Constellation just bought Calpine, which is the largest geothermal generator at the Geysers, the oldest & largest "traditional" steam field in the US. 90% of Constellation's generation was nuclear, with a small amount of renewable. So they've placed a big bet on geothermal, & that might not be the end of it. The Geysers steam field is over 25 square miles in area, all on federal BLM land.
3 companies have been under contract to develop new geothermal projects for Sonoma Clean Power (SCP) within 3 to 5 years. Eavor, the Canadian closed loop Advanced Geothermal company is one. Another, Cyrq Energy, is planning to retrofit a depleted steam well at the Geysers to function as a geothermal storage "battery". Chevron recently dropped out, but they've already purchased a 4.5 square mile ranch in the valley below the Geysers. They haven't independently applied for any geothermal permits,......yet. The state has, by law, designated Sonoma County as the government agency to review, approve & monitor geothermal permits.
The SCP plan is to eliminate all fossil fueled power from their portfolio. They provide power over PG&E transmission for Sonoma, Lake & Mendocino Counties, over 650k households. The Geysers gets 45" to 70" of annual rainfall, but the steam field is also re-charged with millions of gallons of tertiary-treated waste-water pipelined up to the mountain top location from Sonoma County.
An article came across my radar, today, where it appears a company did some drilling at a conventional geothermal site in New Mexico that had become unproductive. They say the results met their expectations.
The company is Zanskar, and they recently acquired the site from Cyrq. This is the Lightning Dock site, which is close to the Arizona border and I-10.
My under-educated view is that this is YET ANOTHER approach to geothermal. The article reports a bunch of numbers of which I have little perspective.
"Zanskar reports exceptional results of new geothermal well at Lightning Dock, NM"
Lightning Dock historically supplied energy to PNM (my utility) which regularly reports "Renewable Energy Serving Our Customers" at >95% with a real-time web page. It reminds me of Tim Latimer's answer to the question of whether geothermal was really renewable.
I'd be interested to see some clarification on capacity factors and whether the power numbers given here (33MW turbines, 50MW turbines, etc.) represent peak values or annual average values. I was assuming peak, until I saw the comparison to Utah's total power generation, which is just under 4GW *average*. So if Fervo's 400MW is going to be more than 10% of the Utah total, the 400MW would have to be an annual average, right? Is that really what we can expect by 2028?
Part of my confusion comes from the capacities Fervo has reported to EIA (https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.php?t=table_6_05): each of the three planned generating units having a nameplate capacity of 53MW but a summer capacity of only 28MW. If the differences can be that large, I'm not sure how to interpret the numbers given in this interview.
I think the reason for the discrepancy in summer capacity vs. nameplate is because the efficiency varies with the difference between the source HW and condensing outdoor air temp. That HW temp and flow is going to be somewhat constant at nameplate and summer conditions, but as the outdoor temp goes way up from 10F in winter to 100F in summer the turbine efficiency goes down, and maybe the condenser fans need to spin faster. I also don't know how the EIA treats gross MW (turbine output) vs. net MW (turbine - fans - pumps, the latter two seemingly 25%-ish of turbine output in good EGS, more in bad EGS).
Iffff we get a lot of solar on the grid, power output inverse to ambient temp may be a "feature not a bug," with the EGS power more available in winter and at night.
Yes, I assume seasonal efficiency differences are responsible for at least part of the difference between 53MW and 28MW. And as you say, fans and pumps may be responsible for the rest.
(I'm not sure, though, that the EIA's tabulated summer and winter capacities are intended to represent the most extreme temperatures reached over the season. I've always assumed they should incorporate some daily, or even monthly, averaging.)
I'm still very curious about whether the numbers mentioned in this interview (33MW, 50MW, 400MW) represent gross or net, summer or winter.
EIA publishes data for three categories of electricity-generation capacity: nameplate capacity,, net summer capacity, and net winter capacity. These values may differ because of seasonal variations in the temperature of generator cooling fluid (water or ambient air). EIA reports electricity generation capacity as net summer capacity in most of its electricity data reports.
From EIA glossary, though these don't answer your questions exactly, at least it's clear that summer # is truly "net," but almost seems that "nameplate" is "gross," and if so illustrates one of the engineering hurdles which I'm sure Fervo's crew is beavering away on, the high parasitic electricity use of fans and pumps when Carnot efficiency is low.
Interesting.
Net summer capacity: The maximum output, commonly expressed in megawatts (MW), that generating equipment can supply to system load, as demonstrated by a multi-hour test, at the time of summer peak demand (period of June 1 through September 30.) This output reflects a reduction in capacity due to electricity use for station service or auxiliaries
Generator nameplate capacity (installed): The maximum rated output of a generator, prime mover, or other electric power production equipment under specific conditions designated by the manufacturer. Installed generator nameplate capacity is commonly expressed in megawatts (MW) and is usually indicated on a nameplate physically attached to the generator.
The biggest obstacle to carbon free power in the US and Canada is the culture war.
1)EGS sidesteps that obstacle. It is the only renewable CO2 free power source that still has support from the two political poles.
2) It is the only CO2 free power that offers the chance of people transposing their oil field skills to green energy, allowing an easier social transition than shifting to solar, wind. This is an important aspect as fracced tight oil peters out, a reality that is already setting in. Drill baby drill is a mirage.
3) It is the only clean power source where US technology and engineering is still clearly ahead of China's. We are 10 years behind on solar, batteries, EVs. Europe, which had the lead in wind turbine tech, is starting to fall behind and cannot match China's manufacturing efficiencies.
4) Among young people there is far less denial of climate change than among the boomers and Gen Xers. They are not enrolling in petroleum engineering because they see no future in it. The EGS application of petroleum engineering skills (thermal transfer engineering, drilling tech) offers an avenue to the energy transition
Wells are drilled into the earth to tap reservoirs of hot water and steam
The hot water and steam are brought to the surface
The hot water and steam can be used to generate electricity or provide direct heat to buildings
When geothermal water is used to generate electricity, the cooled water after extracting heat is typically "returned down to Earth" through an injection well, essentially pumping it back into the underground reservoir to be reheated and used again in a sustainable cycle; this helps maintain pressure and replenish the reservoir.
You can learn more about geothermal energy from the U.S. Department of Energy.
NOTE: DOE and EPA might cease to exist or be neutered to the point of feckless.
Maybe I am just misunderstanding things and feeling too optimistic, but I feel like people are really not excited enough about EGS. It was truly remarkable to hear all of this:
"$3,000 a kilowatt subsurface costs, actually getting close to sub $2,000 kilowatt subsurface costs."
"we are building these projects at around $6,000 a kilowatt right now, which on a CapEx basis is significantly more expensive than what you get from a new combined cycle gas plan"
"We think we can drop costs below $3,000 a kilowatt"
"At $3,000 a kilowatt, you can remove all the subsidies. You could remove all the other things that tip the different scales and just on a CapEx basis, and you take the fact that geothermal doesn't have fuel cost, and I think we have got a better cost than natural gas. And that's even absent any environmental attributes or any REC factors."
David summarized it: "You think you have a line of sight to being cost-competitive with natural gas, absent subsidies, absent carbon prices, absent anything else. Pretty cool."
Pretty cool is an understatement! I think solar and storage are great, but a technology that can provide 24/7 clean power cheaper than natural gas seems like... it would solve or basically solve the carbon problem when it comes to electricity?
Is EGS still geographically limited by drilling depths? i.e. are there regions where this might not be viable?
Am I crazy or is everyone else not excited enough about EGS?
Has Fervo used any of the work from FORGE to help it advance its progress? If so, it would be great to provide some credit to FORGE. In today's political environment, we need to recognize the value that federal funding (through the DOE) delivers in advancing new technologies for Americans.
I'm EGS-skeptic, but the specifics you got down to make this particular approach start to sound kinda useful. $6000/MW now not bad, $4000/MW eventually w/o fuel costs and 24/7 output, nice.
I'd really get on board if I heard specific numbers for locations outside the Basin and Range province.
Also, this does require a lot of area, even if "surface disturbance" is low and the infrastructure is spread out underground. The Cape project area looks to be 40 sq mi for 400 MW or 10 MW/sq mi. Solar farm output is getting to the 120 MW/sq mi range, though 25% max capacity factor and 100% "surface disturbance."
Some other recent geothermal news:
Constellation just bought Calpine, which is the largest geothermal generator at the Geysers, the oldest & largest "traditional" steam field in the US. 90% of Constellation's generation was nuclear, with a small amount of renewable. So they've placed a big bet on geothermal, & that might not be the end of it. The Geysers steam field is over 25 square miles in area, all on federal BLM land.
3 companies have been under contract to develop new geothermal projects for Sonoma Clean Power (SCP) within 3 to 5 years. Eavor, the Canadian closed loop Advanced Geothermal company is one. Another, Cyrq Energy, is planning to retrofit a depleted steam well at the Geysers to function as a geothermal storage "battery". Chevron recently dropped out, but they've already purchased a 4.5 square mile ranch in the valley below the Geysers. They haven't independently applied for any geothermal permits,......yet. The state has, by law, designated Sonoma County as the government agency to review, approve & monitor geothermal permits.
The SCP plan is to eliminate all fossil fueled power from their portfolio. They provide power over PG&E transmission for Sonoma, Lake & Mendocino Counties, over 650k households. The Geysers gets 45" to 70" of annual rainfall, but the steam field is also re-charged with millions of gallons of tertiary-treated waste-water pipelined up to the mountain top location from Sonoma County.
".
That's interesting.
An article came across my radar, today, where it appears a company did some drilling at a conventional geothermal site in New Mexico that had become unproductive. They say the results met their expectations.
The company is Zanskar, and they recently acquired the site from Cyrq. This is the Lightning Dock site, which is close to the Arizona border and I-10.
My under-educated view is that this is YET ANOTHER approach to geothermal. The article reports a bunch of numbers of which I have little perspective.
"Zanskar reports exceptional results of new geothermal well at Lightning Dock, NM"
Lightning Dock historically supplied energy to PNM (my utility) which regularly reports "Renewable Energy Serving Our Customers" at >95% with a real-time web page. It reminds me of Tim Latimer's answer to the question of whether geothermal was really renewable.
Thanks for providing all these numbers!
I'd be interested to see some clarification on capacity factors and whether the power numbers given here (33MW turbines, 50MW turbines, etc.) represent peak values or annual average values. I was assuming peak, until I saw the comparison to Utah's total power generation, which is just under 4GW *average*. So if Fervo's 400MW is going to be more than 10% of the Utah total, the 400MW would have to be an annual average, right? Is that really what we can expect by 2028?
Part of my confusion comes from the capacities Fervo has reported to EIA (https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.php?t=table_6_05): each of the three planned generating units having a nameplate capacity of 53MW but a summer capacity of only 28MW. If the differences can be that large, I'm not sure how to interpret the numbers given in this interview.
I think the reason for the discrepancy in summer capacity vs. nameplate is because the efficiency varies with the difference between the source HW and condensing outdoor air temp. That HW temp and flow is going to be somewhat constant at nameplate and summer conditions, but as the outdoor temp goes way up from 10F in winter to 100F in summer the turbine efficiency goes down, and maybe the condenser fans need to spin faster. I also don't know how the EIA treats gross MW (turbine output) vs. net MW (turbine - fans - pumps, the latter two seemingly 25%-ish of turbine output in good EGS, more in bad EGS).
Iffff we get a lot of solar on the grid, power output inverse to ambient temp may be a "feature not a bug," with the EGS power more available in winter and at night.
Yes, I assume seasonal efficiency differences are responsible for at least part of the difference between 53MW and 28MW. And as you say, fans and pumps may be responsible for the rest.
(I'm not sure, though, that the EIA's tabulated summer and winter capacities are intended to represent the most extreme temperatures reached over the season. I've always assumed they should incorporate some daily, or even monthly, averaging.)
I'm still very curious about whether the numbers mentioned in this interview (33MW, 50MW, 400MW) represent gross or net, summer or winter.
Hey mate, from https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/electricity-in-the-us-generation-capacity-and-sales.php
EIA publishes data for three categories of electricity-generation capacity: nameplate capacity,, net summer capacity, and net winter capacity. These values may differ because of seasonal variations in the temperature of generator cooling fluid (water or ambient air). EIA reports electricity generation capacity as net summer capacity in most of its electricity data reports.
From EIA glossary, though these don't answer your questions exactly, at least it's clear that summer # is truly "net," but almost seems that "nameplate" is "gross," and if so illustrates one of the engineering hurdles which I'm sure Fervo's crew is beavering away on, the high parasitic electricity use of fans and pumps when Carnot efficiency is low.
Interesting.
Net summer capacity: The maximum output, commonly expressed in megawatts (MW), that generating equipment can supply to system load, as demonstrated by a multi-hour test, at the time of summer peak demand (period of June 1 through September 30.) This output reflects a reduction in capacity due to electricity use for station service or auxiliaries
Generator nameplate capacity (installed): The maximum rated output of a generator, prime mover, or other electric power production equipment under specific conditions designated by the manufacturer. Installed generator nameplate capacity is commonly expressed in megawatts (MW) and is usually indicated on a nameplate physically attached to the generator.
The biggest obstacle to carbon free power in the US and Canada is the culture war.
1)EGS sidesteps that obstacle. It is the only renewable CO2 free power source that still has support from the two political poles.
2) It is the only CO2 free power that offers the chance of people transposing their oil field skills to green energy, allowing an easier social transition than shifting to solar, wind. This is an important aspect as fracced tight oil peters out, a reality that is already setting in. Drill baby drill is a mirage.
3) It is the only clean power source where US technology and engineering is still clearly ahead of China's. We are 10 years behind on solar, batteries, EVs. Europe, which had the lead in wind turbine tech, is starting to fall behind and cannot match China's manufacturing efficiencies.
4) Among young people there is far less denial of climate change than among the boomers and Gen Xers. They are not enrolling in petroleum engineering because they see no future in it. The EGS application of petroleum engineering skills (thermal transfer engineering, drilling tech) offers an avenue to the energy transition
Perhaps of interest to some:
How does geothermal energy work?
Wells are drilled into the earth to tap reservoirs of hot water and steam
The hot water and steam are brought to the surface
The hot water and steam can be used to generate electricity or provide direct heat to buildings
When geothermal water is used to generate electricity, the cooled water after extracting heat is typically "returned down to Earth" through an injection well, essentially pumping it back into the underground reservoir to be reheated and used again in a sustainable cycle; this helps maintain pressure and replenish the reservoir.
You can learn more about geothermal energy from the U.S. Department of Energy.
NOTE: DOE and EPA might cease to exist or be neutered to the point of feckless.
Maybe I am just misunderstanding things and feeling too optimistic, but I feel like people are really not excited enough about EGS. It was truly remarkable to hear all of this:
"$3,000 a kilowatt subsurface costs, actually getting close to sub $2,000 kilowatt subsurface costs."
"we are building these projects at around $6,000 a kilowatt right now, which on a CapEx basis is significantly more expensive than what you get from a new combined cycle gas plan"
"We think we can drop costs below $3,000 a kilowatt"
"At $3,000 a kilowatt, you can remove all the subsidies. You could remove all the other things that tip the different scales and just on a CapEx basis, and you take the fact that geothermal doesn't have fuel cost, and I think we have got a better cost than natural gas. And that's even absent any environmental attributes or any REC factors."
David summarized it: "You think you have a line of sight to being cost-competitive with natural gas, absent subsidies, absent carbon prices, absent anything else. Pretty cool."
Pretty cool is an understatement! I think solar and storage are great, but a technology that can provide 24/7 clean power cheaper than natural gas seems like... it would solve or basically solve the carbon problem when it comes to electricity?
Is EGS still geographically limited by drilling depths? i.e. are there regions where this might not be viable?
Am I crazy or is everyone else not excited enough about EGS?
You are not crazy John! No one is excited enough about it!
Has Fervo used any of the work from FORGE to help it advance its progress? If so, it would be great to provide some credit to FORGE. In today's political environment, we need to recognize the value that federal funding (through the DOE) delivers in advancing new technologies for Americans.
I'm EGS-skeptic, but the specifics you got down to make this particular approach start to sound kinda useful. $6000/MW now not bad, $4000/MW eventually w/o fuel costs and 24/7 output, nice.
I'd really get on board if I heard specific numbers for locations outside the Basin and Range province.
Also, this does require a lot of area, even if "surface disturbance" is low and the infrastructure is spread out underground. The Cape project area looks to be 40 sq mi for 400 MW or 10 MW/sq mi. Solar farm output is getting to the 120 MW/sq mi range, though 25% max capacity factor and 100% "surface disturbance."