North of the Hot Zone

Native American’s have had a long association with the thermal waters of North America.  These waters played critical roles in many communities. Resources to be developed may impact on these places and waters.  From the Oregon Institute of Technology Geo Heat Center; their paper on Sacred Places

The Indians of North America considered hot springs as a sacred place where the “Great Spirit” lived, and thus were great believers in the miraculous healing powers of the heat and mineral waters. These areas were also known as neutral ground; where warriors could travel to and rest unmolested by other tribes. Even though archeological finds date Native American presence at hot springs for over 10,000 years, there is no recorded history prior to the arrival of the Europeans in the 1500’s. Many legends concerning geothermal activities are part of the Native American oral history, such as about Madame Pele, the Hawaiian goddess of volcanic fire, and the story of the battle between Skell and Llao describing the eruptions of Mt. Mazama (Crater Lake) and Mt. Shasta. Obsidian was one of the prized volcanic trading items used by the Indians for tools and weapons.

Tags: Tribal/Sacred Places by Lawrence Molloy
No Comments »

This 1992 Report, funded by the Bonneville Power Administration, identified 124 jobs if a modest  (100MWe) geothermal power plant was developed on the eastern side of Mt. Baker in Whatcom County. 62 direct plant jobs!

Lastly, an additional $9.4 million in related income to the county, plus royalty, ongoing O & M and property taxes reaching $14 Million a year at its peak.

These numbers are 15 years old but basic leasing and taxing regulations have not changed.  Revenue back to the local community from federal land holding lease receipts is a higher percentage because of the resource extraction aspect.

Tags: Best of, Market, WA State by Lawrence Molloy
Comments Off

The U.S. Geothermal Developable Resource Estimate  from the Western Governor’s Assessment.  Washington State is at 4.8%.  Some geothermal engineers believe that the precipitation and biomass of the western slope of the Cascades may mask the surface hydrothermal waters which indicate a higher resource below.

Tags: Uncategorized by Lawrence Molloy
No Comments »

Washington State’s Current Energy Sources.  As a state, we use just under 30,000 MWe.  Hydro power dominates.  Geothermal has yet to be developed. Low estimates place us at 50MWe (developable by 2015), longer term prospects 2025 projects are upward to 600MWe. Development of new Hydro is unlikely, as resources are largely exploited.  Wind has strong upward potential.

Tags: WA State by Lawrence Molloy
No Comments »

Please join us for an introductory discussion and Q&A session on the environmental and energy aspects of geothermal power in Washington state. It will be held on January 17^th at the NW Energy Coalition office.

What: Lunch talk on geothermal energy potential for WA state

Who: Geothermal engineer Susan Petty & Lawrence Molloy will host this presentation and Q&A session

When: Thursday, January 17^th, Noon to 1:30pm

Where: NW Energy Coalition Office -  811 1^st Ave, Suite 305 Seattle

Who should attend? Individuals interested in renewable energy, utility staff, decision makers, climate advocates

BACKGROUND

Geothermal energy shows excellent promise as a reliable, low-carbon, and cost effective source of power.  It is already developed in over a dozen countries and the United States is the leader with 3,000 MW of developed power. While Washington state and Washingtonians are committed to renewable energy, we have yet to get a clear understanding of the potential for geothermal energy. Washington is considered a 2^nd tier state (compared to the hot zone of Nevada, California, Oregon and Idaho) with the potential for up to 600 MW statewide with current geothermal technology. Washington state has strong potential, yet nothing has been sited, permitted or developed. Today, hydroelectric power provides 70% of Washington’s electricity, and coal, nuclear and natural gas account for most of the remainder.Geothermal energy, "the forgotten renewable," is beginning to receive more attention as other forms of renewable energy are receiving broad public and technical consideration.  A recent MIT/Dept. of Energy study shows that it may be far more promising than once thought. Theoretically capable of providing abundant low-carbon energy, the geothermal resource in Washington State is poorly understood.  Like any natural resource, harvesting it has environmental impacts.  This brownbag will focus not only on the energy and carbon aspects, but also related environmental issues such as water and land impacts.

Tags: Uncategorized by Lawrence Molloy
No Comments »

This fall, before the Senate Natural Resources and Energy Committee, the President of Iceland’s testimony outlines the U.S. geothermal potential with special attention to the Western United States.  Iceland’s geothermal utilization is well known.  They are also very open to sharing and cooperating on this effort.  They are working with Glitnir on promoting Icelandic investment in geothermal energy.

Tags: Uncategorized by Lawrence Molloy
No Comments »

In September 2007, Glitnir of Iceland unveiled their U.S. Geothermal Initiative for $10Billion in investment.  The report is based largely on the Western Governor’s Assessment and Dept. of Energy Geopowering the West program.  For Washington state, the report identifies the more common and lesser 50MW number.

The Glitnir US Geothermal Report is a great overview, and offers some clear market insight.  Though the state could have 4% from geothermal, there is no real activity statewide. Critical to the report is its assertions of low cost geothermal production.

This final chart extracted from the MIT study reinforces the assertion that geothermal could meet 15-20% of the U.S. electrical needs by 2050.

Tags: Best of by Lawrence Molloy
No Comments »

From the Glitnir Report

Glitnir US Geothermal Report

Tags: Best of by Lawrence Molloy
No Comments »

Schuster and Bloomquist (1994) have compiled a resource database, which includes 975 thermal wells and springs, an increase of 165% over the number of entries reported in 1981. Most of the thermal springs occur in the Cascade Range, associated with stratovolcanoes. In contrast, 97% of the thermal wells are located in the Columbia Basin of southeastern Washington. These thermal wells are strongly associated with the Columbia River Basalt Group and the Columbia Basin. Rather than prioritize limited areas within this region for detailed studies, Schuster and Bloomquist (1994) make three recommendations for greatly expanding geothermal use in the state. The recommendations are: (1) match existing thermal wells with proposed retrofit or new construction; (2) measure temperature gradients, obtain well-test data and drill cuttings, and collect water samples for chemical analysis; and (3) inform state residents and policy-makers about uses of geothermal energy.Schuster, J. E. and Bloomquist, R.G., 1994. Low-Temperature Geothermal Resources of Washington, Washington Division of Geology and Earth Resources Open-File Report 94-11, 53 p.

Tags: WA State by Lawrence Molloy
No Comments »

Released in the Spring of 2007, this study extensively covers the technology and geologic potential of geothermal energy in the United States. A summary of the report is here.

“This environmental advantage is due to low emissions and the small overall footprint of the entire geothermal system, which results because energy capture and extraction is contained entirely underground, and the surface equipment needed for conversion to electricity is relatively compact.”Government-funded research into geothermal was very active in the 1970s and early 1980s. As oil prices declined in the mid-1980s, enthusiasm for alternative energy sources waned, and funding for research on renewable energy and energy efficiency (including geothermal) was greatly reduced, making it difficult for geothermal technology to advance.Although geothermal energy is produced commercially today, and the United States is the world’s biggest producer, existing U.S. plants have focused on the high-grade geothermal systems primarily located in isolated regions of the west.

The full MIT Report is large (14 MB), but can be found here. Highlights to the report are linked here. Other recommendations:

• More detailed and site-specific assessments of the U.S. geothermal energy resource should be conducted.
• Field trials running three to five years at several sites should be done to demonstrate commercial-scale engineered geothermal systems.
• The shallow, extra-hot, high-grade deposits in the west should be explored and tested first.
• Other geothermal resources such as co-produced hot water associated with oil and gas production and geo-pressured resources should also be pursued as short-term options.
• On a longer time scale, deeper, lower-grade geothermal deposits should be explored and tested.
• Local and national policies should be enacted that encourage geothermal development.
• A multi-year research program exploring subsurface science and geothermal drilling and energy conversion should be started, backed by constant analysis of results.

Tags: Uncategorized by Lawrence Molloy
No Comments »

The Department of Community, Trade & Economic Development (administers the State Energy Program)
Tony Usibelli
State Energy Office Director
Cory Plantenberg
State Energy Program Manager

Washington State University Energy Program
Washington Energy Policy Office
Washington State Office of Trade and Economic Development
Mark Anderson, Senior Energy Policy Specialist
Tony Usibelli, Division Director

GeoPowering the West — State Working Group
Gordon Bloomquist
Geothermal, Hydrothermal and Integrated Energy Systems
Washington State University
Tel:               (360) 956-2016      

Bureau of Land Management
Oregon/Washington State Office

Cooperative Extension Energy Program
Washington State University

Department of Agriculture

Department of Fish and Wildlife

Environmental Protection Agency
Region 10

Washington Department of Ecology

Washington Department of Natural Resources
Geology and Earth Resources Division

Washington Office of Trade & Economic Development
Energy Policy Group

Washington State University, Energy Program
Jacob Fey, Director

Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission

Tags: WA State by Lawrence Molloy
No Comments »

The latest market numbers for 2000-2005.  A series of plants came on line, including Salton Sea. From the World Power Generation Report.

Tags: Uncategorized by Lawrence Molloy
No Comments »

From an article by staff at the Geothermal Energy Association.  The point of comparison was Average Power Plant Emissions according to EPA 2000.  Sulfur dioxide for geothermal is 1/10th of coal, but can be on par with natural gas.   (Click on the table to enlarge.) The CO2 emissions numbers are interesting, showing the release of gases associated with the water.  They approach an order of magnitude of gas production. (10X less!)

Tags: Best of, Uncategorized by Lawrence Molloy
No Comments »

Some key characteristics of geothermal energy distinguish it from all other energy sources, both conventional (e.g. fossil) and other renewables (e.g. solar, wind, biomass). They are as follows:

Geothermal resources are “hidden,” requiring major speculative expenditures for exploration to identify and prove resources as commercially viable.Geothermal energy is available at relatively very low density (BTU’s per pound of produced energy bearing material, for both water and steam) compared to other mineral energy forms such as coal, gas, and oil.Geothermal energy is characterized by relatively fixed ongoing fuel costs since, once accessed, a geothermal resource continues producing energy into the future without ongoing fuel costs.  

Tags: Uncategorized by Lawrence Molloy
No Comments »

The 34 thermal springs in the state are listed in the Chart below. The Sherman Fumarole comes in at 266.  The data are extracted from the 1980 NOAA database, then referred to as the 30 Hot Springs of Washington State.  Note that the longitude and latitude are given, as well as the temperature in F and C.  Here is the NOAA website list of Washington State Thermal Springs:

BAKER HOT SPRING

COLLINS HOT SPRINGS

DORR FUMAROLE FIELD

FISH HATCHERY WARM SPRING

GAMMA HOT SPRINGS

GARLAND MINERAL SPRINGS

GOLDMEYER HOT SPRINGS

GREEN RIVER SODA SPRING

HOT LAKEKENNEDY HOT SPRING

KLICKITAT MINERAL SPRINGS

LESTER HOT SPRINGS

LONGMIRE MINERAL SPRINGS

MOFFETTS (BONNEVILLE)

MOUNT ADAMS FUMAROLES

MT RAINIER FUMAROLES

MT ST HELENS FUMAROLES

OHANAPECOSH HOT SPRINGS

OLYMPIC HOT SPRINGS

ORR CREEK WARM SPRINGS

PACKWOOD HOT SPRING

POISON LAKE

ROCK CREEK HOT SPRINGS

SCENIC HOT SPRINGS

SHERMAN CRATER FUMAROLES

SIMCOE SODA SPRINGS

SOL DUC HOT SPRINGS

ST MARTINS HOT SPRINGS

SULPHUR CREEK HOT SPRINGS

WARM SPRINGS CANYON

Tags: Best of, WA State by Lawrence Molloy
1 Comment »

The geothermal resources map of the United States below shows the estimated subterranean temperatures at a depth of 6 kilometers. Yellow or red indicates boiling water. To determine the Earth’s internal temperature at any depth below the capabilities of normal well drilling, multiple data sets are synthesized. The data used for this figure are: thermal conductivity, thickness of sedimentary rock, geothermal gradient, heat flow and surface temperature.  The numbers are in Celsius! 

Tags: Uncategorized by Lawrence Molloy
No Comments »

The Department of Energy has been working on this issue.  It has proposed a series of national geothermal goals.  Some of the goals are:

1. characterize the entire hydrothermal resource base by 2010;
2. sustain double digit annual growth in geothermal power; direct use and heat pump applications;
3. demonstrate state-of-the-art energy production from the full range of geothermal resources;
4. achieve new power or commercial heat production in at least 25 states; and,
5. develop the tools and techniques to build an engineered geothermal system (EGS) power plant by 2015.

Funding Priorities

1. discovery and definition of geothermal resources;
2. expand the GRED program funding;
3. develop new exploration technologies;
4. support state-based programs to expand knowledge of the resource base and its potential applications;
5. improve drilling technology;
6. demonstrate geothermal applications in presently non-commercial settings;
7. develop and demonstrate Enhanced Geothermal Systems techniques.

Tags: Uncategorized by Lawrence Molloy
No Comments »

• Engage the tribes at the beginning, especially the elders
• Don’t rely on old geologic data
• Fully evaluate and consider surface and near surface water impacts
• Don’t oversell geothermal in terms of production or cleanliness
• Recognize that the technology is not standardized
• Commit to a closed-loop system

Tags: Uncategorized by Lawrence Molloy
No Comments »

Geothermal is not without its challenges and impacts. With a coordinated and respectful investment in geothermal technology, policy review and siting, it is believed that costs can be reduced by 2 cents per kWe. Here is a list of challenges today:

· Waste and process waters· Steam and viewshed impacts· Redrilling every 3-5 years· High O & M cost (this will come down measurably, but not drastically)· High initial drilling costs (design goal was 50% reduction, only achieved 20%)· Neglected for 20 years in national energy policy· The geothermal intelligentsia were on the verge of becoming a legacy· A whole heap of technological challenges remain· The interface of some near surface sources and sacred waters

Tags: Uncategorized by Lawrence Molloy
No Comments »

From Economist Yoram Bauman, extracting from the DOE’s data and reports. According to DOE’s Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy section FAQ on geothermal. (link is <http://www1.eere.energy.gov/geothermal/faqs.html>)

Q: How much does geothermal energy cost per kilowatt-hour (kWh)?A: At The Geysers, power is sold at $0.03 to $0.035 per kWh. A power plant built today would probably require about $0.05 per kWh. Some plants can charge more during peak demand periods.[Note that the $0.05 per kWh estimate looks pretty optimistic in light of the data below and elsewhere.]Q: What does it cost to develop a geothermal power plant?A: Costs of a geothermal plant are heavily weighted toward early expenses, rather than fuel to keep them running. Well drilling and pipeline construction occur first, followed by resource analysis of the drilling information. Next is design of the actual plant. Power plant construction is usually completed concurrent with final field development. The initial cost for the field and power plant is around $2500 per installed kW in the U.S., probably $3000 to $5000/kWe for a small (<1Mwe) power plant. Operating and maintenance costs range from $0.01 to $0.03 per kWh. Most geothermal power plants can run at greater than 90% availability (i.e., producing more than 90% of the time), but running at 97% or 98% can increase maintenance costs. Higher-priced electricity justifies running the plant 98% of the time because the resulting higher maintenance costs are recovered.

This from an MIT study, p. 6-3 <http://www1.eere.energy.gov/geothermal/future_geothermal.html>.

Exploration, production, and injection well drilling are major cost components of any geothermal project (Petty et al., 1992; Pierce and Livesay, 1994; Pierce and Livesay, 1993a; Pierce and Livesay, 1993b). Even for high-grade resources, they can account for 30% of the total capital investment; and with low-grade resources, the percentage increases to 60% or more of the total.[It's also clear from this study that researchers expect costs to fall as we learn more about the technology, etc.]

These two figures from the Energy Information Administration’s Annual Energy Outlook: once again demonstrating geothermal’s solid placement vis-a-vis the other low-carbon, climate-friendly options.

Tags: Uncategorized by Lawrence Molloy
No Comments »