With global electricity demand set to grow strongly, new technologies are opening up the massive potential of geothermal energy to provide around-the-clock clean power in almost all count...
I see this more as a transitional technology. If they manage to convert old coal and gas plants into geothermal ones to expand their lifespan that’s great. But the overall costs of large centralized power-plants are just not competitive anymore, so there is little point in building new ones in general and completely new geothermal plants only make sense where it is cheap to do so due to to the geological situation.
No, what I meant is that it is different if you build a system for selling electricity or if you build one for your own consumption. In the latter case other financial and practical considerations apply and rooftop solar can be cost competitive compared to buying electricity from a supplier.
Geothermal makese sense on high latitudes (see Iceland for example) where heat is desirable even if electricity can’t be extracted.
Where you cannot drill deep enough (a Finnish company tried a 5 kilometer borehole and didn’t hit good enough heat) - artificial geothermal (thermal storage in large underground caverns) still makes sense, but not for electricity production. Just storing heat extracted from the environment during summer.
If drilling should get cheaper (e.g. those MIT guys declaring that they have a practical and reliable maser drilling rig), accessing good enough heat may be possible in places where it’s not worthwhile currently.
In some locations, production of geothermal energy can be combined with extracting dissolved chemicals - e.g. some borehole may produce a lot of dissolved lithium salts. No point in letting lithium back underground, better to put it aside.
I see this more as a transitional technology. If they manage to convert old coal and gas plants into geothermal ones to expand their lifespan that’s great. But the overall costs of large centralized power-plants are just not competitive anymore, so there is little point in building new ones in general and completely new geothermal plants only make sense where it is cheap to do so due to to the geological situation.
Hmm? Solar and wind are at their most cost competitive when deployed in one big field. They’re at their worst when deployed on individual houses.
Cost competitive for whom? For utility companies?
But even so, a field full of solarpannels is still a small decentralized production unit compared to a coal fired powerplant.
The people deploying it. If you don’t want that to be a big utility company, then look into community solar.
No, what I meant is that it is different if you build a system for selling electricity or if you build one for your own consumption. In the latter case other financial and practical considerations apply and rooftop solar can be cost competitive compared to buying electricity from a supplier.
Geothermal makese sense on high latitudes (see Iceland for example) where heat is desirable even if electricity can’t be extracted.
Where you cannot drill deep enough (a Finnish company tried a 5 kilometer borehole and didn’t hit good enough heat) - artificial geothermal (thermal storage in large underground caverns) still makes sense, but not for electricity production. Just storing heat extracted from the environment during summer.
If drilling should get cheaper (e.g. those MIT guys declaring that they have a practical and reliable maser drilling rig), accessing good enough heat may be possible in places where it’s not worthwhile currently.
In some locations, production of geothermal energy can be combined with extracting dissolved chemicals - e.g. some borehole may produce a lot of dissolved lithium salts. No point in letting lithium back underground, better to put it aside.
It is a great technology for heating though.
I hear you but geothermal is the future. It’s an endless resource after all and independent of climate or weather.