Talk:Geothermal power
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team. | ||||||||
|
|||||||||
 To-do list for Geothermal power: |
edit · history · watch · refresh | ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
|||
| Priority 2 | |||
[edit] Vandalism?
Someone seems to have entered more vandalism--Lebanese warrior? on the page. Pbfiddler
Pbfiddler 11:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Would not it be just common courtesy to discuss the objections to an edit instead of just removing it, possibly without understanding why an addition is warranted?
Binary economics or interest-free loans is not original research. Both issues are covered in many published works fully referenced in the main article on binary economics.
Janosabel 21:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Earthquakes
doesn't show much inddication of credible opinion of causaulity. All that is provided is a link to an earthquake map that shows lots of earthquakes near a geothermal plant. Correlation does not prove causaulity or the direction of causality, if it exists. But does geothermal water injection cause earthquakes or are earthquake zones prefered sites for geothermal plants (seismic activity is considered benificial for geothermal plants as it cracks the rock). Injecting water might conceivably influence siesmic activity but the effect might be benificial rather than harmful. Assume that earthquakes induced by geothermal activity are due to lubrication of seismic plates and that the energy comes from the motion of the seismic plates not from the steam itself. If we imagine the steam/water lubricating the plates so they can slide freely, the result could be more frequent but less severe earthquakes - which is exactly what you want. Reduce the stored energy in the system and you reduce the potential for catastrophic damage. In the short term, you might stimulate the early release of the "big one" - though that earthquake is inevitable and the severity would be lessened slightly by premature release. Whitis 27 August 2005
- I did some searching, and, as far as I can tell, the earthquakes are more of a concern with Enhanced Geothermal Systems, because they involve drilling deeper holes in the earth than the other types of plants, sometimes in areas that are not as earthquake-prone as areas that are ideal for other types of geothermal plants. and they also involve injecting water into the earth that wasn't there in the first place. I haven't found anything that says specifically that drilling wells into geothermal reservoirs causes earthquakes, and anyway, as you said, such areas have frequent earthquakes anyway.
- I will try to edit the article accordingly. - Tea and crumpets 18:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
There still is not any mention of earthquakes in the disadantages section. The problem with earthquakes has to do with the amount of water pumped underground (or so says the Discovery Channel). I believe this is relevent with the new geothermal plants in nevada and the quakes in Reno (Discovery has yet to back me up on that one). The whole planet is prone to earthquakes, the importance to the article is that there is a measureable difference when they build a new plant or run heavy loads. Any adverse effect should be included in the text. Thanks. LD 5/20/08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.104.204.212 (talk) 22:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] nuclear energy
Shouldn't nuclear energy be omitted in the "Notes" Part? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy#Nuclear_power
nuclear energy is close. Fairymeimei 12:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Apology
Although I did not commit the vandalism, I apologise for my fellow users of this IP--169.244.70.146 18:24, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Vandalism
This seems to be a majorly vandalized article. Any idea why?--Shark Fin 101 21:58, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
- Removed the vandalism. No idea why some people feel the need to do this. Just today I've had to clean up two articles that contained similar types of crap. Phrique 15:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
"crap" is not a suitable word to say on a site like this! If you are going to use such profaine language you must put a warning above it! I should hope that tou will apologize for your actions! User:chipmunk15 5:16 June 17 2006 (CAST)
- Wow, I sincerely hope you're joking. I cleaned up a bunch of articles and I used the word "crap" in a single line and someone feels the need to respond about it? If you're offended by such a silly word you need to get out more. You'll get no apology for me for using it. Phrique 19:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
PLEASE VANDALIZE NOT OUR SITE !
Some more rudeness has entered the page. Can someone fix it?--Markparker 14:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Get your vocabulary and spelling right. "Crap" isn't a profanity. A profanity is a vulgarity. What's so vulgar about it? It's just rude. Furthermore, it's "profane", not "profaine". --218.186.9.3 11:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
(From A in Australia): What is crap, shall be called crap - we must get away from softening language that blurs issues.
My observation is that vandalism is undertaken by people who cannot build up anything - they lack the feeling of success and importance from positive contributions so they destroy, getting a false feeling that they have done something. It is quite apparent when you look at the young males driving modified cars that roar and disturb people. That's graffiti for the ears and they feel noticed, marking territory like the doggie who lifts his leg at the lamppost. Vandalism is also territorial marking behaviour.
I looked at this article to find something about our, Australian, geothermal project. It is said to be the largest or maybe hottest, project in the world, could supply the whole of Australia with electricity, and has just been recognised by a federal minister as the only renewable energy source that can provide baseload.
Would be nice, if that could be mentioned in the artice, if it is true.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ I just removed the "rudeness" I believe you where talking about.
wun.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
[edit] Use of geothermal in Canadian oil sands
I just thought I'd point out this article: http://www.thestar.com/Business/article/180278; I have been unable to find on-line references to the "GeoPower consortium".
The article discusses rising interest in the use of Geothermal power in oil sands extraction. This is of note since current production methods use natural gas. I thought the article might reference this application, but unfortunately vandalism has crept in and made that difficult. Nextrelease 20:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Southampton
Just a suggestion, and I'm no expert on the subject, but the Southampton Geothermal power station might provide an interesting case study for this article. See [1] [2], etc. Cheers, DWaterson 22:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] renewable
"The heat of the earth is so vast that there is no way to remove more than a small fraction even if most of the world's energy needs came from geothermal sources."
I thought that the internal heat of the earth was caused by the crushing force of its gravity and thus inexuastible. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.105.99.247 (talk) 10:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC).
- For the causes, see Geothermal (geology). If heat is extracted faster than it is replaced, then the temperature will reduce at the extraction point until it is too cool to be economic. Gralo 14:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
My concern - if a mass scale of geothermal extraction takes hold could the internal convection currents of earth be drained to a point that magnetic flux is halted? I understand this would be very grave for deflecting solar radiation.Greg0658 16:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- No - despite the potentially large quantities usable geothermal heat available in terms of human usage, it is still a very tiny fraction of the heat within the earth's core. Gralo 18:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- Hi, somebody with specific knowledge of the subject can correct me if I'm wrong, but geothermal energy is basically "catching" the waste heat escaping from the earth's core; since the heat is extracted from at most a few miles depth I don't think it could affect the core/mantle temperature, even if the entire crust could be converted into a giant geothermal system extracting all of the heat as it escapes. As long as the isotopes are still breaking down for below the crust, heat will always be escaping to the crust.--HarryHenryGebel 12:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- If you look at the map under Geothermal (geology), you will notice that a flow of heat greater than 1/10 watt/square meter is rare. This is about 1/10,000 of the amount of solar that hits the earth when the sun shines. It is more like mining the heat than catching the flow, as it will not be renewed on a human timescale.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pstudier (talk • contribs) 19:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC).
-
-
- Paul, I wasn't trying to suggest that capturing 100% of the heat escaping would be a practical, just that even if you could it wouldn't affect the core or mantle temperature, which was the concern of the question I was responding to. I'm sorry if my poor word choice made my reply unclear. Thanks for the map reference, and all of your energy related contributions, which is one of my favorite subjects.--HarryHenryGebel 03:03, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
-
Geothermal (Geology) also reminds us that "45 to 85 percent of the heat escaping from the Earth originates from radioactive decay of elements concentrated in the crust." (emphasis added) This is the source of most energy recovered by geothermal energy plants. As for "mining" versus "catching the flow", we "mine" the hydrogen in the Sun, too. Rt3368 00:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
The last note that Geothermal power is, without qualification, a renewable resource is inconsistent with earlier statements that it should not be considered a renewable power source in the same way that solar, wind, and hydroelectric are. While I definitely see the merits of geothermal power, I'm inclined to agree that it's not "renewable until the sun explodes" like wind, solar, and hydroelectric.128.2.184.59 21:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Adding some links
I added links to the existing text under "Distribution". I don't know if I did it the best way, though. I added the internal links for "City of Santa Clara" and "Silicon Valley Power" and I think those are okay. The other two links are external, one to Santa Clara's Electric Utility web page and the other to the home page of the Northern California Power Agency, which is a California public agency. I think these two links probably should be referenced through the External Links section instead of in-line, though the way I've added them so far is simpler. If someone agrees that changing them is better, I'll do that.Rt3368 00:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Abandoned Oil Wells
I read somewhere that 70% of abandoned oil wells in the United States have a temperature at depth of over 80 Celsius.
[edit] Got the wrong Conti
Prince Piero Ginori Conti tested the first geothermal power plant in 1904, at the Larderello dry steam field in Italy. Giovanni Conti was a Republican party Senator. I normally wouldn't mess with science stuff, but someone read this and altered a stub I created on the senator (You got YOUR geothermal energy in MY Italian radical politics... Joke, sorry).T L Miles 06:10, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Inappropriate template
The template:renewable energy sources has been vandalized to change it to say "Energy development" instead of "Renewable energy" which is what it should say. Nuclear power also needs to be deleted. Very few people think that nuclear power is "renewable energy". Template has been restored and protected for one week.199.125.109.108 07:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Iceland's energy production
The article at one point says Iceland gets 26% of its electricity from geothermal power, and later that it gets about 50%....Which one is correct? I suspect the former figure is closer to the truth, since there is a great deal of hydroelectric power generation in Iceland. -- Palthrow 22:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- You're right. According to [source], most of the electricity in Iceland is generated by water. However, Iceland uses Geothermal heating for a majority of their heating purposes. That's probably what the 50% figure is referring to.
- Hmm, the Geothermal heating article is very short, I wonder whether it would be prudent to merge it with this one...
- I guess for now, this article will be about geothermal electricity generation only. Meanwhile I'll remove that statement about 50% so as to not confuse anyone else. - Tea and crumpets 16:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] This article needs work
The article mainly contains statistics and does not include very much simply-explained, basic information for the casual reader. The sections aren't arranged very nicely, and it might benefit from some sort of map or diagram. A glance at the layout of the Hydroelectricity article makes me think we should arrange this article in a similar fashion. If anyone wants to assist me in doing this, feel free to do so. --Tea and crumpets 16:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Okay, here's what I think is a better outline for this article:
- Electricity Generation (How geothermal heat is used to generate electricity)
- Advantages
- Disadvantages
- Comparison with other methods of power generation
- Potential (including map of geothermal “hot spots”)
- Power plants (including table listing power plants)
- History of development
- (any other interesting information)
- See also
- References
- External links
Got any feedback? --Tea and crumpets 22:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I rearranged the page, but it still needs work. No one else seems to care much about this article, so I guess I'm taking the helm. --Tea and crumpets 20:51, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] 0.416%
That's a little too precise, I think... — Omegatron 01:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] German Translation Request
de:Geothermie is a featured article. I requested a translation. Information from that article could be used to greatly expand this one. If you know German, please help! --Tea and crumpets 04:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Merging
I'm thinking about merging some country-specific articles about geothermal energy into this article, as listed in the "Development around the world" section. Some of those articles are to short to stand on their own. Others, I'm not so sure about. If you have any objections or thoughts, please let me know. - Tea and crumpets 04:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Quoted in article
FYI: An article in the Union Leader of Manchester, New Hampshire quotes information from this wiki-article. The Union Leader's article is located here. ZueJay (talk) 22:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Trying to source quote
This quote:
- The government of Iceland states: "It should be stressed that the geothermal resource is not strictly renewable in the same sense as the hydro resource." It estimates that Iceland's geothermal energy could provide 1700 MW for over 100 years, compared to the current production of 140 MW.[13]
is being attributed to this source: RESPONSE OF WAIRAKEI GEOTHERMAL RESERVOIR TO 40 YEARS OF PRODUCTION
But I can't locate it in the source document. Could someone else check please and let me know which page the quote is on. Thanks... Johnfos 22:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- Hmm, I couldn't find it in that source either, but I did a google search and found the quote at this link. Probably someone messed up with their editing
(could have been me)(It wasn't me, it's been there awhile). I'll fix it. -Tea and Crumpets (Talk - contribs) 00:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for that... Johnfos 06:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Dry Steam
What the heck is dry steam?? This needs to be explained in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shniken1 (talk • contribs) 12:13, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
- Hmm. I didn't know what it was, either. I just figured it meant they used steam as opposed to water. I looked it up, and I was only partially right. I added the explanation to the article. The source I found it at explains it a little more thoroughly. -Tea and crumpets (t c) 05:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Renewable
"Although geothermal sites are capable of providing heat for many decades, eventually specific locations may cool down. It is likely that in these locations, the system was designed too large for the site, since there is only so much energy that can be stored and replenished in a given volume of earth."
Isn't this really a matter of drawing a certain amount of energy from the Earth per unit time, and that energy needing to be replenished from the core? If you draw too much power and the replenishment rate is lower, it cools down. — Omegatron 22:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] what r the 3 types of geothermal energy
Yes if you know the 3 types of geothermal enery u r so lucky because iv been looking and cant find anything so if u know please i need your help.... thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.215.28.181 (talk) 00:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Advertising?
One of the sentences in the article seemed a little odd to me for some reason:
Since the activities of one geothermal plant affects those nearby, the consolidation plant ownership at The Geysers has been beneficial because the plants operate cooperatively instead of in their own short-term interest.
At the least, it seems like it ought to be either supported or reworded, as its current form doesn't seem to add much to the article and appears very biased in favor of the company owning the majority of the plants. For now, I've put a fact tag on it, but I'm not really sure what, if anything, ought to be done with that text.Ricree101 (talk) 07:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
