Exploring Hydrocarbon Depletion
NEW! Members Only Forums!
Access more articles, news & discussion by becoming a PeakOil.com Member.
Germany may have found the secret sauce that encourages new geothermal projects: policies that directly support drilling and financing the power plant—by lowering investor risks.
Germany’s track record with geothermal electricity has been far less dynamic than its impressive history with wind and PV. Only 7.5 megawatts of geothermal electricity have been installed to date , compared to over 7,000 megawatts of PV installed in 2010 alone (and again in 2011). 
Part of the reason is that Germany is pursuing emerging technologies such as enhanced geothermal systems (EGS) because it does not have a strong hydrothermal resource , . EGS involves fracturing hot dry rock deep in the earth to create channels through which liquids can be circulated and heated. This heated liquid is used to generate electricity at lower temperatures, and may use a process such as the Organic Rankine Cycle.
With a weak resource and a focus on an emerging technology, Germany does not expect to secure a significant amount of its electricity from geothermal technologies in the near term. Its national plan projects just ~300 megawatts of geothermal, compared to ~51,000 megawatts of PV, by 2020. 
Nevertheless, Germany covers some of the geothermal development risk through two main national policies: (1) the renewable energy market incentive program that supports drilling and district heat networks and (2) the national feed-in tariff (FIT) that provides renewable projects with distinct payments. For geothermal projects, the FIT payments cover a portion of the drilling costs.
Policies that support drilling are important for new geothermal development because resource identification and confirmation drilling are riskier than resource identification for other commercialized RE technologies. Geothermal plants take four to seven years to develop, and the upfront development costs can account for more than 50 percent of total geothermal project costs , . Moreover, geothermal prospecting -- surface exploration and exploratory drilling -- can be expensive, and success is not guaranteed. Geothermal projects have exploration success rates of 10 percent to 40 percent , , and drilling may yield only unproductive or 'dry' wells. As a result, geothermal exploration and projects face high financing costs, if they can be made bankable to interested investors, and many projects will have difficulty receiving any financing.
Therefore, Germany modified its Market Incentive Program (Marktanreizprogramm, or MAP) to assist with geothermal drilling and district heat networks. The German government decided to support drilling new wells by providing early grants and reduced-rate loans to lower the early-stage risks of geothermal development. The program does not cover the full cost of upfront resource exploration or confirmation drilling costs (it is currently being revised but is expected to cover up to 30 percent of the drilling costs). . However, by providing some funding upfront, the government lowers the financial risk of drilling dry wells. There are benefits and drawbacks to an upfront program like this -- the driller needs to have some skin in the game to do their best work, but they may try to inflate costs to get more money upfront, resulting in increased taxpayer burdens.
Daniel Rirdan wrote:SeaGypsy, your post could have been more gracious, that is, more on the mark about me and about my motives.
I did not ignore Tanada post (if you but re-read my comments) but I do not care to get into a discussion about land use or about the economy of things because we are not sharing a common framework on either. There is little point for me to talk about money, when I regard this aspect to be moot; there is little point to talk about what would happen to the cattle feed when it is utterly not needed in the first place.
And if you got nothing out of my post, then so be it. It is my hope that I did contribute nonetheless to others.
Insofar fuel cell, all right, I will explain in detail what I meant when I wrote "it is not exactly true..." Today, platinum is used as a catalyst for the PEM fuel cell. However, some research teams have used successfully the abundant molybdenum sulfide, which was found to be an efficient catalyst, or a molybdenum-oxo metal complex, which can also work with dirty or sea water, or a combination of iron, carbon, and cobalt. Platinum is on the way out. Or not. In the end the amount required is not all that significant, and it matters not. Yes, I worked out the numbers on that one also.
SeaGypsy wrote:Also, why would you put anything on top of 'Soy feed land"? Are deserts more precious than soy fields?
You do know how many people the USA feeds at present?
What should they eat instead?
To a lesser extent the same argument goes to ethanol,
as there is always a choice to switch end product/ purpose, back to food if necessary.
Then you mention 'fuel cells/ hydrogen'; without having listed Platinum in your very brief set of numbers in the OP. You do realize nobody has invented a cheap catalyst/ that current technology makes fuel cells very expensive on any scale?
Then PV. Why PV? (at all) The technology is basically redundant compared to solar thermal, especially when you are talking about huge scale projects and maximum lifespan/ bang for buck and maintenance costs.
Tanada wrote:Solar towers are great, solar PV not so much.
I also would not go with hydrogen fuel cells, though you could get the precious metals needed by recycling catalytic converters off of the automobile fleet as it retires.
I would instead store the hydrogen as Ammonia liquid in tanks and burn the ammonia in combined cycle gas turbine power plants when needed.
SeaGypsy wrote:Maybe, but you can't show a link to anything beyond research level in these new fuel cell 'possibilities'. There is no commercially available product like what you are talking about. The papers seem to suggest that Cobalt will be a mandatory component in the stabilization of the metal matrix. Cobalt is not common. 90% of the world's Cobalt is in a war torn area of eastern Congo (ex Zaire).
It is basically impossible to figure degradation rates beyond 25 years.
EV is nothing of the sort; just good for remote locations mainly, private use, small scale applications.
Daniel Rirdan wrote: For that matter, anyone can go to my website ( http://www.danielrirdan.com ) and download 70 pages excerpt, which includes my energy scheme.
SeaGypsy wrote: At present, Hydrogen utility is largely experimental and speculative. The stuff is not easy to contain in massive volume
PV solar involves a continuous cycle of replacement with non renewables, whether over 30 or 100 years, this is not stable state.
it's hardly relevant when talking about something multiple orders of magnitude of any effort ever undertaken in the history of humanity.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests