Um…it is NOT sea water…wtf!?
This is the outflow of Iceland’s largest power plant that runs on geothermal hot springs/steam.
It’s amazing, and so popular it can take months to get a reservation, and the line to get in without one can be hours and hours long….outside in Icelandic weather.
Sadly, it may be gone soon. Recent eruptions are very nearby and may have already damaged the pools and buildings, and it is forecast to be overrun by lava soon. If you never got to see this, you missed out on a huge bit of Icelandic culture.

If you count the total costs, remove government subsidies and exemptions from ecological laws, there are few more expensive ways to generate energy than oil and coal today.

Turbines, solar, wave, tidal, and geothermal are all insanely cheaper today when you count the whole cost, not just the price at the meter. Have been for decades. My solar system paid for itself in about 8 years.

"ARE coming"

Kinda lost me when he claimed wind creates 11g CO² per kwh with no reference, calculations, or explanation.
Wind energy production is zero emission.
Are they including every gram produced by every step of construction and estimating a short lifespan, but not doing the same for nuclear, which takes exponentially more resources to build, run, fuel, store waste, and dismantle?
I also have a problem with him saying more expensive, higher profit natural gas plants have better prices because they're much HIGHER than nuclear prices per kwh.
He seems to ignore the spent fuel disposal/storage costs, which are significant in both cases, but while the natural gas plants don't pay for their waste (massive amounts of CO² and methane), nuclear has no choice.
Diablo canyon refurbishing was canned after Fukashima, because it's got all the same dangerous issues of being in an active earthquake/tsunami zone right on the coast with no way to shield itself from tsunamis. Before Fukashima, they totally planned to revamp and continue operations.
His levelized cost of electricity slide conveniently ignores the cost of environmental damage caused by fuel production/use.
Include all costs, coal is worst, followed by natural gas, then nuke, hydro, wind, and solar cheapest. Geothermal is great, but only in areas where it can be easily tapped, which are few and far between.

In short, his vast oversimplification and inconsistencies in what's included in his cost basis make his conclusions relatively meaningless, imo.

You'd be surprised.

Geothermal try to keep public exposure to less than 1 mSv per year.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283106142_Natural_radionuclides_in_deep_geothermal_heat_and_power_plants_of_Germany

Living near a Nuclear Power station will get you about 0.00009 mSv/year.

Living in Fukushima will get you about 10 mSv in a lifetime, with life expectancy there at about 84 years that is 0.177 mSv/year.

https://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/a_e/fukushima/faqs-fukushima/en/

Even Chernobyl is almost entirely background radiation now. Radiation is all scaremongering and misinformation these days, so people freak out about it but it really isn't that dangerous. It takes about 100 mSv a year to have even the slightest statistically detectable health effect and far more than that to actually kill someone.

Please site your sources for this information.
I'm assuming they mean the estimated radiation from a properly functioning nuclear power plant and not the average actual radiation, which includes meltdowns, leaks, transportation accidents, etc. I can't imagine any geothermal plant ever contaminating like Chernobyl or Fukushima did.

It bears noting that coal ash is apparently 3-6 more radioactive than properly functioning nuclear power plants emit for the same energy generation, and it gets absorbed both directly from particles and indirectly in food and water.

Don't tell the environmentalists how much radiation geothermal releases. It is many orders of magnitude more than a nuclear power station and if they were held to the same standard they would never be built.

For some idea of how much energy could conceivably be extracted this way, see:

https://www.withouthotair.com/c16/page_96.shtml

In a nutshell, the numbers in this video sound extremely bogus. It's unlikely that anything like our current fossil fueled lifestyle would be possible using only geothermal energy.

There are many areas in the North American continent where geothermal is viable. Unfortunately, the returns are not as rapid nor as great as they are drilling for oil and, as a result, it is difficult to get projects funded.

Iceland uses this tech for 30% of their electricity and over 85% of their heating needs. It also heats public baths like the Blue Lagoon geothermal spa.
Unfortunately, East Oregon and Idaho where our best geothermal locations are are sparsely populated, so it's unlikely the U.S. will adopt it.
*quality

Lazy people, you just need to bury them deeper. According to wikipedia you just need to bury them below 1,493 meters at the most and geothermal heating will take care of the rest.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'anhydrite, groundwater, gypsum, geology, hydrology, german, town, tom scott' to 'anhydrite, groundwater, gypsum, geology, hydrology, geothermal drilling, tom scott' - edited by Eklek

You might be disappointed, I'm pretty sure that this is the video where he gives the explanation, which is fault line geothermal heating. In the TED talk he says that it's a really unusual type of geothermal heating that's not found anywhere else. Most hot springs are volcanic, but not here.

Here is an article which shows the various fault lines in and around Peru, including one close to Pucallpa - http://temblor.net/earthquake-insights/ecuador-peru-and-colombia-faults-hint-where-large-earthquakes-could-strike-2128/

Nuclear is certainly better than coal... but wind/solar/hydro/geothermal is the way to go.

Understand that there is a difference between phreatic and phreato-magmatic eruptions... Wohletz and Heiken are referring to well blow-outs that can occur when the well casing or cement bond between the casing and the formation fails (it's also true that, if the well is cemented in poorly consolidated formation, the formation around the cemented well can fail and allow steam to rise to the surface). Those events could, arguably, be referred to as phreatic eruptions. But most geothermal wells are not drilled into molten magma - as I noted in my original comment, that has occurred rarely but, when it has, it has not triggered a phreato-magmatic eruption.

Because phreatic eruptions can be initiated accidentally by drilling or failure of a casing in a geothermal well (Bixley and Browne, 1988), these events must be considered potential hazards during the drilling and production processes.

Volcanology and Geothermal Energy

Kenneth Wohletz
Grant Heiken

It's not a guaranteed problem. But if proper precautions are not taken, then it could happen.