backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 142 comment(s) - last by FaceMaster.. on Jul 5 at 12:39 PM


Mount Spurr, shown here from a southern approach, is among the recently active volcanoes that the Alaskan government is hoping to draw power from. They will be auction land to utilities in August for geothermal development purposes.  (Source: US Geological Survey)

The Chena Hot Springs Resort in Alaska is powered entirely by geothermal, including unique heating and cooling systems. The heat is used to warm a massive greenhouse that grows prized produce for the resort's restaurant, while refrigeration allows the resort's massive ice museum to stay frozen, even in the summer.  (Source: www.chenahotsprings.com)
Good warming; Alaska's geothermal efforts heat up

Late last week, Alaskan officials announced that they would be funding an exploration and surveying of Alaska's largest volcanoes, which they say could provide enough energy to power thousands of households

In an era of soaring energy costs, wind and solar are often thought of alternatives.  Geothermal, especially volcanic geothermal, is a more surprising source to many.  However, volcanoes and hot springs are estimated to be able to provide at least 25 percent of Alaska's energy needs, according to experts.

The government is pushing utilities to lease land on Mount Spurr.  The mountain is an 11,070-foot active volcano and erupted as recently as 1992.  The government says power companies can tap into the vast heat teeming beneath the volcano's surface to generate power.

A lease sale will be held in August to these ends.  The government is planning many similar sales.  The government is also targeting 4,134-foot Augustine Volcano, also near Anchorage, for prospecting.

Alaska is not alone, either.  Dozens of states have geothermal resources.  Experts estimate that if fully exploited, these resources could provide 25 percent of the entire nation's power needs.  Karl Gawell, executive director of the Geothermal Energy Association (GEA) states, "High prices and climate change are definitely creating a renaissance in geothermal interest, particularly on a state and local level."

Currently tax-subsidy eligible projects are underway in Texas, Florida, and most of the western states.  These projects are just the "tip of the iceberg" according to Mr. Gawell.  He states, "If we really want to go all out for it, we could easily achieve a substantial amount, 20, 25 per cent of US energy needs within a few decades. We're limited more by public policy than the resource - the resource is enormous."

According to the Bureau of Land Management, 12 states -- including Alaska -- have high potential geothermal lands.  The most recent survey showed 200 million acres of public land with geothermal potential.  However, Mr. Gawell says that these tracts, while impress are only part of the nation's hidden geothermal resources.  He says many geothermal plots likely exist without outward features like hot springs.  By his estimates 80 percent of the geothermal land in the U.S. remains undiscovered.

In Alaska, home to many easy to see geothermal power sources, geothermal seems like common sense.  However, since the 1970s development has been put on hold thanks to Alaska's abundant oil resources.  Now with oil price at record highs, Alaska is reconsidering geothermal.

The greatest challenge remains in coming up with innovative designs to tap the massive heat wells.  Some are rising to the challenge; among them is a resort at Chena Hot Springs which is entirely powered by hot springs.  It features hot springs driven interior heating and cooling, power, refrigeration (for its ice museum), and heating for a greenhouse.  The resort near Fairbanks is gaining much attention for its innovations.

Presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama mentioned the potential for geothermal power in a recent speech.  However, Mr. Gawell argues the issue is still not receiving the level of attention it deserves.  He says, "The problem is it's only being produced in a handful of states. It's well known in those states but it's unknown in others."

Outside the U.S., Europe is also experiencing strong interest in geothermal power.  Europe is the birthplace of the power technology, with the first plant built in Larderello, Italy in 1904.  The GEA is predicting that the number of countries worldwide using geothermal will more than double to 46 by 2010.

While exploiting geothermal resources at volatile sites like volcanoes sounds dangerous, there is tremendous profit to be had with the risk.  With proper monitoring, these sites could be safely operated to produce immense amounts of electrical power.  It appears that Alaska may be on the leading edge of a new alternative energy revolution that's right under our feet.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

sounds like a good idea...
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 6/30/2008 1:11:46 PM , Rating: 2
two things come to mind.
1) If a volcano is dormant - can you still collect energy from it?
2) How long of a distance can you send this energy? 5 miles? 100 miles? 1,000 miles? (may not benefit enough people)




RE: sounds like a good idea...
By masher2 (blog) on 6/30/2008 1:17:49 PM , Rating: 5
1. A dormant volcano can still be tapped as long as a sufficient temperature differential still exists and is reachable.

2. Electricity generated with this can be piped no differently than that generated from any other source...which is essentially infinite, though you lose several percent in line losses every few hundred miles. However, if that energy is first transformed into, say, chemical fuel or refined aluminum, it can be transmitted very cheaply with only extremely low shipping costs.


RE: sounds like a good idea...
By nycromes on 6/30/2008 1:18:54 PM , Rating: 2
you forgot one:
3) What happens to their equipment when the volcano erupts again?

This is a pretty risky venture seeing as the volcano could erupt again tomorrow. Perhaps it is a little different, but I just had the image of someone trying to build a tornado windmill for all the tremendous power gains the high winds could generate. Given this isn't meant to generate power only when the volcano erupts, but still, seems like a dangerous thing to go mucking about with.

Who knows, maybe this will work... still too far away to do much good in the short run.


RE: sounds like a good idea...
By mholler on 6/30/2008 1:23:34 PM , Rating: 2
I'm guessing they're goal is to use the heat generated from the volcano to produce steam in order to run a turbine. In that case the question would become how close would the plant need to be in order to effectively use the heat and what type of safety precautions would need to be put in place in case of an erruption.

The upside is basically a fuel cost of zero once the facility is built so cost recovery could conceivable happen quickly. The downside is there there will undoubtedly be a huge upfront investment required to build the plant and ensure adequate safety for the workers and equipment.


RE: sounds like a good idea...
By FITCamaro on 6/30/2008 1:48:51 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The upside is basically a fuel cost of zero once the facility is built so cost recovery could conceivable happen quickly.


And thats why I don't like the idea of government subsidies for this kind of stuff. We're basically helping them make a profit. Now if the money was paid back once they turned a profit, that'd be different. But its not.


RE: sounds like a good idea...
By EntreHoras on 6/30/08, Rating: -1
RE: sounds like a good idea...
By FITCamaro on 6/30/2008 2:10:56 PM , Rating: 4
Yeah because that's totally what we've done despite the US not having seen a drop of oil out of Iraq.


RE: sounds like a good idea...
By goz314 on 6/30/08, Rating: -1
RE: sounds like a good idea...
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 6/30/2008 3:19:58 PM , Rating: 5
USA is not even using any oil from that area for the military in that area (unless it was first shipped to USA then bought by the military then shipped back to Iraq.) The people of Iraq controls Iraq's oil wells. The only thing that the US military might be still doing is protecting the area from raids (so the fields are not set on fire.)
You really need to watch the stories and don't drink the kool-aid that the press is putting out there... 95% of the time they take a small piece of truth and bend/twist the story so it comes out the way wish. Like your link here trying to paint President Bush as not-trustable has hind secrets plan to take over whatever.... The truth is this guy has no solid evidence to back his story - just a lot of he said she said (useless information). I have yet to see a video tape of President Bush telling a lie. No one has been able to show or send me a link to one (straight from his mouth, not some new report say, “well president Bush said....” He has been misinformed, wrong and taken some bad actions because of what information he had. However, big difference between lying and being wrong....Just ask former President Bill Clinton, he knowingly lied several time. That is why he was to be impeached. If you could provide video of Bush knowingly lying about a government issue, the Democrats would have him strung up, whipped and shot by now let alone impeached – remember the have control of both houses it would be easy to do if they had evidence.


RE: sounds like a good idea...
By sinful on 6/30/08, Rating: -1
RE: sounds like a good idea...
By Jim28 on 6/30/2008 10:21:23 PM , Rating: 2
The context doesn't matter much. If he almost got impeached due to perjury (You know lying on the stand under oath.) over a blowjob what else did he lie about? In any case if it were you or I we would have spent some time in jail for perjury.

James


RE: sounds like a good idea...
By trajan on 6/30/2008 2:46:14 PM , Rating: 4
I fail to see how not getting cheap oil out of Iraq somehow makes the war more justifiable. I kind of hoped at the outset that despite all the other disasters that would befall us--hand in a bee's nest style--at least we would get the honey. Instead we get few thousand stings, get our hand jammed inside with no good way out, and no honey at all.

But if we went in to destroy WMDs, where the hell are the WMDs?

If we went in to stop a ruthless dictator who was endangering our country, well. What the hell was he doing that endangered us, exactly? And how are we any better off with half the country in anarchy and serving as an active training ground for terrorists?

Oh, wait, we went in to stop human rights abuses. Which is why Iraqis certainly *aren't* living in twice as much fear now as they did under Saddam.


RE: sounds like a good idea...
By mholler on 6/30/2008 3:07:04 PM , Rating: 5
You're speaking of thing of which you have absolutely no knowledge. We did, in fact, find hundreds of WMDs in Iraq.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html
http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/Iraq_WMD_Decla...

Also, who are you to speak for the state of mind of Iraqi citizens. I have spoken to many soldiers who have returned from tours in Iraq and they would definitely beg to differ with you on the fact that the people over there aren't happier now then before.

Next time take a little time and do some research before spouting political FUD all over the place.


RE: sounds like a good idea...
By TheDoc9 on 6/30/2008 3:24:48 PM , Rating: 3
I didn't even know they found anything either! Just shows what the liberal media has accomplished, just another reason I'm glad I don't watch the news anymore.


RE: sounds like a good idea...
By JonnyDough on 6/30/2008 3:27:05 PM , Rating: 3
LOL! You trust FOX for news?!!


RE: sounds like a good idea...
By Locutus465 on 6/30/2008 3:32:49 PM , Rating: 2
Typically Fox is actually very good despite their right leaningness... But much like a left leaning news agency (oh lets say CNN) might be apt to sugar coat liberal mistakes, Fox news is rather apt to sugar coat conservitive mistakes no matter how big.


RE: sounds like a good idea...
By JonnyDough on 6/30/2008 3:38:52 PM , Rating: 1
I guess I just find it hard to trust anything but PBS any more. Everyone else wants to dramatize the news, and I find many of the news anchors VERY annoying. ESPECIALLY on Fox. But nobody is worse than Nancy Grace from CNN. Ugh!