First geothermal energy map of the USA now in Google

Via Slashdot, drill baby drill, but for heat, not oil.

The Google funded Enhanced Geothermal Systems research at the Southern Methodist University has produced a coast-to-coast geothermal potential map of the United States. Having invested over $10 million on geothermal energy, Google seems to believe that it is our best bet at kicking the oil habit (especially now that nuclear power has suddenly become disproportionately unpopular).

Details and how to view it:

DALLAS (SMU) – New research from SMU’s Geothermal Laboratory, funded by a grant from Google.org, documents significant geothermal resources across the United States capable of producing more than three million megawatts of green power – 10 times the installed capacity of coal power plants today.

Sophisticated mapping produced from the research, viewable via Google Earth at www.google.org/egs, demonstrates that vast reserves of this green, renewable source of power generated from the Earth’s heat are realistically accessible using current technology.

The results of the new research, from SMU Hamilton Professor of Geophysics David Blackwell and Geothermal Lab Coordinator Maria Richards, confirm and refine locations for resources capable of supporting large-scale commercial geothermal energy production under a wide range of geologic conditions, including significant areas in the eastern two-thirds of the United States. The estimated amounts and locations of heat stored in the Earth’s crust included in this study are based on nearly 35,000 data sites – approximately twice the number used for Blackwell and Richards’ 2004 Geothermal Map of North America, leading to improved detail and contouring at a regional level.

Based on the additional data, primarily drawn from oil and gas drilling, larger local variations can be seen in temperatures at depth, highlighting more detail for potential power sites than was previously evident in the eastern portion of the U.S.  For example, eastern West Virginia has been identified as part of a larger Appalachian trend of higher heat flow and temperature.

Conventional U.S. geothermal production has been restricted largely to the western third of the country in geographically unique and tectonically active locations.  For instance, The Geysers Field north of San Francisco is home to more than a dozen large power plants that have been tapping naturally occurring steam reservoirs to produce electricity for more than 40 years.

However, newer technologies and drilling methods can now be used to develop resources in a wider range of geologic conditions, allowing reliable production of clean energy at temperatures as low as 100˚C (212˚F) – and in regions not previously considered suitable for geothermal energy production. Preliminary data released from the SMU study in October 2010 revealed the existence of a geothermal resource under the state of West Virginia equivalent to the state’s existing (primarily coal-based) power supply.

“Once again, SMU continues its pioneering work in demonstrating the tremendous potential of geothermal resources,” said Karl Gawell, executive director of the Geothermal Energy Association. “Both Google and the SMU researchers are fundamentally changing the way we look at how we can use the heat of the Earth to meet our energy needs, and by doing so are making significant contributions to enhancing our national security and environmental quality.”

“This assessment of geothermal potential will only improve with time,” said Blackwell.  “Our study assumes that we tap only a small fraction of the available stored heat in the Earth’s crust, and our capabilities to capture that heat are expected to grow substantially as we improve upon the energy conversion and exploitation factors through technological advances and improved techniques.”

Blackwell is releasing a paper with details of the results of the research to the Geothermal Resources Council on October 25, 2011.

Blackwell and Richards first produced the 2004 Geothermal Map of North America using oil and gas industry data from the central U.S.  Blackwell and the 2004 map played a significant role in a 2006 Future of Geothermal Energy study sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy that concluded geothermal energy had the potential to supply a substantial portion of the future U.S. electricity needs, likely at competitive prices and with minimal environmental impact. SMU’s 2004 map has been the national standard for evaluating heat flow, temperature and thermal conductivity for potential geothermal energy projects.

In this newest SMU estimate of resource potential, researchers used additional temperature data and in-depth geological analysis for the resulting heat flow maps to create the updated temperature-at-depth maps from 3.5 kilometers to 9.5 kilometers (11,500 to 31,000 feet). This update revealed that some conditions in the eastern two-thirds of the U.S. are actually hotter than some areas in the western portion of the country, an area long-recognized for heat-producing tectonic activity. In determining the potential for geothermal production, the new SMU study considers the practical considerations of drilling, and limits the analysis to the heat available in the top 6.5 km (21,500 ft.) of crust for predicting megawatts of available power. This approach incorporates a newly proposed international standard for estimating geothermal resource potential that considers added practical limitations of development, such as the inaccessibility of large urban areas and national parks.  Known as the ‘technical potential’ value, it assumes producers tap only 14 percent of the ‘theoretical potential’ of stored geothermal heat in the U.S., using currently available technology.

Three recent technological developments already have sparked geothermal development in areas with little or no tectonic activity or volcanism:

  1. Low Temperature Hydrothermal – Energy is produced from areas with naturally occurring high fluid volumes at temperatures ranging from less than boiling to 150°C (300°F). This application is currently producing energy in Alaska, Oregon, Idaho and Utah.
  2. Geopressure and Coproduced Fluids Geothermal – Oil and/or natural gas are produced together with electricity generated from hot geothermal fluids drawn from the same well. Systems are installed or being installed in Wyoming, North Dakota, Utah, Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas.
  3. Enhanced Geothermal Systems (EGS) – Areas with low fluid content, but high temperatures of more than 150°C (300°F), are “enhanced” with injection of fluid and other reservoir engineering techniques. EGS resources are typically deeper than hydrothermal and represent the largest share of total geothermal resources capable of supporting larger capacity power plants.

A key goal in the SMU resource assessment was to aid in evaluating these nonconventional geothermal resources on a regional to sub-regional basis.

Areas of particular geothermal interest include the Appalachian trend (Western Pennsylvania, West Virginia, to northern Louisiana), the aquifer heated area of South Dakota, and the areas of radioactive basement granites beneath sediments such as those found in northern Illinois and northern Louisiana. The Gulf Coast continues to be outlined as a huge resource area and a promising sedimentary basin for development. The Raton Basin in southeastern Colorado possesses extremely high temperatures and is being evaluated by the State of Colorado along with an area energy company.

SMU’s Geothermal Laboratory in Dedman College of Humanities and Sciences conducted this research through funding provided by Google.org, which is dedicated to using the power of information and innovation to advance breakthrough technologies in clean energy.


Editor’s Note: To explore the new Enhanced Geothermal Systems maps built on SMU’s research via Google Earth, you will need to download the latest version of Google Earth here and then download and open the file at http://www.google.org/egs/downloads/EGSPotential.kmz.

5 1 vote
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

115 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Keith
October 26, 2011 1:03 pm

Where’s the best potential source? Yellowstone of course – stands out like a sore thumb. Will any development be allowed there? Like heck.

Bengt Abelsson
October 26, 2011 1:10 pm

There has been at least two major holes drilled in Sweden, but with little result – good luck!

temp
October 26, 2011 1:15 pm

If google loves it so much, let them invest and build the power plants and make millions/billions/trillions off the power… not off the taxpayer handouts.

Martin Brumby
October 26, 2011 1:26 pm

Aaaaargh!!!
The aquifers!!!! The pity of it!!!!
Will all the drinking water come out of the tap as steam???
We must know…..
\sarc
They have geothermal power stations in the Azores. Do they make money??

Paul Nevins
October 26, 2011 1:29 pm

I am all for geothermal production. I wouldn’t be surprosed if quietly and under the radar it isn’t already producing more power than wind.
Sad that nuclear is unpopular, that is something that makes no sense. It really isn’t possible to make a rational case against nuclear power.

October 26, 2011 1:32 pm

Most of the heat is in the West. Generation uses lots of water. The West doesn’t have a lot of extra water lying around.

Jake
October 26, 2011 1:34 pm

The Raton basin on the Colorado/New Mexico line is very close (relatively) to the huge Four Corners coal fired energy plants. If they could successfully develop some production scale Geothermal Energy at that location, they could use the existing transmission infrastructure from Four Corners (which supplies a LOT of the Southwest Power).

NoNegatives
October 26, 2011 1:35 pm

Just like solar, the highest concentration of energy is in the least concentrated population areas. Better start building those hot water pipelines.

October 26, 2011 1:36 pm

At least we have an interesting map. The shale-gas revolution is one of the things that will keep remote geothermal generation economically uncompetitive. Also, the geothermal champions can hardly demonize fracking fluids, given the chemistry and volumes of what they would try to bring to surface.

DocMartyn
October 26, 2011 1:37 pm

The East coast appears to be very lucky in this regard. However, as with Fracking, I expect the eco-warriors to fight this every inch of the way.

pittzer
October 26, 2011 1:39 pm

Those are pretty deep holes.

Bob B
October 26, 2011 1:39 pm

In Al Gore’s world the temperature is “several million degrees” just 2 kilometers down. We should have no problem tapping into this.

RossP
October 26, 2011 1:58 pm

Like all these energy alternatives it depends on the location. I am all for economic alternative energy sources but what is good for one area is not necesaarily any good in another , even within the country. New Zealand has very good ( and expanding) geothermal sourced power plants as does Iceland. Will it be OK in the USA ? Of course it will in the right area and with the right size of resource to be economic.

Matt
October 26, 2011 1:58 pm

“Those are pretty deep holes” Funny stuff – it reminds me of Al Gore’s brain cavity. This should work swell in MN.

scarletmacaw
October 26, 2011 1:59 pm

I’d be interested to see a similar map of Iceland for comparison.

Dave
October 26, 2011 2:00 pm

If anyone has seen a photo of a geothermal energy plant, you would have noticed massive amounts of steam being released into the atmosphere. Since water vapor is the real greenhouse gas, I fully expect that the warmists would vehemently oppose large scale usage of such energy sources.

Rick C
October 26, 2011 2:03 pm

Google did invest in geothermal near The Geysers geothermal field in Northern California. The program was shut down after it was determined they were causing nearby earthquakes. I am convinced that the El centro Easter earthquakes a few years ago were caused by geothermal development at the Cerro Prieta geothermal field south of Mexicali (The worlds largest) Unfortunately the hottest geothermal resouces tend to be associated with active fault zones.

TomL
October 26, 2011 2:04 pm

Geothermal doesn’t produce as much electricity as wind (at least in the U.S.), but it does produce more than solar.
You do realize that producing geothermal energy involves drilling, hydrofracking, and fluids with all kinds of dissolved mineral content. You know what happens next.
By the way, the world’s largest commercial geothermal producer? Chevron.

Håkan B
October 26, 2011 2:04 pm

Paul Nevins
October 26, 2011 at 1:29 pm
Geothermal is nuclear, we just don’t need to build reactors, mother earth is one.

October 26, 2011 2:17 pm

Temperature doesn’t hold steady once you’ve started draining the heat. When it drops to the edge of usability, then your extraction must be limited to the natural flux into your drill hole. THAT number is what needs to be known, and is never specified. Because it’s very low, given how slow conduction in rock is.

temp
October 26, 2011 2:20 pm

Rick C says:
October 26, 2011 at 2:03 pm
Google did invest in geothermal near The Geysers geothermal field in Northern California. The program was shut down after it was determined they were causing nearby earthquakes. I am convinced that the El centro Easter earthquakes a few years ago were caused by geothermal development at the Cerro Prieta geothermal field south of Mexicali (The worlds largest) Unfortunately the hottest geothermal resouces tend to be associated with active fault zones.”
Explains why they want the government to invest now… can’t sue the government when they don’t approve unlike when the EPA funds groups to sue itself.

October 26, 2011 2:24 pm

Whoa!
Look at all of those “hot spots”!
Probably wouldn’t have to drill far down at any of those places
to get to that “millions of degrees” Al Gore tells us about.
🙂

Keith W.
October 26, 2011 2:25 pm

Dave, the warmists don’t know that water vapor is the big greenhouse gas because none of their papers ever talk about it. They usually forget to list it as a component of the atmosphere at between 1-4%. For those counting in Rio Linda, that’s one carbon dioxide molecule for every 100 water molecules in the atmosphere.

doug s
October 26, 2011 2:25 pm

I live right on the edge of the Geyser’s geothermal field the reference. Three points, the production dropped off decades ago due to loss of water supplying the steam field, so they use effluent off of wastewater treatement around clearlake and santa rosa to re-energize the ground water. It takes a lot of water and it doesn’t come up “green” from what I hear. Decades ago this was a mercury mining area…
Second, they tried the deep drilling experiment here for several years, very quietly it stopped after they could not get past a certain point.
Third, lots of the locals really don’t like it. Surprise.
I love all the minor earthquakes, you are good for a 3.0 every week or so. I doubt this would happen elsewhere, it apparently was always this way; relatively speaking, I get “change” on geological and climate time scales 🙂

Peter Miller
October 26, 2011 2:28 pm

I note the big purple patch over Yellowstone Park. In all probability, drilling deep holes here and pumping down water to create superheated steam to drive turbines to power generators is already a peer reviewed greenie/alarmist plan to provide ‘renewable’ electrical power for all of America.
This would be kind of like building 100,000 wind turbines – very expensive and very unreliable, with equal economic consequences, namely a complete catastrophe. However, a 100,000 wind turbines might be preferable to being a catalyst for a Yellowstone super volcano (now overdue).
Dependency on ‘renewable’ energy is a great concept if you live in the middle of nowhere, or have no comprehension of economics, or have an exceptionally well-insulated home and work in an academic/clerical/bureaucratic, low energy, environment.
Geothermal energy is really only practical if you live in an active volcanic environment like Iceland, or North Island, New Zealand. However, for nearly all the rest of us, it cannot provide more than a minute fraction of one percentage point of our energy needs.

1 2 3 5