this post was submitted on 31 Jan 2025
185 points (95.1% liked)

Futurology

1961 readers
483 users here now

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 84 points 20 hours ago (9 children)

I'm a huge nuclear energy advocate, but if there is an even better way to get baseline power to fill in the gaps between solar and wind I am all for it. My only question would be the downsides (if any) of using the earths core to power things.

Like if every country starts slapping these things down all over the place would it even start cooling the core in any meaningful way? Would that potentially lead to problems later?

My gut says no, but I would rather at least ask the question and get laughed at than never consider it and have it bite us in the ass later.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 10 hours ago

The technology for drilling deeper is getting better fast. There was a breakthrough by using microwaves to vaporize rock. It's a triple duty method that cases the walls with glass rock, pressure from vapor pushes the condensed dust upwards and removes the material.

It eleminates the need for drilling sludge, excessively long metal rods etc. It's still cheaper to drill conventionally for 3km but to reach the 10km for EGS it's a lot cheaper. Drilling conventionally becomes exponentially more expensive with depth

[–] [email protected] 9 points 14 hours ago

The total geothermal power produced within the Earth is around 47 TW, and humans currently average around 21 TW usage, which is actually pretty close. However the Earth is absolutely huge and has billions of years of thermal energy stored in it. I imagine if we massively scaled up geothermal generation we'd slowly deplete the energy near the surface and would have to go deeper, but that would probably be on a timescale of thousands of years.

[–] [email protected] 43 points 20 hours ago* (last edited 20 hours ago) (1 children)

We are insignificant flecks of nothing compared to the molton core of the earth.

Abject nothing.

[–] [email protected] 51 points 20 hours ago (3 children)

At one point, climate change was dismissed based on the same logic.

Its worth thinking ahead and doing the math.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 18 hours ago

That's a wild comparison, but okay.

The top layer of the crust of the earth and atmosphere are also nothing compared to the molten core of the earth.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

No it wasn't. At least not by scientists. The math is very clear here.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 20 hours ago

Also, like how we can pump the heat out...

We can pump the heat back in too. It works both ways, and resistive heating is pretty much 100% efficient.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 20 hours ago (4 children)

Yeah but this is just like, not understanding the scales and orders of magnitude we're talking about here.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 20 hours ago* (last edited 20 hours ago)

I understand the scales involved. Hence my pointing out that it probably doesn't matter, but I would rather ask and be mocked then never ask and potentially have it fuck us over later. No harm in double checking man.

Edit: spelling

[–] [email protected] 7 points 20 hours ago

No, this is a hold my beer kind of thing.

Give me unlimited energy from the molten core of the earth and I will fuck around and find out.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 17 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago)

LOL, talk about scale...

Look at Earth from space. The atmosphere is the paint on a marble, the rest is almost all core.

Lemmy: But we might use it all up!!!

And never mind how and why it's hot.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

I think you're not understanding how billionaires work. If energy gets cheap enough, the next Elon Musk will probably try to desolonate an ocean or change the Earth's rotation to get more sunlight through their favorite window in winter.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 hours ago

Like I read somewhere else on lemmy: "We have like 7 Lex Luthors and no Superman"

[–] [email protected] 4 points 13 hours ago

I think the biggest issues is access to heat and permeability of the rock containing the heat. According to Google the earth's temp rises by 25°C for every km down, so you'd probably want to go at least 4 km down to get enough heat to boil water (in my experience, it isn't 25 degrees hotter 1km down, but you get the idea. ) your also need to consider the pressure of the water and the heat you might lose as you lose pressure coming back up.

You also need to create a circuit where you pump cool water in one end and hot the other. So you can frack the rock like in a gas well, but that can cause seismicity and affect the local hydrogeology which other industries and the towns may rely on. This would enable the water to pass through the rock to soak up the heat.

I guess you'd also need a supply of water as you'd doubtless lose some water as it passes through the circuit, though I'm not sure what the retention losses are actually like and would depend heavily on the local geology

[–] [email protected] 16 points 20 hours ago (6 children)

I can't find where I read it, but I remember it being something like: if all of humanity consumed the same amount as an energy hungry American and then doubled it while getting all of its power from geothermal then we have almost tapped 1% of the crusts potential, rounding up.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 19 hours ago* (last edited 19 hours ago)

I did some looking around. Looks like I was a factor of 10 off. As in- not 1% but 0.1% and that could be sustained for millions of years

Other estimates suggest that harnessing just 0.1% of the Earth’s heat could supply the world’s total energy needs for two million years>

https://www.contrary.com/foundations-and-frontiers/geothermal

https://www.energy.gov/eere/geothermal/geothermal-faqs#:~:text=4.5%20billion%20years.-,This%20heat%20is%20continually%20replenished%20by%20the%20decay%20of%20naturally,essentially%20inexhaustible%20supply%20of%20energy.

There is also a great pdf over at www.worldenergy.org under their geothermal - world energy council that is a little old but still points out the math on just how immense the energy output of earth is. We could each run our own small AI data center on geothermal power and the earth would still have extra. And we are only talking about tapping into the very top of the crust.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

Now add AI technology and crypto mining and anything else we might come up with in the near future.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 16 hours ago

Americans use those so it's already accounted for.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 20 hours ago

That's sounds about right.

Earth is big big and we only occupy the tiniest outer layer.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 12 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

I am very pro geo thermal. Been following Quaise drilling for a long time. The biggest downside to geothermal is that in the process of running water up and down, the water can come up with some green house gases, generally sulfur based compounds. Overall, not nearly as bad as the current options, but it’s not like geo thermal is perfectly green. We should still consider it over any fossil fuel and possibly nuclear.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

I'll take a little sulphur over the radioactive poisoning from coal plants any day of the week.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

I'll take a little sulphur over the radioactive poisoning...

I swear if I have to explain nuclear fuel disposal one more time!

from coal plants

Never mind. You get to live.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 11 hours ago

I'm a nuclear power fan lol. I know all the talking points because I have to argue with my family every time lol

[–] [email protected] 5 points 17 hours ago

I may be wrong here but I believe a lot of the heat at the core is generated from nuclear decay. so it should be self replenishing, not to mention the scale of which is probably insignificant.

hey, maybe we take enough away it stops a few volcano's exploding :)

[–] [email protected] 2 points 18 hours ago

if there is an even better way to get baseline power to fill in the gaps between solar and wind I am all for it

What about the fact that baseload power is much talked about in the media and among lay people, but academics have known it to be a myth for over a decade at least?

[–] [email protected] 27 points 21 hours ago (7 children)

Renewables+batteries have almost wiped out the nuclear industry, now geothermal power may be about to put the final nail in that coffin. New research published in Nature magazine shows drilling times are falling so swiftly, that by 2027 geothermal power will be able to deliver a levelized cost of electricity (US$80 MWh). That's price competitive with nuclear, but that's not the real killer for the nuclear industry.

Although some locations (like Iceland) are very suited to geothermal, many places are just fine too. Geothermal can be built widely all over the world - more crucially, it can be built quickly and to a dependable budget.

The nuclear industry's sole surviving argument was it could provide base load power - but so can geothermal. It will now be vastly more appealing to investors and governments than building new nuclear power, which may be an industry about to go into the last stages of its death spiral.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

Why are we talking about wiping out nuclear when we should be talking about wiping out coal?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 6 hours ago

It's the same picture

[–] [email protected] -2 points 10 hours ago

Good. Nuclear is massively expensive and generates so much waste that remains extremely toxic for 24,000 years.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] InEnduringGrowStrong 22 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

Geothermal is so obvious, we're sitting right on it.
I've got a geothermal heatpump at home and it's simply amazing.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

How far did they have to dig and how much did it cost?

[–] InEnduringGrowStrong 20 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago)

300-350ft, 22k CAD.

It's a 300-350' down, 8" wide, cylindrical, vertical hole. From talking to him, the same guy also does wells for water.
Took them about a morning of boring with 25ft sections. 700' of 1.25" polypipe with a soldered U joint at the bottom. Pipe filled with a water/glycol mix.
Then the hole is backfilled with some kind of clay that acts like thermal paste.
The liquid from the loop comes back at around 7C year round. It's much easier for a heatpump to extract heat from 7C water than from -30C air or dump heat into 7C water than into 30C air.
Anyway.

All said and done, it was somewhere around $22k (CAD) including boring, heatpump, labor and getting the old furnace and tank out.

Our old oil furnace was gonna need replacement anyway, except it now costs me about $650 a year instead of 2-3k (that was when oil was half the price it is today), and now provides us with air conditioning too. About half of my current cost is because I like having the fan on all the time to move the air around the house.
Temps around here range from -35C to +35C (-30F to 95F) and the aux heat never kicks, even on colder days, except when I force it on to test it.

I did already have the duct work.
No maintenance so far aside from cleaning filters, which you should do regardless.
No oil smells, no refilling, it just works.

Return on investment was initially planned at about 10 years, but the price of oil has gone up since, so probably less than that by now.
But mostly, the temperature is much more constant, which I find more comfortable.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 20 hours ago

Anyone have access to the full text? TY in advance!!

load more comments
view more: next ›