🚀 go-pugleaf

Trevor Wilson wrote:
> "netvegetable" <dontemailme@all.com> wrote in message 
> news:en9564$pdb$1@news-02.connect.com.au...
>> On Sun, 31 Dec 2006 11:41:07 +0000, Jo Schaper wrote:
>>
>>> netvegetable wrote:
>>>> While the PM is trying to debate whether or not we should start to go
>>>> nuclear in 10-15 years, various private firms are steaming ahead in 
>>>> their
>>>> research and development of geothermal energy via "hot dry rocks" ......
>>>>
>>>> So tell me what's wrong with this form of energy as an alternative to
>>>> coal?
>>> Do you have a large nearby source of water? Water or some other medium
>>> still has to be used to transfer the energy. Even most wet geothermal
>>> recirculates the water by re-injection, and there is always loss.
>> Finally some food for thought.
>>
>> I wonder how much loss there would be.
> 
> **There need only be as much loss as any thermal power plant (coal, nuclear, 
> et al). The main working fluid need not be water. Water, for the most part, 
> is just cheap and convenient.

True. Can you name me another fluid able to contain as much heat for 
transfer at a similar cost?

The loss of water would be largely as steam in the generators. Most of 
this may be successfully recaptured. But not all.

I'm not a geothermal expert. If you wish to research a geothermal plant 
using re-injection technology in a desert environment, I suggest you
find information on the Garlock Fault Geothermal Plant, run by US Naval 
Operations at its China Lakes Naval Base, near Ridgecrest, California in 
the lower Owens Valley. (Don't ask me why we have a Naval Base in the 
desert. But it is there, and they've run a geothermal plant since 1978-79.)