Geothermal Electrical Generation is the best solution for "Energy of the Future"

[Dave Caputo]

I've recently been hired as President of the Adminicus Green Energy Jobs Consortium, and our mission is to promote Green Energy and Green Jobs and advocate for massive new public and private sector investments in emerging Green Energy Technologies.

One solution that we feel has particular promise, and few are actively pushing it, is Deep-Earth, Closed-Loop Geothermal Electrical Generation.

This could, for prices comparable to very small and inexpensive (ha!) nukes, provide inexpensive 24/7 baseload power, with zero carbon emissions, small physical footprints, and true long-term sustainability. Investments in these kinds of plants will also be critical for economic development, as they will lower ambient electricity prices and provide powerful economic incentives for development of energy intensive industries and public improvements like magnetic levitation trains.

We invite all concerned DU-ers to take a look at our program, and if you find it appealing, join our Consortium (it's free) so we can add your voice to the many clamoring for these investments. You can also check us out on Facebook and "Give us a Like" if you're so inclined (and would be so kind).

I welcome questions and comments on this topic.

[phantom power]

1. how deep?

You can boil water anywhere, if you drill deep enough, although the thermal gradients in most cases suggest you have to drill a few kilometers. I've always wondered if it would be sensible at that depth.

[Hydra]

4. Yes, other than the instability threat

Once you're set up, theoretically you have an unlimited supply of energy to tap, so initial investment could be seen as similar to setting up a Dam, but hopefully without as many detrimental effects.

[Dave Caputo]

10. Designed to prevent, not cause, earthquakes

The engineered solution, as opposed to the fractured rock solution, means that the shock waves designed to break apart solid rock (some powerful-ass shock waves / explosions) are NOT used in the solution we are proposing. We are very aware of the negative effects of so-called Enhanced Geothermal Systems, and specifically address those concerns with our approach. Merely running water through a deep closed loop pipe so it will heat up and be brought to the surface, where it is heat-exchanged and sent back down cooler, should NOT be a problem. It's the big shock waves causing earthquakes that's the problem, and we don't do that.

[txlibdem]

54. I've read that a couple of times and I still don't get how it would prevent

How does your process for geothermal heating prevent earthquakes. I'm just not seeing it (while I'm not from the "show me" state I guess I need to have it spelled out so I can visualize it).

[Dave Caputo]

55. Let me explain what I mean by "prevent"

Perhaps I was inartful in my wording. By "prevent", I really meant "not cause". Since hydrofracking is suspected of "causing" earthquakes, using closed-loop geothermail instead of open loop geothermal will prevent the earthquakes that might be caused if open loop was used.

Probably a reach, but I was trying to say that hydrofracking is the culprit, and our methods do not use hydrofracking, we used drilled piping, which uses hydrostatic pressure to counteract the lithostatic pressure to prevent collapse. This should be very stable and does not involve the intense shock waves generated when attempting to break up large areas of rock.

[Dave Caputo]

9. 20,000 feet + depth

Thanks for the question. The plan is to dig to depths of 20k feet or more, in 5k feet stages.

The preferred scenario involves drilling into Granitic Domes, where we believe that the high thermal conductivity of the granite will make for optimum geothermal recharge rates and allow for an engineered, rather than a fractured rock, heat exchanger.

The fundamental points we present are thus:

Over 99% of the Earth is over a thousand degrees Celsius.

We have all the energy we will ever need, right under our feet.

The question is, "Are we bold enough to act?"

To quote from Wikipedia about the Hoover Dam:

Hoover Dam, once known as Boulder Dam, is a concrete arch-gravity dam in the Black Canyon of the Colorado River, on the border between the US states of Arizona and Nevada. It was constructed between 1931 and 1936 during the Great Depression, and was dedicated on September 30, 1935, by President Franklin Roosevelt. Its construction was the result of a massive effort involving thousands of workers, and cost over one hundred lives.

Since about 1900, the Black Canyon and nearby Boulder Canyon had been investigated for their potential to support a dam that would control floods, provide irrigation water and produce hydroelectric power. In 1928, Congress authorized the project. The winning bid to build the dam was submitted by a consortium called Six Companies, Inc., which began construction on the dam in early 1931. Such a large concrete structure had never been built before, and some of the techniques were unproven. The torrid summer weather and the lack of facilities near the site also presented difficulties. Nevertheless, Six Companies turned over the dam to the federal government on March 1, 1936, more than two years ahead of schedule.

[phantom power]

14. One question I had regarding that depth...

You're heating water to > 100C, but you've got a column of water 4 miles high on top of it, I'm assuming it's not steam down there, it's just superheated water. Is the goal to get it to the surface where it can flash to steam (in which case, how do you keep it hot for 4 miles), or is the goal to extract thermo-electricity? Or some other thing?

[phantom power]

18. from the site:

A hot granite is one that contains enough radioactive thorium, uranium and potassium to heat water to 300 to 400 degrees Fahrenheit (150 to 250 degrees Celsius). But as energy transfer technologies improve, the temperature at which it's profitable to use geothermal energy in building projects should get lower, which means boreholes won't need to be as deep, so costs are lower.

...

Basic requirements for a promising geothermal zone not only include the presence of the radioactive elements in granite bodies at least three miles thick, but "it's best if the granite is also insulated by a sediment layer that acts like a blanket on top," Rhodes adds. In Massachusetts and Connecticut, the Connecticut River Valley is one such promising region and another is in southeast Massachusetts, the Narragansett Basin. Both are near many towns and colleges that might one day be able to generate clean, green electric power as well as direct heat for buildings from these local energy sources.

Internationally, there is already a working pilot project poised to begin producing power near Innamincka, Australia. Its power station pumps cold water 2.5 miles (4 kilometers) down, which returns as steam at 482 degrees Fahrenheit (250 degrees Centigrade), hot enough to power a turbine. With a recent $90 million infusion from the Australian government, the plant is expected to soon begin producing about 50 megawatts of electric power, enough to serve about 50,000 homes, Rhodes reports.

http://www.umass.edu/loop/talkingpoints/articles/114847.php

[madokie]

97. We even have some geo thermal within drilling distance here in ok

best I can remember. Not too far from where I am east of tulsa. I really think that is what we'll wind up using. With the interest its getting now maybe they will do the studies and figure out how to make if all work. Theres nothing we can't do if we as a country decides to do it, we went to the moon, we have nuclear power plants to name a couple at one time thought impossible and both accomplished in about a decade. We can do it we just need to get our ducks in a roll. This is one of the areas where we need to put the money necessary to study this as it really deserves. I mean there is so much positives about it that it almost makes me want to think I can go out back and do it myself for my own energy, knowing full well I can't though. :-)

[LiberalEsto]

78. But geothermal heating doesn't have to be deep, either

There are two kinds of geothermal systems: the one you describe, and one that operates like a heat pump.

It's possible to use the steady temperature under the earth's surface -- just a few feet down depending on the frost line - to operate a heat exchanger/heat pump. The heat pumps that many people have in their homes operate on somewhat similar principles.

Info from the Consumer Energy Center:
http://www.consumerenergycenter.org/home/heating_cooling/geothermal.html

"Geothermal heat pumps are similar to ordinary heat pumps, but instead of using heat found in outside air, they rely on the stable, even heat of the earth to provide heating, air conditioning and, in most cases, hot water."
(snip)
"Studies show that approximately 70 percent of the energy used in a geothermal heat pump system is renewable energy from the ground. The earth's constant temperature is what makes geothermal heat pumps one of the most efficient, comfortable, and quiet heating and cooling technologies available today. While they may be more costly to install initially than regular heat pumps, they can produce markedly lower energy bills - 30 percent to 40 percent lower, according to estimates from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, who now includes geothermal heat pumps in the types of products rated in the EnergyStar® program. Because they are mechanically simple and outside parts of the system are below ground and protected from the weather, maintenance costs are often lower as well.

As an added benefit, systems can be equipped with a device called a "desuperheater" can heat household water, which circulates into the regular water heater tank. In the summer, heat that is taken from the house and would be expelled into the loop is used to heat the water for free. In the winter, the desuperheater can reduce water-heating costs by about half, while a conventional water heater meets the rest of the household's needs. In the spring and fall when temperatures are mild and the heat pump may not be operating at all, the regular water heater provides hot water."

[Petrushka]

2. K & R

Gave it a "like" on FB while I was over there.

:kick:

[Celebration]

3. I just "liked" the Facebook page

Otherwise, k and r. Good luck.

[Dave Caputo]

43. Facebook has been pretty effective

For spreading the message. We hope to use it more as we go along. I'm pleased that my post has generated such a vigorous discussion here on DU.

Thanks to everyone who's liked our Facebook page.

[BeFree]

5. American Jobs?

Wouldn't that put well drillers and well support people in real clean energy jobs?

[Dave Caputo]

8. Yes, that's the idea

There is a lot of infrastructure and equipment in the oil drilling business. Excellent way to repurpose it for Green Energy.

[NNadir]

6. The Italians built the first geothermal plant in 1905.

If it's so great, how come Italy is burning so much gas and importing so much Greek coal fired electricity?

[Dave Caputo]

13. Because that's a different design. Consider Iceland...

The country of Iceland gets a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_power_in_Iceland">huge chunk of its power from Geothermal.

According to Wikipedia:

Five major geothermal power plants exist in Iceland, which produce approximately 24% (2008) of the nation's energy. In addition, geothermal heating meets the heating and hot water requirements of approximately 87% of all buildings in Iceland.

But that's because the whole country essentially sits atop a giant volcano, with lots of near-surface magma and geysers.

Very little of Italy is that way, so the 1905 design (which is essentially what is in use in Iceland too) is insufficient to create enough power to have much of a macroeconomic impact.

Our design is profoundly different and is only dependent on granite being present, not volcanoes. Thankfully, granite is much more common than volcanoes, or we'd have other issues.

[NNadir]

21. Really? Granite is plentiful and therefore we have infinite geothermal energy?

I have the distinct perception that I sat on a huge chunk of Granite in New York's Central Park not so long ago and it was as cool as a cucumber.

Was I mistaken?

I am aware of Iceland's energy profile, and think it's quite reasonable - for Iceland. However, even the Icelanders seem to believe that the resource is hardly infinite.

http://eng.idnadarraduneyti.is/media/Acrobat/Jardhitabaklingur.final.pdf

Maybe you can straighten them out.

As I recall as well, the folks at the Geysers in California needed to cap wells and inject municipal waste water to keep that famous power plant from declining percipitiously.

I have written in this space about geothermal energy, with some enthusiasm, in the past, for instance, in this post:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x37366
">The Salton Sea


But I would never write that post again. In the last six years, I've changed my mind about a lot of stuff...

I've been hearing for several decades that Geothermal is great - and if you must know - I think it is better than the other pop fantasies about how "renewable energy will save us."

Now I'm asked to expect that granite is better than volcanic magma for geothermal energy.

I'll believe it when I see it, but frankly I don't expect to live long enough to put myself in the believer's corner.

[Dave Caputo]

22. High thermal conductivity

That's what makes granite preferable for the kind of geothermal power plant we are advocating for. The granite you sat on was cool for just that reason. The systems you describe are Open Loop systems. Ours is a Closed Loop system. Much different. The granite at 20,000+ feet is plenty hot enough to boil water, just expensive to get to the first time.

And this is not about belief, this about investment in research. Plenty of money has been spent/wasted on things with not even a fraction of the potential. There have been many advances in geothermal even in the past five years. There could be many more with proper funding.

[wtmusic]

7. 10% of US power by 2050 isn't enough.

With roughly the same construction costs as nuclear and a 20% failure rate it's an even bigger gamble.

There aren't "zero carbon emissions", there are actually considerable ones, and the long-term sustainability is doubtful. The wells' capacity tends to dry up over time.

I don't see this as being a solution that will move as fast as we need to.

[Dave Caputo]

12. There is no calculated "failure rate"

Because this, like the Hoover Dam in its time, is an investment with no direct construction experience. Each of the components has been successfully done before, but never all at once. The chances for failure are perhaps considerable, but I still think it's worth a shot.

Sure, there will be carbon emissions when the plant is constructed, just like there are carbon emissions involved with building and installing solar and wind components, but while the plant is operational there are no emissions because the plant is generating the power needed to keep the pumps running, and that's done by converting the hot water pumped up from below into steam via a heat exchanger.

You can doubt all you want about the long-term sustainability, but without experiment and testing, we'll never know. Our theories about the thermal conductivity of granitic domes suggests that sustainability into the tens of decades is not only possible, but likely. Geothermal works created in Bath England by the Romans are still working a thousand years after their construction, so it certainly is possible to have geothermal be extremely sustainable, if done correctly.

The well will not dry up over time, because it's a closed loop system that doesn't require the constant addition of fresh water. Once it's full, it'll run for a while, especially with filtering, etc to remove buildups of various kinds. As for the heat "drying up", that's where the thermal conductivity of granitic domes provides sufficient recharge rates to prevent this from happening.

With proper funding, we could bring a 160mw Power Plant on-line within two to three years for $600 million, with additional 40mw modular expansions possible for $120 million each. Fossil fuel plant construction costs are around $20 million / kw, so a 160 mw plant would cost $320 million to build, but then you have to feed it fuel. The capital costs for a geothermal plant are analogous to those for a large hydro dam. Costs a lot to build, but then you pretty much just sit there and watch it run. Unless something screws up, it just chugs along merrily generating power for free.

So, respectfully, I must disagree with your assertions.

[wtmusic]

15. There is quite a bit of experience

and though the energy is boundless, harnessing it on a large scale could require so many resources as to make it impractical:

Geothermal power requires no fuel (except for pumps), and is therefore immune to fuel cost fluctuations, but capital costs are significant. Drilling accounts for over half the costs, and exploration of deep resources entails significant risks. A typical well doublet (extraction and injection wells) in Nevada can support 4.5 megawatts (MW) and costs about $10 million to drill, with a 20% failure rate.

Carbon emissions come out of the well itself:

Fluids drawn from the deep earth carry a mixture of gases, notably carbon dioxide (CO2), hydrogen sulfide (H2S), methane (CH4) and ammonia (NH3). These pollutants contribute to global warming, acid rain, and noxious smells if released. Existing geothermal electric plants emit an average of 122 kilograms (269 lb) of CO2 per megawatt-hour (MW·h) of electricity, a small fraction of the emission intensity of conventional fossil fuel plants.<13> Plants that experience high levels of acids and volatile chemicals are usually equipped with emission-control systems to reduce the exhaust.

For the same price with nuclear, we get no carbon emissions and a dependable return on our investment.

When I said "dry up" I wasn't referring to water, I was talking about energy:

Even though geothermal power is globally sustainable, extraction must still be monitored to avoid local depletion. Over the course of decades, individual wells draw down local temperatures and water levels until a new equilibrium is reached with natural flows. The three oldest sites, at Larderello, Wairakei, and the Geysers have experienced reduced output because of local depletion. Heat and water, in uncertain proportions, were extracted faster than they were replenished. If production is reduced and water is reinjected, these wells could theoretically recover their full potential.

The key word is theoretically. You're saying there's a new approach that could make these concerns disappear if it paid off. The problem is that no one in politics or business will put their career on the line to take a $.6billion leap of faith on (mostly) untested technology.

The outlook is similar to solar: in some locations and scenarios it can contribute to the power mix, but there's scant evidence it will be practical enough to become a major player.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_energy

[madokie]

16. I understand what the man is talking about is a closed loop system

with a heat exchanger. So where would the pollutants come from? I'm at a loss here, help me out if you would?

[wtmusic]

17. In a closed loop emissions would be from drilling only

and insignificant.

There's no evidence that closed loop is practical for large-scale electrical generation.

[madokie]

20. Do you know that for a fact?

I want to think I've read about closed loop geo-thermal. Lots of reason for not using the steam straight out of the ground, one being because of the abrasive nature of the gas/steam.

I don't have time right now to go looking but I think you're wrong. I'm sure someone will fill us in before its all said and done

[wtmusic]

23. Closed loop geothermal is used to heat homes

and is inefficient for power generation. AFAIK, it's never been tested on a commercial scale.

A big pig in a poke.

[Nihil]

26. That irritating misuse of terms has raised its head again ...

> Closed loop geothermal is used to heat homes
> and is inefficient for power generation.

Ground Source Heat Loops (a.k.a. Ground Source Heat Pumps) are used
to heat homes and are unsuitable for power generation. These are
directly comparable to Air Source Heat Pumps and Water Source Heat Pumps.

Geothermal energy (a.k.a. "hot rocks") involves temperatures that are
an order of magnitude higher and these *are* suitable for power generation
(albeit at MW rather than GW levels).

GSHLs require shallow (near-surface) excavation/drilling and use the
thermal inertia of the ground to release stored heat.

Geothermal plants require deep (hundreds/thousands of metres) drilling
and use the thermal energy of deep geologically heated rocks.

GSHLs are - by definition - closed loop systems that can last for
a long time (determined by the durability of the loop material under
non-stressful conditions) - excluding accidental damage (e.g., some
dipstick putting a drill or JCB scoop through the loop).

Most geothermal plants today are open loop systems that can pollute
(through extracted impurities), disrupt (cause earthquakes) and
deteriorate in decades (due to pumping hot highly corrosive fluids
around and also through cooling of source rocks to the point where
the temperature gradient is uneconomic on a capital-expensive project).

There is no physical reason why a closed loop geothermal plant cannot
be operated but the financial reasons tend to rule the roost: it costs
more to set up (being bleeding edge rather than cookie-cutter) and the
efficiency is slightly lower (indirect rather than direct). This means
that - as for nearly every other field - the cheap & nasty option is
taken rather than the more expensive & cleaner one.

As such, the proposal being discussed is new and - obviously - has not
been tested on a commercial scale yet (hence the press releases, search
for funding, etc.) but there is no reason why it cannot replace the
existing geothermal generation techniques for future - genuinely
renewable - projects.

The main problem has been the dumbing down of renewable energy terms by
the US marketing people (possibly to aim at their audience of illiterate
bankers and willing but naive members of the general public) which has
made people think that "GSHL" = "Geothermal" ...

:grr:

:rant:

[IDemo]

27. "Geothermal Heat Pump" is used by the DOE and trade organizations

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/geothermal/heatpumps.html

The geothermal heat pump, also known as the ground source heat pump, is a highly efficient renewable energy technology that is gaining wide acceptance for both residential and commercial buildings. Geothermal heat pumps are used for space heating and cooling, as well as water heating. Its great advantage is that it works by concentrating naturally existing heat, rather than by producing heat through combustion of fossil fuels.

http://www.energysavers.gov/your_home/space_heating_cooling/index.cfm/mytopic=12640

Geothermal heat pumps (sometimes referred to as GeoExchange, earth-coupled, ground-source, or water-source heat pumps) have been in use since the late 1940s. Geothermal heat pumps (GHPs) use the constant temperature of the earth as the exchange medium instead of the outside air temperature.

http://www.geoexchange.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=119&Itemid=15
The Geothermal Exchange Organization (GEO) is The Voice of the Geothermal Heat Pump Industry in the United States. As a non-profit trade association, we promote the manufacture, design and installation of GeoExchange® systems—the most energy efficient and environmentally friendly heating and cooling technology in the world.

The term "thermal" doesn't necessarily mean "hot" in physics -

Thermal energy can simply be described as a flow of energy, or a means of energy that is moving from one system or state to another. As the energy moves from one state to another, a difference in temperature will occur. This difference in temperature is noted as the thermal energy.

[wtmusic]

28. "there is no reason why it cannot replace

the existing geothermal generation techniques..."

How do you know this to be true? Why havent "US marketing people" (whoever that is) wisely invested all of their funds in GSHL, if it's so promising?

Like most renewable projects, there's quite a bit of "if only we could spend your $600 million on our idea, we'd have the answer to our future power needs...".

A bad sign.

[Dave Caputo]

31. Geo Heat Pumps have widespread adoption

And are only getting more popular, especially with large buildings, super-especially when heating oil prices go through the roof.

There is no mystery about that technology, only relatively high capital costs.

The US military is now one of the biggest investors in the world re: Geothermal Heat Pumps.

See http://cleantechnica.com/2010/07/10/geothermal-energy-could-make-the-department-of-defense-a-supplier-of-u-s-energy-not-just-a-consumer/">this article for more info on that.

And I disagree with your premise, much more than $600 million was spent developing nuclear power, and the concepts presented could be proven, or disproven, for a lot less than $600 million.

[wtmusic]

33. Geo heat pumps drilled to a depth of 425 feet have widespread adoption

Whether heat pumps using multi-kilometer-deep wells are practical is a big question mark.

This seems to have received a lot of enthusiasm in 2004-2005 when the Army was looking for ways to provide power to the Iraqis, and they came upon the idea of using the hot water which comes out of oil wells as a source. Applying their research to the US, the Army concluded that existing oil fields in Texas, Arkansas, and Alabama might be capable of each generating 1.5MW of power (for comparison, San Onofre generates 600x that).

Southern Methodist University seems to have an ambitious geothermal program. I found this link at their website:

"Many challenges

The characteristic target for initial large-scale geothermal development is EGS (Enhanced Geothermal System) exploitation and has been considered to be associated with hot, deep, basement settings. This is especially so in the western US, where commercial electrical development is currently occurring.

The problem with development in this setting is that drilling characteristics, stress situations, and lithologic details remain poorly constrained and the water supply is uncertain. Since most economic geothermal wells flow at 1,000-5,000 gpm, the probability of obtaining similar flow rates, even in stimulated bedrock reservoirs, is low, not to mention geographically restricted. Second, the energy required to pump the fluid to the surface will generally be a significant fraction of the energy obtained by passing the fluid through a heat exchanger.

<>

So as currently envisaged, EGS-type situations in the western US are unlikely to generate significant electricity in the US in the immediate future."

http://smu.edu/geothermal/publications/Oil&GASJ2005_McKenna.pdf

This article is from 2005. Has anything changed since then?

[Dave Caputo]

35. Not talking about EGS (Enhanced Geothermal Systems)

EGS is an Open Loop model. Our proposal involves Closed Loop, Engineered (not blasted) Heat-Exchanger systems.

We're also not proposing it initially in the Western states. We are proposing to identify and utilize specific geological formations that we believe have extra-high thermal conductivity and and very stable geology which makes them ideal candidates for the type of systems we have in mind. There are several good location prospects in New England. We are initially seeking funding to investigate these candidate locations to see if further research is warranted.

The capacity of these plants would start at 160mw, and be expandable in 40mw increments.

We are opposed to EGS. We feel that it's problems far outweigh its benefits. This is NOT EGS. This is brand new stuff. It's untested in an absolute sense but we have industry partners that believe it's certainly worth further study and potentially revolutionary.

[wtmusic]

36. Ah, ok.

How did you arrive at the 160MW number?

[Dave Caputo]

30. Well said

Thank you for that very articulate addition to the discussion.

[madokie]

37. read post 35

[PamW]

59. Correct

Correct you are. For modest power requirements, like heating a
home, the low conductivity of the rock which limits the energy flow
rate, can give you enough energy per time to meet the heat demand
for home heating applications.

However, to meet the energy demands of a large power plant, the maximum
energy flow rate due to the low thermal conductivity of rock and minerals
is insufficient. Remember we use rocks and minerals of various forms as
thermal insulators. They have very low thermal conductivity.

You want a nice insulated home - build it in the ground.

PamW

[Dave Caputo]

81. The plan is for harvesting DEEP heat

With a massive engineered heat-exchanger at a depth of 20,000+ feet. Our data suggests that it would work, but of course proving the resource is one of the things we're seeking funding to investigate.

[PamW]

58. It won't be "closed"

The thermal conductivity of rock and minerals found at depth is very low.
So if you sunk a closed loop, you'd cool off a region near your well, but
then your power plant would have to stop and wait for more heat energy to
diffuse into the region around your well. Closed systems are not
practical.

What is done is to pump water down one well and pump it up another well.
However, when you do that, the water becomes saturated with dissolved
minerals. When you bring that water up to the surface and run it through
a heat exchanger, the drop in temperature of the water because you are
taking energy out, also drops the solubility of the minerals. Those
minerals then fall out of solution and plug-up your heat exchanger.

You have to have some mechanism to continually remove the dissolved minerals
from your working fluid, and this becomes a waste stream, usually toxic.

PamW

[Dave Caputo]

64. Hence Granitic Domes

It is our theory that granitic domes have very high thermal conductivity, which would mitigate the problem you raise. There needs to be more research in this area, which is what we are advocating for.

[PamW]

67. Granite conductivity

The thermal conductivity of granite is about 2.2 watts/meter/degree K

Compare that to ordinary earth at 1.7 watts/meter / degree K, which one
would normally consider an insulator.

Materials that have good conductivity are Aluminum at 200 w/m/K, or
copper at 386 w/m/K .....

Granite is relatively LOW in thermal conductivity, but it's the
best that you are going to find in a natural formation.

Of course, there's nothing new here at all. This type of geothermal
generation has been considered many times in the past, going back many
decades. Every time, the scientists reached the same conclusion that it
wasn't worth pursuing for large power generation because of the limitations
I mentioned.

PamW

[Dave Caputo]

70. Deep drilling makes a big difference

The plan we have takes advantages of many advances in deep-earth drilling that have been developed by the oil industry during the past decade, particularly with regards to using hydrostatic pressure to counteract lithostatic pressure at >10,000 foot depths.

[Dave Caputo]

19. Nuclear, eh?

Your statement:

"For the same price with nuclear, we get no carbon emissions and a dependable return on our investment."

Is incomplete.

It should also say:

and potentially unresolvable long-term nuclear waste disposal problems (which there still is no long-term solution for), vigorous political opposition and the certainty of protests and lawsuits, the chance of catastrophic failure, the risk of nuclear materials falling into unfriendly hands, and the high costs of decommissioning.

Other than that, sure nukes are an option.

We're trying to suggest that bold action be taken to prove (or disprove) this technology as a creative and viable option.

The upside is extremely high. The downside is that we'll spend a lot of money and not get much from it.

The money, though, in the grand scheme, especially compared to your average experimental military program, many of which are just a pure boondoggles, is minor.

Given the potential, we think it's worth a shot.

[wtmusic]

24. Yucca Mountain is a perfectly acceptable long-term disposal solution

which was killed by Obama as a political favor to Harry Reid for getting him elected. I've been through this debate many, many times, and it ends with the choice of two horrors: Yucca Mountain failing in a time scale of 10,000 years or less, or the planet becoming unliveable due to runaway global warming in three hundred years or less. You decide.

There will be vigorous political opposition and the certainty of protests and lawsuits, but ignorance has always been unpredictable and is a fight worth taking on. There is more of a justified danger in geothermally-induced earthquakes:

"Demonstration projects are operational in Landau-Pfalz, Germany, and Soultz-sous-Forêts, France, while an earlier effort in Basel, Switzerland was shut down after it triggered earthquakes."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_energy

The chance of catastrophic failure is virtually nil. Nuclear power has a better safety record than solar (including Chernobyl, which incidentally is a design the US never used). Solar has a higher fatality rate per MW due to people falling off roofs putting up panels.

Nuclear fuel is about 8% U235; weapons-grade is 90% and above. Whatever unfriendly hands nuclear fuel falls into will be very busy enriching it by 82% (natural uranium in the ground is about .7% U235, so nuclear fuel is only about 10x more potent than the stuff coming out of the earth).

Last spring I visited San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station in California. They have 2,000 full-time employees, of which 500 are employed in security. The most dangerous part of the plant is nuclear waste stored onsite, which would be stored safely at Yucca were it not for bad politics and ignorance.

Decommissioning costs are high, but that will likely be obviated in newer designs. I will agree with you completely that if military boondoggles were done away with we would have more than enough money to explore closed-loop geothermal.

[Dave Caputo]

29. Long term nuke waste storage, Yuk...

Well the people of Nevada don't think that Yucca Mountain is a good idea, and neither do I. The ONLY solution, as far as I see it, is to just NOT make any more of the stuff. I'm glad you're confident, but that does not make me so. We got tons of the long-term poison already here, but making more is simply inexcusable in my opinion. You mention a time-scale of 10,000 years, but the stuff will be deadly poison (i.e. highly radioactive) for HUNDREDS of thousands of years.

I see that you've narrowed your scope of the future to the choice between "two horrors". My vision isn't that limited.

If the "chance of catastrophic failure" was truly "nil", then why on earth aren't the insurance companies clamoring to underwrite policies for these plants. Without the Price Anderson Act, no commercial nuclear power plants would EVER have been built, because nobody wanted to insure them, because the risk of catastrophic failure is quite significantly higher than "nil".

The geothermal projects you refer to that caused earthquakes were OPEN LOOP Geothermal projects, significantly different than CLOSED LOOP Geothermal, which does NOT involve shock-wave-inducing hydro-fracking. THIS is what causes the earthquakes, not the operation of the geothermal plant itself.

In my mind, there is no choice for the long-term future of humanity except working past both fossil fuels AND nuclear. NEITHER are sustainable in any sense of the word that I understand.

[wtmusic]

34. So you recommend keeping the stuff we already have on site, then.

Keeping thousands of tons of high-level waste spread out at 120 sites across the US, every one of which is much more susceptible to corrosion, groundwater seepage, attack, theft, you name it - is just plain irresponsible.

How many people have been killed in the US due to commercial nuclear power, which provides 20% of the energy you're using to type right now? Answer: zero.

How many people die from burning coal in the US every year? Answer: an estimated 25,100. These deaths could be prevented by building more nuclear plants now. It's unlikely that geothermal will make a dent in that number in the foreseeable future.

You criticize my vision as being limited, fine. I haven't seen any evidence that your "vision" is practical, and because of that, devoting scant resources to it is not only unwise but dangerous.

[Dave Caputo]

38. It's the generation of nuclear waste in the first place

That's the problem. What to do with what we already have just illustrates how impractical nuclear really is.

Creating MORE thousands of tons of the most toxic and longest lasting poison on Earth does not seem like a practical, or ecological, solution to our long-term energy challenges.

I'm agitating for funding to create the evidence you're looking for. Is this an area that you consider unsuitable for investigation?

Has the world reached a dead-end for energy production with 1960's style http://starkravingviking.blogspot.com/2010/12/vermont-yankee-nuclear-plant-problems.html">fission reaction nuclear?

I certainly hope not. We're screwed if that's true.

If it's so safe, why can't nuclear plants get standard commercial liability insurance? Why don't they eschew the Price Anderson Act and pay the full freight to insure themselves as the underwriters (read free market) calculate it? Why? Because suddenly, if they paid market price for insurance, they would not be able to make a profit from generating electricity in nuclear plants.

It's that simple. Advocate for nuclear all you want, but the economics say that without a massive government subsidy, far in excess of the funding levels I'm seeking, nuclear is a dead letter.

How much money will it cost to build a high-level nuclear repository? Early estimates run in the ten billion dollar plus category. But my guess is that this is wildly low.

We messed our bed, now we have to clean it up, but that doesn't mean we should keep adding to our problem.

I'm trying to propose innovative, truly-green, baseload power generation alternatives that, in theory, should actually work.

This country was made great by people who defied the naysayers and pressed ahead with their visions to improve the way everyone lives.

I'm trying to follow their example. Shrugging my shoulders and saying, "Well I guess we've got no choice but nuclear," goes against the very grain of my being.

[wtmusic]

39. Every nuclear faciility in the US has standard commercial liability insurance

and in 53 years Price-Andersen has not paid out one penny. The $71 million tag for Three Mile Island, the accident that activists portray as a disaster, was completely covered under the utility's primary insurance. They had in fact paid "full freight".

Which goes to show, that even though nuclear is very close to being the safest source of large-scale commercial power, insurance requirements are based on public perception and not on actual risk. To that end, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is currently conducting a State-of-the-Art Reactor Consequence Analysis (SOARCA) which describes its mission as follows:

"The overarching purpose of this study is to provide the public and other stakeholders (including Federal, State, and local authorities) with more realistic information about potential consequences, which might result from a nuclear power plant accident, in the event of very unlikely scenarios that could release radioactive material into the environment. This study will also increase understanding of the extent and value of defense-in-depth features of plant design and operation, as well as mitigation strategies."

I would be ecstatic if your concept proved wildly successful, but investors want hard numbers and your lit is sorely lacking. How do you arrive at 160MW? Where's the analysis? :shrug:

[Dave Caputo]

44. Nuclear energy not economically viable

From a http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=275881&mesg_id=275881">post on this forum earlier.

[wtmusic]

46. Why do you keep avoiding an explanation of your 160MW figure? nt

[Dave Caputo]

50. Regarding the 160 mw figure

I'm not the engineering guy. Adminicus is an advocacy organization. The engineer for Atlantic Geothermal is not a DU member, but I will bring his attention to this post and get a written reply soon, which I will post here.

[wtmusic]

51. Thanks. nt

[Name removed]

61. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Dave Caputo]

65. Well opposition is a given

So you have to calculate that factor into the costs. I'm anti-nuke and I am NOT ignorant. Thank you very much. Until and unless there is a proven method to make nukes incapable of melting down in the case of a catastrophic accident or terrorist attack or act of war AND there is a proven method to safely and permanently dispose of the highly toxic nuclear waste, then I remain opposed and think that bright, creative, people can come up with a better way.

[PamW]

69. It doesn't have to be!!!

Until and unless there is a proven method to make nukes incapable of melting down in the case of a catastrophic accident or terrorist attack or act of war AND there is a proven method to safely and permanently dispose of the highly toxic nuclear waste, then I remain opposed...
----------------------------------------------

Your statement above proves that you do NOT know that we DO have
designs that are incapable of melting down....etc.

Although the present operating reactors can fail the core, as was done at Three Mile
Island, they can NOT meltdown in a manner that can escape the containment.
If nothing else, Three Mile Island Unit II proved that. Nobody was injured or killed,
and the radioactivity was fully contained. The operator intentionally released some
radioactivity in order to lessen the dose in an area they wanted to enter.

However, the level of exposure to the public was very low - much, much less than if
they all flew a flight on an airliner. When a couple thousand did sue Metropolitan
Edison, their case was dismissed with out submission to a jury:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/readings/tmi.html

"As is clear from the preceding discussion, the discrepancies between Defendants, proffer of evidence and that put forth by Plaintiffs in both volume and complexity are vast. The paucity of proof alleged in support of Plaintiffs, case is manifest. The court has searched the record for any and all evidence which construed in a light most favorable to Plaintiffs creates a genuine issue of material fact warranting submission of their claims to a jury. This effort has been in vain."


So with today's reactors, the public is protected; the utility is not.

However, we now have designs for reactors that are inherently safe like
Argonne National Laboratory's Integral Fast Reactor or IFR. From Frontline's
interview with nuclear physicist Dr Charles Till of Argonne:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/interviews/till.html

Q: The other aspect of the integral fast reactor is that it's one of a type of what's called passive reactors. What does this mean?

A: Well, the IFR has characteristics that are really quite different and superior to any other reactor that has yet been tried, because in the very nature of the materials that are used, it does not allow the reactor to be harmed in any way by the kinds of accidents that typically can happen to reactors, or indeed any other large plant. The electricity-producing plant reactor has a lot of valves, a lot of pumps, a lot of mechanical things that can go wrong. And the thing that you don't want to happen is to have the coolant, at once cooling the reactor and also then acting as the source of heat for steam to produce electricity. You don't want that flow to stop. That's what happened at TMI. That's what happened at Chernobyl. And if it does stop, then what happens? And in the IFR what happens is, the reactor just shuts itself down. There's no mechanical devices needed to do that. There's no operator interaction. There isn't anything. It's just in the nature of materials. When the coolant flow stops, the reaction stops. That's remarkable.

Q: So it's inherently safe.

A: So it's inherently safe. It's a remarkable feature.

Q: And you in fact ran an experiment that was comparable to what happened at Chernobyl?

A: Yes, yes. Let me go on a little bit about that, because it is a rather dramatic characteristic.
And there are two ways to cut off the coolant. One is that simply the pumps that are pumping the reactor stop. The reactor just shut itself down. And in the afternoon, we brought the reactor back up to full power again and did an accident situation where the reactor's unable to get rid of the heat it produces, because the heat normally is taken away by the electrical system, and so we isolated the electrical system from the plant, and the reactor then has to deal with the heat it produces itself. Again, another real accident situation. Again, the reactor just quietly shut itself down.


So we DO have designs that won't meltdown, and not just someone's estimate or a computer
simulation. Argonne built a prototype of the IFR ( using EBR-II ) and subjected it to the
same accident scenario that caused the Chernobyl RBMK to spew radioactivity around the Ukraine.

As I alluded to in other posts, the IFR also solves the nuclear waste issue - no transportation
of waste, no long term waste, and no proliferation risk.

PamW

[Dave Caputo]

82. But Tokyo officials say "don't drink the water"

Yesterday, Tokyo officials announced contamination of tap water by iodine-131 and advised parents not to give tap water to infants.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-24/politics-radiation-to-decide-fate-of-land-near-japan-s-fukushima-reactor.html">Read the full story from Bloomburg

[PamW]

83. Today they retracted it.

Yesterday, Tokyo officials announced contamination of tap water by iodine-131 and advised parents not to give tap water to infants.
-------------------------

Today that warning was retracted. Additionally from the
Herald Tribune:

http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20110323/API/1103230526?p=4&tc=pg

The limits refer to sustained consumption rates, and officials said parents should stop feeding tap water to babies but that it was no problem if the infants already had consumed small amounts.

The amounts are too low to pose any real risk, even to infants who are being fed water-based formula or to breast-fed infants whose mothers drink tap water, said Dr. Harold Swartz, a professor of radiology and medicine at Dartmouth Medical School in the U.S.

[Dave Caputo]

84. And then they announced this: "Likely Breach of Plutonium Reactor" - This is double plus not good.

http://www.japantoday.com/category/national/view/radiation-10000-times-normal-level-found-in-water-that-hit-workers">High radiation leak suggests damage to No. 3 reactor vessel: agency

Think they'll retract this too?

or how about the issues raised in this article?

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2014592407_quake25.html">More questions than answers about Japan nuclear crisis

Do you think the Japanese government, and the nuclear industry in general, has a good track record when it comes to being candid and truthful? I think that history and current events would suggest not.

[kristopher]

85. Speaking of that...

what is your opinion on this?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x734833

[PamW]

91. I don't think the MIT students are worried about their jobs..

I don't think the MIT students are concerned about their jobs.

The prospect for jobs in the commercial nuclear power industry has been
bleak for years and will remain so.

However, for years now the graduates of nuclear engineering programs at
MIT and University of Michigan have been getting jobs in the USA's
nuclear weapons program.

In case you haven't heard, the Obama Administration is ramping up the
US nuclear weapons program and will continue to do so thanks to the
Kyl Amendment to the ratification of the latest START arms control agreement.

The Kyl Amendment makes the ratification of the START Treaty conditional
on Obama maintaining the ramp up in the nuclear weapons program that he has
outlined.

It would have been nice if we had a health nuclear power program to divert these
bright minds away from the nuclear weapons program, but I'm not worrying for the
MIT students.

PamW

[wtmusic]

89. Still waiting

on how you calculate a geothermal well can provide 160MW of power.

Thanks.

[Dave Caputo]

95. Just got the info

I'm going to review and post soon. Thanks for your patience.

[Dave Caputo]

96. Calculations to determine 160mw

This is the information I got. I'm not an engineer so I can't speak to it personally, but please post questions and I'll have them answered as best I can.

Dave: Calculations that may help you, this means the power plant above ground system would be processing 60,456 gpm of water.

This is work done by Dr. Al Koeing,

Proposed 30,000 ft geothermal project. This assumes hot side temp of 300 F; cold side of 160 F. Based on 160 MWe, the required heating rate from the geothermal system is 4231 MBTUH, which includes a conversion eff. of 12.9% (70% of Carnot). In a 1 mile header with spacing every 40’, the number of 1500’ pipes is 132 and the flowrate per pipe is 458 gpm. The pressure drop through a 2x1500’ x 6” hollowed rock is 25 psi.

The real issue here is the diameter of the 30,000 ft hole that feeds the 1 mile header. The total flow is 60,450 gpm, which must be handled by the borehole diameter (half downcomer & half upcomer). At this flowrate, the bore diameter must be around 5’ in order to limit the dynamic pressure drop over the 30,000 ft span.

I give you this spread sheet to allow you to modify the inputs as you see fit.

gl

Al Koenig

www.ARBgeowell.com


David Reynolds: to produce 4,231 MBTUH with a geothermal closed loop system, thermal diffusivity can be used to calculate surface area of ground loop required.

Thermal conductivity (BTU∙in/hr∙ft²∙°F) / Density (lb/in³) X Specific heat capacity (BTU/lb∙°F) x 144 = Thermal diffusivity (in²/hr)

4,231 MBTU/ bore hole production BTU = number of bore holes required

Surface area of borehole 3,000 ft long 6 inch diameter is: circumference times the length (2*Pie*R)(length) 2 X 3.14 X 3 X 12inch X 3000 ft = 678,240 in² each bore hole



Quartz/ Granite high quality

(7626.960 conductivity/ 0.0957 Density* .83 Specific heat capacity) = 2791.685 BTUH in²



Each borehole can produce (2791.685 BTUH)( 678,240 in²) = 1,892,967,840 BTUH



4,231,000,000/1,892,967,840= 2.235 bore holes would be required, however to get optimal flow rates 132 bore holes would be used.

[PamW]

66. How is nuclear not economically viable?

Nuclear not being economically viable is the typical message from
the anti-nukes. The facts speak otherwise.

Nuclear power is used successfully in France, Britain, Japan, Sweden...
and in the USA, in the Commonwealth Edison service area that serves
Chicago and northern Illinois. The Commonwealth Edison service area
is like a little French island of nuclear power, the percentage of
power derived from nuclear reactors rivals France; in the high 80
percentile.

Commonwealth Edison successfully serves a large industrial area with
a large industrial load, and does it in a cost effective manner. Neither
Commonwealth Edison, nor its parent company Exelon is going out of business,
and the residents / industries of the are pay rates that are competitive with
other forms of electric energy generation.

Of all forms, coal is the cheapest with a bussbar cost of about 1.9 cents per
kw-h ( and a whole bunch of externalized costs like pollution ). Nuclear is
about 2.0 cents per kw-h ( with the costs of waste disposal, decommissioning..
all internalized in the cost structure ).

Actually, I believe Exelon claims that their nuclear units run at costs just
slightly cheaper than what coal would. When you have a lot of nuclear plants
and know how to run them efficiently, nuclear is quite economically viable.

There's an additional benefit for the area. The large industrial load means gas at
about 5 cents per kw-h is relatively expensive. If not for nuclear, the area would
have to meet the that large demand with coal, which is what was used prior to nuclear.
However, coal is delivered in big piles, and the proximity to the Great Lakes makes the
air humid, and in the winter time when the area gets bitter cold - the combination of
coal piles + humidity + bitter cold = frozen piles of coal. It was not uncommon for
coal power plants to have to shutdown because their fuel was frozen solid.

People like me who grew up in the Midwest many year ago know about brownouts in the
winter due to frozen coal piles. Losing electricity in a Midwest winter is a big
problem - your furnace needs electricity to work. The control system is electric,
and the blower is electric. In the Midwest, when electricity fails; the next morning
you'll probably read about some poor family that attempted to use the gas stove to
keep warm. Gas stoves were made to cook meals, and not heat houses. The poor family
was either killed by the fumes, or a fire ensued in which the family perished.

Nuclear has no such problem. All the fuel for about 18 months of running is contained
in the reactor.

Nuclear power plants are very expensive to build, and face the problem of public
acceptance spurred on by the anti-nukes. However, when they are built, they produce
LOTS of energy.

So if the anti-nukes don't obstruct and interfere, nuclear power is quite economically viable.

PamW

[Dave Caputo]

79. Because an accident costs BILLIONS to deal with.

And that makes it not economically viable, in my eyes, long term, as the aging fleet of nukes will suffer from more accidents as they get closer to structural uselessness (because of brittlization). A tiny fraction of the cost to clean up one nuke disaster could prove, or disprove, our plans to replace nukes with deep-earth, closed-loop, geothermal electric generation plants.

[PamW]

88. and the nuclear industry is insured to the limit calculated by BNL

Because an accident costs BILLIONS to deal with.
================================================

Yes - and as dictated by the Price-Anderson Act, the nuclear industry insures
its reactors to the limit of what a potential accident could cause as calculated
by scientists at Brookhaven National Laboratory.

If there were an accident, and the insurance coverage was insufficient, the
Government first pays any overages so that individuals are made whole, and then
the nuclear industry has to reimburse the Government.

We see what caused the problem in Japan, a mega-tsunami and a plant that had its
backup diesel generators in the basement, and the fuel tanks for same at ground level.
That plant could not have been licensed in the USA.

In the USA, the diesel generators need to be protected from flooding, and the fuel tanks
have to be buried. So a US-licensed power plant could have ridden out that tsunami without
the problems the Japanese are experiencing.

In the USA, there has been only one serious nuclear power plant accident, Three Mile Island,
and the damages to the public were about $70 million dollars in hotel bills for people that
evacuated.

I know it really irks the anti-nukes that the USA hasn't had a billion dollar accident for
them to crow about.

As for the Japanese situation, pretend this was an airline disaster instead of a nuclear one.
Suppose Boeing told all airlines flying 747s that they needed to replace some widget with a
new redesigned widget. Suppose the US airlines complied, but that JAL didn't. Then one of
JAL's 747s crashes because the old widget in that plane broke.

What would we do? Would we say that Boeing 747s are fatally flawed and permanently ground them?
Would we say all Boeing wide-bodies are fatally flawed and permanently ground the 747, 767, and
777.

Would we say all Boeing aircraft are fatally flawed and permanently ground them and only fly
on Airbus.

Would we say that all commercial jet aircraft are fatally flawed and permanently ground them?

NO - we would chalk the crash up to the failure of JAL to properly update and maintain their jets.

Because other airlines and other airliners don't have the problem that JAL ignored, we would
continue to fly them safely. The JAL crash wouldn't speak at all to the safety of the jets
that were properly maintained. That's the only intelligent reaction.

PamW

[kristopher]

86. Economically viable - do you even understand the term?

It means it is a market product, not a product that is directed to be built by government fiat. Of couse, if by "economically viable" you are saying that we can use the same economic model for nuclear power as we use for building aircraft carriers...

CBO estimate on nuclear loan guarantees

For this estimate, CBO assumes that the first nuclear plant built using a federal loan guarantee would have a capacity of 1,100 megawatts and have associated project costs of $2.5 billion. We expect that such a plant would be located at the site of an existing nuclear plant and would employ a reactor design certified by the NRC prior to construction. This plant would be the first to be licensed under the NRC’s new licensing procedures, which have been extensively revised over the past decade.

Based on current industry practices, CBO expects that any new nuclear construction project would be financed with 50 percent equity and 50 percent debt. The high equity participation reflects the current practice of purchasing energy assets using high equity stakes, 100 percent in some cases, used by companies likely to undertake a new nuclear construction project. Thus, we assume that the government loan guarantee would cover half the construction cost of a new plant, or $1.25 billion in 2011.

CBO considers the risk of default on such a loan guarantee to be very high—well above 50 percent. The key factor accounting for this risk is that we expect that the plant would be uneconomic to operate because of its high construction costs, relative to other electricity generation sources. In addition, this project would have significant technical risk because it would be the first of a new generation of nuclear plants, as well as project delay and interruption risk due to licensing and regulatory proceedings.

Note the price - $2.5 billion was to be only for the first plant. Future plants were, according to the assumptions provided by the nuclear industry, expected to have lower costs as economy of scale resulted in savings.

In fact, since the report was written (2003), the estimated cost has risen to an average of about $8 billion.

Wonder what that does to the “risk is that … the plant would be uneconomic to operate because of its high construction costs, relative to other electricity generation sources”?

Does that risk diminish or increase when the price rises from $2.5 billion to $8 billion?

[PamW]

87. I mean a market product also.

It means it is a market product, not a product that is directed to be built by government fiat. Of couse, if by "economically viable" you are saying that we can use the same economic model for nuclear power as we use for building aircraft carriers...
================================

I mean a market product also. The present fleet of reactors are "cash cows" for
their owners.

The problem with new reactors is due to the "Shoreham Effect" What the potential
new reactor builders are worried about is what happened to LILCO when it built Shoreham,
as well as Consumer's Power's MIdland....

The concern is that they could do everything correct and build a properly built
nuclear power plant, but as which happened with Shoreham, the State Public Utility
Commission ruled that the amount of money that the utility can charge for the power
of the new nuclear power plant is $0.00 per kw-hour.

Such an action by the State can kill a massive investment by the company. THAT
is what the loan guarantees are all about. In the absence of Congress passing a law
that says the States can't discriminate against a nuclear power plant just because it's
nuclear, the power companies need some assurance that they won't be told they can't use
the plant to make money.

If Congress would pass a law to forbid discrimination by State and local governments, then
the nuclear industry wouldn't need those loan guarantees.

PamW

[kristopher]

90. The present fleet of nuclear plants has been paid for twice - once by taxpayers, again by ratepayers

With substantial contributions from investors that lost their shirts in a huge number of bankruptcies.

USC 2010 subsidies report
http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/nuclear_power/nuclear_subsidies_report.pdf




This is the real status of today's nuclear plants:
CBO estimate on nuclear loan guarantees

For this estimate, CBO assumes that the first nuclear plant built using a federal loan guarantee would have a capacity of 1,100 megawatts and have associated project costs of $2.5 billion. We expect that such a plant would be located at the site of an existing nuclear plant and would employ a reactor design certified by the NRC prior to construction. This plant would be the first to be licensed under the NRC’s new licensing procedures, which have been extensively revised over the past decade.

Based on current industry practices, CBO expects that any new nuclear construction project would be financed with 50 percent equity and 50 percent debt. The high equity participation reflects the current practice of purchasing energy assets using high equity stakes, 100 percent in some cases, used by companies likely to undertake a new nuclear construction project. Thus, we assume that the government loan guarantee would cover half the construction cost of a new plant, or $1.25 billion in 2011.

CBO considers the risk of default on such a loan guarantee to be very high—well above 50 percent. The key factor accounting for this risk is that we expect that the plant would be uneconomic to operate because of its high construction costs, relative to other electricity generation sources. In addition, this project would have significant technical risk because it would be the first of a new generation of nuclear plants, as well as project delay and interruption risk due to licensing and regulatory proceedings.

Note the price - $2.5 billion was to be only for the first plant. Future plants were, according to the assumptions provided by the nuclear industry, expected to have lower costs as economy of scale resulted in savings.

In fact, since the report was written (2003), the estimated cost has risen to an average of about $8 billion.

Wonder what that does to the “risk is that … the plant would be uneconomic to operate because of its high construction costs, relative to other electricity generation sources”?

Does that risk diminish or increase when the price rises from $2.5 billion to $8 billion?


ETA: Congress DID pass a law. The 2005 energy act gave the nuclear industry immunity for any and all civil actions - including courts and legislative interference. It ALSO guarantees up to $500,000,000 PER PLANT to defray additional expenses if delays are required by the regulators.
IF people think the protection given fracking is bad wait until they get a load of what the nuclear industry has been gifted with.

AND THEY STILL CAN'T BUILD AN ECONOMICALLY VIABLE PLANT.

[PamW]

92. Nonsense graphics aside...

AND THEY STILL CAN'T BUILD AN ECONOMICALLY VIABLE PLANT
=========================

Nonsense graphics aside from questionable sources, there is one
thing that proves the current fleet of plants is economically viable.

A large portion of the US fleet of nuclear power plants are owned by
the two companies "Exelon" and "Entergy". Nuclear power makes up the
bulk of their capacity. Exelon is 93% nuclear:

http://www.exeloncorp.com/energy/generation/generation.aspx

So where does all that money that Exelon rakes in as profit come from?

Don't tell me it comes from the taxpayer, because it doesn't. Show me
a part of the federal budget which shows payment by the Government to
Exelon or to someone else on behalf of Exelon. ( paying Exelon's bills ).

The anti-nukes love to tout the myth that the nuclear industry is
subsidized, but they can never show a line in the federal budget that
backs up what they say. When I ask, they always point to some component
of the USA's nuclear weapons budget.

They like to claim the insurance is subsidized. However, again, there is
ZERO payout of the Government for insurance premiums, and the Government
has paid ZERO in terms of claims. Some subsidy if it costs the Goverment
ZERO

PamW

[Dave Caputo]

94. I couldn't agree more

Good points.

[Terry in Austin]

40. Bzzt: "Acceptable" solution

"Acceptable" depends on who's doing the accepting.

It might be acceptable to you, but really, now: if somebody else doesn't accept it, that's a sign of ignorance? C'mon -- that's some pretty high-handed rhetoric, don't you think?

[wtmusic]

41. Not at all.

The alternative is far more dangerous, by any knowledgeable standard.

[Nihil]

42. Apparently the technique (if not the location) is acceptable to some strident anti-nukes too ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=273491&mesg_id=273502

If it's good enough for weapons-grade "waste" (*) it is certainly good enough
for the much lower-level power-grade "waste" (*).

:shrug:

(* where "waste" is an abbreviation for "unwanted bits of radioactive material"
regardless of whether recycling/reburning is a technically better use of the material)

[txlibdem]

52. I hate it when people call spent nuclear fuel "waste"

It can be used in a fast breeder to create electricity and the output from that can go back into a "standard" uranium reactor.

So-called waste is a natural resource -- one that we are currently wasting.

[Dave Caputo]

56. OK, let's just call it Poison then

Cause that's what it is. The most poisonous stuff on earth. And it will remain poisonous for essentially forever, as far as human history and culture are concerned. How long do we have written history from? 10,000 years? Max?

The destructive life of this poison is well over ten times that.

Can't we do better than this to power our flat screen TVs?

[Name removed]

62. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[txlibdem]

63. You're only partially right

Look up my previous posts and you'll see that I regularly call for an energy mix that ends our use of fossil fuels by

40% nuclear power

60% solar PV, solar thermal, onshore wind farms, offshore wind farms, geothermal power, tidal power and wave power

... while retaining as much of the hydroelectric generation capacity as we can -- but global climate change is already

... taking a toll on hydroelectric power throughout the world, and will continue to do so.

We need them all to unseat fossil fuels off its current position of dominance over our lives. Notice that I include geothermal in that list. I also believe that each home should be a passive solar building and that we need to end our current farming practices (which are responsible for ~20% of our fossil fuel use) in favor of "vertical farming" skyscrapers which use hydroponics, aeroponics, aquaculture and grow pigs and chickens on the bottom floors to produce methane that will both fertilize the crops and provide much of the heat and electricity needed for its operation.

If we do two things simultaneously we win against the deadly fossil fuels, 1.) Reduce the energy usage of our buildings, houses, cars and everything else like using LED light bulbs instead of incandescent ones which waste 80% of their electrical energy producing waste heat, and 2.) Massively increase the above mentioned energy sources. At some point we will meet in the middle and be 100% free of fossil energy sources.

We need to at least double the number of nuclear power plants in order to have any chance of achieving that goal. We are running out of time to "study" and "plan" and we need decisive action -- and 40% nuclear is the best way to get the job done. Is it a perfect solution? No, but the waste from these nuclear power plants can be used as the feedstock for fast breeder reactors (contained on the same site as the nuclear power plant so there is no transporting needed). The breeder reactors make power while burning up all of the longest lived materials and at the same time producing as output fuel that can be used in the Gen III+ reactors being built in the near future.

[PamW]

68. Correct - we need a mixture and we need more nuclear like IFR

We need to at least double the number of nuclear power plants in order to have any chance of achieving that goal. We are running out of time to "study" and "plan" and we need decisive action -- and 40% nuclear is the best way to get the job done. Is it a perfect solution? No, but the waste from these nuclear power plants can be used as the feedstock for fast breeder reactors (contained on the same site as the nuclear power plant so there is no transporting needed).
=============================

"Actinide burner" reactors like fast breeder reactors can convert long-lived actinides ( plutonium )
into short-lived fission products.

One such design, is Argonne's Integral Fast Reactor. The IFR concept uses on-site
reprocessing / recycling. The entire process takes place within high radiation area of the
plant. Even if one did get access to the plutonium, the IFR made plutonium is impossible
to use in a nuclear weapon. See the interview with Argonne's Dr. Till:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/interviews/till.html

Q: So it would be very difficult to handle for weapons, would it?

A: It's impossible to handle for weapons, as it stands.

It's highly radioactive. It's highly heat producing. It has all of the characteristics
that make it extremely, well, make it impossible for someone to make a weapon.


This was confirmed one of the USA's own nuclear weapons design laboratories,
Lawrence Livermore. See the following letter to the New York Times from 2 US senators:

http://www.nytimes.com/1994/07/05/opinion/l-new-reactor-solves-plutonium-problem-586307.html

You are mistaken in suggesting that the reactor produces bomb-grade plutonium: it never
separates plutonium; the fuel goes into the reactor in a metal alloy form that contains
highly radioactive actinides. A recent Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory study indicates
that fuel from this reactor is more proliferation-resistant than spent commercial fuel,
which also contains plutonium.


I agree we should have all options available. It should be a competition. The problem is
so many anti-nukes don't want a free and open competition. They want a "rigged game."
They want to have the decision made "up front" to exclude nuclear. Of course, that really
says more about their belief in what they propose, than it says about nuclear. After all,
what are they afraid of? LOSING? to a better energy source?

PamW

[Dave Caputo]

72. Yea well it's all good until someone loses an eye...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/as_japan_earthquake">Explosion at Japanese Nuke Plant

[PamW]

60. Oft quoted MYTH

and potentially unresolvable long-term nuclear waste disposal problems
(which there still is no long-term solution for),
=============

This is the oft quoted MYTH from the anti-nukes. You only need long term
storage when you have long life radioisotopes to dispose of. However, if
you reprocess / recycle the long life radioisotopes, then you don't have a
long term storage problem. This is what the French, British, Japanese, Swedish...
do, and you don't see them looking for a mountain in the Alps to stick nuclear
waste.

If you reprocess / recycle, then you only have to isolated the relatively short
lived fission products, which are the true nuclear waste. Here is an interview
courtesy of PBS Frontline with a nuclear physicist from Argonne National Lab,
Dr. Charles Till:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/interviews/till.html

A: Eventually, what happens is that you wind up with only fission products, that the
waste is only fission products that have, most have lives of hours, days, months, some
a few tens of years. There are a few very long-lived ones that are not very radioactive.


Only the USA has a problem of disposing of long-lived waste because the anti-nukes
convinced Congress in 1978 to outlaw reprocessing / recycling in this country.

PamW

[Dave Caputo]

71. Residents Evacuated Near Japanese Nuke After Massive Earthquake

This is one of the problems with nuclear that you wouldn't have with Geothermal, and one of the reasons I'm opposed to nuclear power. Improving patterns of energy use and conservation/insulation could reduce the demand for electricity enough to eliminate nukes, in my opinion. But that's another matter.

Read this article: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110311/ap_on_bi_ge/as_japan_quake_power_plant">Nuke plant trouble after Japan quake - 3,000 evacuated

[Dave Caputo]

73. Nuclear meltdown in Japan. Nukes are good, eh?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/as_japan_earthquake">Nuclear Meltdown in Japan

[Dave Caputo]

74. More news about the Japanese core meltdowns

http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/on-the-record/transcript/inside-japan039s-nuclear-meltdown-fears">Japanese Core Meltdown News

[Dave Caputo]

75. Still more Japanese Nuclear Meltdown News

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Vpg8eleaeM">More Video Reports on Japanese Nuclear Meltdowns

[Dave Caputo]

76. The problem with Zirconium

Here's another article to dispute the Pro-Nuke BS that's been spouted on this thread.

Despite assurances to the contrary, Nuclear Power is Extremely Dangerous.

Here's another reason why: http://karlgrossman.blogspot.com/2011/03/hydrogen-zirconium-flashbulbs-and.html">Hydrogen, Zirconium, Flashbulbs -- and Nuclear Craziness

[Dave Caputo]

77. More Well-Researched Anti-Nuke Information

Since the pro-nukers seemed to gravitate to this post to spew their (what I think are) delusional posits, I'm trying to collect post-Japanese-earthquake-nuke-problem articles to add to the discussion. Here's another really good one from a real expert in nuclear safety. It was posted in this forum already but I'm doing this for continuity of the thread, as the matter has been engaged in, and I think that the problems of Nuclear reinforce my call for investments in research and development for Deep-Earth, Closed-Loop, Geothermal Electrical Generation.

http://theautomaticearth.blogspot.com/2011/03/march-13-2011-how-black-is-japanese.html">How Black is the Japanese Nuclear Swan?

[PamW]

93. "Expert"? HAH!

Here's another really good one from a real expert in nuclear safety.
=========================

Stoneleigh isn't what I call an "expert" in nuclear safety. Her training
is in law and economics - fuzzy stuff like that.

The true experts in nuclear safety are physicists and engineers. Those are
the people that can tell us what a nuclear reactor can and can not do based
on the laws of physics and Nature.

Lawyers don't tell you how dangerous or how safe something is.

I think we have a real difference in definition of an "expert".

It's like all the "experts" the media has been passing off on us these past
2 weeks. Most are anti-nukes, or policy wonks, and not scientists or engineers.

I saw a very few Professors of Nuclear Engineering, who are the real experts,
in the media of late.

PamW

[Confusious]

25. Where are the domes located?

I remember I was reading about a company who was doing this, their failure rate for drilling was something like 19 out of 20. They also estimated dry up at 20 years or so.

The only reason the geothermals are in Bath is because of a hot spring there. Nature made it, so it'll be around a while. Humans drilling holes all over the place, I don't know.

All for research, I just don't really think it'll work in time.

Of course, if you're working for the administration, I expect you'll say global warming is no big deal and it's not going to be happening for a while, so we have all the time in the world.

[Dave Caputo]

32. Here is the map of domes in Massachusetts

http://www.umass.edu/loop/talkingpoints/articles/114847.php">UMass Gets Research Grant for Geothermal

I've spoken with Governor Deval Patrick about this very grant and he's aware of it and enthusiastic about this type of research. We're working with the new Secretary of Energy and Environmental Affairs and several state Senators and Reps to try to get additional state support for this kind of research, and expand it to issues of thermal conductivity.

[XemaSab]

11. I don't know why there isn't aggressive geothermal exploration

in Northern California up through Oregon and Washington.

I can see two active volcanoes from my house, so why not tap into that? Hell, I'd rather see a giant geothermal plant constructed in Mineral, CA than a snotload of windmills, which is what they're proposing.

[Dave Caputo]

45. 99% of the Earth is over 1000 degrees C

All the energy we'll ever need is right below our feet. We just have to figure out how to get at it, which is what we're proposing.

[wtmusic]

47. 1.9 million exajoules of energy from the Sun reach the Earth's surface every year

yet harnessing it as a commercial energy source remains elusive.

Quantity does not guarantee practicality.

[Dave Caputo]

48. Still Solar has widespread adoption

and millions of dollars of research funding devoted to it. Geothermal should get similar attention.

[wtmusic]

49. Fair enough.

How did you arrive at the 160MW figure? :D

[txlibdem]

53. We should definitely do everything we can to use the clean energy sources we have

There is no question in my mind that geothermal power plants will be an important part of our energy future. I just don't see them providing more than 10% of our energy mix. The risk of earthquakes limits where geothermal plants can safely be located.

Just look at the Yellowstone Caldera for an example of an area prime for geothermal energy production.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellowstone_Caldera

[Dave Caputo]

57. This is different from conventional geothermal

And is designed to gently tap deep heat resources in stable geological formations, not calderas.

[CHIMO]

80. Interesting

Some facts and details of operation and construction would be helpful.

Considering the critical temperature and pressure of water.
How the domes would be constructed. Pressure ratings required.

Solubility of materials at given operating conditions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Granite
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quartz