West Virginia Is Geothermically Active 239
sciencehabit writes "Researchers have uncovered the largest geothermal hot spot in the eastern United States. According to a unique collaboration between Google and academic geologists, West Virginia sits atop several hot patches of Earth, some as warm as 200C and as shallow as 5 kilometers. If engineers are able to tap the heat, the state could become a producer of green energy for the region."
Are they sure? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Are they sure? (Score:5, Informative)
5km is a bit too deep for coal fires.
In any case, 200C at 5 km is also quite deep for economically viable hydrothermals. That is "deep drilling" territory which is quite expensive. As the article notes Nevada has it at sub-2km, so does most of Europe along the Alps fault line.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
...and waste taxpayers money by taking care of the waste.
There's no such thing as nuclear waste, only nuclear fuel you haven't configured your reactor to burn yet.
Re: (Score:2)
here's no such thing as nuclear waste, only nuclear fuel you haven't configured your reactor to burn yet.
you could say that about all waste, all waste could be used for something useful, it just costs less to bury it, than to turn it into something useful, that's why it is waste.
Since their are a very few reactors (and those are very small) that can re-use current nuclear waste, and they cost 10* more in all respects than conventional plants, nuclear waste is almost certainly going to remain nuclear waste until we nearly exhaust our current sources of energy, and that drives energy prices at least 10* higher t
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Note, for reference, that one of the main objections to civilian processing (as opposed to government) of nuclear waste is that there is a certain amount of Pu-239 in that waste.
For some reason, governments seem to have a problem with letting that stuff wander around outside their own direct control.
Re: (Score:2)
This is West Virginia, chances are it's moonshine stills.
Re: (Score:2)
No, that's up in Centralia, PA.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centralia,_Pennsylvania [wikipedia.org]
Warm River Cave (Score:3, Insightful)
Makes me think researchers are idiots; folks who live there have known about the hot springs for hundreds of years.
Places with names like 'White Sulphur Springs' suggest anything? And there's a cave I've been in nearby (admittedly over the line in Virginia) with water temperatures over 100F.
Re:Warm River Cave (Score:4, Informative)
Well, I did RTFA (Score:2, Insightful)
And I have to say I was a little amazed. Geoscientists were surprised to find geothermal activity... in WV? The land of hot springs? Yes, you are correct that hot springs don't necessarily imply good geothermal energy production... but it's certainly suggestive. I still don't understand why anyone found this surprising.
And speaking of idiots - don't use an apostrophe to form a plural.
Re:Warm River Cave (Score:5, Funny)
What part of the summary, never mind the article, suggests that simply finding geothermal activity was the research goal here? I mean, here's your first sentence:
Researchers have uncovered the largest geothermal hot spot in the eastern United States.
Did you seriously stop after reading title? And then criticise the researchers for not noticing things?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Did you seriously stop after reading title? And then criticise the researchers for not noticing things?
You're both missing the point. The point is that with a bit of luck the earth could swallow WV!
Re: (Score:2)
Warm River Cave is kind of a weenie name, dontcha think?
If we're basing facts on things like this, I'm keeping my money in Wyoming on the Firehole River. That's much more macho sounding.
Re: (Score:2)
The pompous remark was the original poster calling researcher idiots. Since they had only 4 d
Re: (Score:2)
choke and die on your pompous cock please and thank you
Do you really think GP is that supple?
Re: (Score:2)
choke and die on your pompous cock please and thank you
Do you really think GP is that supple?
He didn't stipulate that said member had to be attached at the time...
How 'Green'? (Score:3, Interesting)
Will they be scraping even more mountains off the planet to get to it? Will they fill the remaining creek beds up with the effluvia from getting to it? Will they keep even more public roads under a permanent state of "repair" and detour to disguise the fact that they're simply ruining more tax funded roadway with heavy machinery? Will they drive residents out of even more entire towns due to blasting damages and constant noise from heavy machinery? Are they going to do anything with the energy rather than find cheaper ways to dig coal? WV has two industries, coal and railroad. If they replaced coal money with energy money the railroads would die. They won't let that happen. They've been fighting off a 3/4 MV high tension line for years, you think they're going to allow an energy exporting industry to pop up, string wire for multi MV lines and sell electricity to its neighbors now that they're got them hooked on WV coal? I lived there are loved it. But I realized the state is owned by stockholders for whom green is considered a place to dig. Even of they took advantage of a chance to do something good, they wouldn't do it right -- they'd do it cheaply to maximize profits and the population would suffer the effects. WV *was* green. It's owners don't give a shit about green.
Re:How 'Green'? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm a resident of WV, and what you've said will probably never happen. There are a ton of reasons businesses don't locate in my state. The State Chamber of Commerce has come out with suggestion after suggestion as to what needs to be done to attract more business, and it's ignored every time. The state legislature is run by attorneys and lobbyists for the coal and timber industries.
There's a reason Forbes magazine ranks WV at the bottom or
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
thus leaving them with defunct facilities, raped land, and a hefty clean-up bill from the EPA
I think you mean leaving US with these things, since the coal companies will simply declare bankruptcy and leave the government holding the bag.
Everyone will be happy (Score:5, Funny)
No, no, no (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Amazing how short-sighted dems and pols are (Score:3, Interesting)
Dems run around throwing money at Wind (meh) and Solar PV (a waste of money). Yet, the simple answer here is to not just support geothermal, but do it in a smart way. Most dry wells are ran down to about 10'K feet. Yet most heat is in the 10-20'K feet arena. So who not offer up a tax break for dry wellers to drill down to that region to locate heat. This would not occur everywhere, but it would occur where ever heat is generally known to exist. With this approach, drilling companies bear the first half of the risk while gov. then helps in the second half.
Re:Amazing how short-sighted dems and pols are (Score:5, Funny)
Dems run around throwing money at Wind (meh) and Solar PV (a waste of money).
This is what I always admire about the political climate in the US. There is always someone willing to come up with a well-considered, polite, nuanced, and rational treatise of the pro's and con's of a problem, even for a complicated problem such as alternative energy. No wonder that the US is universally considered the best-functioning democracy in the world.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
does not mean that it was not considered.
Then how did you get it so wrong or at least out of date?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That will come as a great surprise (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
So GP's one-word "meh" to Wind power was in fact the crystallization of a carefully thought out and cogent argument weighing up the pros and cons of that particular energy source?
Re: (Score:2)
You act like you think that wind power is new, novel, innovative, or some combination of those. Its none of that. Its just 'meh'
Re: (Score:2)
Unlike a coal/gas power plant which have a small physical footprint and thus a relatively low decommissioning cost, those wind farms are very expensive to remove. If the cost of maintenance exceeds other generation methods, or if demand falls sharply, the owning corporations will just disappear leaving a massive bill for the community where the f
Re:Amazing how short-sighted dems and pols are (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Dems run around throwing money at Wind (meh) and Solar PV (a waste of money).
Wind is a proven technology, although all these horizontal-axis wind turbines are stupid. Solar PV could pay back the energy cost of its production in 7 years in the 1970s, and can safely be assumed to be much better today. There really are things more important than money. Unfortunately, those in charge do not agree.
Yet, the simple answer here is to not just support geothermal, but do it in a smart way.
Oh, so you mean, only do it on a small scale with heat pipes?
Most dry wells are ran down to about 10'K feet. Yet most heat is in the 10-20'K feet arena.
Most of the time, if you dig down to where it's really hot, you're going to be making a steam vent. And then you're going to bring u
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Solar PV could pay back the energy cost of its production in 7 years in the 1970s, and can safely be assumed to be much better today. There really are things more important than money. Unfortunately, those in charge do not agree.
I'll support Solar Power sometime after the manufacturers of Photovoltaics start powering their factories with Photovoltaics. Until then, STFU about Photovoltaics. Really. Even the manufacturers don't use it, AND THEY GET THE HARDWARE AT COST.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'll support Solar Power sometime after the manufacturers of Photovoltaics start powering their factories with Photovoltaics.
Is your support somehow interesting?
Until then, STFU about Photovoltaics. Really.
Telling me what to do? Fail.
Even the manufacturers don't use it, AND THEY GET THE HARDWARE AT COST.
We are still permitting secondary effects to be ignored. If you count the cost of cleaning up the pollution produced by coal and oil plants then the cost of using that type of energy is MUCH higher. Unfortunately, we do NOT count that cost. We do not even hold power plants to our own EPA standards. You can find out-of-compliance plants as fast as you can pay people to climb stacks and drop probes in them. If we were to actually force the indust
Re: (Score:2)
We are still permitting secondary effects to be ignored. If you count the cost of cleaning up the pollution produced by coal and oil plants then the cost of using that type of energy is MUCH higher.
Ah, the old citation-less "much higher" statistic. Thats great. Meanwhile, lets never factor in the pollution caused by Photovoltaic manufacturing, or the batteries they require to provide power round-the-clock.
You must have a sugar-high with all that kool-aid you've been drinking. You decry a grand conspiracy by the entrenched energy monopolies, but the reality is that those same energy monopolies dont really give a shit how the energy is generated. They draw from nuclear, coal, gas, hydro, geothermal,
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You must have a sugar-high with all that kool-aid you've been drinking. You decry a grand conspiracy by the entrenched energy monopolies, but the reality is that those same energy monopolies dont really give a shit how the energy is generated.
That is an incredibly stupid thing to say. Of course they care. They want to generate energy by the most profitable means possible. So long as they are not forced to pay for their pollution, or indeed even to maintain reasonable standards of emissions (I am personally acquainted with a former public sector plant inspector who was paid to climb stacks and virtually everything out there is over spec because it's profitable to be) then it is more profitable to burn coal and oil. And indeed, the current price o
Re: (Score:2)
I'll support Solar Power sometime after the manufacturers of Photovoltaics start powering their factories with Photovoltaics.
It was done a few decades ago, before the oil companies bought the PV manufacturers.
http://www.green-energy-news.com/arch/nrgs2010/20100020.html [green-energy-news.com]
So what you're saying... (Score:2)
... is that PV companies can make more money sellling their PV systems than they can save by putting them in themselves. Which is not exactly an indictment of PV systems.
Call me when you think of an actual argument.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Photovoltaics can supplement that. On the other hand, they will only be very useful once we install them on the roof like shingles.
Some years ago I saw on a broadcast television program the installation of self-adhesive thin-film solar panels on metal roofing. The solar panels are rolled out onto the roofing panels before they are lifted. The cords hang over the top end. They plug into one another and the wiring is covered with the roof cap, providing excellent protection of all kinds. IIRC the inverter mounts inside in the attic area, but you can probably run some fat bus bars down the wall. I often imagine using strips of stainless f
Re: (Score:2)
Dems run around throwing money at Wind (meh) and Solar PV (a waste of money).
Wind is a proven technology, although all these horizontal-axis wind turbines are stupid. Solar PV could pay back the energy cost of its production in 7 years in the 1970s, and can safely be assumed to be much better today. There really are things more important than money. Unfortunately, those in charge do not agree.
Those "in charge" are the people investing in the technology and hoping for a payback on their investment. Government funding of the energy infrastructure is small in the US. Investment money will not go into a technology with a 7-year payback when there is plenty of opportunity for supplying energy with a shorter payback.
Yet, the simple answer here is to not just support geothermal, but do it in a smart way.
Oh, so you mean, only do it on a small scale with heat pipes?
Most dry wells are ran down to about 10'K feet. Yet most heat is in the 10-20'K feet arena.
Most of the time, if you dig down to where it's really hot, you're going to be making a steam vent. And then you're going to bring up radioactives. We don't need a copy of The Geysers anywhere in the world, it's an ecological disaster.
With this approach, drilling companies bear the first half of the risk while gov. then helps in the second half.
Why should government help at all? All they need to do is stop hindering. Government is against green power anyway; otherwise we'd have not just strip mining on BLM land, but also solar plants and the like; numerous entities would like to build them there but are being stymied while clear cutting is A-OK.
Geothermal is not the answer. Solar would be far more useful, as it produces power when we need it most, and we have control over the pollution inherent to the process... which we do NOT have over geothermal.
The best sites for large scale solar are not necessarily on old strip mines. Nevada has lots of sun and old copper mines but I'm not sure how much is BLM. Here's a map [blm.gov] of all the renew
Re: (Score:2)
The best sites for large scale solar are not necessarily on old strip mines. Nevada has lots of sun and old copper mines but I'm not sure how much is BLM. Here's a map of all the renewable projects the Nevada BLM knows about.
The vast majority is "Pending". Is this stuff still waiting on Bush's moratorium or something?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
And then there is geo-thermal. Much lower cost than Coal. And much cleaner. Geysers has had issues, but that is beca
It's a hell of a lot more than double the price (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
While I too feel that wind and solar have limited potential right now, but they do not have zero.
I wouldn't dismiss them so quickly. Geothermal like you are talking about is also not really currently practical. The depth makes the cost actually higher than wind and or solar.
We should exploit geothermal where it is practical as well as wind, solar, and nuclear.
Only the ignorant dismisses the idea that we need to diversify our sources of energy.
Re: (Score:2)
Collaboration? (Score:5, Informative)
Although very generous, I think it's a bit of a stretch to call Google's grant to SMU a "collaboration", or to only mention Google and omit any mention of USDOE and other entities that have been funding this research at SMU and elsewhere for many years. For example, this this report from 2006 [inel.gov], which points out the potential of the thermal hotspot in West Virginia...
It doesn't have the cool Google Earth graphics, however.
Where is Senator Byrd? (Score:4, Insightful)
Too bad Senator Byrd passed away, he could have diverted tens of billions of dollars to WV to fund this effort, then we could have had the Robert Byrd Hot Air Energy Generation Facility, and his legacy would live on!
Re:Where is Senator Byrd? (Score:5, Funny)
...then we could have had the Robert Byrd Hot Air Energy Generation Facility, and his legacy would live on!
Robert Byrd left us his namesake Hot Air Energy Generation Facility. It's called the United States Senate.
rd
Just don't do it near cities.. (Score:4, Interesting)
They tried it in Basel (Switzerland), didn't work out too well for them.
Re: (Score:2)
another benefit of the obama presidency (Score:4, Funny)
They should check other states. Maybe they too have former state senators/KKK members spinning in their graves at the idea of a black US president?
Either that, or Satan finally came to collect his due.
Take Me Home, Lava Flows (Score:5, Funny)
Near Inferno, West Virginia
Fiery Mountains, pyroclastic rivers
Life is doomed there, 'midst the blackened trees
See the mighty mountains tremb'lin like leaves
Lava flows, take me home
To the place that erupts
West Virginia, baleful mama
Take me home, Lava flows.
Gotta Love the URL (Score:4, Funny)
WV has a bad reputation, and story URLs like that are not going to help
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
That is actually pretty accurate. Energy companies have been raping WV for a long time and she just let's them.
Geothermal Ain't Green (Score:2, Interesting)
How much heat can we suck out of the earth before we start noticing effects? When we first sipped from oil deposits we thought the supply was unlimmited - so we built billions oil-fueled cars and painted ourselves into a corner. Would someone with real credentials please stand up and say what needs to be said: Geo-thermal is a finite supply - and at some level of human consumption mining it will destabilize our planet.
Re:Geothermal Ain't Green (Score:4, Informative)
The ultimate energy source, for which we all hope, is to master controlled fusion. We're not there yet. So we look to other sources to fill the need as fossil fuel supply dwindles. Together, solar, wind and geothermal may be able to bridge the gap. If, as some suggest, fusion will forever be illusive, then I'm afraid we're already screwed.
As to your question, IIRC, at current consumption rates, we would barely make a dent into the stored heat inside the Earth; however, you are correct, if we continue to grow consumption and suck heat out indefinitely, it will eventually make a difference, but that is hopefully far enough out into the future that it permits us to perfect fusion.
question about geothermal energy (Score:2, Interesting)
Much of the earth's internal heat is not generated by radioactive decay or tidal forces, but is transient, left over from when the earth formed. Its necessary for plate techtonics, which helps keep the surface chemically in balance despite erosion and natural forms of pollution. Its also necessary for the magnetic field and its shielding effect.
If we drill for geothermal energy for power on a large scale, do we hasten the earth's cooling by any appreciable amount? The effect must be tiny, and adverse res
WVU sofa fires... (Score:4, Funny)
Here we were, blaming undergrads for those couches pulled off of porches and set ablaze after WVU football games... and all along, it was just spontaneous combustion as hot spots poked through the surface...!
"shallow" (Score:2, Troll)
and as shallow as 5 kilometers
Their definition of "shallow" varies greatly from mine.
Is it even practical to do geothermal energy at that depth?
Re:"shallow" (Score:4, Insightful)
Current drilling tech gets us to 10 kilometers or so, so the short answer is "yes."
Considering we're willing to (and do) drill for oil that deep I can't see depth being the real problem here.
=Smidge=
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Protected Land (Score:4, Interesting)
Not that this comment will get read, you know, being so far down the page...
Presumably, the hotter the temperature, the better, in terms of generating geothermal energy. That means that the eastern part of the state (with the exception of the panhandle) would be the best for generating geothermal. However, a lot of that land along the WV/VA border is protected: state parks, national forests, national rec areas, and a large number of caverns that are declared off-limits. The Greenbanks radio astronomy telescope is also in that area, and a couple miles around it are restricted from having wireless communications or other serious electrical equipment that could interfere with radio astronomy.
On the other hand, if coal ever goes out of fashion, I guess the state will have to make a decision - with coal and tourism being our two biggest sources of money, I guess they'll have to decide whether the state parks are more valuable for tourism or generating power.
Iceland (Score:3, Interesting)
Just got back from Iceland, the whole country is powered by geothermal wells. In fact, the main power plant has a pipe feed of hot water to supply Rejykavik, and when you take a shower there you smell like rotten eggs.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess if you are willing to live on volcano there must be some benefits.
"and when you take a shower there you smell like rotten eggs". And that is not one of them IMHO.
Re: (Score:2)
True, the whole island sits on a column of molten lava that leads right down to the magma chamber. Every other year or so the place just erupts somewhere, like it did in April.
West Virginia Already Has the Needed Technology (Score:3, Funny)
What concerns me (Score:2)
Re:Welcom heavy metals (Score:4, Interesting)
Skipping the sarcasm, the drilling will likely be a binary system, and would be a good way to obtain minerals, elements since it is a by-product. Then what is left can be re-injected back in. Basically, it turns a well from a energy producer into a energy and mineral producer.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I live here in COlorado. Believe me, we have loads of mine and loads of wells. A coal mine IS dirty. Gold, Uranium, etc are even dirtier. We have loads of issues with irresponsible companies that have been here and the fact that they do not restore the land.
BUT, a MINE is not a well. Wells biggest issues are those that are fracking and having taken shortcuts. Those shortcuts save a few bucks, but typically allow leaks (think of the recent gulf oil spill). But geo-thermal is different. Compared to mi
Re:Welcom heavy metals (Score:5, Informative)
Yeah, it would never dawn on a mining state to be interested in obtaining lithium, Rare Earths, etc. Nor would they or the EPA know how to handle this correctly.
They know, but they don't care.
Skipping the sarcasm, the drilling will likely be a binary system, and would be a good way to obtain minerals, elements since it is a by-product. Then what is left can be re-injected back in. Basically, it turns a well from a energy producer into a energy and mineral producer.
It doesn't work that way. What comes out of the earth is usually heavily contaminated and it's not cost-effective to try to separate it. Separating the metals takes a lot of big stuff that you don't want to build next to a geothermal hotspot because they're seismically active. When you start pumping stuff into the ground you increase the seismic activity. In order to pump the stuff into the ground at all you'll need to add water, which is going to have to be pumped in.
I live near to (formerly right next to) The Geysers, the most geothermally active spot on the planet. There is a geothermal plant there which is perpetually over budget and under-producing power compared to expectations. The turbine blades build up with heavy metals including arsenic. When there's enough to interfere with efficiency the turbines are suspended over an open pit and pressure-washed. The water is permitted to evaporate off the pit, and when it's full enough they pour a concrete cap on the pit, build the walls higher, and start again. This is an EPA-approved plan.
Before the EPA got involved they were filling up drums with the stuff and burying it in a field on Butts Canyon road. Then we started having cows born with two heads and stuff like that. They dug it up, put in a plastic liner, and reburied it. In another few decades we can have the same problem all over again.
When the steam started to run low due to overuse we started pumping sewage into the ground to add steam pressure. This worked, but seismic activity was multiplied by a factor of two or three. A massive lawsuit resulted in a payback program for local homeowners who can show seismic damage.
In short, the only kind of geothermal even suitable for use is heat pipe heating/cooling. It's not useful for large-scale power generation. We simply do not have the scruples necessary as a species to do geothermal power correctly. Also, the EPA is a bad fucking joke with no teeth, and suggesting that the EPA will protect us is preschool-level naivety.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I live near to (formerly right next to) The Geysers, the most geothermally active spot on the planet.
I think the birthplace of the word "geyser" [wikipedia.org] would disagree with you on that assessment.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I think the birthplace of the word "geyser" would disagree with you on that assessment.
And yet, you lack the courage of your convictions necessary to log in.
"The Geysers" is the most geothermally active region in the world acre for acre. If you measure a country, which is too large to build a single geothermal plant on, you will get another result. If you measure a 1x1 inch area, you can probably come up with still another result. In practical terms, The Geysers is the most geothermally active spot that there is. This doesn't mean it's the best place to build a geothermal plant, of course; th
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I used to live near a geothermal plant in New Zealand and it worked a treat. Guess it depends on who's in charge.
Well, I've not checked up on your environmental record, AFAIK it's quite good though. However, ours is not, and since both the location we're talking about and the plant I'm talking about are in the same country, it's probably safe to assume that any new plants on the site would also be mismanaged.
Re: (Score:2)
Now, as to seperating the minerals, that is already being looked at. Today, it is expensive, but in the geysers, they are working on making this cheap. In addition, that same approach is used in Canada and here in the west to extract uranium from the soil.
Short answer, it may be expensive today, but will be cheaper with time.
Re: (Score:2)
Short answer, it may be expensive today, but will be cheaper with time.
I have every confidence that if it does become cheaper it will become that way at the expense of some additional environmental devastation, especially if it is being done at the geysers, which has a frankly horrible record and which is STILL causing problems today; the shit-pumping continues, the increased seismic activity continues. The Geysers would have shut down by now if not for the shit-pumping. The whole thing is a ridiculous boondoggle that ought to have been long since scrapped.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't work that way. What comes out of the earth is usually heavily contaminated and it's not cost-effective to try to separate it. Separating the metals takes a lot of big stuff that you don't want to build next to a geothermal hotspot because they're seismically active. When you start pumping stuff into the ground you increase the seismic activity. In order to pump the stuff into the ground at all you'll need to add water, which is going to have to be pumped in.
I live near to (formerly right next to)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah it would totally provide 6 of each [strategywiki.org]!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Thats okay. Our brown coal won't run out for thousands of years at the current rate!
But seriously we have so much flat, empty and hot land in this country we should be getting in to photovoltaic and solar thermal energy production. Transmission losses aren't really a big deal.
Re:Welcome heavy metals (Score:4, Informative)
Transmission losses ARE a big deal NOW since most lines are made of aluminium and consumers may be 1000km from a power source. There's also weird stuff with harmonics I don't understand that means it's best not to try to push those electrons too far if you want to get some use out of them.
Re:Dammit it's not green energy (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
You might want to read above from the poster talking about a local Geothermal plant near his home that has huge issues with Arsenic clogging up the turbines - and the truly scary "EPA Approved" methods for cleaning and encapsulating it. It seems that Geothermal can bring with it a host of heavy metal issues :-(
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's also a hopelessly poor area that will never have jobs based on anything but digging up or drilling for the stuff under it.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If they are setting off earthquakes they would be releasing tension which would have only amounted to a larger earthquake at a later date.
Re: (Score:2)
A crack in the world? (Score:2)
You mean, like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crack_in_the_World [wikipedia.org] ?
Well, at least Hollywood in the 60's believed that scientists with nukes could do it.
Re:Earthquakes (Score:4, Insightful)
Which makes me think of a question maybe someone here at /. can answer: Can miners/drillers set off enough "little ones" to cause a big one?
Yes. Doesn't even have to be mining. Deep well injection set off a series of earthquakes in Denver in the 1960's [onepetro.org] -- when what they were injecting was millions of liters of nerve gas from Rocky Mountain Arsenal. Yes, indeed, your government funds at work: make hundreds of thousands of pounds of wildly toxic weapons of mass destruction in contradiction to signed treaties, and then when you have them all and don't know what to do with them, pump them into a 25,000-foot-deep hole. They lubricated an old slip fault and caused a half a dozen earthquakes.
The thing is: it's not easy to tell, prima facie, whether you're going to cause a bunch of little earthquakes, or one big one, by doing this. It has been proposed that we should try to set off small earthquakes on purpose, to reduce the strain on tectonic plate boundaries and reduce the chances of a much larger quake, but there's no way to ensure that it would do that rather than just setting off the larger quake right now. If we do that, even if it just sets off small quakes, the situation is no longer an earthquake that's an act of God, but an earthquake that's an act of man, meaning even if it's much smaller than it would have been, specific people are now liable for causing an earthquake, and that's a legal minefield.