Earliest possible geothermal energy plants in Europe?

  • Thread starter Deleted member 1487
  • Start date

Deleted member 1487

Given all the pollution caused by coal (acid rain started in the 19th century) and that work had already been done with hydroelectricity, what is the earliest we could see significant geothermal energy plants in Europe?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_electricity
Italy had the first geothermal plan in the early 20th century, but was the only country to have it until the late 1950s.
 
Given all the pollution caused by coal (acid rain started in the 19th century) and that work had already been done with hydroelectricity, what is the earliest we could see significant geothermal energy plants in Europe?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_electricity
Italy had the first geothermal plan in the early 20th century, but was the only country to have it until the late 1950s.

Could you elaborate on what you're looking for here? I mean, if all you want is a few demonstration plants, that could probably be managed early in the century, but it also probably wouldn't make much difference. If you want geothermal to produce enough power to make a serious dent in coal on a continent-wide scale, that's a much taller proposition. Honestly, it's probably impossible in the 20th century, and may be impossible altogether, but I don't know enough about the technology yet to say for sure.
 

Deleted member 1487

Could you elaborate on what you're looking for here? I mean, if all you want is a few demonstration plants, that could probably be managed early in the century, but it also probably wouldn't make much difference. If you want geothermal to produce enough power to make a serious dent in coal on a continent-wide scale, that's a much taller proposition. Honestly, it's probably impossible in the 20th century, and may be impossible altogether, but I don't know enough about the technology yet to say for sure.
Yeah, I should have been clear, I mean widespread large commercial use.
 
Yeah, I should have been clear, I mean widespread large commercial use.

Like I said, I don't know enough about the technology yet to really say for sure, but I'm skeptical it can be done. Total installed geothermal capacity right now, worldwide, is 12.8 GWe. European electrical consumption is about 350 GWe. It's very hard to get those two numbers to meet without radical improvements in technology.

My understanding is that there are potential radical improvements in technology, but they will be very hard to realize at all in a cost-effective fashion, and almost impossible in Europe in the 20th century. The theoretical potential for geothermal is absolutely titanic, if you include stuff like Hot Dry Rock and Magma Tap. But it's one thing to generate a watt-hour, it's another thing to do so at a price that your customers can afford to pay, and my impression is that getting something like HDR to be affordable will require a lot of slow, unsexy, incremental improvements in things like deep drilling, the sort of thing it's very hard to really accelerate appreciably. So I just don't think it's possible.

But, now that I said that, no doubt someone will jump up to explain how I'm completely wrong, and I look forward to being corrected. :p
 
Yeah your going to have to define significant. A conservative goal of 3% seem like a good start.

The limiting factor for geothermal energy is drilling technology. PODs that advance drilling technology could theoretically wank geothermal. Italy is a good place to start. They were the first and it's the most geologically active on the continent.
 

Deleted member 1487

Yeah your going to have to define significant. A conservative goal of 3% seem like a good start.

The limiting factor for geothermal energy is drilling technology. PODs that advance drilling technology could theoretically wank geothermal. Italy is a good place to start. They were the first and it's the most geologically active on the continent.
Isn't it relatively shallow to drill? Infographics I saw were 400-600 meters, which isn't very deep all things considered, as they had oil wells in Europe deeper than that and didn't need to pump anything that deep up AFAIK, just let the heat rise out. Not sure what depths are required in various places in europe, but apparently heat depletion is an issue. Perhaps Italy could have done more? They certainly had a reason to get off coal.
 
Are you talking electricity or heating/Cool?

600 meters might work in Southern Italy but if you are in Northern Europe you might need 4Km. Which is why this can only be done in Italy. The country gets 1.5% 900mw of its electricity from geothermal. The Philippines produces about twice as much. Interestingly all the plants were in Northern Italy when logically they would be farther south towards the tectonic boundary. Maybe it's because of population distribution but whatever the reason it sounds to me that there is room for growth. 15% by 2015 in Italy isn't a bad wank honestly.
 

Delta Force

Banned
It seems likely that many easily developed locations in Europe would run into an issue that has slowed the development of geothermal energy in Japan. That would be the fact that many of those locations are culturally and economically important spas and recreational areas that are often privately held. That might mean compromising the recreational potential of known sites and/or require exploration and possibly more expensive projects elsewhere.
 
I don't think it is an easily expandable technology really.

Even NZ with our active geological environment (ring of fire represent), who has helped lead the way with geothermal generation hasn't really been able to find a good case to scale it up. It is just too hard/expensive compared to other options. Interestingly, when the New Zealand Division was in Italy during and after WW2, the leadership made it a priority to send engineers to all of the Italian generating plants in order to try and learn enough to develop an industry back home. Which they then did, although apparently NZ steam is the "wrong kind", so they had to tinker a lot.

That being said, when I was in Iceland I was interested to see that they used geothermal reserves for both electricity and heating. There are loads of pumping stations and distribution networks delivering the water across large parts of the settled country.
 

Delta Force

Banned
I don't think it is an easily expandable technology really.

Even NZ with our active geological environment (ring of fire represent), who has helped lead the way with geothermal generation hasn't really been able to find a good case to scale it up. It is just too hard/expensive compared to other options. Interestingly, when the New Zealand Division was in Italy during and after WW2, the leadership made it a priority to send engineers to all of the Italian generating plants in order to try and learn enough to develop an industry back home. Which they then did, although apparently NZ steam is the "wrong kind", so they had to tinker a lot.

That being said, when I was in Iceland I was interested to see that they used geothermal reserves for both electricity and heating. There are loads of pumping stations and distribution networks delivering the water across large parts of the settled country.

In addition to the potential uses of geothermal steam, even hot water has potential for use in space heaters and applications that can directly use hot water. For industrial use process heat from fossil fuel or nuclear power stations is probably best though.
 
Italy was only one in early 20 century who experiment with geothermal energy plants, because they geology allow it !
They could drill 600 meter deep while other nation have to drill over 4000 meter deep to get same result.

In Weimare Germany and 1950s, they look also into geothermal plants, but as heat source for industry process like for cracking coal.
some engineers proposed taping into active volcano, sadly Germany just lack of that...

Even Today Germany geothermal energy plants are problematic not technical or harmful to the environment problem,
it's a bureaucratic question,
Because you drill deeper as 100 meter, you need special permit under mining law (precise: BBergG, § 3 Abs. 3 Satz 2 Nr. 2b)
This declare a geothermal energy source as salvage free natural resources
Were applicants quest for the Right to salvage and usage true renting the source by german state (because the owner of premises not own soil under it !)
Is the geothermal energy source to 100 meter the § 4 BBergG not count, but need a permission under Water resources law, now it become now a environment problem
If the source deeper as 100 meter need under § 4 BBergG a permission for mining management plan under inspection by Bergbehörde (mining agency of German Department of Order)

Belgium try to look for geothermal energy use also, but abandon the plans, because to much complex bureaucratic, laws and meddling politician & mining union...
 
There have been proposals to send power (up to 1 GW) from Iceland to Europe for the last 60 years.

Technically it could be achievable in the first half of the 20th Century (need efficient Mercury Arc Rectifiers for HVDC)

Still less than 1% of total demand and Iceland is the best geothermal resource near Europe.

http://bicc.is/gogn/2013_bicc_complete_event_mkvii.pdf
There's also the issue that Iceland has a LOT of hydro power available - while geothermal makes up about 50% of primary energy consumption, the majority is used for heating and hydro makes up about 75% of electricity generation.
For all that I suspect Iceland is the best bet should you want the earliest possible geothermal power plant - but you have to go back a long way and in specific circumstances.
Iceland has so far as I'm aware no coal and certainly very little wood. That means steam engines are entirely reliant on imported fuel - so if we go back to the time when the industrial revolution was kicking off then electricity isn't available and realistically hydropower at the time is pretty inconvenient. It isn't too big a stretch to see an Icelandic inventor travelling in Europe and seeing a stationary steam engine having the idea of using some steam coming out of the ground at such and such a place to power such an engine to run for instance power tools in a boatyard. Once the precedent has been set and a handful of these engines are in operation, conversion to electricity when the technology becomes available is an obvious move.
 
There's also the issue that Iceland has a LOT of hydro power available - while geothermal makes up about 50% of primary energy consumption, the majority is used for heating and hydro makes up about 75% of electricity generation.
For all that I suspect Iceland is the best bet should you want the earliest possible geothermal power plant - but you have to go back a long way and in specific circumstances.
Iceland has so far as I'm aware no coal and certainly very little wood. That means steam engines are entirely reliant on imported fuel - so if we go back to the time when the industrial revolution was kicking off then electricity isn't available and realistically hydropower at the time is pretty inconvenient. It isn't too big a stretch to see an Icelandic inventor travelling in Europe and seeing a stationary steam engine having the idea of using some steam coming out of the ground at such and such a place to power such an engine to run for instance power tools in a boatyard. Once the precedent has been set and a handful of these engines are in operation, conversion to electricity when the technology becomes available is an obvious move.

I could easily see, in the near future, Iceland becoming the source of electricity for Europe. Build a power cable to Britain, and Bob's your uncle.

Hydro (which is probably near full reasonable utilization, relatively)
Geothermal (which considering the location, is barely touched)
Off shore Wind. (North Atlantic winds, anyone?)

But, no, that wouldn't have happened earlier, the tech's only just getting in place now.


Now. Your idea of geothermal steam powering steam engines in the 1700s or 1800s is a cool idea. I have no clue how feasible it is - I think you'd have problems with pressures in piping and stuff, but it's a neat idea.

Have liquid solder (lead/tin alloy that melts at under 200C) used as a heat transfer from HOT rocks...
 
Last edited:

Delta Force

Banned
I could easily see, in the near future, Iceland becoming the source of electricity for Europe. Build a power cable to Britain, and Bob's your uncle.

Hydro (which is probably near full reasonable utilization, relatively)
Geothermal (which considering the location, is barely touched)
Off shore Wind. (North Atlantic winds, anyone?)

But, no, that wouldn't have happened earlier, the tech's only just getting in place now.


Now. Your idea of geothermal steam powering steam engines in the 1700s or 1800s is a cool idea. I have no clue how feasible it is - I think you'd have problems with pressures in piping and stuff, but it's a neat idea.

Have liquid solder (lead/tin alloy that melts at under 200C) used as a heat transfer from HOT rocks...

Using energy generated in Iceland to power Europe would run into similar issues as the Rampart Dam proposal for using Alaskan hydropower in the United States did. The energy resources of Greenland might be lower cost than those in Europe, and they might be massive, but getting the energy to Europe would require significant investments in transmission infrastructure, as well as energy loss from the transmission itself. It's less an issue nowadays than when Rampart was proposed, but it's still an issue.

So that leaves the potential option of using the energy locally, but there are few industries where power requirements in terms of price and capacity are a major concern, and Iceland probably doesn't have resources of the quantity, quality, and cost competitiveness to be used in those industries. For example, aluminum smelting might benefit from access to cheap and plentiful energy, but it doesn't have much of an advantage if it has to import materials to be refined, ship its finished products over long distances, and somehow locally train or bring in from elsewhere workers who know how to make aluminum.

Unlike Rampart, and like similar Alaska projects that were smaller in capacity, it would be possible to start small and build up capacity, but then you have the issue of still having to build up infrastructure suitable for heavy industry while not having the energy capacity that would attract significant industry attention and plants.

The irony is that in hindsight the Alaska projects actually would have been lower cost than power generated from other sources a few years after the project was voted against, but they didn't know that at the time. Also, the only reason why Alaskan hydropower is so competitive (and the reason why it was considered in the first place) is because all the good sites in the Pacific Northwest were already developed by the mid-1970s. There are far more sites suitable for renewable energy than large hydroelectric dams, so if the capacity gained from Iceland can be found elsewhere for less cost there is no reason to pursue such a project.

That's just the economic case too, the Alaskan projects also had the environment as a major concern, as it would have inundated a massive area of land.

Rampart_Dam_drainage.jpg


While a different type of project, environmental concerns could be raised if Iceland was developing all of this capacity, especially since it would likely be for export.
 
Using energy generated in Iceland to power Europe would run into similar issues as the Rampart Dam proposal for using Alaskan hydropower in the United States did. The energy resources of Greenland might be lower cost than those in Europe, and they might be massive, but getting the energy to Europe would require significant investments in transmission infrastructure, as well as energy loss from the transmission itself. It's less an issue nowadays than when Rampart was proposed, but it's still an issue.

Ja. My post explicitly said that exporting power could happen now, but wouldn't have happened earlier. Building hundreds of miles of either ( really high voltage undersea or superconducting ) power cable is something that's only 'recently' possible. And one of those two options would surely be required.
 
Now. Your idea of geothermal steam powering steam engines in the 1700s or 1800s is a cool idea. I have no clue how feasible it is - I think you'd have problems with pressures in piping and stuff, but it's a neat idea.

Have liquid solder (lead/tin alloy that melts at under 200C) used as a heat transfer from HOT rocks...
Actually, I think you'd most likely have the opposite problem - most of the geothermal resources available are at minimal pressure above atmospheric, and not all that many are actually steam rather than hot water.
Generating power from steam at 1 bar isn't impossible just not terribly efficient - at least after the invention of the external condenser anyway, provided you make it leak-tight and get all the air out you can get enough of a pressure difference to make it work and who cares about the efficiency if the fuel is free.
The real problem is if your heat source is at below 100 C - that forces you to use a different working fluid in your "steam engine". The most obvious one nowadays is ammonia as proposed for the various OTEC (Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion) devices out there, but that wouldn't have been available in quantity at the time. I think the most likely candidate would have been alcohol of some sort - easily available in industrial quantities at low prices, and boils at roughly 70 C which opens up a whole new range of heat sources to you. One other possibility which comes along a little later is to use Petrol as a working fluid, which was actually tried (!!!!!) - see http://www.douglas-self.com/MUSEUM/POWER/petrol/petrol.htm - but for an early system I think you won't have sufficient refined Naptha available on the market for it to be considered. See also http://www.douglas-self.com/MUSEUM/POWER/alcohol/alcohol.htm

Thinking about it though, none of this is really practical before Watt comes up with the external condenser - most of the geothermal sources of steam will be at or close to atmospheric pressure simply because if the pressure is too much higher the steam will find another route to atmosphere. That means you're forced to either use an external condenser and atmospheric pressure steam (the most probable early model, but will probably be difficult due to contamination from sulphur and the like in the steam - the available stuff tends to stink of hydrogen sulphide), or later on a closed circuit device most probably using alcohol as the working fluid.
 
1st a confession - I haven't got a clue about the technicalities involved. Nevertheless, it seems strange - that in Italy with two naturally occurring furnaces in the area, that some way can't be found of utilising that!
 
Top