Another kind of 'fracking', this produces geothermal energy

From the AGU fall meeting comes some pragmatic engineering tests with fracking like methods that produce geothermal energy.

Developers of renewable energy and shale gas must overcome fundamental geological and environmental challenges if these promising energy sources are to reach their full potential, according to a trio of leading geoscientists. Their findings were presented on Tuesday, Dec. 4, at 5:15 p.m. PT at the fall meeting of the American Geophysical Union (AGU) in San Francisco, in Room 102 of Moscone Center West.

Stanford geoscientist cites critical need for basic research to unleash promising energy sources

By Mark Shwartz

In fall 2012, Geodynamics Ltd. tested a 2.6-mile-deep well at its Habanero enhanced geothermal pilot project in Australia. The well produced a strong flow of steam with surface temperatures of 375 degrees Fahrenheit and higher. (Photo: Courtesy of Geodynamics Ltd.)

“There is a critical need for scientists to address basic questions that have hindered the development of emerging energy resources, including geothermal, wind, solar and natural gas, from underground shale formations,” said Mark Zoback, a professor of geophysics at Stanford University. “In this talk we present, from a university perspective, a few examples of fundamental research needs related to improved energy and resource recovery.”

Zoback, an authority on shale gas development and hydraulic fracturing, served on the U.S. Secretary of Energy’s Committee on Shale Gas Development. His remarks were presented in collaboration with Jeff Tester, an expert on geothermal energy from Cornell University, and Murray Hitzman, a leader in the study of “energy critical elements” from the Colorado School of Mines.

Enhanced geothermal systems

“One option for transitioning away from our current hydrocarbon-based energy system to non-carbon sources is geothermal energy – from both conventional hydrothermal resources and enhanced geothermal systems,” said Zoback, a senior fellow at the Precourt Institute for Energy at Stanford.

Unlike conventional geothermal power, which typically depends on heat from geysers and hot springs near the surface, enhanced geothermal technology has been touted as a major source of clean energy for much of the planet.

The idea is to pump water into a deep well at pressures strong enough to fracture hot granite and other high-temperature rock miles below the surface. These fractures enhance the permeability of the rock, allowing the water to circulate and become hot.

A second well delivers steam back to the surface. The steam is used to drive a turbine that produces electricity with virtually no greenhouse gas emissions. The steam eventually cools and is re-injected underground and recycled to the surface.

In 2006, Tester co-authored a major report on the subject, estimating that 2 percent of the enhanced geothermal resource available in the continental United States could deliver roughly 2,600 times more energy than the country consumes annually.

But enhanced geothermal systems have faced many roadblocks, including small earthquakes that are triggered by hydraulic fracturing. In 2005, an enhanced geothermal project in Basel, Switzerland, was halted when frightened citizens were shaken by a magnitude 3.4 earthquake. That event put a damper on other projects around the world.

Last year, Stanford graduate student Mark McClure developed a computer model to address the problem of induced seismicity.

Instead of injecting water all at once and letting the pressure build underground, McClure proposed reducing the injection rate over time so that the fracture would slip more slowly, thus lowering the seismicity. This novel technique, which received the 2011 best paper award from the journal Geophysics, has to be tested in the field.

Shale gas

Zoback also will also discuss challenges facing the emerging shale gas industry. “The shale gas revolution that has been under way in North America for the past few years has been of unprecedented scale and importance,” he said. “As these resources are beginning to be developed globally, there is a critical need for fundamental research on such questions as how shale properties affect the success of hydraulic fracturing, and new methodologies that minimize the environmental impact of shale gas development.”

Approximately 30,000 shale gas wells have already been drilled in North America, he added, yet fundamental challenges have kept the industry from maximizing its full potential. “The fact is that only 25 percent of the gas is produced, and 75 percent is left behind,” he said. “We need to do a better job of producing the gas and at the same time protecting the environment.”

Earlier this year, Zoback and McClure presented new evidence that in shale gas reservoirs with extremely low permeability, pervasive slow slip on pre-existing faults may be critical during hydraulic fracturing if it is to be effective in stimulating production.

Even more progress is required in extracting petroleum, Zoback added. “The recovery of oil is only around 5 percent, so we need to do more fundamental research on how to get more hydrocarbons out of the ground,” he said. “By doing this better we’ll actually drill fewer wells and have less environmental impact. That will benefit all of the companies and the entire nation.”

Energy critical elements

Geology plays a surprising role in the development of renewable energy resources.

“It is not widely recognized that meeting domestic and worldwide energy needs with renewables, such as wind and solar, will be materials intensive,” Zoback said. “However, elements like platinum and lithium will be needed in significant quantities, and a shortage of such ‘energy critical elements’ could significantly inhibit the adoption of these otherwise game-changing technologies.”

Historically, energy critical elements have been controlled by limited distribution channels, he said. A 2009 study co-authored by Hitzman found that China produced 71 percent of the world’s supply of germanium, an element used in many photovoltaic cells. Germanium is typically a byproduct of zinc extraction, and China is the world’s leading zinc producer.

About 30 elements are considered energy critical, including neodymium, a key component of the magnets used in wind turbines and hybrid vehicles. In 2009, China also dominated the neodymium market.

“How these elements are used and where they’re found are important issues, because the entire industrial world needs access to them,” Zoback said. “Therefore, if we are to sustainably develop renewable energy technologies, it’s imperative to better understand the geology, metallurgy and mining engineering of these critical mineral deposits.”

Unfortunately, he added, there is no consensus among federal and state agencies, the global mining industry, the public or the U.S. academic community regarding the importance of economic geology in securing a sufficient supply of energy critical elements.

Panel discussion

Immediately following the Dec. 4 AGU talk, Zoback will participate in a panel discussion at 5:35 p.m. on the challenges and opportunities for energy and resource recovery. The panel will be led by Joseph Wang of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and will include William Brinkman of the U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Science; Marcia McNutt, director of the U.S. Geological Survey; and Jennifer Uhle of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research.

On Wednesday, Dec. 5, at 12:05 p.m., Zoback will deliver another talk on the risk of triggering small-to-moderate size earthquakes during carbon capture and storage.

Carbon capture technology is designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by capturing atmospheric carbon dioxide from industrial smokestacks and sequestering the CO2 in underground reservoirs or mineral deposits.

Zoback will outline several elements of a risk-based strategy for assessing the potential for accidentally inducing earthquakes in carbon dioxide reservoirs. The talk will be held in Room 2004, Moscone Center West.

Mark Shwartz writes about science and technology at the Precourt Institute for Energy at Stanford University.

-30-

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

40 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
December 5, 2012 4:14 pm

The top picture of the Geodynamics geothermal steam production test, immediately brought to my mind a story about oil gushers at Spindletop, 1901-1902.
The initial six wells on Spindletop blew out starting an oil boom bringing people to Beaumont in SE Texas. What I remember reading was that after the boom was well on, at least on one occasion a gusher was purposely set off as a passenger train with high-heeled investors was pulling into Beaumont. As I said, I can’t verify it on the net today, but this story on the 100th anniversary of Spindletop from the Houston Chronicle outlines, enough was going on for the area also to be knows as “Swindletop.” http://www.chron.com/CDA/archives/archive.mpl/2001_3272257/spindletop-drew-world-to-beaumont-oil-industry-cam.html
So the next time you see a picture of a geothermal “gusher”, have a think about Spindletop. There is no doubt many people made fortunes there. A great many lost fortunes, too.

December 5, 2012 4:45 pm

This is a bit off topic, but it came up in the research for the “Spindletop / Swindletop” post above.
I chanced on several articles dealing with cellulosic biofuel company KiOR. This little AltEnergyStocks piece (Nov. 9? 2012) is quite over the top: “Gusher! KiOR starts production of US cellulosic biofuels at scale” Without shame, the article uses a 1901 Spindletop photo to describe the long-delayed opening of a “500 ton/day” biofuels plant

At its Columbus-based 500 ton per day plant, KiOR is processing renewable oil that is on-spec for hydrotreating into gasoline and diesel. With scale-up, total cost per gallon drops to $5.95 by 2013, $3.73 per gallon in 2014, and the magic sub-$3.00 figure in 2015 when it is expected to reach $2.62 per gallon at full-scale.

Assuming they make it to 2015: The cash burn is high. “The cash balance is $74 million, down $33 million during 3Q [2012]. More earnings info inside the link. Another article give its production capacity: “will be able to make more than 13 million gallons ..of gasoline and diesel annually when it reaches full capacity in nine to 12 months. That’s about 40,000 gals per day …or about five gasoline tanker trucks per day.

Chewer
December 5, 2012 5:49 pm

Indeed, the problem is 570 degrees F.
It seems unbelievable that we can’t get past 7.4 miles of borehole depth because of a measly 570 degree break point.

RACookPE1978
Editor
December 5, 2012 6:10 pm

In 2010, the price estimate for geothermal drilling was 14.00 to 19.00 dollars.
Per foot.
20.00 per foot x 7.4 miles x 5000 ft/mile = ….
For a single well that won’t produce power effectively: 570 degrees F rock isn’t enough to produce even 330 degrees thermal as steam over a single year’s service.

Grey Lensman
December 5, 2012 8:46 pm

R.A Cook
Why drill to such depth? No need. Plenty of surface heat. Plenty of well proven low temp low pressure turbines as well.
So far, I see little science or engineering here and a total lack of the old American “can do” ethic.
Look at how much power has been and still is being produced at the Geyers, and that with very old knowledge and skills base.
Why has the UK signed a MOU with Iceland to cogenerate Geothermal Power, because its easy, cheap and plentyful and within range of a HVDC connection cable.
The longest so far, the NorNed paid for itself in about ten months.
re cold rocks, drilled to depth, Southampton in the Uk has been up and running for ten years and is being expanded.
Fact is, Hawaii should be energy independent now and zero wind mills required.

E.M.Smith
Editor
December 5, 2012 9:43 pm

@Bloke Down The Pub: A 1.5 ? Really? That’s like a truck driving down the street. I don’t even notice if they are below a 3 at all and I’ve had some 4.5 ish ones happen that didn’t make an impression. Frankly, having been through a 7.x, even the 5 and 6 scale are now kind of a disappointment. Not long enough or enough ‘roll’ to enjoy “surfing the P wave” 😉
FWIW, the Salton Sea area has a large geothermal facility too.
http://www.energyrefuge.com/archives/salton-sea-geothermal.htm

Owned by the CalEnergy Company, The Salton Sea geothermal project consists of 10 generating plants which produce electricity solely from naturally occurring geothermal steam. According to information on CalEnergy’s website, four of the Imperial Valley facilities – Vulcan, Hoch, Elmore and Leathers – are under contract to sell power to Southern California Edison Company under 30-year power purchase agreements. Four other power plants – Salton Sea 1, 2, 3 and 4 – also sell energy to Edison under 30-year power purchase agreements. Salton Sea 5 and the CE Turbo plant sell virtually all of their power to third parties. The combined capacity at Imperial Valley is 327 net megawatts (nominal). The plants produce enough electricity to power over 100,000 homes.

I think 327 MW is a non-trival amount of power. Oh, and about the ‘toxic minerals’… they get extracted and sold, then the condensed water gets recycled to pick up more heat…

Besides investing in energy generation, CalEnergy has also spent $400 million on a facility to extract 300,000 metric tonnes of zinc per year from spent geothermal brines at Salton Sea geothermal power plants.

BTW, no need to go 7 miles deep… We have volcanoes here, so the hot rock comes to you 😉
http://vulcan.wr.usgs.gov/Glossary/ThermalActivity/description_thermal_activity.html

Casa Diablo Hot Springs and Geothermal Facility
Long Valley, Caldera, California
The Casa Diablo Hot Springs site is located on the southwestern edge of the resurgent dome along a major fault system. The fault forms the east side of the down-dropped block that transects the resurgent dome. This down-dropped block is called the medial graben. Three binary-cycle generators built here in 1985 and 1990 produce about 45 megawatts of electricity. Wells, each about 200 meters deep, supply the powerplants with 170 degree water. Heat exchangers transfer the thermal energy from the water to isobutane, which vaporizes and drives turbine generators.

Notice that’s 200 meters or about 700 feet. Yes, it’s a lower temperature facility, but still, 45 megawatts from a shallow well? Works for me…
Too bad it won’t last…. Long Valley is a supervolcano and will eventually blow up and wipe out Southern California… then again, we won’t need the electricity then either 😉
Oh, and don’t forget that even just putting PVC / ABS pipe under 10 feet of dirt in the yard and using it as a ground source heat pump provides net usable energy. Not usually what folks think of when Geothermal is discussed, yet it is…
So, for the naysayers in the group: We’ve had geothermal here in California for a long long time. It works. It’s profitable. The water is condensed and recycled, and along the way you can extract industrial minerals. California isn’t exactly water rich (being the subject of “Cadillac Desert”) so water needs are easily managed. Yes, output drops off after the first few years / decades. So what? That’s planned in now. It works best in places with some volcanic heat as the depth gets fairly shallow… but not too much, please 😉
Don’t think I’d try putting one on top of 4000 foot of granite mountain in Colorado, but there are plenty of places that work…

Grey Lensman
December 6, 2012 12:20 am

Thank you E.M.Smith, some new uses for Geothermal to add to my bow. Mineral recovery is neat.
Look up Sundrop, farms with no water or soil using saline water.
The things that we actually can do.

richardscourtney
December 6, 2012 2:24 am

Grey Lensman:
In my post at December 5, 2012 at 6:39 am I explained

Real geothermal energy is very economic where it is possible. For example, Iceland produces its electricity from geothermal energy. Indeed, geothermal energy is used on a significant scale in California, Iceland, Italy, New Zealand and Japan.

But ‘hot rocks’ is a scam.
In your post at December 5, 2012 at 8:46 pm you imply that because real geothermal is useful and economic then ‘hot rocks’ is also worthwhile. This is the same false argument that shysters promoting ‘hot rocks’ have always used.
You say

re cold rocks, drilled to depth, Southampton in the Uk has been up and running for ten years and is being expanded.

Yes, this is another example of the public being ripped-off by political support of uneconomic ‘renewables’.
The pro-AGW and pro-renewables wicki says this about the Southampton usage of ‘hot rocks’

In the 1980s, the United Kingdom Department of Energy undertook a research and development programme to examine the potential of geothermal aquifers in the UK. However after some initial success drilling a well in the Wessex Basin in 1981, it was deemed too small to be commercially viable. The project was abandoned by the Department of Energy, but Southampton City Council refused to let the project fall and took the decision to create the UK’s first geothermal power scheme. This was undertaken as part of a plan to become a ‘self sustaining city’ in energy generation, promoted by then leader of the city council Alan Whitehead. The scheme was eventually developed in conjunction with French-owned company COFELY District Energy and the Southampton Geothermal Heating Company was then established. Construction started in 1987 on a well to draw water from the Wessex Basin aquifer at a depth of 1,800 metres and a temperature of 76 °C.[2]
The scheme now heats a number of buildings in the city centre, including the Southampton Civic Centre and the WestQuay shopping centre, by providing 8% of the heat distributed by a larger city centre district heating system that includes other combined heat and power sources.[3] Geothermal energy provides 16 GWh of heat per year.[4]

In other words, the local council runs a small, subsidised and uneconomic scheme for ‘green’ political reasons. And Council Tax payers foot the bill for this waste.
Richard

Grey Lensman
December 6, 2012 4:15 am

Richard, thanks for your input and on the whole, i agree. Deep hot rocks, whilst possible is not the way to go. As with oil you drill the shallow easy access ones before you go offshore. I only noted Southampton as an example of working hot rocks. However, if you read their report, it is very difficult to make any sense of it. That gives the suspicion that they are covering up something.
As i keep repeating there are very many high temp hot spots all over the world, Hawaii being a good example.
I also like multitasking, using the hot water to heat/cool greenhouses, or homes, distil brine water, to enable every bit of energy to be used.
I also see no reason at all not to get up close with transportable floating generators. If the source, gets bit frisky, move away.
New Zealand has done well but I feel they paid way to high a price for a very simple well proven system, but that is a different matter, but one linked to noses in the trough we see in wind farms and solar farms.

richardscourtney
December 6, 2012 9:53 am

Grey Lensman:
Thankyou for your comment addressed to me at December 6, 2012 at 4:15 am. It seems our views have much more in common than I understood from your earlier post.
Your reply to me includes

As i keep repeating there are very many high temp hot spots all over the world, Hawaii being a good example.
I also like multitasking, using the hot water to heat/cool greenhouses, or homes, distil brine water, to enable every bit of energy to be used.

I strongly agree about Hawaii. Some years ago I tried to promote adoption of geothermal power on the Big Island but local cultural obstacles were insurmountable, and I strongly suspect they still are.
As for what you call “multitasking”, I agree that too. However, cultural difficulties also inhibit cogeneration in some places.
Richard

SAMURAI
December 6, 2012 11:44 am

Thinking outside the box, just ask yourself what’s the energy source that heats the rocks in the first place….
Answer: Thorium…
I really think that we’re wasting valuable time, capital and resources on expensive/unreliable/inefficient/limited alternative energy projects that are driven by govt grants and subsidies rather than the free market.
Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors (LFTRs) are a proven, dirt cheap, unlimited energy source that the Chinese, Indians and Japanese are all working hard to develop ( especially China).
The only thing holding up the US and Europe’s development is the government’s unwillingness to sanction it’s development. If governments gave the green light for LFTR development, the private sector could have a working prototype in operation within a few years..
Alas, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for political/cronyism reasons is unwilling allow LFTR development…. And so it goes…
No worries, we’ll just buy LFTRs from China in the future, along with everything else we buy from them now….

Grey Lensman
December 6, 2012 7:06 pm

Richard, interesting point about the “cultural” issue but not one that I comprehend.
Hawaii, I assume is mainly conventional power, boiler, turbine, generator and condenser. So easy to convert. Gas axe boiler steam line, tee in the new source and off you go. Can then use the old boiler to grow mushrooms.
Yes, OK, Not so easy but you get my drift.

Spector
December 6, 2012 8:05 pm

RE: SAMURAI: (December 6, 2012 at 11:44 am)
“Thinking outside the box, just ask yourself what’s the energy source that heats the rocks in the first place….
“Answer: Thorium…
“I really think that we’re wasting valuable time, capital and resources on expensive/unreliable/inefficient/limited alternative energy projects that are driven by govt grants and subsidies rather than the free market.
“Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors (LFTRs) are a proven, dirt cheap, unlimited energy source that the Chinese, Indians and Japanese are all working hard to develop ( especially China).”

Well and good, but perhaps for now the answer is still uranium.
Dr David Leblanc of Canada points out that the only reason for building a uranium breeding thorium reactor is a lack of sufficient uranium. But, Liquid Fueled Molten Salt reactors can burn uranium so much more efficiently that they greatly extend the life of that resource. Solid fuel reactors must have their fuel rods removed after burning only a small fraction of their fuel because they swell from the accumulation of trapped nuclear waste. Liquid fueled reactors do not have this problem and because of their high efficiency, these reactors can tolerate much higher mined uranium costs without materially impacting the cost of electricity produced.
Liquid Fueled, Uranium Reactors (perhaps ‘LFURs’) would possess all the safety features touted for LFTRs without requiring the complex, dual fluid breeder design of the latter. He says that these high temperature reactors should be ideal for generating the pressures required for harvesting the remaining unconventional petroleum from the oil sands.
David LeBlanc – Molten Salt Reactor Designs,
Options & Outlook TEAC4

39 approve, 0 disapprove; 2671 Views; 19:46 mins
“Published on Jul 20, 2012
“Canadian David LeBlanc describes the benefits of liquid fuel Molten Salt Reactors over solid fuel reactors, emphasizing reactor design over any relative advantages of thorium or uranium.
“‘Come for the thorium, stay for the reactor!'”

richardscourtney
December 8, 2012 1:58 am

Grey Lensman:
At December 6, 2012 at 7:06 pm you say to me:

Richard, interesting point about the “cultural” issue but not one that I comprehend.
Hawaii, I assume is mainly conventional power, boiler, turbine, generator and condenser. So easy to convert. Gas axe boiler steam line, tee in the new source and off you go. Can then use the old boiler to grow mushrooms.
Yes, OK, Not so easy but you get my drift.Donald L. Klipstein:

I again agree your points about waste heat. Economics will decide such matters. For example, here in the UK there are greenhouses which use some waste heat from a power station to assist the horticulture of tomatoes.
I write to clarify the “cultural issues”.
Strangely, and to my surprise, I discovered there is opposition to anything which interacts with volcanism on the Big Island. Simply, anything which may interact with the volcano is feared. I strongly suspect this cultural fear is a ‘hang-over’ from the ancient religion which was once practiced on the island.
Cogeneration requires a degree of cooperation among participants in a district heating scheme, and it provides reliance on the supplier of the heat. Hence, for example, the individualistic culture of the US inhibits adoption of district heating schemes similar to those which are common in Eastern Europe. However, some US institutions do use cogeneration usually when they have their own power generation facilities.
I hope this brief answer is sufficient to explain what I meant.
Richard

Grey Lensman
December 8, 2012 6:38 am

Thank you Richard. Understood with the caveat that I dont think that Corporations care much for peoples sensitivities.
Yes, utilising waste heat needs co-operation but that is not forbidden by free markets.