Eden Project hits rock bottom in search for renewable energy
The Eden Project has announced plans to generate up to one-tenth of the UK's electricity by harnessing the power of hot granite rocks lying deep in the Earth's surface near St Austell in Cornwall.
It's estimated that the UK's first geothermal plant will generate enough cheap, low-carbon and reliable electricity from Cornwall's hot rocks to power 5,000 British homes (that's a whole megawatt more power than a single wind turbine can generate). It could even scale to service up to a tenth of the UK's energy needs, if everything goes according to plan.
Working with EGS Energy, the Eden Project plans to drill down into 'shallow' granite outcrops (they're still 4km deep, mind) and pump water through them until it hots up to 150°C. On its way back to the surface, the steam will rotate a turbine that generates enough electricity to power the Eden Project site entirely renewably.
Think this sounds a touch futuristic? If anything, it's positively primitive. Geothermal fields have powered Iceland for more than 60 years and currently provide a fifth of the country's electricity (slicing 40% off the nation's carbon dioxide emissions every year, according to the Guardian).
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~48~RS~)
Comments
Note to editor:
Check the sums....
If you save 20% on some of your shopping you are not going to save 40% off all your shopping.
A more careful reading of the guardian piece finds that...
If the geothermal energy used for heating homes in a single year is equivalent to the heat obtained from the burning of 646,000 tonnes of oil, the government estimates that the total release of CO2 in the country is cut by nearly 40%.
Does the BBC have editors ?
Complain about this comment
Hi Jack - Not sure I follow. The Guardian piece (to paraphrase) says that the Iceland govt estimates that use of geothermal energy is equivalent to a 40% cut in its total CO2, if it were to use fossil fuels for heating homes.
Given that Iceland generates the other 80% of its electricity from renewable sources ("The glaciers and rivers of the interior of the country are harnessed to generate 80% of the country's electricity needs through hydropower, while the geothermal fields provide up to 20% of the country's electricity needs.") it seems perfectly reasonable for use of geothermal energy to represent a 40% cut in Iceland's total carbon footprint while only providing 20% of the nation's electricity.
Complain about this comment
Housebuilder casts doubt on renewable add-ons
Stewart Milne Group says micro renewables on Sigma House at BRE did not perform as it had hoped:
According to the firm, micro renewable technologies such as wind turbines, photovoltaic panels and solar thermal do not consistently deliver the required performance levels and the cost savings that would make them viable.
The wind turbine on the Sigma Home was found to deliver little effective electricity and while the photovoltaics produced half the electricity consumed it was felt the capital cost and long payback period outweighed the benefit.
http://www.building.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=3141874&origin=bldgdailynewsletter
Complain about this comment
Hi Richard - thanks for popping in...
Shanta wrote:
"currently provide a fifth of the country's electricity (slicing 40% off the nation's carbon dioxide emissions every year, ...) "
This suggests that making 20% of your electricity from geo can save 40% of your total CO2. Which is not possible.
I guess she could have written something like this:
Iceland uses geothermal energy for generating 20% of its electricity. It also uses geothermal energy for heating homes and buildings. The Iceland govt estimates that using geothermal energy for generating and heating saves 40% off the CO2 it would produce if it did not have the geothermal energy.
What she wrote is just not true.
Sorry to sound pedantic - but getting information and presenting it correctly is what you are paid to do. It's your job.
Complain about this comment
Hi Jack - I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. What Shanta wrote was factually correct and she provided a link to the source for anyone wanting more detail, so I'm not inclined to make any changes. Hope it didn't spoil your enjoyment of the blog too much!
Complain about this comment
Don't worry, Richard.
In the spirit of constructive criticism, I wonder if you could widen your reading a bit. Every day it's Guardian this, Guardian that.
Try Anthony Watts at http://www.WattsUpWithThat.com/ or
Christopher Booker at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/3982101/2008-was-the-year-man-made-global-warming-was-disproved.html
Happy blogging !
Complain about this comment
Sounds like a lovely idea. Even if the math in the article is questionable, the fact is that Scandanavian countries have long been on the cutting edge of Earth friendly energy sources. And the UK could stand to learn from this project. Also see the "water-snakes" that use currents to power turbines that generate electricty that could power coastal towns cleanly and efficiently.
[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS