I submit this specifically as a question, as in should we consider this green energy or not?
They did say that it would be cheaper to do geothermal on land, though that depends on whether that is (easily) available in the first place. Land-based geothermal struggles with issues such as geothermal-induced earthquakes, IDK if this going to be any better under water.
I really want geothermal energy to succeed, it seems like a great, reliable energy source that isn’t dependent on foreign countries (e.g. solar is very China-dependent), but it carries real risks. Then again, the pacific rim region is prone to earthquakes anyway, so they’ll need to earthquake-proof their buildings with or without geothermal power.
Solar isn’t dependent on China IMO, it’s just that China can make them so cheaply that other countries can’t make them for less. Any country could build a solar manufacturing plant if they wanted, but it would be very silly given China’s panels are so cheap.
Australia has one:
https://tindosolar.com.au/our-product/tindo-panels/
they are good quality and well supported here I believe.
They assemble panels in Australia. Their M10 cells come from other sources and they just claim they’re ‘not from Xinjiang’. Likely they come from elsewhere in China (or SE Asia from a Chinese manufacturer).
The main reason you can’t compete is because energy is so cheap there. And, no, you can’t make renewable infra with just renewable energy.
if Quaise Energy is successful, I think they’ll have beat them to the punch as building a geothermal plant on land and just reusing existing gas turbine will make this much cheaper. realengineering channel did a video.
Lots of things can hinder hit, but adding underwater to any mix increases complications dramatically. (Speaking from marine experience.)
Why wouldn’t you consider it green?