This week Google, through its altruistic side Google.org, announced $10 million in grants to drive developments in Enhanced Geothermal Systems (EGS) technology.
EGS derives energy in a different manner than traditional geothermal systems such as those used in places like Iceland. Traditional geothermal uses naturally occurring steam or hot water. In contrast, with the EGS approach, companies need to drill miles down to regions of heated granite, circulate water down into the well where the water is heated, and then circulate it back up to use this water to drive turbines to generate electricity.
The hot granite needed for EGS is basically available everywhere underground. There are already a handful of small plants in other parts of the world deriving energy using this technology.
A 2007 U.S. Department of Energy study suggests that if this technology were to be pursued on a grand scale, the generating capacity in the United States could be 100 billion watts by 2050. That is about 10 percent of the total generating capacity today, according to the study.
But much work needs to be done to get from the concept stage to fully functional plants. Researchers and government agencies estimate that it would take an investment of about $1 billion spread over 15 years to overcome the technical hurdles and build a large-scale working plant.
Why Google?
The Google grants went to AltaRock Energy, Potter Drilling, and Southern Methodist University Geothermal Lab. They were made as part of Google’s initiative dubbed RE<C, which is an effort to develop renewable energy cheaper than coal.
Google’s interests in this area are part altruistic, part practical. On the altruistic side, Google, like many companies today, wants to be a good corporate citizen by demonstrating social responsibility when it comes to energy use.
On the practical side, Google has been at the forefront when it comes to tackling energy issues associated with data centers. It has examined ways to improve the energy efficiency of the servers used in its data center. And it has built data centers in regions of the Pacific Northwest where the price of electricity was significantly cheaper than other regions of the country due to the abundance of hydroelectric power. (See: “Soaring Power Appetite of Data.”)
According to general information out on the Internet, the RE<C initiative states a target of 3 cents/KW hour, or lower. The total capacity is to be a minimum of 1 Gigawatt installed. However, without any indication as to what the 3 cents is supposed to cover, it becomes virtually impossible to determine some hard facts against which engineering designers could match their own project research results. Should the 3 cents/KW hour ($30 /MW hour) cover just net dispatchable power, or is it to stretch to the opposite extreme and include all usual overheads such as operating costs, plant depreciation, loan amortizations, insurances, State and Federal taxes, regulatory fees, and so on?
Google has not yet responded to our request for clarification of some of these simple but basic facts. Our request was submitted on December 10, 2007; we are now heading towards the end of August, 2008, and we are still waiting. And we have no way of knowing if our technology is capable of achieving RE<C's goal, or not.