Setback for Geothermal Energy

The article shows up in the Science Section.

I am reminded of the report of hot mud being unleashed somewhere, Indonesia? due to similar effects of drilling for geothermal.

I've not heard of earthquakes being triggered by those who drill for oil.

From what little I know it would appear that drilling at fault lines is not recommended.

Generally, drilling for oil is done in completely different structures, and I believe, in most cases, not nearly as deep as when drilling for geothermal. It has not been "proven", beyond a shadow of a doubt, that this drilling is actually the cause of the earthquakes in Basel, Switzerland and California (possibly more likely in California), but it seems reasonable when one considers the processes involved (especially "cracking" the rock structure to create water passages). One would not expect just poking a small hole in a rock cap to necessarily alter the force balance in the structure unless one were extremely unlucky and hit the "sweet spot". Another issue is reported in the article is that the technical challenges to drilling in the type of rock and at the depths required proved a bit more difficult to resolve than originally believed, indicating some pretty poor analysis going in to the project to begin with...

I understand that Iceland's capital uses geothermal energy to generate power and heat most of the community. I was under the impression that they had solvd most related problems and were selling the technology on the world market.

I think that was a wrong link; the article was about an immigration bust.

In a few places (maybe even quite a few), geothermal may be a good choice. The energy itself is "free," but it requires large capital investment to harvest it, which is not free. Piping tends to corrode on account of other gases than steam alone.

You had to go to the Science Section to find the article C_Warner711 was referencing.

Sorry about the link- it was in the Science section of the New York Times- I have had trouble trying to link (and trying to follow others' links) on various occasions. I think maybe sometimes the links are dynamic objects that have a mind of their own. Ever linked on a news article in, say, the Times e-mail, only to be taken to a totally unrelated story?

The issue with geothermal is that the proponents, as most proponents of most alternative schemes, tend to downplay the less favorable considerations while exagerating the benefits. When something like this happens, it fuels the opposition's position, and the debate heats up. In the Basel case, there is probably a stronger case for the process resluting in increased earthquake activity; the California case sounds more like an organization with limited technical resources running through a whole lot of other people's money (including public funds) without any real opportunity to either prove or disprove the technology.

One sees a similar issue in the wind energy industry. I am hearing more and more anecdotal stories of "abandoned" turbine farms- the turbines fail, either due to lack of maintenance, poor design, poor siting, poor installation, whatever. Because the promoters/installers have lost interest in the project (or disappeared from the commercial scene), there is no one left to take corrective actions, so the land owner who originally leased the land to the developers is left with all these structures that are totally useless. I do not know how extensive this issue is, but someone needs to do a study. Otherwise, such circumstances give the entire industry a bad image...And the industry needs to be more honest about the true costs of maintenance, and failure rates...

I have followed this in Hawaii, when I lived there, many moons ago--If anyone has the ability to find info on the Keahou Deepwater project (deep, cold offshore water), and another attempt to use Volcano heat with water (again, my memory is twice my IQ, which is limited)--Corrosion, heat, current loss, heat transfer loss etc., always being part of the problems.. Have always wanted to see this industry prove itself, and wish I were sitting on top of a super heated steam vent that I could tap into, without the underlying potential problems..(Superheated enemas??) Just a thought.. So much energy, so many problems to be solved, so many politics--Be positive, and educate more engineers...

Proper Link

The area in question has a long history of seismic instability

How can I get me one of those $440 million grants

At least the state isn't one of the investors....

you got this one pegged right

Hi,

the Rhine-valley is one of the major zones of seismic activity, as it is an active rift-zone where the western part (France, Vosges-mountains) and the eastern part (Germany, Black Forest) are moving apart with 1 to 3 mm/year (since 60 M-years).

At the southern "end" Basel is situated and below is hot granitic rock - ideally suited for geothermal energy.

But the responsible people did not openly discuss the possibility of small earthquakes in advance. So now everything is damaged after 2 quakes with near 3.5 magnitude.

Basel was hit by a mag 7 or 8 quake 700 years ago. The then very small city (estimated 4000 inhabitants) was completely destroyed but quickly rebuilt.

Earthquakes of mag 7 are happening every few years in Switzerland and northern Italy as the Italian plate is moving north and being submerged under the European plate with a lot of friction and release of compressional energy.

Same trouble is existing at another new geothermal power-plant near Landau/Germany, 200 Km north of Basel. Also here local earthquakes troubled the people. But the plant could resume its operation recently.

So most important: the local people shall be informed what may happen! Sufficient insurance should be existing.

Next important: these quakes are only triggered, they release stored energy that would otherwise accumulate and give rise to bigger earthquakes - may be much later and devastating.

RHABE

(I live 300 Km north of Basel, so local newspaper give pretty good information)

Rhabe-

You make a strong point- a whole lot of little quakes are much better than accumulating stresses over longer periods to where a major quake will occur. But because there is little effort to inform the public before the fact of the potential results of the activity tends to make the general populace (who, generally, do not think in terms of the difference in magnitude of earthquakes, especially if they are not accustomed to such) very nervous. This increases the difficulties faced by the legitimate participants in the industry, discourages further exploration, and everyone loses. If people were properly advised as to the true trade-offs between potential rewards and potential threats, better-informed decisions could be made, and the emotionalists would have much less fodder for their feeding frenzy...

The cali site is in the coastal range right on the san andres fault

Just had a quake:

http://quake.usgs.gov/recenteqs/Maps/123-39.html

In these seismicly active areas where energy is continuously building along the fault lines, I would assume it will eventually break loose and release all that energy sooner or later. Would a series of smaller more frequent quakes be less destructive and preferable than the inevitable "Big One"? Inform and educate the people and develop a building code that can withstand mild to moderate quakes. Probably should get a little input from the insurance industry as to how they would view the risk trade-off.

"Would a series of smaller more frequent quakes be less destructive and preferable than the inevitable "Big One"?"

Hi,

this is like a hit with a big hammer at full speed if the big one comes.

Or multiple hits with 100, 10, 1g hammers to add up for the same total energy.

The sooner the energy is released -that is stored as elastic deformation- the better, as it builds up continuously until somewhere a crack starts and the subsequent cracks start to grow.

The coast between Seattle and Alaska seems to jump up in intervals of near 300 years. There is a place in the Sahara where a river is blocked any 200 years by an uprise of near 1m. A sea forms and is filled up slowly with sediments. The sedimentary profile has been investigated and told the story.

Most earthquakes are not occurring with this "constant" frequency.

RHABE

Take a look at the Salton Basin/Trough in Southern California/Baja Mexico. The largest geothermal power plant in the world is located just South of the boarder in Mexico. This also a rift valley and there is much interest in developing the geothermal resources of this area. Interesting in that it is perhaps the area of greatest ecological destruction in the entire WORLD!

http://fire.biol.wwu.edu/trent/alles/ColoradoRiver.html

Very good articles, many pictures and lots of interesting facts!!!

Opps . . . I was wrong . . . it is the second largest in the world.

http://www.sandiegogeologists.org/Geothermal2.html

The Cerro Prieto geothermal field generates 620 Megawatts of electric power and in the process pumps 2.6 million gallons (U.S.) (11,000 metric tons) of brine water from underground per hour that is disposed of in surface ponds. Evaporation removes most of the water quickly leaving approximately 1300 metric tons of silica waste as the residual product from this hourly production of brine. At present, there is no use for this waste silica.

The geothermal fields supply electricity to a large portion of Baja California, Mexico, including the city of Mexicali with a population of approximately 900,000. The Cerro Prieto geothermal area ranks as second largest in the world in terms of geothermal power generated.

Ever wonder where the dirt from the Grand Canyon went to?