This article was almost surely placed because it came out that the tech firms were using accounting techniques to obscure their impact:
this is one i dont understand. if we down drill far enough anywhere , we get free heat. nuke plants cost billions… we cant drill a few miles for billions of dollars? what am i missing?
Actually making it work means not just drilling a hole, but drilling two holes and then connecting them with a network of cracks which doesn’t leak too much. This lets you circulate water through a huge volume of rock and engage in depletionary extraction of the accumulated heat. This wasn’t really possible before the advent of fracking, and even then, it required a bunch of additional research to figure out how to make it work in the kinds of igneous rocks you find in the craton instead of the sedimentary rocks you find oil deposits in.
uh, ok. so we drill 2 big holes and link them for billions of dollars. what am i missing?
You’re not missing anything. Nuclear is looking more and more like it won’t be economically feasible going forward. If modern geothermal provides a cheaper way to feed dispatchable electricity into the grid, in more places, then that might very well be the last link in making a zero-carbon grid possible.
Sigh, how long until we realize this isn’t “clean” either?
Can someone catch me up here, please? The last I read, fracking was typically seen as an environmentally unfriendly process because you break up a bunch of underlying rock, pump out the crude, and replace it with water. It destabilizes the area and leads to shit like small earthquakes. So like, drilling down, releasing a bunch of heat/pressure, and flooding the system with a bunch of water without caring about the oil is supposed to be a safer thing to do? What gives?
