Now, there is a massive report published by MIT, at the behest of the US Dept. of Energy. It is a big report, a 14MB PDF download: The Future of Geothermal Energy. It is mentioned in an MIT news release:
MIT-led panel backs 'heat mining' as key U.S. energy source
January 22, 2007
A comprehensive new MIT-led study of the potential for geothermal energy within the United States has found that mining the huge amounts of heat that reside as stored thermal energy in the Earth's hard rock crust could supply a substantial portion of the electricity the United States will need in the future, probably at competitive prices and with minimal environmental impact.
An 18-member panel led by MIT prepared the 400-plus page study, titled "The Future of Geothermal Energy" (PDF, 14.1 MB). Sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy, it is the first study in some 30 years to take a new look at geothermal, an energy resource that has been largely ignored.
I must admit that I have not read the entire report. But I was favorably impressed by one thing mentioned in IEEE Spectrum:
NEARLY FORGOTTEN, GEOTHERMAL COULD ERUPT
January 23rd, 2007
...The study notes that its aim was to investigate whether the implementation of new technologies, such as EGS, could result in the inexpensive and environmentally responsible production of as much as 100 000 megawatts of base-load electric generating capacity in the U.S. in the year 2050. In its conclusion, the panelists state that such a goal is achievable with research, development, demonstration, and deployment funding over the next five decades of approximately US $600 to $900 million, with an absorbed cost of $200 to $350 million...
I know I sometimes get too political, but I can't help but point out that for the cost of one day of war in Iraq, we could go a long way toward reducing concern about Mideast oil.
Comments
Unmentioned bonus could be helping to "defuse" the potential of the super volcano in Yellowstone going off again.
Posted by: J-Dog | January 25, 2007 11:16 AM
J-Dog: Yellowstone is a very different scale of energy. To tap any significant portion of the potential down there would require stripping off the scenery. And that may result in triggering rather than suppressing, were we to even have access to the wherewithall to move that much earth and rock.
The main problem with this idea is that not enough money is involved - nobody has a chance of becoming super-rich (i.e. billionaire) from it. The same reason the oil barons have been opposing other alternatives. The sensible way of deriving our daily energy is just too cheap. Not enough chinks for the self-serving to serve themselves our cash.
Posted by: david1947 | January 25, 2007 3:15 PM