Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

minitrr t1_irvs9lk wrote

Ehh I wouldn’t bank on geothermal as a widespread solution. It’s great in active areas like Nevada and California (also some demo projects in Louisiana).

Permits for drilling are tough and can take years upon years.

2

wwarnout t1_irvulpc wrote

Another disadvantage is that converting electric power from wind or solar to heat, and then converting that stored heat back to electricity, is much less efficient than storing electricity in batteries.

7

theseldomreply t1_irw0myd wrote

Probably still more efficient & feasible than making hundreds of gigawatts worth of batteries.

7

El_Minadero t1_irw6td0 wrote

But you can store excess power for years underground

3

KevinFlantier t1_irwdgmt wrote

If you generate enough power and your batteries are big enough, efficiency barely matters. A simple, easy and non polluting way to store energy would be a lot more useful than a very efficient one that relies on rare-earth metals, that is extremely expensive to scale up and that wears down over time.

3

LaserAntlers t1_irwcia5 wrote

That's why we should just do solar thermal for projects like this one a large scale.

1

_AtLeastItsAnEthos t1_irvu50o wrote

Good thing an insane amount of our power consumption is done in those areas

4

minitrr t1_irvulfb wrote

I mean for the WECC, sure, but not EI, ERCOT, or the rest of the world.

1

Fmarulezkd t1_irw0ldc wrote

Widespread solutions are not necessary. I'd reckon that energy production and storage will be area specific.

2

minitrr t1_irw0xhs wrote

Absolutely I agree - different markets will require a different configuration of solutions. It’s just that geothermal will probably be particularly niche.

1

El_Minadero t1_irw6r4m wrote

The EGS he talks about doesn’t need a high enthalpy system to operate.

1