# Geothermal Energy for the Future?



## James21

I have recently heard a lot about geothermal energy as a feasible energy source in the near future.  I also hear that the cost and technology barriers of geothermal are holding it back from taking over as one of the main sources of domestic energy.  Does anyone know more about this subject?  Thank you in advance...


----------



## Old Rocks

Can Geothermal Power Compete with Coal on Price?: Scientific American

Although the environmental benefits of burning less fossil fuel by using renewable sources of energy&#8212;such as geothermal, hydropower, solar and wind&#8212;are clear, there's been a serious roadblock in their adoption: cost per kilowatt-hour.

That barrier may be opening, however&#8212;at least for one of these sources. Two recent reports, among others, suggest that geothermal may actually be cheaper than every other source, including coal. Geothermal power plants work by pumping hot water from deep beneath Earth's surface, which can either be used to turn steam turbines directly or to heat a second, more volatile liquid such as isobutane (which then turns a steam turbine).


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

James21 said:


> I have recently heard a lot about geothermal energy as a feasible energy source in the near future.  I also hear that the cost and technology barriers of geothermal are holding it back from taking over as one of the main sources of domestic energy.  Does anyone know more about this subject?  Thank you in advance...



I think this is a great idea if we can get it done right(ie cost effective)

Even the Evil George Bush thinks this is a good idea and uses it in his own home  snopes.com: A Tale of Two Houses


----------



## mdn2000

geothermal is weak power and non renewable. 

geothermal plants do not produce the power to smelt the metals they consume hence you need another power source to produce the metal that a geothermal plant consumes. That consumes as in the day to day operation, further geothermal does not have the power to make all the metal needed in the construction of geothermal. 

geothermal is the most expensive for a reason, its garbage.


----------



## Old Rocks

mdn2000 said:


> geothermal is weak power and non renewable.
> 
> geothermal plants do not produce the power to smelt the metals they consume hence you need another power source to produce the metal that a geothermal plant consumes. That consumes as in the day to day operation, further geothermal does not have the power to make all the metal needed in the construction of geothermal.
> 
> geothermal is the most expensive for a reason, its garbage.



Nice peice of idiocy. Care to back any of your assertations with a link?


----------



## KittenKoder

Geothermal has one huge speed bump, Al Gore doesn't like it.


----------



## dilloduck

waste of water


----------



## KittenKoder

dilloduck said:


> waste of water



Details details ...


----------



## Mr. H.

Study the history of commercial hydrocarbon development. If you don't like what you see then you're waisting your time.


----------



## dilloduck

KittenKoder said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> waste of water
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Details details ...
Click to expand...


right up there with burning our food for energy---shitty idea


----------



## Mr. H.

dilloduck said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> waste of water
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Details details ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> right up there with burning our food for energy---shitty idea
Click to expand...


In the early 1980's the EPA first studied the emissions of ethanol blended fuels. They determined those emmissions exceded existing limits. Rather that rebuke the agriculture lobby and send them back to the drawing board, the EPA rewrote emissions standards to accomidate Big Ag. And now you know........... the rest of the story.


----------



## KittenKoder

dilloduck said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> waste of water
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Details details ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> right up there with burning our food for energy---shitty idea
Click to expand...


But then we can just make food from oil!


----------



## Mr. H.

KittenKoder said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> 
> Details details ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> right up there with burning our food for energy---shitty idea
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But then we can just make food from oil!
Click to expand...


How do you think farmers are able to grow food? Powering tractors and combines, fertilizing the ground, applying pesticides....


----------



## KittenKoder

Mr. H. said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> right up there with burning our food for energy---shitty idea
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But then we can just make food from oil!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do you think farmers are able to grow food? Powering tractors and combines, fertilizing the ground, applying pesticides....
Click to expand...


They can use methane!


----------



## Mr. H.

KittenKoder said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> 
> But then we can just make food from oil!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you think farmers are able to grow food? Powering tractors and combines, fertilizing the ground, applying pesticides....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They can use methane!
Click to expand...


At what cost? If they could use methane why aren't they now? Why haven't farmers used methane these past 100 years?


----------



## KittenKoder

Mr. H. said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you think farmers are able to grow food? Powering tractors and combines, fertilizing the ground, applying pesticides....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They can use methane!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At what cost? If they could use methane why aren't they now? Why haven't farmers used methane these past 100 years?
Click to expand...


Because they don't have the technology yet capable of harnessing it from cowbutts.


----------



## DiveCon

dilloduck said:


> waste of water


how is it a waste of water?

or are you thinking of the geothermals like in Iceland?


----------



## DiveCon

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> James21 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have recently heard a lot about geothermal energy as a feasible energy source in the near future.  I also hear that the cost and technology barriers of geothermal are holding it back from taking over as one of the main sources of domestic energy.  Does anyone know more about this subject?  Thank you in advance...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think this is a great idea if we can get it done right(ie cost effective)
> 
> Even the Evil George Bush thinks this is a good idea and uses it in his own home  snopes.com: A Tale of Two Houses
Click to expand...

seems some people dont understand the differences in geothermal systems


----------



## eagleseven

Our lack of energy is but a short-term problem, as we are tapping only a fraction of a percent of Earth's energy reserves.

Peak oil my ass.


----------



## mdn2000

Old Rocks said:


> mdn2000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> geothermal is weak power and non renewable.
> 
> geothermal plants do not produce the power to smelt the metals they consume hence you need another power source to produce the metal that a geothermal plant consumes. That consumes as in the day to day operation, further geothermal does not have the power to make all the metal needed in the construction of geothermal.
> 
> geothermal is the most expensive for a reason, its garbage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice peice of idiocy. Care to back any of your assertations with a link?
Click to expand...


Old Crock tell us about your lies, like when you posted false data and got busted by Krotchdog, you know, the false data of hansens, the data hansen admitted to be false, data you knew to false.



> A Publication by the Geothermal Energy Association
> for the U.S. Department of Energy



http://www.geo-energy.org/publications/reports/Factors%20Affecting%20Cost%20of%20Geothermal%20Power%20Development%20-%20August%202005.pdf



> Factors affecting the cost of geothermal power development and production are often poorly understood by persons not directly involved in geothermal project development and power production. Many articles dealing with geothermal costs incorporate restrictive assumptions and thus lead to oversimplified conclusions that do not correctly reflect site-specific particularities.





> Developing a new geothermal resource is a long and expensive process.





> Although existing articles may present average cost figures for geothermal power projects, the cost figures they provide usually hide the extreme variability of the cost of components discussed above. Additionally, existing articles rarely detail the exact extent of the components included in the analysis as well as the specifics of the project considered. Most article include power plant construction and steamfield development costs (drilling and steam gathering system) but few appear to address financing costs or the developer's soft costs. Almost none consider transmission costs or specify whether the project is an extension of an existing power facility or a greenfield project.





> Very few articles provide detailed analyses of O&M cost components. Precise breakdown of O&M costs and further understanding of parameters influencing them is therefore a difficult task.





> Major parameters affecting O&M cost are related to the plant labor requirement, the amount of chemicals and other consumables used during operation, the extent of make-up drilling requirements, and the cost of the equipment that has to be replaced throughout the years.





> very few developers actually spend money on unsubsidized exploration programs.





> Environmental awareness and government support initiatives (green certificates, renewable portfolio standard and tax credits, etc.) are powerful instruments that will help overcome the current level of raw material prices. Changes in the legislative framework directing geothermal development (e.g. lease access provisions, permitting procedures, exploration support initiatives, guarantees to access venture capital, etc.) would however further favor the development






> As outlined in the introduction of this document, serious gaps existed between cost figures appearing in the literature and cost values provided by developers. Despite articles claiming competitiveness of geothermal power with the least expensive fossil-fuel technologies, the lack of industry growth highlighted this problem and confirmed the age and/or inaccuracy of traditionally accepted cost data.





> Analyzing geothermal costs is a long and difficult process. The industry typically provides information expressed in a way that is not comparable to published data and, although most existing studies use similar notions to qualify cost components, they typically give them different meanings or definitions.





> Gathering cost information documenting the variability of geothermal projects and resources is however a difficult task since major geothermal power producers deal with very different resources and some are reluctant to provide any kind of cost information.



So how much does geothermal cost, the costs are hidden from the public, its subsidized.

Is geothermal clean, nope, from the above study:



> when the brine is "flashed" in order to produce steam in the separators, it naturally emits CO2







> President Obama Announces Over $467 Million in Recovery Act Funding for Geothermal and Solar Energy Projects




This should be enough for now to show how OLD CROCK knows nothing about everything, Old Crock can proudly call himself a moron.


----------



## Old Rocks

*Just three sites that show your cherry picking of that article to be incorrect. As the Scientific American article stated, Geothermal is the biggest untapped resource we have at present.*

Renewable Energy Sources in the United States

http://geology.utah.gov/emp/geothermal/ugwg/workshop0805/ppt/petty0805.ppt

Abstract: The Business Of Geothermal Power: From Conventional To Unconventional Sedimentary Basins, by Richard J. Erdlac, Jr., Ph.D., P.G. (TX, PA); #90089 (2009)

The Business Of Geothermal Power: From Conventional To Unconventional&#8230; &#8216;Sedimentary Basins&#8217; 

Richard J. Erdlac, Jr., Ph.D., P.G. (TX, PA)
Erdlac Energy Consulting EEC 

Existing geothermal power production in the U.S. has focused on western states like California and Nevada. This has resulted in over 2800 MW of online geothermal electrical power being produced every hour. Over a one year period this production is the equivalent to over 15.2 million bbls of oil or over 83.7 million mcf of gas. As of May of 2007, new reported additional geothermal power development activity was over 2400 MW.

However, past investigations by the AAPG, USGS, and the DOE have shown the presence of an untapped geothermal resource ignored in sedimentary basins. This potential stretches from the Gulf Coast north through many of the other oil and gas producing states into the Williston Basin. Existing turbine technologies, such as a flash steam or binary power plant, make acquisition of this resource from wells drilled in sedimentary basins a known straight forward process. The advent of skid-mounted micro-turbines less than 1 MW in size allows for expanding the amount of production to lower temperatures a lower water flow rates.

Various temperatures and flow rates can be used to generate power of 25 kW/hr to around 2.5 megawatts/hr from a single well. This power can be used for offsetting electric demands at a field or it may be of sufficient production to be sold into the power grid as a base load renewable resource. Two example wells, from the Permian Basin and the Texas Gulf Coast, suggest net power outputs of 1.4 MW and 3.1 MW respectively from hot water, entrained natural gas, and horsepower from the fluid flow.

Exploration and development costs vary depending on the size of the resource, the availability of the electrical delivery infrastructure, and the location of the resource. In general, the larger the resource the less expensive the development cost. Similarly a hotter resource (i.e. 284oF) will result in lower capital costs than a resource that has a lower temperature (i.e. 212oF). Proximity to an existing electrical infrastructure decreases development cost, especially when cost for high voltage lines can be $1 million per mile.

Location of the resource may have the greatest overall impact on the project cost. Existing geothermal power projects have been in the western states in arid areas where the resource can at times be blind with little to know surface manifestation. Federal lands are often involved, along with the need to build a delivery infrastructure. Time between initial explorations, to capitalization, to final production can take 5 years. The prime advantage to these areas has been heat reservoirs of several 10&#8217;s of MW at shallow (i.e. 5,000 ft) depths. Capital costs in a sedimentary basin for geothermal production will be very different. Sedimentary basins that have been explored for oil and gas generally have a readily available electrical delivery system already established. The size of the resource may be similar to the western states, but the depth is substantially greater, easily on the order of 18,000 feet in some areas. However large amounts of data already exist from oil and gas drilling that can be used for geothermal evaluation in an area. Consideration of the available hot water in the subsurface can improve overall economics in a mature basin by providing production of three energy resources&#8230;oil, gas, and hot water for geothermal electrical power. Much of the existing oil and gas infrastructure will thus reduce the overall cost of such an energy development. The payoff is a renewable resource whose produced value can be in the several billions of dollars just in Texas alone.

Geothermal energy development allows the existing oil and gas industry to move into renewable energy production using the personnel, data, and technology already in existence. It offers the opportunity for improving company PR and offsetting of future potential carbon taxes that would affect fossil fuel production. As fossil fuel production continues to decrease over time, energy production and financial stability can be found by managing the production of an energy resource that will continue to renew itself&#8230;Geothermal.


----------



## Old Rocks

A point here concerning Geothermal. Many of the best geo-thermal sites also happen to be sites where there is a lot of sun and wind. In Southeast Oregon, a grid from Klamath Falls east to the Idaho border would go through ideal areas for geo-thermal, sun, and wind. Most of the land in the area is BLM, and very sparsely populated. It would be a boon to all in Oregon and power hungry California.

Chase for wind power turns to Oregon's public lands | Oregon Environmental News -  OregonLive.com


----------



## mdn2000

Old Crock has gone off half cocked, I spoke of cost, where does your post dispute the cost.

Sources, your funny as hell as an idiot, you would argue with the Geothermal Energy Association, you must get so angry when someone posts facts you cannot dispute you go off half cocked without reading or comprehending what you are responding to.

The Geothermal Energy Association wrote this report for the Department of Energy. The GEA is the industry leader promoting the development of geothermal energy. At least the GEA is truthful, they have to be, as professionals they will not be of use if they do not address all the issues relating to the cost of geothermal. The GEA will not be able to develop a strategy to further the use of geothermal if they do not address all the issues. 

Old Crock in going off half cocked states the following people are incorrect:



> This report is the result of a long research project that involved many geothermal stakeholders and industry experts. These persons helped explain how various and complex parameters affecting the cost of geothermal power development and production may be. I specially want to thank:
> Gordon Bloomquist for the collaboration, data sharing, advice and comments he provided throughout several research phases.
> Stuart Johnson for the answers he brought to my numerous questions and for the visit he offered me of ORMAT's Steamboat geothermal power plants.
> Dan Schochet for the questions to which he took the time to respond, as well as for the crucial information he provided on specific issues.
> Bernard Raemy for the answers and information he gave me about the Salton Sea Unit #6 project and the very specific challenges related to that geothermal resource.
> Allan Jelacic and Douglas Jung for the reviews, comments and background information they offered me.
> John Pritchett and Kenneth Phair for the quality of their review and their help to clarify specific sections.
> Domenic Falcone and Brandon Owens for the information, data, model explanations, and other details they provided about project financing and tax issues.
> Dan Entingh, Jeff Hulen, Joel Renner, Greg. Mines, Roger Hill, Arthur Mansure, Joe Greco, and Susan Petty for their numerous responses, comments and explanations.
> Charlene Wardlow for her interest and precious help in gathering the information about The Geysers geothermal resource and power plants. Keshav Goyal, Dean Cooley, and Dennis Gilles for the information they provided about the particulars of their company.
> Laurie McClenahan for describing and explaining the factors affecting the cost of the permitting phase of geothermal power exploration and site development.
> Tom Ettinger & J Bruggman for their input on technology choices and options, and the effect of such options on the power plant cost.
> Thomas Petersik for the relevancy of his comments.
> Karl Gawell for his perceptive supervision, support, and ideas brought throughout this research.
> Alyssa Kagel for her help in editing this document.
> II





> Bloomquist G. in "Economics and Financing", Geothermal Energy (UNESCO), Chapter 9. M.H. Dickson and M. Fanelli. 2002.
> Brugman J., Hattar M., Nichols K., Esaki Y., "Next Generation of Geothermal Power Plants", Electric Power Research Institute, 1996
> California Energy Commission, "Renewable Resources Development Report", September 30, 2003.
> California Energy Commission, "Comparative Cost of California Central Station Electricity Generation Technologies", June 5, 2003.
> California Energy Commission, "Comparative Study of Transmission Alternatives - Background Report", June 2004.
> Cooley D. "Making the Operation of a Geothermal Power Plant Cost Competitive", Geothermal Resources Council Transactions, Vol. 21, Sept/Oct. 1997.
> Delene J. & all "An Assessment of the Economics of Future Electric Power Generation Options and the Implications for Fusion", Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 1999.
> Entingh D. & McVeigh J. "Historical Improvements in Geothermal Power System Costs" Geothermal Resources Council Transactions, Vol. 27, Oct. 2003, pp 533-537.
> Entingh D. & McVeigh J. "Geothermal Power Capital Cost Improvements since 1985" Princeton Energy Resources International, May 2003.
> DiPippo R. "Small Geothermal Power Plants Design, Performance and Economics", Geo-Heat Center Bulletin, June 1999.
> Falcone D. "Financing Geothermal Projects", International Renewable Energy Conference, Honolulu, Sept. 1988.
> Forsha M. & Nichols K. "Factors affecting the Capital Cost of Binary Power Plants", Barber-Nichols Inc.,
> Hiriart G. & Andaluz J. "Strategies and economics of geothermal Power Development in Mexico", World Geothermal Congress, Japan, June 2000.
> Klein C.W., Lovekin J.W., S.K. Sanyal, "New Geothermal Site Identification and Qualification" GeothermEx, Inc. 2004.
> Kutscher Ch. "The Status and Future of Geothermal Electric Power", National Renewable Energy Laboratory, August 2000.
> - 1 -
> Liebowitz H. & Markus D. "Economic Performance of Geothermal Power Plants using the Kalina Cycle Technology", Geothermal Resources Council Transactions, Vol. 14, August 1990.
> Lovekin J. "The economics of sustainable geothermal development", World Geothermal Congress, Japan, June 2000.
> Mansure A & Carson C. "Geothermal Completion Technology Life-Cycle Cost Model (GEOCOM)&#8221;, Geothermal Resources Council Transactions, Vol. 6, October 1982.
> Meidav T. "Export Potential of Geothermal Technology", National Geothermal Association, 1993.
> Moscatelli G. & Sormani G. "A New Generation of Low Cost High Performance Steam Turbines for Geothermal Applications" Geothermal Resources Council Transactions, Vol. 22, September 1998.
> Murphy H. & Niitsuma H. "Strategies for compensating for higher costs of geothermal electricity with environmental benefits", Geothermics 28 (1991) 693-711.
> Nielson D., "Competitive economics of Geothermal Energy: The Exploration and Development Perspective", University of Utah, 1989.
> Owens B. "An Economic Valuation of a Geothermal Production Tax Credit", National Renewable Energy Laboratory, April 2002.
> Owens B. "Financing Wind", PR&C Renewable Power Service: RPS-4, March 2004.
> Owens B. "Does the PTC Work?", PR&C Renewable Power Service: RPS-5, July 2004.
> Sanyal S. "Cost of Geothermal Power and Factors that affect it", GeothermEx, 2004.
> Sifford A. & Beale K "Economic Impacts of geothermal Power Development in Harney County, Oregon", Geothermal Resources Council Transactions, Vol. 15, Oct. 1991.
> Simons G., Peterson T. & Poore R. "California Renewable Technology Market and Benefits Assessment", Electric Power Research Institute, 2001
> Sison-Lebrilla E. & Tianco V. "Geothermal Strategic Value Analysis&#8221; California Energy Commission, June 2005.
> Stefansson V. "Investment cost for geothermal power plants", Geothermics 31, pp 263-272, 2002.
> - 2 -
> Thorhallsson S. & Ragnarssson A. "What is Geothermal Steam Worth?", Geothermics, Vol. 21 No5/6, pp 901-915, 1992.
> US Department of Energy - Office of Power Technologies and the Electric Power Research Institute, "Renewable Energy Technology Characterizations", 1997
> "United States Geothermal Technology - Equipment and Services for Worldwide Applications", DOE/EE-0044 , 1995.
> Websites:
> The


----------



## mdn2000

Old Crock goes off half cocked, you are a big joke. You really fucked up with your posts and your easily proven lack of understanding of your own material.

The article you site does not state that geothermal is cheaper, its the headline you cherry picked that is misleading. Read the whole article fool.



> Just three sites that show your cherry picking of that article to be incorrect. As the Scientific American article stated, Geothermal is the biggest untapped resource we have at present.



If I read the Scientific America article its easy to see you did not read the article, just the headline. Lets look at who Scientific America uses as a source. Within this paragraph on the second page is a link to a 2005 paper.



> Other sources dispute this number&#8212;Glitnir bank, a financier of geothermal in Iceland and elsewhere, claims that geothermal plants are operational up to 95 percent of the time, and a 2005 paper (pdf) by academics in the field claims that in aggregate, geothermal plants in the U.S. produce power about 80 percent of the time



Here is the title of the paper with its authors:



> The United States of America Country Update
> John W. Lund1, R. Gordon Bloomquist2, Tonya L. Boyd1, Joel Renner3
> 1Geo-Heat Center, Oregon Institute of Technology, Klamath Falls, OR
> 2Washington State University Energy Program, Olympia, WA
> 3Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory, Idaho Falls, ID



If you go to the Bibliography of the GEA report and look at the very first source we find its Gordon Bloomquist.

So who is incorrect, who is going off half cocked.  Tell us how Bloomquist proves Bloomquist is incorrect.

This is why I call people morons, its because some people are morons.



> This report is the result of a long research project that involved many geothermal stakeholders and industry experts. These persons helped explain how various and complex parameters affecting the cost of geothermal power development and production may be. I specially want to thank:
> Gordon Bloomquist for the collaboration, data sharing, advice and comments he provided throughout several research phases.


----------



## mdn2000

Where is old crock on this one, what a coward, not even man enough to admit old crock screwed up.


----------



## Old Rocks

*Seems that MIT believes that geothermal has a bright future.*

MIT PUBLISHES "THE FUTURE OF GEOTHERMAL ENERGY.". -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia

WORLDWIDE ENERGY 
P.O. BOX 243273, BOYNTON BEACH, FL 33424 TEL. (561)738-2276 MARCH 2007 Vol. 18, No. 3 E-mail: markedit@juno.com Copyright 2007 by Worldwide Videotex Web site: www.wvpubs.com 

MIT PUBLISHES "THE FUTURE OF GEOTHERMAL ENERGY" A comprehensive new MIT-led study of the potential for geothermal energy within the United States has found that mining the huge amounts of heat that reside as stored thermal energy in the Earth's hard rock crust could supply a substantial portion of the electricity the United States will need in the future, probably at competitive prices and with minimal environmental impact. An 18-member panel led by MIT prepared the 400-plus page study, titled "The Future of Geothermal Energy." Sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy, it is the first study in some 30 years to take a new look at geothermal, an energy resource that has been largely ignored. The goal of the study was to assess the feasibility, potential environmental impacts and economic viability of using enhanced geothermal system (EGS) technology to greatly increase the fraction of the U.S. geothermal resource that could be recovered commercially. Although geothermal energy is produced commercially today and the United States is the world's biggest producer, existing U.S. plants have focused on the high-grade geothermal systems primarily located in isolated regions of the west. This new study takes a more ambitious look at this resource and evaluates its potential for much larger-scale deployment. "We've determined that heat mining can be economical in the short term, based on a global analysis of existing geothermal systems, an assessment of the total U.S. resource and continuing improvements in deep-drilling and reservoir stimulation technology," said panel head Jefferson W. Tester, the H. P. Meissner Professor of Chemical Engineering at MIT. "EGS technology has already been proven to work in the few areas where underground heat has been successfully extracted. And further technological improvements can be expected," he said.


----------



## Old Rocks

*Yes, Bloomquist is an excellant spokesman for the promotion and expansion of geothermal energy.*

The Geothermal Energy Blog

[http://geoheat.oit.edu/pdf/tp106.pdf]

The United States of America Country Update
John W. Lund(1), R. Gordon Bloomquist(2), Tonya L. Boyd(1), Joel Renner(3)
(1)Geo-Heat Center, Oregon Institute of Technology, Klamath Falls, OR
(2)Washington State University Energy Program, Olympia, WA
(3)Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory, Idaho Falls, ID
Proceedings World Geothermal Congress 2005, Antalya, Turkey, 24-29 April 2005 

ABSTRACT
Geothermal energy is used for electric power generation and direct utilization in the United States. The present installed capacity (gross) for electric power generation is 2,534 MWe with about 2,000 MWe net delivering power to the grid producing approximately 17,840 GWh per year for a 80.4% gross capacity factor. Geothermal electric power plants are located in California, Nevada, Utah and Hawaii. The two largest concentrations of plants are at The Geysers in northern California and the Imperial Valley in southern California. The latest development at The Geysers, starting in 1998, is injecting recycled wastewater from two communities into the reservoir, which presently has recovered about 100 MWe of power generation. The second pipeline from the Santa Rosa area has just come on line. The direct utilization of geothermal energy includes the heating of pools and spas, greenhouses and aquaculture facilities, space heating and district heating, snow melting, agricultural drying, industrial applications and groundsource heat pumps. The installed capacity is 7,817 MWt and the annual energy use is about 31,200 TJ or 8,680 GWh. The largest application is ground-source(geothermal) heat pumps (69% of the energy use), and the next largest direct-uses are in space heating and agricultural drying. Direct utilization (without heat pumps) is increasing at about 2.6% per year; whereas electric power plant development is almost static, with only about 70 MWe added since 2000 (there were errors in the WGC2000 tabulation). A new 185-MWe plant being proposed for the Imperial Valley and about 100 MWe for Glass Mountain in northern California could be online by 2007-2008. Several new plants are proposed for Nevada totaling about 100 MWe and projects have been proposed in Idaho, New Mexico, Oregon and Utah. The total planned in the next 10 years is 632 MWe. The energy savings from electric power generation, direct-uses and ground-source heat pumps amounts to almost nine million tonnes of equivalent fuel oil per years and reduces air pollution by almost eight million tonnes of carbon annually (compared to fuel oil.


----------



## mdn2000

Old Rocks said:


> *Yes, Bloomquist is an excellant spokesman for the promotion and expansion of geothermal energy.*



Yet Old Criock attempted to discredit the Article and link I posted, Old Crock has yet to go my source and show us what Old Crock is refering to. 



> This report is the result of a long research project that involved many geothermal stakeholders and industry experts. These persons helped explain how various and complex parameters affecting the cost of geothermal power development and production may be. I specially want to thank:
> Gordon Bloomquist for the collaboration, data sharing, advice and comments he provided throughout several research phases.



So Old Crock, you must agree the cost of Geothermal is too high, will result in higher electrical rates, that tax payer money will be given to corporations to make a profit. That costs will have to be hidden to even make Geothermal look feasible. All Old Crocks sources say this.

Old Crock all your source say exactly what I say, I went to the MIT study, again you did not read it. Let me cut and paste from Old Crocks sources.

Read the report than read aritcles quoting the report, the media is cherry picking and OLD CROCK IS CHERRY PICKING THE CHERRY PICKERS.

http://geothermal.inel.gov/publications/future_of_geothermal_energy.pdf



> These funds compensate for the higher capital and financing costs expected for early-generation EGS plants, which would be expected as a result of somewhat higher field development (drilling and stimulation) costs per unit of power initially produced. Higher generating costs, in turn, lead to higher perceived financial risk for investors with corresponding higher-debt interest rates and equity rates of return. In effect, the federal investment can be viewed as equivalent to an &#8220;absorbed cost&#8221; of deployment.
> In addition, investments in R&D will also be needed to reduce costs in future deployment of EGS plants. To a great extent, energy markets and government policies will influence the private sector&#8217;s interest in developing EGS technology. In today&#8217;s economic climate, there is reluctance for private industry to invest its funds without strong guarantees. Thus, initially, it is likely that government will have to fully support EGS fieldwork and supporting R&D. Later, as field sites are established and proven, the private sector will assume a greater role in cofunding projects &#8211; especially with government incentives
> accelerating the transition to independently financed EGS projects in the private sector. Our analysis indicates that, after a few EGS plants at several sites are built and operating, the technology will improve to a point where development costs and risks would diminish significantly, allowing the levelized cost of producing EGS electricity in the United States to be at or below market prices. Given these issues and growing concerns over long-term energy security, the federal government will need to provide funds directly or introduce other incentives in support of EGS as a long-term &#8220;public good,&#8221; similar to early federal investments in large hydropower dam projects and nuclear power reactors.



All Old Crock is doing is proving that to sell Geothermal to the public the environuts must cherry pick source and count on people to be stupid, lazy, and ignorant. As long as people are stupid enough to believe Geothermal is good and as long as people are lazy enough not to read the studies the environuts source, than people will remain ingnorant.

So once again, for the third time, Old Crock has cherry picked a source.

*GEOTHERMAL IS POLLUTING AND EXPENSIVE, GEOTHERMAL'S POWER OUTPUT IS EXTREMELY WEAK, GEOTHERMAL IS DANGEROUS TO WORKERS AND DAMAGING TO THE EARTH.*


----------



## Old Rocks

Can Geothermal Power Compete with Coal on Price?: Scientific American

Combine a new U.S. president pushing a stimulus package that includes $28 billion in direct subsidies for renewable energy with another $13 billion for research and development, and the picture for renewable energy&#8212;geothermal power among the options&#8212;is brightening. The newest report, from international investment bank Credit Suisse, says geothermal power costs 3.6 cents per kilowatt-hour, versus 5.5 cents per kilowatt-hour for coal.


----------



## FactFinder

Widely available and easily transported:







This could make us energy independent with a few years. The graph is in billions of cubic feet. so add nine (9) zeros to the numbers.


----------



## mdn2000

FactFinder said:


> Widely available and easily transported:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This could make us energy independent with a few years. The graph is in billions of cubic feet. so add nine (9) zeros to the numbers.



There are many problems with this.

1. It will not bankrupt the USA and that is what the Liberal/Marxist need.
2. This will not raise energy prices
3. Without higher energy prices its harder to make people dependent on government
4. If people are not dependent on government Liberalism/Marxism can fail.
5. Useing fossil fuels directly to make electricity is greener than windmills, and less polluting.

I could go on, natural gas will be taxed to prevent its use. With only weak energy sources like solar, wind, and geothermal, we will lose more industry. 

Electric rates are already too high, over 200 bucks a month for one of my freinds, others pay even more. I pay less because I am never home.

So go ahead dumb asses, support green energy, you will have to pay a lot more and you will be polluting the earth and using up the natural resources faster and that is exactly what the liberal/marxist/environuts want. They want to destroy the world, just read what they say, they hate people, from abortion to turning corn into ethanol, Liberal/Marxist/Environuts want to hurt people, its that clear.

Old Crock, I already addressed, the guy is either real stupid or knows eventually I will get tired, the environut does not even address any post that discredits his post, hell, over and over you can take Old Crocks sources and prove old crock wrong.

What a joke, but that is why they are environuts, its all about telling big lies to the public so they make money and we suffer, so they are in power and we suffer.


----------



## mdn2000

Where is Old Crock in this thread, Old Crock you keep useing the same source you used here you are using in other threads. So why hide Old Crock. Where is your rebuttal. I guess you know you cannot support your dumb idea that geothermal is a good idea. 

*Geothermal is  a power source used for a hundred years, a mature technology that has reached is peak, a complete waste of money*

This thread and LOL in environment are the same, check out how Old Crock in LOL shows geothermal to be extremely expensive, polluting and unreliable. Thanks Old Crock, you are your own worst enemy.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/92812-lol-7.html#post1696779


----------



## mdn2000

In this thread I have posted fact after fact after fact and now JD2B posts lies about all my posts claiming I dont present facts. Should I start a new thread and ignore this one. Hell we are still talking about the same subject so why a new thread on the same subject, why ignore this thread with all the information, all the links, all the facts. 

The damned morons wish to ignore all the facts posted and start a thread simply stating "green energy is gold", what happens when I post in those, this thread is ignored until its gone. 

This is the relevant thread, this thread is ignored, the morons start a new thread without facts. 

Is this the debate and why we have are going green, because morons WILL NOT THINK OR DO HOMEWORK


----------



## KittenKoder

*yawn* No you're whining.


----------



## mdn2000

KittenKoder said:


> *yawn* No you're whining.




You talking to me


----------



## JD_2B

mdn2000 said:


> FactFinder said:
> 
> 
> 
> Widely available and easily transported:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This could make us energy independent with a few years. The graph is in billions of cubic feet. so add nine (9) zeros to the numbers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are many problems with this.
> 
> 1. It will not bankrupt the USA and that is what the Liberal/Marxist need.
> 2. This will not raise energy prices
> 3. Without higher energy prices its harder to make people dependent on government
> 4. If people are not dependent on government Liberalism/Marxism can fail.
> 5. Useing fossil fuels directly to make electricity is greener than windmills, and less polluting.
> 
> I could go on, natural gas will be taxed to prevent its use. With only weak energy sources like solar, wind, and geothermal, we will lose more industry.
> 
> Electric rates are already too high, over 200 bucks a month for one of my freinds, others pay even more. I pay less because I am never home.
> 
> So go ahead dumb asses, support green energy, you will have to pay a lot more and you will be polluting the earth and using up the natural resources faster and that is exactly what the liberal/marxist/environuts want. They want to destroy the world, just read what they say, they hate people, from abortion to turning corn into ethanol, Liberal/Marxist/Environuts want to hurt people, its that clear.
> 
> Old Crock, I already addressed, the guy is either real stupid or knows eventually I will get tired, the environut does not even address any post that discredits his post, hell, over and over you can take Old Crocks sources and prove old crock wrong.
> 
> What a joke, but that is why they are environuts, its all about telling big lies to the public so they make money and we suffer, so they are in power and we suffer.
Click to expand...


I have never paid very much for natural gas, and I used it for heating my home for many many years. 

You are a psycho.. 



> *Where is Old Crock in this thread, Old Crock* you keep useing the same source you used here you are using in other threads. *So why hide Old Crock. Where is your* re*butt*al. I guess you know you cannot support your dumb idea that geothermal is a good idea.
> 
> *Geothermal is  a power source used for a hundred years, a mature technology that has reached is peak, a complete waste of money*
> 
> This thread and LOL in environment are the same, check out how Old Crock in LOL shows geothermal to be extremely expensive, polluting and unreliable. Thanks Old Crock, you are your own worst enemy.
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/enviro...ml#post1696779



Sorry, but a USMB thread is not a SOURCE. And yes- you are hard-up for Old Rocks. Stop stalking him, and then jacking off at all his posts, freak.


----------



## KittenKoder

mdn2000 said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> 
> *yawn* No you're whining.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You talking to me
Click to expand...


Yes.  But not too seriously, otherwise I would have said more. I don't disagree with your points.


----------



## mdn2000

JD_2B said:


> mdn2000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FactFinder said:
> 
> 
> 
> Widely available and easily transported:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This could make us energy independent with a few years. The graph is in billions of cubic feet. so add nine (9) zeros to the numbers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are many problems with this.
> 
> 1. It will not bankrupt the USA and that is what the Liberal/Marxist need.
> 2. This will not raise energy prices
> 3. Without higher energy prices its harder to make people dependent on government
> 4. If people are not dependent on government Liberalism/Marxism can fail.
> 5. Useing fossil fuels directly to make electricity is greener than windmills, and less polluting.
> 
> I could go on, natural gas will be taxed to prevent its use. With only weak energy sources like solar, wind, and geothermal, we will lose more industry.
> 
> Electric rates are already too high, over 200 bucks a month for one of my freinds, others pay even more. I pay less because I am never home.
> 
> So go ahead dumb asses, support green energy, you will have to pay a lot more and you will be polluting the earth and using up the natural resources faster and that is exactly what the liberal/marxist/environuts want. They want to destroy the world, just read what they say, they hate people, from abortion to turning corn into ethanol, Liberal/Marxist/Environuts want to hurt people, its that clear.
> 
> Old Crock, I already addressed, the guy is either real stupid or knows eventually I will get tired, the environut does not even address any post that discredits his post, hell, over and over you can take Old Crocks sources and prove old crock wrong.
> 
> What a joke, but that is why they are environuts, its all about telling big lies to the public so they make money and we suffer, so they are in power and we suffer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have never paid very much for natural gas, and I used it for heating my home for many many years.
> 
> You are a psycho..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Where is Old Crock in this thread, Old Crock* you keep useing the same source you used here you are using in other threads. *So why hide Old Crock. Where is your* re*butt*al. I guess you know you cannot support your dumb idea that geothermal is a good idea.
> 
> *Geothermal is  a power source used for a hundred years, a mature technology that has reached is peak, a complete waste of money*
> 
> This thread and LOL in environment are the same, check out how Old Crock in LOL shows geothermal to be extremely expensive, polluting and unreliable. Thanks Old Crock, you are your own worst enemy.
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/enviro...ml#post1696779
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, but a USMB thread is not a SOURCE. And yes- you are hard-up for Old Rocks. Stop stalking him, and then jacking off at all his posts, freak.
Click to expand...


How come you follow and lick it all up? You are the vixen, mmm, mmm, good. It is nice to see I have a vixen stalker as nasty and dirty as you.


----------



## KittenKoder

"There'll be time enough for countin ... when the dealin's done."


----------



## mdn2000

another thread that Old Crock must ignore.

Old Crock does not read Old Crock's sources, I have now used Old Crock's sources six times to show Old Crock does not know what he is talking about.


----------



## Old Rocks

Tiny town takes geothermal lead « Daily Journal of Commerce

The southern Oregon city of Paisley, best known for its annual mosquito festival, could soon add another distinction: the site of the state&#8217;s first commercial geothermal electricity plant. The federal Department of Energy awarded the project a $2 million grant.

Lake County is flush with underground hot water. Sometimes, it bubbles to the surface, as it does at the Summer Lake Hot Springs resort.
Other times, farmers tap into it when drilling irrigation wells. That happened on the property of Mark and Erin Douglas, where the power plant would be built.

&#8220;We drilled it in 1980-81,&#8221; Erin Douglas said, &#8220;My grandpa did, and he talked to people then&#8221; about using the water for a power plant.

&#8220;It wasn&#8217;t hot enough or enough flow to make sense then,&#8221; she said.


----------



## Old Rocks

Oregon campus seeks global first on geothermal power - North America - Renewable energy news - Recharge - wind, solar, biofuels, wave/tidal/hydro and geothermal

Oregon campus seeks global first on geothermal power
By yearend, Oregon Institute of Technology (OIT) aims to become the world&#8217;s first campus entirely powered from a geothermal energy source on its property, officials say. 

Related Stories
Nevada geothermal plant on time for yearend completion 
Geothermal energy has 'plentiful potential' for Europe 
Geothermal sector heats up with purchase by U.S. Energy 
Pratt & Whitney Power Systems, a unit of United Technologies, has delivered an emissions-free PureCycle power system that will harness heat from geothermal hot water to generate electricity. 

That system will produce 20% of the institute&#8217;s campus electricity demand, saving the school about $100,000 annually. It will be the first geothermal power production facility in Oregon. 

Pratt & Whitney officials say the PureCycle unit can operate with water at temperatures as low as 195 degrees Fahrenheit to generate electrical power around the clock. 

Klamath Falls, where OIT is located, has extensive geothermal resources. 

Pratt & Whitney is expected to provide additional power systems to bring the campus to a &#8220;NetZero&#8221; energy user by yearend. 

The school offers a degree in Renewable Energy Engineering and will use the geothermal power plant as a teaching tool and hands-on laboratory for OIT students. 

"This is an important addition to our campus academic programs that will better prepare our students to perform in the real world," says John Lund, director of Geo-Heat Center at the Institute.


----------



## Old Rocks

City of Klamath Falls :: Geothermal Utility

Geothermal Utility

The City of Klamath Falls Geothermal Utility provides cost effective heating services utilizing a renewable, non-polluting "green" resource. The City of Klamath Falls is located in a Known Geothermal Resource Area (KGRA). Utilizing geothermal water supplied from wells producing 200-220 degree water, the City operates a geothermal utility system which provides heating services to commercial and government buildings throughout the downtown core area as well as geothermal sidewalk and bridge snow melt systems. The sidewalk and bridge snow melt systems provide safety and convenience throughout the winter months that would not be obtainable without low cost geothermal energy. 

A significant benefit of geothermal heating is the reduced energy costs compared to alternate heating sources. As other heating sources continue to experience substantial cost increases, the cost of providing geothermal heat remains low along with providing a much higher heating efficiency than other heat sources. 

Contact Information


----------



## mdn2000

Old Rocks said:


> City of Klamath Falls :: Geothermal Utility
> 
> Geothermal Utility
> 
> The City of Klamath Falls Geothermal Utility provides cost effective heating services utilizing a renewable, non-polluting "green" resource. The City of Klamath Falls is located in a Known Geothermal Resource Area (KGRA). Utilizing geothermal water supplied from wells producing 200-220 degree water, the City operates a geothermal utility system which provides heating services to commercial and government buildings throughout the downtown core area as well as geothermal sidewalk and bridge snow melt systems. The sidewalk and bridge snow melt systems provide safety and convenience throughout the winter months that would not be obtainable without low cost geothermal energy.
> 
> A significant benefit of geothermal heating is the reduced energy costs compared to alternate heating sources. As other heating sources continue to experience substantial cost increases, the cost of providing geothermal heat remains low along with providing a much higher heating efficiency than other heat sources.
> 
> Contact Information



Another press release Old Crock, how much does this project cost, how much is the total spent so far so that 20,000 people can have subsidized energy.

so once again we are expected to prove Old Crock's endless useless links as invalid.

another press release.

As near as I can tell with some quick searches this is 99% funded by a Tax grab

Well over $55,000,000, thats a massive amount of money to give to such a tiny population.


----------



## mdn2000

What nerve, what gall, prick, A university is going to save 100k by spending millions of dollars.

So many hidden costs. During the summer of 1983 the following research was all done with taxpayer money, this cost is not included, it is one of the hidden costs.

http://www.osti.gov/geothermal/servlets/purl/894594-rfHKLm/894594.pdf



> During the summer of 1983, investigators from several institutions collaborated in an intensive study
> of the geothermal resource at Klamath Falls. Funded largely by grants from the U.S. Department of
> Energy (DOE), scientists from Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (LBL), Stanford University, and the
> Oregon Institute of Technology (OIT) were co-investigators under the terms of a proposal submitted
> to DOE by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). Participation by USGS personnel was funded by
> the USGS Geothermal Research Program.
> The work included tracer studies by Stanford University, a pumping and injection test by LBL,
> temperature studies and collection of aquifer-discharge and use data by OIT, and sampling for
> chemical analysis by USGS.
> The principal objectives of the investigation, as stated in the proposal to DOE, was to acquire "from
> the shallow geothermal reservoir at Klamath Falls... chemical and hydraulic data on which to base
> predictions of reservoir performance, and an evaluation of potential for development." The major
> purpose "is to provide interested parties in Klamath Falls with scientific data to be used to evaluate
> alterative for the future of the geothermal resource; a second purpose is to assess potential impacts
> of possible alternatives." It is also expected that "knowledge gained in the investigation can be used
> to aid in the evaluation of other fault-controlled geothermal systems." Clearly, it is not the purpose
> of this study to recommend specific courses of action regarding the development of the geothermal
> resource at Klamath Falls; but rather, to provide the scientific data that will be required for decisionmaking
> by agencies and citizens in Klamath Falls.
> Data



Oregon's budget deficits growing big-time - KTVZ.com Central Oregons News, Weather and Sports Leader -



> Oregon's budget deficits growing big-time
> 
> Posted: Feb 20, 2009 01:48 PM PST
> Oregon's lawmakers, governor got clearer picture Friday of revenue gap - and it wasn't pretty
> Governor, lawmakers weigh in on latest bleak figures
> From The Associated Press and KTVZ.COM news sources
> 
> SALEM (AP) - State Economist Tom Potiowsky says the Oregon budget deficit has grown to $850 million for the current biennium and will top $2.5 billion for 2009-11, forcing even deeper cuts than anticipated.



There is a price to be paid by us in all the other states for Oregon's piss poor energy policy, as you can take Old Crock's word billions of our tax money is going into Oregon's pockets so a university can play in its geothermal puddle, so that Oregon's environuts can have wind farms, all on our dime.

Hope you like the change, the change that is all thats left of your hard earned money.


----------



## Randy Mott

This discussion on geothermal energy does not appear to reflect any professional input.

The inter-personal trash talk is not a very good substitute for knowledge or research. 

Using about $1900 per kW for capex, the latest US geothermal generators are among the cheapest renewable sources. No renewable technology at this point can compete with coal or natural gas, but the longer term price situation will definitely narrow the gap.

Google - "power generation options for off-grid, mini-grid"  Bigger facilities are also covered.

Go to slide 5 and you can see 2015 projections in relative cost by type of generation capacity.

This gels with our experience in pricing geothermal and biogas in Central Europe.

Randy Mott
CEERES Sp. z o.o.
Warsaw, Poland
(American-owned renewable energy company)


----------



## Randy Mott

Most renewables get competitive at 12 cents/kW. We will see those prices in the future IMO in the commercial market. Places in Europe already are there.

Randy


----------



## mdn2000

Randy Mott said:


> This discussion on geothermal energy does not appear to reflect any professional input.
> 
> 
> (American-owned renewable energy company)



Actually your comment are way off base, I work in Geothermal plants and have provided hard facts that still stand. 

Maybe if your so smart you can actually point out which comment I posted is false.

The idiots and you are one ignore the truth, you calmly wait and post opinion nothing more. 

Geothermal is the most expensive energy to produce because its impact on environment is devestating, the amount of materials it takes to keep geothermal plants running is what drives up the cost.

Read all the posts, point out something you can prove wrong.

You simply show yourself to be a hack by ignoring all I have posted in this thread


----------



## Skull Pilot

You are all missing the obvious small scale use of geothermal.

The ground source heat pump is one of the best ways to heat and cool buildings.

If implemented on a large scale, our heating fuel usage could be virtually eliminated and our electrical cooling costs would be slashed.

Just a few feet below the surface, the earth is a constant temperature, between 50 and 75 degrees F, using this one can heat and cool a home.  

The only drawback is the compressor used might increase electrical costs slightly but the heat from the compressor can be captured to be used for heating water.  And the reduction of heating fuel costs more than makes up for the increased electrical costs.

Couple a large scale use of these systems with a new source of nuclear electricity and we could eliminate the use of fossil fuels for home heating and use emission free electricity for cooling.  And the cost of installing a GSHP system in new construction is negligibly more expensive than a traditional gas or oil fired system but the savings in the first few years alone can exceed the cost difference.

One of the problems I see here is that no one thinks about energy and new technologies, not that ground source heat pumps are new, on other than the mega scale projects that would be nearly impossible to implement without billions of dollars.

This combined with new, or in most cases not so new just not utilized construction techniques such as the use of structural insulated panels rather than standard stick frame construction would not only result in stronger, safer buildings and homes but would increase the insulation factor in residential and small to mid sized commercial building from an average of R7 or 9 to R 25 to 40.  thereby reducing even further the size and cost of heating and cooling GSHP systems.

Energy Savers: Types of Geothermal Heat Pump Systems

What is Thermocore

It is the simple solutions that will give us the most bang for our bucks here, not the large scale federal projects that will do nothing but cost us trillions of dollars and be plagued with corruption and waste.


----------



## Old Rocks

mdn2000 said:


> Randy Mott said:
> 
> 
> 
> This discussion on geothermal energy does not appear to reflect any professional input.
> 
> 
> (American-owned renewable energy company)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually your comment are way off base, I work in Geothermal plants and have provided hard facts that still stand.
> 
> Maybe if your so smart you can actually point out which comment I posted is false.
> 
> The idiots and you are one ignore the truth, you calmly wait and post opinion nothing more.
> 
> Geothermal is the most expensive energy to produce because its impact on environment is devestating, the amount of materials it takes to keep geothermal plants running is what drives up the cost.
> 
> Read all the posts, point out something you can prove wrong.
> 
> You simply show yourself to be a hack by ignoring all I have posted in this thread
Click to expand...


mds, why should anyone answer you? You have proven yourself to be a liar on this and many other subjects.

Geothermal Energy

Economics of Geothermal Energy

Geothermal power plants can produce electricity as cheaply as some conventional power plants. It costs 4.5 to seven cents per kWh to produce electricity from hydrothermal systems. In comparison, new coal-fired plants produce electricity at about four cents per kWh.

Initial construction costs for geothermal power plants are high because geothermal wells and power plants must be constructed at the same time.

But the cost of producing electricity over time is lower because the price and availability of the fuel is stable and predictable. The fuel does not have to be imported or transported to the power plant. The power plant literally sits on top of its fuel source.

Geothermal power plants are also excellent sources of baseload power. Baseload power is power that electric utility companies must deliver all day long. Baseload geothermal plants sell electricity all the time, not only during peakuse times when the demand for electricity is high.

Until recently, utilities were required to buy the least-cost electricity, without regard to environmental impacts. Federal and state energy and environmental agencies are studying ways to give preference to nonpolluting energy sources such as geothermal energy.


----------



## Old Rocks

Skull Pilot said:


> You are all missing the obvious small scale use of geothermal.
> 
> The ground source heat pump is one of the best ways to heat and cool buildings.
> 
> If implemented on a large scale, our heating fuel usage could be virtually eliminated and our electrical cooling costs would be slashed.
> 
> Just a few feet below the surface, the earth is a constant temperature, between 50 and 75 degrees F, using this one can heat and cool a home.
> 
> The only drawback is the compressor used might increase electrical costs slightly but the heat from the compressor can be captured to be used for heating water.  And the reduction of heating fuel costs more than makes up for the increased electrical costs.
> 
> Couple a large scale use of these systems with a new source of nuclear electricity and we could eliminate the use of fossil fuels for home heating and use emission free electricity for cooling.  And the cost of installing a GSHP system in new construction is negligibly more expensive than a traditional gas or oil fired system but the savings in the first few years alone can exceed the cost difference.
> 
> One of the problems I see here is that no one thinks about energy and new technologies, not that ground source heat pumps are new, on other than the mega scale projects that would be nearly impossible to implement without billions of dollars.
> 
> This combined with new, or in most cases not so new just not utilized construction techniques such as the use of structural insulated panels rather than standard stick frame construction would not only result in stronger, safer buildings and homes but would increase the insulation factor in residential and small to mid sized commercial building from an average of R7 or 9 to R 25 to 40.  thereby reducing even further the size and cost of heating and cooling GSHP systems.
> 
> Energy Savers: Types of Geothermal Heat Pump Systems
> 
> What is Thermocore
> 
> It is the simple solutions that will give us the most bang for our bucks here, not the large scale federal projects that will do nothing but cost us trillions of dollars and be plagued with corruption and waste.



Your point concerning the use of geo-systems for heating and cooling buildings is well taken. 

However, your point concerning the government spending trillions for geothermal electrical generation is way off base. While the government does give subsidies to alternative energy projects, they have yet to match the subsidies given to the fossil fuel industry. And the alternative energy projects are being built by private investment, companies like Northwestern Wind Power.

In Southeastern Oregon, we have an area of several thousand square miles, very sparsely inhabited, that has high potential for wind, solar, thermal solar, and geothermal. One grid line to pick up all of that.


----------



## mdn2000

mdn2000 said:


> Old Crock goes off half cocked, you are a big joke. You really fucked up with your posts and your easily proven lack of understanding of your own material.
> 
> The article you site does not state that geothermal is cheaper, its the headline you cherry picked that is misleading. Read the whole article fool.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just three sites that show your cherry picking of that article to be incorrect. As the Scientific American article stated, Geothermal is the biggest untapped resource we have at present.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I read the Scientific America article its easy to see you did not read the article, just the headline. Lets look at who Scientific America uses as a source. Within this paragraph on the second page is a link to a 2005 paper.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Other sources dispute this numberGlitnir bank, a financier of geothermal in Iceland and elsewhere, claims that geothermal plants are operational up to 95 percent of the time, and a 2005 paper (pdf) by academics in the field claims that in aggregate, geothermal plants in the U.S. produce power about 80 percent of the time
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here is the title of the paper with its authors:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The United States of America Country Update
> John W. Lund1, R. Gordon Bloomquist2, Tonya L. Boyd1, Joel Renner3
> 1Geo-Heat Center, Oregon Institute of Technology, Klamath Falls, OR
> 2Washington State University Energy Program, Olympia, WA
> 3Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory, Idaho Falls, ID
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you go to the Bibliography of the GEA report and look at the very first source we find its Gordon Bloomquist.
> 
> So who is incorrect, who is going off half cocked.  Tell us how Bloomquist proves Bloomquist is incorrect.
> 
> This is why I call people morons, its because some people are morons.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This report is the result of a long research project that involved many geothermal stakeholders and industry experts. These persons helped explain how various and complex parameters affecting the cost of geothermal power development and production may be. I specially want to thank:
> Gordon Bloomquist for the collaboration, data sharing, advice and comments he provided throughout several research phases.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Old Crock has yet to prove anyone a liar, Old Crock simply calls people liars, in this very thread I used Old Crocks own source to show that Geothermal is a weak, inexpensive, polluting source of power.

Anyone care to dispute anything I posted by quoting and having a discussion.


----------



## mdn2000

mdn2000 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doodeee, you are the one that mentioned the 'China Sydrone', not I. I realize that you are not up to speed on the Gen 3 nukes. They are incapable of the 'China Syndrone'.
> 
> The problem is that we are seeing the huge cost overruns that we saw in the 70s and 80s. At $3500 per kw. you are well above the present prices for wind and geo-thermal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But Old Crock, in this thread your source states geothermal is too expensive, are you ignoring your own source, you know, the MIT study
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1680144
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdn2000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet Old Criock attempted to discredit the Article and link I posted, Old Crock has yet to go my source and show us what Old Crock is refering to.
> 
> 
> 
> So Old Crock, you must agree the cost of Geothermal is too high, will result in higher electrical rates, that tax payer money will be given to corporations to make a profit. That costs will have to be hidden to even make Geothermal look feasible. All Old Crocks sources say this.
> 
> Old Crock all your source say exactly what I say, I went to the MIT study, again you did not read it. Let me cut and paste from Old Crocks sources.
> 
> Read the report than read aritcles quoting the report, the media is cherry picking and OLD CROCK IS CHERRY PICKING THE CHERRY PICKERS.
> 
> http://geothermal.inel.gov/publications/future_of_geothermal_energy.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> All Old Crock is doing is proving that to sell Geothermal to the public the environuts must cherry pick source and count on people to be stupid, lazy, and ignorant. As long as people are stupid enough to believe Geothermal is good and as long as people are lazy enough not to read the studies the environuts source, than people will remain ingnorant.
> 
> So once again, for the third time, Old Crock has cherry picked a source.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Skull Pilot

Old Rocks said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are all missing the obvious small scale use of geothermal.
> 
> The ground source heat pump is one of the best ways to heat and cool buildings.
> 
> If implemented on a large scale, our heating fuel usage could be virtually eliminated and our electrical cooling costs would be slashed.
> 
> Just a few feet below the surface, the earth is a constant temperature, between 50 and 75 degrees F, using this one can heat and cool a home.
> 
> The only drawback is the compressor used might increase electrical costs slightly but the heat from the compressor can be captured to be used for heating water.  And the reduction of heating fuel costs more than makes up for the increased electrical costs.
> 
> Couple a large scale use of these systems with a new source of nuclear electricity and we could eliminate the use of fossil fuels for home heating and use emission free electricity for cooling.  And the cost of installing a GSHP system in new construction is negligibly more expensive than a traditional gas or oil fired system but the savings in the first few years alone can exceed the cost difference.
> 
> One of the problems I see here is that no one thinks about energy and new technologies, not that ground source heat pumps are new, on other than the mega scale projects that would be nearly impossible to implement without billions of dollars.
> 
> This combined with new, or in most cases not so new just not utilized construction techniques such as the use of structural insulated panels rather than standard stick frame construction would not only result in stronger, safer buildings and homes but would increase the insulation factor in residential and small to mid sized commercial building from an average of R7 or 9 to R 25 to 40.  thereby reducing even further the size and cost of heating and cooling GSHP systems.
> 
> Energy Savers: Types of Geothermal Heat Pump Systems
> 
> What is Thermocore
> 
> It is the simple solutions that will give us the most bang for our bucks here, not the large scale federal projects that will do nothing but cost us trillions of dollars and be plagued with corruption and waste.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your point concerning the use of geo-systems for heating and cooling buildings is well taken.
> 
> However, your point concerning the government spending trillions for geothermal electrical generation is way off base. While the government does give subsidies to alternative energy projects, they have yet to match the subsidies given to the fossil fuel industry. And the alternative energy projects are being built by private investment, companies like Northwestern Wind Power.
> 
> In Southeastern Oregon, we have an area of several thousand square miles, very sparsely inhabited, that has high potential for wind, solar, thermal solar, and geothermal. One grid line to pick up all of that.
Click to expand...


Wind and solar are two of the most inefficient ways to produce electricity.  A PV solar panel is only 10-15% efficient in real world application

There will be nothing but higher electric rates if we plan on using solar on a large scale.  We have a clean ready to use source of electricity with proven safe technology that can be buried underground and be out of the way but we refuse to use it now in lieu of pie in the sky multi-acre solar and wind plants that will be naught but an eyesore while wasting potentially usable acreage.

Do you really want to see acres and acres of windmills and solar panels everywhere you look?  So much for America the beautiful.


----------



## mdn2000

Skull Pilot, you are right, I have a friend that uses a heat pump and he says it works great. 

People like Old Crock do care about little heat pumps though, Old Crock is part of a greater people on the Left Coast who know what is best for everyone else, the Left Coast wants to turn the USA into a third world country, Old Crock wants everyone to pay extremely high electric bills, Old Crock believes you people deserve to lose your job, Old Crock believes the USA needs to punished.

Its a shame, alternative energy only makes the rich richer and the poor poorer the government more powerful.

Geothermal on a commercial scale is a weak power source that is extremely expensive and extremely polluting.

I re--read all I posted here, its all fact that I post, Old Crock hides from the facts and than calls others liars from under Old Crock's rock.

In California electrical rates have already more than doubled and now water rates are doubling. Most the electricity in California goes to pumping water hence the more expensive polluting alternative energy used the more expensive it costs to drink water, that is unless your an illegal alien who crossed the mexican border, the illegal aliens get their water for free, they are on welfare, illegal aliens dont buy the food they eat, the water they drink, or the electricity they use, its all free, or at least its taken from me and you and given to them.

Alternative energy policies is a good example of this, tax the middle class, raise our electrical rates, raise our water cost.

Oregon is one of the most subsidized states in the entire nation. Oregon imports electricity from the coal producers to the east and than uses Federal tax money taken out of our pockets to build the polluting wind farms, the politicians in Oregon than make political speeches claiming they are green and clean, nothing but liars. Using coal power from outside the state while pontificating the virtues of the tax payer subsidized weak green power sources such as wind and geothermal.

The Left Coast believe the earth would be better off if you were dead, they write books with this theme.

Everyone is bad except Old Crock and his friends.


----------



## mdn2000

Seems like Old Crock wants to talk about Geothermal at the same time he ignores Geothermal.


----------



## Old Rocks

mdn, old sot, have you not noticed that we have a few big dams in Oregon? A little outfit called BPA? As far as the federal money is concerned, we are one of two states that get one dollar back for every dollar we send. Unlike most red states, we pay our own way.


----------

