Bush to Stop Geothermal Research - Budget Move or Security Risk?

Bush looks to cut geothermal research

Okay, what's going on here? This really isn't high end, tech in the same way advanced nuclear power is....

Are we looking at the government protecting underground complexes here? Or is it just one more attack on "Green" activists and their agenda in a Hail Mary maneuver by the Administration as they breathe their last dying breath?

Opinions, Ideas? And remember, Rhode Island is neither a road or an island.

Discuss.

That would be cheap, clean energy, that the "power brokers" cannot control.

lol you got it in one man.... geothermal tech goes far enough and we get good enough at making geotaps and the ring through the nose of energy dependence would more or less be gone. They are only focussing on funding unrealistic "Alternative energy solutions" LIke biofuel... never mind that we plain don't have enough farmland to eat AND fuel our vehicles without still importing oil even at full deployment of bio fuel. Not to mention the nice and 4.00 a gallon conservative estimate of the cost of biofuel.

geothermal and other heat or pressure differential power generation (like the project I cannot remember the name of for the life of me that has a working ocean temperature differential generator.)are the best chance we have of true energy self sufficiency at a reasonable price.

btw if anyone knows the name of that project please throw it up here for me.

two words here:

natural gas

that shows the priorities of this administration.

Originally posted by hoppy
That would be cheap, clean energy, that the "power brokers" cannot control.

That makes no sense. The cheaper something is to produce, then the more profit that can be made on it.

It is a misleading headline, because its not stopping geothermal research. It isnt like the federal government does all research and if they do not do it, then no one does.

Geothermal R&D is going on in lot of places. Actually natural gas is not seen as the way to have more power generation, but still coal and hopefully more nuclear.

Geothermal is good but it has its limitations.

Originally posted by firepilot
That makes no sense. The cheaper something is to produce, then the more profit that can be made on it.

Only if you are the only one who is producing it without competition.
Oil and natural gas are location specific, you can control the source and limit supply, this is where the profits come from. Geothermal energy could be accessed anywhere on the planet if we had the technology to do so.

Geothermal energy could be accessed anywhere on the planet if we had the technology to do so.

That's not a very convincing argument, since you can say the same thing about nuclear fusion, or even matter / antimatter conversion. It may sound like I'm nit-picking to point that out, but the state of the technology is a major problem. In its current state, geothermal energy is very location-specific, and it's not as cheap as you might think.

Let's face it, folks...we didn't get *into* the current energy situation over night, and we're not going to magically pull ourselves out of it overnight. We also aren't going to find a single 'magic bullet' solution that will make the whole problem go away. It's a complex situation, and its resolution will be equally complex. Geothermal is probably going to be a part of that resolution, but it's not the miracle cure. Likewise biofuels...do they solve the whole problem? Nope....but they can be part of the overall solution, even at $4.00 / gallon...heck, by this time next year (and maybe sooner) $4.00 / gallon may be cheap.

You need to also consider that ANYTHING can be controlled provided that it is a unique product and the federal government has its greedy little fingers all over it....which translates into everything.

Geothermal, as far a the residential user is concerned, is a vastly untapped resource and option for heating and cooling. If you do your homework on this, it is more efficient than home heating oil and probably more cost effective than natural gas - provided that the system is made part of a new construction.

Even if you have to retrofit a system to an existing home, the cost can be anywhere from $8K all the way up to and over $30/40K. This all depends on the kind of system you are using whether its horizontal or vertical exchange, whether it is an open or closed system.

I have investigated the possibility of putting a system into my own home as a retro fit, and it is expensive, but the price of gas and heating oil will continue to rise, where the temperature of the earth 50 feet down will stay a constant 52-55 degrees. Consider a very large HVAC system running off of the differential of constant temperatures in the earth (or from the water source you use for your water pump) and you eliminate the need to burn oil or natural gas to make heat...or if you do need to raise the temperature, you augment it with electric using only a small amount of energy (that plus the fans used to pump the air - but those can be powered by solar or wind).

The whole point of this thread is (since I started it) the government, as lead by George Bush, doesn't want this technology available easily to homeowners. There are too many variables in delivering it to homes and subsequently too many opportunities for small business to service the equipment locally. They would be the winners, not the Bush Administration and their oil-loving cronies.

The environment would win a little win too, and homeowners...over the course of owning their homes, not in the short run, would see substantial savings on heating their homes.

david suzuki and the nature of things did a show on this....Iceland now produces over 50% of its power from geothermal
the largest steam fields are north of sanfran....

en.wikipedia.org...

this is not just the creation of electricity via superheated water from exposure to magma.

I am talking about the use of fairly low tech systems that pump air into pipes buried into the ground and taking the air that is in the house and exchanging the heat with the heat (or lack thereof) that is in the ground.

This is known as a heat exchange, not anything like creating steam that runs turbines that create electricity.

If anyone on this thread lives in Hawaii or another location where there home sits conveniently over a magma field or a caldera, then be my guest and make your own electricity.

Personally, that would be cool by me. But from what I know, the majority of homes don't have that kind of heat available to them.

Please note, that if many people were to start digging wells, possibly as deep as 75 to 100 feet deep to find the right area of ground for their heat exchange pipes, you might be looking at some drills going into the "vast complex of underground tunnels."

It's a question for debate, I think.

who knows, there are alot of geological surveyists that search for sink holes and underground pipes and crap when installing swimming pools and or sinkholes. Oil companys do the same crap.

Is he halting all use becauses that will send oil production back a little bit or in certain areas?

wait geothermal is diffrent.

contribution: geothermal heating / cooling and geothermal power are 2 separate albeit related issues.
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...

editorial: we live in a universe surrounded by energy differentials 24/7. we've found the worst ways to harness a few and made it the foundation of an earth devouring civilisation... bravo.

Originally posted by Shar_Chi
contribution: geothermal heating / cooling and geothermal power are 2 separate albeit related issues.
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...

editorial: we live in a universe surrounded by energy differentials 24/7. we've found the worst ways to harness a few and made it the foundation of an earth devouring civilisation... bravo.

I thought this was made clear a while back on this thread, also.

Additionally, for the purposes of residential home heating and cooling, for some geothermal heat exchange systems, it may be required to drill vertically to take advantage of the heat differential. Other systems can be run horizontally into a backyard, for instance, and still others can be extended into a river or a lake taking advantage of their fairly stable temperature (as opposed to air temperature.)

As for "Earth Devouring", that's hyperbole. Yes, this particular form of heating/cooling as well as the geothermal electrical generation don't really cause too much "devouring." Erosion, perhaps a little more, but if this were to catch on, large systems could be used in communities rather than home to home systems. And the kind that need 200deg. earth temps or higher to create steam...not so sure that its sucking the life of the earth away. I would think its much better than pouring gases into the atmosphere that eliminate our ability to properly heat and cool the entire planet!



[edit on 22-5-2007 by newtron25]

mmk i was referring to fossil fuels & nuclear