Why has geothermal technology not been exploited more, surely this would be safer than nuclear?

Question

and would cause no contamination

Answer 1

You can only use it effectively where you don't have to drill too deeply.

As with all other "free" power sources, the amount of power harnessed for the investment involved is tiny. To produce enough power to replace nuclear power stations would cost billions and mean huge areas of land being used for it, assuming you could find an area which would deliver enough heat at a drillable depth.

EDIT: I hope the thumbs up can stay there despite this addition -

Looking at the proposed wave power project in the UK which could really make a difference but will never be built because of "environmental concerns" I simply can't see anywhere you could build it anyway.

I think the price of oil has to quadruple and the Russiand have to triple their gas prices before people are convimced that nuclear power is the only viable answer at the moment.

A glimmer of hope is that small geothermal installations with shallow piping which can heat a house or even a street are becoming affordable, and if some investment was done here it would be worth the extra cost when building new houses.

Answer 2

It's expensive and difficult to develop. Also, not every place is a good candidate for geothermal, since not every place is as geologically active as others, e.g. there are no faults.

And it's really sad that people are afraid of nuclear energy. I took nuclear engineering in my design and analysis class this spring, and it is obvious that the risks associated with nuclear energy can definitely be managed and deep geologic isolation of nuclear waste virtually eliminates concerns about contamination. Plus, when the "fast" aka "breeder" reactors come on line, we will be able to use for energy the stuff that would previously have been considered waste. Neat, huh?

Answer 3

To do it on a large enough scale is fairly expensive, and suffers from almost as many problems as nuclear - radioactive contamination of the water is quite a problem when you heat it geothermally. Also, there are risks such as Radon gas.

Answer 4

1- There are not a lot of places that are geologically suitable for such schemes - Iceland has a geothermal district heating scheme but they are based right over the mid-atlantic ridge so geological conditions are pretty ideal.

2- We have not been very successful with the technology as it is not as easy as it seems. You need to pump water down into a hot source-rock, then pump it back up again in sufficient volumes to capture the energy, then you need to convert the energy into something usefull like electricity. This is really not very easy to do.

Geothermal energy has a lot of potential if we can crack the technology, just as wave power and tidal power have but it is not suitable for everywhere, just as tidal power would be pretty inappropriate for a place 100 miles from the sea.

Answer 5

its expensive 2 set up and hard 2 place due to environmental and development reasons. it is safer but u would get less energy for your money and no1 can b bothered 2 get off there a** and work and put in a little effort 2 help the situation

bring on the thumbs downs.....

xo