The press release via EarthTimes is here

• Updated GIS database utilizing data from historical BPA studies
• Existing data review
• Temperature with depth maps
• Geochemistry
• Geology
• Fracture/fault mapping
• Seismic data
• Stress/tectonic regime
• Transmission lines
• Access/land availability
• Gathered new geochemistry data from springs and wells
• Preliminary costs: exploration, wells, plant
• Potential exploration/development options

The two most important Washington State specific geothermal findings were SnoPud’s  goal of 90 MW from Geothermal in the Cascades by 2020 and the estimate by the National Geothermal Resources Council that Washington State’s geothermal potential could be double previous estimates and exceed 600 MW.

The event was opened by SnoPud Director Steve Klein and Congressman Jay Inslee (via recorded video).  Congressman Inslee, whose district includes part of the service district of SnoPud, talked about making Washington State a geothermal leader and was looking forward to "cut(ting) the ribbon on the first plant" .  Congressman Inslee has also arranged for $500K in funding to assist SnoPud in developing their geothermal plan.

However, the state faces a significant challenge as resource estimates are from a 1979 study.  "Comprehensive research and exploration have not been done (in Washington State)" according to GRC Executive Director Curt Robinson.  And yet, he felt confident enough to cast an estimate of 600 MW, primarily in the Cascades and Central Washington. 

Western Washington’s geothermal potential remains unknown and is largely masked by the rainfall on the western slopes of the Cascades.  Experts still feel that several sites may exist along the I-5 transmission corridor, a critical factor in the siting of any geothermal plant.

Development costs have soared in recent months as capital, material and exploration costs have significantly spiked. Guy Nelson with the Geothermal Working Group stated that the current rule of thumb is now $4 Million per MW.  Geothermal power can range from 6.6 to 11.6 cents per kiloWatt hour.

Rural PUD’s also learned about the new loan assistance program by the USDA for ground source heat pumps.  This program offers a great opportunity for Eastern Washington utilities to help homeowners install and finance home heat pumps that are critical for utilities interested in peak shaving, and homeowners interested in significantly reducing their home heating and cooling costs.

Representatives from Seattle City Light, Tacoma Power and Skamania PUD were in attendance, as was State Senator Adam Kline.  Senator Kline is talking to Senate leadership about introducing the Geothermal Study Bill again this year.   He is confident that a straight forward study bill (no policy, regulations, funding or taxes) that explores both power generation and heat pumps will garner strong interest by legislators throughout the state. 

August 11-12, 2008
2320 California Street – Everett (Snohomish County Public Utility District)

Map to location pdf is here Traffic can be heavy heading North across the county line.  Plan accordingly.  Bus Service from Seattle is the Sound Transit 510, Schedule is here.  Carpooling can be good time to catch up with people you know.

The topics are salient to where Washington State is vis a vis geothermal.  SnoPud is to be commended for appropriately framing and hosting the event.  Link to SNOPUD Press Release is here. 

August 11

9:00 Registration

9:30 Opening Remarks: Steve Klein, General Manager SNOPUD and Congressman Phil Inslee US House of Representatives

9:45 Panel Discussion: “Geothermal Potential In the Pacific Northwest” Susan

• Petty, AltaRock Energy, Inc, Chair
• Curt Robinson, Geothermal Resources Council
• John Martinsen, SNOPUD
• Kermit Witherbee, Bureau of Land Management
• Bill Lum WA State Department of Ecology

11:15 Break

11:30 “Developing, Building and Operating Geothermal Power Plants” Guy Nelson, Team Leader, Utility Geothermal Working Group

12:15 Luncheon Presentation: “Geothermal Technologies and Utility Leadership Roles in Promoting Rural Development; Dan Bowers, USDA

1:30 “Geothermal Heat Pumps: Benefits and Issues”, Paul Bony, ClimateMaster

2:00 Panel Discussion: “Utility Perspectives” Craig Collar, SNOPUD Chair

• Craig Collar, Snohomish PUD
• Marilynn Semro, Seattle City Light
• Jerry Brown, Palo Alto Utilities
• Garth Larson, PacifiCorp

3:30 Break

 

3:45 “Risks and Rewards of Including Renewables in a Utility’s Resource Portfolio” Brian Walshe, ALTERA Energy

4:15 Products and Services Panel, Guy Nelson, Utility Geothermal Working Group

• John Pierce, WSG&R
• Susan Petty, AltaRock Energy
• Paul Bony, ClimateMaster

5:15 Adjourn for the Day

August 12

7:30 am Continental Breakfast

8:00 “A Tale of Two Buildings” Guy Nelson, UGWG

8:30 “GHP Analytical Tools” Katherine Johnson, Market Development Group

9:15 Geothermal Technologies in Waste Heat Recovery Applications, Guy Nelson, UGWG

9:45 Breakout Sessions: “How Do We Get More Cost-Effective Geothermal Projects Into the Market?”

• Utility Perspective
• Regulatory/Government Perspective
• Customer Perspective

10:45 Break

11:00 Reports from the Breakout Sessions

Noon Adjourn

The first Geothermal workshop in Washington State will take place August 11 and 12 in Everett.  Coordinated by Snohomish Public Utility District, hosts include the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, American Public Power Association and the Western Area Power Administration.

The cost of the workshop is $125. 

The target audiences for this workshop is utility staff who are interested in learning about geothermal technologies – including geothermal heat pumps (GHP) and geothermal power production – and who want to compare them with other resource options, or who want to learn how to improve on existing programs. Through presentations, case histories, and demonstrations, attendees will learn:

- New drilling and installation techniques

- Cost comparisons of geothermal power and other resource options

- Cost effectiveness tests of GHP from the utility and customer perspectives

- Case histories of GHP systems energy savings over conventional HVAC systems

To learn more about the event contact - Guy Nelson, UGWG (541) 994-4670 energyguy@utilityforum.com

How about geothermal to produce electricity? Think of Mount St. Helens as the world’s largest geothermal demonstration project.

"That’s where we’re seeing a lot of inquiry," Teissere says. "I think there are a lot of people on the landscape looking around."

But he adds, "The places where you’re likely to drill into steam are in the national parks. In the national forests there might be some lesser opportunities."

Geothermal doesn’t need geyserlike flumes of steam to provide useful energy. "There are high-temperature rocks at depth in Eastern Washington," he says. Water can be injected into those rock formations, heated and brought to the surface….

The preferred Alternative in the Draft PEIS considers all public lands and National Forest System lands with potential for geothermal development available for leasing except those that are withdrawn or administratively closed to geothermal leasing. The Draft PEIS also evaluates another alternative based on public input gained during scoping that would limit geothermal leasing for electrical generation to areas near transmission lines.

Written comments on the Draft PEIS may be submitted by any of three methods:
- e-mail - geothermal_EIS@blm.gov
- fax - 1-866-625-0707
- US Mail - Geothermal Programmatic EIS, c/o EMPSi, 182 Howard Street, Suite 110, San Francisco, California 94105

Starting in August of 2007, Lawrence Molloy began a dedicated effort on advancing geothermal. The focus was on three areas: 1) public awareness and acceptance, 2) technology development and 3) power purchase agreements. The logic was that work in these three areas would collectively advance the cause of geothermal.

Central to this effort is a blog “North of the Hot Zone” that discusses the geothermal potential in Washington State. The name refers to Washington State’s location relative to the vast geothermal reserves of Nevada, California and Oregon.

Progress has been modest. Public awareness in Washington State has been made through an op/ed, several articles and a blog. Decision makers are now aware of Washington State’s geothermal potential and development activity in proximal states and provinces. High-level discussions are taking place about direct geothermal investment in the central Cascades, and there is serious consideration of a geothermal study bill by the State legislature.

A proposed geothermal technology prize has been developed. It has been vetted by both geothermal experts and prize consultants. A proper high-temperature pump is seen as the technological gap hindering broader use of geothermal in 49 states according to MIT’s landmark Geothermal Study. Funding for the prize has been considered by high net worth individuals but not yet accepted. Next steps include a one-day design meeting currently scheduled for February 2009, and to be co-hosted by Stanford University’s Geothermal Program.

An effort to increase actual development and purchase of geothermal has focused on direct development or purchase by Seattle City Light. This effort has met with little interest on the part of the utility. A larger effort with a collective purchase of geothermal by 100 major cities was proposed to the Clinton Foundation and the National Conference of Mayors through staff of the Seattle Mayor’s office. Conceptually robust, it has lacked interest by critical players to warrant further development.

Activity 1: Public Awareness

This activity focused on building awareness in Washington State to both the general public and decision makers.

Actions

· A basic blog discussing the geothermal potential of Washington State was created. Titled “North of the Hot Zone,” it covered geology, projects, market potential and legislation. It linked to press coverage and had an excellent map compilation.

· A geothermal brownbag was hosted by Northwest Energy Coalition and Washington Environmental Council. 25 attendees heard from geothermal expert Susan Petty on the geothermal potential in the Pacific Northwest.

· Op/Ed; written by Lawrence Molloy and titled “Sitting on a Hot Energy Source.” It was run by the Seattle Times on January 4, 2008 The op/ed did inspire Dave Gehring of the Manufacturing Industrial Council, which is now planning an October meeting on geothermal.

· McClatchy Newspapers picked up the topic following the op/ed, and the article by Les Blumenthal was run in the Tacoma Tribune, Bellingham Herald, the Wenatchee World and the Seattle Times. The Columbian had an editorial that was picked up in the State Editorial coverage by the Seattle Times. Seattle-based Real Change covered the brownbag in January. There were also articles in GoSkagit. Several blogs have picked up on the coverage. Media Exposure: Total circulation for all newspapers is ~300,000. Blog hits barely exceeded 1,000.

· State Senator Adam Kline (D-37) introduced a study bill which failed to leave committee. He has signaled that he will run the bill again in the 2009 session. Discussions have begun with WEC and WCV for possible support of the bill.

Activity 2; Increasing Development of Geothermal

Though a mature technology (since 1913), geothermal development has not been commercially standardized. Increased site development would lead to standardization of technology, processes and components resulting in a lower delivered cost. To that end. an effort was made to increase investment in geothermal locally and nationally.

Actions

· Seattle City Light was approached to discuss geothermal within the context of the resource development plans. Progress was very limited due to the utilities reluctance to explore any new source supply other than hydro.

· A national concept for a bulk geothermal purchase managed through a collective renewable energy credit (REC) was conceived and scoped out with Bonneville Environmental Foundation. Conceptually robust, the idea garnered little interest. It has not been pursued. The concept was as follows:

· An effort coordinated by the National Conference of Mayors, Clinton Climate Initiative, and the Bonneville Environmental Foundation to arrange for the formation and execution of a national utility buyers’ consortia on geothermal energy. An initial group of 100 cities would purchase 2,000 MW of electricity that would come on line starting in 2015. This effort would increase geothermal capacity in the United States by 25% and provide technological standardization to reduce the cost of producing geothermal energy by 1/2 cent per kW hour. The project would be built on the current philanthropic model of the Clinton Foundation and their Clinton Climate Initiative. The National Conference of Mayors would execute the project as part of their Climate program. If it was successful, the project would have had some ambitious outcomes:

o $6 Billion investment over the next 15 years in geothermal energy

o A clearer understanding of geothermal development in the United States

o A national increase of 25% of the geothermal capacity

o Standardization of surface technology - reducing production costs by 1/2 cent per kWe

o Better understanding of geothermal reservoir dynamics

Activity 3: Technology Development

Critical to the broader use of geothermal is commercial standardization of related power technologies. Through lower development costs, geothermal would become more competitive with fossil fuel and other renewable energy resources. A thorough technological assessment was conducted of surface and subsurface challenges were conducted.

The absence of a robust down hole electrical, submersible pump was identified as a major technological gap. The introduction of such a pump to the market would significantly broaden the development range of geothermal, as well as allow for the study of geothermal reservoir mechanics, a process and art that needs to be refined before EGS can be nationally applied.

Working with a prize expert and consulting geothermal experts a prize concept was developed (see attached pdf).

The applicability of a prize concept for a down hole pump is excellent because of its discrete focus, engineering reality and technology multiplier. The metaphorical equivalent of such a pump is the development of the hypodermic needle. Once available, it would be possible to withdraw fluids for use and evaluation, as well as deliver drugs.

Though no major donor has been identified, we have engaged in initial discussions with staff representing several high net-worth individuals interested in technology prizes.

Development of actual pump specifications (diameter, temperature range, power rating, pumping capacity, sensors, etc) is an important next step. A one-day design meeting has been proposed. Stanford University’s geothermal program has agreed to co-host the meeting with its annual workshop, to be held in Palo Alto, CA in February, 2009. (see attached pdf)

Outcomes

· Public awareness has been increased (marginally). Critical decision makers are aware and actively exploring the development of geothermal in Washington State.

· State agencies have signaled their interest in a study bill for development of the resource at some point in the future.

Future (likely) Outcomes

· A one-day Geothermal Manufacturing Meeting in Seattle, October, 2008

· A one-day City Government Meeting on Geothermal, Seattle, October, 2008

· Introduction of a Geothermal Study Bill in the State Legislature

· Possible development of 15 to 50 MW of baseload electricity in the Cedar River

Resources

Most of this work has been conducted pro-bono by Lawrence Molloy. External media assistance in blog development, economists, organizers and public affairs has been largely paid out-of-pocket by Lawrence Molloy. He is not seeking re-imbursement for his time or funds.

Additional programmatic work and consultants have been put under contract for a program administration handled by Climate Solutions.

Initial support has been provided by the Tagney Jones Family Fund and Alta-Rock Energy. Tenprivate individuals have donated an additional 1,000.00.

Next Steps

· Identify a high net worth individual, foundation or corporate interest willing to fund the geothermal prize.

· Raise $60K for the Prize Design Meeting at Stanford University (see attached “Geothermal Next Steps” pdf)

· Retire remaining Geothermal Washington Programmatic debt of $4,100