this post was submitted on 27 Aug 2024
25 points (93.1% liked)

Green Energy

2220 readers
94 users here now

Everything about energy production and storage.

Related communities:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

This article was almost surely placed because it came out that the tech firms were using accounting techniques to obscure their impact:

top 10 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com 9 points 2 months ago (2 children)

this is one i dont understand. if we down drill far enough anywhere , we get free heat. nuke plants cost billions... we cant drill a few miles for billions of dollars? what am i missing?

[–] silence7 18 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Actually making it work means not just drilling a hole, but drilling two holes and then connecting them with a network of cracks which doesn't leak too much. This lets you circulate water through a huge volume of rock and engage in depletionary extraction of the accumulated heat. This wasn't really possible before the advent of fracking, and even then, it required a bunch of additional research to figure out how to make it work in the kinds of igneous rocks you find in the craton instead of the sedimentary rocks you find oil deposits in.

[–] originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

uh, ok. so we drill 2 big holes and link them for billions of dollars. what am i missing?

[–] booly@sh.itjust.works 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

You're not missing anything. Nuclear is looking more and more like it won't be economically feasible going forward. If modern geothermal provides a cheaper way to feed dispatchable electricity into the grid, in more places, then that might very well be the last link in making a zero-carbon grid possible.

[–] originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

i can see how nuclear and eventually fusion will be important in the centuries to come for ... portable.. energy. just boggles my mind why we have put zero effort into geothermal

we have no problem going to ridiculous lengths for oil and gas.

[–] Flocklesscrow@lemm.ee 2 points 2 months ago

I think you just answered your question.

[–] gandalf_der_12te 1 points 2 months ago

The thing I heard is that geothermal energy is actually only renewable on geological timescales, i.e. not really "renewable". It's just that there are very large reserves, so it's not immediately obvious. But I can't find a link rn.

[–] Shadow@lemmy.ca 4 points 2 months ago

Sigh, how long until we realize this isn't "clean" either?

[–] spinne@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Can someone catch me up here, please? The last I read, fracking was typically seen as an environmentally unfriendly process because you break up a bunch of underlying rock, pump out the crude, and replace it with water. It destabilizes the area and leads to shit like small earthquakes. So like, drilling down, releasing a bunch of heat/pressure, and flooding the system with a bunch of water without caring about the oil is supposed to be a safer thing to do? What gives?

[–] silence7 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

They're doing it in places with no oil to just get the heat.

There may be issues with what's used for fracking granite, bit probably won't be the issues with hydrocarbon leakage or waste injection