The most productive field in the Salton Trough is in Mexico, however. The 600MW Cerro Prieto field (three power plants). There is very strong evidence that this facility also produces earthquakes, based on correlating seismic activity with large increases in water injection. Magnitude 5 shakes are not uncommon – I can feel them up here. I believe it was a 5.4 shake 6 months ago that knocked out the power and damaged a school in southern Mexicali, but in most cases no damage is reported.

The tectonics in this area are just too complex to say definitively that the wells are causing earthquakes. A safer bet would be that wells are one factor in the causation of shakes. And who’s to say it isn’t beneficial by relieving stresses that otherwise would result in larger earthquakes?

In other words: Colorless green ideas sleep furiously.

Definite thread win!

Sammy Finkelman: In other words: Colorless green ideas sleep furiously.

Heh. Far be it from me to call it a nicely subtle t-word, but definitely a chuckle.

Sammy Finkelman: The one in Switzerkand apparently did trigger an earthquake on December 6, 2006.

Again, this is possible but I don’t see how anyone can assert this as fact. Earthquakes are random and extremely unpredictable. As I see it, all anyone can say is that there is an unknown probability that the project increased the risk of an earthquake. Without more data, I don’t see how it is possible to know for sure.

The article was sensationalist. It quoted a resident who lives near the Geysers expressing relief that the project was abandoned because of all the earthquakes he experiences. It fails to note that the Geysers sits almost directly on top of the Hayward Fault Zone. In the Bay Area, minor earthquakes are so routine they often fail to even make the news. Look at this seismic map of the Bay Area. See that place in the north-west where all the little dots are? That’s the Geysers. All those red lines are faults. It has always been very seismically active.

Moreover, as I pointed out above, it is not just geothermal that is believed by some to increase the risk of earthquakes. It is also dams (one in Maharashtra, India is blamed for an earthquake there in the 1960s), skyscrapers (like Taipei 101) and deep oilrigs. Do people wish to stop construction on all of the above or only on geothermal?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/24/business/energy-environment/24geotherm.html

The one in Switzerkand apparently did trigger an earthquake on December 6, 2006.

We used to think that that kind of thing couldn’t happen, but it is logical – although I would think if so, maybe it might prevent a larger earthquake further in the future.

Here is some discussion:

http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/25/when-geothermal-energy-induces-earthquakes-readers-react/?scp=1&sq=earthquake%20geothermal%20iceland&st=cse

This is currennt news:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/12/science/earth/12quake.html?scp=1&sq=earthquake%20geothermal&st=cse

From here it seems like maybe it was more than the drilling was simply not successful.

James N. Gibson: And the fact that has been missed by all this discussion is that all these ideas were tried back in the 70s under the Carter Administration only to either be abandoned or extensively cutback under Reagan. The Enviro types always felt that this was wrong and have worked all these years just to have the government try the idea again with our money. Has the tech changed any, “NO”; Just the party in power.No even mentioned in all this is that when you bring up water from these deep hot spots its so filled with minerals it corrodes the pipes quickly. The outflow water then creates huge areas of mineral salts, like the dead-layer of land around the geysers at yellowstone.The Geysers at San Fran were mentioned in this but what of the facility south of LA at the Salton Sea.The dead area is huge and has been that way for decades. And both facilities are suffering from depletion of the hot water reservoir by extraction.

In other words: Colorless green ideas sleep furiously.

Harry Eagar: David Sucher says geothermal works in Iceland. It produces 24% of the electricity, but he does not reveal the population of Iceland. About 250,000.Whoop-te-do.Geothermal produces about 30% of the electricity in Hawaii County, Hawaii. Population about 150,000.That’s about as good as it’s going to get, too.

Comparisons by population aren’t very useful in this context, though. Up here in Alaska our per-capita energy usage is quite high compared to say, San Francisco. Iceland has a lot of energy-intensive industry (e.g. aluminum smelting) because of its very low energy prices. Wikipedia says Iceland produced about 80 petajoules of energy from geothermal sources in 2004. Converting the DoE’s stat of 3,970,555 GWh of US electrical production in 2004 makes 14,294 petajoules. Iceland, with a population of about 1/1000 of America’s, produces enough geothermal power to meet 1/180 of our energy needs.

Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_power_in_Iceland
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epates.html

Back on topic – geothermal will always be a niche industry with unique geological requirements. Hawaii and Iceland should be able to produce geothermal energy, and so should much of the Pacific Rim. And that’s fine. Nobody is advocating geothermal power generation where there isn’t significant geothermal activity. But we should always be exploring our options.

I think too many libertarians/conservatives have a knee jerk reaction against green energy sources because of the dirty hippies who like green energy. But there are plenty of reasons to invest in renewable energy (most of which happen to be green anyway), not the least of which is that fossil fuels are finite, and that extraction’s diminishing returns mean that fossil fuel costs will trend upwards for the forseeable future.

This post was mentioned on Twitter by VolokhConspirac: Geothermal Energy on the Rocks: The NYT reports:
The company in charge of a California project to extract vast .. http://bit.ly/6OkjR1...

first history: I am strongly in favor of nuclear development, only if the government doesn’t subsidize it through insurance caps and waste disposal.

In the US, the government doesn’t subsidize waste disposal; nuclear plants pay the government for the service (1 $/MW·h, IIRC). You may or may not consider Price-Anderson a subsidy, but so far the government hasn’t had to pay dime #1 in claims.

For the former, reality-based readers, I offer:

“In Iceland, there are five major geothermal power plants which produce about 24% (2008) of the country’s electricity.

…

But clearly, and in big bold letters, GEOTHERMAL CAN WORK. I have been to the power plant. I was warmed by the heat and bathed in the hot water.

I’ve been to Iceland also. It’s a very unusual place, with geothermal energy literally popping out of the ground (it is not unusual for a geyser to appear in someone’s basement, for example. So yeah, GEOTHERMAL CAN WORK, it the few extremely unusual places with special geological characteristics – and which also have very high oil costs (i.e. remote volcanic islands).

Whoop-te-do.

Geothermal produces about 30% of the electricity in Hawaii County, Hawaii. Population about 150,000.

That’s about as good as it’s going to get, too.

I am strongly in favor of nuclear development, only if the government doesn’t subsidize it through insurance caps and waste disposal.

Works for me, if the government doesn’t ANTI-subsidize it through the tort system and endless regulatory changes.

One of the interesting facts in the article is that “In addition to a $6 million grant from the Energy Department, AltaRock had attracted some $30 million in venture capital from high-profile investors like Google, Khosla Ventures and Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers.” (italics added)

I believe that “venture capital” is money from private investors. There is a 5:1 ratio of private to public money.

The project appears to have been done without without decisive government subsidy, beyond subsidies available to all capitalist enterprises in the USA, nor is there mention of government mandate.

Iceland sits on top of a major volcanic hot spot that provides abundant heatflow, that is why geothermal works in Iceland.

Your link provided some information on that.

Because of the special geological situation in Iceland, the high concentration of volcanoes and geothermal energy are very often used for heating and production of electricity. The energy is so inexpensive that in the wintertime, some pavements in Reykjavík and Akureyri are heated.

The fact that geothermal has been installed in Iceland shows that in areas where alternative energy works it will be installed because it provides an economic advantage over traditional forms of energy.

No government mandates or subsidies required.

Some additional information on the unique geology of Iceland.

Volcanism of Iceland

Iceland has a high concentration of active volcanoes due to unique geological conditions.

Geologists explain this high concentration of volcanic activity as being due to a combination of the island’s position on the Mid-Atlantic Ridge and a volcanic hotspot underneath the island. The island sits astride the boundary between the Eurasian and North American Plates, and most volcanic activity is concentrated along the plate boundary, which runs across the island from the south-west to the north-east of the island.

“In fact, AltaRock immediately ran into snags with its drilling, repeatedly snapping off bits in shallow formations called caprock. The project’s safety was also under review at the Energy Department after federal officials said the company had not been entirely forthcoming about the earthquakes produced in Basel in making the case for the Geysers project.

“The results of that review have not yet been announced, but the type of geothermal energy explored in Basel and at the Geysers requires fracturing the bedrock then circulating water through the cracks to produce steam. By its nature, fracturing creates earthquakes, though most of them are small.” (italics added)

Maybe some of the problem with Alta Rock’s might have something to do with the technique of “fracturing the bedrock then circulating water through the cracks?” Or maybe the drillers were not experienced?

I have no idea but it seems a bit odd and premature to form any ideas about geothermal, much less dismiss it, based on this article.

For the former, reality-based readers, I offer:

“In Iceland, there are five major geothermal power plants which produce about 24% (2008) of the country’s electricity. In addition, geothermal heating meets the heating and hot water requirements for around 87% of the nation’s buildings.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_power_in_Iceland

I believe that at least one of Iceland’s geothermal providers is capitalist:
http://www.or.is/English/About/

As a resident of Seattle, and having lived with a public utility for the past 40 years, I can say that some public organizations work just fine. Ownership type does not determine or economic efficiency nor wishful-thinking (on either side) determine the feasibility of an energy source.

But clearly, and in big bold letters, GEOTHERMAL CAN WORK. I have been to the power plant. I was warmed by the heat and bathed in the hot water. The ‘trick’ is to figure out why, where, how it works and then go copy.

Built by? Yes. But surely you aren’t suggesting that private research funding led to the development of nuclear power.

Irrelevant. That research is now done.

Jay:

There’s a reason why there is no private investment in geothermal. It is not economically viable. Only the government “invests” in such pipe dreams.

Agreed, For 137 years the government has prohibited exploration and development on 2.2 million acres in most viable area for geothermal development. This area has geysers, hot springs, and mud pots. Overall, this area has the largest concentration of geyser systems in the world, yet it is off limits to energy development. The government should either lead in geothermal development of this area or get out of the way.

John Moore:

Power plants are built by companies for the most part.

Built by? Yes. But surely you aren’t suggesting that private research funding led to the development of nuclear power.

I know that couple of small Michigan communities self funded a fairly large bridge project in the 1970′s without federal help.

Some of the science the feds pay for are good and need federal funds, but really, unless the feds are paying for some research that they think can help them in the future, it’s a waste of money. Bell Labs kicked out better basic science than most fed programs do.

Overall, I don’t think we need the feds nearly as much as most people believe.

This is a bit much.

I’m aware there are some scientists who claim there is a correlation between drilling into the earth and seismic activity. Similar claims have been made about oil rigs in the past as well as a seismic monitoring station in Parkfield, CA. Some even claim the skyscraper Taipei 101 agitated an old fault line running underneath the city.

As far as I know, there is no rigorous proof of causation here and certainly those who consider themselves of a skeptical mindset (as in, say, “climate skeptics”) might want to reserve judgment.

Not much potential, I’ll agree, but some. We could probably get a GW or so from Nevada to feed California if the wind boys hadn’t reserved the transmission capacity on the Pacific Intertie.

The type that AltaRock was pouring taxpayer money down a dry hole is “dry rock” gethermal. Fat chance. The heat is down there but as someone above noted, the successful projects use existing hot groundwater or steam to extract it. Pumping water down into a formation and expecting it to carry the heat back is asking for problems as the hot water dissolves all sorts of minerals (including arsenic) and usually clogs up the formations and the hardware.

We need to differentiate between geothermal to make electricity and “ground source” geothermal. The latter is for home use and requires only very small, normal temperature differences. It works well technically but is seldom cost effective. It just doesn’t pencil out for most home owners at current natural gas, fuel oil, or electricity prices. It can be used to save on air conditioning bills as well as home heating though.

Electrical geothermal is major infrastructure and big machines. To work it needs very rare geological circumstances and easy access to consumers.

There are a lot of projects worth doing that wouldn’t exist without government funding and/or investment — highways, bridges, power plants (especially nuclear/hydro/geothermal), and just plain ordinary scientific research.

Sigh. Highways and bridges are part of the commons (these days). If government didn’t built them, they would still exist, btw, though arguably far fewer.

A lot of scientific research does seem to need government funding (with the resulting corruption as in “climate change
).

Power plants are built by companies for the most part.

JAY: There’s a reason why there is no private investment in geothermal.It is not economically viable.Only the government “invests” in such pipe dreams.

Others have pointed out that private entities do invest in geothermal. But even if true, what does that say about anything? There are a lot of projects worth doing that wouldn’t exist without government funding and/or investment – highways, bridges, power plants (especially nuclear/hydro/geothermal), and just plain ordinary scientific research.