Star of Coconut Fish Curry Thrives in Modern Climate

By Vijay Jayaraj

Amidst the serene backwaters of Alleppey in Southern India, where emerald waters weave through coconut groves, there emerges a dish that embodies the soul of coastal India – Fish Moilee.  A representation of India’s maritime bounty, the dish is a golden-hued masterpiece of silky-smooth coconut cream, tender fish and fragrant spices simmered to perfection.

The star of the show, however, is the fish. India, like many countries, is blessed with vast expanses of marine waters. The main ones are the Indian Ocean, Bay of Bengal and Arabian Sea. Growing up surrounded by saltwater on three sides, I was always fascinated with the culture of fisheries that sustain the livelihoods of 30 million Indians.

Today, fishing is thriving in the subcontinent. Fish landings are robust, aquaculture is booming, and the data pour cold water on the overheated rhetoric of environmental collapse. Let’s dive into the numbers and the science that prove the fish aren’t succumbing to a warm climate. They’re adapting to it.

Exactly ten years ago, I was a postgraduate researcher at the University of British Columbia’s fisheries center, where I was primarily tasked with understanding the evolutionary genetics of marine life and various thresholds of adaptations to varying environments, especially climate change.

Contrary to the media drumbeat of apocalypse, I found that fishes are highly resilient and facing no crisis from climatic variations. In its 2024 report on “The State of World Fisheries and Agriculture,” the United Nation’s Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) states that “fisheries and aquaculture production reached an all-time high of 223.2 million metric tons (in 2022), worth a record $472 billion.”

The U.S. East Coast and Gulf of America witnessed modest and selective increases in fish landings during 2022 and 2023. The data show “capture fisheries production has remained largely unchanged for decades” despite reported concerns about climate change.

Fishes caught in the wild and produced in aquaculture “constituted about 15% of the animal protein supply, reaching over 50% in several countries in Asia and Africa.”

This is great news given how malnutrition and protein deficiency kill millions of children and adults each year. In 2023, India’s marine fish landings reached 3.55 million metric tons, up from 2022’s 3.51 million tons and a whopping surge of nearly 16% from 2021’s 3.06 million tons.

And there will be no shortage in the future. Global “aquatic animal production is expected to increase by 10% by 2032 to reach 205 million tons,” with aquaculture expansion and capture fisheries accounting for most of the rise in production.

Climate change, we were told, will make fish farming impossible: Warmer waters breed disease, disrupt breeding cycles and turn ponds into dead zones. Yet, the FAO reports that aquaculture is growing in tropical regions like Southeast Asia and India, where temperatures are already high.

Warm water species like sardines and anchovies – backbones of India’s catch – thrive in temperatures that would make a polar cod blanch. India’s tropical waters, averaging 77 – 80 degrees Fahrenheit, are a sweet spot for these stocks, and 2023’s landings bear that out.

In the states of Andhra Pradesh and Kerala, brackish water shrimp farming is a gold mine, with exports raking in billions. Farmers aren’t wringing their hands over CO2; they’re tweaking feed, monitoring water quality and breeding hardier strains.

So why the endless dirge about dying oceans? It’s not about evidence; it’s about ideology. Alarmism gets clicks, grants and political clout. Stories about “fishless seas by 2048” ignore recovery trends and push alarmism. Activists amplify the noise, cherry-picking data to push anti-fishing agendas.

Yes, oceans face challenges. But the narrative of inevitable collapse serves neither science nor society. It distracts from solvable problems like plastic waste and habitat destruction, while demonizing carbon dioxide, which is greening Earth and enriching aquatic food chains.

India’s delicious coconut fish curry is representative not of climate despair but of nature’s fecundity – a reminder that human ingenuity and nature’s resilience can coexist. As global fisheries break records, let us replace fear with facts, and apocalyptic rhetoric with actionable stewardship. The fish, it seems, are doing just fine.

This commentary was first published at [your]NEWS on April 9, 2025.

Vijay Jayaraj is a Science and Research Associate at the CO2 Coalition, Arlington, Virginia. He holds an M.S. in environmental sciences from the University of East Anglia and a postgraduate degree in energy management from Robert Gordon University, both in the U.K., and a bachelor’s in engineering from Anna


Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

via Watts Up With That?

https://ift.tt/SQGc3VP

April 11, 2025 at 04:09PM

Burning Ember – Part Two

It is two years since I reviewed the BBC’s enthusiastic narrative around Ember’s Global Electricity Review 2023. I don’t know what happened last year or how and why I missed it, but with the release of Ember’s latest review it’s time to take another look.

As I pointed out two years ago, Ember are a campaigning organisation with an agenda, though the BBC preferred to describe them as “energy analysts”. Whilst technically true, to refer to them thus without adding in the fact that they are heavily invested in the climate crisis narrative, as are many of their funders, the BBC description might be considered a little economical with the truth. This time round the BBC has chosen to describe Ember as a “think-tank”. I take little, if any, issue with the BBC report, the headline to which (“Clean energy’s share of world’s electricity reaches 40%, report says”) accurately and non-sensationally summarises the main point Ember seeks to make in its report. Bizarrely, Reuters’ version runs with a headline which doesn’t seem to be accurate: “Renewables provided record 32% of global electricity in 2024, Ember says”).

Unusually too, the Guardian’s report is perhaps a little less enthusiastic than I might have expected, and even contains some downbeat commentary:

Overall, solar power remains a relatively small part of the global energy system. It made up almost 7% of the world’s electricity last year, according to Ember, while wind power made up just over 8% of the global power system.

The fast-growing technologies remain dwarfed by hydro power, which has remained relatively steady in recent years, and made up 14% of the world’s electricity in 2024.

And:

…Ember had previously predicted that 2023 would be the year in which emissions from electricity reached a peak, after a plateau in the first half of the year.

Climate experts hoped then that emissions would begin to fall, but a series of heatwaves across the globe ignited a surge in demand for electricity to power air conditioning and refrigeration systems, which caused fuel electricity to grow by 1.4% that year.

The report, which accounted for 93% of the global electricity market across 88 countries, found that the surge in demand pushed emissions from the global power sector up by 1.6% to an all-time high last year.

And a look at Ember’s report confirms that things aren’t going quite so well as Ember’s previous reports might have led us to believe would be the case, and the Guardian’s downbeat information is confirmed by the report:

In 2024, global fossil generation increased by 245 TWh (+1.4%) – comparable to the increases of 246 TWh in 2023 and 201 TWh in 2022. This rise in fossil generation led to a 1.6% increase in global power sector emissions (+223 million tonnes of CO2), which reached a record high of 14.6 billion tonnes of CO2. However, Ember’s analysis shows that fossil generation rose primarily as a result of hotter temperatures compared to 2023.

I love that. Blame it on the heat. Ember claimed that these emissions should have peaked by now, they believe that climate change means it’s getting hotter, but when emissions didn’t peak as expected, it’s because it’s, er, getting hotter, as expected. Then we get what’s pretty much a re-run of their findings two years ago. The reality is that nothing’s changing:

The world’s three largest power consumers – China, India and the US – saw an increase in fossil generation in 2024, while the world’s fourth largest, the EU, saw a decline.

China was still the country with the largest increase in fossil generation, but – despite the impacts of heatwaves – 2024’s growth of 116 TWh was less than a third of its 2023 increase (+367 TWh) and only half its average annual increase over the last five years (+218 TWh).

India’s fossil generation grew by 67 TWh in 2024, significantly lower than the 124 TWh increase recorded in 2023 and the country’s lowest increase since the rebound after the Covid-19 pandemic.

Actually, one thing is changing. Growing demand for fossil fuels in the USA can be added to the ongoing demand in (inter alia) China and India:

Driven by a rise in electricity demand, the US also saw an increase in fossil generation (+34 TWh) in 2024. Gas generation rose significantly, as coal saw a moderate fall. This represents a rebound from 2023 which saw a year-on-year decline in fossil generation amid falling demand. US gas generation growth was equivalent to 57% of the global increase in gas generation in 2024. Despite record clean electricity growth, the US has now recorded an increase in fossil generation in three out of the last four years.

Ember is massively enthusiastic about the potential for solar and battery storage to transform the situation and to enable renewables to continue to grow at a rapid rate. And they may well be correct in this, but the problem is while some of the developed world (probably no longer including the USA) seeks to “decarbonise”, this necessarily involves greater electricity demand, which the growth in renewables will struggle to meet. More to the point, perhaps, there is a growing global demand for more energy, which is higher than previously forecast (isn’t it always?):

The International Energy Agency’s (IEA) current outlooks for future electricity demand envisage higher levels of demand growth than was previously expected. The IEA’s STEPS scenario released in October 2024 forecasts annual demand growth of 3.3% between 2023 and 2030, higher than the 2.7% growth they forecast in 2023 between 2022 and 2030. The upgrade to 3.3% annual growth equates to an additional 1,687 TWh of annual electricity demand by 2030, with the IEA citing increased expectations for demand from data centres as well as increased power usage for cooling, alongside electric mobility and light industrial consumption.

More recent analyses point to even faster growth. In February 2025, the IEA published a a short-term forecast for the years 2025-2027, in which total generation is expected to increase by an average of 3.7% annually.

Ember also highlights uncertainties with regard to expectations of demand growth and with regard to renewables’ ability to meet the growing demand (they continue to believe it will, even though their past predictions in this regard have consistently proved to be wrong). This little snippet is particularly interesting:

Weather conditions can also impact the supply of clean generation: wind and hydro conditions in 2024 were both below the long-term average. If global weather conditions in 2024 had been in line with the five-year average, wind generation would have been 3.7% higher (+92 TWh) and hydro generation would have been 2% higher (+86 TWh). How these factors interact in the coming years will significantly determine the scale of fossil generation declines.

If, as some believe, hydropower will be constrained by more frequent droughts, and wind power will be constrained by declining wind speeds, then Ember’s optimistic outlook will prove once again to be too optimistic. It will also cast doubt on the wisdom of continuing to hurtle down the renewables road. Indeed, in Europe last year, wind generation struggled:

Wind generation growth was more modest in Europe in 2024 than in 2023, with Germany and France seeing falls of 4 and 5 TWh respectively. Although capacity additions continued in 2024 in these countries, less favourable wind conditions than in 2023 led to lower-than-expected generation.

I have to keep reminding myself that the Ember report is about the sources of electricity generation, and the levels of electricity generated and predicted to be generated, rather than about fossil fuel emissions generally. And so, while it is – with reason – hugely enthusiastic about the significant growth in renewables in China and India, the fact remains that this is not having the effect of preventing increased fossil fuel use in both of those countries:

India’s electricity demand has tripled in the last two decades, while China’s has quadrupled. Fast paced clean electricity deployment is now breaking a long-term trend, as fossil generation is no longer growing at the same rate as electricity demand. This decoupling is happening because a growing share of demand growth is being met by an expansion of clean sources rather than fossil generation.

It would be truly astonishing (and terrifying for those who believe in a climate crisis caused by humankind’s use of fossil fuels) if the demand for fossil fuels was growing as quickly in China and India as their demand for electricity is growing. Yet the fact remains that demand for fossil fuels is increasing in both of those countries, with a view to generating electricity and for use other than with regard to generating electricity. For instance, the International Energy Agency (not my favourite source for information, but one which can be relied on not to downplay the success of renewables) tells us that in 2022 coal generated 61% of China’s total energy supply, while oil supplied 17.9% and natural gas supplied 7.8%. It also tells us that in 2022 coal generated 46% of India’s total energy supply, oil supplied 20.4% and natural gas supplied 5%. And while the Asia Natural Gas & Energy Association might be just as agenda-driven as Ember, it tells us:

India faces a significant challenge to transition to a low carbon energy future. The world’s sixth largest economy is still dependent on fossil fuels for more than 88% of its primary energy needs.

India overtook China as the world’s most populous country in 2023 and its energy consumption is forecast to nearly double by 2040. The steep growth curve reflects a continued rise in energy needs per capita as wealth grows with development. Currently, India’s per capita energy use is around one third of the global average.

The country has the world’s fifth largest reserves of coal which continues to dominate the country’s primary energy mix (55%), mainly used for power generation – coal supplied more than 75 per cent of India’s electricity in 2023.

Do we trust S&P Global to be completely disinterested and to offer more accurate forecasts than Ember? I don’t know, but they don’t have a particularly optimistic outlook with regard to fossil fuel emissions in 2025. This (“2025 Energy Outlook: Surging primary demand to outpace clean energy growth”) was written just four months ago:

Global primary energy demand is set to rise by over 8 million barrels of oil equivalent per day in 2025, outstripping clean energy growth and increasing greenhouse gas emissions…

The outlook identifies 10 key themes to track, leading with the re-election of Donald Trump as US President and ranging from the impact of data centers on power demand to the possible peaking of global gasoline demand….

….An anticipated surge in primary demand is not matched by clean energy supply, leading to an expected rise in fossil fuel consumption by over 3 million boe/d, the outlook says.

This imbalance will likely push CO2 emissions to new heights, albeit at the smallest increase rate since the pandemic, it says.

“While the supply of clean energy is growing faster than it ever has in history (over 5 million boe/d), it is not yet fast enough to curtail the growth in fossil fuel demand, let alone displace existing fossil fuel consumption,” it says….

The reference to President Trump is intriguing. Four months on, with the markets in tariff-driven turmoil, I wonder if their analysis has altered? If the developed world (especially the USA) buys solar panels from China in smaller numbers than to date, will manufacturing in Europe and the US step up to the plate, or will the rapid growth of solar go into decline everywhere except in China?

India is certainly investing in renewables, but still we find this (within the Ember report):

India’s coal-fired power generation also continued to rise, almost doubling from 2012 (787 TWh) to 2024 (1,534 TWh). In 2018, India overtook the US to become the second-largest coal generator, and now has more than twice the coal generation of the US.

As a result, power sector emissions continue to rise, reaching 1,457 MtCO2 in 2024. This makes India the world’s third-largest power sector emitter, although emissions per capita remain well below the global average.

In any event, the bottom line remains that for all the growth of renewables in generating electricity globally, electricity as a proportion of global energy isn’t growing very quickly at all. To the best of my knowledge we await a 2025 review of World Energy in 2024 by the Energy Institute, but we do have the 2024 review of the 2023 statistics. This tells us that:

Total primary energy consumption increased by 2% over its 2022 level, 0.6% above its ten-year average and over 5% above its 2019 pre-COVID level.

Fossil fuel consumption as a percentage of primary energy dropped 0.4% to 81.5%.

…consumption of crude oil broke through the 100 million barrels per day level for the first time ever and coal demand beat the previous year’s record level.

Ember’s conclusions are the same as in previous years (remember that their track record for making predictions isn’t great). I love the whistling in the dark to keep their spirits up, given that fossil fuels continue to be used to generate more electricity than ever, while fossil fuel use as a proportion of primary energy is declining at a rate that suggests we will still be using fossil fuels in large amounts in 2100, never mind 2050:

Any near-term increases in fossil fuel generation should not be mistaken for failure of the energy transition. As we pass the tipping point where clean generation structurally outpaces demand growth, any changes to fossil fuel generation over the short-term will mostly reflect fluctuations in weather, as seen in 2024 with the impacts of heatwaves. But while changes in fossil generation in the short-term may be noisy, the direction and ultimate destination are unmistakable. The global energy transition is no longer a question of if, but how fast.

Of course it’s possible that they may be correct, but since to date they usually aren’t, my money is on their conclusions proving to be hopelessly optimistic. I’ll try to remember to re-visit the subject this time next year.

via Climate Scepticism

https://ift.tt/KBN8sy6

April 11, 2025 at 03:02PM

Geothermal electricity generation

by Chris Morris

Geothermal power stations are mature technology with proven performance, reliable operation and ideal for baseload generation. The units are synchronous, so they support the grid.  The production from them is considered by most to be renewable. They do not use fossil fuels to provide the heat. It is not “carbon free”, but no generation truly is. It has a relatively small footprint, environment harm is low, and it can coexist with farming or industrial development. Most developments have a cheaper energy cost than onshore wind, using published accounts for analysis. For countries or areas where the resource is there, geothermal generation is very viable.

The resource

Geothermal power stations are very much a niche generation source (only about 15GW worldwide,  from 673 units at 198 fields according to Google), totally dependent on locality. They are mainly associated with plate boundaries, particularly the Pacific Ring of Fire. Compare the plate boundaries and volcanic activity in Figure 1 with station locations in Figure  2

Associated with the plate boundaries and other weak points in the earth’s crust, the deep underlying heat in the mantle can find its way to the surface easier. “Bubbles” of magma can push up to relatively shallow depths. These may force their way to the actual surface as volcanoes with their lava. With the distortion and earth movement from this activity, the crust’s rock formations are deformed and cracked – earthquakes.  Groundwater can enter all the fault cracking in the rocks. This will be heated up by the hot magma, even if that has solidified.

Geothermal resources exploited for power production are the plumes of hot water formed from the heating of this deep groundwater. In geologic terms, such convection systems are short lived – generally lasting between 200 and 450 thousand years. They end because the heat source has gone or the cracking has been filled by precipitated minerals from the circulating water as it cools. The world is full of solidified magma (granite) and prehistoric geothermal systems. Many of the latter are now mined for gold and other precious materials.

Fig 1                 A simplified map of the Pacific mid-ocean spreading ridge, the plates, the subducting trenches and the volcanoes in the Pacific Ring of Fire. The named active volcanoes are the famous ones. In reality, and depending on how you define geologically active or what is part of the ring (Antarctica? Indonesia?), there are around 500

Fig 2     The localities of geothermal power stations around the world. There are sometimes many plant associated with one dot like New Zealand or Indonesia. They are a combination of conventional separated water steam turbines and binary plants

At a conceptual level, geothermal resources generally comprise four main components: a heat source, a fluid filled permeable rock structure (reservoir), a near impermeable cap, and surface features. The heat source comprises a localised body of molten or hot rock deep in the crust. This body heats deep circulating groundwater – in this context, deep is generally greater than 6 km. The resulting buoyancy causes the hot water to rise towards the surface through the cracked rock as a plume.

As the water is heated up, it dissolves rock. This enlarges the size of cracks, enhancing permeability (the interconnectedness of voids allowing fluid to flow through). At 300°C, gold is soluble. The water rises up cracks in hot rocks towards the shallow section of the crust, maybe less than 3 km deep. As the water is cooled nearer the surface (less than 500 m depth), the minerals in it precipitate and alter the structure of surface rocks. Sandstones and particularly mudstones can easily be turned to clay and have naturally low permeability. These actions form a cap on the reservoir. Inevitably, some of the geothermal reservoir fluid or heat leaks past the alteration cap to the surface, forming hot springs, geysers and the like.

Geoscientists locate conventional geothermal resources by mapping surface features and measuring the geophysical properties. The rock at the top of the reservoir has low earth resistance compared to the cold surrounding rock. The geothermal fields that exist are often shown by those boundaries (Figure 3). Wells drilled inside the boundary will be hot, but may not have permeability. Wells drilled outside it will be cold.

Fig 3     A map of the Wairakei Tauhara geothermal field with its limits defined by the earth resistance boundary. The map is out of date. There is an extra station at the Huka site and a new one about 2km east of there will more wells for both.

 The dissolved mineral concentrations in the resource are dependent on the temperature and rocks the water flows through. Typically, the major component is salt, but there is also silica. There are dissolved gases, mainly CO2 but some hydrogen sulphide. There will also be environmental nasties like arsenic and mercury. At the boundaries of the plume where the fluid is cooled, the minerals will precipitate out. These effectively seal the hot region from the surrounding rock. The salty fluid gives that very distinctive low earth resistance helps define the size of the resource.

Extracting the resource

Into these prospects, wells are drilled using oil & gas rigs but modified for the hot conditions and pressurised water. The wells generally have larger diameter production casings (200mm or bigger) and are open hole below the casing shoe, which is set below the cap rock and at the top of the hot zone. When the valves on the wells are opened, they can discharge the geothermally heated water. (Figure 4)

Figure 4            A modern drilling rig capable of drilling a 3km deep deviated well, a schematic of the drilling operation and a vertical discharge of a new well to blow all the drill chips and debris out of the hole before the well can be hooked up to pipelines. The discharge from this well was about 50% boiling water

To understand how this fluid can be used, it is necessary to understand the thermodynamics, particularly enthalpy – the practical engineering side, not the theory.   Enthalpy is the heat content of the fluid but it also relates to the phase (water/ steam), the temperatures and pressures. The temperature at which water boils changes with pressure; the saturation line. However, one has to add a lot of heat to get from just boiling water to dry steam (no water present) At sea level, this is about seven times as much as to get it from ice water up to boiling. If the heat content is between these two points at a given pressure, the fluid is a mixture- two phase. As the boiling pressure rises, the heat and density difference between the hot water and dry steam at that temperature decreases. Conversely, below atmospheric pressure, it diverges.  If the temperature of steam is above the saturation line, it is superheated. When the temperature and pressures are high enough, there is no difference between the physical properties of steam and water – the critical point.  Both of those conditions aren’t relevant for existing geothermal. Almost all the work is in the difficult two phase region. Note one can change water to steam and vice versa just by changing the pressure, without adding or taking away heat.

Most geothermal plants in the world run on separated steam as the deep fluid is hot water (>220°C) at very high pressure. As the fluid comes up the well bore, the pressure drops and steam flashes off so the two phase mixture at the surface is both steam and water. Steam mass fraction depends on enthalpy and wellhead pressure but is typically 20-30%.  This steam has to be separated from the water in surface plant before it can be used. It is done in cyclone separators (Figure 5).  The reason it needs separation is two phase fluid is very difficult to deal with. The flow regime is unpredictable. Pipelines carrying the steam water mix are subject to heavy shock loading, even in normal operation.  It is easier to separate into its component parts and deal with each separately.

The steam out of separators is always just below saturation line as they are not 100% efficient. There is no energy available to superheat it. To remove the mineralised carryover water in the steam, the practice is to use the long pipelines from separators to station. This allows gravity separation or condensation, then removal of the water at special drains. Modern practice is to build separators closer to stations, spray in clean water to wash the steam, and dry the steam in a scrubber using centrifugal force to fling the water to the walls for drainage and discharge.

Fig 5     This is how the cyclone separators work for geothermal fluid and their actual physical size nowadays. Each of the vessels is rated for about 400t/h steam flow  at 5bg.

To improve plant efficiency for high temperature resources, the separated water can be passed through a control valve to a lower pressure (Figure 6). The steam that is flashed off can be separated and fed into either another turbine, or a port part way through the main turbine (Figures 7 & 8)

Fig 6     A simplified process flow diagram for a cascading triple flash system feeding three pressures of steam into a turbine. This is what is at geothermal stations like Ngawapurua and Tauhara

Because of environmental concerns about the heavily mineralised separated water and to minimise the deep pressure decline of the resource, the hot (90-130°C) separated water is reinjected. This is done into dedicated wells located at the field margins. The ideal site is somewhere with a deep pressure communication with the resource but not close enough to quench the hot fluid. The industry rule of thumb is the water should stay underground for at least six months before being discharged. In that time, it should have been heated up enough by the rock it passes through not to affect the production enthalpy.

The water is generally supersaturated with minerals, particularly silica. That will precipitate in pipelines and wells, clogging them up.  To stop this happening, the water is acidified.  

At some fields, the pressure decline has allowed a steam pocket and two phase zone to form above the liquid and under the cap rock. Relatively shallow wells can be drilled into this, giving higher enthalpy, even dry steam discharges.

Steam Turbines

Most of the geothermal power stations use steam driven turbines.  They are proven technology. There is only one moving part, the rotor. They are very reliable. A station I work at operates some turbines that have done over 450k running hours and much of their componentry is still original. However, because the steam is only saturated (not superheated) at the inlet, the design details are significantly different to those on conventional boiler plant.

 A turbine is just a heat engine, where some of the enthalpy in pressurised steam is converted to velocity as it passes through a narrow nozzle to a region of lower pressure. This high velocity steam hits the blade of a rotor, forcing it to rotate. The heat energy has been converted to rotational energy. The slowed steam is expanded again (another enthalpy drop) for more energy extraction. The steam temperature drops with pressure but the enthalpy drop makes the steam wetter. Power output is proportional to mass flowrate and enthalpy change. If the turbine was running on compressed air rather than steam, the output would be significantly lower.

Each set of stationary blading then rotor blading is called a stage. Turbines typically have 5 to 12 stages, depending on the inlet and condenser pressure.  them with their relatively low inlet pressures, most of the power is extracted in the last three or four stages using sub-atmospheric pressure steam.  A big limitation is high strength steels can’t be used in a turbine as hydrogen sulphide makes them crack. That restricts maximum size of the rotor blades which limits their output to 60-150MW range, depending on inlet pressure. More powerful units than that need parallel steam path doubled turbines. On a boiler plant in a comparable sized turbine hall to the biggest geothermal units, but with the higher pressures and use of special steels, there are 4-700MW units which have 40-50 stages spread over two or three  turbines in series.

Wet steam all through the geothermal unit makes it different to boiler plant where only last few stages are wet. However for both, by the last stage of blading about 10% of the steam has been condensed to water. No energy can be extracted from the water and the high velocity droplets are very damaging to componentry. This water lowers efficiency, increases maintenance costs and reduces plant life. The water needs removal so careful capture and drainage systems are designed and built into the rotor blades and casings for the wet steam region.

Fig 7     the rotor from a dual flow triple flash steam turbine plant – still new coming out of the box. The high pressure steam is fed into the middle. It passes through 4 stages of blading. More steam is added and it goes through 3 more stages. Then low pressure steam is added for another 4 stages before it exhaust into the condenser.

Fig 8     Showing how the steam supply as in fig 6 for the rotor is arranged – rotor at top of picture, casing at bottom. A central HP annulus, with IP either side and LP ones outboard of that again. The cavity on the far right is a casing drain to remove condensate from the steam.

The turbine generators running on separated water fields are base-loaded. This is because there is minimal cost for the “fuel” and stable operation reduces manning requirements. The turbine design is optimised to perform best at full load.  If load reduction is needed, the steam has to be vented until wells can be shut in. Increasing the output from a throttled up well by opening the valves has to be done slowly to allow downhole conditions, surface two phase flow and the chemistry to stabilise.

At a few stations, Geysers in California is one, the fluid out of the ground is near dry steam that doesn’t need separators and can be supplied directly to the turbines. On these fields, plant can load follow, ramping up and down as dispatched. However, they are the exception.

Binary Plant

There is another type of conventional geothermal plant gaining in popularity, the binary ones. They are particularly good for lower enthalpy fields where conventional plant would be uneconomic. Their process uses a circulating/ working fluid like conventional boiler plant but rather than water, a lower boiling point organic fluid is used. This is often one of the pentanes. Instead of an actual boiler, there are a series of shell and tube heat exchangers through which the geothermal fluid is cascaded to boil the pressurised working fluid. It is even slightly superheated. This vapour is then expands through the turbine (similar to those on steam plant)  and is converted back to liquid in the condenser before being pumped for recirculating through the process (Figure 9). These plants invariably have air cooled condensers.

Material properties of the vapour means turbines are half grid speed, so less inertia. It also limits their maximum size. The lower enthalpy available means higher mass flow rate needed when compared to a steam turbine. That is more pumping. They have a proportionally higher parasitic load with all the motor driven fans and pumps, lowering their nett output.. Because of their design and control systems, they are also baseload with no significant ability to load follow without wasting energy.

Fig 9                 A simplified process flow diagram for a binary plant

For higher enthalpy resources, they are less efficient that steam turbines. However, they are cheaper and faster to build. In an era where lower capital cost and speed of installation dominates the economic modelling, these are significant benefits. They are also small (typically 5-25MW) and modular. This means the field can be initially developed with one or two units, then more added if the production shows it can take a higher energy extraction rate. Another advantage of these plants are they come as near complete packages from the manufacturer. They just need the wells and pipelines connected up.  It is a significantly easier task to design and build steamfield surface facilities with separation plant and pipelines than it is to design and build a power station. 

Why it has limited future expansion potential

As well as positives for geothermal development outlined above, there are the negatives. For many developments, the costs are hard to predict and over which an organisation can have little control. The regulatory environment, both national and local, can be challenging to navigate. There is a long lead time between field investigation beginning and electricity generation starting for the issues described below. 

Most geothermal developments are small, 10-50MW. Countries are often looking for 500-2000MW stations like they can get from gas turbines or coal. Many of the remaining best sites for development are in 3rd world countries. Unless the country is prepare to have the development being proven, designed, built and run by expats (and pay for that privilege), they haven’t the educated professional workforce to do that. Iceland and New Zealand universities run geothermal training programmes for graduates from those developing countries, but many of them gravitate to better paying jobs in countries with existing plants.

Any new field has to be proven to have both permeability and sustainability before power station building starts. This needs an extensive well drilling and testing programme. Deep wells are expensive and permeability is elusive so even infill wells have a significant failure rate. The deep water temperatures need to generally be greater than 200°C otherwise the field is uneconomic, needing subsidies for development and exploitation.

Turbines and balance of plant are bespoke, needing the field output to be known before it can be sized. The industry history is of plant too big for the resource. One company in NZ operates a turbine purchased second-hand which had sat unused in a San Francisco warehouse for a decade, because it was for a field that couldn’t supply enough steam to the existing plant.

Once production starts, design failings and operational problems can occur. These often need extensive alterations and outages (lost generation income) to correct. Turbines and equipment working in a wet gassy steam environment where hard steels can’t be used is challenging with many lessons needing to be relearned. Big name plant manufacturers still get it wrong.

There is a continuing need for new well drilling and workovers as the field changes under exploitation. If the field enthalpy drops, the steam flow and wellhead pressure decreases, so turbines need to be derated to maximise output.. Finding suitable re-injection formations can be a very expensive exercise. The plants are often below rating because of steam shortfall, waiting for enough downhole work to accumulate to justify a drilling programme.

There are real localised environmental risks that mismanaged exploitation will damage natural geothermal features, even though these themselves are geologically speaking fleetingly transient. Excessive nett mass withdrawal can cause dewatering of cap rock formations. This may cause ground deformation, even significant subsidence. There was 15m! in a very localised area of Wairakei.

For efficiency of plant, it depends on what story you want to tell. Geothermal steam for electricity generation is a low value product. Depending on inlet and condenser pressures, it is 5-10t/h/MW. Contrast that with a boiler plant where it is about 2t/h/MW. Detractors of geothermal point to a very low 20-30% on First Law thermodynamics principles. Advocates prefer the Second Law (isentropic) efficiency which is generally over 80%. Binary plant is generally up to 10% lower than these figures but as they are often on lower temperature resources, that isn’t necessarily a true apples for apples comparison.

Like all energy production, society has to balance the costs with the benefits. For countries where the resource is there, they are a very good, albeit niche, electricity generation investment.

Proposed expansion

There are three developments that promoters push as the future for major expansion, making it mainstream. This alternative energy investigation has been supercharged by being funded by governments wanting to be seen to be doing something about climate change. They are low temperature resources,  Enhanced Geothermal Systems (EGS) also known as hot dry rock, and supercritical geothermal. 

Note that the internet is full of PR and academic writings about major breakthroughs that will change the face of the geothermal power station industry. Yet just a few years later, those pronouncements haven’t come to pass and the promises have sunk without trace. Theory is just that. Reality is cruel. It needs something working and has been doing so reliably for five years. That is proof of successful technology which will then relatively quickly be adopted. Until then, it is invariably just something seeking government funding.

It will be interesting to follow what happens to geothermal development in the USA from the new government and its change in energy production direction. Where the US goes, the rest of the world will follow.

Low Temperature Resources

As well as the high temperature (>200°C) resources able to be used by existing conventional power stations, there has been a push to exploit the wider availability of elevated ground temperatures. This has been promoted by maps like the one shown in Figure 10. The map is a misleading guide to potential viability. First the fluid is deep so would need significant drilling capability. Second, the permeability is unknown. Third, the wells generally won’t sustain a discharge so they have to have downhole pumps to bring the hot fluid to the surface. Fourth, the Carnot cycle efficiency is an economics killer. As a practical example of this point: for a massflow rate of 3500t/h 280°C water,  170MW is supplied to the grid at one station. Another on a reinjection system takes 3000t/h of 130°C water and  produces only 14MW.  

With sufficient flow rate, a binary plant using a lower temperature geothermal fluid can run and generate more power than it consumes to operate. The working fluid used in the plant can be tailored to suit the actual temperatures. These are often various refrigerants. But invariably, the plants aren’t viable without subsidies or there are specific advantages, like it is for an isolated community and the station is replacing diesel engines.

Fig 10             Map showing the deeper (>3km) rock temperatures for continental USA. The colouration makes one think that there is a lot more potential than there really is. Red appears to be temperatures >90° though the legend does not put temperatures directly on it. If the rock fracturing could be controlled, wells in those areas could be used for direct heating but not economically for electricity production.

However, if there are subsidies available like those in the USA, particularly for Californian electricity supply, plants can operate. There are about 1GW of pumped well power projects mostly in the western US states.  With all the pumps and their reliability issues, the load factor is lower than what conventional plant do. As the resource is lower temperature, the output in summer markedly declines – that pesky Carnot cycle again. On the map shown in Figure 2, there are two power stations shown in Central Australia. These are micro stations on low temperature resources and they don’t work. 

NREL in the 2023 report as well as reporting on economics of stations also sees a major use of the lower temperature fluid as district or process heating. Most agree this direct heating is is a lot more efficient use of the resource. Ground source heat exchangers are more effective if in the water table. In Taupo NZ, the shallow heat is directly used for domestic and public facilities including several large open air year-round swimming facilities. Geothermal heat is used for drying timber and wood pellets. The heat from a reinjection water line is used to grow tropical prawns (Figure 11). At a nearby geothermal resource, it is used to provide process heat for a dairy factory and greenhouses. The author’s home uses the hot underlying ground water to heat up town supply water through a U- bend heat exchanger in a shallow well to provide hot water for his household.

Fig 11   Ponds growing tropical prawns heated by water from a re-injection line. Behind the vent steam plumes is a 14MW binary plant running on 130°C water. The water is from the discharge of steam separators.

EGS

The theory of EGS is simple. It was designed for places where the rock is hot but there is poor permeability. Two wells are drilled side by side 1-200m apart. The rock between them in the reservoir formation is hydraulically fractured to give the permeability. Cold fluid pumped down one well is heated up by the rock and discharges out the other well where it can be used, then disposed of down the cold well. Figure 12 is a schematic.

The problem is the desired controlled rock fracturing can’t be done. In most cases, there is no significant increase in permeability. Where the wells have been close enough to get communication, there has been thermal breakthrough and the cold fluid has rapidly quenched the rock. There have been no successes with the world littered by failed projects, but promoters are undeterred, wanting to continue.

Figure 12          The type of schematic used by promoters of Hot Dry Rock proposals. Simple in theory. It hasn’t worked yet in practice.

 Supercritical Geothermal

Underneath geothermal fields at depths greater than 3km (about the limit of current geothermal well drilling technology in hot volcanic rock) the science says the fluid will be a lot hotter, maybe above the critical point ~400°C,  The theory is if one is to drill into this supercritical fluid, there will be a very high temperature resource to exploit. The sticking point is the technology.  Talk is the casings would be ceramic as all standard ones or even specials like high chromium steel or titanium won’t work. The current equipment has failed.  A whole new drilling equipment system with exotic materials would be needed to drill and complete the wells. Even a conventional well in a standard geothermal field to the depths discussed would be very expensive. 

Some wells have intercepted this deep fluid at a relatively shallow depth. It was found to be heavily mineralised and very acidic. One well in Mexico even discharged hydrogen chloride gas. The linked article also details other major problems that have occurred.  There are no commonly used (and not prohibitively expensive) materials that could contain this fluid for power station use. At the predicted temperature, the water will dissolve gold.

It is yet another example of where the theoretical value is there but the materials to handle it haven’t been invented.

Acknowledgements       JC for providing the impetus and challenge to do this article. Planning Engineer for forcing me to distil and simplify my writing. Rutherford’s barmaid dictum should be a guiding principle for all.  Most of all, I thank my work colleagues present and past for taking the time to explain the intricacies of their specialities. Things are the way they are because that is the way they have been proven to work best within the real-world physical and economic limits.

Afterword      Note that when describing the general geothermal power production industry, terminology and phrases, efforts at simplification may in some cases result in statements that are not 100% accurate in all situations. There can also be new developments that haven’t yet made the trade papers or even smoko discussions. The article’s broad scope and length limitations mean that all minor exceptions can’t be covered. For this overview, speaking generally is preferable to littering the post with distracting mealy-mouthed qualifiers. Please accept that the article is overwhelmingly correct as to the operation of geothermal plants at this time. 

The post Geothermal electricity generation appeared first on Climate Etc..

via Climate Etc.

https://ift.tt/eMlt3ZG

April 11, 2025 at 01:11PM

Killing Constitution: Pipeline Politics Upstream of Inflation

By Matthew Roy

President Donald Trump’s recent meeting with New York Governor Kathy Hochul has reignited discussion about the Constitution Pipeline. A longtime proponent of the project, Trump sees it as part of his broader push for American “Energy Dominance.” However, the meeting did not yield an agreement to revive the project.

Beyond the politics and speculation about what may have been discussed behind closed doors, the pipeline’s cancellation and the region’s persistent energy challenges highlight a broader economic reality: energy policies that constrain supply drive up costs—not just for energy itself, but across the entire economy—contributing to inflation.

The Context

The Constitution Pipeline was a proposed 124-mile natural gas pipeline designed to transport up to 650 million cubic feet per day from the Marcellus Shale in Pennsylvania to upstate New York, connecting to infrastructure that supplies New England. Initially approved by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) in 2014, the project faced a major setback in 2016 when New York denied a crucial water quality certification under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act (CWA)—a provision that allows states to block federally approved projects if they do not meet local environmental standards.

The companies behind the pipeline—led by Williams Companies—challenged New York’s permit denial in court, arguing that the state had exceeded its authority and was using environmental regulations as a pretext for an outright ban on fossil fuel infrastructure. The case led to a protracted legal battle, ultimately reaching the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which upheld New York’s decision. The pipeline developers petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for review, but in April 2018, the Court declined to hear the case, leaving the state’s permit denial in place.

With no legal path forward, Williams officially canceled the Constitution Pipeline project in early 2020, citing regulatory obstacles and the prolonged legal uncertainty. The cancellation underscored the growing challenge of building energy infrastructure in states with aggressive anti-fossil fuel policies.

The Effects

Energy prices are up across the board for all the would-be beneficiaries of the cancelled project, the residents and businesses of New York and New England who rely on natural gas for heating, electricity, and industrial activity.

Since the Section 401 CWA denial in 2016, the average cost of natural gas for New York commercial users has increased by 70%. Over the same period, residential rates have risen 49%. Nearly 60% of New Yorkers use natural gas for home heating, making these price hikes a direct hit to household budgets.

Blocking the flow of gas results in higher electricity prices too. According to the EIA, 46% of the state’s electricity comes from natural gas, generating twice as much electricity as any other fuel source. Natural gas power plants account for approximately three-fifths of the state’s generating capacity. As such, average New York residential, commercial, and industrial electricity prices are up 38%, 30%, 45%, respectively, since 2016.

The data tell a similar story in New England, where high demand coupled with natural gas supply constraints sent city gate and electricity prices soaring.

Restricting Energy is Inflationary

There are a few characteristics inherent to energy products which elevate their influence on broader macroeconomic issues, such as inflation.

1. Energy is the fundamental economic input. Every household, business, school, and institution relies on energy. Our world is so thoroughly structured around access to power, fuel heating, and petro transportation, it’s hard to take stock of the full scope of our dependence on it. It is required at every stage of production for all products—from raw material sourcing to manufacturing, distribution, and final delivery. When energy costs rise, so do the prices of all goods and services. Even relatively small increases in energy prices can have an outsized impact on overall inflation.

2. Energy demand is price-inelastic. Households and businesses must continue buying energy, even at higher prices. Unlike discretionary goods, there is no substitute to heating homes, fueling trucks, or keeping the lights on. Unlike other products, you cannot “switch brands” when energy prices spike—you simply pay more.

3. High energy prices reduce purchasing power. Because energy utilities are indispensable and energy is an input to all products, price hikes leave consumers with less money for other goods and services. This effect is especially severe for low-income and middle-class families, who spend a higher percentage of their income on utilities and transportation.

While inflation is a multi-factor issue, the role of energy shortages and misguided energy policies cannot be denied and should not be ignored.

Rising Energy Costs Are an Energy Emergency

Trump’s “Energy Emergency” framework correctly identifies high energy costs as both an inflationary pressure and a direct burden on working Americans.

The Constitution Pipeline could have alleviated some of these pressures—but its cancellation serves as a cautionary tale. Now, with Trump’s tariffs on foreign energy imports—including a 10% tariff on Canadian natural gas, which New England relies on—there is even greater urgency to expand domestic infrastructure.

At the same time, political pressure is growing on Democratic leaders in the Northeast. As reported by The Washington Post, many low-income, predominantly Black communities in Boston—traditionally Democratic strongholds—are feeling the squeeze of high energy prices and losing faith in their party’s energy policies. A February report by the Progressive Policy Institute warned that high utility costs were a major factor in shifting voter support toward Trump. The report’s author explained that the working class in the Northeast, who are struggling to pay their heating bills, are not moved by the typical Democrat talking points on climate policy or tax credit initiatives to support expensive electrification overhauls.

As for the future of the Constitution Pipeline, the CEO of Williams Transco, Alan Armstrong, stated on March 12 that he is “absolutely in support of building” the pipeline, contingent on “strong support” from regional governors. With a major industry player signaling readiness, the shifting political and economic landscape—including rising energy costs, new import tariffs, and direct backing from the Trump administration—could provide the necessary momentum to revive the project. If regional leaders respond to growing voter frustration and industry support, they may finally be motivated to approve the effort.

Ironically, a current Trump ally—HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.—was once a vocal opponent of the Constitution Pipeline. In 2016, Kennedy denounced the project at a protest at the New York State Capitol, calling it an “abomination” and declaring, “we don’t want it, we don’t need it.” But the numbers tell a different story.

The politics may be complicated, but the economics are straightforward: build pipelines, lower costs, and restore economic stability—or continue down the path of self-imposed energy scarcity.

Matthew Roy is an energy industry professional with over a decade of experience in corporate management and strategy. He is currently the Visiting Research Fellow for the Budapest Fellowship Program at the Danube Institute, focusing on energy policy.

This article was originally published by RealClearEnergy and made available via RealClearWire.


Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

via Watts Up With That?

https://ift.tt/oIGYmSk

April 11, 2025 at 01:07PM