially exploitable geothermal resources (permeability >10−16 m2) consisting of supercritical water could occur only in rocks with unusually high transition temperatures such as basalt. However, tensile fracturing is possible even in ductile rocks, and some permeability–depth relations proposed for the continental crust show no drastic permeability reduction at the BDT."

https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo2879

I'm definitely not claiming to take these on faith, I'm just saying I haven't really been given a reason to believe those arguments are less trustworthy than your claims otherwise.

Re: Geothermal energy could outperform nuclear power

#77

Post by ViewTrick1002 »

davidu wrote: post #74
ViewTrick1002 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That ranks as one of the worst nuclear disasters in history, and it was really not bad on a human or planetary scale. Carbon-based power plants kill far more on an annual basis.

No need to compare against fossil fuels, compare with renewables. That is the alternative today.

Re: Geothermal energy could outperform nuclear power

#78

Post by ViewTrick1002 »

davidu wrote: post #73
ViewTrick1002 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's untrue.

Please explain how so.
Post reply on HN