It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Geothermal Power Tube being supressed ignored?

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 06:55 PM
link   
I was looking around the web and stumbled on this power tube technology. It seems like our government would be jumping all over this since they say we want off oil. From what I can tell it seems like no one is paying much attention to this clean cheap energy.

Power Tube


Environmental Benefits




One 10 MW Power Tube will contribute the following over one year on a world-wide average compared to the equivalent present methods of power production: * Eliminate the equivalent of burning of 1,000,000 gallons of fossil fuels. * Eliminate the equivalent of burning of 1,250 tons of coal for steam production. * Eliminate the production of 400 tons of pollutants into the atmosphere. * Will not contribute to contamination of underground aquifers, acid rain, or global warming. * Does not use any atomic fuels.


Sadly our government pretends to want to get off oil but they only stimulated 350 mill toward this clean energy. We could easily use current technologies to get us off most of the fossil fuels if we would invest in it. We need an Apollo sized program. 350 Mil is a drop in a bucket toward one of our most dire needs for our future.

President Obama Announces $350 Million in Recovery Act Funding for Geothermal Energy Projects

The cost of one Shuttle Launch by the time we retire it in 2010 will be around 1.3 Billion per launch!! How can we pretend Energy is important with such a shameful investment in one of the most reliable and safe energy sources we know of.

1.3 Billion Per Launch


The total cost of the shuttle program has been $145 billion USD as of early 2005, and is estimated to be $174 billion when the shuttle retires in 2010. NASA's budget for 2005 allocated 30%, or $5 billion, to space shuttle operations;[19] this was decreased in 2006 to a request of $4.3 billion.[20] Per-launch costs can be measured by dividing the total cost over the life of the program (including buildings, facilities, training, salaries, etc) by the number of launches. With 115 missions (as of 6 August 2006), and a total cost of $150 billion ($145 billion as of early 2005 + $5 billion for 2005,[19] this gives approximately $1.3 billion per launch. Another method is to calculate the incremental (or marginal) cost differential to add or subtract one flight — just the immediate resources expended/saved/involved in that one flight. This is about $60 million U. S. dollars.[21] Early cost estimates of $118 per pound ($260/kg) of payload were based on marginal or incremental launch costs, and based on 1972 dollars and assuming a 65,000 pound (30 000 kg) payload capacity.[22][23] Correcting for inflation, this equates to roughly $36 million incremental per launch costs; today's actual incremental per launch costs of $60 million are about two thirds more than this.


We have spent nearly a Trillion on wars over Oil rich areas since 2001 and climbing.
This loss of national treasure and our precious young men and women could be stopped with proper investment. How can we let our men die when we have the answers to the problems just waiting for the money to make it happen?

Cost of War

Has anyone seen geothermal or even a new Nuke Plant built near their home? What the heck do we do to get our leaders head out of their rear ends?



MBF

posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 11:10 PM
link   
It is a shame that more interest isn't being shown to this and other forms of alternate energy. Sometimes, I feel that they just don't want to move ahead to new forms of energy because too many people in power get too much money from the oil business.



posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 11:50 PM
link   
It's far from being suppressed or ignored.

There are several 'low temperature' geothermal proposals being studied right here right now to utilise technology developed by a US company. One of them was in the news the other day (sorry can't find a link to it just now) but the figures mentioned were 400MW output and a total estimated cost including research, development and construction around the $800 mill mark. They plan to use geothermal energy in deep granite rock structures and temperatures as low as 70C are workable using the abovementioned technology.



posted on Aug, 24 2009 @ 02:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Xeven
 


Actually it is an old idea. I came up with it when I was a teenager, but not as sophisticated as this one. It has some substantial engineering hurdles having to do with fantastic pressures, geologically active regions, drilling technology, to mention some. It is one of those ideas which had to wait for its time to come.



posted on Aug, 24 2009 @ 09:46 AM
link   
This from is a company that has already drilled a lot of test holes here where I live (Tasmania) KUTH Energy


How much stored energy?
As the potential to utilise the energy stored as heat in the shallow earth’s crust has become apparent, various agencies have begun to estimate the amount of energy that may be accessible. A recent report by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, looking at energy stored in rocks in the USA between 3 and 10km deep, estimated 13.3 million exaJoules (1EJ = 1018 Joules = 277 million megaWatt hours) of conduction-dominated ‘Enhanced Geothermal System’ (EGS) resource in crystalline basement rock formations. EGS as used in the USA means the same as EGP used by KUTh. This greatly exceeded the energy stored in other heat systems, such as volcanic and ‘hot springs’ types of areas and is 13,000 times the consumption of primary energy in the United States in 2005. Of course the economically extractable amount will be much lower. The study attempted to estimate a recoverable EGS resource and if only 2% of the total resource was recoverable, it was found that this would amount to approximately 280,000 exaJoules (78 million million MWh) or 2,800 times the 2005 US energy consumption.
A similarly detailed study has not been done for Australia, but preliminary figures from Geoscience Australia estimate that Australia’s hot rock energy between the depth corresponding to a minimum temperature of 150°C and a maximum depth of 5,000 m is approximately 1.2 million exaJoules (333 million million MWh) or 20,000 years of Australia’s primary energy use in 2005; again this is an estimated total resource figure and not an estimate of recoverable or economic energy. This resource figure is currently under review.


The key to this is the ability to drill lots of holes up to 5km deep in granite which is currently the state of the art in oil exploration.

Clean, green free energy in abundance it seems but it won't be free once the collection infrastructure and transport system is taken into account. It will mean even higher overall energy costs than those we currently 'enjoy' from fossil fuel burning power stations. It will fit in with this island's renewable energy image though as we're 100% hydro and wind generation atm.






[edit on 24/8/2009 by Pilgrum]



new topics

top topics
 
3

log in

join