How underground ‘hot rocks’ could power America’s future
With enough investment, geothermal power could satisfy 10 percent of the US energy diet, energy experts say.
By Gregory M. Lamb | Staff Writer for The Christian Science Monitor/ December 31, 2008 edition
Courtesy of the General Theological Seminary
Members of the General Theological Seminary in New York gather for snapshot in 2007 before drilling began on their geothermal heating and cooling system.
Could hot rocks miles below the earth’s surface be the “killer app” of the energy industry?
Google thinks so. It’s investing more than $10 million to develop new technology that would make this subterranean resource a widespread, economically viable competitor to fossil fuels.
Geothermal heat could meet 10 percent of America’s energy needs by mid-century, according to the US Department of Energy. What’s more, it would not generate the climate-warming carbon emissions associated with fossil fuels.
Once tapped, a geothermal system would stay online for centuries. Unlike wind and solar, it would be a “base load” energy source, available 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.
That all sounds great – but of course there’s a catch. A geothermal well costs millions of dollars to drill and drilling is the only way to determine if a location has the right kind of hot rock. The result: With only a trickle of federal aid allotted to developing the resource, geothermal is growing slowly.
That may change under the Obama administration, which has pledged strong support for renewable energy.
“If sufficient [research and development] funding were invested in the next 20 years or so, as much as 10 or 20 percent of the electricity in the United States could come from geothermal,” says Robert Neilson, who manages the Renewable Energy and Power Technologies Department at the US Department of Energy’s Idaho National Laboratory.
The US already produces more geothermal electricity than any country in the world. In California, it accounts for nearly 5 percent of total electrical capacity. But these traditional geothermal plants require three things: hot rock formations near the surface, water to take the heat out of the rock and bring it to the surface, and fractures in the rock to allow the hot water to circulate.
Most known locations with all these qualities are found in the western US and are already being tapped.
The possibility of enhanced geothermal systems (EGS), however, have reenergized the movement. These systems would use technology to either fracture the rock or inject needed water. If EGS can surmount the technical and cost hurdles, many more places, including the eastern and central US, suddenly would be candidates for geothermal plants.
“EGS could be the ‘killer app’ of the energy world,” said Dan Reicher, director of climate and energy initiatives for Google.org, announcing Google funding for EGS research last August. “It has the potential to deliver vast quantities of power 24/7 and be captured nearly anywhere on the planet. And it would be a perfect complement to intermittent sources like solar and wind.”
A study led by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology released in early 2007 estimated that a public and private investment in EGS of $800 million to $1 billion over 15 years could yield 100,000 MWe (Megawatts electrical) of electrical capacity by mid-century. The US currently has about 1 million MWe of capacity, or about 10 times that amount. Geothermal sources today generate just under 3,000 MWe of capacity.
The development of geothermal energy is paralleling the history of oil and gas exploration “except we’re about 100 years behind them,” says Karl Gawell, executive director of the Geothermal Energy Association, an industry group.
A century ago, oil companies could only find oil where it was already coming out of the ground, he says. That’s akin to finding geothermal by looking for hot springs or geysers today.
But later in the 20th century, oil companies found “you could fracture [the rock], you could add water, add gases,” and employ other techniques to create new wells or extend the life of existing ones, he says. “The oil industry essentially learned to engineer oil fields to get a lot more production out of them.”
That’s exactly what EGS proponents hope to do with geothermal sources. At The Geysers, a geothermal plant north of San Francisco, 4 billion gallons of treated sewer water from the city of Santa Rosa is being injected into the ground each year to replenish the system and maintain the flow of heated water to the surface. That represents a kind of EGS already at work.
A few other EGS efforts are under way around the world, including one in Soltz, France, and another expected to come online in Australia next spring.
But more research is needed if the effort is going to take off.
“I think it’s going to really require the federal government to stimulate activity by coming in and trying to support demonstration projects and things like that for it to get started in a big way,” says David Blackwell, a professor of geophysics at Southern Methodist University, one of the 18 members of MIT’s EGS study panel. “There are some places in the central and eastern United States that are quite hot at reasonable depths that could probably be developed in the relatively near future.”
Shale gas wells in West Virginia and Pennsylvania provide an intriguing possibility. After the gas has been extracted, they’d “make wonderful heat exchangers” using the 250 to 350 degree F. water found in them, Dr. Blackwell says.
The potential for EGS is “vast,” he says. “I think that the MIT report is conservative if we really start to develop it.”
The big unknown is going to be cost. “And until we actually have a number of [EGS] systems operating,” he says, “we don’t know what the cost will be.”
( More stories )
Comments
2. John | 12.31.08
Why does the gov/tax payers have to fund someone’s so called good idea. If you think it is profitiable then get private and commercial backing. Why tax payers? If your idea fails we loose. If it works we still loose because it was agrant and not a loan. Why should the fed gov have anything to do with it other than loosening the permit requirement?
John
Jackson,MS
3. Ben | 01.02.09
The unanswered question with this “fracturing” of the rocks is; will this increase the likelihood of earthquakes?
4. Guy | 01.02.09
I believe government intervention is required at this early juncture because projects this large, risky and unprecedented are avoided by corporations. After proven worthy, then market forces will work and the tax payers won’t be needed.
Guy
San Francisco, CA
5. Ernie | 01.02.09
The advantage of government seed financing is that government is not beholden to shareholders to make a quick profit. It (= we) can make long-term policy decisions and then prod industry in those directions with early investment. Why government? Because it is in the national interest. Given the petroleum situation, it is a security issue in the long run, and therefore a proper role for government.
6. Jean-Paul Turcaud Australia Mining Pioneer | 01.03.09
This an excellent idea and referring to the question of localization of hot spots, this is a matter of appropriate knowledge regarding the real environment which is ours.
At the present time all so-called Geology as taught in Universities is incoherent & misleading with the results seen with this groping in the dark approach to energy needs.
New paradigms have to be accepted and I personally congratulates those open minded individuals on their most appropriate approach.
Jean-Paul Turcaud
Australia Mining Pioneer
Discoverer of Telfer Mine ( Australia largest Copper & Gold MIne)
Nifty (Cu) & Kintyre (U, Th) Mines, all in the Great Sandy Desert
+ re-discoverer of the Rooney show aka Lasseter’s reef (IMO)
Exploration Geologist & Offshore Consultant
Founder of the True Geology
~ Ignorance is the Cosmic Sin, the One never Forgiven ~
for background info.
True Geology Foundation document :
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/69327
7. John Juras | 01.03.09
Why involve govt funds? Same reasons we built the highway system. Look how huge the payback has been on that investment of our tax money.
8. Roger | 01.06.09
I believe that the “geothermal” system that the folks at the General Theological Seminary were installing is in fact a “geoexchange” system, which works on a very different principal than the geothermal systems described in the article.
Both methods represent laudable efforts to reduce fossil fuel consumption, but the scince is quite different.
9. Scott | 01.13.09
Is this consortium looking at the 1980s “hot rocks” data produced by Los Alamos National Lab?
10. Jeff Simpson | 01.14.09
The “Hot Dry Rock” site at LANL may be of some benefit.
Fracturing rock underground does cause micro-quakes but nothing you can feel. As to fearing that fracturing might set off a major quake, the opposite is more likely. The small jostling of the micro-quakes releases pent up energy returning the earth in that area to a lower energy condition. (Think of “stress release”.)
Hot Dry Rock at Los Alamos National Laboratory
Scientist Don Brown of the HDR program at LANL is working on a book regarding the Fenton Hill Project, a geothermal experiment.
http://www.lanl.gov/source/orgs/ees/ees11/geophysics/other/hdr.shtml
11. Ray Popp | 01.14.09
Compared to the cost and dangers of nuclear power, this sounds like a winning proposition.
Ray
12. Brian Lloyd | 01.28.09
According to T. Boone Pickens and some studies from the US Federal Government, the US is importing about $700 Billion worth of oil annually from foreign nations. If the prior number is even remotely correct, it seems as if a lot of geothermal plants at $35 to $80 million each can be eventually built to significantly deter our dependence on foreign oil. It would be a reliable (available 24/7), renewable (green), and an independent energy source. In fact, why couldn’t energy be stored in the form of hydrogen garnered from seawater? Seawater certainly has it’s corrosive issues, but if that could be overcome it would be a clean and reliable water source for human or agricultural use. This is particularly an important issue if the future outlook of safe drinking water is in jeopordy, which some studies show — due to the accelerated melting of large glaciers. Possibly one big eventual problem: Just as the release of increase Carbon Dioxide over the years has increased the PH (acidity) levels of the oceans, this possibly could be a contributing factor in also effecting the oceans on a global scale if either enough hydrogen (from water) was horded and stored for many years for the purposes of energy production and/or safe drinking water. Certainly inexpensive and virtually limitless forms of “green” energy could also be eventually problematic in the future if not managed appropriately.
Trackbacks/Pingbacks
1. Enhanced Geothermal Systems - to supply 10% to 20% of future engergy needs? at Nebraska Engineer | 01.01.09
Leave a Comment
We do not publish all comments, and we do not publish comments immediately. The comments feature is a forum to discuss the ideas in our stories. Constructive debate - even pointed disagreement - is welcome, but personal attacks on other commenters are not, and will not be published.
Tip: Do not write a novel. Keep it short. We will not publish lengthy comments. Come up with your own statements. This is not a place to cut and paste an email you received. If we recognize it as such, we won't post it.
Please do not post any comments that are commercial in nature or that violate copyrights.
Finally, we will not publish any comments that we regard as obscene, defamatory, or intended to incite violence.
1. robert j petersen | 12.31.08
In Central Utah there is an underground lake the size of Utah Lake [96,000 acres] at 300 C. A 10 Megawatt geothermal plant now uses this energy. I would suppose there is room for a lot more power plants in this location. The local reports were than no new innovation was required to tap this energy. The only drawback may be the cost of these installations. I believe this first plant was $50 million.