The 1983 Geothermal Assessment of the state identified the Wind River area along the gorge as having strong potential from the high heat flow gradients from the thermal wells. Economics have improved, and favorable land status and ownership remains unchanged.
From the Western Governor’s Jan 2006 Study; the shortlist of Geothermal Potential in 2007.
Last summer, the Seattle PI gave coverage to the process of geothermal. You can read the article here. It comments on Seattle Public Utilities toying with interest in geothermal, but not pursuing
The city of Seattle in the 1980s leased 50,000 acres near Mount Baker to explore geothermal energy, he (Gorden Bloomquist, formerly with WSU) said, but never invested further. It faded away.
Don’t forget to see the 1979 study on Geothermal in the Eastern United States. Geothermal Energy publications, by the Dept. Energy Publications. Note: All publications are PDF documents.
Credit is well deserved by SMU for their work on compiling data.
SMU website and materials to the Southern Methodist University SMU Geothermal Lab. The databases are referred to as: the Western Geothermal Database and the U.S. Regional Database, SMU Geothermal Lab, Dallas, Texas. Maria Richards, Database Manager, mrichard@smu.edu 214-768-1975. The databases get updated from time to time so if you want to date it, give the current year.
(click to enlarge)courtesy the Geologic Survey of Canada (aka Commission Geologique du Canada)http://www.geothermal.ca/images/uploads/GeothermalMapGrasby2.pdf
Posted verbatimWashingtonMap Title: Geologic Map GM-25, Geothermal Resources of Washington, 1981Geothermal data compiled by the Division of Geology and Earth Resources, Washington Department of Natural ResourcesMap produced by theNational Geophysical and Solar-Terrestrial Data CenterNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration for theDivision of Geothermal EnergyUnited States Department of EnergyAnd on the thermal watersThermal WatersDark Gray Areas. Darker gray area is known or inferred to be underlain by low-temperature (lower that 100°C) to high-temperature (higher that (150°C) thermal water.Light Gray Areas. Unbounded lighter gray area is favorable for exploration for, and development of, thermal water of sufficient temperature (20°C and higher) for direct heat applications.In the Cascade Range physiographic province low-temperature to high-temperature resources are indicated by stratovolcanoes and basaltic volcanic fields less that one million years old, geologically young silicic (andesitic and dacitic) volcanic centers, and hot springs and fumaroles. The Cascades geothermal systems have the best potential for high-temperature development in Washington. In southeastern Washington (generally the Columbia Basin physiographic province) light gray area includes wells with bottom-hole temperatures of 20°C and higher, and gradients higher than 45°C/km. Here, although neither temperatures nor gradients are spectacular, exploitable low-temperature thermal water underlies large areas at shallow depth (less than 1000m). It is not implied that thermal water will be found everywhere in the gray areas. In southeastern Washington cold wells are interspersed with warm wells. Absence of gray shading does not indicate there is no possibility of finding geothermal resources; it means only that surface and subsurface manifestations are not now known. Ongoing exploration and study will continue to refine the delineation of Washington’s geothermal resources.
Map Scale: 1:500,0001927 North American DatumLambert conformal conic projection based on standard parallels 33° and 45°Base map revised in 1976
Link is hereGiven its position, geothermal is heading in one direction; UP!
Economic Impacts of Geothermal DevelopmentWhatcom County, WashingtonJuly 1992Jonathan A. Lesser, Ph.D.The Washington State Energy OfficePrepared for:The Bonneville Power AdministrationUnder Agreement No. DE-Bl79-90BPOS317 DisclaimerThis report was prepared expressly for the use of the Bonneville Power Administration. Neitherthe Washington State Energy Office, Bonneville Power Administration, United States Dept. ofEnergy, nor any of their employees or contractors, makes any warranty, express or implied, orassumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of anyinformation presented. The views and opinions of the author expressed herein do not necessarilystate or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. Reference herein toany specific product, process, or service by trade name, mark, or otherwise, does not constitute orimply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or anyagency thereof. AcknowledgmentThe author would like to thank M .Kathryn Bed and Mr. Alex Sifford of the Oregon Dept. of s rEnergy, D .Gary W. Smith of the Washington State University Cooperative Extension Service, rMr. Tim Norris of the Washington State Employment Security Department, D .R. Gordon rBloomquist of the Washington State Energy Office, D .Eric Siverts of the United State ForestService, Mr. David Senf of the University of Minnesota Dept. of Agricultural Economics, and Mr.George Dan of the Bonneville Power Administration, for their assistance with this study. Anyremaining errors, however, are solely the responsibility of the author. TABLE OF CONTENTSI. INTRODUCTION ………………………………………………………………………………………. 11 . GEOTHERMAL PLANT DEVELOPMENT ………………………………………………….1 21.1 1 CONSTRUCTION AND WORK FORCE ESTIMATES ………………………………… 5 III.A.Construction Cost Estimates ………………………………………………………….. 6 II1.B. Work Force Estimates………………………………………………………………….. 7 III.B.l. Exploration ……………………………………………………………………. 7 III.B.2. Field Development………………………………………………………….. 8 III.B.3. Steam Gathering System ………………………………………………….. 9 III.B.4. Plant Construction ………………………………………………………….. 10 III.B.5. Steam Field Maintenance …………………………………………………. 12 IILB.6. Power Plant Operation and Maintenance …………………………….. 12 III.B.7. Local Work Force Assumptions ………………………………………… 14 II1.C. Wage Rate Estimates……………………………………………………………………. 16IV. PLANT OPERATING ASSUMPTIONS ……………………………………………………… 18V . MODELLING ECONOMIC IMPACI’S ………………………………………………………… 21VI.THE WHATCOM COUNTY ECONOMY …………………………………………………… 22 VI.A .History………………………………………………………………………………………. 22 V1.B. Existing Industry Structure and Geothelmal Development ………………….. 25VU .ANALYTICAL RESULTS……………………………………………………………………….. 26VIII. CONCLUSIONS …………………………………………………………………………………… 34 VIII.A. Limitations ofthe Study …………………………………………………………….. 35REFERENCES ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 36APPENDIX A: INPUT-OUTPUT MODELLING……………………………………………… A- 1APPENDIX B: EXPENDITURE P A ~ R N ……………………………………………………. S B-1APPENDIX C: ESTIMATED AGGREGATE RESPONSE COEFFICIENTS …………. 1 C- 11 bIST OF TABLES . .Table 1: Generating Plant Charactensocs……………………………………………………………. 3Table 2: Employee Estimates……………………………………………………………………………. 13Table 3: Local Employment Shares……………………………………………………………………. 15Table 4: Local Work Force………………………………………………………………………………. 16Table 5: Local Wage Estimates ………………………………………………………………………… 17Table 6: Local Wage Impacts ….., ………………………………………………………………………. 17Table 7: State and Local Projected Revenues……………………………………………………… : 19Table 8: Geothermal Development Projections ……………………………………………………. 20Table 9: Whatcom County Employment and Earnings ………………………………………….. 24Table 10: Estimated Change in Total County Income …………………………………………… 28Table 11: Estimated Change in Total County Employment .:………………………………….. 30 . .Table 12 Selected Whatcom County Revenues ……….. i ……………………………….. … .. 33Table A-1: Flow Table for a Two-Sector Economy ……………………………………………. A-3 . ‘.. . . . . .. … ‘ iii1 INTRODUCTION..Development of electric generating facilities can have numerous impacts on local areas. Besidesthe potential for environmental impacts, development may also impact local economies. Largeprojects, for example, may lead t “boom town” effects resulting in a rapid increase in the demand ofor locally provided services such as housing, utilities, and schools. Once a project is completed,demand for these services can fall rapidly, placing further strain on a local economy. While theseimpacts may strain local economies, construction and operation of a new facility can also lead tolong-term increases in employment, local tax collections, and economic activity. In economicallydistressed areas, development may have beneficial impacts by providing jobs to area inhabitants andproviding revenues for improvements in a e infrslstrucr~re. raThis report estimates the local economic impacts that could be anticipated from the development ofa 100 megawatt (MW) geothermal power plant in eastern Whatcom County, Washington, near Mt.Baker, as shown in Figure 1. The study was commissioned by the Bonneville PowerAdministration to quantify such impacts as part of regional confinnation work recommended by theNorthwest Power Planning Council. Whatcom County was chosen due to both identifiedgeothermal resources and developer interest.The analysis will focus on two phases: a plant consauction phase, including well field development,generating plant construction, and transmission line construction; and an operations phase.Economic impacts will occur to the extent that construction and operations affect the localeconomy. These impacts will depend on the existing structure of the Whatcom County economyand estimates of revenues that may accrue to the county as a result of plant construction, operation,and maintenance. Specific impacts may include additional direct employment at the plant,secondary impacts from wage payments being used t purchase locally produced goods and oservices, and impacts due to expenditures of royalty and tax payments received by the county. ..The basis for the analysis of economic impacts in this study is the U S Forest Service IMPLAN sninput-output modeling system. U i g national and local data, W L A N traces economic impacts.resulting from regional changes in the final demands for goods and services. These changesreverberate throughout a regional economy, leading to indirect changes in other industries as wellas induced impacts from changes in household spending. 1The outline of the report is as follows. Section XI briefly describes the development phases of ageothermal generating facility and describes characteristics that these facilities share with othertypes of power plant developments and characteristics that are unique to geothermal plants. Next,Section 1 1develops the assumptions for plant, well field, and operation and maintenance costs, 1which will form the basis for analyzing the impacts from the construction and operation phases ofthe hypothetical project. Section IV discusses the assumptions concerning plant operations and thesources of economic impacts f o that phase. Section V provides a brief description of the rmIMPLAN modelling system. Section VI provides a brief overview of Whatcom County and itsexisting economy and develops the modelling assumptions for the Whatcom County analysis. ISection V I presents the results of the study, including a comparison of the estimated impacts fromgeothermal development to the importance of existing major industries in the county. Section VIIIoffers some conclusions and recommendations for further analysis.II. GEOTHERMAL PLANT DEVELOPMENT.Geothermal energy is defined as natural heat from the earth. For the purposes of this study,geothermal energy is heat capable of generating electricity using currently available technologies.At present, existing generating technologies require steam or hot water over 220 degreesFahrenheit.Geothermal plant developers first locate and confirm developable geothermal resources using well-established techniques. First, passive explorbtion -including geologic mapping, geochemistry,and geophysical analysis, undertaken. Next, active drilling for temperature, fluid compositionindicators, as well as flow is undertaken. Finally, if the first two steps show a favorable potential,drilling of production wells begins (Bloomquist, et al. 1985).Once reservoir potential is established, power plant design based on resource chemistry, flow, andheat content begins. Cmntly, commercially available power plants range in size f o 620 to rm135,000 kilowatts (kw). The majority of existing power plants are in the range of 1 , O to O 0 O30,000 k W ,or 10 to 30 MW.-Geothermal plant sizes refer to net power entering the utility grid, sometimes called busbarcapacity. Most plants are typically designed to serve as baseload facilities which operate almost 2w.Lc i .0, ‘I J I - I m E .- Y m >continuously. Many operating plants have achieved avadability and capacity factors of over 90percent (Bloomquist, Geyer, and Sifford 1989).Geothermal plants share many construction and operating characteristics with other types ofgenerating plants. In conventional power plants, fuel is frst burned in a boiler to generate steam.The steam is then used to drive a turbine, which then turns a generator and produces electricity.Power generation components (e.& turbines, generators, condensers, buildings, switchyards, etc.)are similar for all thermal power plants. (The major exception to this two step transfer process ishydroelecmc generation.) Table 1 shows some example power plant equipment groupings. Laborforce characteristics common to all power projects — including geothermal projects — include alarge construction force of contractors and craftsmen. This is followed by a small staff of plantoperators, engineers, mechanics, and clerical staff. Table 1 Characteristics of Alternative Generating Plant Equipment Plant Twe Power Generatloq coal Boiler/Fluidized Bed Turbine-Generator Gas BoiledGas Turbine Turbine-Generator Geothermal Wells Turbine-Generator Hydro Diversion Dam Turbine-Generator Nuclear Reactor Turbine-Generator Wood Boiler/Fluidized Bed Turbine-GeneratorWhere geothermal plants differ is the source of their fuel for steam generation and, to a smallerextent, their size. Geothermal plants derive their steam not from boilers, but literally from theearth. The system of wells and piping which transfer the natural heat of the earth to the steamturbine replaces the need for burning fuel in a boiler.Geothermal plants have been typically less than 80 average megawatts ( m a ) in size due to pastfederal incentives. Clusters of small modular plants (less than 25 MW), such as those at Cos0 (9*units)and ORMESA (26 units) are a relatively new trend Given the combination of clustered plantAn availability factor refers to the percentage of time the plant i physically able to generate electricity. A capacity sfactor refers to the ratio of actual output of the plant t its rated maximum output. o 3development and conservative reservoir development, new projects may easily reach levels of 100MWa or more, and mirror the hypothetical configuration used in this report. Furthering this sizerange are the added benefits of matching resource development to load growth over time since, ingeneral, smaller power plants, regardless of fuel, can often reduce risks to developers, utilities, and,ultimately, ratepayers.The size of existing geothermal plants has been strongly influenced by the Public Utility RegulatoryPolicy Act (PURPA) of 1978 (Sifford, Bloomquist, and Geyer 1987; Bloomquist, Geyer, andSifford 1989). PURPA required utilities to purchase power from “qualifying facilities” (QFs) at aprice equal to the utilities’ alternative or avoided cost of power. Because PURPA limits QFs to 80MW net output, designers have sought to maximize power production up to this limit with thehighest achievable reliability (Bloomquist, Sifford, and Geyer 1989). The 80 M W size limit underPURPA, however, was recently amended t allow renewable resource development, including ogeothermal, to exceed this 80 M W cap (Smith 1990).2 Thus, the size of future geothermal plantsilwl not be constrained solely by legal requirements.In addition to this legal incentive for maximum availability, geothermal wells run the risk of failingif frequently shut off. Existing plants in California have achieved high levels of availability. TheSanta Fe plant located in northern California, for example, had a plant availability factor of 99.9percent and a capacity factor of 98.6 percent after 2 years of operation (Fesmire 1985). Such highavailability and capacity factors are almost unheard of with larger, traditional thermal resources.In addition to size and source of steam, ownership of geothennal facilities often differs fromtraditional generating facilities. Utilities can own the entire geothermal facility, including thesteam field, allowing them to earn a rate of return on their investment, or they can purchase steam Af o a third party deve10per.~- third party developer can also own the entire facility, sellingrmelectricity produced to one or more utilities. For the purposes of this report, it is assumed thatownership is vertically integrated under one non-utility entity.?The amendment to PURPA is contained in H.R. 4808, passed by the U.S.House of Representatives on 23 O t b r coe1990.3111the case of non-utility ownership, the utility will treat the steam as a direct expense, and will be unable to earn arate of return on the steam. A discussion of utility regulation and determination of allowable rates of return is,however, beyond the scope of this report. 4Royalty payments are not unique to geothermal resources, but are often focused on due to theproximity of the steam resource to the generating plant. Unlike coal, natural gas, or oil-firedresources, where the fuel source is often hundreds o thousands of miles from the plant, rgeothermal generating facilities are integrated with nearby steam gathering systems. Thus,analogous to mineral royalties paid to the resource owner, geothermal plant development andoperation will often involve payment of royalties to the underlying land owner where well fielddevelopment occurs.Because most high temperature geothermal resources in the Pacific Northwest are located onfederal land, this report assumes that plant and well field development takes place on federallyowned land. As such, in accordance with the Geothermal Steam Act of 19704,a 10 percentroyalty is assumed to accrue t the federal government. Fiftypercent of the federal royalty is oreturned to the state of origin. Washington state then returns 40 percent of the state royalties tothe local county where development occurs.III. CONSTRUCTION AND WORK FORCE ESTIMATES.There is a great deal of data available for geothermal development at The Geysers in northernCalifornia. It is the largest developed geothermal field in the world, with over 1,800 M W ofcapacity. The fvst plant there was completed in 1960; the most recent plant completed in 1989.This data, in conjunction with data f o other geothermaldevelopments in California, Nevada, rmand Utah, is the basis for the cost and workfbrce estimates presented below.Generating power from geothermal resources is normally done in several major stages. Environ-mental permitting occurs before each stage. The typical stages are as follows: Exploring for the resource; 0 Developing the well field and gathering systems; 0 Constructing the power plant and related facilities; 0 Operating and maintaining resource supplies, and, Operating and maintaining plant facilities.430 U.S.C. 1001et seq.Some of these activities may overlap. Some well drilling, steam line construction, and plantbuilding will occur concurrently. Some of the workers may move between these stages in thecourse of the development and operation of the facilities.II1.A. Construction Cost Estimates.The cost of constructing a geothermal plant will vary widely depending on the location and size.Costs will depend on the accessibility of the site, depth of drilling required for wells, the numberof wells required for a given plant capacity, and the prevailing wages of engineering andconstruction personnel. Overall estimates of plant conspuction costs for the Mt. Baker site inWhatcom County range from $2,700 – $3100 per net kW (McClain 1990; Yueh 1990), on theassumption that the plant would consist of four 25 MWa modular units to achieve the overall 100MWa goal. These cost estimates are consistent with prior studies that have shown a range ofcosts from between $1,550 to $3,778 per net kilowatt for recently built plants (Bloomquist,Geyer, and Sifford 1989; OESI 1991).The costs for more remote plants, or those which are more efficient, will likely fall in the higherend of the range. Due to the relative remoteness of the site considered in this study, as well as theexisting uncertainty about the quality of the steam field, it was assumed that well field develop-ment costs would be about $1,1OO/kW, while actual plant construction costs would be about$1,70O/kW (McClain 1990). Pollution control costs for geothermal plants should be similar toother types of power plants.Estimated construction time is about 3 years, including site development and generating plantconstruction (Yueh 1990). Typically, the costs of development in a more mountainous site, suchas near Mt. Baker, would be expected to cost more than desert sites such as those previouslydeveloped in Nevada and southern California.Construction costs would also include engineering, administrative, and environmental costs.Engineering costs would include the costs of conceptual and contract design, as well as fieldengineering. Administrative costs would incorporate the costs of project management, legalsupport, and securing of project financing. Environmental costs would include costs associatedwith baseline studies, environmental impact statements, siting, p r i s and compliance costs. emt,Lastly, construction costs should also incorporate the costs of building a transmission line toconnect the plant to the regional grid. For the purposes of this study, a 10 mile transmission line 6was chosen as representative. Total costs for such a line were estimated to be about $2.6 million,of which about $1.1 million was for materials (wood poles, insulators, conductor, andmiscellaneous construction materials) and $1.5 million for labor (Hubsky 1990).1II.B. Work Force Estimates.JI1.B.1. Exploration,Work force estimates can be determined based on the separate development steps of thegeothermal plant and well field, as well as estimates of operation and maintenance requirements.In this section, the work force requirements for the development and operation phases are firstreviewed. Specific employment estimates for the hypothetical project, including localemployment estimates, are then discussed.Development of geothermal energy usually begins with passive exploration, including geologicfield surveys, mapping, and geochemical and geophysical analysis to reduce the size of theprospect area. This is followed by exploratory drilling to determine the location, quantity, andquality of underground steam or hot water.Generally, geothermal development companies maintain a small local office to manage localoperations. Staff size in local ofices depends on the amount of leased land, the extent ofdevelopment activities, and the level of subcontracted work.Developers also maintain both office and field staff. Office staff may include clerical workers,administrative managers, professionals such as geologists and other earth scientists, land agents,and workers involved in securing necessary environmental permits. Field staff will include drillingsupervisors, field engineers, and geologists. Some staff may perform both office and field duties,as well as manage a number of subcontractor activities, such as preparation of well pads andaccess roads, and exploration and well drilling. The majority of these workers will probably belocated outside the local county.Local office employees tend to be long-term residents of the local area (Matthews 1983). Thismakes sense, given the relatively long time between resource leasing and initial electricityproduction. In addition, many of the skills required for local office work will be available in the 7local work force, since these jobs require much less specialization than field work-relatedpositions.nI.B.2 Field DeveloDmenLOnce exploration is completed, site development and drilling the steam field can begin. Initially,the work will involve construction of access roads, site clearance, and preparation. Then, actualdrilling begins.The amount of steam required will depend on the quality of the steam and the efficiency of thegenerating plant. Older plants in The Geysers area, for example, require about one million lbs / hrto produce 55 MW of power, or about 18,000 lbs / hr / MWa (Matthews 1983). This translatesinto between 10 – 15 steam wells. Newer Geysers plants, however, are more efficient, requiring10 to 20 percent less steam per MW of capacity (Bloomquist 1987; Nolte 1987). If the efficiencyof the hypothetical plant were 15 percent greater than an older Geysers plant, it would requireabout 1,600,000 Ibs / hr, o 16,000 Ibs / hr / MWa. rThe range of steam flows and number of wells is due to variations in reservoir characteristics(pressure and temperature) and steam quality. Hotter and higher pressure reservoirs of steam orhot water will require fewer wells to produce a given amount of power. Since each well isunique, different steam characteristics for wells in the same leasehold are common.Given the current uncertainty of Pacific Northwest steam resource characteristics, this report usesan estimate of 20 – 30 wells to provide power for a 100
This work on geothermal in Washington State is in part supported by Climate Solutions. This website was developed by Lawrence Molloy. You can contact him at Lawrence@northofthehotzone.com. To learn more about Lawrence go here.
Engineer, devoted husband and father, part-time climate warrior. I am an engineer who has worked extensively on water and energy systems. A practitioner of good government, and believer in social justice, I have worked with others on the Cedar River Habitat Conservation Plan, Cruise Ship Dumping in the Puget Sound and equal rights for gay employees at the Port of Seattle. Working as a junior bureaucrat at the EPA in Washington D.C. in the early 1990’s, my work on civil rights and the environment earned me a Gold Medal for Exceptional Service from the first Bush Administration. I was born in New York City.