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

The time has finally come for geothermal energy

newyorker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 282 posts

Re: The time has finally come for geothermal energy

#41

Post by foobarian »

quacked wrote: post #24
1970-01-01 wrote: post #4

It always has been. Our problem is switching over existing infrastructure without asinine complainers ruining the revolution. We can't even declare total victory with LED bulbs over incandescent. The war to have solar plants over more coal is falling back to coal thanks mostly to AI. Pushback on geothermal will arrive, I guarantee it.

> We can't even declare total victory with LED bulbs over incandescent. The LED bulbs I have access to (whatever's in the aisles at Home Depot, Costco, etc.) fail much more frequently than the incandescent bulbs I used to buy, and produce an uglier light that is less warm even on the softest/warmest color settings. My suspicion is that incandescents were at the "end" of their product lifecycle (high quality available…

> uglier light that is less warm

I figured out why this happens.

The light color they call "daytime" is around 5000K, so I expected it to look like being outside in the sun; but instead I got a cold blueish vibe. The problem? Not enough power! I got the equivalent of a moonlit room.

So I got this 180W LED lamp (that's actual 180W, not 180W equivalent) [1]. It's so bright I couldn't see for 5 minutes. I put two in my office on desk lamps. The room now looks like being outside, without the "ugly blue" tint, even though the product says it's 6000K. The days of my SAD suffering are over!

[1] https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0962X573M

Re: The time has finally come for geothermal energy

#42

Post by Spooky23 »

yawaramin wrote: post #36
toomuchtodo wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Geothermal is fission, and wind, solar, and batteries are fusion at a distance. In both cases, the failure scenarios are benign vs traditional fission generation. It's fine to keep striving for fusion humans control, but the problem (global electrification and transition to low carbon generation) is already solved with the tech we have today. It took the world 68 years to achieve the first 1TW of solar PV. The next 1…

Failure scenario in modern fission reactors is also benign. Reactors are designed to lock down to prevent any leaks. We deploy solar PV capacity, this doesn't mean we actually get that much power from the deployments. Nuclear fission provides reliable, baseload power, and doesn't require huge battery arrays to compensate for the sun setting or winds calming.

Nuclear is great, but it does require wheelbarrows of cash, and we don’t have a solution for waste products.

Re: The time has finally come for geothermal energy

#43

Post by glenstein »

outside1234 wrote: post #26
parineum wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The war to have solar plants over more coal is falling back to coal thanks mostly to AI. Also, due to solar not panning out at scale.[1] More seriously, coal is just cheaper and, with incentives being removed for green energy, it's the cheapest and fastest option to deploy. It's dead simple and well understood reliable power. [1] https://apnews.com/article/california-solar-energy-ivanpah-b...

The example you chose is of a mirror based Solar system, which yes, is an obsolete technology. Direct solar continues to be installed at greater amounts every year and coal is economically uncompetitive with basic anything (which is why it is collapsing), and especially against natural gas.

You're exactly right and it raises a question for me. Why do energy generation topics bring people out of the woodworks who cite some very idiosycratic one-off and use it to make out-of-proportion declarations about the utility of a given technology? This is the second one I've seen suggesting solar is doomed when they mean mirrors.

On twitter I saw someone claim PV is useless for heat because non-PV solar water heating is just so much more efficient. Not even true (I think it's a approximately a wash, different advantages in different applications), but very strangely in the weeds on a specific topic. Much too narrow a factual context to substantiate general level claims about solar as an energy writ large.

I think for whatever reason the missing the forest for the trees trap is really potent in energy discussions.

Re: The time has finally come for geothermal energy

#44

Post by [deleted] »

polotics wrote: post #11
hodgehog11 wrote: post #3

I've always been curious why a cost-effective widespread implementation of geothermal energy has never been considered a holy grail of energy production, at least not in the public debate. Much of the discussion is so focussed on nuclear fusion, which seems so much harder and less likely to be reliable.

There have been numerous trials that had to be stopped because of the triggered earthquakes... Geothermal is not so easy.

[deleted]

Re: The time has finally come for geothermal energy

#45

Post by rini17 »

tastyfreeze wrote: post #21
pjc50 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Drilling is one of those things which used to be extremely expensive but has very gradually come down in price. Thanks, ironically, to the oil industry. It's unsexy because there's no "silver bullet" waiting in the wings. It's also quite hard to find suitably hot rocks suitably close to the surface. Focusing on fusion .. I think that's a legacy of 60s SF, when the fission revolution was still promising "energy too ch…

Plasma drilling is a recent development that looks promising for unlocking deeper wells for geothermal.

Remains to be seen, it has serious trouble with water getting into the borehole.

Re: The time has finally come for geothermal energy

#46

Post by parineum »

dalyons wrote: post #31
parineum wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The war to have solar plants over more coal is falling back to coal thanks mostly to AI. Also, due to solar not panning out at scale.[1] More seriously, coal is just cheaper and, with incentives being removed for green energy, it's the cheapest and fastest option to deploy. It's dead simple and well understood reliable power. [1] https://apnews.com/article/california-solar-energy-ivanpah-b...

Wild take. New coal is not cheaper. There have been no new coal plants built in the US since 2013. That solar plant you linked is an obsolete experimental technology. Obsolete because regular PV became so much cheaper.

> New coal is not cheaper.

I see yow it can read that way but it isn't what I said. Coal plants exist, either shuttered or running low loads due to financial incentives (not favoring them).

Studies show solar is cheaper but businesses continue to choose coal. I think the entity who's entire existence depends on them making the correct financial choice is a much better indicator of economic reality than a study made by people who have zero stake (at best) in the game.

I'm all for green energy but I also don't think people are stupid.

Re: The time has finally come for geothermal energy

#47

Post by zdragnar »

Retric wrote: post #9
rspoerri wrote: post #5

at some point we will figure out that because we took some much energy out of earths core that it stops spinning and causes the magnetic field to collapse ;-)

Not really how that works. Also earths core is being heated from nuclear decay and tidal effects. It’s getting 10’s or TW worth of heat until the sun expands and eats the earth. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth's_internal_heat_budget

The world's total energy consumption (most of which is fossil fuels) is currently estimated at 620 exajoules, or 17TWh / year.

Assuming zero growth in energy consumption (hello AI), extracting even half of that seems like it would be consequential.

Re: The time has finally come for geothermal energy

#48

Post by dns_snek »

fuoqi wrote: post #15
hodgehog11 wrote: post #3

I've always been curious why a cost-effective widespread implementation of geothermal energy has never been considered a holy grail of energy production, at least not in the public debate. Much of the discussion is so focussed on nuclear fusion, which seems so much harder and less likely to be reliable.

Because unless you sit on top of a volcano, amount of renewable geothermal energy is minuscule. In most places on Earth it's somewhere around 40 mW/m2 (i.e. accounting for conversion losses you need to capture heat from ~500 m2 to renewably power one LED light bulb!). In other words, in most places geothermal plant acts more like a limited battery powered by hot rock, so unless drilling is extremely cheap, it does no…

> In most places on Earth it's somewhere around 40 mW/m2 (i.e. accounting for conversion losses you need to capture heat from ~500 m2 to renewably power one LED light bulb!)

Ground-source heat pumps extract about 1000 times more power from ground loops, where does the difference come from?

Re: The time has finally come for geothermal energy

#49

Post by yawaramin »

Spooky23 wrote: post #42
yawaramin wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Failure scenario in modern fission reactors is also benign. Reactors are designed to lock down to prevent any leaks. We deploy solar PV capacity, this doesn't mean we actually get that much power from the deployments. Nuclear fission provides reliable, baseload power, and doesn't require huge battery arrays to compensate for the sun setting or winds calming.

Nuclear is great, but it does require wheelbarrows of cash, and we don’t have a solution for waste products.

Things are more expensive when we keep reinventing the wheel and trying to do new things instead of just reusing proven designs. Remember that solar power also used to cost wheelbarrows of cash back in the day. When you do something repeatedly, it becomes less expensive over time.

Nuclear is actually the leader in waste management. No other energy source has as complete a story. Eg what happens to solar panels when they EOL in 25 years? They go into landfills and leach toxic chemicals into the ground. These chemicals, like lead and cadmium are toxic forever. They have no 'half-life' in which their toxicity reduces.

Re: The time has finally come for geothermal energy

#50

Post by toomuchtodo »

yawaramin wrote: post #49
Spooky23 wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nuclear is great, but it does require wheelbarrows of cash, and we don’t have a solution for waste products.

Things are more expensive when we keep reinventing the wheel and trying to do new things instead of just reusing proven designs. Remember that solar power also used to cost wheelbarrows of cash back in the day. When you do something repeatedly, it becomes less expensive over time. Nuclear is actually the leader in waste management. No other energy source has as complete a story. Eg what happens to solar panels when t…

Solar panels are recycled at almost 100% of total materials. Redwood Materials (founded by Tesla's former CTO) has already established a supply chain to ingest and recycle EV and stationary storage batteries at scale. The problem is that the hardware is lasting longer than expected, and meaningful recycling volume does not yet exist.

Conversely, ~95,000 metric tons of nuclear waste in the US does not have permanent storage or recycling solutions, as of this comment, and there is no plan for long term storage or recycling. Nuclear generation is experiencing a negative learning curve; we keep spending more the more we attempt to build it.

(solar PV panels have a 25-30 year service life, at which point they will still produce power at ~80-85% initial rating, batteries have a 15-20 year service life, with sodium ion chemistries estimated to have up to 50 year service life assuming once daily cycling)

https://www.epa.gov/hw/solar-panel-recycling

https://www.energy.gov/eere/solar/articles/beyond-recycling-...

https://e360.yale.edu/features/solar-energy-panels-recycling

https://www.cnbc.com/2025/11/09/nuclear-power-energy-radioac...

https://www.gao.gov/nuclear-waste-disposal

https://decarbonization.visualcapitalist.com/visualizing-all...

(nuclear power accounts for about 10% of electricity generation globally, as of this comment)

Post reply on HN