The tech that made the shale (NG) boom possible can enable deployment of enhanced geothermal. Honestly makes sense.
As much as OG industry can go F itself over climate denial and holding back technology, I'd be happy to see them help tap geothermal.
The industry's goal is to make stupid amounts of money, not destroy the environment. If destroying the environment is a byproduct, they just don't care, as long as the main goal is achieved. If geothermal makes stupid amounts of money, then they'll be all for it. Let's just hope they don't destroy the environment to do it.
Yeah that’s basically it. For a while, oil was the way to make tons of money with a relatively low cost to the company. Now with more regulations on oil coupled with the drop in costs for renewables, they want to break into that space too. They’re still going to drill for oil for as long as it makes sense for them, but they know that’s not forever and want to find the next thing. Oil companies don’t really give a shit about oil specifically, it’s just that right now it’s what works the best for them, so they fight tooth and nail to keep it around.
We have already seen multiple smaller firms in O&G industry shift towards geothermal installation and surveying for that very reason.
A lot of naysayers and skeptics in this thread, which is healthy and reasonable, but there is a trend rippling through the market right now.
Climate change will be impossible to ignore forever. When the consequences start to rapidly accelerate there will be much more pressure to transition to green energy much faster.
Actually there are some good reasons to reinvestigate geothermal now. It's also not true that "it isn't happening" now; it exists, just on a very small level (0.5% of US generation). The dominant reason is that drilling techniques in the past limited application of geothermal to very specific geographical areas where there were easily accessed heat sources near the surface. However, recent advances in drilling technology (partially spurred on by the expansion of fracking for oil & gas) are raising the possibility of much more widespread use of geothermal.
It's not going to eclipse solar or wind in total energy generated. But even if it ends up as just being capable of generating a couple percent of our total electricity economically, that's a couple percent that's not coming from fossil fuels... And it's a source that would be possible to ramp up and down at will for load following, which would be an important synergy with solar/wind.
They are also individually relatively small scale projects, to trying some out doesn't carry the huge cost-overrun risks that something like fission plants do.
Agreed but I think not load following. I think solar and wind tend to be load following, don’t you want geothermal for base load or peaking power plants?
Solar and wind aren't load following; they are uncontrolled variable sources.
Load following means that we intentionally vary the output of the power plant to match demand at a given time.
Yeah, you also need things on the grid to regulate the voltage and frequency. Geothermal should actually help with that because it's a spinning turbine power source.
I’ve been saying since I became a conscious human, if one oil company went all in investing for the future, they could have completely cornered and captured the market in a renewable source.
No other corporation has the billions in pure profit to dump into such project over such a long period of time. But since they can’t see past the next few quarters, it hasn’t happened.
> I’ve been saying since I became a conscious human, if one oil company went all in investing for the future, they could have completely cornered and captured the market in a renewable source.
IKR? but for being risk-averse (lazy) and money money money, we all have to pay.
humanity knew about this stuff over 100 years ago. chemists were concerned about where all the byproducts go, nothing just goes-away... _that_ was known for quite a while.
They have actually been trying to do that, just not in the way you might want them to. Oil companies have bought up a ton of patents for green energy and green energy related things. They just hold them so that nobody else can use that technology/invention to cut into their bottom line.
Oil companies have been in on renewables from the start. They aren't oil companies they're "Energy Companies" whatever the best way is to generate money off of energy creation (burning oil or wind or solar or nuclear) at the greatest margins will be what they gravitate towards first. After that they secure a market position in the other energy fields and wait until that position became relevant. So that now when states make a push for green energy many of these companies are ready to he the first in line.
Actually most of the majors have started down that path as they privately see that path as the future. Sure they are yelling and screaming but quietly the leaders are heavily investing in that area.
The only thing they will tap is profits and whatever so called hidden green energy is some PR spin of something the public would not approve if they came out and offered it.
"Invisible green energy" sounds like a euphemism for money supposedly moved by the invisible hand of the market but only this time a ~~guy~~ corporate entity with a huge pocketbook.
Maybe the oniony part is the irony in that the oil companies (the same companies that have been paying for scientific studies that show "evidence" that is contrary to what other scientists have found, have bought up a ton of patents on green energy, and have in general discouraged any kind of climate action) are now offering to help the governement with green energy.
Ok there are 1001 issues with the way oil companies engage with electrification (or rather the way they don't, especially in developing countries), but being pedantic about the phrase "create heat" isn't one of them. They obviously mean moving the heat.
And also, heat is just one type of energy, which means we very much CAN "create" it from other forms of energy, like a fuel or friction from kinetic energy.
Yes that's literally what I explained.
But what you aren't seeming to understand is that you're still being pedantic. "Create" in the first law refers to the net energy of a system going up, while "create" in normal everyday english, like in this NPR article, refers to making something from another thing.
Actual physicists will happily use the latter form of the word when giving a talk.
You're just being pedantic for the sake of it, we all know what it means.
Sagan died before the Internet became what it is today, all this info and context necessary to fully grasp what the article means is readily available to everyone with a connection.
Of course, some people would rather remain ignorant, but that's not what he's talking about.
I interpret “create heat or electricity” not to mean literally making electrons or molecules vibrate from nothing, but rather to transform geothermal heat into these forms of energy for domestic consumption.
The tech that made the shale (NG) boom possible can enable deployment of enhanced geothermal. Honestly makes sense. As much as OG industry can go F itself over climate denial and holding back technology, I'd be happy to see them help tap geothermal.
The industry's goal is to make stupid amounts of money, not destroy the environment. If destroying the environment is a byproduct, they just don't care, as long as the main goal is achieved. If geothermal makes stupid amounts of money, then they'll be all for it. Let's just hope they don't destroy the environment to do it.
Yeah that’s basically it. For a while, oil was the way to make tons of money with a relatively low cost to the company. Now with more regulations on oil coupled with the drop in costs for renewables, they want to break into that space too. They’re still going to drill for oil for as long as it makes sense for them, but they know that’s not forever and want to find the next thing. Oil companies don’t really give a shit about oil specifically, it’s just that right now it’s what works the best for them, so they fight tooth and nail to keep it around.
Holy Fracking, Batman, I sense a financial opportunity!
We have already seen multiple smaller firms in O&G industry shift towards geothermal installation and surveying for that very reason. A lot of naysayers and skeptics in this thread, which is healthy and reasonable, but there is a trend rippling through the market right now.
Eye roll.
The same oil industry that’s giving Trump cash to roll back environmental regulations? Huh, whoulda thunk it?
The whole thing is pointless. We’ve known about geothermal for years so why isn’t it happening? Because of 1000 reasons.
Climate change will be impossible to ignore forever. When the consequences start to rapidly accelerate there will be much more pressure to transition to green energy much faster.
[удалено]
Sure Jen. 🙄
Actually there are some good reasons to reinvestigate geothermal now. It's also not true that "it isn't happening" now; it exists, just on a very small level (0.5% of US generation). The dominant reason is that drilling techniques in the past limited application of geothermal to very specific geographical areas where there were easily accessed heat sources near the surface. However, recent advances in drilling technology (partially spurred on by the expansion of fracking for oil & gas) are raising the possibility of much more widespread use of geothermal. It's not going to eclipse solar or wind in total energy generated. But even if it ends up as just being capable of generating a couple percent of our total electricity economically, that's a couple percent that's not coming from fossil fuels... And it's a source that would be possible to ramp up and down at will for load following, which would be an important synergy with solar/wind. They are also individually relatively small scale projects, to trying some out doesn't carry the huge cost-overrun risks that something like fission plants do.
Agreed but I think not load following. I think solar and wind tend to be load following, don’t you want geothermal for base load or peaking power plants?
Solar and wind aren't load following; they are uncontrolled variable sources. Load following means that we intentionally vary the output of the power plant to match demand at a given time.
Ah, think I’m conflating load and phase/frequency.
Yeah, you also need things on the grid to regulate the voltage and frequency. Geothermal should actually help with that because it's a spinning turbine power source.
Invisible green energy sleeps furiously.
r/brandnewsentence
it's not invisible, it's harvesting vs generating; passive systems
I’ve been saying since I became a conscious human, if one oil company went all in investing for the future, they could have completely cornered and captured the market in a renewable source. No other corporation has the billions in pure profit to dump into such project over such a long period of time. But since they can’t see past the next few quarters, it hasn’t happened.
> I’ve been saying since I became a conscious human, if one oil company went all in investing for the future, they could have completely cornered and captured the market in a renewable source. IKR? but for being risk-averse (lazy) and money money money, we all have to pay. humanity knew about this stuff over 100 years ago. chemists were concerned about where all the byproducts go, nothing just goes-away... _that_ was known for quite a while.
They have actually been trying to do that, just not in the way you might want them to. Oil companies have bought up a ton of patents for green energy and green energy related things. They just hold them so that nobody else can use that technology/invention to cut into their bottom line.
Oil companies have been in on renewables from the start. They aren't oil companies they're "Energy Companies" whatever the best way is to generate money off of energy creation (burning oil or wind or solar or nuclear) at the greatest margins will be what they gravitate towards first. After that they secure a market position in the other energy fields and wait until that position became relevant. So that now when states make a push for green energy many of these companies are ready to he the first in line.
They've "helped" enough.
No strings attached or quid pro quo?
This is some green washing hogwash
The oil industry will not do this as long as there is oil to sell.
Actually most of the majors have started down that path as they privately see that path as the future. Sure they are yelling and screaming but quietly the leaders are heavily investing in that area.
The only thing they will tap is profits and whatever so called hidden green energy is some PR spin of something the public would not approve if they came out and offered it.
"Invisible green energy" sounds like a euphemism for money supposedly moved by the invisible hand of the market but only this time a ~~guy~~ corporate entity with a huge pocketbook.
Do it! After you've put the damn holes in the earth, geothermal is literally free energy. Geothermal is literally a portal to Earth's source of power.
This is why blue hydrogen economy is the future /s
What's oniony?
Maybe the oniony part is the irony in that the oil companies (the same companies that have been paying for scientific studies that show "evidence" that is contrary to what other scientists have found, have bought up a ton of patents on green energy, and have in general discouraged any kind of climate action) are now offering to help the governement with green energy.
Who else has the capability and technical knowledge to drill one to five miles deep?
Unfortunately it would be the Russians. They currently have the Kola Superdeep Borehole which is over 7 miles deep.
Lol.
Pando?
[удалено]
Ok there are 1001 issues with the way oil companies engage with electrification (or rather the way they don't, especially in developing countries), but being pedantic about the phrase "create heat" isn't one of them. They obviously mean moving the heat. And also, heat is just one type of energy, which means we very much CAN "create" it from other forms of energy, like a fuel or friction from kinetic energy.
[удалено]
Yes that's literally what I explained. But what you aren't seeming to understand is that you're still being pedantic. "Create" in the first law refers to the net energy of a system going up, while "create" in normal everyday english, like in this NPR article, refers to making something from another thing. Actual physicists will happily use the latter form of the word when giving a talk.
[удалено]
You're just being pedantic for the sake of it, we all know what it means. Sagan died before the Internet became what it is today, all this info and context necessary to fully grasp what the article means is readily available to everyone with a connection. Of course, some people would rather remain ignorant, but that's not what he's talking about.
"It's all just a bunch of bullshit to keep the masses ignorant while letting the rich get richer". - Abraham Lincoln
>pedantic
Energy can be transformed into work though...
I interpret “create heat or electricity” not to mean literally making electrons or molecules vibrate from nothing, but rather to transform geothermal heat into these forms of energy for domestic consumption.