http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/icelandic-drilling-project-opens-door-to-volcano-powered-electricity/
Geothermal could be huge for energy production when the technology improves. I'm actually in favour of a lot of "Green Energy" like hydroelectric, solar (for your house) and nuclear. The one I have a problem with is wind generation. It's expensive, inefficient and wind turbines look ******* ugly.
It is a good idea and has been done for a long time, I personally visited the Wairakei Power Station [1] years ago.
@ Ian; Wind energy is more expensive then gas, but cheaper then geothermal, coal and nuclear.[2] As for the looks, it is in the eye of the beholder. (I think they look amazing, but depending on how much noise it generates, I would not want one close to my home)
I have known of this idea for about a year now. I think that any alternative to fossil fuel derived energy sources is worth considering. As I have always said, use the renewable resources that best suit the area. Wind, solar , hydro, geothermal or whatever can supply an area's energy needs. Even a combination of sources.
I have serious reservations concerning nuclear reactor power sources. My biggest reserve with them is that no one has yet figured out how to safely store the spent fuel rods for the time that would be required to do so and not have them pose their own environmental threat to the planet. Just don't build the reactors in areas that are prone to serious disasters once the safe disposal/storage of the spent fuel rods is achieved, if it ever is.
Geothermal is a great idea and generates power in many places. Getting energy from an active volcano would tap directly into vast energy but presents risks to workers. I guess it comes down to how well local geologists understand a particular volcano and the likelihood of its erupting.
I tend to think it is a great idea. I think geothermal energy is a great resource. It can be used even in a smaller scale in reducing energy for heating and air conditioning for individual homes but of course this wouldn't involve molten magma. If they could develop drilling augers, (If they haven't already) that could actually place casing into the magma, that would seem to be a giant leap forward. Well anyway the potential energy is huge.
Any idea that attempts to harness alternative energy is good, but caution is advisable as their are often unfoseen consequences. Even nuclear was a good idea until Three Mile Island Chernobyl, etc.
Have to look at the expense and make sure it does not cause other problems like increasing the likelihood of volcanic or seismic activity, but it certainly seem worthy of more research.
Jim Z,
I have seen that method used to reduce the heating costs and it seems like a great idea, especially if it saves money. No fear of seismic or volcanic problems there.
It's very interesting.
FSM
Given that natural gas is more expensive than coal, wind can not be more expensive than gas and cheaper than coal. I don't believe that it is cheaper than nuclear, either. Nuclear power does require large startup costs, but that is because it requires a large economy of scale. Enough wind turbines to produce 1GW of power would also cost billions of dollars.
Quote by Paul Ehrlich, professor, Stanford University: “Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun.”
I don't think you will get Paul, a butterfly expert, to get on board with this. Sounds like a good idea to me.
No this is not agreed upon. Global warming is a vehicle for religious environmentalists to force their green religion on others. One tenet is that man must live a simper lifestyle. This involves less energy use. Note that renewable energy mandates tend to ignore hydro, which happens to be economically feasible.
Do9es anybody think this not a good idea?
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/icelandic-drilling-project-opens-door-to-volcano-powered-electricity/
