Of all the so-called "renewable" energy sources, geothermal has got to
rank as one of the very best and something I've been pushing for a couple
of decades. It is especially attractive since it has such incredible
potential.I suspect the same fracking technology, which has released
incredible amounts of oil/gas from previously underdeveloped fields of fossil
fuels, will be a good way of enhancing and/or creating geothermal energy sources
in places that aren't currently feasible.I hope it happens
I agree that geothermal seems to have the best prospects of the
"renewable" energy sources.This statement however, would
seem to indicate that it too, is not viable without taxpayer subsidies. "To achieve even more dramatic growth, geothermal power needs
continue and predictable federal incentives are needed to spur investors to
undertake the risk of investing in new geothermal projects,"
I'll admit I am a skeptic when it comes to global warming, nevertheless we
should make use of all the clean renewable energy that we can.Why
not make use of Yellowstone and surrounding area for geothermal? Sure there are
drawbacks to doing this, but if global warming is really the biggest problem the
world faces, wouldn't it be worth it? Why aren't believers advocating
this?This would be an inexpensive, clean source of energy that would
make us less dependent on foreign sources of energy and the military costs
associated to keep these sources of energy remain open. A virtually free source
of energy this large would allow us to start paying down our debt without
destroying our economy, something that may be impossible otherwise.
Using Yellowstone would also remove energy before the next supervolcano
explosion. But we cant use it because the environmentalists wont allow
the powere lines within the viewshed or drilling rigs necessary to tap the
gigantic reservoir of hot magma.
Harnessing the geothermal energy in a place like Yellowstone is not so easy. To
get that energy to the larges cities that need it you have to transmit it over
long distances. There is a huge inefficiency in the transmission phase and much
of the energy is lost. This is why we can't power all the major cities in
our country with solar panels in Arizona or windmills in Iowa.
@SMEwe have given incentives and tax breaks to big oils for decades
why should renewable energy be any different.
To "George" the question isn't tax incentives or tax breaks. The
problem is that solar and wind projects get massive subsidies from the
government. The oil companies not only pay corporate income taxes, but also pay
royalty fees for anything they extract. Their effective tax rates are quite high
in comparison to the rest of corporate america.
If its producing .03 of Utah's energy I'd call it an interesting
little sideshow with limited potential. But who knows what might develop? I
only hope the taxpayers aren't put on the hook for the development...Makes
me wonder what the guys on shark tank would say if they were asked for a few
million to develop this?