MIT Study: Geothermal Could Provide 10% of Energy by 2050

Yesterday, MIT released a study that said that America could derive 10% of its energy production from geothermal sources by 2050 -- and it's generated quite a debate over energy issues at Slashdot.

Technorati tags: Geothermal, Environment , Energy, Technology, Economics

Comments

Anonymous said…

Thankfully at least one poster there realised that geothermal is not a renewable energy source. Over time the rock cools off as you extract the energy from it. Sure the earth's core will reheat it but over a much longer time scale.

January 23, 2007 at 11:35 AM

Anonymous said…

Toxic emissions from geothermal plants are one issue. Another is the release of radioactive gases. Some of the rock formations at depth contain quite a bit of uranium (granite, for example). The radon and daughter products get entrained in the heated water/steam and are brought to the surface and released. I seem to recall reading the one geothermal plant in California could not be licensed to operate if it were regulated by the NRC, because of the concentration of radioactive gases released from the steam. But, since that is "natural radioactivity", I guess that makes it "different" and somehow okay.

January 24, 2007 at 8:19 AM

Anonymous said…

Hydrogen sulfide gas is also released. I grew up in Lake County, California near one of the now-active geothermal fields. It was the one that started losing its steam pressure long before the anticipated full development potential was realized. But nowadays the hydrogen sulfide gases can be smelled about 20 miles from the plants, depending on which way the wind is blowing.

January 24, 2007 at 2:02 PM

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

Below is from our rapid response team . Yesterday, regional anti-nuclear organizations asked federal nuclear energy regulators to launch an investigation into what it claims are “newly identified flaws” in Westinghouse’s advanced reactor design, the AP1000. During a teleconference releasing a report on the subject, participants urged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to suspend license reviews of proposed AP1000 reactors. In its news release, even the groups making these allegations provide conflicting information on its findings. In one instance, the groups cite “dozens of corrosion holes” at reactor vessels and in another says that eight holes have been documented. In all cases, there is another containment mechanism that would provide a barrier to radiation release. Below, we examine why these claims are unwarranted and why the AP1000 design certification process should continue as designated by the NRC. Myth: In the AP1000 reactor design, the gap between the shield bu...

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

You may have noticed over the past few weeks that a number of nuclear plants are shut down for refueling outages or are resuming operations after just returning from one. This type of routine outage usually occurs in the spring or fall when electricity demand is low so that nuclear reactors can replace about one-third of the spent fuel rods with new fuel and conduct other routine maintenance and repairs at the plant. To get a better sense of how refueling works at a nuclear energy facility, I spoke with Marcus Nichol, NEI’s senior project manager for used fuel storage and transportation, and asked him to explain the basics. Why does a nuclear plant need to replace one-third of its fuel? Nichol: The main purpose of a refueling outage is to replace older fuel that is depleted—meaning it can no longer efficiently produce energy from nuclear fission reactions—with new fuel. This “used fuel” has typically been used in the reactor for four-and-a-half to six years before it is pe...

How Much Land Does Nuclear, Wind and Solar Really Need?

Not too long ago, we reviewed a report that looked at nuclear energy (and other energy sources) as biodiversity agents. This had to do, in part, with the amount of land a facility needs to function. Nuclear energy and fossil fuel plants use relatively little, wind farms and solar arrays quite a lot of land . Based on an objective and transparent analysis of our sustainable energy choices, we have come to the evidence-based conclusion that nuclear energy is a good option for biodiversity conservation (and society in general) and that other alternatives to fossil fuels should be subjected to the same cost–benefit analyses (in terms of biodiversity and climate outcomes, as well as sociopolitical imperatives) before accepting or dismissing them. Writer Barry Brook, who collected 75 scientists to endorse his paper, is interested in land use as it impacts flora and fauna. Biodiversity concerns do not get as much play as they might – and, when they do, it annoys many when land is withdraw...

NEI Nuclear Notes

Search This Blog