sign up log in
Want to go ad-free? Find out how, here.

Patrick Watson of Mauldin Economics is excited about the potential of geothermal energy, saying near-unlimited electricity everywhere could enable massive changes

Business / opinion
Patrick Watson of Mauldin Economics is excited about the potential of geothermal energy, saying near-unlimited electricity everywhere could enable massive changes
pw

By Patrick Watson*

You may have noticed higher fuel prices recently. If not, you will soon.

Here in Texas, we’ve had unseasonably hot weather. Temperatures over 100◦ F are normal in summer, but it’s not summer yet. This is stressing our already-challenged electric grid.

Oddly, Texas has more oil and gas reserves than some OPEC countries. We also have a lot of wind and solar power. Yet we still have trouble keeping the lights on.

This is a problem not just for Texans (hundreds of whom died in our 2021 winter blackout) but for Texas businesses, too. Many industrial plants had to close for weeks, losing billions in production.

Nor is it just a Texas problem. It’s a preview of what will happen in other places.

All economic activity is simply energy conversion. The Industrial Revolution happened when we moved beyond muscle and horsepower. Energy is everything. That’s why the current inflation—aggravated by the Russia-Ukraine War—is so harmful.

This bad situation could get much worse if energy goes from being “expensive” to “unavailable at any price.” That’s a real possibility, at least for short periods.

And as any Texan can tell you, even a few days without electricity can be tough.

Source: Pixabay.

Great but not enough

In developed countries like the US, we take modern infrastructure for granted. We think clean, running water is natural. We assume the lights will always come on when we flip the switch.

These are “normal” only because humans made them so, at significant costs. Losing them, even temporarily, is enormously disruptive.

After last year’s winter storm (I described my family’s experience here) I vowed to be better prepared next time. We’ve insulated our water well equipment, added more storage tanks, and rigged a way to catch rainwater from the roof.

On the electric side, my wife and I moved ahead on a solar/battery system we’d been considering for several years. We’ve reached two conclusions:

  1. Solar is great.
  1. Solar isn’t enough.

Since January, our panels produced enough electricity to cover 98% of our usage. Awesome, right? The problem is it’s not 98% every day. Clouds make a big difference. In practice, we still need the grid for about 20% of our electricity.

Financially, the net monthly cost is about the same as the average pre-solar utility bill. The system doesn’t save us much money – though it might in the future if electric rates rise, since the solar cost is fixed. And we have more resilience in grid outages.

Unfortunately, what works for one household isn’t scalable to all. What if everyone had this kind of system?

Well, we would still need a lot of grid generation capacity for those occasional times when usage goes up and solar (or wind) production drops. Keeping all that on standby would be enormously expensive. So as a practical matter, the economy still depends on natural gas and coal-powered electricity.

Setting aside environmental concerns, those fuels are simply getting more expensive. Reliance on them can have geopolitical side effects, too, as Europe is now seeing.

We need better alternatives.

Source: Pixabay.

Better solutions

Oil, natural gas, and coal are “extractive” fuels. We extract deposits from the ground, transport them to the user, and burn them.

Solar and wind are self-replenishing. We don’t consume all the sunlight and then need more. That’s why they’re called “renewable” energy—though they still have limits like weather and darkness.

Many of the problems and expenses of fossil fuels come from geography. Russia and OPEC control so much oil because they control the land above it. Moving fossil fuels around the globe is expensive, too.

Renewable energy bypasses all that—an attractive idea if the cost is the same or lower.

We wouldn’t have to fight over energy if every country had its own unlimited energy deposits. We also wouldn’t need tankers, pipelines, and all the other expensive shipping.

But solar and wind can’t replace fossil fuels. They help a lot—particularly with battery storage—but we still need those other sources to get around the intermittency limit.

The ideal solution would be a renewable energy source that works everywhere, 24/7, without regard to weather conditions. Is there such a thing?

Nuclear energy is one candidate. Newer technologies might be less expensive and solve some of the safety concerns. That would be great.

Another one, less familiar to most folks, is geothermal energy. The earth has plenty of heat we could use to produce electricity. It’s only 10 to 12 miles below your feet, too.

Drilling that deep with current technology is difficult. For now, you see geothermal only in volcanically active places like Iceland or Hawaii’s Big Island, where the heat is closer to the surface.

A group at Massachusetts Institute of Technology might be close to solving this problem, though. They are working on a microwave drill bit that vaporizes rock, making shafts deep enough to reach the earth’s unlimited heat source.

In theory, that should work almost anywhere. Energy companies could even drill adjacent to existing natural gas and coal-fired power plants, retrofitting them to use the geothermal heat.

People usually exaggerate when they talk about “world-changing” technologies. This one might really do it, though. Near-unlimited electricity everywhere would enable massive changes. Seawater desalination, for instance, could solve many of our water problems.

As for transportation, inexpensive electricity could generate clean hydrogen to power cars, planes, trains, and ships.

That wouldn’t just help with climate change; it would fundamentally reorder the global economy. And it could happen in your lifetime.

Meanwhile, though, we’re still going to need fossil fuels for at least a few more years. And we’ll still have to deal with their problems—which are more than just environmental.


*Patrick Watson is senior economic analyst at Mauldin Economics. This article is from a regular Mauldin Economics series called Connecting the Dots.  It first appeared here, and is used by interest.co.nz with permission.

We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.

Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.

35 Comments

Technohopium at its finest. The deepest hole drilled thus far is 12.2km (7.58miles) in the former Soviet Union. That feat took 20 years to achieve. In another 20 years we'll be well down the other side of the Hubbert Curve, so I hope we start these microwave boreholes soon to be able to use our current fossil fuel stocks to transition to this hopium fuel source. Unlimited free energy is a nice thought but I'd rather place my bets on using less, consuming less, preparing for a more local existence, and doing less 'stuff'. 

If it turns out I was wrong and I can drill 12 miles down under my house to get hot water for my shower then I'll be the first to eat my hat but I think my hat is safe.

Up
9

... you want a side order of fries or a small green salad with that hat , sir ? ... 'cos I'm going with the glass half full team , and reckon these guys need our 100 % backing to see their microwave drilling technology to its successful conclusion ...

And here in NZ , we have abundant geothermal potential  , even under our southern alps  ...

... Fantastic ! 

Up
6

High temperature heat pumps have the potential to turn lower grade geothermal heat to higher temps for industrial use. 

Perhaps solar panels on the hats , and reducing that side order to something less than would feed a 3rd world family for a week would help too.  

Edit : I had not read that today's shooting was in Texas when I wrote this , so apologise if anyone finds poking a bit of fun today offensive or tasteless due to that .  

Up
1

Whatever your glass is half full of, you might like to use it to wash down the lab-grown meat we're all apparently going to be eating in order to save the environment without the need to make any personal sacrifices or changes to our way of life.

And if that doesn't work, never fear; we have another lot working on genetically engineered gut bacteria so that cows don't fart and burp as much. We'll be feeding them all on seaweed too, so no need for those nasty fossil-fuel-derived nitrates anymore!

Bush Sr. once said "the American way of life is non-negotiable". This is true, but not in the way he meant it. The limits we're running up against are not able to be negotiated, and reality will dictate terms to us. Once fossil fuels are gone, the world - and our lifestyles - are going to look a lot different by necessity. There's no engineering our way around it.

Up
3

Well put.

Regardless of how it is sourced, electricity doesn't do much of what fossil energy does, and runs into other resource constraints (build another grid-and-a-half, anyone?) en route. And there is the small matter of surplus energy vs triage, vs lead-time.

It's not so much that the glass is half anything; it's that the bottom has a hole in it......

Up
1

Quick and dirty calculation:

Assuming a round hole, r = 1m, 10km deep, volume: 31416M3
Density of Silicon Dioxide: ~2400kg/m3
Specific Heat: ~700J/kg.k
Energy required to raise it to about 3000c (boiling point of SiO2): ~160TJ (158996004198179)

Equivalent to 5MW power output over an entire year.

Not accounting for minor details like:
Microwave to heating efficiency
Heat loss to surrounding
How to extract the hot hot SiO2 gas
Reflected microwave killing everyone involved in the drilling
etc, etc...

My guess is this is microwave weapons research painted a shade of green.
 

Up
3

I would have thought the technology was based around heating fissures or cracks in the rock , to cause ruputres , rather than melting the rock as such . but not something i would want near our faultlines.  

 

Up
0

Being Texas , no mention of using less.

Hell , downsizing the average truck (large SUV/ UTE) to our size ones would probably save more energy than a dozen geothermal plants produce. 

Up
4

... the love their giant SUV's ... but , those beasts will run perfectly  well on hydrogen ... ahhhhhh... clean green hydrogen , sweet  ...

Up
3

Your right, solar has a poor payback period - especially in NZ

In NZ solar is much more expensive to install than other countries overall, I've had quotes for a 5KW system that was in the realm of $11K to $14K

In AU a similar system would cost between A$4.6K and A$5.6K which is 30-40% less

https://gosolarquotes.com.au/cost/5kw-solar-system/#:~:text=5kWh%20sola….

However, it you have a battery then most solar salespeople say " solar charges your battery and you use it at night" makes sense for early evening when people use a lot of power - but what about the morning? when people have showers and there is high power demand at home while there is low solar generation and they are at work?

If you want the most from your solar + battery system you need a smart BMS AND night/ day power tariffs...

You can then use what you generate during the day when it's the most expensive + charge your battery during the day + use battery power in the early evening + re-charge your battery overnight using night tariffs to supply the power for the high-demand/ low solar generation period in the morning

Up
3

In NZ solar is much more expensive to install than other countries overall, I've had quotes for a 5KW system that was in the realm of $11K to $14K

That must be with a battery. Doesn't cost that much for a 5KW without one.

Up
1

No, I got 2 quotes for 3.6 and 4.1kw systems grid tied solar and came back with $10.1K and $13.3K back in 2018, prices may have dropped a little since then but still in the ballpark

Up
0

Ah, I see. We put in 5KW for just under $10k.

Up
0

Good luck with solar you need to massively over spec the system to carry on "As normal" compared to the grid. Hell in New Zealand you cannot even keep the garden solar lights charged, we get multiple days in a row where your going to get next to zilch out of those panels. Yes you can have a great setup but its all about the cost and the payback simply is still not there yet. Once you go LED lighting, heatpump, gas cooking, never use the oven unless its to keep a pre-cooked roast chicken and a plate warm the solar payback simply is not there and if you sell the house you cannot take it all with you. I think if you first try and use less, half the problems in the world would be sorted overnight.

Up
1

Solar payback is great in my Passive House where everything is electric. Total electric bill is $300/year and that includes running an EV.

Up
3

Yes Kiwimm.  I have a 6kw system, no battery, grid tied, on wellbuilt house with high solar gain.  Thus very low electricity users.

Bills mostly $30-40 a month.

Send about 3-4 times as much electricity out the gate as comes in. 

About to add another say 4kw panels and a small battery.   Maybe $10K.

No electric cars yet but will come. Capital cost and rarely change cars anyway.

About to sign up with "Our Energy" and then get my head around how to use my own power in the other house I own and a didtant water pump we have. 

 

 

Up
0

We have spent south of 7k on our system over 17 years, no 'bill' for that time. Started with generator at $30 a month, never use it nowadays. 3 arrays, all modest, total under a kilowatt. Passive solar house (currently 20deg, no artificial heating, external 5deg and dropping). Firewood other. E bikes and bus - the car does 1-3 trips/week.

I find it interesting that the writer is thinking like this - in terms of energy underwriting economics. Big step forward.

Up
2

Play it again Sam.

Up
1

sp

Up
0

Sam, I said again... not continuously.

Up
1

dp

Up
0

Stop It !!!

Up
1

tp

Up
0

Go to your room !!!

Up
2

Commercial install costs are a bit better - running around $1600/kw with acceptable payback periods given the rising energy tariffs especially for those businesses that can consume 100% of their own generation

But as a country we could be doing more in the geothermal space especially if we want to manufacture hydrogen for the likes of heavy transport 

Up
3

But that would involve foresight, ability, capability and, shudder, touching the ENVIRONMENT....

We can't go doing that in any meaningful way in this country unless its a irrigation scheme for cow toilets. 

Up
0

By the time we're down to such terrible EROEI options, we aren't trading, so forget the trucks.

https://surplusenergyeconomics.wordpress.com/

(note Fig 10)

Up
1

Yes , solar for commercial has good payback.

Combined with peak use management , which would reduce the avaliability charges a commercial user would pay (and benefit the grid), payback would be very good.  

Up
0

I can imagine major headwinds in developing a microwave that can vaporize rocks.

 

Something similar to the problem of developing laser weapons to destroy artillery. These 'tools' tend to destroy themselves quite quickly as well.

Even domestic microwaves come with a warning not to operate them when empty for the same reason. The energy has to go somewhere. If there's no food to absorb it then it ultimately feeds back into the workings of the microwave and destroys itself.

Up
0

How about incentivising solar for private homeowners so that they can supply power back to the grid during the peak usage of industry?

i.e. decentralised and localised supply with lower overall line losses?

Up
1

First what you have to do is educate people on why they're not getting 25c/ kWh for their feed in tariff. In my experience it's too hard or it doesn't meet their expectations so they refuse to listen.

Up
0

I have just been to a drop in held by our electrical lines supplier, Aurora. Our fixed monthly price for their services is going to leap up. The other portions of our power bills will all be doing the same. I am looking to go solar, but on the grid. The excess power I generate and do not use, I sell to whoever supplies power, which saves them emptying the lake, and when I need more than I produce, I get it off them, and they run through the water I had saved them previously. If we all do that, then possibly we can stop importing Indonesian coal, for crying out loud. At the least we will only pay a part of our previous bills, and if we live in the right areas we can run it at a profit. The way inflation is taking off, it will become easier and easier to financially justify solar systems. Also, if electricity was charged out correctly, those who live further away from power sources would pay for the electricity lost in pushing it through the wires. At present it is subidized by the users who live close. That is why Bitcoin generators are looking at putting premises near power sources to negotiate an electricity price more closely related to the cost of supplying a large close user. A la Tiwai Point smelter, which pays 1.5-2cents a kwh. At a profit for the supplier.

On the other topic, in NZ we won't need to drill down very far at all to find warm enough rock to use for extracting energy and transferring it to the surface. Our geothermal heat is way closer to the surface than in Texas.

Up
1

yes, solar in the day to save hydro for peak  morning / evenings. Make sense to save the coal.

But you understand "If we all do that"  your per unit lines charges are going to go through the roof?   You are taking away demand for most of the day, but then during peak demand periods (winter morning and evening when solar is not producing) you still demand the same as always.  So the peaks are much peakier relative to base load.

Up
0

lines companies will hopefully response with much more dramatic peak/shoulder/off-peak charges, and solar people will then be incentivied to install a small battery that supplies a couple of hours power for the evening and morning peak (switching to 100% grid in the evening off peak period)

Until everyone gets electric cars, then there will be no such thing as off peak evening, we wont have enough hydro, and we'll be back to importing coal.

Up
0

Technology is here / coming that would allow much better load management. But it would require investment and education. Load shedding , timed charging / heating , with spot pricing to local areas by time of day and load . you could go on using power willy nilly ,  but you will pay more , or you can let the smart appliances / controls use the power when it is cheapest . In an area with lots of solar , theat may be the middle of the day . 

People will get used to electric cars, and the range anxiety  will lessen , the car doesn't  need to be charged every day in most cases . 

The National grid needs up grading regardless. 

Up
0