380. Cracking the Geothermal Nut - EAVOR can build geothermal heat and power plants anywhere
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 18 июн 2024
- EVAOR has pioneered closed-loop Geothermal technology that unlike conventional geothermal can be built anywhere. This just might be the missing link that can provide baseload electricity and heat in the green energy revolution. The company is building a full-scale heat and power project in Germany that will provide enough electricity for 8,000 homes and enough heat for 120,000 homes. They already have other projects under development in Europe and other locales.
GreenEnergyFutures.ca Video
See blog at GreenEnergyFutures.ca
#geothermal #renewableenergy #climateaction #green #cleanenergy #electricity #sustainable 
Наука
Eavor has completed a deep bore in New Mexico which reached 250° C rock. They are in competition with Quaise Energy to get to 400° C rock. It is necessary to get to super critical temperatures for efficient electricity generation. Plasma or mmWave drilling techniques allow them to vaporize the rock and vitrify the wall of the bore.
Great news! Europe for national security reasons have to be energy independent! Clean anergy is an additional benefit!
Europe, Germany and the rest of the world have been too slow to transition to wind and solar energy and all electric vehicles.
Wind and solar energy do not need to be imported and can be produced locally in any country.
Europe needs to provide incentives for homes and businesses to install electric heat pumps and get rid of old polluting gas and oil boilers. The move to electric vehicles will also be sped up. There is no good reason to help fund Putin's war by buying oil, gas and coal from Russia. There is a Climate Crisis making weather events more extreme. Time to switch to renewable energy. The future is renewables. They are safer, cleaner and cheaper than fossil fuels. It is time for governments to end fossil fuels industry subsidies.
I like this but am disappointed ( but not surprised ) that the Alberta government did not work on getting a full sized power plant built in the province.
Emissions free baseload power plus no radioactive waste to process and store.
You don’t need to be a genius to see the benefits of this technology.
Aussie politicians take note!
Very cool/hot to see this technology progress beyond theoretical and pilot plant scale to actual commercial-sized ones... So much potential here especially at that price point...
I am waiting for them to do their IPO so that I can pick up some stocks.
Spent 1979-80 serving at the Naval Air Station (NAS) Keflavik. Really like the fact that our heating was from a hot water loop and electricity from the geothermal power plant.
PS - the Blue Lagoon was just pulling off the road, short walk across lava field and using some rickety stairs.
This type of geothermal has been around for a fairly long time. The difference is the use of horizontal drilling to expose more surface area to retrieve the heat. There is a hotel in Edmonton that has been running on geothermal for about 20 years now so yes, it does work and the amount of energy derived is quickly replaced by the surrounding rock. If it was possible to drill to the earths core the temperatures would meet or exceed 5,200° Celsius (9,392° Fahrenheit).
I could be wrong but the hotel is probably doing GeoExchange, a different animal. In GeoExchange you only need 4-7 degrees C and you cannot produce power. This is very good and very economical for anything bigger than a house.
So could they do it at the sites of old coal-fired powerplants so as to re-use the site, grid-connection, equipment and provide (some) jobs?
That would be useful
Or old nuclear power plants. They can share with Solar farms. Companies already put PVs around old power plants.
@@ryuuguu01 yes, that makes sense, I've heard of the "exclusion zones" around old nuclear plants being used for solar
The point of this technology is you can build anywhere, or mote specifically where the heat and power are needed. This you can’t do with traditional geo.
I cannot think of any equipment in fossil power plants other than the substation that can be utilized for such low pressure and low temperature working fluids. I've spent most of my adult life in steam propulsion and power plants.
It's a myth that this technology can repower a steam cycle plant. Most steam cycle plants operated on Steam (water vapor) in the 500 - 550 C temperature range.
250 F non-water fluids are a total nonstarter for the power plant equipment and systems.
We tried that here in Australia. South Australia . I thought it was such a good idea I bought shares in the company. They drilled down but then ran into problems drilling at that depth. Then pulled the plug on the project. I still think it’s a better way to make energy than nuclear, solar or wind. But in Australia we have closed our minds to it.
GENERATE not create electricity-please!
Regardless, long time supporter of inclusion of geothermal in our energy mix.
Good to see progress!
The German plant produces 8 MW of electricity even at 100X, 800 MW of production is still on the small side.
I understand the focus was on heat for a central heating system.
High temperatures that struck the southwestern US, Mexico and Central America recently, were 35 times more likely and 1.4C hotter “because of the warming from the burning of coal, oil and natural gas”, the Associated Press reports. A rapid attribution study by researchers at World Weather Attribution explored the impact of climate change in the on-going heat that has killed “at least” 125 people so far. Climate change also led to unusually high night time temperatures that were up to 1.6C warmer than they would have otherwise been - and made “unusual evening heat” 200 more times more likely, it continues. The article adds that “doctors say cooler night temperatures are key to surviving a heatwave”. The researchers examined the five-day maximum temperatures across North and Central America in May and June for their study, the Guardian reports. It notes that tens of millions of people have endured dangerous heat recently as a “heat dome” has engulfed Mexico - with the conditions spreading north into Texas, Arizona and Nevada and south into Belize, Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador. BBC News explains that the study is based on the scientists comparing events today against models of what would have been likely to occur in a world without human-induced global warming. Such a level of heat would have been a once-in-a-lifetime occurrence in 2000, but today the average person should experience such an event ten times in their life, according to the New York Times.
While this is a great technical achievement over the short term... I wonder about the long term life of the underground pipes which are obviously threaded together (threads tend to leak over time...).
The other major issue is efficiency of the process. They are talking of boiling a fluid, running it through a turbine, condensing it back to liquid, and reboiling the fluid. This is the thermodynamics Carnot Cycle. Fluid cycle efficient is defined as "e" = 1- (Tcold/Thot) in absolute temperature (K or R). K = C + 273.15 (and I will avoid using English units which would use F and R)
I know that several lower temperature non-water fluids have been studied... but, the elephant in the room is the potential efficiency of such a low temperature system.
For example: A modern steam cycle power plant has an overall efficency in the 34-39% range. Now the actual Carnot steam/water cycle efficiency is in the range of 64-69% and the rest is lost by other power plant equipment inefficiencies.
Example for a 1980's era USA power plant I worked in (1005 F, 2400 PSI - using a 60F summer river to condense the steam back to water: power plants are more efficient in colder weather, and more modern power plants operate at higher temperatures which increases efficiency): 1005 ==> 540 C. 60 F ==> 15.5 C (540 C steam using a cooling source of 15.5 C)(summer river water in northern climates) has a Carnot efficiency of 1- (288.65 K/813.65 K) = 0.645 ==> 64.5 % Carnot efficiency.
Yet the overall power plant efficiency was only about 34% as there was about a 30% efficiency loss in the boiler and assorted power plant equipment.
So if you take 250 C as your Thot, and assuming you have the same cooling water source (15.5 C in the summer) you get a Carnot efficiency of 1- (288.65 K/523.15 K) = 0.448 ==> 44.8 % Carnot efficiency.
There is still going to be a lot of power plant equipment that will eat up a fair amount of power. I expect another 20-25% loss of efficiency. So we are likely looking at 20 - 25% efficiency for the process.
The cost of building power plants and systems is pretty fixed... so it makes it more difficult to get payback on the investment with lower efficiencies.
Another factor is that you need a very large collection field to be able to extract thermal power at a constant level for many decades (or forever) for what would be considered even a very small power plant. That gets very pricey. Of course, you can build a smaller field and draw down the ground temperature in 5-10 years - and every drop in temperature lowers the thermal efficiency possible.
How often is the underground piping field going to need to be replaced? A huge questions.
While I hope it can be made to work... There are a lot of obstacles yet to overcome.
Have a great day,
ORC working fluids are usually refrigerants or hydrocarbons. Standard usage in hundreds of geothermal binary units around the world. 2-component mixtures are also possible. Thermal efficiencies range from about 5-18% depending on the resource temperature.
It looks like a great idea but without details like how long, how much and how much energy over the life time its hard to say, 7 cpkwh sound good though and hopefully we see it scaled.
But can they lower the drilling rig down a old coal mine?
If you look at somewhere like South Wales, there are plenty of old coal mines that are no longer in use, however these old coal mines are still massively deep holes.
If you start your geothermal drilling from the bottom of a coal mining shaft, then you've just given yourself a couple of kilometers head start. Meaning lower cost.
This is the first I have heard of such an idea. It sounds brilliant!
I mean maybe that’s feasible but if not there are plenty of other uses for mines as far as gravity storage or thermal storage. Flooded mines can be used for thermal energy sources ect.
How secure would these working fluids be in their 'closed loop'? I'm guessing that they would be something akin to refrigerant ? If this was to scale and roll out how safe would ground water aquifers be? This looks promising - read of similar systems but they involved fracking and were prone to exhausting potential of their locations after a period of time
This sounds like a brilliant plan! I wonder if like a small scale geothermal rig for a home, could they send heat back down the hole in summer if a district heating and cooling system is set up? Could the well cool off if it wasn't recharged?
This is called GeoExchange and it works very well. Here’s story we did on a Salvation Army project that will save thousands of dollars on utility costs. 345. Net-Zero Ready Grace Village will save Salvation Army $6 million
ruclips.net/video/HpcXhNw4TpA/видео.html
Does this require a relatively geologically stable area to work well? How well does the closed loop resist effects of earthquakes?
Can any of the new heat pump technology be used to concentrate the heat for higher temperatures?
Wow imagine the cost. Temperature gradient might not hold over the decades
What is the fluid that has a lower boiling point of water, which is 212 degrees. Did she say Rank&file unit?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rankine_cycle
Organic Rankine cycle
I'm not skilled but 🤔 could you use old gas ore oil ? They are deep and I guess som big cavity deeo down, and ofcorse you have to cleen the returning water so it's not make a fire.........🤔 ??
Would this work on an island like St Croix VI?
Yes 👍
Typical CHP plants are 10s to 100s of MW so would like to see how these scale. She said 7¢/kWh but not sure if it's US or Canadian. If it's US it's relatively expensive for baseload power which is generally around 5¢/kWh. Solar and wind are around those levels. The market would be in Europe where CHP is popular and electricity is more expensive. Organic Rankine Cycle plants are basically steam turbine plants but instead of water-steam they use a low boiling point hydrocarbon fluid (I think pentane or hexane) to make use of lower temperature heat sources.
Solar and wind are the cheapest power but both are highly exposed to severe weather damage and need massive storage and grid evolution.
This is pretty good for dispatchable power. Peaking power plants often receive $1/kWh for this very important service. The idea is you facilitate as much cheap solar and wind power you can and pay a little more to for other power used to keep supply stable.
Rather than use turbines at such high temps/pressures why not 'sterling engine' gen-sets?
I worked outages in a nuke plant and the turbine disks would rapidly corrode from the supercritical steam nessisitating repeated replacement - thus the outages. Sterling Engines work off the differential in temps not needing extreme heat to convert liquid to a vapor(steam).
Properly treated materials used in all liquid contacting surfaces would negate corrosion by the liquid.
In typically frigid northern climes the Sterling Engines' coldplate could provide sufficient temperature differentials that could power an electric generator which might produce enough to require drilling down only 1km for the same 8MW.
Wow, how many miles is that?
Google it.
Geothermal would also replace solar panels and windmills because of their limited time of use before they must be recycled and replaced. In the US each state could have a number of geothermal power plants and one day also produce hydrogen for cars planes and trucks. Of course this is a long way from happening yet, but could be planned on for the future coming years,,,,,,,
Solar produces the cheapest electricity, less than half the price of geothermal so it well be a strategic mix that is most cost effective. Hydrogen for cars is unlikely since that is also quite expensive and a much more inefficient use of electricity.
@@greenenergyfutures But solar panels take up lots of room, they have a short lifespan, and are very hard to recycle, and must be cleaned often, and big hail makes short work of the panels, and they only work in the day with sunshine. Geothermal is 365 days a year, 24 hours a day,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
What does she mean when she said it flashes? Like in Mardi Gras?
As in phase-changes to a gas and grows hugely in size, for example water into steam, though your idea sounds like more fun
How many miles or feet are 3 or 4 kill-o-meters ?
Google it. Takes less time than asking here.
When I was in my second semester of physics, 40 years ago this crazy Idea came up already. Everybody just thought about the huge amounts of energy but noone even thought about the power aspect. Power is energy per unit of time and it refers to the question, how fast can removed energy be restored. So I took a piece of paper, wrote down the heat conduction equation and the constants for stone and 10 minutes later had my answer. Geothermal energy will fail due to the too low hear conduction of stone. In terms of power geothermal is even more stupid than wind energy. Now 40 years later, I have to confess, that mankind is basically as stupid as apes with a few exceptions.
They run their calculations and in their papers it is 30 years until heat level drops too low. Their documents are available, you can check. So, the goal is to extract energy for 30 years on site. Then, build somewhere else. And, probably, get back to first place in the next 30-60-90 years?
@@GroxMirk But that does not solve the power problem. You remember, Power ist energy per unit of time. When you can extract only a few kilowatthours per hour, you cannot use it as a practical power source. I hope that physics is not chinese for you.
@@maxtabmann6701 "The power plant’s projections indicate approximately 64MW of gross energy yield for thermal use and 8.2MW of electricity generation". Eavor using heatpump to overheat steam to spin turbine and leftover heat to provide home heating. And, I assume, to heat tap water. I like physics since early in school.
@@maxtabmann6701 I know, it is a lot of questions. And I still did not have answers even for all of my own.
@@GroxMirk At least you are not ideological. Geothermal works for iceland because there the temperature difference is several 100°C. You know the most famous geysir there that spits up hot steam every 20 minutes. Now do the mental exercise and think what would happen if the hot water would be used for housholds and instead the same amount of cold water would repeatedly be returned into the opening.
Could have happened decades earlier.
How hot is 30 degrees C in F temperature?
warmer than swimming pool water but less than human blood
Google it.
54F
One question. Where and how will you continue to get all these km's of pipe? How much solar and or wind do you need to build, power and furnace pipe production factories ?
Just think about what huge problems are they missing with this oh yeah safety and unintended consequence of the drilling talk about environmental disaster this could be one?
Some conventional geothermal and the oil and gas industry use fracking which is potentially much more destructive.
Puff piece. 😢😢😢
You can predict solar output in the real world just as well as you an predict heat output in dry rock? Dry rock is a marvelous thermal insulator and as you take large amounts of heat from a local area you will quickly outstrip the heat replacement at your pipe location. This has been done before. Just like solar only runs at a fraction of theoretical levels over a year. Still, both are great at soaking up other peoples money, ie, government grants.
Msr nukes wil be cheaper I think
Unlikely.
I feel like this needs video needs an even bigger portrait of the presenter almost blocking out the content being discussed with the camera angle looking slightly further up the nose. Really imbrace the boomeryness of this video's delivery.
How hot is 200 degrees C in F temperature?
Again... Google it.
392 F. I have spent most of my adult life in naval steam propulsion and power plants.
I've never seen a turbine condenser power plant operate at such low temperatures... Not even the retired boilers and turbines from 100 years ago.
While nuclear power plants operate at somewhere near 600 F (give or take depending on design) fossil power plants with super-heated steam have operated at 900 F (482 C) or higher since before WW II. Most modern fossil power plants operate at least at 1000 F and many at 1050 F (565 C).
@@perryallan3524 What is the chemical they are using to operate at such low temperatures? Ammonia perhaps ?
@@martylynchian8628 It won't be Ammonia due to the safety issue (although I remember well ammonia refrigeration).
Some years ago I read a paper that discussed several low temperature fluids for Carnot cycles. I don't recall what they were. All of them had issues with how to implement and control leakage (steam/water does not cause environmental or other issues if it leaks as long as no one is injured).
A quick internet search did not provide me a list of current options for lower temperature non-water fluids. Sorry