> JoeSixPack wrote:
>> It's a bit easier for Iceland to provide energy for it's 300,000 people
>> derived from geothermal sources that are abundant and accessible.
> The geothermal resources of Iceland are not that accessible, you have
> to drill into the earth a fair bit and the best results are likely to
> be realised if you drill to a depth of 5 000 meters.
>> Transferring that process to the 300 million Americans is not worth
>> considering. One private interest tried drilling into geothermal sources
>> near Yellowstone Park, affecting one of the nearby geysers. Much was
>> made
>> of the damage to a national treasure and stiff fines were levied.
> There are sources of geothermal energy elsewhere in the USA as well,
> the state of Washington is probably the one with the largest amount but
> there are other places as well.
In California along the eastern side of the Sierra Nevada mountain range
there are numerous geothermal plants. You can drive down from the upper
plateau and see them periodically along the foothills. Then when you get
down to the high desert you can see Kramer Junction solar thermal parabolic
troughs that generate 300mw. Southern California Edison is said to have
20% renewable now.
>> It's a bit easier for Iceland to provide energy for it's 300,000 people
>> derived from geothermal sources that are abundant and accessible.
> The geothermal resources of Iceland are not that accessible, you have
> to drill into the earth a fair bit and the best results are likely to
> be realised if you drill to a depth of 5 000 meters.
>> Transferring that process to the 300 million Americans is not worth
>> considering. One private interest tried drilling into geothermal sources
>> near Yellowstone Park, affecting one of the nearby geysers. Much was
>> made
>> of the damage to a national treasure and stiff fines were levied.
> There are sources of geothermal energy elsewhere in the USA as well,
> the state of Washington is probably the one with the largest amount but
> there are other places as well.