[HN Gopher] In Iceland, well diggers seek to tap a volcano's magma ___________________________________________________________________ In Iceland, well diggers seek to tap a volcano's magma Author : rbanffy Score : 65 points Date : 2021-09-19 15:53 UTC (7 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.science.org) (TXT) w3m dump (www.science.org) | l8rpeace wrote: | This works in Iceland because it's easier to get to the hot | places. They pump water down fissures, the steam comes up to | power steam generators, and they actually pump the water back up | and send it miles away as hot water to Reykjavik. | | It's effective because the fissures make it easier to implement | this process. | | Source: I went to Iceland in 2017 and toured their geothermal | plant on Christmas Eve. | pstuart wrote: | I still think the US should figure out how to do this responsibly | with the Yellowstone supervolcano. | the-dude wrote: | I don't understand all the poohaa about the climate change. | When it gets too bad, well just nuke some volcanos, have a | couple of decades of 'winter' and Bob's your uncle. | nix23 wrote: | Yes and even more CO2 in the Atmosphere and additionally | dying plant-live. Great way to make earth like venus...what a | great idea. | rbanffy wrote: | Funny thing... Venusians had the same idea. | nix23 wrote: | Or they sucked up the martians atmosphere like in | spaceballs and later found out that's a bit too much | "atmosphere" ;) | CyanBird wrote: | It was a would be funny, but volcanes induce acid rain | besides many other issues | [deleted] | codingdave wrote: | I knew I had read that idea before -- I think this is the | article I was thinking of: | https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/news-yell... | pstuart wrote: | There are valid concerns about impacts from such a project | but they are all surmountable. | jefflombardjr wrote: | Is there a way to access the heat potential irresponsibly? | | Clarification: I mean of course if you create a volcano in the | wrong spot that would be bad, but like if you're drilling for | thermally heated ground water can stuff go wrong? | rbanffy wrote: | Just exclude any current company in the energy sector. | _Microft wrote: | Did you mean responsibly instead? | | A sibling comment posted a link on this and I just submitted | a similar article myself. The twist seems to be to extract | the heat/energy from the side or from below the magma chamber | to not destabilize the ceiling of the chamber. That's because | rock becomes more brittle when cooling down. Triggering a | supervolcano eruption instead of preventing it would be a | very unfortunate outcome ;) | jefflombardjr wrote: | You answered my question, thank you! I meant irresponsibly. | I assumed these are super safe considering a ton of farms | have access wells to hot water in Iceland. | pstuart wrote: | I'm guessing you mean responsibly, as we all know the answer | otherwise. | | I'm just an internet rando, but I think that if they could | identify spots that were remote enough to not impact the park | features, and to design it from the start to address all | other concerns (like handling waste water etc), disrupting | nature, it could be done. | | A brief moment of optimism from someone pessimistic about the | future. | omnibrain wrote: | In the german town of Staufen im Breisgau the City Center has | risen about 12cm since a drilling operation in 2007, which | led to many cracks in buildings. | | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Staufen_im_Breisgau | hetspookjee wrote: | From the wiki: | | The cause for this geological change has been identified as | a drilling operation conducted in the summer and autumn of | 2007 to provide geothermal heating to the city hall. The | drilling perforated an anhydrite layer and caused high- | pressure groundwater to come into contact with the | anhydrite, which then began to expand. | | By 2010, some sections of town had risen by 30 centimetres | (12 in). In July 2013, no end to the rising process was in | sight. | | Quite the woopsie | jacquesm wrote: | But even though it is still rising today that does not | seem to deter more geothermal heating plans: | | https://www.thinkgeoenergy.com/city-of-freiburg-germany- | endo... | londons_explore wrote: | What is the environmental impact of taking terrawatts of thermal | energy and releasing it on the earths surface? | | One might imagine that if we figure out how to build geothermal | wells not just near geologically active sites, but anywhere on | the earths surface, then suddenly thermal energy will become much | cheaper, and projects like heating entire cities and farms become | feasible. Cooling entire cities will likewise happen with air | conditioners powered by these wells. | | Overall, far more watts of energy will be transferred from deep | under the earths crust to the bit of earth we live on... What | will the side effects be? | maxerickson wrote: | Radiative losses from the Earth system will increase a bit. | | The Sun hits the Earth with more than 100 petawatts of | radiation, all the time. | AlbertCory wrote: | Geothermal: I asked a friend who's a retired petroleum geologist | about this just recently. She said it's a real thing and there's | a lot of money pouring into it, but it's not viable everywhere. | The deeper you go, the more expensive the equipment has to be. | | Her son lives near Madison, WI, and he actually looked seriously | into installing it for his house. It sounds cool, to get all your | energy, 24x7x365, but the reality was that it was just not cost- | effective right now. Maybe soon. | ashtonkem wrote: | One unfortunate situation is that the word "geothermal" is | overloaded for personal use. On one hand you have geothermal | _power_ , which is as you describe. On the other hand you have | water source heat pumps which are often described as | geothermal, but which are completely distinct from the form | described in this article. | | Water source heat pumps work everywhere, and they seek to use | ground-water temperature anti-freeze in a closed loop as the | output from a heat pump. So rather than having an AC dump heat | outside (or cold for outside for reversible systems), heat is | extracted from or dumped into the ground. Expensive to install | ($30k seems a common mark), but very efficient and viable | everywhere. | zrail wrote: | We have a ground source heat pump at our house. It has a bit | of a learning curve vs a traditional ac but it's very | efficient. The 26% federal tax credit and low interest state- | supported financing take a bit of the sting out of the | project but it's still not cheap. | cronix wrote: | I went to Oregon Institute of Technology, in Klamath Falls, | OR., in the early 90's. Much of the campus was run on | geothermal. From heating the water to heating the dorm rooms | and campus buildings, which was great as KF experiences some | pretty cold winters. | | https://oregontechsfstatic.azureedge.net/sitefinity-producti... | baybal2 wrote: | Geothermal needs A LOT of freshwater, to the extend it can cause | a local water crisis, unless water injection is not used, which | dramatically reduces available power. | | Not to say, cheap, plentiful energy greatly increases water usage | by itself. | | In Pakistan, every farmer now has powerful immersible pumps with | which they suck groundwater dry because of cheap solar panels | availability. | petermcneeley wrote: | Pakistan has quite a large daily temperature swing. You dont | even need to dig or consume freshwater to get thermal energy. | anonporridge wrote: | How much loss happens in the system? | | Do you need a constant stream fresh water, or just a big | initial injection? | baybal2 wrote: | Depends on the system used, but open cycle is the most common | because of simplicity, and cost. | | > How much loss happens in the system? | | For an open cycle system it is 100% obviously. | anonporridge wrote: | Is the waste water unusable, e.g. irradiated? Or can it be | pumped back into the municipal water supply or reservoirs? | _Microft wrote: | I think chemical contaminants are more of a concern than | radiation. | anonporridge wrote: | In this case, shouldn't the operation be forced to treat | the waste water anyway rather than dump it back into the | environment? | | If it's dangerous for us to drink, it's probably damaging | to wherever we dump it. | pjerem wrote: | That's cool ! I love when I'm reminded that we don't know | everything about anything. And I love it even more when it's on | topics you learn (and take for granted) in school. | mariuolo wrote: | > That's cool | | Not really:) | jefflombardjr wrote: | I don't know why this isn't done more in the US. At least with | thermal water, my understanding is that you don't need huge | temperature differentials and this is cost effective on a pretty | small scale. | FooBarBizBazz wrote: | The "irony" here is that it's frackers who are going to drill | the geothermal wells. If they start seeing clearly, they'll | realize that green energy could mean a juicy paycheck. | rbanffy wrote: | I bet you can get some huge differentials next to volcanos or | Yellowstone. You'll need to fight conservationists | (understandably) but clean energy is clean energy. | | And every gigajoule you take from Yellowstone is one less | gigajoule for the next supervolcano eruption. | anonporridge wrote: | The problem is that there are no large population centers | near Yellowstone. Maybe you could reach Salt Lake City or | Denver without prohibitive transmission line inefficiency? | | Maybe increasing automation means that we can build more | factories and data centers near these sources of massive | renewable energy potential without struggling to convince | workers to live in these remote locations (although that | might not be a huge challenge for a beautiful place like | Yellowstone). | heavyset_go wrote: | > _And every gigajoule you take from Yellowstone is one less | gigajoule for the next supervolcano eruption._ ' | | What if it disturbs whatever equilibrium the caldera's | maintained and causes it to erupt sooner than it would have? | | This is a genuine question, I know next to nothing about | this. | gumby wrote: | I think the orders of magnitude are so large that it's | unlikely to make a difference. Much less impact than, say, | poking a whale with a 30 ga needle. | | You might poke a hole and get something hot and nasty | gushing out but that would only ruin some machinery and | perhaps the day for a few people. | inglor_cz wrote: | Yeah, this sounds to me like the "they delved too deep" | story of dwarves in Moria. | | We are not good enough in vulcanology yet to tickle the | sleeping Yellowstone giant. | rbanffy wrote: | We'll never know unless we do more research. I don't | think we can make a dent in the amount of energy under | Yellowstone either way - if it's going to blow, it will | and there's nothing we can do. | | If we could take enough energy out of Yellowstone to make | it less supervolcanic, we'd have a hard problem dealing | with whatever waste heat would be left after consuming | that much energy. | _Microft wrote: | The excess power, that is the power that is not reaching | the surface by normal processes and that keeps heating up | the volcano seems to be in the order of a few gigawatts. | This is absolutely possible with cooling measures like | they are used for large power plants. | rbanffy wrote: | This would be to keep temperatures constant. If we want | it to be less of an existential threat to humanity, we | should cool it down. | robbedpeter wrote: | This is energy that would be dispersed at the surface | anyway, isn't it? | lostlogin wrote: | I'm nit sure about that. | | If a lot of extraction is done, geysers and other surface | geothermal activity reduce or stop. Rotorua, New Zealand | had these issues back in the 1980s when everyone had a | private bore. Blocking them up helped a lot. | | https://www.geothermal- | energy.org/pdf/IGAstandard/Japan/1997... | _Microft wrote: | I would really like to see a project like this actually | attempted. Protests against it would be very understandable | because of the impact of several large power plants. I think | the biggest issue might be that they also need to release the | waste heat somehow. That would mean water consumption and | cooling towers with steam clouds that might be visible from | far away. | chrisco255 wrote: | Please don't. Yellowstone is a pristine nature reserve. | There's many other areas in nearby Idaho you probably could | tap into similar thermal energy without ruining the first | National Park. Yellowstone is also in one of the least | densely populated areas in the country so it's very | difficult to transport without massive energy loss by | resistance. | maxerickson wrote: | High voltage transmission losses are a few percent. | | We don't need to make a mess in Yellowstone, but 'massive | energy loss by resistance' is just wrong. | _Microft wrote: | I absolutely understand your concerns. | | There are approximately twenty supervolcanoes around the | world, so I wouldn't worry to much. There is an almost | supervulcano in Italy that is also much closer to where | power is needed [0]. | | Remoteness is not that much of a problem though: (ultra) | high-voltage direct-current ("(U)HVDC") power lines have | losses in the order of 3% per 1000km (that's 620mi) which | is very acceptable. China has power lines that move the | power equivalent of several nuclear power plants over | thousands of kilometers for example. | | [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phlegraean_Fields | | [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High- | voltage_direct_current | andrewflnr wrote: | Yellowstone is not just "a supervolcano", as mentioned | it's a natural preserve and generally beautiful place. | I'm pretty sure there are enough other geologically | active sites closer to populations and with less history | that there's no reason to bother with Yellowstone | _Microft wrote: | As I already said, I absolutely understand the concerns. | That does not mean that it might not become inevitable to | do something about it one day. In the long run, the | choice seem to be that it either blows up right away (in | the geologically-near future) or to extract enough energy | to at least delay the disaster. | | Edit, as reply to child comment: here is the NASA report | that concludes that it is possible to cool | supervolcanoes: | | https://scienceandtechnology.jpl.nasa.gov/sites/default/f | ile... | chrisco255 wrote: | It's naive to believe that you can extract enough energy | from the earth's core to prevent supervolcanic eruptions. | rbanffy wrote: | > There is an almost supervulcano in Italy | | And the Mediterranean can provide a lot of water for | cooling at the same time the extra heat can easily be | used for desalination. | techbio wrote: | It's been under research in Hawaii for decades. | ph0rque wrote: | It's coming: https://www.vox.com/energy-and- | environment/2020/10/21/215154... ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2021-09-19 23:00 UTC)