• originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    3 months ago

    this is one i dont understand. if we down drill far enough anywhere , we get free heat. nuke plants cost billions… we cant drill a few miles for billions of dollars? what am i missing?

    • silence7@slrpnk.netOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      3 months ago

      Actually making it work means not just drilling a hole, but drilling two holes and then connecting them with a network of cracks which doesn’t leak too much. This lets you circulate water through a huge volume of rock and engage in depletionary extraction of the accumulated heat. This wasn’t really possible before the advent of fracking, and even then, it required a bunch of additional research to figure out how to make it work in the kinds of igneous rocks you find in the craton instead of the sedimentary rocks you find oil deposits in.

        • booly
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          3 months ago

          You’re not missing anything. Nuclear is looking more and more like it won’t be economically feasible going forward. If modern geothermal provides a cheaper way to feed dispatchable electricity into the grid, in more places, then that might very well be the last link in making a zero-carbon grid possible.

          • originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            3 months ago

            i can see how nuclear and eventually fusion will be important in the centuries to come for … portable… energy. just boggles my mind why we have put zero effort into geothermal

            we have no problem going to ridiculous lengths for oil and gas.

    • gandalf_der_12te@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      The thing I heard is that geothermal energy is actually only renewable on geological timescales, i.e. not really “renewable”. It’s just that there are very large reserves, so it’s not immediately obvious. But I can’t find a link rn.

  • spinnetrouble
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    Can someone catch me up here, please? The last I read, fracking was typically seen as an environmentally unfriendly process because you break up a bunch of underlying rock, pump out the crude, and replace it with water. It destabilizes the area and leads to shit like small earthquakes. So like, drilling down, releasing a bunch of heat/pressure, and flooding the system with a bunch of water without caring about the oil is supposed to be a safer thing to do? What gives?

    • silence7@slrpnk.netOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      They’re doing it in places with no oil to just get the heat.

      There may be issues with what’s used for fracking granite, bit probably won’t be the issues with hydrocarbon leakage or waste injection