Geothermal Energy In The USA

Mammoth Pacific, LP Geothermal Power Facilities near Mammoth Lakes, Mono County, California with Sierra Nevada Mountains Forming the Horizon.

I call your attention to a status report on USA geothermal energy by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology originally released to the public on January 22, 2007.

More interesting is the impact of the report considered below by Professor Margot Gerritsen of the Department of Energy Resources Engineering at Stanford University. The report illuminates Enhanced Geothermal Systems (EGS) that might be constructed in many USA locations. This technology depends upon large amounts of water or another fluid plus rock fracturing at depth among other major issues in EGS power plant siting and construction.

See a video on the status and future of USA geothermal energy produced by KQED Public Media for Northern California. The video focuses on The Geysers geothermal power plant operated by Calpine and vividly illustrates the infrastructure, energy generation processes, associated environmental problems, and other features of a geothermal power facility.

Dr. Gerritsen together with an Advisory Board provide an outstanding web site called "Smart Energy" containing abundant information to answer practical questions about our energy future.


The Future of Geothermal Energy in the US: what a little report can do...

Wed, 11/19/2008 - 03:35 — Margot Gerritsen

Two years ago, the future of geothermal energy in the USA did not look all that exciting. Although geothermal heat pumps (used for heating and cooling buildings) and natural geothermal energy were certainly not uncommon, very large scale geothermal, which draws heat energy from deep down in the earth's crust, seemed far in the future.

But then, MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) published an exciting report titled "The Future of Geothermal Energy" with subtitle "Impact of Enhanced Geothermal Systems (EGS) on the United States in the 21st Century". This changed the scene. The report got the attention of policy makers as well as investors, EGS received enough capital to start several new projects, and suddenly it became a potentially important future energy source. I wished that more scientific reports had such a positive outcome!

To date there are 18 natural geothermal facilities in the United States in California, Nevada, Hawaii and Utah. In total, they supply around 2,700 megawatts (MW) of electricity. A decent amount when viewed by itself. One (1) MW can be seen to supply electricity to about 1000 homes, so 2,700 MW delivers enough energy for 2.7 million households. It is not that much as compared to the total geothermal capacity of the US which is around 1.1 million (1,100,000) MW. However, in California, geothermal energy supplies 5% of total electricity demand and 7% of that in Northern California, which boasts the site of The Geysers, at 620 MW the largest geothermal powerplant in the world. Apart from these 18 geothermal plants, the USA has more than 1 million geothermal heatpumps, supplying an additional 3700 MW for heating and cooling.


Geothermal energy is not completely clean. Subsurface water, which is brought to the surface, can contain some carbon dioxide, for example, but it is a minor problem. It is estimated that a geothermal plants emits about 1/200 of the carbon dioxide of an equivalent coal-fired power plant.

The geothermal story gets much more interesting when we look at geothermal heat contained between 3 and 10 kilometer depth, which EGS taps into. The total energy in this layer is staggering. Just producing 1% of this energy would supply 1400 times the total energy that the USA needs per year! So, how can we tap into this resource? The idea is simple: we drill down to a depth at which the rocks are sufficiently hot (say 150-250 degrees centigrade). It is not a simple task to drill through hard granite to a depth of 20,000 feet, say, but in the oil industry we do this on a regular basis and so the technology exists. Then, we fracture the rock over a reasonably large area. We drill another well a bit removed from the first. This second well will serve as our production well. The first is used to pump water, or another liquid, into the rocks under high pressure. It will start moving through the fractures to the producing well under a pressure gradient. As it moves, it picks up heat from the surrounding rock. We then pump it back to the surface, extract the heat, and reinject the new cool liquid again. Sounds easy enough, and it certainly sounds like a great idea to tap into that huge heat reservoir down below.

EGS is not without its complications, of course. It is not trivial to create a good fracture system down below. We need to have a very large network of fractures so that the water that flows through this network touches a lot of the rock for better and prolonged heat transfer. Also, to make this economic, an EGS well must pump through at a rate of, say, 80 liters per second, the equivalent of 50,000 barrels per day. This has not yet been achieved in pilot tests.

However, EGS is certainly a promising technique. Estimates are that if it can be done at the high rate mentioned, then within 5-10 years a typical EGS project can be cost competitive in the current energy market of around 5 US cents per kilowatthour of energy. Not bad, huh! With sufficient investments, experts claim that we could produce around 30 times as much geothermal energy by 2030 as we do now, supplying around 5-10% of the electricity needs of the US in 2030. A substantial contribution. I think we should go for it. And I'm delighted that this MIT report established so much. It has pushed this energy technology forward at a much faster rate than I thought possible.

Wind, Water & Sun Are Superior Energy Solutions

Vestas Horn Reef wind power facility off the coast of Denmark.

Stanford University on December 10, 2008 announces the results of the "...first quantitative, scientific evaluation of the proposed, major energy-related solutions..." and their respective impacts on "...global warming, human health, energy security, water supply, space requirements, wildlife, water pollution, reliability and sustainability."

This significant work debunks many of the myths surrounding our progress towards a new energy economy, notably the "clean coal" myth, the "nuclear power solution" myth, and the myths challenging the reliability and variability of wind, solar and wave power.

"Coal with carbon sequestration emits 60- to 110-times more carbon and air pollution than wind energy, and nuclear emits about 25-times more carbon and air pollution than wind energy..."

[Despite significant technological progress and applications of interconnected wind farms, stored solar energy, etc., that I have reported during the past two years, politicians, mass media, special interest groups, and others continue to dismiss wind and solar power potential for supplying baseline power. The potential is there, and we only must develop that potential while ignoring false claims that baseline wind, solar and wave power systems are not possible.]

See the reference links at the end of the article for supporting information and Professor Jacobson's 2007 work on interconnected wind systems for supplying baseline power. That study focused on interconnected wind system potential for an array of wind farms that have been growing for the past few years across eastern New Mexico, northern Texas, western Oklahoma, southwestern Kansas, and southeastern Colorado.

Note the priority lists of best to worst power and vehicle options near the end of the article.

Importantly, Mark Jacobson's work represents a high level of integrity inasmuch as the research "...received no funding from any interest group, company or government agency."


Stanford University News Service

Energy & Environmental Science

Stanford Report, December 10, 2008

Wind, water and sun beat other energy alternatives, study finds

BY LOUIS BERGERON

The best ways to improve energy security, mitigate global warming and reduce the number of deaths caused by air pollution are blowing in the wind and rippling in the water, not growing on prairies or glowing inside nuclear power plants, says Mark Z. Jacobson, a professor of civil and environmental engineering at Stanford.

And "clean coal," which involves capturing carbon emissions and sequestering them in the earth, is not clean at all, he asserts.

Jacobson has conducted the first quantitative, scientific evaluation of the proposed, major, energy-related solutions by assessing not only their potential for delivering energy for electricity and vehicles, but also their impacts on global warming, human health, energy security, water supply, space requirements, wildlife, water pollution, reliability and sustainability. His findings indicate that the options that are getting the most attention are between 25 to 1,000 times more polluting than the best available options. The paper with his findings will be published in the next issue of Energy and Environmental Science but is available online now. Jacobson is also director of the Atmosphere/Energy Program at Stanford.

"The energy alternatives that are good are not the ones that people have been talking about the most. And some options that have been proposed are just downright awful," Jacobson said. "Ethanol-based biofuels will actually cause more harm to human health, wildlife, water supply and land use than current fossil fuels." He added that ethanol may also emit more global-warming pollutants than fossil fuels, according to the latest scientific studies.

The raw energy sources that Jacobson found to be the most promising are, in order, wind, concentrated solar (the use of mirrors to heat a fluid), geothermal, tidal, solar photovoltaics (rooftop solar panels), wave and hydroelectric. He recommends against nuclear, coal with carbon capture and sequestration, corn ethanol and cellulosic ethanol, which is made of prairie grass. In fact, he found cellulosic ethanol was worse than corn ethanol because it results in more air pollution, requires more land to produce and causes more damage to wildlife.

To place the various alternatives on an equal footing, Jacobson first made his comparisons among the energy sources by calculating the impacts as if each alternative alone were used to power all the vehicles in the United States, assuming only "new-technology" vehicles were being used. Such vehicles include battery electric vehicles (BEVs), hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (HFCVs), and "flex-fuel" vehicles that could run on a high blend of ethanol called E85.

Wind was by far the most promising, Jacobson said, owing to a better-than 99 percent reduction in carbon and air pollution emissions; the consumption of less than 3 square kilometers of land for the turbine footprints to run the entire U.S. vehicle fleet (given the fleet is composed of battery-electric vehicles); the saving of about 15,000 lives per year from premature air-pollution-related deaths from vehicle exhaust in the United States; and virtually no water consumption. By contrast, corn and cellulosic ethanol will continue to cause more than 15,000 air pollution-related deaths in the country per year, Jacobson asserted.

Because the wind turbines would require a modest amount of spacing between them to allow room for the blades to spin, wind farms would occupy about 0.5 percent of all U.S. land, but this amount is more than 30 times less than that required for growing corn or grasses for ethanol. Land between turbines on wind farms would be simultaneously available as farmland or pasture or could be left as open space.

Indeed, a battery-powered U.S. vehicle fleet could be charged by 73,000 to 144,000 5-megawatt wind turbines, fewer than the 300,000 airplanes the U.S. produced during World War II and far easier to build. Additional turbines could provide electricity for other energy needs.

"There is a lot of talk among politicians that we need a massive jobs program to pull the economy out of the current recession," Jacobson said. "Well, putting people to work building wind turbines, solar plants, geothermal plants, electric vehicles and transmission lines would not only create jobs but would also reduce costs due to health care, crop damage and climate damage from current vehicle and electric power pollution, as well as provide the world with a truly unlimited supply of clean power."

Jacobson said that while some people are under the impression that wind and wave power are too variable to provide steady amounts of electricity, his research group has already shown in previous research that by properly coordinating the energy output from wind farms in different locations, the potential problem with variability can be overcome and a steady supply of baseline power delivered to users.

Jacobson's research is particularly timely in light of the growing push to develop biofuels, which he calculated to be the worst of the available alternatives. In their effort to obtain a federal bailout, the Big Three Detroit automakers are increasingly touting their efforts and programs in the biofuels realm, and federal research dollars have been supporting a growing number of biofuel-research efforts.

"That is exactly the wrong place to be spending our money. Biofuels are the most damaging choice we could make in our efforts to move away from using fossil fuels," Jacobson said. "We should be spending to promote energy technologies that cause significant reductions in carbon emissions and air-pollution mortality, not technologies that have either marginal benefits or no benefits at all".

"Obviously, wind alone isn't the solution," Jacobson said. "It's got to be a package deal, with energy also being produced by other sources such as solar, tidal, wave and geothermal power."

During the recent presidential campaign, nuclear power and clean coal were often touted as energy solutions that should be pursued, but nuclear power and coal with carbon capture and sequestration were Jacobson's lowest-ranked choices after biofuels. "Coal with carbon sequestration emits 60- to 110-times more carbon and air pollution than wind energy, and nuclear emits about 25-times more carbon and air pollution than wind energy," Jacobson said.

Although carbon-capture equipment reduces 85-90 percent of the carbon exhaust from a coal-fired power plant, it has no impact on the carbon resulting from the mining or transport of the coal or on the exhaust of other air pollutants. In fact, because carbon capture requires a roughly 25-percent increase in energy from the coal plant, about 25 percent more coal is needed, increasing mountaintop removal and increasing non-carbon air pollution from power plants, he said.

Nuclear power poses other risks. Jacobson said it is likely that if the United States were to move more heavily into nuclear power, then other nations would demand to be able to use that option.

"Once you have a nuclear energy facility, it's straightforward to start refining uranium in that facility, which is what Iran is doing and Venezuela is planning to do," Jacobson said. "The potential for terrorists to obtain a nuclear weapon or for states to develop nuclear weapons that could be used in limited regional wars will certainly increase with an increase in the number of nuclear energy facilities worldwide." Jacobson calculated that if one small nuclear bomb exploded, the carbon emissions from the burning of a large city would be modest, but the death rate for one such event would be twice as large as the current vehicle air pollution death rate summed over 30 years.

Finally, both coal and nuclear energy plants take much longer to plan, permit and construct than do most of the other new energy sources that Jacobson's study recommends. The result would be even more emissions from existing nuclear and coal power sources as people continue to use comparatively "dirty" electricity while waiting for the new energy sources to come online, Jacobson said.

Jacobson received no funding from any interest group, company or government agency.


Energy and vehicle options, from best to worst, according to Jacobson's calculations:

Best to worst electric power sources:

1. Wind power
2. Concentrated solar power (CSP)
3. Geothermal power
4. Tidal power
5. Solar photovoltaics (PV)
6. Wave power
7. Hydroelectric power
8. A tie between nuclear power and coal with carbon capture and sequestration (CCS).

Best to worst vehicle options:

1. Wind-BEVs (battery electric vehicles)
2. Wind-HFCVs (hydrogen fuel cell vehicles)
3. CSP-BEVs
4. Geothermal-BEVs
5. Tidal-BEVs
6. Solar PV-BEVs
7. Wave-BEVs
8. Hydroelectric-BEVs
9. A tie between nuclear-BEVs and coal-CCS-BEVs
11. Corn-E85
12. Cellulosic-E85.

Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles were examined only when powered by wind energy, but they could be combined with other electric power sources. Although HFCVs require about three times more energy than do BEVs (BEVs are very efficient), HFCVs are still very clean and more efficient than pure gasoline, and wind-HFCVs still resulted in the second-highest overall ranking. HFCVs have an advantage in that they can be refueled faster than can BEVs (although BEV charging is getting faster). Thus, HFCVs may be useful for long trips (more than 250 miles) while BEVs more useful for trips less than 250 miles. An ideal combination may be a BEV-HFCV hybrid.


Related Information

Professor Mark Jacobson discusses alternative energy sources

Jacobson's paper in Energy & Environmental Science

Jacobson's Stanford web page

Stanford December 2007 press release on interconnecting wind farms to smooth power delivery

Jacobson's interconnecting windfarms paper in J. Applied Meteorology and Climatology