LEGEND_final_int_publication

Ground Source
Heat Pumps
an overview on THE
potential in Adriatic
Area and the Balkans
The results of the
LEGEND project
and the market
perspectives
The IPAAdriatic Cross-border Cooperation Programme is the result of joint
programming work carried out by the relevant participating countries and
is part of the cooperation process in the Adriatic area through the financial
support of the European Union. Many factors make cooperation in the
Adriatic area important today, particularly from a political and economic point
of view, in order to guarantee harmonious growth, sustainable development
and unity among people. The areas of interventions are the socio-economic
development, natural, cultural and environmental risk protection, energy
efficiency and renewables, accessibility, networks and transports. The
Programme eligible area consists of 4 Member States (Italy, Greece,
Slovenia, Croatia), and Potential Candidate Countries (Albania, Montenegro,
Bosnia and Herzegovina) on the Adriatic sea.
www.legend-geothermalenergy.eu
www.adriaticipacbc.org

Partnership
Province of Ferrara
ITALY
Lead partner
GeoZS – Geological Survey of Slovenia
SLOVENIA
IRENA– Istrian Regional Energy Agency Ltd
CROATIA
LIR – Evolution
Repubblica Srpska, BOSNIA HERZEGOVINA
Emilia–Romagna Region
General Directorate of ProductiveActivities, Commerce and Tourism
ITALY
Veneto Region
Geology and Georesources Direction
ITALY
Municipality of Shkodra
ALBANIA
Province of Teramo
ITALY
REDASP – Regional Economic Development
Agency for Sumadija and Pomoravlje
SERBIA
Municipality of Danilovgrad
MONTENEGRO
DUNEA, Regional Development Agency
Dubrovnik Neretva Region
CROATIA
Apulia Region – Environmental Authority
ITALY
Montenegro Green Building Council
MONTENEGRO
EGEC – European Geothermal Energy Council
BELGIUM
Observer partner
With the support of:
EURIS s.r.l. – project coordination unit
ITALY
All the contents of this publication have been released for
Emilia-Romagna Region. All rights reserved
Communication project Studio le Immagini, Ferrara
Printed by Italia Tipografia, Ferrara
Via Baluardi, 57 - 44121 Ferrara
ISBN 978-88-902471-8-7

Ground Source Heat Pumps
an overview on THE potential in Adriatic Area and the Balkans
The results of the LEGEND project and the market perspectives
Edited by Francesco Tinti
The LEGEND project “Low Enthalpy Geothermal ENergy Demonstration cases for Energy
Efficient building in Adriatic area” is financed by the European Union through the IPA
Adriatic Cross-border Cooperation Programme 2007-2013
This publication reflects the views only of the authors, and the Authorities
of the IPA CBC Adriatic Programme cannot be held responsible for any use
which may be made of information contained therein

Ground, water, air: three essential elements
for the life on Earth that we must exploit in a
more sustainable way to allow the future gen-
erations to enjoy the resources as the prede-
cessors. In other terms “living well, within the
limits of our planet”, as stressed by the Eu-
ropean Commission in the EU Environmental
Programme to 2020.
It’s nowadays well acknowledged that our
planet is going through a period of great
changes due to anthropogenic global warm-
ing. As the changes currently in progress are
unique, take place very quickly and can have
large and unexpected effects, the environ-
mental natural adaptation attitudes are not
sufficient and we need to implement actions
to reduce the human impact on Earth climate.
The LEGEND project basic idea is that ge-
othermal energy can provide a significant
contribution to the reduction of the negative
impacts that current systems for heating and
cooling in our living and working environments
have on ground, water and air.
The project deepened legislative, techno-
logical, environmental, energy and financial
aspects of low enthalpy geothermal systems
and implemented several pilot plants in order
to increase the knowledge and facilitate the
application of this technological option.
During the project we have experienced large
differences among the partner countries con-
cerning regulatory , administrative, geological,
economic and technological aspects. At the
same time we felt strengthened the intention
of each of us to pool our skills with the aim of
contributing together for accelerating the de-
velopment of geothermal applications market.
Different measures are necessary in order to
reach this target:
• a clear regulatory framework that can drive
the design and creation of the plants in the
most suitable places and conditions in full
compliance with environmental and local
geological conditions;
• a mid-long term planning, able to support
and promote GCHP technology. In this
manner, small medium enterprises and
companies will find favorable conditions
to carry out an operative management sy-
stem and to devote part of the resources
to research and technological innovation.
• an action plan connected with the new
buildings as well as the renovation of the
exsisting ones, promoting the use of low en-
thalpy geothermal energy through strong in-
tegration with other renewable sources and
with the most advanced construction tech-
niques. This latter should be able also to
assure practical implementation of the Eu-
ropean directives on energy efficiency and
the use of renewable energy sources and to
represent a basic tool for the dissemination
of the results of geothermal applications;
• a strong action of communication in order
to spread the knowledge about costs and
benefits of the technologies;
• a campaign for permanent training of desi-
gners and installers to assure the quality
of the applications and their integration
with other renewable sources.
This Publication collects the experiences
gained during the last two years through the
LEGEND project. Project partners had the
opportunity to know each other, discuss with
some of the most outstanding technical minds
that operate in this sector and also to identify
some actions for supporting the development
of a complete supply chain of low enthalpy geo-
thermal energy in theAdriatic basin. This is just
the beginning of the game we want to play. We
are going to learn together how to use the tools
we have profiled, how to implement those ac-
tions and to measure their effects. Coherence
and engagement will be basic aspects in order
to make geothermal energy, together with other
renewable sources, a real alternative to fossil
fuels. We are going to play an hard game, but
we hope that the suggestions that we propose
through this publication will be a stimulus for
other players who want to join us and bring new
ideas and contributions.
Vision to GCHP technology in Adriatic
Attilio Raimondi
Emilia-Romagna Region

The use of traditional energy resources over
the centuries has posed serious threats
to our existence on Earth being one of the
major causes of global warming and climate
change. Many countries have recognized the
importance of this problem and they devote
all their efforts and resources in order to
reverse this trend. It can be expected that
the use of all types of renewable energy re-
sources will increase all over the world in the
future not only because of the raised public
awareness on the advantages that those
energy resources offer, but also thanks to
the subsidies given by different institutions,
states and communities.
It is important to mention the role of the Euro-
pean Union, which finances, through different
regional and cross-border programmes, pro-
jects aimed at resolving the above-mentioned
issues. One of those programmes is the IPA
Adriatic cross-border programme, in which 8
countries from the Adriatic region participate
and which aims at improving energy efficiency
in the Adriatic area by financing investments
in new technologies, and encouraging SMEs
to adopt them through awareness raising
campaigns.
Project LEGEND represents a perfect ex-
ample of how the EU funds should be used,
because it achieves concrete results and it
proves that through joint actions and co-oper-
ation a better conservation of the environment
and improved life conditions in the Adriatic
region can be achieved. It has always been
more efficient and effective to combine efforts
and adopt a holistic approach when dealing
with problems of mutual interest that extend
far beyond national borders than to implement
isolated actions, and this is actually the main
idea our Programme is based on.
Project LEGEND is very important for the par-
ticipating countries and for the entire Adriatic
region, because it assesses the current state
of renewable energy development in the in-
volved territories and it clearly demonstrate
through pilot actions all advantages of the ge-
othermal energy with the aim of improving the
legislative framework and market conditions
for sustainable building and development in
the Adriatic. Project partners are given the op-
portunity to implement concrete investments
and thus gain advantages and benefits that
exceed the project duration. Experiences,
skills and results obtained that way are of ma-
jor importance because they can be duplicat-
ed and used on other similar territories.
Projects such as LEGEND represent also a
solid basis for the next programming period
2014-2020, through which the European
Union will continue to finance activities in
line with the Strategy 2020, which recogniz-
es the transition to the green, low-carbon,
and resource-efficient energy in all sectors
as a key element for achieving smart, sus-
tainable and inclusive growth. It is up to
relevant institutions as project partners to
continue working on the development of
their countries, stabilization of relationships
and improvement of competitiveness of the
entire Adriatic-Ionian region.
European Territorial Cooperation:
opportunities to face common challenges
Minja Maric Calabro
IPA CBC Adriatic Programme

Index
7
9
9
11
13
13
23
30
33
35
35
46
59
68
70
71
Executive summary
1 Low Enthalpy Geothermal Energy in the European Framework
of Renewable Energy Sources
1.1 The role of Geothermal Energy as Renewable Energy Source
1.2 The potential of geothermal energy in Europe
2 Potential of Geothermal Sources in Adriatic Area
and the Balkans
2.1 Geological, hydrogeological and geothermal potential
2.2 Degree of knowledge by stakeholders and common people
2.3 The barriers to the development and the possible flanking measures
2.4 The supply chain and the market
3 Practical implementations within LEGEND Project
3.1 The energy conversion of 10 public-owned
buildings to GCHP: technological showcase
3.2 The lessons learnt by the practical implementations
3.3 The environmental analysis through the Life Cycle Assessment
Conclusions and perspectives
Glossary and Acronyms
Bibliography

Authors
Francesco Tinti
University of Bologna, Scientific
Coordinator of LEGEND on behalf of the Province of Ferrara
Angela Amorusi
Gianna Elisa Berlingerio
Apulia Region
Minja Maric Calabro
IPA CBC Adriatic Programme
Cristian Chiavetta
Ecoinnovazione, spin-off ENEA
Michele Chieco
Apulia Region
Anke-Harris Collins
James Collins
Ermanno Defilippis
Apulia Region
Dalibor Jovanovi´c
Istrian Regional Energy Agency
Marco Meggiolaro
Project manager, EURIS srl, on behalf of the Province of Ferrara
Antonio Mercurio
Apulia Region
Michele Minutillo
P&R Project S.r.l
Maša Perovi´c
Paolo Adolfo Piccinno
P&R Project S.r.l
Joerg Prestor
Geological Survey of Slovenia
Attilio Raimondi
Dušan Rajver
Fabrizio Tollari
Alessandra Zamagni
Ecoinnovazione, spin-off ENEA

7
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Marco Meggiolaro
Project manager, EURIS srl
The 50% of the energy consumption (and
36% of GHG emissions) produced in EU is ab-
sorbed by public and private buildings. In this
share, 2/3 of the energy consumption is used
for heating and cooling purposes. This means
that buildings, along with transports and indus-
try, represent one of the crucial sectors con-
cerned by strategies to save energy, shift to re-
newable sources and reduce GHG emissions
to tackle the 20-20-20 EU objectives towards
the transition of our Continent to a low carbon
energy economy.
The EU Energy Roadmap to 2050 sets a list
of objectives to decarbonize Europe. In this
framework, the geothermal energy is one of
the most environmentally-friendly and cost-ef-
fective energy sources with potential to help
mitigate global warming and replace fossil fu-
els if widely deployed. Many external factors
are making the exploitation of geothermal en-
ergy an attractive and viable alternative more
than ever, like the variability of the crude oil
price, the regional crises in the Eastern Eu-
rope and in the North Africa and their possi-
ble consequences on the energy supply, the
need to reduce the use of fossil fuels to cut
pollution. Technological advances in the ge-
othermal sector have dramatically expanded
the range and size of resources, especially
for applications such as home heating and
cooling, opening a potential for widespread
exploitation. (Figure 1)
In specific, the low-enthalpy power genera-
tion utilizing Ground Coupled Heat Pumps
(GCHP) can be exploited everywhere (since it
is not depending on the presence of hot-water
deep basins) with the help of a ground-source
heat pump from the soil, rocks by using bore-
hole heat exchangers. Nevertheless, the Eu-
ropean Commission highlights that this sector
is not doing enough to exploit the potential
of shallow thermal and new methodologies,
technologies and demonstrative investments
are requested.
What about the Adriatic regions? (Figure 2)
The Adriatic area, covering 8 Countries and
60 million inhabitants, shows optimal climatic
and geological conditions for fully exploit the
potentialities of low temperature geothermal
energy with Ground-Source Heat Pumps
(GSHP) due to presence of medium temper-
ature sedimentary basin across the Western
Adriatic shore and the shallow geothermal
conditions which characterize the entire East-
ern Adriatic Countries. However, in this area
the technical expertise and the presence of
successful cases are polarized mainly in the
north Adriatic and along the Italian shore,
whilst the awareness over the benefits of heat
pumps, the legislations and - finally - the ma-
turity of the market are still in the early stage.
What is needed more than ever to overcome
these market barriers are the implementation
of demonstrative interventions all over the
Adriatic basin with sounding results, the circu-
lation of technical-based information through
education yet from the secondary school and
– in the long run – the creation of transnation-
al supply chains of designer, installers, geol-
ogists and technology providers.
With around 3 million € of budget, LEGEND
“Low Enthalpy Geothermal ENergy Demon-
stration cases for Energy Efficient building in
Adriatic area” is the largest geothermal ener-
gy investment project ever financed by the
European Union in the Adriatic and Balkan
area, through the financial assistance of the
IPA CBC Adriatic Programme.
The purpose of the project, coordinated by
the Province of Ferrara (IT) and implement-
ed in 11 Adriatic regions of Italy, Croatia,
Montenegro, Albania, Serbia, Slovenia and
Bosnia Herzegovina, and with the support of
the European Geothermal Energy Council,
is to promote the use of shallow geothermal
energy, in particular the GCHP technologies,
through the conversion of 10 publically owned
buildings to use GCHP as the primary energy
source for heating and cooling.
The specific objectives of the project are:
• to increase the knowledge among the con-
cerned administrations over the most repre-
sentative best practices in GCHP technology
developed at European level for residential
housing and public and industrial buildings
(in line with the EU legislation on RES Heat-
ing/Cooling and energy efficiency) through
specific thematic workshops and through the
assessment of existing technical and adminis-
trative standards for the effective replication of
technologies at local scale;
Figure 1
Global warming trends from 1880

8
• to demonstrate, thanks to the realization of
10 demonstrative low enthalpy energy build-
ing refurbishment (4 in Italy, 3 in Croatia, 1 in
Albania, 1 in Montenegro, 1 in Bosnia Herze-
govina) and 3 pre-investment feasibility stud-
ies (1 in Italy, 1 in Serbia and 1 in Slovenia)
that this technology is based on a feasible,
cost effective and mature technique, with an
outstanding potential to mitigate GHG emis-
sions and energy saving;
• to improve the regional and local norma-
tive framework in every participating regions,
to pave the way towards the introduction of
massive GCHP investments supported by
the EU Financial Framework 2014-2020 in
the concerned regions and to address the
legislations towards GCHP friendly patterns,
with specific references to the permissions /
licenses procedures;
• to contribute at removing normative and
non-technological barriers and boost long-
term investments strategies for GCHP ap-
plications at wide scale, thus determining a
broader market uptake and the technological
transferability in the heating and cooling Adri-
atic markets;
• to raise awareness and technical compe-
tences among policymakers at different gov-
ernance level (regions and local authorities),
district heating companies and professional
groups / market operators about benefits and
potential of GCHP technology to adopting and
implementing the results of the project to-
wards and effective district heating and cool-
ing application;
• to design political and technical memoran-
dum and guidelines to harmonize approach-
es, to improve a better understanding of the
GCHP merits and benefits, to promote and in-
centive the investments of geothermal energy
in public and private sector.
The project represents an outstanding exam-
ple of a cross-border initiative to meet the EU
climate and energy targets to 2020 and it is
based on a very concrete approach: LEGEND
has immediate effects in terms of energy gen-
erated by renewables (around 1000 kW/year)
and CO2 reduction, it encourage green-mar-
ket, technological development and deploy-
ment and public & private investments.
However, the indirect results are much more
important to mobilize the shallow geothermal
energy market in the Adriatic, because LEG-
END has demonstrated that the ground cou-
ple heat pumps are a promising technology
not only for the new buildings but also for the
old and low-energy rate buildings – that repre-
sent the large majority in the Adriatic regions
– thus marking the possible transition from a
niche market segment to the largest diffusion
and application.
Figure 2:
Drilling works for geological survey

9
Low Enthalpy Geothermal Energy in the European
Framework of Renewable Energy Sources
Francesco Tinti
University of Bologna
1
At present, almost 50% of the total energy
consumed in Europe is used for the gen-
eration of heat for either domestic, commer-
cial or industrial purposes. The vast majority
of thermal energy is produced through the
combustion of fossil fuels, mostly of them im-
ported from outside EU. Cooling is, with few
exceptions, achieved by processes driven by
electricity, which is still predominantly pro-
duced from fossil fuels, too. Therefore, both
heating and cooling are sectors in which a
massive use of renewable energy sources
can give an important contribution towards
the objective of reaching a more sustainable,
safe, reliable and stable energy economy.
Statistics of final energy consumption in house-
holds by fuel for EU-28 show that around 55%
is still dominated by fossil fuels (in particular
natural gas), while the rest is divided among
the use of electricity, renewable energy in dif-
ferent forms and derived heat (Figure 1. Data
updadet to 2012, Eurostat).
Regarding country-by-country scenarios, here
follow a comparison between renewable energy
and natural gas use in households, for EU-28
and some other non-EU countries (Figure 2).
For these reasons, all energy scenarios at
different levels (European, national, local)
assume a very substantial contribution of
renewable energy penetration in the heating
and cooling sector, towards the targets set out
in the Renewable Energy Source Directive
(“RES Directive”, 2009/28/CE) and the En-
ergy Performance of Buildings Directive
(“NZEB Directive”, 2010/31/EU). Moreover,
a complete and exhaustive database of data,
specific for households consumption, is ex-
pected to be set up, according to the recent
Commission Regulation (EU) No 431/2014
of 24 April 2014 (“Annual Statistics of Energy
Consumptions for households”).
The two Directives, recently introduced, re-
port important concepts such as the inclusion
of geothermal, aerothermal and hydrothermal
heat pumps within renewable energy sources,
although with some limitations, and the defini-
tion of nearly zero energy buildings.
The EU energy strategy is having some kind
of success, as is confirmed by the increase
over the years of renewable energy quota in
the households sector, at the expense mainly
of petroleum products (basically diesel fuel).
Here follow the trend of percentages over last
years. (Figure 3)
Referring to heating and cooling sector, re-
Figure 1:
Energy consumption by fuel
for households in year 2012
(Eurostat, 2014)
Figure 2:
Graphical comparison between
percentage diffusion of renewable
energy (yellow, left) and natural
gas (red, right) in households
for different European countries
(Eurostat, 2014)
1.1
The role of Geothermal
Energy as Renewable
Energy Source

10
Low Enthalpy Geothermal Energy in the European Framework of Renewable Energy Sources
Figure 3:
Energy consumption along
years after the introduction of
Energy Efficiency and Renew-
able Energy Directives along
years for households
(Eurostat, 2012)
Figure 4:
Percentage increase of renew-
able energy quota for heating
and cooling sector in EU-28,
compared with the three EU
countries of Adriatic area: Italy,
Slovenia and Croatia.
0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012

European
Union
(28
countries)
Croa=a
Italy
Slovenia

newable energy in 2012 accounted for 15,6
% of total energy use for heating and cooling
in the EU-28, showing a quite constant incre-
ase in recent years. Industry, services and
residential buildings contributed mostly to this
growth. (Eurostat, 2014). (Figure 4)
In this contest, geothermal heat pumps, ad-
mitted as renewable energy within statistics
after Directive 2009/28/CE, which can pro-
vide both heating and cooling to any kind
of buildings all over Europe, have the po-
tential to become a key piece on the chess-
board of energy sustainability.
The recent technological progress, the un-
controllable variability of energy costs,
the difficulty of fossil fuels supply and
the commitment in reducing greenhouse
gas emissions are the four factors which,
combined together, are currently paving the
way to a massive introduction of geother-
mal heat pumps in normal life of EU citizens,
slowly coming out from the niche position of
modern and innovative energy efficient build-
ing projects to a wider installation in resi-
dential, public, commercial and industrial
buildings, either new and old ones.
According to the ambitious targets of National
Renewable Energy Action Plans (NREAPs) of
different member states, mostly by the intro-
duction of geothermal heat pumps in building
energy retrofitting projects, it is expected a
huge increase of renewable energy produced
by these systems up to 2020. Here follow
growth forecast for EU three Adriatic coun-
tries, as officially reported in their NREAPs,
expressed in ktoe.
Figure 5:
Growth forecast of energy produced
by geothermal heat pumps, for Italy,
Slovenia and Croatia (NREAPs) and
comparison with total amount
for EU-28
325,79

1526,94

3223,61

5493,37

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

2005
2010
2015
2020

ktoe
ktoe

European
Union
(28
countries)
Italy
Slovenia
CroaBa

11
Low Enthalpy Geothermal Energy in the European Framework of Renewable Energy Sources
In the residential sector, the main geothermal
technology to cover heating and cooling de-
mand is the shallow geothermal heat pump
system (the so-called Ground Coupled Heat
Pump GCHP or Ground Source Heat Pump
GSHP). The technology is suitable for small, in-
dividual houses as well as for large multi-family
houses or even groups of houses at district lev-
el. Capacities range from under 5 kWt to over
1 MWt. The depths of geothermal heat ex-
change range from a few meters to more than
300 m, depending upon technology used, ge-
ological situation, demand profile and other
design considerations and constraints. In 2010
in Europe, the number of geothermal heat
pumps crossed the threshold of 1 million units,
with Sweden, Germany and France as leading
markets, especially for heating purposes. Cur-
rently, aided by the technological improvement,
geothermal heat pumps are showing their po-
tential for cooling, too, with particular reference
to commercial malls and industrial projects,
while residential cooling is still considered a
non-indispensable comfort, mostly covered by
small air-to-air heat pumps units.
In most European countries, installation costs
of geothermal heat pump systems are still
perceived as too high, if compared to tradi-
tional heating and cooling systems, in order
to support their massive introduction in every-
day life of European citizens, therefore GCHP
systems are mostly still confined to showcase
and pilot projects.
Anyway, in recent years, thanks to technolog-
ical progress, research on innovative compo-
nents and solutions, introduction of incentives
for environmental friendly systems and in-
crease of European and Extra-European mar-
ket competition, investment costs are rapidly
decreasing both on heat pump and ground
heat exchanger sides.
Referring to suitability of European territory to
host GCHP systems, at the current state of
the art, there is theoretically no effective situ-
ation in Europe which prevents the realization
of a GCHP project. It is basically due to the
three following reasons:
• heat and cold can be extracted from un-
derground in many different manners. Prac-
tically, for each geological and environmental
protection situation, there is always at least
one ground heat exchanger possibility to ex-
ploit geothermal energy;
• new generation high temperature Ground
Coupled Heat Pumps can provide hot wa-
ter up to 65°C – 70°C, which are generally
the maximum values for all types of building
stocks present at European level. Even in
cases of very problematic situation, GCHP
can be always used as “base load”, in combi-
nation with other energy sources, which gives
anyway significant energy savings;
• most European cities are usually over-
crowded and free area portion for making
boreholes and wells is limited. To face this, in-
ternational research is looking for drilling ma-
chines and ground heat exchanger systems
more and more suitable for urban areas. An-
yway, already today, it is possible to connect,
without significant losses, groups of buildings
to a unique GCHP system located in the most
suitable place, through a mini district heating
network.
Therefore, factors influencing the suitability
and diffusion of GCHP around Europe are
others than effective technical limitations and
they basically are:
1. Installation costs and pay – back time of
the investment. It depends by:
❍❍ Geological and geothermal conditions;
❍❍ Situation of existing building stocks and
urban planning of cities;
❍❍ Energy vectors availability and energy
prices;
❍❍ Incentives for renewable energy projects.
2. Local presence of skilled technicians in the
three phases:
❍❍ Design
❍❍ Installation
❍❍ Maintenance and, eventually, disman-
tling
3. Correct knowledge by citizens and com-
mon people of GCHP as a concrete, realistic
alternative, possible by:
❍❍ Policy support
❍❍ Promotional and communication cam-
paigns
1.2
The potential of
geothermal energy
in Europe
Figure 1:
Map of geothermal heat pump
installations surveyed by
European Geothermal Energy
Council in Europe
(Repowermap, 2014)

13
Figure 1:
Map of heat-flow density
(left) and map of tempera-
ture at 1,000 m depth (right)
in Italy, Adriatic side. Red
points are the operating
geothermal wells (Cataldi
et al., 1995; Italian Ministry
of Economics, webgis on
geothermal sources and
potential, based on Google
Earth, 2014).
Potential of Geothermal Sources in
Adriatic Area and the Balkans
2
1. Introduction
Geothermal energy is an inexhaustible source
of renewable energy everywhere beneath
our feet. With today‘s technology it is also
available to households through shallow un-
derground. Since it does not depend on the
presence of hot water deep basins, the low
enthalpy thermal power generation utilizing
shallow geothermal technologies can be ex-
ploited everywhere. It can be captured in very
different ways to adapt to natural geological
and climate conditions and different project
ideas. The capture of shallow geothermal en-
ergy usually does not extend more than 300
m in depth. According to Lund et al. (2000)
two major GSHP types exist: ground-cou-
pled (closed loop) heat pump (GCHP) and
water source (open loop). GCHP types are
just a subset of GSHPs. GSHPs also include
groundwater and lake water heat pumps (wa-
ter source), while GCHPs are connected to a
closed-loop network of tubing that is buried
in the ground. The most common method of
ground-coupling is to bury thermally-fused
plastic pipe either vertically or horizontally.
The aim of this chapter is to present some
natural geological, hydrogeological and
ground thermal characteristics in several
regions dealt with during LEGEND Project,
belonging both to the Adriatic coastal and
hinterland areas. Data and description of the
values, which are important for appropriate
planning of GSHP installations, are substan-
tially taken from benchmark reports, made by
each partner in the framework of the project
and for some regions real data originating
from demonstration projects.
2. Geology and hydrogeology of
the regions, ground properties
The simplified geo-structural pattern of the
wider analysed Circum-Adriatic area shows
the complexity, which is a consequence of the
well known thrusting of the African tectonic
plate under the Eurasian. This is evident also
in the pattern of the depths to the Mohorovičić
(Moho) discontinuity, which show great vari-
ations, from only 27 km in the central part of
the Italian Po valley to around 48 km in the Di-
narides of Montenegro and north Albania. Be-
neath the Adriatic Sea depths are in the range
of 24 km in the south east to 40 km in the
north western part. As a result geological and
hydrogeological characteristics of the regions
described herein are quite heterogenous and
complex, which is reflected in geothermal
parameters, such as heat-flow density (HFD)
and temperatures at certain depths.
Regarding the Italian peninsula, the Adriatic
side is generally considered the “cold side” in
respect to the hotter Tyrrhenian side (Figure
1) with high enthalpy geothermal fields. Ge-
ophysical campaigns and monitoring of oper-
ating wells were conducted over many years,
mainly related to the research of hydrocar-
bons. They showed HFD (Figure 1, left) and
temperatures at a depth of 1,000 m (Figure
1, right) much lower on the Adriatic side than
on the Tyrrhenian side. Nevertheless, some
geothermal anomalies exist, almost all in the
northern part, with several operating geother-
mal wells.
2.1
Geological,
hydrogeological and
geothermal potential
Dušan Rajver
and Joerg Prestor
Francesco Tinti
University of Bologna

14
Potential of Geothermal Sources in Adriatic Area and the BalkanS
2.1. Veneto Region –
Focus on the Province of Rovigo, Italy
The shallow underground of northern adriatic
regions of Italy is subjected to important geo-
thermal anomalies, with a subsequent great
potential for shallow geothermal energy in-
stallation both for open loop and closed loop
systems. This is the case of Veneto Region
(Figure 2). In the Province of Rovigo the ge-
othermal potential has been studied with a
scope to broaden the knowledge concerning
the geological and hydrogeological context of
the area of 1800 km2 (Polesine and Po delta
areas) and to evaluate the ability of the subsur-
face to host low enthalpy geothermal systems
(open or closed loop system). The current terri-
tory of Polesine is, speaking in geologic sense,
very recent, which is due to the alluvial deposits
from the Adige and Po rivers, and through the
land reclamation. The common features are
generally the low altitude, very gentle slope
of the terrain, the abundance of water reg-
ulated by consortia with levees, canals and
draining pumps. Following the bibliographic
acquisition and identification of large amount
of geological, hydrogeological and technical
data, scattered in numerous archives, a data-
base logical relationships was established for
their better organization and validation. Some
experimental field investigations followed,
such as piezometer surveys, seismic studies,
penetration tests and hydrogeological investi-
gations. Then the following activities were re-
alized (Veneto Region, 2014): (a) 15 electrical
tomography lines (470 m of length and about
95 m of investigation depth for each line); (b) 8
continuous core drillings to depths of 15 to 20
m b.g.l. for obtaining survey area stratigraphy.
Later the 2“ diameter piezometers have been
installed in boreholes. Also 8 static penetration
tests were realized using electric tip, piezo-
cone and resistivity cone penetration testing
tool, driven to a depth of about 20 m b.g.l.. (c)
Thermal conductivity measurements on sur-
face soil samples (a measurement campaign
at 1 m depth b.g.l. at 120 sites distributed with-
in a grid with 4 km side square mesh) and on
samples taken from drillings (measurements
on each different lithology variation or at least
once every 3 meters); (d) Multiparameter logs
in available points, measuring T, pH, EC, redox,
dissolved oxygen parameters, in order to verify
the variation of these parameters with depth;
(e) Installation of 7 automatic dataloggers for
groundwater monitoring in wells representative
of different aquifers; (f) Permeability tests (slug
tests); (g) Single well tracking tests for aquifer
parameterization; and (h) Phreatimetric level
measurements to define groundwater flow di-
rection. The analysis of acquired data allowed
to reconstruct geological and hydrogeological
layout of the province with identification of
permeable and impermeable layers as well as
transformation of the geological profiles into
hydro-stratigraphic sections. Better knowledge
of groundwater thermal conditions led to elabo-
ration of thematic maps.
Hydrogeology between the Po andAdige rivers
is linked to the nature of alluvial sediments and
to their relationship with rivers. It is composed
of a complex of overlapping aquifers, almost all
confined, within sandy layers, and intercalated
with non-permeable layers. The geothermal
gradient is relatively low, if compared with other
zones of the Veneto Region, as e.g. the vol-
canic zone of Colli Euganei (Figure 2, left). The
gradient is reflected in shallow temperatures,
for example at a depth of 50 m (Figure 2, right).
Thermal conductivity values are related to un-
consolidated soils (mainly sands) with high de-
gree of saturation. However, the latest results of
temperature logging in the Province of Rovigo,
not deeper than 100 m, show geothermal gra-
dients of 15 to 75 °C/km as locally constrained,
since the range of values for the Veneto region
is generally 15 to 45 °C/km (Table 2). Together
with thermal conductivity values of 1.4 to 1.8 W/
(mK) from the detailed survey in this Province
(Figure 3) a suitable geothermal heat-flux map
shows exceptional values of 30 to 120 mW/m2
at 50 m depth. However, the HFD in the Vene-
to Region and Province of Rovigo in general
have normal values of 35 to 80 mW/m2
. The
closed loop systems suitability map (Figure 4)
is a result from the overlay of the closed loop
systems‘ geothermal potential map, which is
practically of the same contours, with other
conditioning factors.
Figure 2:
Map of temperature gradient
values (°C/100 m) in the
Veneto Region (left) and map
of expected temperature at 50
m depth in the Veneto Region
(right) (both: Tosoni, 2012).
Figure 3:
Equivalent thermal conductiv-
ity map at 50 m b.g.l. for the
Province of Rovigo
(Veneto Region, 2014)
Figure 4:
Closed loop systems suitability
map for the Province of Rovigo
(Veneto Region, 2014)

15
2.2. Emilia-Romagna Region –
Focus on the Province of Ferrara, Italy
Geological and hydrogeological setting
The whole territory of Ferrara is located in the
south eastern sector of the sedimentary Po ba-
sin, which is characterized by a complex geo-
logical structure called “Ferrara Folds” from the
late Tertiary, which influenced the stratigraphic
architecture of the Quaternary deposits. The
aquifer groupArepresents the last sedimentary
succession, going from late-middle Pleistocene
to Holocene (Province of Ferrara, 2013). The
oldest, deep and confined aquifers are charac-
terized by coastal and marine sediment grada-
tion. The sediments are generally coarse (me-
dium sand with high permeability) and can be
found at depths 100 to 300 m. Younger aquifers
are characterized by delta-fluvial deposits and
alluvial sediments (fine sand and silty sand with
average permeability). The phreatic aquifer is a
few meters thick, while the other aquifers‘ thick-
ness is 40 to 100 m. The aquitards separating
the aquifers are characterized by lagoonal,
prodelta and platform deposits composed of
silty clay sediments with low permeability.
Except for the shallow aquifer, receiving the
total input directly from rainfalls, the rest of
the aquifer complexes are confined and they
do not receive recharge from precipitations.
The A1 system receives direct recharge from
the wide reaches of the Po River and remote
recharge from both the alluvial Apennine and
Alpine fan systems and the outcropping sands
of the Adriatic Sea. The A2 system is only re-
charged by the alluvialApennine andAlpine fan
systems. The systems A3 and A4 are not af-
fected by the hydrological cycle but are charac-
terized by the presence of fossil water (Figure
5). The permanent reserves of A1 and A2 were
estimated by the Province of Ferrar at 330 Mm3
and 400 Mm3
, respectively.
Ground properties and soil types
In the topographically depressed areas of the
Ferrara floodplain the soils have high clay con-
tent and are, therefore, subjected to contraction
and swelling phenomena that produce large
and deep cracks on the surface. Soils of mor-
phologically high areas, developed on ancient
fluvial bumps, show internal reorganization of
particles, no evidence of mobilization process-
es and re-deposition of calcium carbonate in
deep layers. The predominant soil textures in
the province are silt loam and silty clay (68%
of the territory), while peaty soil is less frequent
(23%). The remaining 9% is covered by sand
and silty sand (Figure 6).
Thermal and hydraulic parameters.
The hydraulic conductivity of the permeable
coarse and sand deposits in the alluvial plain
varies in a range of 7 - 8∙10-3 m/s (alluvial fan
deposits) and 7 - 8∙10-5 m/s (very fine sand in
coastal aquifers and river bank deposits). Ther-
mal conductivities of the sediments have nor-
mal values in dry and wet conditions. Geother-
mal reservoirs were developed in the eastern
part of Ferrara. Three hydrothermal systems
have been identified: G1 (Early Pliocene For-
mations), G2 (Late Messinian Formations) and
G3 (Early Jurassic Formations). Each reservoir
can be considered hydraulically separated
from the others by aquitards that prevent signif-
icant leakages. The shallow system G1 com-
prises the aquifer group A and does not show
thermal anomalies. The hydrothermal system
G2 consists of fine and medium sand interca-
lated with Early Miocene marl layers. The res-
ervoir top is 650-800 m deep and the system
is characterized by an average temperature
of 45 to 60°C. The hydrothermal system G3 is
composed of fractured dolomite and limestone.
The reservoir thickness is 700 to 1,000 m with
the reservoir top at 600 to 1,700 m depth. The
average temperature in this reservoir is around
85 to 95°C. Drilling data collected during oil
and gas campaigns in the Po plain indicate a
geothermal gradient of 1°C/100 m, at least in
the shallow deposits. Generally the geothermal
gradient is not linear and the studies in Ferrara
indicate gradients from 20 to 65°C/km in the
deepest geothermal reservoir G3. This is due
to the high permeability of the carbonate rocks,
permitting heat transfer via deep water circula-
tion. The geothermal field is explained with the
HFD pattern, with values of 30 to 65 mW/m2
and expected temperatures at 1,000 m depth
between 35 and 80°C (Figure 1).
2.3. Province of Teramo, Italy
Geological and hydrogeological settings
The mountains are made up of limestone rocks
for the most part, of the Mesozoic age (Triassic
to Cretaceous). The steep slopes of the Gran
Sasso are opposed to the different morphology
of the Laga, in the far north of the province, with
forests, gorges and waterfalls. Along the Adri-
atic coast, sandy beaches are stretched with
Mediterranean climate. Most of the territory of
this province is hilly: several rivers flow along
the valleys, including the Vomano and Val Vi-
Figure 5:
Sequential hydrostratigraphic
unit in the Emilia-Romagna
plain (Province of Ferrara, 2013
Figure 6:
Soil map of the Province of
Ferrara 1:50.000
(Province of Ferrara, 2013

16
brata (Province of Teramo, 2013). The hills are
high and sometimes gruff, sometimes charac-
terized by gentle green slopes. There are for-
mations of „badlands“ due to erosion, however,
there are areas with groves of oaks, poplars,
willows and maples. The plain in the province
of Teramo takes only 1% of the territory which
in this case extends only in the coastal part.
This plain and the lower parts of the river val-
leys are more suitable for GSHP installations.
The expected temperatures at 1,000 m depth
in the Teramo Province are on average from 30
to 40°C, and the HFD values between 30 and
65 mW/m2
. (Figure 11)
2.4. Puglia Region, Italy
The most part of Puglia represents the
emerged southeastern portion of Carbonate
Adriatic Plate and consists of thick sequences
of limestones and dolomites formed within the
carbonate platform during the Late Cretaceous,
covered by bioclastic limestones, calcarenites
and clays (Figure 7, left). Today, the region is
fragmented into horsts and grabens by a series
of faults with NW-SE direction. In many zones
the karst is developed underground with an ex-
tensive network of caverns, and with lithotypes
varying from limestones to marl. Confined aqui-
fers are generally situated deeper than 100 m.
Hydro and geothermal conditions
In the most part of the region it is possible to
exploit shallow geothermal energy. The tem-
perature generally does not exceed 20°C up
to 300 m depth. Consequently, the HFD values
are quite low, around 30 to 40 mW/m2
, with lev-
els up to 80 mW/m2
in the inner area of Murge
(Figure 7, right).At 1,000 m depth the expected
temperatures are mainly not above 30°C (Fig-
ure 1). In the frame of the VIGOR project the
tests of thermal conductivity and other proper-
ties were carried out in laboratory (dry and wet
condition) on rocks and loose materials (Puglia
Region, 2014). Previously obtained values
from the screening of literature data have been
validated by comparison with those directly
measured on samples. Reasoned values,
ranging from 0.6 to 3 W/(mK) (Table 2) were
assigned to the most representative geologi-
cal units (Figure 7, left). The aquifer carbonate
systems correspond to wide limestone areas.
There and in close vicinity the water infiltrates
through discontinuities in rocks, therefore the
water has very low temperature variations, and
the resulting geothermal gradient is lower than
the continental average. In these areas the un-
derground heat is redistributed by stormwater,
which infiltrates into the underground, by keep-
ing surrounding rocks at low temperatures.
In the presence of water springs, for example
along the coast, the inverse effect happens:
pre-heated water, circulating in deep under-
ground layers, rises up to the surface, by in-
creasing temperature of surrounding rocks.
Anomalies also exist, where shallow aquifers
merge with hotter water, coming from very
deep reservoirs; it is the case of thermal
springs, such as San Nazario and Santa Ce-
sarea Terme. In some zones, for example, the
borders of the Gargano peninsula towards Tav-
oliere, the borders of Murge towards Basilicata,
the eastern part of the Salento peninsula where
temperature of underground water can rise up
to 25°C or even more. The map for direct use
of geothermal low enthalpy energy (Figure 8,
right) shows the possibilities for realization of
closed-loop systems with GHPs to depth of 100
meters. The best heat exchange performances
for closed loops are found between the Ofanto
River and Murge (140-160 kWh/m2
). Puglia re-
gion is endowed with numerous wind, solar and
bioenergy heating and/or cooling plants, but as
regard the air conditioning using geothermal
low enthalpy energy, there were 8 operational
plants in the whole region as of 2011.
2.5 Obalno-kraška, Goriška and No-
tranjsko-Kraška Regions, southwest-
ern Slovenia
The southwestern part of Slovenia (24% of
the total Slovene territory) has very diverse
geological and hydrogeological characteristics
(Prestor et al., 2013). Tectonically, it lies in the
small part of the Southern Alps, made of lime-
stone and dolomite rocks, and mostly in the
External Dinarides with predominant carbonate
rocks, and to smaller extent in theAdriatic fore-
land with marl and sandstone as flysch rocks.
Carbonates cover 62% of the project area,
alteration of clastic and carbonate rocks 27%,
non-consolidated sediments (gravel, sand, silt,
clay) 11%, while acid and basic volcanic rocks
are negligible (Figure 9, left). The area has a
Figure 7:
Lithological units (left) and
surface HFD values (right)
in the Puglia region
(Puglia Region, 2014)
Figure 8:
Thermal conductivity of surface
rocks with groundwater levels
(left) and geo-exchange map
for closed-loop systems (in
kWh/m2) in the Puglia Region
(Puglia Region, 2014;
www.vigor-geotermia.it)

17
complex hydrogeological structure with a high
recharge (>300 mm/year). Carbonate rocks
are favourable for drilling, yet demanding ow-
ing to the unpredictable encounter of caverns,
while in the flysch rocks it may be easier (rotary
or down-the-hole) but still more difficult than in
nonconsolidated sediments. Alluvial deposits
are found along many streams with widely sed-
imented deposits especially along the rivers
Soča (Isonzo), Vipava, Rižana and Dragonja.
Deposits along Soča and Rižana rivers are
more permeable and consequently also suita-
ble for open loop systems (water source). The
denser settlement area spreads along down-
stream of the Soča river. Alluvial deposits of
lower yield are along the Vipava, Dragonja and
Badaševica rivers, as they contain more clay.
Clay deposits are thicker downstream along
the Dragonja. Along the Vipava river alluvial
deposit can reach thickness of more than 15
m and is in places more clayey but mostly com-
posed of sandstone and marl pebbles, suitable
for closed loop horizontal (H) and vertical (V)
heat exchangers systems.
Ground thermal and hydraulic parameters
In southwestern Slovenia, the rocks and soils
with higher thermal conductivity are suitable
for installation of horizontal and vertical heat
exchangers in the shallow subsurface. For
horizontal heat exchangers the more suitable
are sand, sandy clay, also flysch rocks as silty
marl, loose sandstone and sandy clay. For
vertical heat exchangers rocks such as sand-
stone, limestone and marly limestone are suit-
able provided that no caverns are encountered
in limestones. The main towns in the area are
developed and situated on different rocks, such
as flysch, alluvial river deposits, and carbonate
rocks or on mixture of these rocks. Only local-
ly along the Vipava river and in some places
along the Soča river (Tolmin, Bovec) can in-
dividual open vertical GSHP systems be suc-
cessfully used where intergranular aquifers of
medium hydraulic conductivity are developed.
More than half of the territory is covered by
limestone aquifers, where the accessibility
of groundwater is rather low and conditions
unfavorable for open vertical GSHP systems.
Closed vertical systems are more applicable.
Similar conditions are for the territory with
only minor and discontinuous aquifers (flysch
layers, marl, sandstone, siltstone, claystone)
where closed vertical and horizontal systems
are mostly applicable. Groundwater within
these aquifers of low to medium hydraulic con-
ductivities (flysch layers) is generally slightly
more mineralized.
Geothermal measurements in about 30 bore-
holes in these three regions, everywhere tem-
perature logging and much less thermal con-
ductivity determinations of cored rocks, made a
good basis for geothermal picture.At a depth of
100 m below the surface the expected temper-
ature in the northern mountain and hilly area is
mostly 6 to 11°C, and 12 to 17°C in the coastal
area, where higher temperatures are expected
close to Izola and Koper and in the hinterland
towards Croatia (Figure 9, right). The geother-
mal gradient of the upper 500 m is in range of
10 to 45 °C/km, with low values in karstic and
mountainous areas and higher between Koper,
Piran and the Dragonja River. The HFD pattern
is similar, showing elevated values around 70
mW/m2
at Izola, and elsewhere between 30
and 55 mW/m2
(improved after Rajver and
Ravnik, 2002).
2.6 Istria region, Croatia
In geological sense, Istria, as the most west-
ern part of Croatia, constitutes the northwest-
ern part of the old Adriatic carbonate platform
with thick limestone deposits and less dolomite
or dolomite-limestone breccia. Its surface is
largely covered by thin layer of Quaternary
sediments. The flysch riverbeds were cre-
ated in Tertiary, and then the thrust structures
of Učka and Ćićarija. The oldest sedimentary
unit comprises a sequence of Jurassic (Dog-
ger to early Malm) layers of a shallow water
filled limestone in the area between Poreć,
Rovinj and the Lim canal. One of the largest
Jurassic bauxite deposits is located north of
Rovinj. The Paleogene sediments were formed
by gradual flooding sedimentation and later to
karst converted diverse land phases and karst
relief. Owing to the sea level uplift the lowest
parts of the relief were gradually transformed
into swamps, in which in-between carbonate
sediments became the source material for thick
coal layers (mines in Labin area).
Hydrography and hydrogeology of the Is-
trian peninsula is determined by its geological
structure, or multiple tectonic movements and
faulting during the Quaternary and by relief
formation. Only few surface streams, such as
the longest river Mirna, flow from the source to
the sea, while a considerable part of them flow
underground due to karst surface and contin-
ues to the lower elevations of karst springs or to
submarine springs along the coast. Hydrogeo-
logical characteristics of Istria depend also on
depth of the underground water flows. Depth of
less than 50 m was recorded around Pula and
on the western coast of Istria. Undercurrents at
depths of 50 to 200 m are found in central Istria,
and those at depths greater than 200 m in the
eastern and northern part in area of Ćićarija.
Due to karstification of deposits, links are es-
tablished between important karst springs and
submarine springs on the Kvarner side. The
underground water course in the Učka moun-
tain flows to the east and is connected with
numerous submarine springs spreading on the
Kvarner side.
In geothermal conditions Istria belongs to the
Dinarides and to the Adriatic foreland, both
characterized by a low geothermal gradient
and HFD. Depths to Moho discontinuity in
Istria are between 30 and 40 km. The HFD
values in Istria are consequently low, between
20 and 55 mW/m2
. The geothermal gradient is
also low, generally between 10 and 25 mK/m,
but varies significantly (Figure 10, left). At a
depth of 1,000 m below the surface tempera-
tures between 35 and 40°C may be reached
(IRENA, 2013). In the northern part a thermal
mineral spring, St. Stefan, has been used for a
spa thermal resort. It is located at the contact
of permeable limestone and impermeable fly-
sch clastic sediments. The cold water source
Figure 9:
A map of lithological setting
(left) and a map of expected
temperature at 100 m depth
below surface (right) of the
LEGEND project area in south
western Slovenia
(Prestor et al., 2013)

18
was terminated by reactivating activities in
1903 and the water temperature increased
afterwards from 28.5°C to 34.5°C. On three
newly captured sources the temperature was
36.5°C, 20°C and 29°C, respectively. For the
use of GCHP units with horizontal heat ex-
changers the most convenient areas are the
southeastern part of the Čepić field with Qua-
ternary lacustrine sediments of sand and clay
with maximum thickness of 28 m and also red
soil sediments along the western onshore ar-
eas from Savudrija to Mrlera and in the vicinity
of the towns of Poreč, Rovinj, Barban, Pazin,
as well as north of Pula towards Raša.
2.7 Dubrovnik - Neretva county re-
gion, Croatia
Dubrovnik-Neretva county is the most south-
ern county in Croatia with a total area of
9,272 km2
(10.3% of Croatian land and sea),
of which 1,782 km2
is land area. The county
consists of two main parts: a relatively nar-
row coastal line with a number of islands and
the Pelješac peninsula and the area of the
Neretva valley with its coastal part. Coastal
relief is similar to the rest of the Croatian
coast with identical, Dinaric direction from the
north-west to south-east. The county belongs
to the External Dinarides with a high degree
of tectonic disturbance, and geologically built
mainly of Mesozoic and Tertiary carbonates
and Tertiary clastic sediments. In the narrow
coastal belt clastic sediments of Paleogene
are covered with older Mesozoic limestone
deposits. The alluvial sediments along the
natural waterways and erosional Quaternary
sediments are partly present, but could be a
good geological environment in places for the
horizontal heat exchangers or energy baskets
layout with GSHP units. The largest part of
the county area is predominantly composed
of limestone. Limestone, dolomite, flysch and
alluvial material form the coastal cliffs. The
Moho depth in the Dubrovnik-Neretva county
(35 to 40 km) reflects the underthrusting of the
Adriatic carbonate platform beneath the Dina-
rides and is directly related to the geological
origins of the area. Consequently the HFD
and the geothermal gradient are quite low.
For most of the county the HFD is 20 to 30
mW/m2
, corresponding to the average of the
Croatian coastal area. In Dubrovnik-Neretva
county, the geothermal gradient reaches to
only 10 to 20 °C/km (Figure 10, left). At a
depth of 500 m temperatures of 20 to 27°C
may be reached (DUNEA, 2103), but at 1,000
m depth pretty low values are to be expected,
yet not confirmed by drillings.
2.8 Podgorica and Primorje Regions
of Montenegro
The city of Podgorica is favorably positioned
at the confluence of the Ribnica and Morača
rivers. The Podgorica municipality covers
10.4% of Montenegro‘s territory. With an aver-
age discharge rate of 40 l/s/km2
, or about 19.5
km3
/yr, Montenegro holds 4% of the world‘s
territory with the highest average water runoff.
As much as 95.3% of the river basin is formed
in the country, therefore water is one of the
greatest natural resources of the country.
The region is characterized by thick Late Cre-
taceous sedimentary sequences, known as
the Durmitor flysch formation, composed of
Turonian dolomites, dolomitic limestones and
limestones, then Sennonian basal breccias
and conglomerates, sandstones, marlstones
and stratified limestones, and dolomitic lime-
stones and dolomites, and marly limestones of
Maastrichtian. Thin layers of Pleistocene sedi-
ments cover the Cretaceous sequence in the
Zeta plain and Bjelopavlići valley. In Podgorica
at a depth of 40 m an aquifer is encountered
with enough water to be renewed and that
could be used as a source of underground
energy (Figure 11). The research showed a
real small “river” flow under Podgorica with
temperatures close to 14°C (MGBC and Mun.
Danilovgrad, 2014). New drilling has confirmed
the existence of a large aquifer system. In the
vicinity of the pilot building for the GSHP facility
in Danilovgrad city centre, near the river Zeta,
a well of 50 m depth has been recently drilled,
and a confined aquifer has been detected,
which is the same aquifer from Danilovgrad to
Podgorica. The drilled rocks present are prob-
ably marly limestones of the Maastrichtian age
which can obviously have fissure and/or karstic
permeability.
The thickness of the Quaternary sediments
(sandy gravel and conglomerate) in the
plain of Podgorica is in range of 50 to 65 m.
Beneath the neutral temperature zone, the
ground temperature gradient is about 30 °C/
km (MGBC and Mun. Danilovgrad, 2014).
The HFD values in the Podgorica area are
pretty low, 20 to 40 mW/m2
. Consequently, at
a depth of 1,000 m only 25 to 30°C can be
expected, which is typical for the Dinarides
in general due to thick Earth‘s crust. In the
Primorje (coastal) area the thermal springs
with the highest flow rate of 3.7 to 6 l/s and
temperature of 24°C are found in the Valda-
nos bay close to the town of Ulcinj. The total
flow rate capacity of the springs there is 200
l/s with 22°C. Thermal water emerges from
Cretaceous limestones along the contact with
Figure 10:
Map of geothermal gradient
for Croatia, in °C/100 m
(Fištrek et al., 2013)

19
Eocene flysch, and from Miocene limestones
with clays. Ideal thermal power is 6.7 MWt,
however, it may be utilized as geothermal
potential using the GSHP units only (Burić,
2013), which is especially important for tour-
istic buildings in local communities. Thermal
energy from sea water, lake and river waters
could also be interesting for such utilization.
2.9 The District of Shkodra Region,
Albania
The district of Shkodra, situated in northern
Albania, is one of the largest in the country
(Municipality of Shkodra, 2013). It stretches
from the Northern Alps (the highest peak
2,694 m) to the coastal lowlands. The climate
is Mediterranean with average yearly temper-
atures from 7.5°C in Vermosh to 14.8°C in the
city of Shkodra. The average yearly rainfall is
2,000 mm.
The Albanides represent the assemblage of
the geological structures, and together with
the Dinarides in the north and the Hellenides
in the south, have formed the southern branch
of the Mediterranean Alpine Belt). Several
tectonic zones extend into district of Shko-
dra, as the Albanian Alps, Krasta-Cukali and
Kruja zones of the External Albanides and
Mirdita of the Internal Albanides (Municipality
of Shkodra, 2013; Frasheri et al., 2004). The
tectonic zones of the External Albanides out-
crop are chiefly in the western part of Albania.
The Alps zone continues into the High Karst
of the Dinarides with Permian sandstone and
conglomerates, but in general the Alps are
represented by limestone monoclines, and
smaller anticlines in their background. The
Krasta subzone lies from Shkodra in the north
to Leskoviku in the southeast, with three out-
cropping formations: the Albian-Cenomanian
early flysch, Senonian limestone serie and
Maastrichtian - Eocene flysch. The Kruja zone
consists of a series of anticline structures
with Cretaceous-Eocene carbonate cores
of neritic limestone, dolomitic limestone and
dolomites covered with Eocene to Oligocene
flysch deposits.
The geothermal field is characterized by low
temperatures, a characteristic of the sedi-
mentary basins with a great thickness of sedi-
ments. The temperature at 100 m depth var-
ies from <10 to 19°C, with the lowest values
in the mountain regions of the Mirdita zone, as
well as in the Albanian Alps (Figure 12, right).
In these areas, an intensive circulation of un-
derground cold water (5 to 6°C) occurs. The
highest temperatures at 100 m depth char-
acterize the Adriatic coastline of the External
Albanides where the geothermal gradient
reaches 21.3 °C/km. There, in the anticline
molasse structures of the central Pre-Adriatic
Depression, the highest gradients are detect-
ed in the Pliocene clays. The lowest values of
7 to 11 °C/km are observed in the deep syncli-
nal belts of the Ionic and Kruja tectonic zones.
The characteristic temperatures at a depth of
500 m range from 21 to 30°C. The regional
pattern of HFD shows higher values of 42
mW/m2
in the central Peri-Adriatic Depression
of the External Albanides and around 30 mW/
m2
towards the Adriatic Sea Shelf. The values
around 25 to 30 mW/m2
or lower are typical
for the Albanian Alps due to great thickness of
sedimentary crust.
Figure 11:
The aquifer beneath the city of
Podgorica (MGBC, 2013)
Figure 12:
Map of temperature at
a depth of 100 m in Albania
(Frasheri et al., 2004)

20
2.10 Banja Luka Region of Republica
Srpska, Bosnia and Herzegovina
The northwest territory of Republika Srpska,
with municipalities Banja Luka, Gradiška,
Prijedor and Laktaši, is characterized with a
complex geological and tectonic setting (LIR,
2013). The territory comprises the central part
of the Dinarides orogene system and a small-
er part of the south edge of the Pannonian
Basin in the north. Hydro-geologically few dif-
ferent areas are present, each characterized
with specific geothermal characteristics. The
terrain is shaped by strong tectonic move-
ments resulting in complex geological struc-
tures (Figure 13), which outline three different
basic hydro-geological structures: (a)Artesian
basins and intermountain depressions with
fissure permeability, circulation between lay-
ers, slowed water interchange in Tertiary and
Cretaceous sediments; (b) Hydro-geological
folded regions with fissure permeability and
circulation between layers, the Paleogene
flysch zone in the north, complex regime of
charging and discharging in the Tertiary, Cre-
taceous and undivided Mesozoic sediments
such as limestone, clastic rocks, Jurassic-
Cretaceous flysch and diabase-chert forma-
tions; and (c) Hydro-geological massifs with
fissure and karstic permeability, circulation
in the plutonic, volcanic, schist, serpentine
and carbonate Mesozoic massifs. The most
important defined structures in a geothermal
sense are the large artesian basins in the
north and the central-ophiolitic zone in the
middle part of Republika Srpska.
The boreholes with thermal and thermo-miner-
al water in use currently give 44 MWt of thermal
energy (plus about 3 MWt from springs), but
much more energy can be obtained from hydro-
thermal systems with new wells in the territory
of Republica Srpska. Plenty of underground
water basins and rivers (Vrbas, Vrbanja, Sana,
Sava) may be used for the open loop GSHP
systems. Several GSHP systems with water
well utilization have been installed, mainly for
heating of kindergartens and buildings. Great
resources of geothermal energy are found in
thermal waters with temperature of up to 90°C,
accumulated in the sediments of the Mesozoic
age down to a depth of 2 km. There are several
thermal water spas, e.g. Srpske Toplice (Banja
Luka), Slatina and Laktaši. The thickness of
the hydro-geothermal reservoir of sedimentary
rocks and dolomites is approximately 1 km.
The geothermal gradient in the region ranges
from 25 °C/km in the south to over 45 °C/km
in the north along the Croatian border (Jolović
et al., 2012). The HFD values show identical
pattern, from 45 in the south to over 70 mW/
m2
in the north.
2.11 Šumadija and Pomoravlje
Region, Serbia
The region of Šumadija and Pomoravlje is
situated in the central area of the Republic of
Serbia between the Sava and Danube rivers
in the north, and Morava in the east, Zapadna
Morava in the south and Kolubara in the west
(REDASP, 2013). The overall area of the re-
gion covered amounts to 5,001 km2
(5.6% of
the total area of the Republic of Serbia), of
which the agricultural area is approximately
3,300 km2
. The region is characterized by
hilly-mountainous area, with the exception of
the Morava valley which has outstanding allu-
vial characteristics. The river courses are nu-
merous, but short. The main reason for such
special characteristics is the limit of the whole
area by the big rivers.
The region is geologically very diverse and
built predominantly of Jurassic (silt, sand-
stone, serpentinite), Cretaceous (marl, sand-
stone, silt, breccia limestone, etc.), Middle
Miocene (sandstone, clay, marl, limestone),
Figure 13:
Geological map of
the Banja Luka region
(Begović and
Ivanković, 2014)
Figure 14:
Map of surface heat-
flow density (in mW/
m2
) (left) and map of
temperature (°C) at a
depth of 500 m (right)
in the Circum-Adriatic
regions
(Hurtig et al., 1992)

21
Late Miocene (conglomerate of up to 30 m
thick, sandstone, clay, clay sand, quartz-
latites, etc.) rocks and Quaternary deposits.
The latter alluvial and diluvial sediments of
shallow depths in the wider Kragujevac area
are not so rich in groundwater for implementa-
tion of open-loop systems (GES, 2014). Geo-
thermal energy use is applied only at the spa
resort „Bukovička banja“ in the municipality of
Arandjelovac where 3 known thermomineral
springs appear with temperatures in the range
of 20 to 40°C. The most abundant quantities
of thermomineral water can be found in the
Bukulja mountain south of Arandjelovac. They
mainly belong to the hydrocarbon-sodium-
carbon-acid type of water. The spring „Banja“
(with temperature of 13°C) can also be clas-
sified as the spring of the so-called warm
waters with potential to heat buildings and
greenhouses.
Geothermal conditions and thermal pa-
rameters. Thermal waters in the territory of
the Despotovac municipality (east of Kragu-
jevac) originate from depths of over 1,000
m. The water flows through the underground
gaps in the limestone of Beljanica Mtn. to-
wards the spa spring, where at a certain depth
the cold water mixes with thermomineral. The
main spring of Despotovac spa was warmer
and more affluent in the past, but its water
temperature dropped by 4°C to 26°C in a pe-
riod of 70 years and the water supply dimin-
ished to only 2 l/s. The HFD values are around
or above 100 mW/m2
, which is characteristic
for the Serbian-Macedonian massif tectonic
unit. Also the geothermal gradient is elevated,
from 40 to 50 °C/km, which is reflected in the
expected temperatures of around 33 to 42°C
at 500 m depth and 50 to 70°C at 1,000 m
depth (Hurtig et al., 1992; Milivojević, 2001).
However, elevated temperature gradients in
shallow sedimentary layers, which could be
used for horizontal or vertical BHEs, are not
expected everywhere.
3. Comparison of geothermal
parameters for the gshp applications
Overview of the geothermal parameters in all
the regions studied has revealed a very high
diversity of conditions, both geological and
geothermal. The summarized geological and
structural units (Table 1) show anticipated
heterogenous hydrogeological conditions,
which affect the type of system installation.
The availability and usefulness of more pre-
cise geological maps and cross sections for
the studied regions is very different, yet the
comparison is important for geologists and
geothermal specialists to see where there is
a necessity to produce or elaborate on such
specific geoproducts. For the Italian regions
of Veneto, Emilia-Romagna and Puglia and
specifically Rovigo and Ferrara provinces,
such maps and cross sections already ex-
ist, they serve as a basis for the planning of
GSHP investments, and are good practice
examples. This kind of information for the
region or province Characteristic geological and structural units
1 Veneto_Rovigo ITA alluvial sedimentsof Adige and Po rivers
2 Ferrara ITA delta-fluvial and alluvial sediments, multi layer aquifer complex A1to A4, silty clay aquitards
3 Teramo ITA sandsin the coastal plain (covers1%of territory); badlandsFms; river valleysof gentle slopes
4 Puglia ITA carbonate aquifer systemswithin wide limestone karst area
5 Obalna-Goriška-Notranjska SLO flysch in Adriaticforeland; alluvial river deposits; carbonate karst in Dinaridesand Southern Alps
6 Istria CRO carbonate karsticplatform; flysch riverbedsin places; red soil sedimentsin west onshore
7 Neretva-Dubrovnik CRO alluvial sedimentsalongrivers; limestone above clasticsediments; flysch in coastal cliffs
8 Podgorica MNEDurmitor flysch Fm with shallow aquifer in the plain covered by sandy gravel and conglomerate
9 Shkodra ALB External Dinarides: Alpsand Krasta-Cukali zones, Krujazone (S); limestone and flysch in the plain
10 Banja Luka BIH artesian basins, Pgflysch (N); intramountain depressions, HGfolded fissure to karsticmassifs, ophioliticzone
11 Šumadija-Pomoravlje SRB gentle hilly areawith Mio and Qsediments(Epart); hilly areawith J- Kdiverse rocks(central-Wpart)
Legend: Fm: geological formation; Mz: Mesozoic; J: Jurassic; K: Cretaceous; Pg: Paleogene; Mio: Miocene; Q: Quaternary
N: north, S: south; E: east; W: west
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
region /
province
Veneto
Rovigo
Ferrara Teramo Puglia
Obalna-
Goriška-
Notranjska
Istria
Neretva-
Dubrovnik
Podgorica Shkodra Banja Luka
Šumadija-
Pomoravlje
country Italy Italy Italy Italy Slovenia Croatia Croatia Montenegro Albania Bosnia- HerzegovinaSerbia
parameter ITA ITA ITA ITA SLO CRO CRO MNE ALB BIH SRB
T0 °C 9to 18 9to 17 10to 17 12to 20 7to 14 10to 14 10to 16 10to 16.4 8to 15 8to 12 9to 12
T100 m °C 14to 16 15to 18 14to 16 17to 20 8to 17 11to 17 11to 15 11to 17 9to 19 12to 17 12to 20
T500 m °C 25to 45 30to 43 20to 25 20to 25 12to 28 15to 26 20to 27 14to 22 21to 30 22to 33 33to 42
G °C/ km 15to 45 20to 65 10to 20 10to 20 10to 45 10to 25 10to 20 12to 30 7to 21 25to 45 40to 55
λ W/ (m·K) 1.4to 2 0.5to 3 1to 4 0.6to 3 1.4to 4 1to 4 1to 3.6 1to 4 1.2to 4.6 1.2to 4.4 1.2to 4.7
q mW/ m
2
35to 80 30to 65 25to 45 30to 80 30to 75 20to 55 25to 40 20to 40 30to 45 45to 75 90to 110
Table 1. Characteristic geological and structural units of the Circum-Adriatic regions
Table 2. Geothermal parameters of the Circum-Adriatic regions, useful for the GSHP design. From top to bottom: mean annual surface tem-
perature, temperature at 100 m depth, temperature at 500 m depth, geothermal gradient, thermal conductivity of mainly shallow underground,
surface heat-flow densit

22
Slovene south-western regions is almost at
this level. However, for the other regions such
concrete maps for planning in the use of shal-
low GSHP systems are still not widely acces-
sible, or are probably in development phase
(e.g. Teramo, Podgorica). Despite the differ-
ence in geological-hydrogeological conditions
there are areas in each studied region compa-
rable and favorable by the shallow geothermal
values (Table 2). The goal of the project itself
is exactly to encourage the shallow geother-
mal energy by the recognition of favourable
conditions. Availability of geothermal data in
the regions and specifically their processing is
in different phases. While the Italian and Slo-
vene regions are elaborated more or less in
detail, some other regions don’t have enough
accessible information or there is a need for
producing specific maps and information, as
well as for collecting and interpreting the basic
data from well loggings.
The Circum-Adriatic area exhibits predomi-
nantly low enthalpy geothermal character-
istics, however with only the eastern part of
the Apennine mountain chain included in the
overview. The mean annual surface tempera-
ture is quite high on the Italian side, distinctly
in Puglia, and along the southern Adriatic re-
gions (Podgorica), depending on geographi-
cal varieties. The formation temperature at
shallow depths (100 m and 500 m) show
great differences, depending on the geologi-
cal heterogeneity of the regions, but also on
the availability of the processed precise tem-
perature measurements in the boreholes. In
a sense this is reflected in narrow tempera-
ture intervals within the Italian regions (Table
2). Wide temperature intervals for the south
western Slovene regions are due to a het-
erogenous geological structure and karstic
phenomena in the hilly hinterland. Beside the
Province of Ferrara and the Veneto Region
also the Šumadija-Pomoravlje region on the
other side is endowed with high temperatures.
The other eastern Adriatic regions mostly
have average shallow temperature values,
or even below average, owing to deep karstic
meteoric water circulation, which decreases
the formation temperatures. The Banja Luka
region is a slight exception with elevated
temperatures in its northern Pannonian part.
Geothermal gradients basically almost follow
the intervals of temperatures at 500 m depth.
The exceptions are the Province of Ferrara
and the Veneto Region with greater gradient
interval, as well as all three Slovene regions.
The thermal conductivity values of the rocks
and soil of the regions are mostly in wide
intervals, with the exception of the Veneto
region where the measurements have been
conducted on mostly soil samples in place
from the drilled boreholes. For the other re-
gions the values are in a wide interval due to
the absence of any results from the conduc-
tivity measurements, therefore data are taken
from experience. The values of the volumetric
heat capacity are not presented because this
parameter doesn‘t vary so much. The HFD
intervals are mostly narrow with the excep-
tions in the Veneto region, Ferrara province
(convection zone at greater depth), south
western Slovenia (geological structure variet-
ies, Moho depth), Istria and Banja Luka region
(Moho depth). The generalized data for the
Apennines and the Dinarides-Hellenides are
shown for comparison (Figure 14).
In a sense, geothermal conditions in the ana-
lysed regions can be presented in a more
convenient general manner as the maps of
HFD and expected temperatures at depth of
500 m below surface (Hurtig et al., 1992) for
the whole Circum-Adriatic area (Figure 14).
The HFD values in the circum-Adriatic re-
gions generally fall in range of 20 to 70 mW/
m2
. With the map of temperatures at 500 m
depth the expected temperatures at shal-
low depths may be roughly ascertained, i.e.
at 100 m, 200 m and similar. In general the
regions around the Adriatic Sea are char-
acterized with low temperatures at shallow
depths below the surface, however with a
few exceptions, i.e. in the Province of Ferr-
ara, where the convection zones may bring
thermal anomalies close to the surface (Table
2). Nevertheless, there are geologically fa-
vourable conditions in places, practically for
all three types of GSHP application.
Within distinctive areas in most of the regions
the water protection zones prohibit the utiliza-
tion of shallow geothermal energy with the
open-loop GSHP systems. Some restrictions
also exist about closed-loop GCHP systems,
when interacting with drinking water aquifers,
concerning the drilling procedures and the
risk of glycol leakage.
4. Conclusions
Low geothermal gradients and low heat flow
describe the Adriatic area as not very suit-
able for geothermal exploitation, but on the
contrary is very favourable for GSHP instal-
lations, because of availability of groundwater
for open loop systems and the possibilities of
installing closed loop systems almost every-
where, both for heating and cooling purposes.
In fact, the climate conditions are very favour-
able for the all year round use of GSHP, which
can be important for many business sectors in
the Adriatic area, above all tourism, recreation
and spas. A common regulatory framework
can be set up in all Adriatic area, in order to
harmonize the sector, protect the environ-
ment and favour investments; in particular,
similar regulations and guidelines should be
addressed for the following three types of use:
Open – loop systems near the coast with salt
water intrusion,
Vertical closed – loop systems in the alluvial
plains,
Vertical closed – loop systems in the karstic
underground.
From the geological overview of the regions a
picture can be gotten of the extension of the
karstic areas on both sides of theAdriatic Sea.
As some difficulties are expected in installing
vertical closed loop systems in the karstic un-
derground, a common strategy about shallow
and surface GCHP installations (mainly hori-
zontal) should be taken at the Adriatic level.

23
Montenegro Green Building Council (GBC
ME) is the lead partner for LEGEND project
Work Practice 5, and was responsible for
designing, collating and analysing collected
research data from across the project region.
The data are used to formulate Local policy
recommendations for each country, as well
as to formulate general recommendations for
further development of the market space for
geothermal energy in the Adriatic area.
Methodology
The analysis was designed around a
questionnaire, which each project partner
distributed to key stakeholders in its area of
responsibility. These included (but not only):
●● national and local government agencies;
●● chambers of commerce and similar indus-
try groups;
●● Academia and professional institutions.
The questionnaire had four main sections:
●● Policy and Legislation;
●● Technical / Academic / Professional;
●● Market / Economic;
●● General
Each of these was split into 2 parts:
●● Macro-level, dealing with overall govern-
ment policy and national level issues;
●● Micro-level, addressing local or individual
site issues.
Questions were a mixture of:
●● Multiple choice from a pull-down selection;
●● Open-ended, requiring a descriptive an-
swer;
●● Ranked order of a given list.
In addition to the questionnaire, there was a
‘Wish List’. The purpose was for the organi-
sation or individual replying to give its list of
changes it would like to be made to enhance
the use of GCHP. The Wish List therefore
helps to guide recommendations for policy
and legislation changes which are part of the
project’s results. Full list of questions can be
found in the ANNEX.
The questionnaire was analysed by GBC ME.
The analysis ranked answers to each ques-
tion to give an overall picture across the re-
gion covered by the project. The higher the
degree of negativity for a specific factor the
more needs to be done to make it positive.
This ranking gives a first list of priorities for
remedial action, which needs to be adjusted
to take account of political and economic con-
straints.
2.2
Degree of knowledge
by stakeholders and
common people
Maša Perovi´c, Anke-Harris Collins
and James Collins

24
Policy and Legislation
Macro-level
1 Does government policy on renewable energy include GCHP?
1.1 Has this policy been translated into primary legislation?
1.2 Has this policy been translated into secondary legislation?
2 Is there a government policy on environmental impact of GCHP drilling?
3 Is there government policy on environmental impact of open-loop versus closed-loop GCHP systems?
3.1 If yes, please describe it
4 Do Building Codes cover GCHP installations?
Micro-level
5 Are planning procedures more complicated for GCHP installations than for fossil fuel-based systems (oil, gas, electrical)?
5.1 If they are, list the extra procedures
6 Are local authority planning staff familiar with GCHP technology?
7 Are local authority building inspectors familiar with GCHP technology?
8 Have GCHP projects been rejected at the outline planning stage?
8.1 If yes, give summary of why
9 Have GCHP projects been rejected at the building permission planning stage?
9.1 If yes, give summary of why
Technical / Academic / Professional
Macro-level
10 Does the national geological agency have data on areas most likely to be suitable for GCHP systems?
11 Is GCHP included in initial professional training of architects and building engineers?
12 Is GCHP included in Continuous Professional Development for professionals in the construction industry?
13 Are specialist GCHP engineers available?
13.1 If no, please describe where they come from
Micro-level
14 Is the overall geology in your area favourable to GCHP installations?
15 Are specialist GCHP drilling companies available locally?
16 Is GCHP equipment available?
17 Are there companies who can maintain GCHP systems?
18 Do local academic institutions include GCHP in their syllabus?
If so at what level (yes to all which apply)
18.1 Technician training?
18.2 First degree architect / engineering courses?
18.3 Post-graduate courses?

25
Market / Economic
Macro Level
19 Are there subsidies for GCHP installations?
20 What is the source of subsidies (yes to all which apply)?
20.1 EU
20.2 Government department or agency
20.3 Private financial institution using government funds
20.4 Other (please specify)
21 What form do subsidies take (yes to all which apply)?
21.1 Cash grants
21.2 Loans at lower interest than market rates
21.3 Lower interest on investment
21.4 Tax incentives on investment
21.5 Other (please specify)
Micro-level
22 AretheapplicationproceduresforsubsidiesforGCHPinstallationsmorecomplicatedthanforotherrenewableenergysources?
22.1 If they are, list the extra procedures
23 Rank the factors influencing your decision to install a GCHP system (1 = most important, 9 = least important)?
23.1 Site suitability
23.2 Cost of sub-soil preparation (eg drilling) compared to fossil-fuel systems
23.3 Availability of financial subsidies
23.4 Environmental impact, including CO2 emissions
23.5 Energy cost savings
23.6 Availability of professional design expertise
23.7 Availability of experienced installation companies
23.8 Maintenance costs compared to fossil fuel systems
23.9 Security of energy supply during the building’s life
General Awareness / General Public Survey
24 HowmuchdoyouknowaboutGeothermalEnergy(GroundCoupledHeatPumps-GCHP)asanalternativeenergysource?
24.1 A lot - professional, or near professional level
24.2 Above average, e.g. difference between open and closed loop systems
24.3 Informed - know the principles of its operation
24.4 Limited - have heard of it, but little else
24.5 Never heard of it
26 In your opinion, which do you consider to be factors limiting the use of geothermal (GCHP) technology? List all which apply.
26.1 Geological suitability
26.2 Availability of experience and skills needed to design systems
26.3 Availability of experience and skills needed to install systems
26.4 Availability of experience and skills needed to maintain systems
27 What is your opinion of alternative energy sources?
28 Would you like to use them more?
29 Do you know if there are buildings locally which use GCHP?
29.1 If yes, please identify: building name, location
25 Given your knowledge, how do you think it compares to other systems?
25.1 Cost of investment compared to fossil-fuel systems
25.2 Cost of investment compared to other renewable energy systems
25.3 Annual costs compared to fossil fuel systems
25.4 Annual costs compared to other renewable energy systems

26
Results
Market research was collected between Janu-
ary and March 2014 by all twelve partners of
the LEGEND project. In total they gathered
289 responses, of which 42% was general
and 58% professional opinion from key indi-
viduals, institutions and market leaders in the
Adriatic region. Looking at the knowledge of
respondents, over 60% of respondents are
‘informed’ about or have ‘above average’
knowledge of geothermal heat pump systems.
This is evidence that despite general lack of
knowledge, which seems to be the prevailing
answer particularly across the Western Bal-
kan states, the participants are well selected
and thus a good representation of the state
of affairs in the chosen area. Overall there is
a significant difference between markets and
knowledge in Albania (AL), Serbia (SRB),
Montenegro (MNE) and Bosnia and Herze-
govina (BiH) and Croatia (HR), Slovenia (SI)
and Italy (IT). The latter three have advanced
experience and are leaders in the region re-
garding installations of heat pumps and re-
search on geothermal energy. This is seen
as an advantage in a sense that experience,
good and bad practice can be transferred to
the states where the market is at an earlier
stage of development.
Categories of Respondents no %
1. Building product and equipment manufacturers and distributors 7 4
2. Utilities: Electrical, Energy Service Providers, ESCO’s, Water and Sewer Utilities 11 7
3. Building Owners, Investors & Developers; Property Portfolio Owners & Managers; Property or Facility Managers; Building
Operations and Maintenance; Occupiers
5 3
4. Real estate companies and brokers 1 0.6
5. Professional Services Firms 19 12
6. Construction Managers, Contractors, Subcontractors, Builders, Building Controls and Service Contractors 16 10
7. Financial Community and Institutions: Providers of Financial, Insurance and Legal Services to the Property Sector 3 2
Categories of Respondents – Non-Commercial no %
8. Government at all levels, including agencies and regional government organisations 39 12
9. Environmental and Non-Profit Organisations; Trade Associations 13 8
10. Universities; other educational establishments and Technical Research Institutes 40 24
11. Professional Societies, Standards Organisations, Unions 6 4
12. Press and Media 3 2
TOTAL 161 100
Table 1: Categories and number of respondents
Figure 1:
Number of responses
split by professional
and general opinion
Figure 2:
Knowledge about
GCHP

27
Rankings by DON’T KNOW
There appears to be a general lack
of knowledge and information about
what geothermal energy means and
how it can be used. In comparison to
YES and NO answers, DON’T KNOW
answers are the most common. Fig-
ure 3 shows the top ten questions to
which 50% - 76% of respondents an-
swered ‘DON’T KNOW’. The majority
of questions relates to policy and legal
framework which is evidence of the
weak state of affairs in this field, par-
ticularly in the four developing states
(BiH, MNE, SRB, AL). Subsidies and
other financial aids also appear to be
an unknown factor. In general respon-
dents are not aware of government
subsidies and tax incentives that
relate to GCHP investments. As ex-
plained below it becomes evident that
financial aids for GCHP fit under the
general topic of energy efficiency and
climate change mitigation.
Rankings by NO greater than (>) YES
Figure 4 shows top ten questions
which got the least number of YES
responses, or namely the percentage
by which NO answers were great-
er than YES answers. The actual
number of NO responses doesn’t go
over 40%, because it is overridden
by DON’T KNOW responses that go
over 70%. Nevertheless, looking at
the ‘negative’ NO answers, the results
show us that initial training of archi-
tects and building engineers does not
include training about GCHP, which
indicates early gaps in the education
system relating to this field of RES im-
plementation. It also indicates a lack
of primary and secondary laws that
relate specifically to installations of
GCHP (AL, BiH, SRB, MNE).
The ‘positive’ NO answers, show that
applications for subsidies are no more
complicated for GCHP than for other
RES. Also projects with GCHP have
not been rejected per se, although this
should be interpreted with caution due
to the lack of legislation that we find
on the topic. This especially relates to
the lack of government policy for open-
loop GCHP systems that can have
an impact on the underground water
sources by potentially raising its tem-
perature by 5 to 10°C, as well as the
risk of contamination of drinking water.
Figure 3: Top ten questions with DON’T KNOW answers
Figure 4: Top ten questions with NO > YES answers

28
RankingsfromYESgreaterthan(>)NO
Figure 5 shows the greatest number
of YES answers in comparison to NO
answers, the highest of which relate
to questions from the General Survey.
The results show that 85% of respon-
dents wish to use RES more and
have a positive view of RES. These
were also followed by comments from
respondents that ranged from: ‘They
are the future!’, ‘They cannot run out’,
‘We must use them to plan the future’.
There is also evidence that there are
some misconceptions and also rec-
ommendations that can be taken from
it. This is a comment from a respon-
dent from Slovenia: ‘My opinion about
RES is positive, but GCHP cannot
be for anyone, because there in not
enough potential! Finding right energy
mix is needed, which gives maximum
benefits for minimum expenses si-
multaneously with low environmental
impacts.’
And a comment from a respondent
from Montenegro: ‘Environmental
aspects of the use of alternative en-
ergy sources are indisputable, but
it is not a realistic expectation that
they can cover a large percentage
of energy needs. The exception is
hydropower.’
Across the region use of geothermal
heating and heat pumps is covered
in government policies that relate
to sustainable development. In the
case of Slovenia and Italy, policies
have been translated into primary
and secondary legislation, some of
which is specific to GCHP installa-
tions.
In addition, YES responses indi-
cate that government policies cover
GCHP (70% of responses) and con-
firm the overall geological suitabil-
ity of the area, alongside available
subsidies and grants from EU and
national governments. Also overall
readiness of the regional market
to supply, install and maintain heat
pumps is also evident due to avail-
ability of skilled experts and com-
panies that can maintain GCHP
systems. These are obvious oppor-
tunities for further development of
this technology in the region, and
transfer of good practice from EU
Member States.
Following the findings of the research gathered in
June 2014 there were strong indications that lack
of knowledge and information about GCHP and
geothermal heating was the dominant response.
As a follow up Montenegro Green Building Coun-
cil furthered its research at the LEGEND work-
shop that took place in September 2014 during
the Energy Fair in Budva, Montenegro. The idea
was to engage the audience in Montenegro with
the topic of Continuous Professional Develop-
ment (CPD), which is currently not a mandatory
requirement for professionals. In conclusion 86%
of respondents who attended the event thought
that CPD is necessary. However some voiced
concerns that, without financial subsidies, this
could be a burden to SMEs because the mar-
ket is too small and thus any such requirements
must be balanced out with the speed of develop-
ment nationally.
Questions with ranking factors
Some questions required ranking answers. Here
they are split between those that can be seen as
opportunities for development of GCHP in the re-
gion, and those that show weaknesses that must
be mitigated.
Strengths and opportunities
• Across the region information and education
about GCHP is available at higher education
level, which gives a good start to expanding
the knowledge further.
• These are ranked as top 3 reasons for choos-
ing to install GCHP:
❍❍ cost reduction related to energy savings;
❍❍ lower maintenance costs in comparison
with fossil fuels;
❍❍ security of energy supply during the build-
ing’s life.
These are also indicators of public opinion with
regards to switching to RES in general and com-
mitting to sustainable investments in general.
• There is an overall presumption that the cost
of investment compared to other renewable
energy systems is ‘about the same’ (33% of
respondents).
• There is a presumption that annual mainte-
nance costs for GCHP system are lower than
for fossil fuels (63% of respondents).
• In each project State, respondents identified
buildings locally that use some form of geo-
thermal energy and heat pumps, in total over
30 buildings were named (Figure 6). This
means that demonstration cases and case
studies are available locally, which can be used
to increase knowledge and raise awareness
amongst the general public and professional
stakeholders.
Weaknesses and threats
• There is a lack of knowledge about the legal
framework regulating GCHP amongst respon-
dents, local authority staff and inspectors, in
particular in AL, BiH, SRB, MNE.
Figure 5: Top ten questions with YES > NO answers

29
• Planning procedures for GCHP installa-
tions are more complicated than for fossil
fuels based systems in States where
GCHP is common (SI, IT). This is a weak-
ness in a sense that it can deter invest-
ments. A balance is necessary in order to
allow for investments but also to ensure
adequate environmental protection.
• There is lack of technical and professional
knowledge amongst technicians, planners,
designers regarding GCHP systems in par-
ticular in AL, BiH, SRB, MNE.
• Investors are interested in low investment
and fast return, in particular in AL, BiH,
SRB, MNE, that is currently perceived as
the exact contrary of GCHP investments.
• Specialisation on the topic of RES, includ-
ing GCHP, is available only as an optional
subject in higher education (AL, BiH, SRB,
MNE).
• Overall there is a small number of local
companies who can maintain GCHP sys-
tems (44.3% of respondents don’t know
about any).
• Most respondents are not aware of the
availability of subsidies (43% - 63%),
which indicates that better information
campaigns are necessary.
• Top four factors influencing decision to
install GCHP are generally negative:
❍❍ Energy cost savings → Generally un-
derstood but no absolute certainty
❍❍ Site suitability → believed much more
that it is needed in reality
❍❍ Cost of installation → still high price for
drilling;
❍❍ Availability of financial supporting mea-
sures → low or non-availability of sub-
sidies/ Government incentives.
• According to 38% of responses the cost of
initial investment of GCHP is higher than
for systems based on fossil fuels. This
compares to 29% that think it is ‘about the
same’, and 9% that think it is lower.
• Financial hardship of the majority of the
population (especially AL, BiH, SRB, MNE)
leads to the need for a ‘quick returns’ on
investment, thus being susceptible to the
wishes of investors.
• Lack of, and poor, Government incentives
(AL, BiH, SRB, MNE).
• There is general misconception that geo-
thermal energy source refers only to hot
underwater sources.
• Unregulated legal framework allows for
environmental concerns about wastewater
from open-loop GCHP (especially AL, BiH,
SRB, MNE).
Recommendations
The following recommendations were drawn
out of the Wish lists gathered during the
research, and also as a consequence of the
collated and analysed research findings.
Aimed at incentives and financial aids by
governments:
➢➢ Legislation to include GCHP more specifi-
cally & to promote GCHP investment;
➢➢ Define technical guidelines for use of
GCHP (maximum heat exploitation from
underground, related to both open loop
and closed loop systems, and groundwa-
ter pollution);
➢➢ Simplify administrative procedures for
GCHP installation and for research per-
mits;
➢➢ More uses in public buildings, upgrading
their energy efficiency;
➢➢ Government should look at GCHP as long
term investment in infrastructure and sav-
ing of tax payer’s money;
➢➢ Introduce subsidies: tax incentives; utility
bills and tariff concessions; non-refund-
able credits, both on the government and
local government levels;
➢➢ Ensure stricter implementation of laws
and regulation through inspections.
Aimed at technical and educational develop-
ment:
➢➢ Educate everybody, from decision mak-
ers to final users about the benefits of
GCHP systems and the benefits for indi-
viduals and for the community overall;
➢➢ Organise training courses for architects,
engineers, installers / maintainers, design-
ers (designers do not know enough about
techniques so can’t propose or implement
GCHP systems);
➢➢ Improve training in technical schools
at all levels: most training is at university
/ master level, so new technicians enter
the labour market with little / no knowl-
edge;
➢➢ Organise training for local authorities’
technical offices: civil servants and gov-
ernment administrators are not aware of
the potential of GCHP;
➢➢ Educate farmers and business stake-
holders about GCHP installations and
RES in general.
Aimed at sharing information and ensuring
greater publicity:
➢➢ Encourage cooperation between spe-
cialized firms: provide know-how to local
companies and subsequent development
of a new market
➢➢ Offer subsidies for large-scale projects
and innovative systems (Aquifer Thermal
Energy Storage - ATES, Borehole Ther-
mal Energy Storage - BTES)
➢➢ Media campaign to inform the general
public about advantages of GCHP & RES
➢➢ Raise awareness of professional firms
who are able to install GCHP;
➢➢ Promote financial institutions who give
financing benefits for GCHP;
➢➢ Information campaigns on the model of
“public service announcement” at national
and local level in which local professionals
and representatives from academia and
technicians introduce the use of GCHP
technology.
Aimed at further research and development
of technology:
➢➢ Develop methodology for cost assess-
ment in planning stage;
➢➢ Map out suitable sites, in order to have
a technical basis for promoting installa-
tions;
➢➢ Calculate geothermal potential in the
context of building permit documentation;
➢➢ Solve the problems with drainage of
extracted water;
➢➢ Create a catalogue of best practice with
all important parameters and indicators
which would be useful for designers;
➢➢ Make / buy software that would serve
as ‘public domain tool’ for designing
GCHP.

LEGEND_final_int_publication

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (20)

Similar to LEGEND_final_int_publication

Similar to LEGEND_final_int_publication (20)

LEGEND_final_int_publication