221
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 31 Jan 2025
221 points (95.1% liked)
Futurology
2126 readers
91 users here now
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I'm a huge nuclear energy advocate, but if there is an even better way to get baseline power to fill in the gaps between solar and wind I am all for it. My only question would be the downsides (if any) of using the earths core to power things.
Like if every country starts slapping these things down all over the place would it even start cooling the core in any meaningful way? Would that potentially lead to problems later?
My gut says no, but I would rather at least ask the question and get laughed at than never consider it and have it bite us in the ass later.
I think the biggest issues is access to heat and permeability of the rock containing the heat. According to Google the earth's temp rises by 25°C for every km down, so you'd probably want to go at least 4 km down to get enough heat to boil water (in my experience, it isn't 25 degrees hotter 1km down, but you get the idea. ) your also need to consider the pressure of the water and the heat you might lose as you lose pressure coming back up.
You also need to create a circuit where you pump cool water in one end and hot the other. So you can frack the rock like in a gas well, but that can cause seismicity and affect the local hydrogeology which other industries and the towns may rely on. This would enable the water to pass through the rock to soak up the heat.
I guess you'd also need a supply of water as you'd doubtless lose some water as it passes through the circuit, though I'm not sure what the retention losses are actually like and would depend heavily on the local geology