Could Earth's Heat Solve Our Energy Problems?
Vložit
- čas přidán 15. 06. 2024
- Be one of the first 500 people to sign up with this link and get 20% off your subscription with Brilliant.org! brilliant.org/realengineering/
New streaming platform: watchnebula.com/
Vlog channel: / @brianmcmanus
Patreon:
www.patreon.com/user?u=282505...
Facebook:
/ realengineering1
Instagram:
/ brianjamesmcmanus
Reddit:
/ realengineering
Twitter:
/ thebrianmcmanus
Get your Real Engineering shirts at: standard.tv/collections/real-...
Credits:
Narrator/Editor: Brian McManus
Writer: Eli Kintisch (www.elikintisch.com/)
Editor: Dylan Hennessy
Animator: Mike Ridolfi (www.moboxgraphics.com/)
Sound: Graham Haerther (haerther.net/)
Thumbnail: Simon Buckmaster / forgottentowel
References:
[1] www.eia.gov/outlooks/ieo/
[2] www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/o...
[3]geo-energy.org/reports/2016/20...
[4] www.bathnes.gov.uk/services/e...
[5]www.thinkgeoenergy.com/iea-pre...
[6] www.thinkgeoenergy.com/iea-pre...
[7] pangea.stanford.edu/ERE/db/WG...
[8] www.smu.edu/Dedman/Academics/...
[9]energy.mit.edu/wp-content/upl...
[10] www.energy.gov/eere/geotherma...
[11] www.renewableenergyworld.com/...
[12]
theclimateexaminer.ca/2018/05/...
[13] fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/IF10479.pdf
[14] www.sciencedirect.com/science...
Thank you to AP Archive for access to their archival footage.
Music by Epidemic Sound: epidemicsound.com/creator
Songs:
Signs of Evidence - Kikoru
Dead Cat - Imprismed
Waltzer - Dye O
With the Waves - Moon Craters
Down the Stream - Francis Wells
Thank you to my patreon supporters: Adam Flohr, Henning Basma, Hank Green, William Leu, Tristan Edwards, Ken Coltan, Andrew McCorkell, Ian Dundore, John & Becki Johnston. Nevin Spoljaric, Jason Clark, Devin Rathbun, Thomas Barth, Paulo Toyosi Toda Nishimura - Věda a technologie
German mechanical engineer here. Greatly appreciate the in-depth video as always. I wanted to point out some big potential drawbacks of geothermal energy you did not include in the video.
1. Geothermal energy is not boundless as the video suggests. Following the first law of thermodynamics, a natural occurring geothermal reservoir (or aquifer as it is known in the field) or a man-made one thanks to EGS, is bound to lose temperature over time due to the fact that we pump out more heat than we reinject. This inevitably causes a decrease in the aquifers temperature, which in turn causes a diminished steam production which then reduces the amount of generated electricity by turbine/generator. Some sources suggest that the average aquifer requires roughly 30 years until the original temperature is reached again.
2.Scaling/ Fouling. This is probably one of the greatest technical problems with geothermal plants nowadays. Since the water used for direct steam generation or secondary cycle heat transfer is coming from ca.3-4 km underground, it is saturated with different minerals, the most common being SiO2 (quartz) and CaCO3 (limestone). The chemical nature and type of the minerals is highly dependent on the location of the geothermal plant, but you can research them further if you'd like. Rapid changes in pressure and temperature along the pipes leads to the precipitation of these minerals (Scaling/Fouling) and unfortunately quite frequently to the failure of vital mechanical components such as pumps and heat exchangers. This leads to frequent halts of electricity production in most geothermal power plants.
Sorry for the long comment, I just feel passionate about the subject since it was the topic of my thesis!
Not an engineer here, nor do I play one on tv, nor did I stay at a Holiday Inn express last night. Now that this is out of the way I do wonder, regarding point 1) simple solution is to alternate production between sites, more or less like farmers don't plant crops in the same field year after year. Leave things to warm back up and then restart production. If you have enough sites that you can rotate in and out of production you should be sustainable. For point 2) Best but also horribly expensive way to deal with this is to have all your piping in a closed loop and not use ground water as a heat exchange fluid. What I could "envision" is something that would look a bit like a large tunnel boring machine that would have all the hardware on board, tilt it at an angle, let it dig, once it reaches layers of rock hot enough the outer casing ends up acting as a kind of heat sink and all your power generation hardware is inside the machine, all that is needed is to run cables so you can connect the power generated to the grid. When the rocks the machine is sitting in invariably cool down, it's able to start the digger head again, dig itself a bit deeper and start production again. Hard to explain what I have in mind but I think you can get the general idea.
Great comment!
@@robertsmith4681 You don't need anything so complicated to achieve a closed drill loop. The technology already exists to steer an oil drill pipe. All you would have to do is steer the two wells to connect in a kind of U or V shape. www.quora.com/Can-oil-drilling-bits-be-steered is a good explanation
@Feeds Ravens that sounds incredibly inefficient and like you would lose more energy than you'd generate.
Thank you.
Captions: *English (Ireland)*
م
*English (or something resembling it, good luck understanding)*
@anonym
Hello to you too.
Because we in Ireland speak a very high, understandable grade of English B)
@@FPVsean It's just Cork and Kerry People they can't understand.
Real Engineering: "We can use Earth's heat for energy"
Kurzgesagt: *Dyson Sphere*
To be fair a dyson sphere gives way more energy
@@magictoffee7066 nah it dose not even conpare with a black hole generater (or black hole bomb)
@@ariesleo7396 True
@@magictoffee7066 but needs more material that it requires than there is of said materials on earth
@@ariesleo7396 we don’t have any black holes nearby
In my country of new Zealand about 16% of electricity comes from geothermal. With plants running at full capacity around 95% of the time.
I love you guys
Since my country Indonesia mentioned in this video, I like to comment about that. Yes we had some of the biggest Geothermal Energy potential (23,6 GW in 2019), but sadly we could only harnessed about 8,9% of it for electricity. Most of the Geothermal site are located in remote location, deep in the mountains far from the city where we can consume it. It would take a massive investment to drew powerline from Geothermal Plants to the city, we still figuring thing how to storage and distribution hopefully by the end of 2024 we could push it above 10%, progress is very slow 😔
@Darren Munsell more population means more risk
@Darren Munsell what makes you think kiwis are horrible?
Sure some of us are, but I would say that most are fairly decent.
At least in my experience. 😀
@@haloclips5387 Ignore click baiters, They wouldn't have even visited NZ, and using low population as a negative in an energy debate is clearly out of touch with the reason this video needed to be created.
Real engineering can you do a video on the next generation of nuclear power plants and their efficiencies. The recycling an re-usability of nuclear waste is really interesting in terms of safe and long term nuclear energy and energy sustainability, but people are so scared of the word there is little media coverage on it. cheers.
Say it louder for the people in the back. Good Lord, sometimes I feel like the only person who realizes that nuclear is the ONLY solution, and our time to ramp up nuclear power is running short. Maybe the couple dozen comments on every science and energy video are the only people who are aware of this problem America faces, but I'd like to believe there are more of us. We need to pressure our local governments to give greater thought to nuclear power if we are to move away from fossil fuels without kneecapping ourselves.
Yes!
Nuclear is honestly our best opinion for a future power supply. Granted we'll still need quicker acting plants to help quickly adjust the grid to demand. Those will probably be gas power plants. Though I guess in time you could make some stuff that can provide stable but quick power to replace those. I just don't get why we don't go the nuclear route when we know it's safe, to the point nuclear is safer than even solar and wind some how. Plus the long term cost is actually really really good, since they last so long and the method of producing power is efficient for power generation and cost of fuel per kilowatt is really good.
Yes, please im on board with you guys! Nuclear is the only realistic option at this point.
YES PLS
Real Engineering: probably the most famous example of a hot spring in bath england.
Japan: NANI!!
I know, right?!
No, he meant most famous amongst people in the Roman Empire.
Iceland be like "what about us"
@@rossbroomfield5199 icelander do hot tube in the snow
@@rossbroomfield5199 a simple water cup will radiate steam there
I have been to Bath. It blew my mind that the humble, little channel seen at 4:16 still functions ceaselessly as a drain even though it was built so long ago by the Romans.
It's pretty amazing. Shame we don't build stuff to last like that anymore.
@@buckroger6456 And yet we do. Think of modern skyscrapers. They’ll be around for centuries. Concrete roads, minus our massive vehicles, would survive for a millennia or more. Think of all the wood-core homes that are already 50+ years old made with the same sort of technique as new construction. The older forms of those homes have stood for a century or more themselves too. We do build stuff to last, honestly some of it could last even more so, it’s just that almost everything is under more tension, weight, and stress. Or it’s something metallic that wears down because it stretches. Metal’s malleable strength is also its eventual undoing.
"I told you harvesting the core was suicide" Superman's dad
Wait I’m not an engineer but isn’t this how we awake the Balrog?
Jackson Porter 😱
Servant of Morgoth? Yeah.. We don't need those!
The humans...dug too deep.
bahahahaha
nah this is how krypton blew up in man of steel
Tap the Yellowstone. Either get renewable energy or 2012. A win-win scenario.
Doom or energy boom!
How about you try a smaller active volcano first?
@@keithedwards9953 DOOM OR ENERGY BOOM 🤘
Idiot, Yellowstone is an ACTIVE VOLCANO!! IT'S OVERDUE TO ERUPT!!
@@keithedwards9953 Both Iceland and Hawaii are tapped .... idiot. Same goes for 2 volcanoes in California. Mt. Baker in Washington state is active and the forest service has put geothermal drilling up for sale
When "right below our feet" means kilometres under, you understand there is a reason this old dream is so hard to achieve.
True but we're mpre capable now than ever.
Electric cars where invented decades ago but only now we execute.
It took 63 years from flying with paper and wood biplane to going to the moon.
Our technology is advancing at an exponential scale.
It's only "a dream" because capitalism is a bitch and investors are cowards.
Great video and amazing graphics and writing! Looking forward to more :)
Where is all the geothermal energy?
Answer: it’s underground.
That is what the government wants you to think.
Pompeii never forget
@@theophrastusbombastus8019 lol just sacrifice chicken to the volcano and boom... explosion energy and pompei all over again
From that sweet sweet earthquake zone
earthwarmgeothermal.com/a-geothermal-joke/
Stolen?
I am only scared that this will accelerate the marsification of Earth. Basically Earth turning Mars like
Supposing how Minuite pysics made a thing about how to make a lava moat and how to power it, the main solution was geothermal...
Coinidence... I THINK NOT!
While much of the interest is in heating we must also remember that a huge portion of our energy use is cooling. A drill/well wouldn't have to go down far enough to capture heat. In any geographic area that is burdened by cooling costs, using the shaft as a heat exchanger can work backwards without the excessive depth required to reach a heat source. We're only talking about 30-40 feet.
I can't remember his name but a man built a greenhouse slightly underground & used underground air tunnels in different ways to heat the greenhouse in the winter & to cool his own house in the summer. It was somewhere on CZcams I'm sure one could find the video again.
Hey! Can you teach us how Thorium reactors work?
I see they are more abundant in nature and produce more electricity pet ton, while having little waste compared to Uranium
Uranium doesn't actually need to leave a lot of waste. For safety reasons uranium/plutonium fuel is very low yield. This leads to "waste" being generated. To get rid of said "waste" all you need to do is put the waste through a reprocessing system.
Thorium is good as well, as it moves straight through the process without needing a re-enrichment process to take place.
@@albertusvanlubeeck9161 It also is not radioactive by itself, it requires plutonium in order to activate, and also can be deactivated by intercepting the two elements with water. Thorium produces more energy per volume of the element than Uranium.
waste of time
@Quartinium 40 years old technology that has not advanced 1 step, it has not been proven its been a total fail has a half life of at least 500 years , you going to put it in your spare room, i doubt it, your another nimby
@Quartinium it was a failure do you know what gives coporate america its jollies its not war its money thorium was a fail on the money scale, nobody except boffins want to even look at it.. the reactor isnt the problem its the spent fuel fgs where do you people get educated
Wendover: planes
RealLifeLore: Toyota corolla
Real engineering: *Rock.*
didnt expect to be seeing Real Engineering handing out YangGang pamphlets
Farnsworth McGuillicutty lost a bit of my respect tho 😂🤷🏻♂️. Not as bad as Bernie bros, but they are catching up. Mister $1000 a month for everyone... imagine investing that money into the modern nuclear reactors. But no no let’s give everyone free money lol. The easiest way to get elected and stay elected, is to give out free shit.
@@jamesbizs his recent environmental policy actually directly calls for 50 billion in funding for gen 4 nuclear reactors. Yang even specifically calls out Thorium powered reactors.
I have notice that a lot of non-Americas like Yang more than actual Americans. Most of his ideas are good. But in the US some of his proposals are seen as anti-American (i.e. universal income to combat automation), or simply not "enticing enough" by American voters. The US electoral system is a reality show/race after all. It's the by-product of FPTP and the electoral college. So I'm looking forward to watch two old angry white men fight for the presidency next year. It will make great TV!
@@retovath the thing that puts me off about the thorium crowd is trivializing the chemical engineering aspects of having a liquid nuclear fuel dissolved in a salt and needing to be continually filled up while removing waste.
All the talks are about the same basic conceptual stuff, they treat the biggest and hardest parts of practically pulling something like this off as a footnote - when in reality it would probably constitute by far the biggest expense in such a design.
@@Adamsnadler214 Same excuse was given to increasing the minimum wage. However, once it was done, the evidence didn't support the claims of inflation and cost increasing in the areas where the change was in effect. That's the problem with basic economics logic, it's, well, basic.
In Costa Rica, over 10% of our energy comes geothermal and growing
Nevertheless this is mostly for volcanic nations or at least for now
the earth is made of material that is not passing the heat to elements near so much (rocks)
If some areas were made just of metals. it would be insanely hot !
This is why I say that we should directly farm the gravitational energy by some way.
That's the source of the sun itself but what you gonna do people laugh at you.
it's an einstein problem he said gravity is not a force everyone is worshipping him now.
8:16 "... a non-toxic and degradable material is pumped down..." Yeah, I think we've all heard that one before ;-)
Ya the companies say that in product brochures and when the EPA wants a detailed composition list of such material, they claim it's a trade secret, thereby relieving themselves of any need to disclose. I guess they get away with it because energy is considered a national security issue. The EPA has always been under the thumb of vested interests.
It's basically fracking isn't it?
@@y__h Yes, lol. That _is_ fracking.
Says the uninformed skeptic
@@rcpmac No... Says almost every organization/company that does fracking, lol.
Please do a video on Thorium based energy, it’s are very underrated and not many people know about it.
Specifically Molten Salt Reactors. What's better than just using Thorium as fuel? Using it and all of the "nuclear waste" in short-term storage as fuel. Two birds, one stone, IMO
In my experience thorium isn't underrated but rather has its benefits massively exaggerated by people in science-adjacent circles online.
Not only thorium, but a whole raft of different Molten Salt Reactors, that can use not only Thorium, but also nuclear waste and plutonium. The process heat is high enough for making liquid hydrocarbon fuel, and removing CO2 from air or ocean.
The nuclear energy supply is next to endless.
@Danijel Mornarić
Only if it was as profitable as oil, coal, gas, and to a lesser extent solar. Profitability is the main drive for what power sources are propagated typically, not safety, reliability, etc.
infant jones I also find it interesting that those who support thorium are largely unaware of the fact that the USA has actually used thorium in commercial reactors in the past, but the costs of using the fuel were greater than its benefits of production.
Shippingport 1977 Reactor 3
Ft Vrain 1984 Reactor 2
Both of these reactors were Light Water Breeder Reactors that did not significantly outperform conventional PWRs.
So when these people point out the benefits of a LFTR, what they fail to recognize is that the considerable benefits are largely based on characteristics that thorium itself does not necessarily provide.
Most opposition to nuclear energy is based on ignorance. Change my mind.
Edit: To summ up most answers for those mentioning Chernobyl and others. Just like a plane crash, these examples are easy to point out sources of a couple tens of thousands of deaths. What people always forget mentioning is the estimated 4+ million deaths _a year_ from air pollution. That's one part of the ignorance i was talking about. A couple accidents costing a couple tens of thousands of lifes cant realistically ever outnumber the lifes we lose each year by polluting the air as we do. Then there is also climate change, which is a hard to grasp concept for some, but way worse than a couple tens of thousands of deaths by itself (and potentially irreversable if we keep continuing). Then there is the fact that newer types of reactors can pretty much make a meltdown more or less impossible, not even talking about using thorium. Keep in mind that nuclear energy was - and still is - a very new energy source in terms of progress. The only real problem would be the waste. However, it's better to be able to contain and store waste, compared to just pumping it into the atmosphere. Keep in mind that radioactive elements with short halftimes are the dangerous ones, but gone in a couple years. These with millions/billions of years of halflifes are basically not very dangerous, since they dont radiate a lot. So the most problematic ones are those with halflifes that make them radiate dangerous amounts, but still stick around long enough to cause problems. Still, in comparison this is a smaller problem to deal with than air pollution and greenhouse gases by far. Also renewable energy sources are neither renewable, nor completely green and it's not possible to sustain the planet by them alone, not to mention all those batteries needed.
Just like how most opposition to vaccines is based on ignorance. I mean, hell, the fucking quack who started the whole shitstorm wasn't even saying vaccines were bad in general, just that HIS vaccine formula was superior to the current MMR vaccine. Basically, he was flogging his own product to make money. -_-
Isnt the only problemb the nuclear waste?
@@mike4490 there isnt even all that much. just stick it under a mountain.
@@mike4490 isnt that much, we have deposits of nuclear waste prepared to receive the waste. Nuclear is the best solution to mankind
Most, yes. Not all, but most. The risks are greatly exaggerated in the public consciousness because of a handful of well-known disasters, while in fact nuclear plants are probably safer than most oil or coal plants.
However, part of the reason nuclear power plants *are* so safe is *because* the public is so paranoid about them.
"Around the Pacific ring, this tech is common."
Meanwhile, me in Peru: What's the name of that?
I love how he provides us with references throughout tthe video. Excellent work!
That "nuclear" power plant is a coal/natural gas plant in Romania. Note the smokestacks. Cooling towers are used in all kinds of power plants.
The planet is a big nuclear fission reactor. geothermal is extract heat from that reactor, why not use a direct nuclear reactor?. Nuclear reaction 8.000.000 times more energy dense that fuel or gas. dont fear nuclear radiation, that is a fear induced by energy cartels. Thunder lighting is a fission process that split atoms. Read all the details and sources here: mutualwelfare.org/what-do-we-really-know-about-nuclear-energy/
@@BienestarMutuo Talk to us when you figured out how to deal with the waste.
@@doxielain2231 do you know the sell price of the nuclear "waste", the truth will shock you
@@doxielain2231just curious how dangerous do you think most nuclear waste is?
@@doxielain2231 but burning biogas and coal creates greenhouse gasses too, plus, a bomb that destroyed an entire city was only around 2 metres long, a nuclear reactor probably won't create all that much waste. (I could be wrong because I don't know about this, this is just a a suggestion)
Lived in North Texas. There are shale reserves up there. So fracking is pretty popular. Pretty much once the fracking started we got earthquakes as far down as Dallas. Usually around 3+ magnitude. So the drilling isn’t just an issue for the acquisition of geothermal energy resources. It’s something we’ve already allowed for the tapping of natural gas reserves.
I mean geothermal power plant is just a nuclear power plant simplified, they use reactor that already exists which is earth core
Earth's core is molten iron, not a nuclear reactor
THANK YOU..! for telling people about EGS (Heat Mining). Most people have NO IDEA this energy IS AVAILABLE with EXISTING technology. BRAVO...!!!
I like how Andrew Yang is shown when you say "some smart politician"
(Not being ironic)
@KanadianSpaceProgram yes, though I don't want it to happen ASAP just because. It needs to be well planned so it will actually solve problems (especially with the welfare system, that should be replaced). Besides, Yang has many proposals, all detailed in his website, it's just that UBI is the most famous.
Yangs a different kind of candidate, its genuinely exciting stuff
@Johusep Lopez Prohibition argument only makes sense when applied to other addictive drugs and foods. guns are a tool aren't something you're urged to consume on the regular. it's also harder to produce guns and ammunition compared to brewing beer or moonshine. additionally black market firearms and only so cheap and plentiful in the states because it has a saturated white market to feed directly off. which is why black market guns are rare in britain and australia.
I just listened to his talk at the New Hampshire ACLU. ...he had a very clever idea to save money on incarceration, by paying people to not go back to jail.
He didn't mention numbers, but it looks like the Federal cost is around $100 per day. So, let's offer criminals, I don't know, $60 per day to not get arrested again?
See, we'd save $40 per day!
I can't imagine how this could possibly not be a good idea as long as you don't think about it for ten seconds.
What a brilliant mind.
I just have to decide what kind of candy bar I want to steal to start collecting my money.
An idea so blitheringly stupid, only an intellectual could take it seriously.
I'm sure the rest of his economic ideas are equally well thought out, and not designed just to supply a cozy-feeling answer to people seeking such.
I probably would put my efforts into coming up with a way to convince Trump to do it, given how fractured the left got due letting the far left people take control of it.
"Just imagine, taking the power of HOT GLOWING MAGMA to solve all the power problems. the left keeps doing those shitty bird killing turbines while completely ignoring the power just under their feet. the HOT BRILLIANT FUTURE POWER. the one that can bring a LOT of jobs"
So basically with EGS you are fracking for water rather than shale oil...
Doing a bunch of that fracking along the West African and Mediterranean shorelines to power desalinization plants to water the New Saharan Wetlands.
@@falstaff0808 Unintended consequences. Here's one, if they succeed in turning the Sahara green, the Amazon Rain Forest will die.
@@tibetloga Why do you think that? Evaporation from "Green Sahara" would increase the moisture in the atmosphere.
@@Will-be-free It's not the moisture, it's the dust. The soil in the Amazon is thin, which is why when they cut down the forest and plant soy beans, it's only good for a while, then the soil plays out. Without the fertilizing dust blown across the Atlantic ocean from the Sahara, the plants will wither and die from lack of nutrients. When the Sahara was a tropical rain forest with the largest freshwater lake in the world, the Amazon Rain Forest didn't exist. That may have been as recent as five thousand to seven thousand years ago. The number of "lost" civilizations being detected by space borne ground penetrating radar in the Sahara is shocking, and exciting.
Fracking for heat. With normal fracking you need to heat the area to soften the bitumen, this is the other way around. Which I'm sure will come with its own fun list of unintended consequences
You failed to mention that Geothermal has a problem of spotted cooling in areas that we pull energy from. So it’s not like a standard generator where you reinsert fuel or other renewables which are almost/if not all ultimately powered by the sun
I never would’ve thought a real engineering video would me help with a science project yet here I am
2:51 The earth’s crust is thin in Yellowstone specifically because it is a MASSIVE volcano.
It's a "hot spot" underneath the continental plate that burns a hole up through the plate. There is a similar hot spot in the Pacific that created the Hawaiian islands. In both cases the plates drift above the hot spot, leaving a long trail of volcanoes, only the latest of which is active.
no its a massive volcano because its crust is thin
Fun fact: Massive geothermal generators in Yellowstone could prevent a supervolcano there (and probably diminish the local geysers).
@@HalNordmann OR, by cooling the rocks above the hot spot we increase the pressure required to break through, allowing greater volumes of magma and pressure to build before eruption can happen. Thus making the eventual volcanic eruption larger and more damaging than it would have been without our interference.
Warren Garabrandt Once it reaches a critical level we could close off the geysers and openings that vent the pressure with tens of thousands tons of concrete. This would result in absolute inhalation of any living organisms including the 60 species of animals and over 300 species of birds of which some are endangered species.
They have had geothermal power stations in New Zealand for about three decades, I understand their output is gradually failing.
Normal when you think about it, there comes a point where you're going to start creating a cooler "bubble" around where you're sucking out all the heat. So they will either need to dig a bit deeper, or shut down for a bit to let things warm back up.
@Sandcastle • that's not how it works. The process of reheating is slow, it takes ~30 years to reheat again. You suck the heat out of the local patch, not from the core of the planet
That is not really an issue if the amount of energy produced in that 30 years is the same as a coal fired plant, as for that 30 years you did not burn coal and empty a big coal mine.
@Feeds Ravens i'm repeating a comment i read before coming across yours: the chemicals may be corrosive to plant hardware but not harmful to the environment, e.g. all the minerals from the rocks say calcium carbonate aren't harmful, but they may crystallise and essentially create millions of tiny daggers that scrape away at the turbine blades. obviously the high pressure and temperature required for geothermal doesn't help the wear and tear.
How fast it's falling depends on how fast you are pumping heat topside, that is how much power you are pulling from it. It's not an infinite energy source by any means, it's a mas of hot rocks with only so much heat trapped in them, once you cool them down you are done. Rock is a poor thermal conductor so it's not going to heat back up any time soon.
*Shows Andrew Yang when talking about smart politicians*
Very epic
Yeah whip cream in my mouth guy
Lol i wpuld of voted for him
@@thunderlifestudios i will never vote for him.
@HEAV¥HAND lol you wish
@HEAV¥HAND just like asian family unit.
Thank you for creating a video on geothermal. Usually, a serious discussion about renewable energy sources completely bypasses geothermal. With newer techniques beyond what is mentioned in the video, perhaps geothermal can be given the respect it deserves.
Sam from Wendover Productions would probably use a plane to drill
or a toyota corolla
@@nddragoon Or a cargo plane filled with Toyota Corollas *mindblow*
Well planes would be needed to help transport workers to and from jobsite. :)
@@plasmaburndeath And the Toyota Corollas would be used to move workers and things on the power plant
@@serruredelespace precisely sir. And don't forget Aerial drones will survey, monitor, defend and provide real time information of each site 😎😎😎😎
The seismic risk is not the only risk. In Germany there is a city where they punctured a waterproof layer of stone that lead to water floing into lime stone and that then expanded and lifted the city center over a meter up, damaging many houses.
Got a seminar to present ....glad I find this video ❤️
Finally, someone is talking about this planet saving energy source!!! Engineers rock!!! 🇨🇦
JOKE ON CANADA THE ONLY COUNTRY LOCATED IN THE RING OF FIRE NOT TO OWN GEOTHERMAL PLANT.
So this is not a technical issue but mainly a political one. Political problems can be solved with awareness - and videos like this increase the awareness for issues. Keep up the good work!
Main conclusion I'm coming out of this video with is that nuclear is still the best option for our primary source of electricity. Wish you would do a video on the topic.
Maybe we can use portable nuclear to run massive boring machines that would dig large scale geothermal wells ?
True, better fission reactors until we can master fusion ones.
Also people should get government subsidies for more efficient home appliances.
There is no single "best option". If we really want to address carbon dioxide emissions from electricity production, we'll need a variety of different solutions: Solar power can do a good job at providing residential buildings with sufficient electricity, which can take some load off a mains powered by hydro-electric, geothermal, wind or osmotic power where applicable, and nuclear power everywhere else.
Note that I specified it as our best primary source, not the only source.
Seeing as the sun is actually a sizable nuclear reactor which would have long ago cooked our little planet into a lifeless desert without our magnetic field I'd agree. So what is the one energy source that is entirely non nuclear?
In central Illinois, we use geothermal differences to make more energy efficient hvac systems. It would be interesting juxtaposition to look at the differences between the power plants and these hvac systems.
Great educational video from an informed and educated source. Love the accent. How is it that Ireland produces such smart and brilliant engineers!! All the smartest engineers I have met are Irish....keep the education going. Great job.
"Safe additives"...
Until someone finds a cheaper toxic alternative.
nah just ask them to drink it after all its (non toxic)
And why don't frackers use this safe additive if it is so effective?
Safe additives is usually fine grade sand, which is pretty cheap
@@dathanneal3115 Because they don't want to risk diluting or damaging their precious oil. Since, for geothermal, we're just using water, biodegradable additives are a better and cheaper option.
@@almondpotato9483 I barely remember what my point was lol but thanks for the info
I have always been a fan of geothermal power and been curious why it haven't caught on yet. Thank you for making this video! It only have increased my support for geothermal.
Really thought-provoking. Thanks, Real Engineering.
We could do better with conserving what we already have. I live in Northern Virginia, surrounded by massive data centers. The smart thing would be to use the cooling requirements of the data centers as a source of heat for the thousands of homes nearby. Unfortunately smarts are hard to find at the moment.
that is a cool idea
There is a company that builds distributed data centers where they put the computers in your house so they heat they give off heats your house. They pay for the electricity and internet usage so you get free heat.
"Boundless", the laws of thermodynamics would like to have a word with you.
The Sun isn't off the hook either.
If we drill deep enough the pressure will generate enough heat to the point that it can boil water. This will be a good geothermal steam power source. Assuming a company is willing to invest on this.
Same can be said about "renewables". Yes, it is a misnamer. Practically speaking, it does not really matter.
Boundless in engineering terms and not physics terms.
@@colmercer3315 At what cost and for how long can the heat be extracted? Do economics enter into this at all? For many physical reasons you can't just drill down anywhere and expect a good return on your investment. Look how many alternative energy companies rose .. and fell .. under Obama. The market wasn't there and the tech wasn't good enough nor economical enough nor scaleable enough. Fossil fuels are energy dense, economical, and pervasive. That doesn't make me happy as I despise the damage that the industry and the use of the products does to mother nature. However, I have yet to see any current alternative that doesn't have some serious negatives, comparable to the worst in fossil fuel usage.
*For some reason*
This reminds me of Dr. Stone's latest episode
Woah a fellow man of culture
@@PAWTeamUnited why hello there
@@officer_baitlyn General Kenobi
Is it as good as people say? How many episodes are out as of now?
@@fokjohnpainkiller Its very light on the science. However it is a good watch. I guess it tugs at the part of your dreams and what if's you have ever dreamnt would happen if you lived through the end of the world as we know it.
Breaking up a lot of underground rocks, no matter how you do it, is a rather risky thing to do. Geothermal energy is worth looking into. But we need to be careful about what can go wrong. Earthquakes, sinkholes, and unexpected contamination of groundwater, are all things that have to be carefully considered and allowed for.
@Real Engineering
Great topic. It would be nice if you did a video on residential/commercial HVAC. IMO, we should've been dumping tax incentives into the consumption efficiency side of the equation. Geotherm is a source of heating/cooling that could benefit far more people more quickly than solar or wind.
It would have been worth mentioning geothermal energy used directly to heat homes and buildings. You don't have to drill down as low since you don't need as much of a temperature differential, and it still lightens the load on the electric grid. In fact, it's actually a lot more efficient to use roof top solar panels to power a pump in a home geothermal system than to use the power from the panels directly to heat the water.
That depends on the location imho. Fluid temperature of the thermal solar panels should be way higher than the ground temperature few meters below. So given a large enough thermal solar panel size one can skip the heat pump on a good sunny winter day.
70 percent of home energy use is space conditioning and hot water generation. And you need not use old geothermal technology use a heat pipe and a solar thermal stirling engine as a Hybrid.
That is occurring all over the world for those lucky or mostlikely Rich enough to afford that. Also I would not like to live so close to molten magma. That heat comes with a price the steam is laden with corrosive minerals and chemicals which rust, oxidize and corrode any type of piping or radiator systems you use. We put distilled water in the radiator of our cars for this reason.
@@KimberlyRPeacock This is fine if one lives in sunny Spain. In the North the winters often are cold and dark. If we do not want to burn the stuff and want to use a heat pump as more efficient than direct electric heating, then some shallow-(ish) geothermal is an option.
@@darked89 I would argue it works well in the north as well, even in arctic regions. Combined power and heating, and here we are talking temp differential for the power generation and heating store the water which is your heat storage medium namely as its inexpensive at just slightly above 100 F and store in in a receiver underground where temp is say 50F. Connect to heat pipes so you are not sending energy to pump, then use the temp differential between ambient and that and use both thermal electric generators and Stirling engines to generate electricity and even compress to raise temp above receiver temp if needed. In summer you have a sun that nearly never sets and your store that energy in your water reservoir. It will take a lot of volume but you can make it inexpensive if you have a few homes sharing such.. However for a town or city the volume would be the issue I suppose. Probably better to store in magnesium hydride than water just because its 78KJ per mol H2 and use the sun and solar concentrators to get up to 300C in summer to release the H2 at atmospheric pressure.
would be cool to see a video on nuclear energy, Gen 4 reactors in particular. Ideally without the "nuclear is evil" narrative.
thats not a narrative thats reality
Well that would be a first for modern greens.
@@huntera123 idk about you but when i say green energy i don't mean fallout :P
@@FirstArchon
When I think of "green", the reality of huge wind turbines filling the world's open spaces doesn't seem compatible. Turbines that have huge carbon footprint, are intermittent, require industrial infrastructure in formerly open spaces, and hurt huge areas of the environment.
@@huntera123 they will always be more green than poisoning the entire planet with radiation
Very informative!!! Thankyou!!! 👍
I liked how you added references
like Kirk Sorensen said "any argument for geothermal energy, if thoroughly explored will lead to nuclear energy"
Kirk: the thorium man!
Simply not true.
Nuclear energy is not renewable according to Dr. Helen Caldecot and I agree with her when you bring into account the exploration and production of uranium which is extracted for EACH nuke generator crushes one hundred and eighty nine MILLION tons (let that number sink in) for the two grams of fissionable material needed to run the generator for ONE YEAR! Each plant and we are nearing 666 nuclear generators in the world with 16 more on the books to be built!
It may be cost effective now that we have oil and gas but when we run out and we will, that's a lot of solid granite rocks to crush by hard labor! ONE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY NINE MILLION TONS!
@@cransonsnord9508 But that nuclear power plant in the sky is.
@@cransonsnord9508 it's not people crushing the rocks with hammers, plus Kirk is a supporter of thorium which is more abundant and more efficient. And like, renewable sources also need sources, especially wind power which requires a lot of steel, and since the life of a windmill is less than 15 years you have a lot of mining for iron to do. Solar panels also requires vast amounts of rare materials such as very pure silicon.
That is exactly what we need! We are using geothermal heat in Sweden to upward our houses
You do need to "upward" something.!.!.!..
my alarm bells always ring when i hear "safe additives"
That's because you don't understand science.
@@Aeturnalis I have bachelor degrees in chemistry and biology and a master in life sciences so I have to disagree strongly with you
it does, but i tend to trust real engineering most of the time....
mixed feelings
Is this source of energy really limitless though? If we keep tapping heat over a long time (say next 200 years) at a global scale, wouldn't it lead to eventual cooling of our plant's body? And when that happens, what side effects can we expect? Massive earthquakes, change in earth's magnetic field or something else? In other words we can be looking at catastrophic consequences!
yeah that's what i've been thinking. if our planet's core cooling down, it may change the way the magnetic field & tectonic plates behave
Nah, global warming should heat it back up.
@@HarD4545 I'm pretty sure any coming effect from human Geothermal installations is negligible compared to volcanism and natural tectonic activity. Add to that the total mass and temperature of the earth, that a lot of the earth's core heat also comes from friction and gravity, as well as radioactive delay, And I doubt we can expect any effects on the century or even millennia scale.
Current estimates for the earth's core have its dynamo effect ending in 3 billion years, while the sun expanding would likely make Earth uninhabitable within a similar timeframe. For perspective, anatomically modern humans are thought to have existed for 300 000 years, great apes for 15 million years. Cooling from geothermal plants is like worrying the about draining the sea with a bucket - our effect is tiny, and much bigger forces already in motion today will shape its future.
Man of steel vibes. Jor-el telling to the concil that harvest Krypton core was suicide haha
Also...it can cause earthquakes....so really.....lets just invest in more solar.
What about thorium? I thought that was the future fuel?
It will be the year someone puts the first commercial plant into profitable generation. Chinese are going to get there first and patent the technology we invented because ecolunatics and corrupt politicians don't give a fuck about anything but me mine and I.
Geothermals is basically thorium with extra step.s
Some numbnuts let it slip that it's nuclear, and now no politician can touch it. :(
@@EvitoCruor The Chinese can't patent the technology we invented in the 1960s, since we invented it in the 1960s and it's public knowledge, being a government funded program and all. Yes the Chinese will get there first, in part because we are helping them, but that will only serve to hasten it's adoption in other countries. I'm more worried about the potential energy independence China will have and how that will impact the global economy than I am about the technology being available to China.
Molten salt breeder reactors are the actual future in this regard, almost all of the claimed benefits of thorium are just in the type of reactor, not thorium itself. A lot of research is still needed on these types of reactors however, while we already have very good uranium designs ready to go at any time. The main issue is that in the US there's loads of opposition to nuclear that ends up leading to construction times and costs being 2-3 times that in the rest of the world, while the anti-nuclear lobby is trying to force a nuclear phase-out in Europe (which has only really occurred in Germany so far, leaving them with with a 500 billion dollar failure to reduce carbon emissions and a much less stable power grid). If molten salt breeder reactors become viable, even with the benefits of them over light water reactors, they'll immediately become a major target of the anti-nuclear lobby.
Nuclear already being extremely safe, efficient, and reliable hasn't stopped the anti-nuclear pro-"renewable" lobby (Greenpeace, Sierra Club, and most importantly the fossil fuel industry, /especially/ natural gas) in the US and Europe from making blatant falsehoods and misconceptions common beliefs in order to drive up public opposition to the technology, I really do doubt that even better reactor designs are going to change this.
Remember Krypton!
Another side benefit to geothermal is that you can more quickly mine and process lithium and other valuable minerals using the same process that heats the water used to produce energy. When you circulate these liquids you also pick up a lot of the mineral brine that is embedded in these rocks, and some of that will be lithium if placed near a lithium deposit.
swedish climeon ab is has such cool technology for extracting geothermal energy
Kolla in video - Vad är en Trompe? - czcams.com/video/7pMeB6HIqnY/video.html
What exactly is "renewable" about a limited (albeit huge) reservoir of residual heat that is bound to slowly cool on a cosmic timescale? We may or may not be able to tap any significant fraction of it, yes, but what would be renewing it? There's no such thing as "idling" energy "sitting in reserve" while we aren't using it - if the energy coming to the surface and being radiated away is currently roughly in balance, then as soon as we start tapping any significant portion of it something will start cooling off...
Yeah, it's no good on cosmic scales, for that we're talking Dyson spheres and lifting fusion fuel out of the gas giants.
@@jeffvader811 That's what I'm talking about. Drilling holes in planets sounds dumb when we have a giant star right over there.
@@jengleheimerschmitt7941
Probably a waste of time for a K2 civilisation, not so much for us. I wonder if geothermal power would work well on Europa or Io for that matter?
1) Fracking fluid is not toxic. While not pleasant, it's actually safe to consume directly.
2) Shale oil fields occur at much deeper depths than aquifers. Even at their closest, aquifers are separated from shale oil by hundreds of feet of impenetrable air/water tight rock.
When I become a supervillain Ill use geothermal power plants as my cover for cooling down the Earths core and putting an end to the Earths magnetic field. Muhahahaha...
Is this a Risk?
and filled it with candys for the tallest ? this sound like an Irken. is that you Tak ?
@@johannesnm9706 realistically no by the time ot runs out of energy wed be millions of years in the future and even then it will still be hot.
That's like saying you're going to put up a bunch of solar panels and take all the sun's energy so the sun shrinks and disappears. All that energy is just going to waste when it's not being harnessed. The Earth's core is going to cool down in a few billion years regardless if the energy is harnessed or not.
@@johannesnm9706 yes. Small hole can empty the sea over enough time
Geothermal = limited, nuclear = the future.
Could now make a video about thorium because it seems like a lot of people dismiss nuclear energy...
That's what I was about to google.
There's also direct solar water splitting, which can be used to store solar energy for later use and avoid wasted electricity like in California.
@@iwiffitthitotonacc4673 Interesting!
seems good to me, in 30 years we can go and build another geothermal plant just aside.
That was pretty damn good
we love space x. We traveled to Boca Chica to the the starshing get built. & we got the S dual motor fsd last Christmas 🎄 😎 still have the cybertruck tri motor or 4 motor fsd on order..
Make one video on mathematical modelling in weather forecasting
Please
08:30 EGS is just like fracking, how can you even consider it.
I know you talk about the similarities but :
The issue with fracking isn't the fluids used, but the damage it does to the ground.
In electronic repair work, the best work is the one that cannot be spotted post-repair.
This concept is applicable everywhere esle. The most relaible path for any activities, is the one that doesn't leave any traces. EGS leaves plenty.
Whatever you think you know about fracking, I suggest you ignore. I highly consider finding some objective view points on it from reputable folks. It is not nearly as damaging as it is portrayed. Incidents are incredibly rare. it has become a buzzword that few understand. Its so poorly understood that those against it use this to their advantage. Go look at Anti-fracking diagrams and depictions. They wont show any scale or key details are left out such as bed rock. Yes theyll show the fracking "damaging" the water table yet will not show bedrock and the fact that fracking is done below it(theyll show the fracking above the water table. it is absurd.)
@@JamesTTierce I'll go read about it, maybe you have a point
We have a large, close to the surface super volcano over here called Yellowstone.
Always wondered why we didn't exploit that more than we do.
And tapping into the energy would at least delay the supervolcano.
Its protected by preservation regulationsfrom geothermal
Also alot of research would need to be done to prevent the magma cavity from depressurizing potentially causing an eruption or pressurizing causes an eruption or producing earthquakes compromising surrounding rock causing an eruption or the lack of knowledge about volcanoes especially so called supervolcanoes accidently causing an eruption...
@@HalNordmann Or if your f..k it up in enginnering terms you could prematurely spark off a Vei 7 volcano. In Iceland a geo thermal energy project did spark of a volcano.
The geothermal rebate is 30% for residential systems in the area around me (Michigan). It makes geothermal competitive with standard hvac systems.
This is all nonsense. If you'd read Dante, you'd known the centre of the earth is actually cold.
Funny joke
@Anonymous Logic dictates it will be hot given we have volcanoes and plate tectonics alone. It dosent take a genius to work out the center of the earth will also be hot. Its illogical for trillions of tonnes of pressure at the center to not form heat.
With seismic waves we can eventually know the layers in our core and this is how we know how its looking and how warm it is.
30% of Iceland's electricity comes from geothermal
have you seen Iceland?
Not really astonishing for 5 people living on a steam geyser.
@@ayumikuro3768 lmao that's true actually
That Iceland, the perfect geothermal location is only 30% tells a great deal.
Edward Nelson im glad someone noticed that glaring inconsistency!
Honestly harnessing geothermal by drilling looks like the exact plot of Krypton's explosion. Start building an interstellar ship - one of us will become Superman
Ayon De finally someone said it.... throughout this whole video I was thinking, “you know.... krypton showed us exactly why not to do this”. Lol
Could you make a video on safety risks and average deaths for conventional sources like oil and coal and gas, i am very interested in why nuclear is considered so much riskier
the problem wiht geothermal is the same as withc fracking, putting lots of lubricant into fault zones and instable tectonic regions and near volcanoes isnt a very good idea, its also very locational
yeah, and if industrialized to the extent to make a dent in global electric needs, well, I'm not sure how I feel about accelerating the cooling of the dynamo that protects us all from solar flairs and cosmic radiation. At the most basic level, geothermal is taking the heat out of the ground and dumping it into the air to generate mechanical or electric energy. thus my second doubt about geothermal electricity on a mass industrialized level. There is a limit to how much heat the atmosphere can dissipate into space before things get a tad toasty for us down here on the ground. The latter being why city-planets (Ecumenopolis) in sci-fi is not that realistic unless you space people out significantly to reduce total heat output from energy usage.
@@Zarcondeegrissom
Any method of energy generation will eventually turn into heat though, that's a fact of thermodynamics. If we looked only at the power generated (ignoring all emissions) wind creates the exact same amount of heat as coal. It seems counter-intuitive, but it makes sense really, all that energy goes into heating homes, powering ovens, driving electric cars, etc, and all of that generates heat either directly or through friction and other losses. What matters isn't so much the energy generated, but the energy lost to space, if we lose energy at the same rate we gain it, huzzah! We won't change temperature, but right now we're decreasing our rate of energy loss with greenhouse gases, so we're warming up to a new equilibrium, which ain't the greatest. Ultimately, global warming is all about managing our thermodynamics.
"Any method of energy generation will eventually turn into heat though, that's a fact of thermodynamics.", yep, true, and sure I implied as much in closing (energy usage). "if we lose energy at the same rate we gain it, huzzah!", again, yep, (There is a limit to how much heat the atmosphere can dissipate into space). And agreed about managing thermals.
I'm just not sure you understood the scale of what was being suggested by this vid. we are not talking about using geothermal heat that otherwise would naturally rise to the surface at natural rates, what was being proposed is digging down and pulling more heat out of the ground than would otherwise naturally rise through the ground to the surface, thus adding more heat to the atmosphere than what naturally arrives here from the sun or through normal geological heating. That's what I have doubts about.
(sarcasm detected) Burning fossil fuels is bad, so let's add more heat to the atmosphere from another place it normally doesn't come from at the proposed rates needed to augment the electric grids worldwide, lol.
@@Zarcondeegrissom
I'm afraid you've still not understood. All of our energy comes from heat, all of it. Solar power utilises the heat of the sun, coal power uses the heat of burning things, nuclear power uses the heat of splitting atoms, every kilowatt of power produced has at least a kilowatt of heat that went into making that power. Getting energy from the core of the Earth would dump just as much heat into the atmosphere as getting the same energy from solar or wind, the source makes no difference outside of emissions, which change the Earth's rate of heat loss.
except, the sun still shines if you don't use a windmill or solar panel. thus that source of heat is not being changed (only where it's converted into heat the atmosphere must dissipate). Whatever, you'll figure it out on your own eventually. you're so close to grasping what I first typed. good day.
Great stuff, had often wondered why there wasn't more geothermal... [tho clearly never enough to actually bother looking it up] So thx for the info.
What about the idea of using simple pipes to provide underfloor heating direct to buildings? [obv in suitable places.]
Loved the subtle little Yang plug.
CA often has to curtail solar in the spring and the fall (lots of sun, low A/C demand), but not usually during high-summer because there is enough A/C demand to offset it.
I was really surprised when you mentioned Moss Landing. Why would PG&E put a battery there? But then I remembered, Moss Landing is part of what is almost an island-grid. It has poor connectivity to the main CA grid, and the natural gas supply is also constricted. (If I remember right). It used to have a coal plant long ago but it was eventually replaced with the gas plant. People got really sick of that coal plant causing acid rain which stained everything. Homes, Vehicles, Boats... it was pretty yuch.
I think PG&E's purpose in putting in the batteries might be to clip the peak usage times in order to avoid having to put in another NG generator (or have to expand the NG supply to the area). It actually makes a lot of sense in that light.
-Matt
why not just put the lava in buckets for fuel
I love the comment section
geothermal is not really renewable - it is more akin to a battery. When all that heat in the earth's core is gone, it is gone. Iron core could slow in spinning too weakening the magnetosphere.
That's like saying solar isn't renewable because eventually the sun is going to die. Sure, it's not infinite, but it's close enough that it doesn't matter.
technically the sun is akin to battery as well, and will run out one day.
That's not the same thing in the least. Sun is producing constantly more energy, and will produce it no matter what, for billions of years to come.
Earth's core is not magically getting more energy from nowhere, afaik there is no such reaction going which would generate more. Some from gravitational pull yes?
It is insanely much energy there is inside earth, but what happens when we start to draw significant amounts out of it?
It is a bit the same as getting out liquidified dinos out of the ground, i am sure when oil industry started it seemed infinite supply as well - turns out it is not *that* infinite.
Energy demand grows constantly.
Fortunately this can be alleviated, using ground heat to heatup buildings is quite common where i am. During summers those buildings are being cooled by AC and if you pump that heat back into the ground instead ground will act like one giant battery in this case and it might actually be net positive amount of energy put into the ground.
Do the same with geothermal power plants where possible, "remote cooling" is starting to become a thing, where centralized heating using waste energy of power plants has been a thing for a long time, over here i hear they are starting to offer summer time cooling by pumping cool water into the same pipes.
@@skaltura "what happens when we start to draw significant amounts out of it?"
This assumes that peak demand represents a "significant amount". I would hazard a guess that it does not. Your analogy of fossil fuels is poor, because fossil fuels can only exist in the crust of the earth, which is a REALLY small part of the earth. I think you're vastly underestimating just how much mass exists in the mantle.
According to the National Geographic Society, the Earth has been emitting heat for about 4.5 billion years, and will continue to emit heat for billions of years into the future because of the ongoing radioactive decay in the Earth's core.
Nothing we do is going to measurably change how long the Earth continues to radiate heat.
One of my ideas was to use Yosemite's super volcano as a source of "limitless" geothermal energy. Siphoning off the heat may slow down or maybe reverse the timeline for eruption. Or if it has no impact on the volcano's eruption timeline, then you still get practically limitless energy.
Very interesting. I have considered the fact that there is more than enough energy under our feet to reduce our carbon footprint by at least half, using the cracked rock method..
As mentioned, using another gas with a lower boiling point reduces the level at which is needed to produce power,, and the safety far outruns using atomic power in terms of safety.
However, there is another method that is being kept very much hidden.
In Australia, we had in western Australia a plant that used the sun.
Using mirrors that were used to directvthe suns energy via parabolic mirrors directly onto tubes at the centre of the oblong mirrors this heated the fluid in the tubes to a huge temperature running generators, once built the maintenance was very basic as there was little to go wrong.
To my amazment this plant was shut down, why is a mistery as for a start if was far more productive the solar cell fields, all the active parts were above ground so easy to work on, it was easy to add to to produce more energy and offered a number of different fluids to run through the centre tube so that even when not in complete sun, the e nergy was still produced.
Therevare other ways of making electricty such as hydro plants but not huge dams , as there are many fast flowing rivers through out the world that can and should be used to produce cost effective energy just from their flow rate.
A look at the amount of engergy produced by some of the smallest units says that all,forms of energy supplied by nature are really worth looking at.
Wouldn't bringing heat up from underground faster than it's "natural" speed cause an increase in the equilibrium temperature of the biosphere, i.e. exactly the problem already caused by the greenhouse effect?
Same question. But maybe insignificant in scale?
why did you dismiss nuclear at the beginning?
Because he's discussing renewable energies, clearly. I'm sure he knows how valuable nuclear energy is as well, but this channel is real engineering and the renewables are more interesting to discuss, I guess.
Method number 1: Use all the excess energy of the summer to pump water and refill a giant dam. Therefore you convert the electrical energy into potential energy. Granted it will not as efficient but you save that energy to be used in winter. Just a thought.
Method number 2: Use all the excess energy for electrolysis of water into H2 and O2, save those two in liquid form in large storage tanks and than using hydrogen fuel cells you can generate electricity.
In my opinion method number 1 is the most logical since you probably already have all the necessary infrastructure you just pump water back in the dam.
What do you guys say about those methods? Are they so "star trek" level methods? :)
Step 3: Realize renewable are kinda shit and switch to nuclear.
First method is useful for some places but not most, two big problems are efficiency when accounting the infrastructure on installation and maintenance in operation. Second is the location, you can't go around damming everything without causing some serious issues with your local hydrosphere.
For method 1 there's just not enough space on earth to build so many dams.
And for method 2 we can go a step further and convert the H₂ into methane, because it's easier to store, and we have an existing grid of gas power plants and heating systems that run on methane.
Ozan l
I can’t really comment on method 2, as I’ve not researched that, but method 1 is unlikely to be plausible at a national or international scale:
- Immensely high initial cost (to buy the land, build the dam; reservoirs, etc)
- Immensely damaging to the environment in/around it (think about it; a reservoir is basically a controlled flood. Plus you still need fossil fuels (asphalt) to line the bottom of the reservoirs so the water doesn’t seep out)
@@blackmesa232323 I cannot agree more dude! Nuclear energy is the only energy source available that is completely independent from the sun or the environment around it! I wish we had more nuclear power plants. But noooo some idiot thinks that it generates too much radioactive waste. Sure it does, as long as you handle them accordingly it is by far the safest power generation method!
Absolutely awesome !
I would consider the possibility that if drilling caused an earthquake...it may have released the pressure that was inevitably going to get worse before it was released.
Its not like drilling adds that much energy, so the whole thing was inevitable.
Yesterday I finished installing solar panels on my roof, let’s go green energy!!!
Good luck redeeming footprint of logistics of getting them to you from production plant. Let alone the impact of their production and maintenance.
NGC1433 You can either stay as you are and complain or try to make the world a better place.😉
@@polgabaldon He's saying that if they do not produce enough electricity over their life span, you're actively doing the opposite.
MammutMKII I know, I know, but that's when all the calculations come into account and not only will they will be completely paid for in five years but are also built in a sunny climate which makes the most profit out of them ensuring a clean final net production.
Pol Gabaldon Im not sure why everyone’s being a dick to you. Even if solar isn’t yet a viable enough option to please everyone, the only way the technology will ever improve is if those who sell it are able to continue selling them as they continue to improve. Also, solar panels can easily absorb more energy than it took to produce them, even taking the mining into account. To suggest otherwise is absurd
My uni is very much focused towards energy engineering and my lecturer believes that unless we switch entirely to solar wind geo and nuclear within the next couple years there is no chance
No chance of what ???, the last thing we need is more Nuclear Power Stations and yes I know about how badly we need the electricity and how environmentally friendly it is and all that Bullshit, the problem is when it goes wrong the Conciequences for the world could be Catastrophic if enough atomic pollution was blasted into the Atmosphere. It would kill every living thing on the planet eventually, whilst I agree we must do something to try and cut our man made emissions it needs to be done Globally not just a few country's taking action while the likes of China and India carry on regardless burning fossil fuels. Unless we all change its not going to work and all this about electric vehicles won't work either if there's not enough power stations to produce all the electric these vehicles are going to need worldwide. This change over should have been started years ago Not left to the last minute but of course the oil producers wouldn't have liked that and scuppered any chance of it happening. The oil Barons are beginning to see where their industry is going and they ain't happy about the fall in oil prices but the only way is down from here now on as demand drops because of people's desire for electric vehicles goes up as battery storage gets better. The glory days for oil is over. The Saudis and others have had a field day with oil sales squandering vast amounts of money on Bentleys and Rolls Royce cars and flash speedboats plus other extravagant lifestyles.
"Low hanging fruit"..... Good one, since it's 'under our feet' and we have to drill for it 👍😁😁. Geothermal and Hydro-Power, both good sources we should be using more of!
Thanks for your video's,
Random potential doomsday thought but if we over-exploit geothermal energy from the earth's molten core, might it be possible to cause the earth's core to cool, reducing its temperature and motion and potentially weakening the dynamo that generates the magnetosphere and protects us from solar radiation, allowing life to exist at all?
No, we wouldn't speed up this weakening at all, and the Earth itself will be long uninhabitable before its core cools. It will last billions of years.
Correct. And in the Bible Paul put his words like this: "For it is written, I will Destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world ? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. ... Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is Stronger than men. For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called : But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;" (1 Cor. 1:19-21, 25-27)
@@MR-ub6sq 🤣lol what are you even doing here? Stop using these tools of human wisdom to indulge earthly hubris and abandon your possessions and loved ones and like your 'messiah' told you and rid us of your stupidity and having to deal with your bronze-age apocalyptic blood cult.🖕
@@pjkempen7413 What were you going to do about it if I didn't stop?
@@MR-ub6sq
8====D~~~~
Decentralized generation of geothermal energy is the future
"Rattler Energy" power plant works on any gas presser or liquids makes power. 72 psi at 180 F in a
2 inch pipe going in to the head comes out a 4 inch at 2 lbs. at 18 F makes 63 KW. Can handle up to 600 psi. They make a 250 KW, 500 KW, 1 MW & a 5 MW.
Iceland is already using it.
With pipes or channels just under the surface to melt the ice and warm the country.
They have turned their country into a lovely place to live.