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

Wednesday Update

From NEI’s Japan micro-site: NRC, Industry Concur on Many Post-Fukushima Actions Industry/Regulatory/Political Issues • There is a “great deal of alignment” between the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the industry on initial steps to take at America’s nuclear energy facilities in response to the nuclear accident in Japan, Charles Pardee, the chief operating officer of Exelon Generation Co., said at an agency briefing today. The briefing gave stakeholders an opportunity to discuss staff recommendations for near-term actions the agency may take at U.S. facilities. PowerPoint slides from the meeting are on the NRC website. • The International Atomic Energy Agency board has approved a plan that calls for inspectors to evaluate reactor safety at nuclear energy facilities every three years. Governments may opt out of having their country’s facilities inspected. Also approved were plans to maintain a rapid response team of experts ready to assist facility operators recoverin...

Fluor Invests in NuScale

You know, it’s kind of sad that no one is willing to invest in nuclear energy anymore. Wait, what? NuScale Power celebrated the news of its company-saving $30 million investment from Fluor Corp. Thursday morning with a press conference in Washington, D.C. Fluor is a design, engineering and construction company involved with some 20 plants in the 70s and 80s, but it has not held interest in a nuclear energy company until now. Fluor, which has deep roots in the nuclear industry, is betting big on small-scale nuclear energy with its NuScale investment. "It's become a serious contender in the last decade or so," John Hopkins, [Fluor’s group president in charge of new ventures], said. And that brings us to NuScale, which had run into some dark days – maybe not as dark as, say, Solyndra, but dire enough : Earlier this year, the Securities Exchange Commission filed an action against NuScale's lead investor, The Michael Kenwood Group. The firm "misap...

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...

NEI Nuclear Notes

Search This Blog