The UK’s first geothermal power plant was switched on this morning in Cornwall, providing a completely new type of renewable electricity for the country.
-
@gareth @woo @naturepunk @kibcol1049
"While primordial heat is slowly dissipating, the Earth’s interior is continuously replenished by another crucial source: radioactive decay. Certain naturally occurring radioactive isotopes, such as uranium-238, thorium-232, and potassium-40, are present within the Earth’s mantle and core. These isotopes undergo radioactive decay, releasing energy in the form of heat."
It's not just some finite heat source, but is being replenished in the main.
@davep @gareth @naturepunk @kibcol1049 That's still a finite energy source though the time-scales are much longer than I'd bothered to think about :-).
-
@davep @gareth @naturepunk @kibcol1049 That's still a finite energy source though the time-scales are much longer than I'd bothered to think about :-).
@woo
Sure, but again, getting rid of fossil fuels is the immediate goal.Let’s do that now, then worry about antimatter or zero point energy or some other exotic fuel afterwards.
@davep @naturepunk @kibcol1049 -
@davep @gareth @naturepunk @kibcol1049 That's still a finite energy source though the time-scales are much longer than I'd bothered to think about :-).
@woo @davep @gareth @naturepunk @kibcol1049 buddy, the SUN is also a finite heat source. unless you have a perpetual motion machine, nothing is renewable on a cosmic timeline. the countdown to catastrophe for current fossil fuel use is maybe 50 years? fix this first and we have another billion years to worry about slightly cooling the earth's mantle
-
@woo @davep @gareth @naturepunk @kibcol1049 buddy, the SUN is also a finite heat source. unless you have a perpetual motion machine, nothing is renewable on a cosmic timeline. the countdown to catastrophe for current fossil fuel use is maybe 50 years? fix this first and we have another billion years to worry about slightly cooling the earth's mantle
-
@woo
"Renewable" was always a stupid name for any kind of energy.
"Fossil fuel" was more accurate, but the Sun is also a fossil, really, and so are any radio isotopes.I think we should rather just stick to naming specific sources - oil, coal, wood, gas, are all really noxious and short-term energy sources.
Wind, hydro, and solar are far better
Nuclear is dicey, and is essentially playing a mean-spirited game of "surprise" with future generations who are going to discover waste@mloxton @woo @kibcol1049 nuclear is dicey because the reactions and more importantly the waste products are at the surface. in the case of geothermal this all happens beneath several kilometres of granite and, the fun part is, this goes on whether we want it to or not! that's the distinction between 'renewable'and something where you have to find and consume a specific fuel source.
-
@woo
Sure, but again, getting rid of fossil fuels is the immediate goal.Let’s do that now, then worry about antimatter or zero point energy or some other exotic fuel afterwards.
@davep @naturepunk @kibcol1049@gareth @davep @naturepunk @kibcol1049 But: we won't, just like we didn't worry about oil running out for 50 years or Climate Chaos.
-
@woo @davep @gareth @naturepunk @kibcol1049 buddy, the SUN is also a finite heat source. unless you have a perpetual motion machine, nothing is renewable on a cosmic timeline. the countdown to catastrophe for current fossil fuel use is maybe 50 years? fix this first and we have another billion years to worry about slightly cooling the earth's mantle
and we're not cooling the mantle at all by using the heat transferred to water that would dissipate to the surface one way or the other. same as irradiated energy from the sun. that's not going back where it came from.
I do worry about collecting more sun energy that would otherwise have been reflected back to space, though. changing the planet's albedo this way will accumulate energy that otherwise wouldn't stay on earth, and energy eventually becomes heat, so we should have plans to restore the balance to make this sustainable.
CC: @woo@fosstodon.org @davep@infosec.exchange @gareth@tenforward.social @naturepunk@ecoevo.social @kibcol1049@mstdn.social
-
@gareth @davep @naturepunk @kibcol1049 But: we won't, just like we didn't worry about oil running out for 50 years or Climate Chaos.
@woo
Go on then Negative Nelly. What’s your solution to the fossil fuel problem? Just wait for something even better and do nothing in the meantime?
@davep @naturepunk @kibcol1049 -
and we're not cooling the mantle at all by using the heat transferred to water that would dissipate to the surface one way or the other. same as irradiated energy from the sun. that's not going back where it came from.
I do worry about collecting more sun energy that would otherwise have been reflected back to space, though. changing the planet's albedo this way will accumulate energy that otherwise wouldn't stay on earth, and energy eventually becomes heat, so we should have plans to restore the balance to make this sustainable.
CC: @woo@fosstodon.org @davep@infosec.exchange @gareth@tenforward.social @naturepunk@ecoevo.social @kibcol1049@mstdn.social@lxo fair. also applies to deforestation and laying tarmac, and i expect the warming is an order of magnitude less than that associated with fossil fuel combustion (which produces as much heat as useful energy). an easier problem to solve than a runaway greenhouse effect.
-
@lxo fair. also applies to deforestation and laying tarmac, and i expect the warming is an order of magnitude less than that associated with fossil fuel combustion (which produces as much heat as useful energy). an easier problem to solve than a runaway greenhouse effect.
oh, please don't mistake my concern about going overboard with solar energy for support for fossil fuels!
I'm sure using fossil fuels has been a terrible idea with very immediate consequences.
I'm also sure it will be a while before solar becomes dangerous.
but when I worry about overheating the planet, I can't help but think that keeping more solar energy in could add to the problem. not right now, with so little use and replacing fuels that are so much worse, but it's a new energy imbalance and so probably something we'll have to worry about in the future.
-
oh, please don't mistake my concern about going overboard with solar energy for support for fossil fuels!
I'm sure using fossil fuels has been a terrible idea with very immediate consequences.
I'm also sure it will be a while before solar becomes dangerous.
but when I worry about overheating the planet, I can't help but think that keeping more solar energy in could add to the problem. not right now, with so little use and replacing fuels that are so much worse, but it's a new energy imbalance and so probably something we'll have to worry about in the future.@lxo not a problem - from your tone it was pretty clear what you meant!
-
@woo
Go on then Negative Nelly. What’s your solution to the fossil fuel problem? Just wait for something even better and do nothing in the meantime?
@davep @naturepunk @kibcol1049@gareth @davep @naturepunk @kibcol1049 I worked in IT but mostly in the energy industries - oil, gas and electricity generation, so I know the problem is "non-trivial". I defer to experts in their field. An ex-colleague I respect is interested in thermal energy from Iceland but I know nothing.
-
The UK’s first geothermal power plant was switched on this morning in Cornwall, providing a completely new type of renewable electricity for the country. The United Downs plant, which uses water that has been super-heated by rocks some three miles below ground, will generate enough electricity to power 10,000 homes, while also powering Britain’s first commercial-scale lithium plant.
@kibcol1049 I know a bit about this, so I'll chip in.
This looks to be better than the '70s geothermal trials, which suffered from overdrawing the heat from one small spot which cooled off after a while. This has longer wells, intersecting the fracture network, and essentially withdraws heat from a much wider area, partly because the used water is pumped back in under pressure, helping to sweep a lot of other hot water towards the production well.
(1/2) -
@kibcol1049 I know a bit about this, so I'll chip in.
This looks to be better than the '70s geothermal trials, which suffered from overdrawing the heat from one small spot which cooled off after a while. This has longer wells, intersecting the fracture network, and essentially withdraws heat from a much wider area, partly because the used water is pumped back in under pressure, helping to sweep a lot of other hot water towards the production well.
(1/2)This also targets lithium production, which is much more profitable now than it was in the 70s, again the production is helped by the sweep from around the well.
The main limitation is you can't run the system too hard, otherwise you'll cool it off. Has to be run at the heat replacement rate from around and below.
PS You can do much the same thing with abandoned coal mines, except way more cheaply, as all the underground has been dug out and mapped already.
(2/2) -
@woo
Go on then Negative Nelly. What’s your solution to the fossil fuel problem? Just wait for something even better and do nothing in the meantime?
@davep @naturepunk @kibcol1049@gareth @woo @davep @naturepunk @kibcol1049 I have to say when I read the first few posts by Mr. Wootton I was dismayed. Then I realized he was from the Uk. Not my village, not my… Gonna go deal with my own. LoL (I did love that his answer to the solution he’s been wailing about is the same process just a different country. LoL
-
R relay@relay.mycrowd.ca shared this topic
️
