Also, I’m not so sure “the depths that would be required in Alberta” are as deep as Moore is suggesting.

Only extra info that I’d mention that isn’t in that report is some news that happened too recently to be included, which is that an EGS project in Basel Switzerland was put on indefinite hold when the rock fracturing process triggered a small earthquake. Geologic stability being another issue which needs to be addressed by research. Though I believe the issue is discussed in the report.

Off shore oil probably worse also.

Of course those are other people being put at risk.

Mind you, I advocate for solar, wind, wave and geothermal more than for nuclear, but I certainly think a lot of people have a very skewed perspective on things when they do risk analysis in their lives… nuclear energy being one of those things that often has an irrationally high fear factor associated with it.

BUt then I’m playing devil’s advocate (no offence, Patrick). None of us seems to know the facts well enough to convincingly crunch the numbers. A sober assessment of the relative merits of each technology is what’s needed, and it sounds like Mr Moore isn’t exactly being part of the solution on that one.

And of course, no matter how pressing our need to cut emmissions, there’s the whole depressing logic that the tar sands are just a drop in the bucket compared to China & the US, who aren’t skipping a beat in their development of new coal generation. So maybe the best thing is to take this opportunity to develop a new, big-energy alternative even if it does (potentially) take a year or two longer. And then, doing geothermal in Alberta would help develop Canadian expertise in a new and exciting field…

So yeah, I’m definitely closer to Tyler’s POV than Moore’s. Dialog is good. I for one am planning to learn more about this geothermal stuff…

I’ll assume you were referring to the MIT report titled “The Future of Geothermal Energy: Impact of Enhanced Geothermal Systems (EGS) on the United States in the 21st Century.” Please correct me if there is another. Given that, I would take a bit of exception to your statement.

“MIT, in a recent study, concluded that geothermal facilities could be up and providing clean power much more quickly than nuclear.”

I’ve viewed, though not read every paragraph in detail, the very long MIT report. I have also now done a search and looked in more detail at all the discussions of nuclear. There certainly is not a blanket statement such as the one you made. The MIT report does make mention of the regulatory and public perception issue of nuclear in the context of the United States, as well as the fact that many US plants are likely to be reaching end of life soon. But citing a study that basically points out regulatory and popular resistance to nuclear as a reason to question someone that is advocating changing popular perception and regulatory regimes seems faulty, circular reasoning.

I would also say that the MIT report is consistent with Moore’s statement that “the harnessing of deep geothermal energy from the Earth’s molten core has yet to be proven effective on a large scale at the depths that would be required in Alberta.” EGS, or what is referred to as hot-dry-rock, is still an experimental technology. Unless there is a unique geologic formation (or suitable abandoned oil wells) exactly where needed, EGS in general requires a very precise fracturing of rock such that the pumped flow of water from an injection well to an extraction well occurs at a precise rate and does not create outward fracturing beyond the targeted formation that results in too much water loss. This is indeed technology still in development, as the hundreds of pages of the MIT report discuss.

The MIT report basically says that with very substantial NEW funding, geothermal COULD be verified at the commercial scale in 10-15 years… verified at several sites around the country but still not widely deployed. From MIT…

“Most of the key technical requirements to make EGS work economically over a wide area of the country are in effect, with remaining goals easily within reach. This achievement could provide performance verification at a commercial scale within a 10- to 15-year period nationwide.”

They specifically state that under their scenario of funding, which has not yet even been proposed legislatively, geothermal would not reach price parity with other base load, including nuclear, until 11 years into the development.

I’m a strong supporter of the proposed geothermal research funding that the MIT report calls for. However, I think using that report to question someone’s call for nuclear development is misusing it. Maybe your point of lower temperature requirements for oil sand extraction, combined with what is already known about the geologic formations below this region, make a compelling argument… but that argument is not made by the MIT report I know of.

I understand and appreciate your view, and agree to a certain extent that Moore’s main concern is that we take action now and stop studying and debating. But this doesn’t mean you blindly take nuclear everywhere when real alternatives exist.

Besides, I’m not so sure nuclear is “off-the-shelf,” particularly when you’re looking at using it in a place like the oil sands. It’s not like AECL has developed an IKEA-style nuclear-plant-in-a-box that comes with self-assembly instructions. This would be a major, multibillion project and would take years even before ground is broken. This is not unlikely what would be required even if we were to explore large-scale use of geothermal in the oil sands, and because of the low temperature requirements, smaller, distributed installations could begin today on a demonstration basis.

Again, I see the need to take immediate action, but there’s nothing immediate about going nuclear. It’s a painfully slow process. And again, geothermal is not experimental. Only its application in the oil sands is new, not unlike the issue facing nuclear. This is why I don’t appreciate Moore trying to stifle discussion of this as a viable alternative.

>>MIT, in a recent study, concluded that geothermal facilities could be up and providing clean power much more quickly than nuclear.< <

How much confidence is there in this sentence? The word “concluded” can refer to different degrees of certainty.

Again, if we’re comparing a very promising but still experimental technology, and an off-the-shelf solution; or if it’s the difference between “considering” and actually doing, then I can see the attraction of nuclear.