Bishop Hill FoE in support for fracking shock
Mar 6, 2015 Energy: gas Energy: other After years of campaigning against fracking, Friends of the Earth Scotland have made an extraordinary u-turn and are now vigorously campaigning in favour of the controversial* technique.
This shock news comes to us via the Scottish Government who have announced a £250,000 fund to accelerate development of geothermal energy in Scotland. The press release includes a statement from the minister involved Friends of the Earth's Richard Dixon:
Heating is our biggest source of climate emissions and geothermal energy can play a major part in replacing fossil-fuelled heating. We already know that there is potential to deploy geothermal energy on a very wide scale in Scotland This new funding is very welcome and will help good proposals get moving and attract further investment. Different techniques will have different impacts but geothermal energy is clearly worth serious investigation, and it is great that the Scottish Government is taking the lead in making this happen.
Now as readers at BH may well know, geothermal energy in Scotland involves extracting water heated by geothermal energy from old coal workings and the technique involves fracking the coal seams so that the water gets heated up as much as possible. With Friends of the Earth now in favour of fracking, it can't be long before Cuadrilla and iGas get the go-ahead.
*© BBC
Bishop Hill
On Twitter, geophysicist Ian Stimpson says that fracking is only required if they extract geothermal heat from granite. The fractures in coal are sufficient he says, comparing the process to coalbed methane. (Although having said that, coalbeds are sometimes fracked for methane I believe).
Reader Comments (94)
There is nothing at all inconsistent in the policies of Friends of the Earth The good Bishop's piece confuses the issue. Everybody needs to understand the following:
GREEN FRACKING for alternative energy is GOOD.
THE CONTROVERSIAL PROCESS KNOWN AS FRACKING for producing gas and oil is BAD.
Fracking is only controversial when it is used by Big Oil.
Scotland has 3 possible sources for geothermal:
1) Abandoned mines - Open loop system. Water is pumped out of the mines, used to heat homes and then dumped. The water temperature is between 12 and 21C (17C on average).
2) Hot Sedimentary Aquifers - Open loop system. Water is extracted and used for heat. The temperature range is 20 to 80C.
3) Hot Dry Rock - Closed loop. Water at a temperature range of 100 to 200C (150C expected in Scotland) used in a heat exchanger. Scotlands best chance for this is in areas where radioactive decay from Uranium has augmented the background heat.
Not only are FoE supporting fracking they are are also supporting extracting energy from radioactive decay of Uranium.
Now this heat comes from ....don don dahhhh...radiation...does this mean the water will be contaminated with....don don dahhhh radiation? :-)
Gordon:
The Newcastle scheme was preceded by the Southampton one over 30 years ago. Click on my links and you'll see the drilling rig in front of the clock tower on the Southampton Civic Hall - can't really get more central than that. You can see the wellhead in Bing or Google today.
Those who claim that coal-mine geothermal does not need fracking need to think through the whole scenario and simply ask themselves: how did the coal-mine come into being in the first place - if it wasn't through the use of all sorts of 'manual fracking'? By that, I mean that the coal mines through which water is to be pumped will have been opened up by big hairy-arsed miners using picks and/or pneumatic drills - and even, explosives. Now, that's what I call controversial fracking, especially so very close to the water table.
@ Mike Singleton at 2:30 AM
"I'm afraid your knowledge level is at best superficial and at worst purposefully misleading. My comments below are based on over 30 years in the energy industry with a focus on new technology development across the spectrum of conventional fossil fuels to alternative energy."
It's good to be advised you've completed your apprenticeship.
"There is no guarantee that a closed loop enhanced hot rock geothermal well will return water. Some production wells have never achieved communication with the injector well, despite best efforts and planning."
Of course there's no guarantee about any engineering project. However, it's reassuring you too use the term "closed loop".
Some earlier commenter(s) implied there was no such thing.
"Having talked to two of the senior people who worked on the project during a fact finding trip on Hot Dry Rock technology I can assure you it was not the success that the Wikipedia version might have you believe."
Nowhere have I implied they're all feasible; but neither are all failures.
"Some deep stimulated hot dry rock trials have ended up just consuming water and when they do produce hot water it is loaded with some very nasty salts, both toxic and radio active. I assure you that trying to "treat" the water, as you so glibly throw out, is neither trivial nor cheap."
Please show a quotation from me where I implied water treatment was trivial or cheap. Re-read my comment, and you'll find I merely stated it was possible.
"Note also that when you introduce a heat exchange step you insert a significant cost and a reduction in efficiency, especially when one is working with the low delta temperatures inherent with geothermal energy."
I'm well aware that when a heat exchanger is introduced there is a significant cost implication. They're indispensable when the deep bore feed water is contaminated. Note also that the one project I mentioned (Eden) is hoping to source geothermal not for space/district heating, but for power generation via a turbine because of its expected temperature (180C from their blurb)
"Do not underestimate the knowledge and experience levels of the typical BH reader, pick a topic related to energy and somebody here will be more than capable of putting the true facts on the table based on real world experience."
Thanks for that advice; do not underestimate the respect this commenter has for his fellow BH readers. However, being a BH reader is no guarantee of technical infallibility. I include myself in that category, perhaps you should too.
Joe Public
I'd be far far more concerned about "some losses" and contamination in a so called closed loop system, which will also have potential for leaks on the way up and down than I would about fracking for shale gas or oil.
It patently isn't closed in the sense of potential for polluting the environment in general and aquifers in particular.
Joe Public:
You might like to calculate the downhole pressure of a column of say 3000 metres of drilling mud of density 800 kg/m^3 and consider the consequences for trying to produce gas. You might also try viewing some of the Youtube videos available on well completion that explain how the casing string is cemented into place in the well, and how well completion proceeds. This series for example.
This also provides a good introduction (you may need to save the file and convert to rename to a .pdf to view it), showing how a packer isolates the production zone allowing well production to flow up the production tubing to which it is attached.
Joe P: You made two points (that I address here) in reply to SandyS that: 1."Deep geothermal is 'closed loop' in the sense that 'cold' water is pumped down one bore, collects heat from the deep rock and returns up the other bore. At the surface, that water runs thro' a turbine to generate 'leccy. It is then recirculated back down the 'cold bore'. Similar to the water recirculation in a radiator heating system. There are some water losses from both systems during maintenance for instance, or during replenishment of the additives."
What do you mean when you say that "the [heated] water runs thro a turbine to generate leccy"? How does that work? How does heated water impart energy (yes, I know it expands)? If it was steam, that's a different thing.
Also, how, in your 'closed loop' system is the water pumped through 'hot' rocks and then ALL of it collected for the return trip? Surely, you must lose some water - and it can't all be contained within piping as that would be at odds with how the process was described originally: (I paraphrase) "Water is pumped through the fractured seams of coal".
2. "Any 'pollutants' picked up from depth can be processed 'out' within the above-ground phase of the process."
When Sandy picked you up on this you said you only meant it "was possible". Nope, you didn't, did you. You really did trivialise what must be a very tricky and expensive process.
Running primary water straight from a mineral and particulate rich environment directly into a turbine is not going to happen. There will be a heat exchanger where clean water will be heated by the primary loop for the steam. Turbines can be quickly destroyed by unpure water.
Consider just how out of touch with reality FoE is to support a power generation system that requires ongoing use of millions of gallons of water to produce all of its power and to condemn gas fracking which only uses some water for original fracking and followup fracking later.
<Blockquote>Please show a quotation from me where I implied water treatment was trivial or cheap. Re-read my comment, and you'll find I merely stated it was possible.
Yet the remarkable thing is that the Southampton scheme was granted planning permission with no need for any water treatment at all. Try that with the fracking fluids from a shale well.
According to EGS Energy, the outfit concerned with your Eden project:
Being able to sell the waste heat is actually quite important to project economics (and is the reason why CHP is not more widespread, as demand for heat is rarely 24x7x365 unless it's for an industrial process).
That's the best euphemism for fracking I've seen in a while.
So an overall efficiency of 4/50ths or 8% net power output, plus any waste heat that can be sold.
@ Harry Passfield at 11:20 AM
In one of my earlier responses (Mar 6, 2015 at 11:49 PM) I stated:
"1."Deep geothermal is 'closed loop' in the sense that 'cold' water is pumped down one bore, collects heat from the deep rock and returns up the other bore. At the surface, that water runs thro' a turbine to generate 'leccy."
Apologies for not making it clear, but that brief explanation in turn was (meant) to refer to the single geothermal I mentioned as an example (my post 12:25 yesterday). The Eden Project, according to their blurb, receives water at 180C. For that project, the geothermal energy is to be used via a binary cycle turbine to generate electricity.
I acknowledge that many/most geothermal projects are used for district space & DHW heating.
"(I paraphrase) "Water is pumped through the fractured seams of coal"."
Partly mea culpa.
Our host referred to 'fracking'; I introduced the (arguable) distinction between shale gas fracking & fracking for hydrothermal; then Ian Stimpson's info led to our host introducing an Update. By which time, the discussion threads were running.
"When Sandy picked you up on this you said you only meant it "was possible". Nope, you didn't, did you. You really did trivialise what must be a very tricky and expensive process."
How does mentioning something is 'possible' 'trivialise' the process? The commercial proponents of the Eden GeoThermal Project presumably consider they can solve that issue.
I am not supporting or countering their claim; merely pointing out that their claim exists.
Perhaps we should think about the working fluids in an organic Rankine cycle engine (they aren't nice, organically grown plants). An assortment of fluorocarbons (CFC, HCFC, PFC, HFC) were technically popular for their phase characteristics, but their GWP or ozone destruction capabilities mean that most are banned. Other choices include LPG or pentanes.
Joe Public
Are you saying that you're being a Devil's Advocate?
“Geothermal Heating in Boise
Administered by the Boise Public Works Department, the largest direct use system in the United States supplies energy-efficient heat to over 65 businesses in the downtown core area.”
http://publicworks.cityofboise.org/services/geothermal/
@ SandyS at 3:53 PM
"Are you saying that you're being a Devil's Advocate?"
No. I simply pointed out the difference between fracking for shale gas and geothermal is that in the former, fuel is extracted via a single well, whereas the latter requires a pair of wells and energy is extracted from the water flowing around a circuit.
Of course if the original gas-fracking bore produces successful gas flow, then additional adjacent bores may also drilled, to maximise production from a single pad.
Joe: You said:
Well, I used Willis' rule on commenting: always use the original quote. And you said, in the comment SandyS was referring to: Where does the word 'possible' appear in that quote. It seems like you were truly over-simplifying - even trivialising - a rather complex process.To All: Must I keep referring to the lead post?. It says: “Heating is our biggest source of climate emissions and geothermal energy can play a major part in replacing fossil-fuelled heating” It cannot be any plainer than that. District geothermal heating systems exist in numerous localities in the US and elsewhere in the world. Three that I’m familiar with are in Midland, SD, Phillip, SD and Elko, NV. Experiments at Los Alamos and Sandia National Labs at producing steam from “Hot dry rock” suggest that it could be useful. There is more information available at the web site of the Geothermal Resources Council (http://geothermal.org/) For power generation most of the geothermal systems in NV (used for power generation) use either brines or hot(> 180°C) artesian water wells and then convert the hot water to steam to drive a turbine generator. If your intent is to provide heating the systems in the Dakotas and Nevada are instructive.
Then there's the Geodynamics hot dry rock project in central Australia which allegedly managed to power the Innamincka pub.
Joe Public "No. I simply pointed out the difference between fracking for shale gas and geothermal is that in the former, fuel is extracted"
And that really is what you hate- "evil fossil fuel". All your other arguments are manufactured misinformation and trivia, designed with the express purpose to hide this fact.
@ Harry Passfield at 4:59 PM
1. "Any 'pollutants' picked up from depth can be processed 'out' within the above-ground phase of the process." In that sentence, if something "can be processed 'out'", then plainly it is possible.
2. You state "...It seems like you were truly over-simplifying - even trivialising - a rather complex process." Perhaps you misinterpretted my words; it is you not me, who introduced the concept of "trivialising".
I invite you to use Willis' rule on commenting a second time, and show just where I mentioned the ease or difficulty of extracting pollutants.
@ Don Keiller at 6:15 PM
Please explain how, from all the previous information on this thread, you justify the incorrect accusation "And that really is what you hate- "evil fossil fuel". "
@ Don Keiller at 6:15 PM
You really were disingenuous quoting only half a sentence that was explaining a difference between two things;
All drilling uses and recycles water. It's economic sense for a start. A common exception, strangely enough, is geothermal, since you are drilling for losses - looking for existing subterranean fractures , many many times bigger than tight shale fractures.
When you hit those, you lose all your fluid and can only lubricate the drill string by pumping massive amounts of fresh water downhole, which you will never recover. So Joe's got it almost completely arse about. Not really his fault - I've been as brief and generalised as I can be about a complex subject the public is pretty ignorant about, making them easy targets for Green propaganda.
Mar 6, 2015 at 3:14 PM | Unregistered Commenterkellydown
As A driller just for yuck's how many get the jest of Kellydown's Name ;>)
Oh dear. Joe, stop digging your hole. You might have meant us to see you said "possible", but you didn't say that. Man up and move on! You over-simplified a very costly and tricky process. You should have admitted that was the case and explained what you meant, but you decided everyone else was wrong - because we couldn't read your mind - and you were right. Shame, really.
BTW: Can I take it you know who I mean by 'Willis'? I have my doubts...
Lorne50: Good one. Admit I had to Google it, but clever name. (And I'm not posting the link I found....Heehee)
I have to agree with Joe Public, Harry. He was simply offering information, not any quality assessment of the information. Quite frankly, you are being a bit of a jerk to him, unjustly at that.
Mark
@ Harry Passfield at 7:27 PM
Just which part of "...if something can be processed out, then plainly it is possible" do you not understand?
The process may be costly, it may be tricky, but for those projects already implementing it, they are presumably commercially viable.
I reiterate the invitation to use Willis' rule on commenting, and show just where I mentioned the ease or difficulty of extracting pollutants.
@ Lorne50: Having worked in the oil and gas exploration business for about 25 years I know perfectly well what "kelly down" means.
Regarding heat exchangers; downhole hest exchangers (DHE's). In single home or multiple home systems, You do not necessarily need two wells. You can use two small tubes inside a larger cased water well in which CLEAN secondary water (e.g. city water) is circulated. Heat is tranferred from the water in the well bore to the water in the tubes which circulates to the surface to provide both heat and domestic hot water. This, by the way, is a closed loop system. The circulating water does NOT come in contact with the environment.
Hi Mark: You say:
Well, if you're gonna get down to being offensive you lose. The only thing I was pointing out to Joe was that he was claiming to have said something he didn't - even when faced with the exact words he used. He is being very selective with his quotes and then swerves the point by introducing yet another claim that he has been accused of something he didn't say - while still refusing to accept that he has to own what he did say.And to save me a double comment, that goes to you too Joe. I don't intend to continue with your pathetic little hair-splitting deviations from the point. And you still haven't satisfied my mind that you understand what doing a 'Willis' means. Furthermore, I'm not even sure that you know anything about geothermal engineering or fracking: perhaps you do, but you have failed to persuade me of that.
Cheers, both.
Grimaldi: "Does anyone know what 'climate emissions' are?"
---------------------------------------------------
Well spotted. One of the worst crimes of the Green Blob is the violence it regularly does to the English language.
Oh, and it looks like BBD is back - must be his new rotation.
Joe Public
OK, so you've just been posting information and not opinion on that information,
To me neither process is entirely risk free, and there are many potential risks in fracking for oil/gas and for geothermal energy. To pretend one is totally safe and the other puts life on on Earth at risk is propaganda. Hopefully we can agree about that.
Joe Public:
Despite having it explained to you that only one kind of geothermal exploitation out of several possibilities entails recirculating water into the formation, you persist in only discussing that case. You are also ignoring the fact that the only substantial geothermal project in the UK discharges its non-recycled aquifer brine untreated despite its payload of undesirables - not something that Fawley Refinery just down river is allowed to do, and a great cost saver to boot. So the "green" project is not so green after all.
@ It doesn't add up... @ Mar 7, 2015 at 11:10 AM
Thanks for those video and Drill-business Intro links.
I'd been curious for a while, but not enough to dig. Am reading now.
OldUnixHead
Perhaps I'd better change my handle! The term is now somewhat archaic as the equipment referred to began to be phased out on big rigs some 25 years ago, but there are some perfectly respectable (I'm sure) business and consultancies using this name, it seems, and I wouldn't them to be tarnished by association.
Gilbert K Arnold, that system for home heating sounds interesting, but the big projects being talked about in the UK (and being done elsewhere, like Germany) definitely need deep wells (think 3-5km TVD) and expose the circulated water directly to open hole. The water that heats homes or drives turbines then is on a separate and presumably closed loop, something like the crude picture in this link:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/__L3UykOqAlc/SjjjIffmPuI/AAAAAAAAAdo/z6uxfH1Fndw/s400/Geothermal_process.jpg
You can also marvel at the promise (as yet unfulfilled) of this project in 2009. But don't laugh, I believed in it too then!
http://climatetech.blogspot.co.uk/2009/06/geothermal-power-in-australia.html
@ It doesn't add up... @ Mar 7, 2015 at 11:10 AM
My thanks also for those video and Drill-business Intro links. Fascinating stuff. Always wondered how it was done.
Too complex for a BBC graphic ,( or journalist).
@ kellydown
Mar 8, 2015 at 9:47 PM:
No you don't need to change your handle. The term is still in use in the oil patch (alive and kicking). Now it just simply refers to when the drill string has advanced enough that the top drive motor is at the level of the drill rig floor and it is now time to put on another section of drill pipe.
Even though home heating and district heating system are smaller scale Most of the hot-dry rock projects that I have read about were geared towards power generation. Those wells do require deeper depths than the smaller projects. Some Ehanced Geothermaal Systems provide district heating water as well as power generation. The major downside (IMO) to these projects is that their expected lifetime is 20-30 years before the temperature differential drops too low.tto be economic. For those of the Good Bishop''s readers that wish to find out more in more technical detail should Google: the International Geothermal Association and thr Geothermal Resouces Council. They have many papers and conference proceedings available.
Gilbert, I'm still in the patch and I don't hear KD or RKB any more on the UK side. I can't remember the current term is just now. I think they just call it by depth.
Also, I'm told that the casing design criterion for Bavarian geoT wells is 50 years durability. Some people there also told me that the hot layer cools down after six months but they only have to leave it a month before it's warm enough to go again. Haven't stayed around long enough to see how that works out. The Fed German govt has apparently guaranteed feed-in tariffs for twenty years to give confidence to investors, so it's not exactly subsidy-free. (certainly Green Harassment-free though!)
it doesn't add up: I would also like to thank you for the video of well drilling (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jBty_TqyXcQ).
I much prefer the term 'well stimulation' to fracking.
I would also much prefer it if the Bish and many more people who need to get this out there could make more of this info. I shall certainly be using it to counter the trolls who seem to think that wells are open structures that can leak into water tables and so on.
Great video and much to be encouraged. Thanks.
Regardless of any other renewable energies (geothermal or otherwise), the salient point about this one is that it is the dodgiest of the lot from the point of view of tremors, subsidence, sustainability, water table disturbance and bringing up safely-buried chemicals to ground level (or in the case of the Southampton effort, the river). Yet it is catalogued as 'green'. Whether it is of net value or not, the faux-greens demonstrate yet again with these projects their rank hypocrisy on the environment.
Kellydaown: I am n the patch on the west side of the pond and we still use the terms KB and RKB over here. All drilling depths here are calculated from the RKB elevation. I have seen very few pieces of drill pipe (approx zero) listed in metric lengths.A great many of the smaller rigs (typically single and doubles) here still use a kelly and refer hole depths to RKB.
Regardless of the casing design specifications, I think EGS systems are still somewhat in their infancy as a commercially viable technology.
Gilbert, if you travel north a bit , above the 49th parallel perhaps, you will hear plenty of metric depths and lengths on your side of the pond!
But not in the US. Too much long time usage