Startup taps underwater volcano as energy source in “proof point” test
arstechnica.com
arstechnica.com
The Axial Seamount area is not at all some dead barren zone we can just tap into without concern for ecological harm. Hydrothermal vent areas are very vibrant ecosystems that influence deep ocean ecology in ways we already understand, and probably ways we don't yet understand.
I am glad to see in their press release [1] they do mention careful selection of sites, conditions for operation, and ecological monitoring. And the area is already the focus of oceanographic research by various institutions.
I'm not saying this work is a bad thing, just that one needs to be pretty careful about it. It's probably a soap box I'm more willing to jump up on being a former marine technician on research ships for many years.
- vent animals don’t live off the heat. They live off the chemistry in the vent fluid
- so changing of vent flow can be disruptiev
- altering fluid chemistry. organisms there live in very tight thermal and chemical gradients, so little changes can be devastating
- Anchors, drill rigs, equipment frames and power cables crush things
- secondary human/machinery pollution from Leaks of a working fluid, if it’s a closed loop using something like ammonia, antifouling coatings and corrosion products.
- subseafloor microbial biosphere
Would love for experts in this field to chime in though. fascinating stuff.
“The 2 MW commercial generators will be about the size of a shipping container, and we are deploying up to six of these generators [to] offshore Tonga,” Redd told Ars. “The physical footprint of this project will be relatively small.”
Nice potential application! I’m not sure of the scaling economics but I certainly do love to see all forms of power generation explored
Seems like a headline grabber and not a real solution but hopefully some useful tech comes out of it.
Our CapEx is driven by 3 major verticals: drilling, power generation, and power transmission.
- Drilling is expensive from a day rate perspective, but since our wells are shallow and productive the cost/MW is quite reasonable.
- Our generators are modular, binary systems that use CO2 as a working fluid. They are very power dense due to the CO2 power cycle, the high temperature heat source, and the effectively infinite cold sink. Since we design and build the generators ourselves in our Seattle factory, we can work the cost down aggressively. The largest expense right now in the generator are the heat exchangers.
- Transmission cost is addressed through amortization over larger projects. Transmission for a 1GW project is approximately half the cost of a 50MW project with the same distance to shore. In either case, we are helped by the very high capacity factor of geothermal.
Our OpEx is reduced by not doing any in-situ maintenance. Instead we swap generators when they come to the end of their maintenance cycle, then refurbish them back at the factory. We recovered, charged, and redeployed Adelie in about 16 hour and it honestly felt extremely slow compared to what will be able to do.
Other big knobs on LCOE are Weighted Average Cost of Capital (WACC) and plant life. WACC will go down as we prove reliability, and since our generators are power dense and modular we can deploy more projects in more regions at a faster rate to improve bankability. Plant life is helped by refurbishing and swapping generators so even if the generator is designed for only a few years of operation, the overall project will remain operational for 30+ years.
I am curious how operations and maintenance will be handled, one of my customers is a CH&P plant that has two annual plant shutdowns for maintenance.
I wonder what industries it could help thrive. afaik Iceland has a relatively big aluminium smelting industry due to its cheap, excess geothermal power. Could we see new opportunities spring up in places like Kerguelen, South Georgia or Tristan da Cunha? Modern takes on whaling stations?
Volcanoes and underwater jobs? Sounds like Sci-fi Horrors
Correct, the novel is called Starfish by Peter Watts. Though it's mostly not the volcano that kills people.
wind / geothermal has far bigger effects on local environments and fauna vs. “global” energy depletion
Mankind needs to learn before it's too late.
The article references an expert who is skeptical, saying that this is unlikely to be cheaper than just doing it on land (standard geothermal)?
The article also references reasons to think this could be worthwhile. Cooling, pressure, etc. One could also guess that permitting could be easier.
But I'm left not really understanding whether they proved enough, or what really needs to be proven.
Geothermal power -> some % saved for atmospheric carbon extraction makes it a carbon negative endeavor.
Relieve the US energy woes somewhat.
Use the carbon to make methane for his rockets.
And make some diesel fuel too, while he's at it (though he'll have to stock up on soybeans - great for his eventual presidential run)
From the first link, again:
> These recent studies demonstrated for example, that silicic supereruptions with volume exceeding 1,000 km3 of eruptible magma can be generated in less than 5,000–10,000 years (which we call “Yellowstone” type), to longer than 500,000 years
And geology is not a context where "less than 5,000" realistically includes, like 5, or even 100.
> TED FARO: "An automated geothermal energy plant, right under the city of San Francisco. A marvel. Even I can run it, and let's face it - I was always more of a visionary than an engineer. Which is why I had the foresight... to insist on the inclusion of a very unique feature, just in case anyone ever tries to steal my cheese, so to speak."
Really hope we get Horizon 3 sooner than later, I loved The Frozen Wilds and it would be great to get back up there.
Anyone?
Some tropes become only known from their parodies, and they lead to other parodies.
An example of how difficult and complex this is can be readily observed in a 40 year long research grade power plant at NELHA near Kona, HI. The OTEC process uses warm surface seawater to evaporate a working fluid ( ammonia water mixture) using the vapor to drive an electric turbine, and then uses cold deep seawater from 2200ft (~671m) to drive the condenser loop and recirculate the working fluid. The significant difficulties are the massive heat exchangers required to make it work and all of the seawater facing systems face continual bio-fouling and corrosion problems.
They achieve a minimal efficiency and struggle to compete on cost with solar and wind. This is the state of the technology, when mechanical operations are just above sea level and the only real problems at depth are pipeline collapse due to over-accelerated flow and the aforementioned bio-fouling.
Moving those operations to a greater depth significantly changes the pressure. OTEC's pipe only has to deal with 2200 feet / 66.7 atmospheres (~980ppsi) while the wiring and enclosures of the 'lava thermal' rig only survived a few minutes of operation at 5000 feet / 151.5 atmospheres (~2227ppsi). It is illogical to expect for any durable, low cost, renewable power to be reliably operated under those conditions.
This also risks destabilizing poorly understood ecosystems with organisms whose lifespans typically exceed the span of time we have been studying them.
Where these activities occur in international waters the UN International Seafloor Authority requires multi-year environmental baseline studies. Prior to any non-research installation, requirements include biodiversity monitoring, chemical outputs and impacts. before any structural installations are authorized. Contractors are required to continually map biodiversity (microbes, unique gastropods, and specialized crabs) and to monitor chemical outputs in order to avoid permanently impacting the ecosystem's natural dynamics.
So, moving into 'Exclusive Economic Zone' water of a kingdom without rigorous international oversight is an indicator of how this company views the potential regulatory market.
The image of 'saving Tonga from diesel' is a nice greenwash, but if this was economically motivated and truly viable, then locations much closer to megawatt scale underserved growing markets with investment potential and scalar consumer demand, such as the Azores, New Zealand, or Izu Japan would be where this happens first.
So, nice toy research and fancy press publicity with the opportunity to get "It works" headlines and unlock the next Series A tranche is all I can see from here. Hard pass, full stop.
Dr Evil in shambles!
Anyone need sugar? He has some in his pocket. How about cream? No thanks!
Also, let's not sell him short: those aren't video calls, they're ransom calls.
> Don't be curmudgeonly. Thoughtful criticism is fine, but please don't be rigidly or generically negative.
Seriously. How often do we get a story that intersects power generation and volcanos?
I read, or at least lightly skim through, the article I post about. But always post whatever comes to mind, regardless of how it will come across.
> Seriously. How often do we get a story that intersects power generation and volcanos?
Exactly! But your comment and its lame subthread, which all had nothing to do with the article, sat at the top of the thread for hours, drowning out substantive comments that were relevant to the article.
I wouldn’t bother replying if it just slipped down the bottom of the thread. But keeping discussions high-quality and on-topic is my job here and that means reminding people to post thoughtful, substantive comments, not “whatever comes to mind, regardless of how it will come across”. We especially need longer term/more prominent users to set the example, please.