Talk:Geothermal power/Archive 1

NPOV and Original Researc
I removed one paragraph I deemed lacking in NPOV and containing original research - "One Environmental Impact Report for the Imperial Valley area I read blatantly lied..." - as I do not feel that unsubstantiated claims have any place here. Providing the user can appropriately verify their assertions - Who lied? And in what manner? Where is the reportage or documentation showing the purchase of water? &c. - I will be happy for the information to be reinstated. Weltuntergang (talk) 00:08, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Environmental data
The environmental section claims " Geothermal plants use 3.5 square kilometres per gigawatt of electrical production (not capacity) versus 32 and 12 square kilometres for coal facilities and wind farms respectively". Looking at the reference it is claimed "Typically, a geothermal facility uses 404 square meters of land per GWh compared to a coal facility that uses 3,632 square meters per GWh and a wind farm that uses 1,335 square meters per GWh". There is an obvious issue (1km2 = 1,000,000m2).Now take a 2MW coal plant running at 60% duty produces 10,512GWh per year. If I were to believe the source, this power station would require 38km2 per year....

I'd also take issue with the water use data. Comparing a water cooled thermal plant to an air cooled geothermal plant is inappropriate. Because geothermal plants are more likely to be geographically constrained, they are less likely to be able to access a suitable source of cooling water, whereas many (but not all) other thermal plants are located where water can be used for cooling. If you want a comparison look at either wet or dry cooling, but don't be selective.

The section on emissions claims an average emission rate, but reading the reference this is the concentration rate in the geothermal stream. Whilst dry steam plants can emit all the entrained gas, this is less likely with binary plants. Looking at other sources (e.g. http://www.geophysik.rwth-aachen.de/Downloads/pdf/GeothermalEnergyPreprint.pdf) the rate of emissions are highly variable which is not represented by a single number.

78.149.105.35 (talk) 12:51, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

related uses resource
Start-Up in California Plans to Capture Lithium, and Market Share by Matthew L. Wald, published September 28, 2011 in The New York Times (B3 in print), excerpt ... 99.119.128.249 (talk) 00:36, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

reference #2 has been moved
I believe i have found it (the Fridleifsson et al paper) here : http://www.geothermal-energy.org/files-5.html. The link on the page redirects to the International Geothermal Association's new website. I am not sure the policy on this sort of thing so i'm posting here 174.138.193.223 (talk) 03:28, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Chevron
I have removed a sentence referring to Chevron as the worlds largest producer of geothermal power. This claim was not supported by the citation supplied. This claim was also made on the Chevron wiki page and has also been flagged as it is a bold claim that should be strongly supported if true. Furthermore, if this claim is true, there should be more elaboration for a reason to include it on the page about general geothermal power. Perhaps some projects, investments, or discoveries that Chevron has made in the field. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CD24:C070:D591:63AF:5D0F:8B04 (talk) 00:18, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 4 August 2016

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Moved (non-admin closure) — Andy W. ( talk  · ctb) 20:48, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Geothermal electricity → Geothermal power – Not proper English. Almost all wikilinks are of the Geothermal power format or go through the redirect Geothermal power. See also different, but related Talk:Geothermal_power_in_the_United_Kingdom. Robertiki (talk) 17:26, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Beagel (talk) 10:03, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:COMMONNAME, WP:PRECISE, and WP:RECOGNIZABLE. Nom's rationale that the current name is "not proper" English isn't correct; there is no grammatical problem with the construction. It's simply ambiguous, and might be seen as implying a topic of static electricity naturally generated in the Earth's crust by geothermal activity.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  06:02, 7 August 2016 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

How does the unit MWh make sence in this context
"Geothermal stations use 404 square meters per GW·h versus 3,632 and 1,335 square meters for coal facilities and wind farms respectively.[41] " I think land use should depend on the capacity, meaning GW. 141.2.247.143 (talk) 13:38, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Graphene
See Talk:Graphene/Archive 1. Andrewa (talk) 02:46, 9 October 2018 (UTC)