It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Geothermal Fraud UK

page: 1

log in


posted on Jul, 10 2015 @ 02:19 AM
It is said by some that competent engineers won't touch geothermal projects that aren't in areas where steam comes out of the ground. Hence the hopelessly optimistic geothermal projects are run by clowns and conmen.

In the 1980's a trial project in Cornwall failed due to the water running out of the bottom. It takes a lot of searching to find that reason for failure. It's the skeleton in the closet for Cornish geothermal. Has anyone told the Eden Project who are attempting the same type of project in the same rock?

In Southampton geothermal provides 15% of the heat for a local system. I think the borehole is being refurbished at the moment but information is not easy to find. You would think the oft quoted working UK geothermal system would be proud of all its facts and figures.

In Newcastle the project failed. In Durham the project failed, twice I think. And now they want to sell it to another hopeful idealist.

In every one of these stories a few factors remain fairly constant. Massive amounts of fossil fuels and other resources are used. Huge amounts of pollution created. Drillers get paid. Fracking usually takes place. CO2, Radon and liquid nasties are released. The story changes from 'we will do this' to 'we learned something'. Nothing useful except fake 'green cred' comes out of it.

Outright lying about 'clean, green, renewable energy' is commonplace. The fake green yuppies get paid. You end up with overpriced Russian gas and new nuclear.

If you think geothermal will provide clean, green energy in the UK please deny my ignorance.

posted on Jul, 10 2015 @ 02:31 AM
a reply to: Kester

There are private projects that successfully do so perhaps there is something preventing it large scale.

posted on Jul, 10 2015 @ 02:36 AM
a reply to: theabsolutetruth

Which private projects?

It seems to be geology that is preventing successful projects.

posted on Jul, 10 2015 @ 02:38 AM
a reply to: Kester

Private house building / renovating projects.

The UK has varied geology, perhaps some areas are less suitable.
edit on 10-7-2015 by theabsolutetruth because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 10 2015 @ 03:07 AM
There is a saying (I worked for/with geothermal services for some time a couple of years ago and helped to plan deep hole geothermal usage): "off the pickaxe it is dark."

You plan the drillings according to seismic explorations, but these seismics and other drillholes in the surrounding area are *just* a hint of what you may find.

What kind of soil will be found? They have vast differences in permeability. Even if we know that there is sandstone in 3.000 m depth, what kind of sandstone will it be? Rhet? Even Karst?

And then, how much water will coming flowing through the fracked channels? How wide and how far will those channels reach into the soil?

There is still a lot to learn in geothermal explorations.
edit on 10 7 2015 by ManFromEurope because: grammar, my old enemy! we meet again, I see!

posted on Jul, 10 2015 @ 03:58 AM
a reply to: theabsolutetruth

I think you may be confusing geothermal with ground source heat pumps which use solar energy trapped in the top layer of the earths crust. It isn't surprising that such a mistake is made when many in the 'renewable' energy industry use words like geothermal inaccurately as trigger words to get you to part with your cash. My personal experience of ground source heat pumps is nothing short of horrendous. I'm sure there are a few satisfied customers out there somewhere.

As the comment after yours points out, conditions underground are unknown until drilling brings back actual physical evidence. An educated guess may be accurate sometimes. The UK geothermal projects have taken place in what are predicted to be the most suitable areas. As far as I can see they're all failures and are being used to scam people into a situation in which imported fuels and even imported Chinese nuclear power stations will seem essential to modern, energy greedy lifestyles. Modern energy greedy lifestyles such as 95% of young greenies grew up with.

posted on Jul, 10 2015 @ 04:43 AM
a reply to: ManFromEurope

Thank you for your knowledgable input. Here's more.


Back in the '70's when I was working at DEC, we had a computer system at the original hot rocks project, sited in a old quarry near Helston, run by Camborne school of mines.

There was a large temporary building, used as their site office, which housed our computer. Along the front of the building, was a concrete slab. Lying on the slab were numerous worn out drill heads. The cutting teeth which when new were triangular, about a couple of inchs in length, had vanished on these worn drill bits, only vague nubbins remained on the head. At the time I thought that it was a foolish idea to drill through hard granite, with a tool that normally is used in sedimentary rock formations.

Eventually they managed to get their two holes, (for water flow and return) deep enough for a demo, but shallower than the proposed depth. They altered (turned) the drills towards each other, again that was a slow process as they had to pull the drills often and drop an instrument package down the hole, a form of inertia nav platform I recall, The DEC computer calculated and plotted the distance between the holes.

They decided they had finished and dropped an explosive charge down the hole which when detonated fractured the rock between the pipe ends ==== Explosive Fracking!).

They then started to pump water down one pipe and up the t'other. hoping for a nice heat gain. However the return flow was only a small percentage of the down flow, They had underground leakage from the fracture area. The amount of energy harvested was derisery and the project was abandoned.



In response to jamesp, they will probably now use polycrystalline diamond drilling bits which don't have the wear rates of the tools used in former times.

But to state that they won't use proppants makes no sense. If you open a crack at depth by pumping in fluid then if you then drop the pressure back the crack will close up again. The pressure in the ground goes up about 1 pound/sq inch for every foot you go deeper - as a rough rule of thumb, and without adding the sand or other propping material that pressure is enough to close the cracks back up. They sound as though they have been very poorly advised. Oh, and to get the proppants to carry into the narrow cracks you have to add the additives (long chain polymers some of which are similar to those used to keep the bubbles stable in beer) - but if they have their minds set on not using them, then it probably won't work.

Fracking is fracking no matter how you try to dress it up and what you hope to extract at the end.

Maybe the industry can learn from the planning proposal just how to get their proposals approved after all, the equipment is the same, the depth is the same, the technique is the same...

It will set a precedent that will be very useful to the gas industry. You cannot use a commercial gas rig this close to St.Blazey and then claim that it is too noisy elsewhere. Eden is surrounded by farms.

In response to jamesp, they will probably now use polycrystalline diamond drilling bits which don't have the wear rates of the tools used in former times.
But to state that they won't use proppants makes no sense.

PDCs are expensive and will be very slow at drilling through granite. Fine, more days, more dollars for everything and everyone on rental or day rates!
However, as far as I know there are plenty of fractures and fissures in Cornwall granite already and that's what the geothermal guys would try to exploit to get communication between injector and producer wells, rather than small fracs held open by proppant.

That's why I suggested the chances of communication are much greater than with tight shale fracs. In fact there are often total loss zones in these type of wells, where all your drilling fluid disappears into some underground fissure or cavern, making drilling (now without lubrication along the drillstring) very difficult unless you pour massive amounts of water down the annulus .

That planning statement is oh so carefully worded that it totally useless and ambiguous so that it can mean all things to all planning officers and nothing to any engineers which is OK because planning officer is now a political appointment.

The main thing anyone should be looking for in that statement is what is NOT being said because that is where the truth they are trying to cover up lays.

This is old news; geodynamics, Flannery and the idiocy of hot rock energy has been in the pipeline for at least 3 years.

Geothermal energy works in places like Iceland, New Zealand and California. There it is called wet geothermal with the water close to the surface. The down-side are earth-quakes and volcanoes.

In Australia the hot rocks are kilometres down and the plan was to pipe down to the rocks, pour water down the shaft which would be turned into steam which would then come back up the pipe and turn the turbines.

2 things; firstly the depth was so great the hot water recondensed before it came back the surface. Secondly the hot water and steam released vast amounts of CO2 sequestered in the surrounding bedrock.

Flannery is a loon but he knows how to make a buck; I don’t believe he lost cent in the Geodynamic debacle.

Yes, geothermal drilling uses all the techniques and chemicals of oil & gas drilling, including the “controversial” (oblig.) process known as fracking. Never seen a Greenie protestor near a geothermal site though.

The Habanero-3 blowout was caused by hydrogen embrittlement of the casing leading to cracks. As a result they had to use a softer grade metal casing which brings a whole heap of other issues and led to them abandoning some of teh planned wells.

australia would have been better off backing hot rocks over windmills and solar panels is quite arguable

No it’s not. The hot granite layer only comes within drillable depth (+/- 5000m) in a few locations worldwide – Central Australia is one of them. Geothermal elsewhere is either volcanic, like NZ & Iceland & Japan, or hot aquifers that maybe have indirect communication with the hot granite. The problem then is delivering power to customers but the efficiency losses over long distances are too great to go anywhere of consequence.

Hot rocks, wave energy, schemes to pump CO2 down mineshafts…… illustrates the gullibility of our ruling class of lawyers, ex party staffers and unionists who have unlikely done a day of real work in their lifetime: a non solution to a non problem created by computer programmes and peddled by snake oil salesmen which have plainly failed the reality test.

If geothermal was presented as it is there would be no problem. Presenting it as a realistic major future source of energy is stretching the truth too far. Who benefits? All that money has to be going into someones pocket.
edit on 10 7 2015 by Kester because: spelling

posted on Jul, 10 2015 @ 04:54 AM
a reply to: Kester

There are other private applications, other than stored solar, I have read about a few sites.

As I said previously the UK has varied geology and perhaps that is the issue for many places.

posted on Jul, 10 2015 @ 06:29 AM
I think geothermal works in places like Iceland where the "heat" is nearer the surface and more obvious. The engineering challenge I therefore less hit and miss.

I link to an interesting and useful source of information

> British Geological Survey

posted on Jul, 10 2015 @ 11:37 PM
a reply to: paraphi

The engineering challenge means more energy and resources are used increasing the environmental impact. Geothermal energy is meant to be reducing environmental impact.

The link is easy to read. But I sense greed for research grants are driving the lack of accuracy.

Geothermal energy is a carbon free, renewable, sustainable form of energy that provides a continuous, uninterrupted supply of heat...

Not carbon free according to this.

...the hot water and steam released vast amounts of CO2 sequestered in the surrounding bedrock.

Renewable and sustainable are just buzz words. Continuous and uninterrupted supply of heat is not true. Boreholes sometimes have to be refurbished. Equipment needs to be replaced. Most importantly time has to be allowed for heat to migrate back into the area it has been taken from.

The planet is a huge source of heat. Our boreholes are tiny in comparison and only take up a minute proportion of that heat. This seems to be an essential part of the scam. Giving the impression that we just have to bore a couple of holes and all that heat is available to us. The truth is thousands of boreholes would have to be drilled with the ensuing environmental chaos. It's expensive to drill boreholes because of the fuel and resources used. Failure is frequent.

See how the Newcastle borehole goes through the standard series of press releases. In 2011.

...there is a good chance it could heat the university's new science building and maybe even the local shopping centre.

Then we hear failure.

A flagship green energy plan to heat Newcastle’s Science Central site and parts of the city has failed – because scientists can’t retrieve enough hot water.

But it's OK because...

Newcastle University is currently exploring a number of options of how the research potential of the geothermal well can be maximised.

I don't see any mention in the BGS link of the mechanics of failure. Only hopeful thinking which is calculated to lead to generous research grants.

The BGS link does call ground source heat pumps geothermal so I'll add them in here. First.

...Ground Source Heat Pumps get set to become a popular, fossil free, way to heat our homes. What are the pumps running on? They use a lot of electricity. In my experience far more than the false 'green' advertising claims. They run on fossil fuels and nuclear with a smaller 'renewables' contribution in some cases. If you install a ground source heat pump you will be shocked at the electricity consumption needed for the complicated system.

A local council installed a number of ground source heat pumps having been told it was proven technology. They all failed. The replacements have been unsatisfactory. High electricity costs, noisy, difficult to operate. Nowhere is the true story told by the council. False information fed into the media by a structural engineer working for the council has at last been removed from a professional online journal, but that seems to be as far as honesty goes in this case.

Dishonesty is a major problem throughout the system that depends on the private financiers fiat currency. When serious dishonesty is used in the 'renewables' industry the result is environmental destruction, future dependency on fossil fuels and nuclear, and despondency in the well meaning people who fall for the fake green yuppie lies.

posted on Jul, 10 2015 @ 11:53 PM
a reply to: theabsolutetruth

I believe there are some commercial greenhouses heated by private geothermal systems. It remains to be seen how long term they are.

Geology is more varied than we may imagine. Material is laid down. Changes occur. More material is laid down etc. We're on top of all that and we don't know what's under our feet until drilling takes place. This still doesn't tell us what is under our feet twenty yards away.

Fault lines are associated with geothermal potential. Earthquakes are associated with fault lines. Some minor earth tremors may be largely irrelevant but we don't know what changes we are stimulating in geological time scales.

The problem we see is difficulty getting a useable amount of hot water back to the surface. This is due to geological conditions. We can't change that other than on a small scale with great difficulty.

Geothermal. It looks good in the grant application.

posted on Jul, 11 2015 @ 12:06 AM
Here we have a no nonsense approach to geothermal.

The difficulty with making sustainable geothermal power is that the speed at which heat travels through solid rock limits the rate at which heat can be sustainably sucked out of the red-hot interior of the earth. It’s like trying to drink a crushed-ice drink through a straw. You stick in the straw, and suck, and you get a nice mouthful of cold liquid. But after a little more sucking, you find you’re sucking air. You’ve extracted all the liquid from the ice around the tip of the straw. Your initial rate of sucking wasn’t sustainable.

If you stick a straw down a 15-km hole in the earth, you’ll find it’s nice and hot there, easily hot enough to boil water. So, you could stick two straws down, and pump cold water down one straw and suck from the other. You’ll be sucking up steam, and you can run a power station. Limit-less power? No. After a while, your sucking of heat out of the rock will have reduced the temperature of the rock. You weren’t sucking sustainably. You now have a long wait before the rock at the tip of your straws warms up again. A possible attitude to this problem is to treat geothermal heat the same way we currently treat fossil fuels: as a resource to be mined rather than collected sustainably. Living off geothermal heat in this way
might be better for the planet than living unsustainably off fossil fuels; but perhaps it would only be another stop-gap giving us another 100 years of unsustainable living?

At the world population density of 43 people per square km, that’s 10 kWh per person per day, if all land area were
used. In the UK, the population density is 5 times greater, so wide-scale geothermal power of this sustainable-forever variety could offer at most 2 kWh per person per day. This is the sustainable-forever figure, ignoring hot spots, assuming perfect power stations, assuming every square metre of continent is exploited, and assuming that drilling is free. And that it is possible to drill 15-km deep holes.

The biggest estimate of the hot dry rock resource in the UK is a total energy of 130 000 TWh, which, according to the consultants, could conceivably contribute 1.1 kWh per day per person of electricity for about 800 years. Other places in the world have more promising hot dry rocks, so if you want to know the geothermal answers for other countries, be sure to ask a local. But sadly for Britain, geothermal will only ever play a tiny part.

posted on Jul, 12 2015 @ 07:29 AM
a reply to: Kester

Therefore, if you hit an aquifer, you will achieve deep-hole thermal regeneration much faster.
Granite does have a thermal conductivity (Link to a swiss page with some values) just like every other material, this just has to be correctly be considered in configuring the exporting drilling, so the consumption is at most the same as the thermal yield from the surrounding rock.

And don't forget to insulate the up-stream, otherwise you will just warm up the upper soil..
edit on 12 7 2015 by ManFromEurope because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 12 2015 @ 07:35 AM

originally posted by: Kester
a reply to: paraphi

The BGS link does call ground source heat pumps geothermal so I'll add them in here. First.

...Ground Source Heat Pumps get set to become a popular, fossil free, way to heat our homes. What are the pumps running on? They use a lot of electricity. In my experience far more than the false 'green' advertising claims. They run on fossil fuels and nuclear with a smaller 'renewables' contribution in some cases. If you install a ground source heat pump you will be shocked at the electricity consumption needed for the complicated system.

A local council installed a number of ground source heat pumps having been told it was proven technology. They all failed. The replacements have been unsatisfactory. High electricity costs, noisy, difficult to operate. Nowhere is the true story told by the council. False information fed into the media by a structural engineer working for the council has at last been removed from a professional online journal, but that seems to be as far as honesty goes in this case.

Dishonesty is a major problem throughout the system that depends on the private financiers fiat currency. When serious dishonesty is used in the 'renewables' industry the result is environmental destruction, future dependency on fossil fuels and nuclear, and despondency in the well meaning people who fall for the fake green yuppie lies.

Well, this is wrong. I have planned and installed literally hundreds of heatpumps, most of them with geothermal probes, but several systems with direct use of ground water being pumped up from the well and then injected back into the soil.

Each and everyone of my customers reached an efficency of their heatpumps which HALVED their energy costs, including all of the needed electric energy for pumps, compressors, etc.

You can do it wrong.

But if you do it right, heatpumps are great tools. They are just a little bit more expensive than fossile heating, thanks to the needed drills and probes (for a depth of about 100m, don't confuse these with deep drillings).

posted on Jul, 13 2015 @ 12:47 AM
a reply to: ManFromEurope

Is there a major problem with bore holes getting blocked or are these rare problems?

About this time last year I went along to the Australian Earth Sciences conference in Newcastle where they had a Q and A style panel for the public. The Hot Rock technology was one of those discussed and the bloke on the panel who represented this area of research said that they had been encountering some very big problems with minerals building up around the end of the pipe(?) and blocking the whole concept from working effectively. They tried all different sizes of tubes etc but still the same problem. I hope they overcome it because it's a brilliant idea.

I do feel the whole concept is being falsely advertised as clean.

There is also some technical problems that hampers geothermal in every country, namely: The heat is quite low grade (inferior at 300°C) and so the heat-to-electricity conversion is quite low too (around 20-30% with a steam turbine). Add the energy intensive and very expensive machinery that pumps water at a hundred bar into the ground and consumes about a third to a half of the energy produced and you only have 10-20% of the primary energy converted to electricity. That means that geothermal needs to produce a lot of electricity to recoup its initial high cost and so it must quite big from the beginning, increasing again its cost. Also, I don't know the flow rate needed for such a plant but it should be very big, so quid of finding all this water in a desert. This water also don't come out clean from the ground below, it carries nasty gas (H2S, CO2, NH3) and elements (As, Hg, Pb) from deep inside the Earth, and they must be removed or it could become environmentally damaging if released outside.

What Jeremy said with the following addition. Hot rocks in this Australian context is another name for saying 'fairly well radioactive'. When you pump water down into it, it will come back with all sorts of other elements and will also be mildly radioactive. It's one thing to look at temperature gradients and say "we can make this work", it's a whole other thing to do it safely and economically.

Geothermal is rightly in research stage in its development. Personally I don't see it ever escaping this.

Evacuation plans may be a sensible precaution in some cases.

Although no government official have commented on the growing calls of concern, residents’ fears seem to stem from the fact that toxic material from the wells may be mixed in with the country’s water supply.

Others also worry that when fresh water is re injected into the wells the resulting steam may not be contained within the wells and could adversely impact the surrounding environment. Still others fear the risk of an eruption linked to the deep drilling exercise.

In view of the tremendous uncertainty arising from the recent activity, residents have been hastily summoned to a meeting to discuss evacuation plans in the event of an accident or otherwise catastrophic event.

I'm sure it can be done successfully, safely and economically sometimes. What concerns me is that it is such an easy process to run as a scam. Once drilling has started there is an interest in completing the hole in spite of 'unexpected' problems occurring during drilling. Then hopeful measurements can be taken at depth. Now there is a reason to complete the second hole, again putting in all the extra time to overcome these 'unexpected' problems. Then fracking is likely to take place, as many have said sometimes giving a precedent for the gas fracking industry. Now the moment of truth. Presumably you need a lot of expensive fossil fuel powered machinery to run the system. And then, it doesn't work in Newcastle, Durham, Cornwall, etc. I'm not sure how efficiently Southampton runs. I keep finding mentions of it being refurbished but no information on how much work had to be done.

The one existing scheme in Southampton is currently being refurbished.

What particularly concerns me is the claim that the Cornish geothermal trial in the 80's failed because the water ran out of the bottom. Does everyone backing the Eden Project geothermal well know this? Will it be a big surprise when the Eden Project well turns out to be a disappointment after all that use of fossil fuels and fracking? I see smiling drillers and research grant claimants. And a smiling gas fracking industry able to use geothermal examples to gain allowances for their activities.
edit on 13 7 2015 by Kester because: remove word

posted on Jul, 13 2015 @ 03:07 AM
a reply to: ManFromEurope

You can do it wrong.

It takes special effort to do it as wrong as we experienced. After trying to work out all the bits of the story that haven't been made public there is one unpleasant conclusion that would at least explain it all logically. A notable proportion of local authority decision makers and the structural engineer they called in must be using vast amounts of co caine. I've done a small amount of care work for a someone recovering from massive co caine abuse,I know how their minds work.

A representative of the local authority went to a presentation where she met a salesman who worked for a ground source heat pump installer. He presented the company in such a way the authority understood them to be competent, experienced installers. Actually they sub contracted everything to people who had little to no experience of ground source heat pumps. The installation was run by the salesman.

The salesman picked the drilling sites with little more than a few seconds thought. I passed those sites yesterday. Two of the houses have been demolished due to subsidence caused by the boreholes. It appears most likely this subsidence was caused by drilling through a layer of silty sand at about fifty metres with compressed air and removing several trailer loads. Although a housing authority representative admitted to me, "It's on the drilling record. They hit a water source." The latest I've heard is the authority claim there is no drilling record.

Another borehole shows signs of subsidence but being further away from the property only caused minor structural damage. There were five or six altogether and all of them have been replaced. I don't see any sign of an attempt to properly decommission the boreholes. Channels have been opened up allowing polluted surface runoff to enter the aquifer fifty plus metres below.

The newer systems are German. Near the end of our involvement with this scheme I suggested to the authority that they send someone to Germany to work for six months with an established company to gain experience. I was told they had hired someone who had worked with a German company. It's a pity they threw away hundreds of thousands of pounds, lost two houses and cracked the sewer pipe first. The stress caused to tenants was in some cases extreme.

One tenant was asked if a wireless system could be installed to relay details of temperature and electricity usage to the council. Later it became obvious they thought every house had one of these systems. Some of the tenants insisted on keeping their chimneys unblocked so they could use wood for heating if the systems failed. At least one tenant had to use extra heating because the ground source heat pump never heated the house adequately. Later investigation suggested the drillers had drilled that hole short to avoid the silty sand.

No representative of the authority ever came to discuss the systems. No maintenance was done. The tenants with the wireless system went over to using mostly free local wood for heating while hot water was provided exclusively by the ground source heat pump. The authority read the wireless data and assumed the system was the sole heating for the house without any consultation with the tenants.

Investigating much later suggests that local authority representatives claimed expenses for house visits but went out for a meal instead and simply invented a story about the tenants being happy with the system. This would partly explain the desperate attempts to cover up the story.

Based on the perceived electricity consumption a raft of further ground source heat pumps were installed at a location a few miles from the pilot scheme. This time most of the holes were deliberately drilled short. I'm told this is a common fraud.

Noise, inefficiency and equipment failures led to new holes being drilled for almost every house and replacement systems installed. It seems possible the gravel bed the houses are built on settled slightly over a large area. Minor subsidence occurred and the sewer pipe cracked. New German units were installed. There were some noise and control issues. Solar panels were fitted to all the houses with GSHP. One of the installers claimed these were to stop tenants complaining about the cost of running the GSHP. He also pointed out the panels were hardly green having been flown in from the other side of the world.

Nowhere is there any attempt by the housing authority to tell the story, even in a hopeful positive learning way. It's just a totally shut down story.

During my involvement in this I saw honesty only from a handful of labourers and one housing authority representative. One builders boss came out to apologise to a tenant for not taking the situation seriously at first. Every where else I saw only extreme dishonesty, greed and lack of care for the impact on innocent lives. Children suffered here, there's no doubt it's criminal. All the dishonest and detached money makers crawled off back into their dishonestly earned comfortable lives.

Can you give your view on redundant GSHP boreholes being abandoned without any attempt at decommissioning? The only known witness account to backfilling with bentonite when the pilot systems were installed says the bentonite was tipped dry out of the sack into the top of the hole. It seems unlikely there is much bentonite in these abandoned boreholes and it is known the pilot scheme boreholes passed through the silty sand aquifer. Subsidence occurred suggesting the everything above the aquifer dropped down to take up the space left by the removed silty sand. This would have opened cracks around the borehole leading down to the aquifer. luQ5H4bukGmxpg&hl=en&sa=X&ei=0W6jVZqWGqqR7Ab387ToCA&ved=0CE8Q6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=gshp%20borehole%20bentonite%20decommission&f=false

A 100-m hole in the ground represents a potential pathway for contaminants from the surface to deep groundwater. Thus, when a borehole is redundant and no longer actively managed, it should be responsibly decommissioned, not just abandoned.

How much does it cost to responsibly decommission a redundant borehole and what is the environmental impact of the process requirements? Do GSHP salesmen explain to potential customers that this will part of the entire cost of the system?
edit on 13 7 2015 by Kester because: add link and comment

edit on 13 7 2015 by Kester because: remove verbiage

edit on 13 7 2015 by Kester because: remove sentence

posted on Jul, 14 2015 @ 09:58 AM
a reply to: Kester

A GSHP borehole is about 7' (180mm) diameter with a depth of about 100m (depending on the local ground-conditions).
This borehole includes the borehole-heatexchanger (a double-U-shaped polyethylen tube with a diameter each of usually 1.25 inch).
The remainder should be filled with bentonite, to avoid contaminating groundwaters with near-surface fertilisers (for example) and to provide an as-good-as-possible thermal transition while isolating those different aquifers against each other. And if I say "should" this must be read as "DO IT, OR ELSE!!". Because the water authoritys would have been hard on our trail if we didn't.
There were cases when these remainders in the boreholes were filled with sand (it takes about 5 to 6 tons of sand for each borehole!) - they were leaking waters from one aquifer to another, and in the bad cases this lead to contamination with various biohazards from, for example, dung as a fertilizer on fields.

Why should a borehole be filled up if decommissioned?
There should be no space remaining to be filled up. Of course, no one would try to recover that PE-tube, that would be hillariously ineffective.

In fact, we never had the need to decommission a GSHP. They are just running good enough.

posted on Jul, 14 2015 @ 10:05 AM
a reply to: Kester

No drilling records!
Wrong planned and sized heat pumps!

What more could go wrong?

Oh, let me guess: The brin temperatures in the heat pumps (they used brin or water-glycol, right?) dropped heavily after the first winter and never recovered, resulting in huge electricity bills? That would be the case if the boreholes were to shallow, or not many enough for the heat-extraction.

Yes, exactly those are the errors which made GSHP difficult to sell, as those errors were made EVERYWHERE.

Okay, I have another one, just for the pure terrified pleasure this produces:
Take a look at Staufen im Breisgau.
The (usually quite competent, I knew these guys) drilling company failed to get all reports of the soil, so they drilled with into... waiiiiit for it! Into anhydrid! And failed to stop the groundwater reacting with this anhydrid.
Resulting in gypsum, which uses up a higher volume.

The whole of the towns center has risen up to 30 cm, and without any signs of stopping!

posted on Jul, 15 2015 @ 04:08 PM
The geology of the area controls how good geothermal power will be, you places that are active tectonically
, I would think Britain would be a good place for geo therm, like Iceland is.

One would never think that Nevada leads the US in geothermal production,

heres a list of geothermal plants in NV.

The following table contains information on geothermal plants located in Nevada:[5]




Generating Capacity


Year opened

Beowawe Beowawe, Nevada Double Flash 18 MW Beowawe Power LLC 1985
Beowawe 2 Eureka, Nevada Binary 1.9 MW Terra-Gen Power 2011
Brady Hot Springs Churchill County, Nevada Double Flash 26.1 MW Ormat 1992
Desert Peak Churchill County, Nevada Binary 11 MW Ormat 2006
Dixie Valley Dixie Valley, Nevada Double Flash 64 MW Terra-Gen Operating Co. 1988
Dixie Valley 2 Churchill County, Nevada Binary 6.2 MW Terra-Gen Power 2012
Faulkner Humboldt County, Nevada Binary 50 MW Nevada Geothermal Power 2009
Florida Canyon Mine Pershing, Nevada Binary 0.1 MW ElectraTherm 2012
Galena II Churchill County, Nevada Binary 15 MW Ormat 2007
Galena III Reno, Nevada Binary 30 MW Ormat 2008
Jersey Valley Reno, Nevada Binary 15 MW Ormat 2010
Mcginness Hills Lander, Nevada Binary 30 MW Ormat 2012
Richard Burdett Steamboat, Nevada Binary 27 MW Ormat 2005
Salt Wells Churchill County, Nevada Binary 18.1 MW Enel Green Power 2009
San Emidio (Empire) San Emidio, Nevada Binary 4.8 MW U.S. Geothermal 1987
San Emidio Repower Washoe County, Nevada Binary 12.8 MW U.S. Geothermal 2012
Soda Lake Fallon, Nevada Binary 5.1 MW Magma Energy (US) Corp 1987
Soda Lake II Fallon, Nevada Binary 18 MW Magma Energy (US) Corp 1991
Steam Boat I Washoe County, Nevada Binary 8.4 MW Ormat 1986
Steam Boat IA Reno, Nevada Binary 2.4 MW Ormat 1988
Steam Boat 2 Reno, Nevada Binary 29 MW Ormat 1992
Steam Boat 3 Reno, Nevada Binary 24 MW Ormat 1992
Steamboat Hills Steamboat, Nevada Single Flash 14.4 MW Ormat 1988
Stillwater Fallon, Nevada Binary 47.3 MW Enel NA 2009
Tuscarora Elko, Nevada Binary 18 MW Ormat 2012
Wabuska I Wabuska, Nevada Binary 1.1 MW Home Stretch Geothermal 1984
Wabuska II Wabuska, Nevada Binary 1.1 MW Home Stretch Geothermal 1987

Some are quite small, you see a few pipes coming out of graound and going into a small building.
Northern Nev is littered with geo therm plants.

new topics

top topics


log in