The Potential Role of Geothermal Energy as a Major Supplier of Primary Energy in the U.S.

Jefferson Tester
Croll Professor of Sustainable Energy Systems
Director of the Cornell Energy Institute and
Associate Director for Energy in the Atkinson Center for a Sustainable Future
Cornell University
Ithaca, New York
The Potential Role of Geothermal Energy as a
Major Supplier of Primary Energy in the U.S.
Iceland Geothermal Conference
Reykjavik, Iceland
March 7, 2013

 The geothermal option
▪ Motivation for and attributes of a secure and sustainable energy supply
▪ Geothermal enables applications for direct heating/cooling and electricity
▪ Icelandic example of committed deployment
▪ Demands for heat and electricity in the US
 Assessment of US geothermal resource potential
 Transitioning from high grade hydrothermal to EGS
 Making EGS work at scale
 Lessons learned in 35+ years of progress on EGS technology
 Pursuing opportunities for economic success of EGS
 Proposed pathway for the U.S. to follow
The Potential Role of Geothermal as a
Major Supplier of Primary Energy in the U.S.

Three reasons why we need
a sustainable energy system
1. National and international energy security
2. The environment at multiple scales –
from local to global
3. Economic well being and quality of life
Energy accessibility, performance and affordability
and its interactions with the environment
are at the heart of the struggle

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
• Food & Water Systems
• Human Health, Nutrition & Education
• Institutions, Policy & Governance
• Population and Migration
• Poverty Reduction
ENERGY
• Renewable Sources –
solar, wind, biomass,
geothermal
• Infrastructure – electric
power, smart grids, T&D
• Carbon capture and
sequestration
• Efficiency and storage
• Transportation
• Systems Analysis
ENVIRONMENT
• Biodiversity
• Biogeochemistry
• Climate Change
• Buildings to Cities
• Environmental Sociology
• Mitigation/Adaptation
• Sustainable Agriculture
• Water Resource Mgmt.
Cornell University’s approach - connecting
the 3 E’s of sustainability

Climate change is a major issue facing us

1. Rate of depletion of conventional fossil resources and
importance of the energy services they provide
2. Rising dependences on oil and gas resources
3. National security implications that surround
supplying energy when and where it is needed
4. Larger environmental impacts of producing and
upgrading unconventional fossil fuels – including shale
gas and oil, oil shales, tar sands, and heavy oils
5. Effects of growing global energy demand on water
and land use, air and water pollution, and loss of
biodiversity
And even if you don’t believe our fossil fuel use is driving
climate change, there are many indicators suggesting we
need to transition from the age of hydrocarbons to a
new more sustainable energy destination.

RWA 2006
U.S. Energy Flows, 2002
97 Quads

Continued growth in US energy demand?
 Population – 315 million growing to 500 million ?
 Land use density – 315 x 106/9.16 x 106 =
33 persons/km2 increasing to 55 persons/km2 ?
 Total primary energy –
100 quads growing to 150 quads annually ?
3.2 TW growing to 4.8 TW ?
 Per capita energy per year –
60 BOE/yr-person growing to 90 BOE/yr-person ?
 Number of cars and trucks -
250 million now growing to 400 million?
 Electric generating capacity and demand
1 TWe / 4000 TWh growing to 2 TWe/ 6000TWh ?
1 quad = 10+15 BTU  10+18 J = 1 EJ
1 TW = 10+12 W or J/s
The US has lost its historical leadership position as the world’s top
energy consumer and carbon dioxide emitter to China

With electrical losses
The Thermal Spectrum of U.S. Energy Use
Energy consumed as a function of utilization temperature
© by J.W. Tester, D.B. Fox and D. Sutter, Cornell University 2010
About 25% of US energy use occurs at temperatures < 120oC
and most of it comes from burning natural gas and oil

Renewable energy options score high on
sustainability metrics but resources vary widely
in quality and availability and costs are high
In US the emphasis has been on wind, solar PV and biofuels
with geothermal undervalued and often ignored completely

Utilization of Geothermal Energy is Diverse
1. For Electricity -- as a source of thermal energy for
generating electricity
2. For Heating -- direct use of the thermal energy in district
heating or industrial processes
3. For Geothermal Heat Pumps – as a source or sink of moderate
temperature energy in heating and cooling applications

• Attractive technology for
dispatchable, base load power
and heat for both developed
and developing countries
• From its beginning in the
Larderello Field in Italy in 1904,
over 11,000 MWe of on-line
capacity worldwide today
• Additional capacity with direct
use and geothermal heat
pumps (e.g. > 60,000 MWt &
3,000,000 GHPs globally)
• Competitive costs – 7–10¢/kWh
and $ 5-15/MMBTU
Geothermal energy today for heat and electricity
Condensers and cooling towers, The Geysers, being fitted
with direct contact condensers developed at NREL
Commercial geothermal energy use today is limited
to high grade, high gradient sites with existing
hydrothermal reservoirs !!

• In 50 years Iceland has
transformed itself from a country
100% dependent on imported oil to
a renewable energy supply based
on geothermal and hydro
• >95% of all heating provided by
geothermal district heating
• >20% of electricity from geothermal
– remainder from hydro
• 2 world scale aluminum plants
powered by geothermal
• Currently evolving its transport
system to hydrogen/hybrid/electric
systems based on high efficiency
geothermal electricity
Geothermal has enabled Iceland’s transformation
Condensers and cooling towers, The Geysers, being fitted
with direct contact condensers developed at NREL
The Blue Lagoon in Iceland
But not every country has the
geothermal resources of Iceland !

United States compared to Iceland
United States
 315,000,000 people
 100 EJ of primary energy
demand
 1,000,000 MWe generating
capacity
 3400 MWe geothermal
capacity (0.34%)
 250 million cars and light
trucks
 Dozens of large cities:
NYCity to Helena, Montana
Iceland
 319,600 people
 0.23 EJ of primary energy
demand
 4300 MWe generating
capacity
 575 MWe geothermal
capacity (13%)
 238,000 cars and light
trucks
 1 large city
Challenge for the U.S. is about >175X greater
to bring geothermal to 100,000 MWe

The Future of Geothermal Energy
Transitioning from Today’s Hydrothermal Systems to
Tomorrow’s Engineered Geothermal Systems (EGS)
An MIT– led study by an
18- member international panel
-- Primary goal: to provide an
independent and comprehensive
evaluation of EGS as a major US
primary energy supplier
-- Secondary goal: – to provide a
framework for informing policy
makers of what R&D support and
policies are needed for EGS to have
a major impact
Full report available at
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/geothermal/
future_geothermal.html

The Geothermal Option –
A undervalued opportunity for the US ?
Is there a feasible path from today’s hydrothermal systems
with 3400 MWe capacity to tomorrow’s Enhanced Geothermal
Systems (EGS) with 100,000 MWe or more capacity by 2050 ?
Average surface geothermal gradient
from Blackwell and Richards, SMU (2006)
Hydrothermal
EGS

• An accessible, sufficiently high temperature rock
mass underground
• Connected well system with ability for water to
circulate through the rock mass to extract
energy
• Production of hot water or steam at a sufficient
rate and for long enough period of time to justify
financial investment
• Means of directly utilizing or converting the
thermal energy to electricity
Geothermal systems – common characteristics and limitations
Hydrothermal Reservoirs

Enhanced/Engineered Geothermal Systems (EGS)
could provide a pathway to universal heat mining
EGS defined broadly as engineered reservoirs that have been
stimulated to emulate the production properties of high grade
commercial hydrothermal resources.

 Environmental Stewardship - What are environmental impacts,
benefits, and tradeoffs resulting from large scale deployments?
 Thermodynamics – Does increased use of geothermal energy
address its thermodynamic potential in an efficient manner?
 Resource Assessment – What is the quality, distribution, and
accessibility of the useful energy within the geothermal
continuum in the U.S.?
 Reservoir Sustainability -- What are the requirements for a
sustainable EGS reservoir in terms of reservoir productivity,
lifetime, and renewability/recoverability?
 Economics - What will it take for geothermal to achieve its
market potential as an affordable and scalable national option?
Key underlying questions for geothermal becoming
a key supplier of primary energy in U.S.

Environmental stewardship
Concerns
 Induced seismicity must be monitored and managed
 Water use – will require effective control and
management, especially in arid regions
Benefits and tradeoffs
 Land use – small “footprint” compared to alternatives
 Low emissions, essentially carbon-free, base load energy
 No storage or backup generation needed
 Adaptable for electric, district heating and co-gen / CHP
applications

Lessons from thermodynamics -- exergy and availability --
Conversion of geothermal heat into electricity is
limited by its relatively low source temperatures
Most Hydrothermal
Resources

With electrical losses
The Thermal Spectrum of U.S. Energy Use
Energy consumed as a function of utilization temperature
© by J.W. Tester, D.B. Fox and D. Sutter, Cornell University 2010
About 25% of US energy use occurs at temperatures < 120oC
and most of it comes from burning natural gas and oil
Geothermal energy can be used for heating with
high thermodynamic (exergetic) efficiency

A range of resource types and grades
within the geothermal continuum
6
Three critical ingredients
for successful heat mining
1. sufficient temperature
at reasonable depth
2. sufficient permeability
3. sufficient hot water or
steam

Temperature at Depth in the U.S.

Iceland
A range of resource types and grades
within the geothermal continuum
6
New York

U.S. Geothermal resource is large and underutilized
1 EJ = 10+18 J or about 10+15 BTU
Annual US energy consumption = 100 EJ

Estimated total geothermal resource base and recoverable resource
given in EJ or 10+18 Joules.
1,000,000 EJ
10,000 x US use
A key question -- how much could be captured and used?

30+ Year History of EGS Research
EGS CORE
KNOWLEDGE
BASE
Cooper
Basin
(Australia)
Fenton
Hill
(USA)
Soultz
(EU)
Rose-
manowes
(UK)
Hijiori &
Ogachi
(Japan)
Future
US EGS
Program
Coso &
Desert
Peak
(USA)
Basel
(Swiss)
Landau,
et al
(German)
Newberry EGS
Demonstration
(USA)

Developing stimulation methods to create a
well-connected reservoir
The critical challenge
technically is how to
engineer the system to
emulate the productivity
of a good hydrothermal
reservoir
Connectivity is achieved
between injection and
production wells by
hydraulic pressurization
and fracturing
“snap shot” of microseismic events during
hydraulic fracturing at Soultz from Roy Baria

EGS Reservvoir at Soultz, France
from Baria, et al.
• Fenton Hill, Los Alamos US project
• Rosemanowes, Cornwall, UK Project
• Hijori, et al , Japanese Project
• Soultz, France EU Project
• Cooper Basin, Australia Project, et al.
• directional drilling to depths of 5+ km & 300+oC
• diagnostics and models for characterizing size and
thermal hydraulic behavior of EGS reservoirs
• hydraulically stimulated large >1km3 regions of rock
• established injection/production well connectivity
within a factor of 2 to 3 of commercial levels
• controlled/manageable water losses
• manageable induced seismic and subsidence effects
• net heat extraction achieved
R&D focused on developing technology to create reservoirs
That emulate high-grade, hydrothermal systems
30+ years of field testing at
has resulted in much progress
and many lessons learned
~3000 m

Economics of EGS
1. Resource quality and accessibility (10 to 100oC)
2. Reservoir productivity and lifetime (20 to 80 kg/s with 5-20 yr well life)
3. End use -- electricity, direct heat, and co-gen
4. Several economic factors, e.g.
Drilling costs
Surface plant costs
Costs for energy transmission and distribution Infrastructure
Financial parameters - interest (4 to 8%)and equity capital (4 to 17%)
Policies and incentives -- taxes, tariffs, RECs, etc
0
20
40
60
80
100
%
of
Total
Cost
High Grade
Hydrothermal (<3 km)
Mid-Grade EGS
(3-6 km)
Low Grade EGS
(6-10 km)
Drilling and Reservoir Stimulation Power Plant
As EGS resource and
reservoir quality decrease,
drilling and stimulation
costs dominate

Geothermal well costs vs. oil and gas well costs
2008 -2012

EGS electricity would only be competitive today
in high gradient regions
223.4¢
41.1¢
18.0¢
13.2¢
64.3¢
12.9¢
6.3¢ 5.3¢
32.3¢
7.6¢ 4.1¢ 4.3¢
0
50
100
150
200
250
20°C/km 40°C/km 60°C/km 80°C/km
Average Temperature Gradient
LEC¢/kWh
Today's drilling technology
with 20 kg/s flow rate
Today's drilling technology
Advanced drilling technology
6 km depth
6 km depth
6 km depth 4 km depth

While projected costs for EGS electricity look promising in the
Western US what about geothermal opportunities in
lower-grade regions in the Eastern US?
Recall that geothermal today is limited to
high grade, high gradient sites with
existing hydrothermal reservoirs !!
Leads you to direct use and district heating

To estimate the LCOE and/or LCOH of multiple end use options
for electricity and heat we developed a new model in 2012
GEOthermal energy for Production of Heat and Electricity Economically Simulated

10,8
12,6
14,9
21,7
37,5
14,8
13,9
15,3
18,4
25,9
0,00
5,00
10,00
15,00
20,00
25,00
30,00
35,00
40,00
Ave. US Price 80°C/km 60°C/km 40°C/km 25°C/km
LevelizedCostofEnergy
(Electricity-¢/kWh)(Heat-$/MMBTU) Estimated Levelized Costs of
Geothermal Electricity and Heat in U.S.
With Current Technology
Compared to Current Prices
Electricity Initial Heat Initial

11,0
8,8
9,6
12,8
20,5
19,8
11,7
12,4
13,7
16,8
0,00
5,00
10,00
15,00
20,00
25,00
30,00
35,00
40,00
(Electricity-¢/kWh)(Heat-$/MMBTU) Estimated Levelized Costs of Geothermal
Electricity and Heat in U.S.
With Mature Technology
Compared to Projected Prices (50 yrs)
Electricity Mature Heat Mature

10,8
12,6
14,9
21,7
37,5
11,0
8,8
9,6
12,8
20,5
14,8
13,9
15,3
18,4
25,9
19,8
11,7
12,4
13,7
16,8
0,00
5,00
10,00
15,00
20,00
25,00
30,00
35,00
40,00
(Electricity-¢/kWh)(Heat-$/MMBTU) Levelized Costs of Geothermal
Electricity and Heat in U.S.
Compared to Average Prices
(Current and Projected)
Electricity Initial Electricity Mature Heat Initial Heat Mature

Geothermal direct use potential for NY and PA

0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
LCOH($/MMBTU)
Cumulative Heating Capacity (GWth)
District Heating Supply Curve
New York and Pennsylvania
- Three Deployment Scenarios -
Initial Learning Phase
Well flow rate ... 30 kg/s
Return temp ..... 40°C
Capital costs ..... 100%
Midterm Development
Commercially Mature
Current cost of
heating w. N.G.

Encouraged by these results we have proposed a hybrid
EGS-biomass energy system for Cornell University

1. Commercial level of fluid production with an
acceptable flow impedance thru the reservoir
2. Demonstrate sustainable heat extraction lifetimes
3. Establish modularity and repeatability of the EGS
technology over a range of US sites
In Summary, although much has been accomplished for EGS
there are a few important things left to do
To achieve these goals several large-scale field
demonstrations of EGS reservoir technology are needed

Recommended path for enabling 100,000 MW of electric and
district heating capacity from EGS by 2060 in the U.S.
-- 2013 update
Invest a total of about $1600 million for demonstration and deployment
assistance and for research and development for next 10 years
Less than the price of one clean coal plant !
 Support site specific resource assessment
 Support 4 to 5 field EGS demonstrations at
commercial-scale production rates in different geologic
settings from high to mid grade EGS resources
 Maintain vigorous R&D effort on subsurface science
and geo-engineering, drilling, reservoir stimulation,
energy conversion, and systems analysis for EGS

Thank you, Iceland, for leading the way
for us to transition to a sustainable, low
carbon future with geothermal energy

For more details and updates
Goldstein, B., G. Hiriart, R. Bertani, C. Bromley, L. Gutiérrez‐Negrín, E. Huenges, H. Muraoka, A.
Ragnarsson, J. Tester, V. Zui, Geothermal Energy, Chapter 4 In IPCC Special Report on Renewable
Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation , Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United
Kingdom and New York, NY, USA: 2011.
Tester, J. W. et al, “The Future of Geothermal Energy: Impact of
enhanced geothermal systems (EGS) on the United States in the
21st century,” Massachusetts Institute of Technology and
Department of Energy Report, Idaho National Laboratory,
INL/EXT-06-11746 (2006). t
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/geothermal/future_geothermal.html

Multidisciplinary EGS Assessment Team
Panel Members
 Jefferson Tester, chair, Cornell & MIT, chemical engineer
 Brian Anderson, University of West Virginia, chemical engineer
 Anthony S. Batchelor, GeoScience, Ltd, rock mechanics and geotechical engineer
 David Blackwell, Southern Methodist University, geophysicist
 Ronald DiPippo, power conversion consultant, mechanical engineer
 Elisabeth Drake, MIT, energy systems specialist, chemical engineer
 John Garnish, physical chemist, EU Energy Commission (retired)
 Bill Livesay, Drilling engineer and consultant
 Michal Moore, University of Calgary, resource economist
 Kenneth Nichols, Barber-Nichols, CEO (retired), power conversion specialist
 Susan Petty, Black Mountain Technology, reservoir engineer
 Nafi Toksoz, MIT, seismologist
 Ralph Veatch, reservoir stimulation consultant, petroleum engineer
Associate Panel Members
 Roy Baria, former Project Director of the EU EGS Soultz Project , geophysicist
 Enda Murphy and Chad Augustine, MIT chemical engineering research staff
 Maria Richards and Petru Negraru, geophysists, SMU Research Staff
Support Staff
 Gwen Wilcox, MIT

1. Large, indigenous, accessible base load power resource – 14,000,000 EJ of stored
thermal energy accessible with today’s technologies. Key point -- extractable amount of
energy that could be recovered is not limited by resource size or availability
2. Fits portfolio of sustainable renewable energy options - EGS complements the
existing portfolio and does not hamper the growth of solar, biomass, and wind in their
most appropriate domains.
3. Scalable and environmentally friendly – EGS plants have small foot prints and low
emissions and manageable seismicity – carbon free and their modularity makes them
easily scalable from large size plants.
4. Technically feasible -- Major elements of the technology to capture and extract EGS
are in place. Key remaining issue is to establish inter-well connectivity at commercial
production rates – only a factor of 2 to 3 greater than current levels.
5. Economic projections favorable for high grade areas now with a credible learning path
to provide competitive energy from mid- and low-grade resources
6. Demonstration costs modest -- an investment of 800 million (2012$) over 10 years
would demonstrate EGS technology at a commercial scale at several US field sites to
reduce risks for private investment and enable the development of 100,000 MWe.
7. Supporting research costs reasonable – about $60 million/yr (2012$) needed for 10
years --low in comparison to what other large impact US alternative energy programs will
need to have the same impact on supply.
Summary of major findings

DOE Workshop
June 7, 2007
High impact levels for EGS are estimated with a modest investment
for research, development and deployment over a 15 year period
Supply Curve for EGS Electricity

Effect of Geothermal Deployment (EGS) on
CO2 Emissions from US Electricity Generation1,2
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
C
urrent
100
G
W
EG
S
200
G
W
EG
S
300
G
W
EG
S
C
urrent
100
G
W
EG
S
200
G
W
EG
S
300
G
W
EG
S
C
urrent
100
G
W
EG
S
200
G
W
EG
S
300
G
W
EG
S
500
G
W
EG
S
BillionMetricTonnesofCO2peryear
2006 EIA3
4092 TWh Generation
1.0 TWe Capacity
2030 EIA Projection3
5800 TWh Generation
1.2 TWe Capacity
Constant Growth to 2100
Assuming 2030 Energy Mix
10200 TWh Generation
2.3 TWe Capacity
Notes: 1. 95% capacity factor assumed for EGS
2. Assumes EGS offsets CO2 emissions from Coal and Natural Gas plants only
3. EIA Annual Energy Outlook 2007 15

To reach rock at 120-200oC well depths of
10000 to 15000 ft are needed
Ithaca underground
to 22,000 ft
IthacaIthaca
Geology -- Cover: 9,000 ft of Paleozoic Sedimentary Rocks and
Basement: High grade metamorphic rocks in the Grenville province

GEOPHIRES Parameters for Electricity Cases
Technology Current Technology Commercially Mature
Gradient 80ºC/km 60ºC/km 40ºC/km 25ºC/km 80ºC/km 60ºC/km 40ºC/km 25ºC/km
Case 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Flow Rate 40 kg/s 40 kg/s 40 kg/s 40 kg/s 80 kg/s 80 kg/s 80 kg/s 80 kg/s
Capacity Factor 90% 90% 90% 90% 95% 95% 95% 95%
Thermal Drawdown 1.5%/yr 1.5%/yr 1.5%/yr 1.5%/yr 1%/yr 1%/yr 1%/yr 1%/yr
Configuration Triplet Triplet Triplet Triplet Triplet Triplet Triplet Triplet
Water loss rate 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2%
Surface Temp 15 ºC 15 ºC 15 ºC 15 ºC 15 ºC 15 ºC 15 ºC 15 ºC
Initial Production Temp 226 ºC 231 ºC 228 ºC 224 ºC 226 ºC 231 ºC 228 ºC 224 ºC
Drilling Depth 3.0 km 4.0 km 5.8 km 9.0 km 3.0 km 4.0 km 5.8 km 9.0 km
Injection Temp 40 ºC 40ºC 40 ºC 40 ºC 35 ºC 35 ºC 35 ºC 35 ºC
Lifetime 30 years 30 years 30 years 30 years 30 years 30 years 30 years 30 years
Interest rate 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10%
Wellbore Heat Losses Ramey Ramey Ramey Ramey Ramey Ramey Ramey Ramey
Redrill at drawdown of 21% 21% 21% 21% 15% 15% 15% 15%
Wellbore inner
diameter
0.18 m 0.18 m 0.18 m 0.18 m 0.2 m 0.2 m 0.2 m 0.2 m
Drilling Costs 100% 100% 100% 100% 80% 80% 80% 80%

GEOPHIRES Parameters for District Heating Cases
Technology Current Technology Commercially Mature
Case 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Flow Rate 40 kg/s 40 kg/s 40 kg/s 40 kg/s 80 kg/s 80 kg/s 80 kg/s 80 kg/s
Capacity Factor 45% 45% 45% 45% 45% 45% 45% 45%
Thermal Drawdown 0.5%/yr 0.5%/yr 0.5%/yr 0.5%/yr 0.5%/yr 0.5%/yr 0.5%/yr 0.5%/yr
Configuration Triplet Triplet Triplet Triplet Triplet Triplet Triplet Triplet
Water loss rate 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2%
Surface Temp 15ºC 15 ºC 15 ºC 15 ºC 15 ºC 15 ºC 15 ºC 15 ºC
Initial Production
Temp
106 ºC 105 ºC 106 ºC 105 ºC 106 ºC 105 ºC 106 ºC 105 ºC
Drilling Depth 1.5 km 1.9 km 2.75 km 4.25 km 1.5 km 1.9 km 2.75 km 4.25 km
Injection Temp 40 ºC 40 ºC 40 ºC 40 ºC 35 ºC 35 ºC 35 ºC 35 ºC
Lifetime 30 years 30 years 30 years 30 years 30 years 30 years 30 years 30 years
Interest rate 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5%
Wellbore Heat Losses Ramey Ramey Ramey Ramey Ramey Ramey Ramey Ramey
Redrill at drawdown of 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8%
Wellbore inner
diameter
0.18 m 0.18 m 0.18 m 0.18 m 0.2 m 0.2 m 0.2 m 0.2 m
Electricity Price for
Pump
7 ¢/kWh 7 ¢/kWh 7 ¢/kWh 7 ¢/kWh 7 ¢/kWh 7 ¢/kWh 7 ¢/kWh 7 ¢/kWh
Drilling Costs 100% 100% 100% 100% 80% 80% 80% 80%

GEOPHIRES Results for Electricity Cases
Technology Initial Technology Commercially Mature
Average Production 7.9 MWe 8.4 MWe 8.1 MWe 7.8 MWe 15.3 MWe 16.1 MWe 15.2 MWe 14.0 MWe
Drilling Cost 6.4 M$/well 10.1 M$/well 18.4 M$/well 37.3 M$/well 5.1 M$/well 8.1 M$/well 14.7 M$/well 29.8 M$/well
Stimulation Cost 2.0 M$ 2.0 M$ 2.0 M$ 2.0 M$ 2.0 M$ 2.0 M$ 2.0 M$ 2.0 M$
Exploration Cost 5.4 M$ 7.9 M$ 13.5 M$ 26.2 M$ 5.4 M$ 7.9 M$ 13.5 M$ 26.2 M$
Surface Equipment
Cost
28.4 M$ 29.6 M$ 28.8 M$ 27.8 M$ 55.4 M$ 57.7 M$ 56.1 M$ 54.4 M$
Total Investment 54.9 M$ 70.0 M$ 99.5 M$ 186 M$ 78.1 M$ 92.0 M$ 116 M$ 172 M$
O&M Cost 2.4 M$/year 3.0 M$/year 4.1 M$/year 6.5 M$/year 3.3 M$/year 3.7 M$/year 4.6 M$/year 6.5 M$/year
LCOE 12.6 ¢/kWh 14.9 ¢/kWh 21.7 ¢/kWh 37.5 ¢/kWh 8.8 ¢/kWh 9.6 ¢/kWh 12.8 ¢/kWh 20.5 ¢/kWh

GEOPHIRES Results for District Heating Cases
Technology Initial Technology Commercially Mature
Average Production 21.3 MWth 20.9 MWth 21.2 MWth 21.1 MWth 46.0 MWth 45.2 MWth 45.6 MWth 45.52 MWth
Drilling Cost 2.1 M$/well 3.1 M$/well 5.6 M$/well 11.2 M$/well 1.7 M$/well 2.5 M$/well 4.4 M$/well 8.9 M$/well
Stimulation Cost 2.0 M$ 2.0 M$ 2.0 M$ 2.0 M$ 2.0 M$ 2.0 M$ 2.0 M$ 2.0 M$
Exploration Cost 2.5 M$ 3.2 M$ 4.9 M$ 8.6 M$ 2.5 M$ 3.2 M$ 4.9 M$ 8.6 M$
Surface Equipment
Cost
35.4 M$ 34.7 M$ 35.1 M$ 35.1 M$ 67.2 M$ 66.0 M$ 66.8 M$ 66.5 M$
Total Investment 46.2 M$ 49.1 M$ 58.7 M$ 79.3 M$ 77.3 M$ 78.6 M$ 87.0 M$ 104 M$
O&M Cost 1.0 M$/year 1.1 M$/year 1.5 M$/year 2.2 M$/year 2.3 M$/year 2.5 M$/year 2.8M$/year 3.5 M$/year
LCOH
13.9
$/MMBTU
15.3
$/MMBTU
18.4
$/MMBTU
25.9
$/MMBTU
11.7
$/MMBTU
12.4
$/MMBTU
13.7
$/MMBTU
16.8
$/MMBTU

The Potential Role of Geothermal Energy as a Major Supplier of Primary Energy in the U.S.

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to The Potential Role of Geothermal Energy as a Major Supplier of Primary Energy in the U.S.

Similar to The Potential Role of Geothermal Energy as a Major Supplier of Primary Energy in the U.S. (20)

More from Iceland Geothermal

More from Iceland Geothermal (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

The Potential Role of Geothermal Energy as a Major Supplier of Primary Energy in the U.S.