←back to thread

160 points riordan | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.831s | source
Show context
hodgehog11 ◴[] No.45954362[source]
I've always been curious why a cost-effective widespread implementation of geothermal energy has never been considered a holy grail of energy production, at least not in the public debate. Much of the discussion is so focussed on nuclear fusion, which seems so much harder and less likely to be reliable.
replies(11): >>45954476 #>>45954489 #>>45954493 #>>45954510 #>>45954566 #>>45954710 #>>45954804 #>>45955903 #>>45956518 #>>45957024 #>>45959700 #
1. xienze ◴[] No.45954476[source]
Probably because not everywhere on earth has the same easy access that Iceland has. The article mentions this:

> There aren’t gates of Hell just anywhere. A kilometre below ground in Kamchatka is considerably hotter than a kilometre below ground in Kansas. There is also readily accessible geothermal energy in Kenya (where it provides almost fifty per cent of the country’s energy), New Zealand (about twenty per cent), and the Philippines (about fifteen per cent)—all volcanic areas along tectonic rifts. But in less Hadean landscapes the costs and uncertainties of drilling deep in search of sufficient heat have curtailed development.

replies(1): >>45960959 #
2. kragen ◴[] No.45960959[source]
It also explains why this is no longer a problem.