Originally posted by uzlessGreat.
Earthquakes. That's what. One must challenge the wisdom of mass-producing electricity using this technology. Check out what happens when you do this....(has sound)
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/06/23/us/Geothermal.html
So don't do it near the San Andreas fault.
Duh!
🙄
Originally posted by uzlessProbaby a bunch of nonesense. There are areas which they could test it safely. Do some tests first before drilling close to cities. I second what sh76 said.
Earthquakes. That's what. One must challenge the wisdom of mass-producing electricity using this technology. Check out what happens when you do this....(has sound)
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/06/23/us/Geothermal.html
Originally posted by sh76Did you watch the graphic? Geo-thermal is best used where the earth's crust is the thinnest. Thin crust areas are where the fault lines are. Fault lines produce earthquakes. Drilling near fault lines risk more earthquakes.
Great.
So don't do it near the San Andreas fault.
Duh!
🙄
Did you miss that part?
Originally posted by uzlessThere are places on that map of thin crust in eastern Idaho, much, much further from the San Andreas fault than the areas in middle California where they are drilling.
Did you watch the graphic? Geo-thermal is best used where the earth's crust is the thinnest. Thin crust areas are where the fault lines are. Fault lines produce earthquakes. Drilling near fault lines risk more earthquakes.
Did you miss that part?
Originally posted by sh76Idaho doesn't have the pop. density of California. Transmission distance greatly increases the cost of producing electrictity.
There are places on that map of thin crust in eastern Idaho, much, much further from the San Andreas fault than the areas in middle California where they are drilling.
How many people actually live in california vs idaho?
Originally posted by KazetNagorraDO you know the difference between iceland and california from a geological perspective?
Iceland produces most of its power through hydroelectric and geothermal power. What's there not to believe?
Obviously the technology can't be applied everywhere, but it works fine there.
Originally posted by uzlessEven if it helps fewer people in Idaho, it still removes those people from having to be on the grid that is fed by whatever source feed the West Coast. It still saves energy over-all.
Idaho doesn't have the pop. density of California. Transmission distance greatly increases the cost of producing electrictity.
How many people actually live in california vs idaho?
All the Times feature really shows is that it's not a great alternative to be a comprehensive replacement for fossil fuel energy by itself. I don't know anyone who was saying that it was. It can be used alongside solar, wind, hydro-electric, nuclear, biomass and other "clean" energy sources as part of a comprehensive solution.
Has everyone but me missed this but producing earthquakes this way could be a good thing and save millions of lives!
Think about it; earthquakes are produced by tension building up in the faults until it slips and thus the longer the time between one earthquake and the next the greater the tension build-up and thus the more devastating the earthquake. So by artificially triggering an earthquake you are releasing that tension before it has a chance to build up even more to produce an even more devastating earthquake naturally.
The more earthquakes that can be artificially triggered this way the better because if they are triggered often enough then the tension in the faults will never have a chance to build-up much and all the earthquakes would thus be of low magnitude and virtually harmless.
Therefore, it should become the official policy for these geothermal producers to, where and when economic, deliberately do their work in such a way as to increase the chances of their activity triggering earthquakes and with the official approval of the government.
Originally posted by uzlessJust because it is unwise to use it in certain areas doesn't make it nonviable. Almost all energy sources are specific to certain areas. Thats why we build power lines.
Earthquakes. That's what. One must challenge the wisdom of mass-producing electricity using this technology. Check out what happens when you do this....(has sound)
The fact is that geothermal energy is being used in some places and is therefore viable. Whether it is cost effective compared to other sources is another matter.
As for producing earthquakes, drilling for oil can do that, so can large dams. Theres a place somewhere in south east Asia (I forget exactly where) where they drilled and mud started coming up and burying the town.
