The American Spectator

Special Report

Yet Another Energy Revolution (Yawn)

By William Tucker on 11.6.07 @ 12:09AM

(Page 2 of 2)

It is because of the failure of photovoltaics to provide conventional electricity that enthusiasts have now turned back to the Power Tower.

SO WHAT ELSE IS PART of this "New Age of Energy?" U.S. News also offers up "deep geothermal," heat energy drawn from deep within the earth.

Although not commonly recognized, the earth is a very hot place. Temperatures at the molten core of the earth reach 7,000 degrees C, hotter than the surface of the sun. In some regions, this molten magma comes close enough to the earth's surface to heat groundwater. This produces geysers, geothermal vents (called "fumeroles"), and other forms of steam and superheated water jetting or leaking from the earth.

Since the 1980s, California, Hawaii and Iceland -- all areas of frequent volcanic activity -- have attached steam turbines to some of these vents to produce modest amounts of electricity. The largest geothermal plants produce 75 megawatts (about one-twelfth the size of a conventional plant). California now produces 2 percent of its electricity from geothermal and this represents 90 percent of America's capacity and 25 percent of the world's. There are only so many potential sites and often they are tourist attractions. So far no one has suggested attaching a power plant to Old Faithful.

Recently the idea has developed, however, that if we pump water deep into the earth -- about three miles -- it will heat to 300 degrees and can then be pumped to the surface again to produce steam. A recent MIT study suggested that the nation could provide all its electrical needs from this source.

The problem, once again, is cost. Even on paper, the MIT report already has the price at running as high as $1.00 per kwh -- about ten times the price of conventional electricity. And that's before anybody has even tried it. Once again, deep geothermal will be one of those far-fetched ideas that is always dangled as an alternative to doing something in the here and now.

So here's a suggestion. Instead of pumping water three miles into the earth to heat it, why don't we take the source of that heat and bring it to the surface?

That's what we do when we build a nuclear plant. The main source of the earth's heat is the radioactive breakdown of uranium and thorium atoms. A nuclear reactor simply brings this process to the surface and accelerates it under carefully controlled conditions. Drawing on this terrestrial heat isn't that much different from burning the stored solar energy in coal -- except that nuclear reactions produce 2 million times as much energy per ounce without any exhaust gases.

"Terrestrial energy" -- it's a "green" idea that didn't make U.S. News's "New Age of Energy." Somehow it hasn't yet made it into the environmentalists' playbook, either. But if we're going to solve any of our energy problems -- supply, pollution, global warming -- we're going to have to give it a more serious look.

Letter to the Editor

topics:
Business, Environment, Global Warming, Law, Energy, Oil