What will replace oil wells-?

Yes, geothermal works.
Will the seaflum work as sketched, no.
Read the notes.
"Gravity pushes the water up at a speed of 32 feet per second."
Since when does gravity push anything up ?
Ken

Your link states: "As of 2008, geothermal power supplies less than 1% of the world's energy."

Within 15-20 years oil will no longer be able to sustain the world’s energy needs. You can google annual oil consumption and divide that into known world oil reserves and you will see that we are running out. In fact world oil reserves are being depleted at a rate of 3% a year. You can also compute the energy returns using solar and wind combined compared to the energy return we are now getting from oil. From this you will see that wind and solar combined can never replace the energy return we are now getting from oil.

Having said that it becomes clear that we need to find a replacement for oil in a big way and wind and solar is not the solution. It will help but it can never meet the energy needs of the world.

Having said that.,.,,there is only one other source of energy that can replace oil and that is geothermal. That is why I have presented this energy machine. There is no other way.

“there is only one other source of energy that can replace oil and that is geothermal. That is why I have presented this energy machine. There is no other way.”

I think your problem is that you are looking for a single source replacement for oil. I do not believe that exists. The solution will be multifaceted. Many different sources adding up to produce the final result. While there Solar cannot keep a factory running 24 hours a day, solar energy produced and used during the day can offset oil use or save water for hydro, so that energy can be used to keep that factory running during the hours of darkness.

The biggest problem with geothermal is that much of that resource is too deep in the earth to do us any good. It can be either prohibitively expensive to reach, or in many cases it is just impossible with today’s drilling technology.

Production of geothermal steam has many problems associated with it. It leaches minerals from the earth, including many sulfides, arsenic, and other toxics, which need to be removed. Especially, if steam/water vapor from a cooling tower is going to be released to atmosphere.  This will be even more important if you ramp up the amount of geothermal production.

It takes vast quantities of water, and it is preferable that it is not saltwater. Maintaining a turbine that uses geothermal steam is labor intensive enough, without increasing the salt content of the steam. The existing corrosion problems associated with geothermal steam would be much worse using heated salt water.

To keep the Geysers resource running, they have been catching rainwater runoff and reinjecting it since the late 70’s. They pump the local streams when they reach a certain flow level. They are pumping treated sewer water from up to 40 miles away (and uphill over 3,000 feet) to maximize steam regeneration. (And they do not subtract the vast quantities of electricity used for pumping, from their net production figures. That power use shows up as a customer)

One of the world’s best geothermal resources is Yellowstone National Park.  Would you care to lay a wager on the odds of building power plants there ?

People that have not been around it, often view Geothermal as a green resource.  But there are just as many ecological impacts to be mitigated (and you could argue more) as a fossil fuel power plant.

Thomas:

I never said that geothermal is a no go. All I said was your idea of it won’t work. While most of the technical problems might be overcome, it is not worthwhile to pursue them. The cost of such a project would be prohibitive. It would drive up electric rates to a level never seen in this country. We just are recovering from $5.00 a gallon gas, I do not want to see $5.00 a kilowatt electricity.

While there are thousands of kilometers of mid ocean ridge, most of it is not that hot.  So, you will either have to drill for the heat.  Or, you are going to have to cap off a bunch of hydrothermal vents.
http://www.ocean.udel.edu/deepsea/level-2/geology/vents.html
Capping off those will destroy a very fascinating ecosystem.

“you too will start thinking about geothermal as well.”

I don’t need to start thinking geothermal. I am one of the few people you will ever run into that can say that I (along with many others) have built geothermal power plants. Over 400MW worth. So, I think I’ve got a pretty good handle on what we have been able to do with it, and what we can’t.

Ken

“Capping off those will destroy a very fascinating ecosystem.”

The “save our ecosystem” stuff is a bit overdone. These volcanic rifts that pour magma up into the ocean floor covers hundreds of thousands of miles, including active volcanoes as big as you can find in Hawaii. The area “disturbed” would amount to about 0.00001% of this ecosystem. I think a few crabs and worms would not be missed considering that there would still be millions undisturbed.

The world consumes about 85 million barrels of oil a day.

For the moment let’s set aside the amount of coal and natural gas we are consuming and just stick with oil.

I don’t have the numbers but maybe you do. What would be the surface area of the solar panels needed to produce that much energy-?

I am not being stubborn, I truly want you to convince me that things are ok and I just need to chill out. That is what I am hoping you can do.

Thomas

ok...maybe we should just put a thermal energy production plant on top of your home ...

Your skepticism is noted. But short on facts. We have only discovered a few vents so far because we have just started looking for them. The ocean is a big place and only a very small fraction has ever been explored. So to say that we would be destroying all of them is a bit short sighted?
And your idea that we would have to drill down 2 miles or even a mile to reach molten rock doesn’t pan out either. If supper hot seawater is pouring out of these vents it can only mean that the molten magma is just feet below not miles.

There is one fact you need to understand. The world is consuming all the oil there is. Just Google known world oil reserves and annual oil consumption. Divide consumption into reserves. At current consumption rates this tells you how long it will take to consume all of it. This date will occur during your lifetime. If that is not something to be concerned about it should be.

Having said that what other mega energy source are we going to use to replace oil--? Wind and solar combined can never produce the huge quantities of energy we are now getting from oil. Knowing this, what other choice do we have but geothermal--? If you don’t like my proposal then fine, what is your alternative-?

 hi folks,

�  up until very recently i thought i knew the basics on the care and feeding of modern steam turbines. this thread has prompted me to have a closer look at the technology. (extra credit) things have really changed since the school days. has it actually been over 30 years? i never would have guessed as to the importance of the steam condenser in these modern combined cycle turbines. they really suck. but in a good way. as johnny used to say " i�  did�  not�  know�  that "

http://www.quotationspage.com/quotes/Johnny_Carson

 also interesting is gordons soda can solar panels. neat.

 cheers.

 -no matter how far you push the envelope it remains stationery.

GIVEN THE VAST AMOUNT OF ENERGY WE CONSUME I SEE NO ALTERNATIVE EXCEPT GEOTHERMAL

While everyone is preoccupied with the global warming hype few realize the real catastrophe heading our way.

Comparing annual world oil consumption to alternative energy sources, this is what I have found.

It is projected that the world will consume about 36 billion barrels of oil a year by 2010.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/oil.html

The barrel of oil equivalent (bboe, sometimes BOE) is a unit of energy based on the approximate energy released by burning one barrel of crude oil. The US IRS defines it as equal to 5.8 × 106 BTU. 5.8 × 106 BTU equals 6.1178632 × 109 J or about 1.70 MWh.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrel_of_oil_equivalent

36 billion barrels of oil = 61,200,000,000 MW of power

By 2010, the World Wind Energy Association expects 160GW or 160,000 MW of capacity to be installed worldwide, up from 73.9GW at the end of 2006, implying an anticipated net growth rate of more than 21% per year

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power#Wind_energy

The annual production of 160,000 MW of wind energy would have to increase 382,500 times the current production to equal the energy we are now consuming in oil.

The unpopulated area of the Sahara desert is over 9 million km², which if covered with solar panels would provide 630 terawatts total power. The Earth's current energy consumption rate is around 13.5 TW at any given moment (including oil, gas, coal, nuclear, and hydroelectric).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_energy#Photovoltaics

If the entire Sahara desert, over 9 million km², was covered in Photovoltaic panels it would produce 630,000,000 MW of power.

61,200,000,000/630,000,000 = 97.14 Sahara deserts

As of January 1, 2007, proved world oil reserves, as reported by Oil & Gas Journal,7 were estimated at 1,317 billion barrels

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/oil.html

If we consume 36 billion barrels of oil a year and the total oil reserve is 1,317 billion barrels then at the current consumption rate the well will run dry in 36.58 years.

My pessimism has been set aside and I am now joining the optimistic folks like you. It is better to be happy than live a life full of concerns. But having said that, there is nothing wrong with spending a little time looking at geothermal as a possible saving grace, even if the need is not at our doorstep yet.

Frankly the idea of tapping geothermal in a big way intrigues me a lot. I can see new technologies harnessing this energy while grabbing all the other benefits like minerals useful gases as well. After all the energy potential on the ocean floor is a new frontier with almost limitless potential.

You have taken the edge off of my pessimism but still my intrigue in the potential energy resources at the bottom of the ocean remains.

Take care and thanks for your reply

"To convert electric power to mechanical force you need lots of amps."
No, you need lots of watts. 1hp (mechanical) is 745.7 watts.  At 12V that is just over 62 amps, at 115V it is about 6.5 amps.   Watts are what perform the work.  Amps are primarily used for wire sizing.

You are totally wrong about PV "it cannot produce the amps to convert this energy back into mechanical work."
The only trouble with PV is that it best at mid day, and not available at night.  However, by using it during the day, you can save the water behind the dam, or save oil, gas, etc, for use at night. You are reducing the total fuel burn.

Thomas,

You would have made a great industrialist or early Capitalist! ;-) The fact that we can do more with less is already proven-- witness increasing numbers of stories of improved efficiency, from households to industrial processes. For proof of my claims, take a look at EIA's figures for per capita energy use in the U.S. over the last 25 years:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/25opec/sld020.htm

Read the footnotes. An overall decline has been recorded. And the graph stops short of reflecting recent efforts at increasing efficiencies. Would you say that, during the graphed time period, the U.S. population, as a whole, has suffered a decline in its standard of living?

And Ken's point is correct: amps is not the key in itself, power is. Did you know that an electric car can accelerate faster from a dead stop than a gas car? That's because electric motors are more efficient than gas motors lower on the RPM curve, so more torque (mechanical power) at the get-go. And I'm not sure what you're going to do with all your geothermal energy-- run a city on raw steam power? Sounds very... 19th Century! Aren't you talking about conversion to electricity ultimately?

The fossil revolution was a boon to which we became accustomed and does not represent the only way to use energy. All our energy production and consumption figures (and infrastructure and design concepts) are based on a cheap, abundant, very dense energy source. Of COURSE they're skewed, but we don't easily see that fact from "inside the machine," as it were.

By necessity, we will continue to find ways to do more with less, as we have done increasingly. CLFs instead of incandescents, LEDs instead of CFLs; the energy savings potential is tremendous. Fossils are great, but they ain't the only game in town. I think we should be devoting our time to evaluating HOW we use energy to do what we need to do (as well as examining what we claim we need to do, but that's another story!). We must find ways that are sustainable, ecologically neutral, and maximally efficient.

Cheers,

Ben
AltE

"To convert electric power to mechanical force you need lots of amps."


No, you need lots of watts. 1hp (mechanical) is 745.7 watts.  At 12V that is just over 62 amps, at 115V it is about 6.5 amps.   Watts are what perform the work.  Amps are primarily used for wire sizing.

By the definition of the units of ampere and volt, work is done at a rate of one watt when one ampere flows through a potential difference of one volt.[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watt

Spin this any way you want but one fact remains. If you have “zero” amps you have zero watts. One cannot exist without the other. The force that produces work is amps. It’s not the volts that can kill you, it’s the amps.

Thomas,

I admit that facts are often inconvenient to theory ;-)

I suppose time will tell on the issue of energy consumption rates v. standard of living.

Cheers,

Ben
AltE