What can we do? Meeting the challenges to developing our geothermal resources

Transactions - Geothermal Resources Council

Volumn 30 II, Issue , 2006, Pages 1023-1033

  Fleischmann, Daniel J ^a  

^a Geothermal Energy Association

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DECISION MAKING; PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT; PUBLIC POLICY; RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT;

GEOTHERMAL RESOURCES; US DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY (USDOE);

GEOTHERMAL ENERGY;

EID: 34548291887     PISSN: 01935933     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (49)

1. The 8.4% is based on calculations using a base year of 2004 for electric energy usage. The source is the Energy Information Agency (EIA). Current figures: http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/pdf/aeotab_8.pdf.
2. Projections: http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epat1p1. html.
3. The 50,000 is based on estimates from the U.S. Census: http:// www.census.gov/. The estimated population in 1990 was 248.7 million and is over 298.7 million today.
4. For the purposes of this report, MW refers to M W of electricity, and MWt refers to Megawatts thermal. Electric Power capacity - Geothermal Energy Association (GEA): http://www.geo-energv.org/publications/reports/ 2006%20Update%20on%20US%20Geothermal%20Power%20Production%20and%20Developmentx. pdf.
5. Direct-use heating capacity - Geo-Heat Center at the Oregon Institute of Technology (OIT): http://geoheat.oit.edu/pdf/tp121.pdf
6. The reason I refer to these resources as "being considered over the next five years" is based on the 3-5 years it takes to develop a project once the project is underway (i.e. further exploration, drilling, etc.). Source: 2006 Update on US Geothermal Power Production and Development (Geothermal Energy Association) (3/14/2006): http://www.geo-energy.org/publications/ reports/ 2006%20Update%20on%20US%20Geothermal%20Power%20Produc tion%20and%20Developmentx.pdf. The additional 11 MW represents an addition to the Blundell Plant at Roosevelt Hot Springs in Utah.
7. The 335,000 GWh is based on calculations using a base year of 2004 for electric energy usage, but we use those numbers as a conservative baseline. The source is the Energy Information Agency (EIA). Current figures: http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/pdf/aeotab_8.pdf.
8. Projections: http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epat1p1. html
9. California: 14,379 GWh - California Energy Commission (CEC): http://www.energy.ca.gov/electricity/gross_system_power.html.
10. Nevada: 1,268.8 GWh - State of Nevada Commission on Mineral Resources, Division of Minerals: http://minerals.state.nv.us/forms/ ogg/ogg_NGU/ NVGeothermalUpdate2006.04.pdf.
11. Utah: 184.4 GWh based on 2002 generation from the Blundell plant, the only one in operation in Utah. Source: Blackett, R.E., and Wakefield, Sharon, 2004: Geothermal resources of Utah - 2004: Utah Geological Survey Open-File Report 431DM (page 14): http://geology.utah.gov/emp/geothermal/pdf/utah high temp6.pdf.
12. Hawaii: 178.2 GWh based on 2003 numbers from EIA: http://www.eia.doe. gov/cneaf/solar.renewables/page/trends/trends.pdf (page 30). The total is 16,010.4 GWh; however, generation changes from year to year, so the number is roughly 16,000 GWh considering we do not have exact numbers for Utah and Hawaii in 2005.
13. Western Governors Association (WGA) Geothermal Task Force Report (January 2006): http://www.westgov.org/wga/initiatives/cdeac/Geothermal-full.pdf
14. These 11 Western states currently contain 22.5% of the U.S. Population (based on 2004 estimates). This means that for those 11 states (if we assume they use the same electricity use as other Americans), could possibly get over 1/3 of new electric power from geothermal power projects. Remove California, and you have a WGA estimate of 3,213 MW for a population less than 10% of the U.S. population. That is enough power for 79.8% of new demand, based on 10% of 335,000 GWh. These numbers were calculated based on estimates from these sources: Census data: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/index.html.
15. EIA state profiles: http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/ st_profiles/e_profiles_sum.html.
16. WGA Geothermal Task Force Report (January 2006): http://www.westgov. org/wga/initiatives/cdeac/Geothermal-full.pdf
17. 480 MW of near-term potential according to WGA Geothermal Task Force Report (January 2006): http://www.westgov.org/wga/initiatives/cdeac/ Geothermal-full.pdf - page 61
18. Source: U.S. Department of Interior 4/6/2006: http://www.doi.gov/ ocl/2006/RenewableAndAltemativeEnergy.htm
19. New Mexico and California have less than 50% of their land managed by the federal government, but maps clearly indicate that the majority of their geothermal resources are located on federal land. Percentage figures may have changed slightly since the sources below were released. University of Nevada-Reno, University Center for Economic (1999): http://www.unce.unr.edu/ publications/FS01/FS0132.pdf.
20. Idaho BLM (2002): http://www.id.blm.gov/publications/02update/ state5_10.pdf (based on calculations).
21. Idaho National Laboratory - Geothermal land use maps for the 13 Western States: http://geothermal.id.doe.gov/maps/index.shtml.
22. Idaho BLM (2002): http://www.id.blm.gov/publications/02update/ state5_10.pdf (based on calculations)
23. Source: http://www.doi.gov/iepa/2005_results.pdf (Section 222-224)
24. Source: Geothermal Energy Association (GEA) - August 2005: http:// www.geo-energy.org/publications/reports/Factors%20Affecting%20C ost%20of%20Geothermal%20Power%20Development%20-%20August%202005.pdf (page 18)
25. Source of "3.6 MW per million dollars of expenditure": SENTECH, Inc. (3/28/2005) "An analysis of Federal Loan Guarantees for Geothermal Energy Development" (page 1). Estimates on states which could be served by this development based on calculations from state profiles by the Energy Information Agency (EIA): http://www.eia.doe. gov/cneaf/electricitv/ st_profiles/e_profiles_sum.html
26. These are calculations based on the annual appropriations for the USDOE Geothermal Technologies Program from 1990 to 1999. The average appropriation during the 1990s was $27.75 million as compared to $23.3 million for FY 2006. Although 2006 appropriations are 16% lower in nominal dollars, based on inflation (real dollars), the 2006 appropriations are more than 16% lower than the average appropriations from 1990 through 1999. Source of budget: USDOE.
27. Source: GEA Update on US Geothermal Power Production and Development (3/14/2006): http://www.geo-energy.org/publications/ reports/ 2006%20Update%20on%20US%20Geothermal%20Power %20Production%20and%20Developmentx. pdf.
28. In Nevada, there are three projects under construction. In California, a project is under construction at Heber. However, and a 25 MW plant is currently being developed at the Salton Sea: http://www.peo-energy.org/information/ developing/CA/saltonSea6.asp
29. According to GEA, it takes 3-5 years or more to develop a project once the project is underway (i.e. applying for leases, initial exploration, etc.). Source: Statement of the Geothermal Energy Association 5/24/2005: http://waysandmeans.house.gov/hearings.asp?formmode= view&id=4069
30. Numbers based on the GEA Update on US Geothermal Power Production and Development (3/14/2006): http://www.geo-energy.org/publications/ reports/2006%20Update%20on%20US%20Geothermal%20Power %20Production%20and%20Developmentx.pdf
31. - The new 11 MW expansion to Blundell at Roosevelt Hot Springs in Utah was added to the projects under development. The CPUC is still considering a 120 MW project in Oregon that would sell power to California customers and has a delivery point within the CA ISO control area. Projects outside CA that deliver the energy into the ISO control area can be eligible. The power plant has a PPA with Pacific Gas & Electric (PGE) in California, and there is evidence that the California RPS was part of the driver for this project. However, if this project is considered an "Oregon" project, then the numbers would go this way: Non-RPS states would be developing 25% as many projects and 22.5% as many MW, although they have 37% of the potential of all 11 states. For "potential" of the 11 states, see the WGA Geothermal Taskforce Report (January 2006): http://www.westgov.org/wga/initiatives/cdeac/Geothermal-full. pdf.
32. This includes heat pumps and direct-use heating facilities. Source - EIA: http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/solar.renewables/page/trends/table5b.html
33. Source: Henneberger, Roger C., Klein, Christopher W., Lovekin, James W., and Sanyal, Subir, K. "National Assessment of U.S. Geothermal Resources - A Perspective". GeothermEx, September 2004.
34. Since 2000, there were 2 wells drilled in Valley County. There were 7 wells prior to 2000 - Source: INL Geothermal Program, 2000: Idahocollocated_Keller_revised.xls. Contact: Patrick.Lanev@inl.gov.
35. For information on Valley County wells contact Ken Neely at the Idaho Department of Water Resources: Ken.Neelv@idwr.idaho.gov
36. Based on my discussions with researchers in Utah, I determined these 22 "deep" wells may or may not be geothermal wells, however, it is more than likely that most, if not all of them are geothermal wells because of the location of the wells in areas known or presumed to have geothermal resource potential. This does not count shallow boreholes, (including slim temperature gradient holes drilled at Thermo Hot Springs) only geothermal exploration wells that could later be modified into production wells. Source: Utah Geological Survey well spring data (File Name: well_spring3.xls) - For more information, contact Robert Blackett at robertblackett@utah.gov
37. According to developers, greenfields are considered any resource area that has never had a producing well used for electrical production. Source of 37%: Geothermal Energy Association (August 2005): http://www.geo-energy.org/ publications/reports/Factors%20Affecting%20Cost%20of%20Geothermal%20 Power%20Development%20-%20August%202005.pdf (page 17). Source of 20%: SENTECH, Inc. (3/28/2005) "An analysis of Federal Loan Guarantees for Geothermal Energy Development" (page 50). There was a general agreement in my discussions with developers and researchers that 20% was accurate during the late-1980s.
38. California: Southern Methodist University (SMU): http://www.smu. edu/geothermal/georesou/alldata.csv.
39. Utah: Utah Geological Survey well spring data (File Name: well_spring3.xls) - For more information, contact Robert Blackett at rohertblackett@utah.gov.
40. Idaho: - INL Geothermal Program, 2000. Source: Idaho- collocated_Keller_revised. xls. For more information, contact: Patrick.Laney@inl.gov
41. Source: Gary Seawright; President, AmeriCulture, Inc.: gary@americulture.com
42. 25 U.S. states: Geothermal Energy Association, and Geo-Heat Center, Oregon Institute of Technology (OIT): http://www.geothermie. de/egec-geothernet/ghc/21-lart1.pdf & http://geoheat.oit.edu/dusys. htm
43. Geo-Heat Center, Oregon Institute of Technology (OIT): http://www. geothermie.de/egec-geothernet/ghc/21-1art1.pdf & http://geoheat.oit. edu/dusys.htm
44. rd largest geothermal-heated greenhouse in the country. Like AmeriCulture, they are also considering small-scale electrical power for on-site generation. The source of this information was provided by Alexander Masson, of Alex R. Masson, Inc.: ram@armasson.com
45. Sources: Idaho Department of Water Resources - Energy Division: http://www.idwr.state.id.us/energy/alternative_fuels/geothermal/ de-tailed_district.htm.
46. Boise Public Works: http://www.cityofboise.org/public_works/services/ water/geothermal/
47. Source: http://geoheat.oit.edu/colres.htm (1994)
48. Several sites have used low temperature resources on federal lands, but have shut down or are currently not in operation. Calculating the number of facilities is complex, because it is hard to know which unknown facilities might be on federal land. Furthermore, not all direct-use heating facilities operating on federal lands pay royalties or necessarily fall under the category of a direct-use facility. Based on my research, the overall number of direct-use heating facilities currently operating and paying royalties to the federal government is as low as 1, but it most likely less than 10, and more likely in the range of 1 to 5.
49. Source, Jim Witcher (March 2006): http://geology.utah.gov/emp/ geothermal/ugwg/workshop0306/ppt/Witcher0306_1_.ppt