Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Tesla: Our Future Motive Power

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
I remember seeing this a long time ago, but lost the link to it until now. . .

Our Future Motive Power

I don't think this is the exact article I saw before, but it pretty closely parallels the one I remember. Dr. Tesla surveys the various alternative energy sources that were known in his time, finds most of them wanting, and then settles on geothermal energy as the most promising for future development.

Today's scientists reach a similar conclusion: MIT-led panel backs 'heat mining' as key U.S. energy source - MIT News Office

Brilliant though he was, even Dr. Tesla could blunder. In the article he describes "a peculiar radiation of great energy" coming from the sun. He completely misunderstood the nature of nuclear energy and radioactive decay.

More of Tesla's writings can be found here: Selected Tesla Writings -- Table of Contents


"If we use fuel to get our power, we are living on our capital and exhausting it rapidly. This method is barbarous and wantonly wasteful, and will have to be stopped in the interest of coming generations." -- Nikola Tesla
 
I have wondered why geothermal isn't a larger percentage of bulk power in the U.S, especially on the West Coast.

Most of the power here is driven by natural gas. But it seems that from Rainier, through St. Helens, Hood, Lassen and Shasta - and down through the San Andreas fault to La Brea, the West Coast has enough thin crust areas to make drilling a hole and pumping in water to turn a steam engine a more obvious choice.

Is it really that much more complex/expensive? or is it a political thing?
 
There are sticky maintenance issues with geothermal.

Water passing through the hot rock picks up a lot of salts that dissolve at high temperatures.
When the water comes to the surface and cools a bit the salts precipitate out and plug up the plumbing.
Also many of the salts (especially at high temperature) corrode steel and other cheap materials.

Building and operating an efficient geothermal power plant involves a lot of very difficult tradeoffs.
 
As an offshoot of the MIT study:

Green Car Congress: US DOE to Provide Up to $43.1M Over 4 Years for Enhanced Geothermal Systems Research, Development and Demonstration

The US Department of Energy (DOE) will provide up to $43.1 million over four years (subject to annual appropriations) to 21 awardees, including a 13 awards to first-time recipients, for research, development and demonstration of Enhanced Geothermal Systems (EGS) for next-generation geothermal energy technologies. Combined with the minimum industry cost-share of 20%, up to $78 million is slated for public-private investment in these 21 projects over the next four years
...
An MIT-led study of the potential for geothermal energy within the United States published in 2007 found that Enhanced Geothermal System (EGS) technology could supply a substantial portion of US electricity well into the future, probably at competitive prices and with minimal environmental impact. Overall, the panel concluded that EGS can likely deliver cumulative capacity of more than 100,000 MWe within 50 years with a modest, multiyear federal investment for RD&D.

$43 million seems like a very modest number to me... especially spread so far and wide. But it is better than nothing at all.