Geothermal versus Fracking... - Page 2 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

Dudesky · #16 02-11-2012, 12:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jplinville

Interesting...but both seem to cause earthquakes, no?

Fracking drills deep enough to 'grease' the tectonic plates and cause a quake?

You sound like a terminal tree hugger.

cmac2012 · #17 02-11-2012, 02:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by layback40

The geothermal is not done in hydrocarbon containing formations.
It normally uses granite formations that contain low levels of uranium, hence the heat. The water is heated by the formation, it does not frack the formation. Well at least that is the case on this side of the pond.

Fracking is drilling into formations such as coal & fracturing the formation to allow any hydrocarbon to be released. The type that is in question at the moment is normally shallow depth and can be close to ground water.

Conventional oil/gas wells into low porosity formations are "fracked" as well. This used to be called proving the well. Often with explosive charges to help the recovery rates.

The heat from all the geothermal I've read about comes from the heat of the earth's core, in places where it comes unusually close to the surface. Hot springs, such as those at Yellowstone, an ancient supervolcano, also derive from hot lava, or something not far from that state.

Hot springs are not far away from the geothermal plants roughly north of Napa. There was some speculation about small earthquakes in the area, IIRC one possible cause was the effect of surface water being injected into the hot regions in question.

layback40 · #18 02-11-2012, 03:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmac2012

The heat from all the geothermal I've read about comes from the heat of the earth's core, in places where it comes unusually close to the surface. Hot springs, such as those at Yellowstone, an ancient supervolcano, also derive from hot lava, or something not far from that state.

Hot springs are not far away from the geothermal plants roughly north of Napa. There was some speculation about small earthquakes in the area, IIRC one possible cause was the effect of surface water being injected into the hot regions in question.

I think we may be talking about 2 different sorts of geothermal.
Down here they are at the pilot plant stage of developing a geothermal power plant that has water injected into a very stable rock formation in the desert. The drill hole is many miles deep. Super heated steam returns to the surface, its properties are very similar to that of the steam produced for a conventional power station. It is hoped to use this process to run an on grid power station of several giga watts.
It would be a very cheap version of nuclear power as the rock formations are hot because of their uranium content. The amount of heat being removed to do it is insignificant.

Much of the heat energy that is commented on as coming from the earths center is in fact the result of nuclear decay occuring in various rock formations.

jplinville · #19 02-11-2012, 09:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dudesky

Fracking drills deep enough to 'grease' the tectonic plates and cause a quake?

You sound like a terminal tree hugger.

Far from it...I'm trying to understand the argument against one method, but the agreement to the other, when they are both similar in design.

jplinville · #20 02-11-2012, 09:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by layback40

I think we may be talking about 2 different sorts of geothermal.
Down here they are at the pilot plant stage of developing a geothermal power plant that has water injected into a very stable rock formation in the desert. The drill hole is many miles deep. Super heated steam returns to the surface, its properties are very similar to that of the steam produced for a conventional power station. It is hoped to use this process to run an on grid power station of several giga watts.
It would be a very cheap version of nuclear power as the rock formations are hot because of their uranium content. The amount of heat being removed to do it is insignificant.

Much of the heat energy that is commented on as coming from the earths center is in fact the result of nuclear decay occuring in various rock formations.

This process is called Enhanced Geothermal. According to many studies it's caused earthquakes in the area during when they pump water to break the rocks further...much like is done in fracking for natural gas.

If one is ok, why isn't the other?

jplinville · #21 02-11-2012, 09:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chas H

Again I must agree you are one confused dude.
You should seriously consider taking a break from posting to the forum untill you are done with your current meds.

Sometimes I feel the same about you...get over yourself and either join the conversation or move on.

Layback has answered the question about Enhanced geothermal quite well...explained the process quite well.

Tell me how the process is much different than fracking for gas. Both have been the causes of localized earthquakes, both have fluids forced at high pressures to further crack the rocks below the surface, yet one has got the treehuggers in an uproar, and the other is a welcomed form of electrical generation.

what's the difference?

cmbdiesel · #22 02-11-2012, 09:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jplinville

Sometimes I feel the same about you...get over yourself and either join the conversation or move on.

Layback has answered the question about Enhanced geothermal quite well...explained the process quite well.

Tell me how the process is much different than fracking for gas. Both have been the causes of localized earthquakes, both have fluids forced at high pressures to further crack the rocks below the surface, yet one has got the treehuggers in an uproar, and the other is a welcomed form of electrical generation.

what's the difference?

Beyond semantic, (which is probably the main difference) it seems like Layback has the right tack, being that the processes are used in different types of rock.
At this point, there exists evidence to suggest that fracking is responsible for a number of environmental issues, hence the uproar.
Hydroshearing, seems to have dodged the environmental stigma so far by not being directly linked to environmental concerns.

Probably another big issue is who uses which term....
Big Oil fracks
Government builds EGS

Dudesky · #23 02-11-2012, 10:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jplinville

Far from it...I'm trying to understand the argument against one method, but the agreement to the other, when they are both similar in design.

Not every area is ideal for geo, though.
You got trapped natural gas that needs to be released and they do it with hydraulics, withdraw the fluid and pump out the gas.

jplinville · #24 02-11-2012, 10:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmbdiesel

Beyond semantic, (which is probably the main difference) it seems like Layback has the right tack, being that the processes are used in different types of rock.
At this point, there exists evidence to suggest that fracking is responsible for a number of environmental issues, hence the uproar.
Hydroshearing, seems to have dodged the environmental stigma so far by not being directly linked to environmental concerns.

Probably another big issue is who uses which term....
Big Oil fracks
Government builds EGS

This seems to answer most of the question I had...Thanks.

elchivito · #25 02-11-2012, 10:14 AM

Gasland. Watch it.

gaslandthemovie.com

Chas H · #26 02-11-2012, 07:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jplinville

Sometimes I feel the same about you...get over yourself and either join the conversation or move on.

Layback has answered the question about Enhanced geothermal quite well...explained the process quite well.

Tell me how the process is much different than fracking for gas. Both have been the causes of localized earthquakes, both have fluids forced at high pressures to further crack the rocks below the surface, yet one has got the treehuggers in an uproar, and the other is a welcomed form of electrical generation.

what's the difference?

One is hole drilled into gas bearing rock, the other is not. Geothermal does not use polluting chemicals to remove heat from the ground. Fracking does use polluting chemicals and can result in flammable gases mirating into water supplies. Fracking involves large amounts of pressure which has caused earthquakes in Ohio. Geothermal does not use high pressures to extract heat. I don't where you got the idea it does.
If someone else has explained this quite well why do you need to still ask the difference?

jplinville · #27 02-11-2012, 07:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chas H

One is hole drilled into gas bearing rock, the other is not. Geothermal does not use polluting chemicals to remove heat from the ground. Fracking does use polluting chemicals and can result in flammable gases mirating into water supplies. Fracking involves large amounts of pressure which has caused earthquakes in Ohio. Geothermal does not use high pressures to extract heat. I don't where you got the idea it does.
If someone else has explained this quite well why do you need to still ask the difference?

From the article i posted in the OP...

Quote:

Conventional geothermal plants run on steam from within the earth. But for places without steam reservoirs, scientists developed enhanced geothermal. The technique involves drilling a well deep into hot rock and injecting high-pressure water into the hole. As the water forces its way into the Earth's crust, it carves new fractures into the rock and absorbs heat. Then engineers simply pump the heated water back to the surface and use the resulting steam to turn electricity-generating turbines. The U.S. is banking on enhanced geothermal as a source of inexpensive, green energy -- we have plenty of hot rocks, particularly in Western states. In 2009 alone, the Department of Energy allotted more than $100 million to enhanced-geothermal projects.

I've stated enhanced geothermal so many times in this thread that only a blind man would miss it. Now...go read the article and come back when you can speak with the rest of the adults.

layback40 · #28 02-12-2012, 01:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jplinville

This process is called Enhanced Geothermal. According to many studies it's caused earthquakes in the area during when they pump water to break the rocks further...much like is done in fracking for natural gas.

If one is ok, why isn't the other?

Good question jp !!

I believe it has a lot to do with the type of formation that the process occurs in.
Also the process being trialed down here, is such that the formation is so large & stable & they are doing it in the middle of the formation. Solid granite for several miles in every direction. The formation contains any shock waves generated. If the formation was highly stressed like at the boundary of tectonic plates, one would be foolish to do it.

MTI · #29 02-17-2012, 12:08 PM

Study Finds That Fracking Is Not the Source of Groundwater Contamination, But Bad Practices Are

"Poor practices are poor practices and they need to be identified and need to be penalised so they are not carried on beyond a reasonable point," he told BBC News.

Dr Groat said far more research on hydraulic fracturing was needed, and his Energy Institute planned now to take a closer look at the other concerns such as any increased earthquake risk.

elchivito · #30 02-17-2012, 12:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MTI

Study Finds That Fracking Is Not the Source of Groundwater Contamination, But Bad Practices Are

"Poor practices are poor practices and they need to be identified and need to be penalised so they are not carried on beyond a reasonable point," he told BBC News.

Dr Groat said far more research on hydraulic fracturing was needed, and his Energy Institute planned now to take a closer look at the other concerns such as any increased earthquake risk.

So it's not the fracking, it's the bad practices that come along with fracking as a result of cost cutting and low bid shoddy workmanship.
I'll bet those folks who can cook weenies over their cold water taps feel a lot better now.
80,000 lb. of chemicals and 3.5million gallons of water PER WELL. Gasland. It's on Amazon streaming. Watch it.