Leakoo
Sabine from patreon
Sabine patreon

Fearless Icelanders to Drill Into Magma Chamber

🕑 Added 2024-01-24 17:00:15 +0000 UTC
Fearless Icelanders to Drill Into Magma Chamber

Comments

As a mechanical engineer who spent my first years after university working on geothermal power (including designing in 1983 one of the early water reinjection systems - prior to the 1980s reinjection was viewed as risky in terms of possible quenching of production steam wells), I have to point out a couple of bloopers in this item: 1) "usually geothermal power plants work by piping water through hot layers underground. This heats up the water ...."? No, usually they work by extracting steam from a natural reservoir (which may be wet, i.e. saturated, or less-commonly dry, i.e. superheated steam). Yes, there is an extraction pipe as part of the production well, but the notion that water is piped back for re-heating after passing out of the turbine condenser gives a very misleading idea of the hardware that drives the economics of geothermal power. Reinjection is nowadays used for a couple of reasons - avoiding discharge of heavy metals into rivers (which used to be the practice) and avoiding depletion of the underground water table by replenishing it. But this is done in a much less controlled way than any imagined "piping". The return path to the production well is by natural permeability of the underground geology. As mentioned above, this needs to consider the possibility of quenching the steam wells, but done carefully, it can avoid this, while helping improve the long-term sustainability of the steam-producing wells. I note that the article Sabine cites (https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2020/10/21/21515461/renewable-energy-geothermal-egs-ags-supercritical) explains "Enhanced Geothermal Systems", which are similar in concept to the practice of reinjection, but with the important difference that the claim that "in a nutshell ... EGS ... makes its own reservoir" is very optimistic. The British tried this in the 1980s (calling it "hot dry rock" geothermal) but found that very little of the water pumped underground could be recovered as steam. I grant that modern directional drilling and enclosed piping systems (at considerable expense) may improve that, but a careful read of this article makes it clear that this is futuristic stuff, not usual geothermal energy. For example, they say that "the engineering challenges remain daunting, especially as the targets get deeper and drier." 2) "supercritical water can carry several times more energy per mass, and the conversion to electric energy becomes more efficient. This means if you can build a geothermal plant with a reservoir hot enough so that the water becomes supercritical, that’ll suddenly dramatically increase the power production, by some estimates up to a factor 10." No - the specific heat (kJ/kgK) of supercritical water at 22 MPa and 374 C is several times more than regular water, but the specific enthalpy (kJ/kg) only increases by about a factor of two. More informatively than talking about ratios, the specific enthalpy of water at that temperature increases by about 2000 kJ/kg (from 1500 to about 3500 kJ/kg), which is similar to the rise when water boils due to latent heat of steam, reflecting the fact that the supercritical point marks a phase change of sorts. Higher temperatures mean that the conversion to electricity should get more efficient, but by nowhere near a factor of 10. A factor of 1.5 would be more like it. I guess what will improve is the pipe size to bring the water back to the surface, since the density of supercritical water is of the order of 100 times that of steam. (So the kJ/m^3 will go up dramatically, not the kJ/kg). But against that is the need for much longer pipes with much thicker walls to take the pressure. So I would urge caution about the real applicability of the science that the Icelanders are doing. And finally (at the risk of repeating my earlier posts) I would point out that the solar resource hitting the Earth 24/365 for the next billion years or so is about 130,000 TW. I note with mild amusement that the article gives as a: "Fun fact: The molten core of the Earth, about 4,000 miles down, is roughly as hot as the surface of the sun, over 6,000°C, or 10,800°F. That’s why the geothermal energy industry is fond of calling it “the sun beneath our feet.” The heat is continuously replenished by the decay of naturally occurring radioactive elements, at a flow rate of roughly 30 terawatts, almost double all human energy consumption." Hmmm - a 30 TW underground resource that needs expensive practices developed by the fossil fuel industry (and also emits non-trivial amounts of CO2), or a 130,000 TW resource that is inherently net-zero and well-proven to be converted through direct solar, wind, hydro and biomass technologies??

In desert regions and the supply upstream, closed systems may be needed. Similarly, I hear that Lake Powell might convert the construction diversion tunnels to Archimedes generators.

Rad Antonov

While on the topic, for those who can access the Nature article below, it describes an on demand geothermal plant where you inject the water in the rock to heat it up when needed. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-00127-3 Trouble is that water is not always easy to come by. There are lots of hot spots in the Western US but water is scarce and the aquifers are draining at an alarming pace.


More Creators