America’s traditional reliance on polluting energies could be coming to an end. The trigger has not been wind or photovoltaic, let alone nuclear (which is far from renewable). A group of experts has just found 4 GW of “superhot and superdeep” energy, with the potential to decarbonize the entire country. The problem? It won’t be easy to access, and we’ll have to build a whole milestone in technology to reach it, if we ever do.
America is “boiling” in energy: Not photovoltaics, but this underground, powerful source
At the present, geothermal power contributes roughly 0. The sources contribute 4% of electricity generation in the United States. While it has been a minor player till now, geothermal energy can go a long way in terms of production. According to a vision by the U.S. Department of Energy, we could get curious information:
- America may generate 10% of its electricity from geothermal by 2050 (that is twenty times more than at present)
- The roadmap shows, nevertheless, the need for technological and political support for non-stop clean power.
Geothermal power is a very reliable source of energy; it has a high capacity factor of more than ninety percent, unlike sources such as wind and solar energy. The United States Department of Energy has been funding the development of geothermal energy, especially the enhanced geothermal system, which can make some regions that were initially unsuitable for geothermal energy production unsuitable.
Geothermal energy is in America, but where? These states could have something better than hydrogen
But, where has geothermal energy been producing? Here you can have a glimpse:
- According to the census, California tops the list in geothermal electricity generation with 66.6% of the total geothermal electricity produced in the USA, while the Geysers in California are the largest geothermal field in the world with 1,517 MW.
- The other major geothermal producing states in the USA are Nevada (with 26.1% of the states’ geothermal energy production), Utah, Hawaii, Oregon and Idaho.
There are several new geothermal projects that have been initiated in the United States due to recent funding and technology. The current administration has sought to fund up to seven pilot projects on enhanced geothermal systems in a $74 million funding initiative that seeks to show how the geothermal resources can be harnessed in areas other than California and Nevada.
Some of them are new drilling by Eavor, where a three-mile hole in New Mexico successfully indicated that it was possible to gain access to heat in deep granite rock. Such a project sets an example of the modern approaches to geothermal energy that enable “deep and horizontal” drilling and, thus, broader geographical applicability.
We already have one problem: There’s not enough technological advance to achieve this
It is unarguable that for enhanced exploitation of geothermal energy, there is a need to embrace technology. EGS are also similar to fracking in the sense that a fluid is injected into the underground to create fractures through which heat is extracted. This makes it possible to generate electricity from hot ‘geopressured’ rocks that are located deep beneath the earth’s crust.
In addition to the aspect of energy security, geothermal energy has several other advantages in terms of the environment. It releases far less carbon dioxide into the environment than the coal power plants; an annual emission that is canceled out by geothermal plants, which stand at 22 million metric tons of CO2.
Moreover, the geothermal plants require less water than the traditional thermoelectric plants, as a 2001 survey showed. Geothermal power is quite capital-intensive; costs for harnessing the resource range around $2,500 per kW of installed* capacity. Still, negative externalities are significantly lower for geothermal energy; more so, geothermal energy is eligible for federal incentives.
The situation of geothermal energy in America goes far beyond these 4 GW, as there has also been talk of offshore projects that could “mimic” floating wind. However, the impact on natural ecosystems would be very serious, something that would disqualify it as a clean source. In any case, it will always be a better option than drilling Yellowstone, something that was proposed several years ago and which we discussed several months ago, but which is not likely to be possible given its extreme danger.
