Solution to the oil problem

[Pandora]

Yes, you're right, you're right and I take my lithium regulary every day but the urge to **** still comes upon me. Please help me oh wise and thoughtful american beaver dam wrecker. Tell me where you live and what your real name is because I want to come to you for help. I'm safe to be around at least half the time.

Help meeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!!

Just try to stay current on your meds, and keep out of the USA and things will be fine!

 

[Andy]

That is just more complicated than it needs to be.

First question: how much energy does the US need?
Answer:

The US currently uses about 100 "quads of energy a year. A quad is equal to 1x1018 Joules. So we need to generate 1020 Joules a year. If we assume (incorrectly, but this is only an order of magnitude calculation) that power demand is constant, then we need to produce 1012 Watts of power.
A nuclear power plant produces about 1000 MW of powers, so we require 1000 nuclear reactors."

Said differently:


"The US uses power at an average rate of about 4.1 terawatts, i.e. about 4100 gigawatts. A big nuclear reactor produces about 1 gigawatt."

Yes there are differences, big deal, this is just a forum. Let's at least start with an estimate.


Second question: How much energy can geothermal produce?

Interesting. I'm getting some very different numbers, but the same basic conclusion. Nevertheless, the given information seems to indicate geothermal, either can not, or simply does not supply the upper levels of power generation.

Currently there are:

54 Nuclear plants producing over 1,000 MegaWatts
13 of which are over 1,250 MegaWatts

12 Coal plants producing over 1,000 MegaWatts
9 of which are over 1,250 MegaWatts

1 Single NatGas plant producing over 1,000 MegaWatts

Geothermal only has 8 plants producing between 100 to 250 MegaWatts.

We have some assumptions to make. It could be that 100-250 range is the upper end for Geothermal plants. But most are smaller, under 50 MegaWatts.

There are larger plants producing more power using Wind, Solar, Oil, Hydro, and even a Biomass plant producing in the 500-750 MegaWatt range.

For example, The Geysers, is the largest Geothermal plant in the world, producing about 725 MegaWatts in California. But after you research it, it's actually a collection of 22 power plants using 350 wells, 19 of those plants, power that area. This means each individual plant is only producing about 38 MegaWatts.

The smallest Nuclear plant is 750 MegaWatts, and the largest over 1,250 MegaWatts.
We would need ~20-33 Geothermal plants to equal one Nuclear plant.

Another issue is cost. Many have claimed that Geothermal is cheaper. It is not. Geothermal is roughly the same cost as a nuclear power plant, per kilowatt of installed capacity. This is a major issue since Geothermal plants tend to drop in energy production as the area being tapped is used.

For example, back to The Geysers. The plant was expanded to an installed Capacity of 2,043 MegaWatts. This would roughly cost the same as two 1 GigaWatt nuclear reactors. However, The Geysers only nets ~725 MegaWatts.

In fact, The Geysers peaked out in 1986, and has been dropping ever since, with some plants currently operating at 25% capacity. That's a heck of a lot of money to end up with production less than half of what you paid for.

This actually dims my view from last time I explored this topic. However, again Geothermal has a good spot in energy generation, but it clearly (as things stand) does not have the ability to replace the big 4 energy sources... being Coal, Nuclear, Natgas and Hydro, which make up ~90% of our energy generation.

 

[Sihouette]

How much energy can geothermal produce?~ Dr Who

Comparisons are meaningless because both geothermal and nuclear heat water to steam. It just depends on the size of the resources in the plant. There are many elements to this that make comparisons silly at this young stage in widespread geothermal implementation.

The tiny amount of underbuilt, largely "experimental" geothermal plants around (there are more than eight just in California BTW), don't produce as much as nuclear because, like experimental nuclear plants when they first were tried, are small.

We need to remember that both plants use simple steam to make turbines spin to produce a current. If you take that into account, if we compare an older, less efficient nuclear reactor to a geothermal plant that has multiple water-to-steam loops running muliple turbines, a plant the size of a nuclear plant may produce more power with geothermal. Certainly when you weigh all the factors of the power sources that are being tapped to just produce steam, geothermal is the winner hands-down in terms of cost to MW of production. If you're going soley on cost to MW, you cannot beat geothermal with any other type of energy-generation source around.

That's just cost in $$ of mining coal or uranium, worker deaths, illness, compensation claims, widow's benefits, and transportation. All geothermal "resources" are at-site from the get-go. And the working conditions are the safest among all sources to produce energy.

When you start talking about cost in safety to US citizens, things really start looking scary. Nuclear power is no simple laughing matter to be brushed aside. Radiation is dangerous, deadly and insidiously prone to hang around for generations as a high-risk, lethal substance. Why the frick would anyone choose this method of producing steam when the same steam taken from non-lethal sources could suffice?

We only need to develop geothermal's potential to replace nuclear for steam. We just haven't done that. It's been out there, a 100 million + times more steam than 1,000 nuclear reactors' lethal radiation could produce, just sitting in the West, unused... In some cases boiling right out of the ground at surface.

 

[Andy]

Comparisons are meaningless because both geothermal and nuclear heat water to steam. It just depends on the size of the resources in the plant. There are many elements to this that make comparisons silly at this young stage in widespread geothermal implementation.

Illogical. Comparisons are to show the difference and similarities. You posed one similarity. Now just list the differences, and it isn't meaningless.

No, it doesn't depend on the resources of the plant. It depends on the resource of heat under the plant.

Young stage? The USA leads the world in Geothermal power with 2,700 MegaWatts of installed power. The next largest is Philippines with only 890 MW, less than 1/3. We have more plants, the most advanced plants, and they are not young. Geothermal has been in service since 1960. The first US nuclear power plant was only 3 years old at the time.

The tiny amount of underbuilt, largely "experimental" geothermal plants around (there are more than eight just in California BTW), don't produce as much as nuclear because, like experimental nuclear plants when they first were tried, are small.

There are 22 geothermal power plants in The Geyser of California alone. The problem isn't that they are under built, or "experimental" in any way. The problem is that as new power plants came online, production of steam from the wells dropped. There is not an "infinite" heat source down there. When multiple plants start pulling from the same heat bed, the amount that can be extracted reduces. This is why The Geysers has over 2,000 MW of installed potential, yet only produces about 725 MW between 19 of the plants.

We need to remember that both plants use simple steam to make turbines spin to produce a current. If you take that into account, if we compare an older, less efficient nuclear reactor to a geothermal plant that has multiple water-to-steam loops running muliple turbines, a plant the size of a nuclear plant may produce more power with geothermal. Certainly when you weigh all the factors of the power sources that are being tapped to just produce steam, geothermal is the winner hands-down in terms of cost to MW of production. If you're going soley on cost to MW, you cannot beat geothermal with any other type of energy-generation source around.

A nice theory, but it doesn't translated into reality. You can make up any logic you want. This forum deals in reality. The fact is, in 1987 when the 22nd and final Geothermal plant went into operation in The Geysers California, the heat bed became nearly tapped out. As a result, every power plant suffered a loss of production, most by 50% and some by 75%. In the late 80s it was even thought that some of the electric companies may have to file bankruptcy due to the enormous loss of money on this one single project.

That's just cost in $$ of mining coal or uranium, worker deaths, illness, compensation claims, widow's benefits, and transportation. All geothermal "resources" are at-site from the get-go. And the working conditions are the safest among all sources to produce energy.

Not according to the Swiss. Most of the US isn't able to produce geothermal power without the use of a Hot Dry Rock system. This is the act of creating an artificial geothermal vent. Essentially, you drill a hole down to the naturally hot dry rock, and pump water down there, where it would not naturally be. Then an escape well to collect the newly heated water.

This is opposed to other natural geothermal systems that are wet to begin with and release steam naturally. In Switzerland, they attempted to use a Hot Dry Rock system to generate power. The result was a magnitude 3.4 earthquake, that damaged buildings and caused havoc. The epicenter being dead center, bottom of the well. A further aftershock also pinpointed to the bottom of the well. The water injection ended instantly, and was never restarted. The multimillion dollar power plant is effectively a paper weight. So much for it being safe and cost effective.

Nuclear power is no simple laughing matter to be brushed aside. Radiation is dangerous, deadly and insidiously prone to hang around for generations as a high-risk, lethal substance. Why the frick would anyone choose this method of producing steam when the same steam taken from non-lethal sources could suffice?

Radiation from the sun is dangerous, so is a Microwave, a florescent light, a TV set, and a million other sources. I'm not frightened of nuclear power. I won't be fearmongered into it either. If a push comes up for another nuclear power plant near me, I'm for it. We already have 3, and they all have served us very well for 30+ years providing cheap effective, clean energy. A 4th can only be better.

We only need to develop geothermal's potential to replace nuclear for steam. We just haven't done that. It's been out there, a 100 million + times more steam than 1,000 nuclear reactors' lethal radiation could produce, just sitting in the West, unused... In some cases boiling right out of the ground at surface.

Right and the moment some company plans to tap it, a bunch of eco-nuts sue them. Beside, the information suggests you are just a bit over estimating how much is really out there.

 

[Sihouette]

Dry rock technologies are cutting edge. We just need to fund the implementation of geothermal. We need to jump off that cliff like we did with nuclear, only with geothermal we've got a nice parachute of safety to cushion any fall that might happen.

When we've poured as much money into geothermal R&D as nuclear, then we can open a fair comparison. Actually my guess is that we'll have to only sink a thumbnail of that money to get geothermal to where we can make a fair comparison..

 

[Sihouette]

Steam is steam. The properties of steam don't change depending on where their origins are. Steam behaves the same if it comes from radioactive fuel rods or from the earth's natural core. So the comparison really starts looking silly.

I was thinking more about this last night and how when you really really really start to crunch the numbers of nuclear, oil or coal driven steam turbines, you really get a feel for how truly expensive each of these industries really is.

First of all, to acquire uranium, you need fuel-guzzling machines to mine it, house it, transport it, and store the waste. All those extra and necessary employees needs to handle this nasty power source are burning up fuels in commutes, they are making more worker's compensation claims...etc. etc.

With oil, well, just tally up how expensive it is to be in Iraq expanding the empire, let alone shipping, trucking the oil to refineries, the refining process itself, all those employees, safety issues at the refineries that like to explode from time to time..compensation claims...etc etc.

Then with coal, you have the most hazardous occupation next to Alaskan Crab fishing. Machines are used to mine, scores of workers commuting to and fro, hazards, black lung, transportation of coal. Belching smokestacks. (China largely uses coal...don't you love their air quality?....Clean coal my butt..) worker compensation claims...and so on...

Phenominally expensive "The Three Nasties" I like to call them.

And what is the goal of all three? To produce steam to run turbines.

The cost to MW ratio of geothermal, where there is no secondary source to turn water... to pre-existing steam.. AT SITE is the most efficient of all. If you had all the numbers of the The Three Nasties in front of you vs the numbers of geothermal costs per MW, you would die laughing at the stupendously ridiculous comparison.

Then you would get mad when you realized that the whole reason we haven't been using geothermal for the last four decades is because its widespread implementation and potential has been beaten back by negative BigOil/nuclear/coal (same people usually) PR campaigns painting out geothermal as "ridiculous".

How ironic that it is exactly the opposite.

 

[UShadItComing]

Sihouette- You are missing a lot in your crusade to prove your point on geothermal and so I'll just point out one mistake you make right off the bat:

Steam is steam. The properties of steam don't change depending on where their origins are. Steam behaves the same if it comes from radioactive fuel rods or from the earth's natural core. So the comparison really starts looking silly.

No, steam is not just steam. Steam coming out of your electric kettle is a miniscule source of power but it's not superheated steam under pressure. You would be much further off if you took some time to learn a little about steam power instead of continuing on with this uninformed ranting. Some of us want to help you because your heart's in the right place but you have a bone in your teeth that you just won't let go of.

 

[Sihouette]

Steam coming out of your electric kettle is a miniscule source of power but it's not superheated steam under pressure

Yeah, about that superheated steam...under pressure...

Electricity production at Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant near Athens has been cut by two-thirds after a series of problems this week, including Friday's shutdown of the plant's Unit 1 reactor.

The Unit 1 reactor was shut down at 5:30 a.m. Friday to fix a leak in a device that monitors the temperature of steam produced by the reactor, said Jason Huffine, a spokesman for the Tennessee Valley Authority plant. "There's no danger to the work force, to the community or to the environment," he said.

Heat from nuclear reactors creates steam to turn large generators that make electricity...

..TVA cut power production from Unit 1 and the plant's other two reactors by half Thursday to keep discharged water from warming the Tennessee River beyond state standards.

The plant's cooling towers normally would chill the water before releasing it to the river. But the towers stopped working after two electricity transformers failed this week.

Huffine said it is not known how long repairs will take.

Plant officials had been keeping an eye on a possible problem with the monitoring of steam temperature on Unit 1's steam tunnel, so when the power was cut back 50 percent, workers got a chance to investigate further, Huffine said. When the problem was identified, TVA officials decided to shut down Unit 1 to make repairs, he said.

Unit 1 has been subjected to additional inspections and oversight by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission this year after five unplanned automatic shutdowns in the months following its May 2007 restart. TVA restarted the reactor, which had been shut down for 22 years, after a five-year, $1.9 billion restoration. Source: http://www.al.com/news/birminghamnews/index.ssf?/base/news/1218269761142400.xml&coll=2

Mihama-cho, Fukui-pref.
Location The third in Kansai Electric Power Company Mihama nuclear plant machine..
..On August 9th, 2004, in the 3rd floor turbine hall of an active nuclear reactor, a steam eruption occurred. An inspection team on the 2nd floor was caught in the eruption, resulting in 4 deaths, 2 serious illnesses and 5 injuries. One of the 2 taken ill subsequently died.
Active nuclear power plant accidents represent what is potentially the greatest source of danger in modern times. As the cooling system was two-stage in nature, there was no risk of radioactive contamination.
The cause of the eruption was erosion/corrosion. Source: http://shippai.jst.go.jp/en/Detail?fn=0&id=CB1011025&

The accident occurred in a building housing turbines for the Number 3 reactor at the Mihama nuclear plant in Fukui prefecture, 320 km (200 miles) west of Tokyo.


"Staff rushed in screaming," said a woman who was working in the plant's canteen. "I put in a container all the ice I could find and gave it," she told Kyodo news agency.


The temperature of the leaking steam would have been about 142 degrees Celsius (288 Fahrenheit), experts said. Source: http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-08/10/content_363692.htm

And the source of that high-pressured steam has an evil twin cousin: radioactive contamination...seems radioactive water has some little corrosion problems on piping.

And even for all that, let's compare the 142 degree celsius temps of radiation generated steam vs the benign geothermal resources:

The geothermal resource map of the U.S. shows the estimated subterranean temperatures at a depth of 6 kilometers (or just under 20,000 feet), which is considered relatively near the surface. This map is a synthesis of several types of data sets, including thermal conductivity, thickness of sedimentary rock, geothermal gradient, heat flow and surface temperature. These geothermal resources can be classified as low temperature (less than 150 degrees Celsius), moderate temperature (150-200 degrees Celsius) and high temperature (greater than 200 degrees Celsius). As the map makes clear, essentially all of the U.S. has some form of available, near-surface geothermal potential. Source: http://www.whiskeyandgunpowder.com/Report/geoWP.html

Oopsies! Seems like just moderate temperature resources aplenty beat the nuclear plant by a bit. Using geothermal heat we can raise contained steam reservoir's pressure. To raise pressure you just need containment. Pretty simple stuff really..minus the radioactive terror potential...

 

[UShadItComing]

I think you're now trying to say that superheated steam is related to nuclear energy exclusively. I give up Sihouette.

 

[Sihouette]

Geothermal kicks nuclear's a$$ on all fronts. Cost-to-MW comparisons, ease of implementation and public safety.

 

[Andy]

Geothermal kicks nuclear's a$$ on all fronts. Cost-to-MW comparisons, ease of implementation and public safety.

Strike out on all three. I already detailed each of those, so I'll just repeat the obvious to everyone. You are wrong!

 

[Sihouette]

You need references. You aren't batting real good on that.

Try posting links to actual data like I did. It helps. But then again if you're blowing smoke up people's bums, you aren't going to be able to get those links after all

 

[Mr.Dysfunctional]

How many nuclear plants are there?
There are 103 reactors operating in the U.S., located at 64 sites in 31 states, which produce 20 percent of the country's electricity. Worldwide, there are 441 reactors in 30 countries, which generate 17 percent of Earth's power. Another 24 units are under construction.

http://www.stpnoc.com/faqs.htm

I'm starting to wonder if anyone on this site does ANY research... Can i trust any of your information honestly ?!?!

 

[Mr.Dysfunctional]

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

The Watts Bar Nuclear Generating Station is a Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) nuclear reactor used for electric power generation and tritium production for nuclear weapons. It is located on a 1,770 acre (7.2 km²) site in Rhea County, Tennessee near Spring City, between the cities of Chattanooga and Knoxville. Watts Bar Unit 1 was the last civilian reactor to come on-line in the United States. Watts Bar supplies enough electricity for about 250,000 households in the Tennessee Valley.

This plant has one Westinghouse pressurized water reactor, one of two reactor units whose construction commenced in 1973. Unit 1 was completed in 1996, and has a winter net dependable generating capacity of 1,167 megawatts.

Since this was the last civilian Nuclear plant built.. its energy production could be consider the average for any new production

 

[Mr.Dysfunctional]

BTW Silhoute and Dr.who are on the money for all the fact-checking I have done minus Dr.whos post on the energy production of nuclear power plants + amount of stations Nation wide.. that however is really of no concern as long as the end result is the same.