As if the resurgence of fossil fuels and the realistic prospect of a renaissance of nuclear energy in the U.S. were not enough, purveyors of intermittent and subsidy-dependent wind and solar power may be facing another challenge, this one emanating from heat stored deep beneath the earth’s surface.
The global AI arms race, with its extraordinary demands for gobs of electricity to power ever-proliferating data centers, has been a black swan for green energy. Unable to deliver the continuous flow of power demanded by the 21st century’s Industrial Revolution, green energy’s best days appear to be behind it. A bit player at best in the Trump administration’s quest for American energy dominance, wind and solar power may be further marginalized by a new rival: geothermal energy.
Cited by Energy Secretary Chris Wright as among the “affordable, reliable, and secure energy technologies” (along with fossil fuels, advanced nuclear, and hydropower), geothermal involves drilling into the earth’s core to harness heat to generate power for on-demand cooling, heating, and electricity. (Wright’s former company, Liberty Energy, invested $10 million in Texas-based geothermal startup Fervo Energy, The Hill reported earlier this year.)
“As of 2025,” Global Energy Monitor notes, “the United States accounts for 23% of global geothermal capacity and is the leader in global operating capacity with 3.7 GW [gigawatts].” But geothermal still accounts for only about 1% of the nation’s power, and expanding the industry has been slow going.
The bureaucratic barriers to geothermal development are significant, especially in the West, where the geology is favorable but much of the land is managed by the federal government.
“Complex and outdated permitting processes slow down projects and create uncertainty for developers. Even when the geology is ideal, it can take years to get a green light to drill,” says Rep. Celeste Maloy, R-Utah. “Developers are forced to navigate the maze of duplicative reviews, unclear timelines, and inconsistent agency coordination,” she added. “This bureaucratic tangle discourages investment and leaves too many high-potential projects stuck in limbo.”
To unwind the red tape, Maloy has introduced the GEO Act, which would expedite approval procedures by requiring the Interior Department “to process applications for a geothermal drilling permit or other authorization under a valid existing geothermal lease within 60 days,” according to a press release.
Separate bipartisan and bicameral legislation, known as the STEAM Act, would create permitting parity for geothermal projects by giving them “the same flexibility to explore and develop on previously disturbed or studied public lands that the oil and gas industry has had for nearly two decades,” a Maloy press release explained.
Establishing permitting parity on federal lands between the oil and gas industry and geothermal energy would underscore something else the two distinct energy sources have in common. The same hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling that have propelled the shale revolution that made the U.S. the world’s largest producer of oil and natural gas can be used to get at subsurface heat for geothermal energy. Confirming these synergies, some of the largest oil and gas companies, including Chevron, BP, and Devon Energy, are investing directly in geothermal projects and startups.
These common drilling techniques should enable geothermal developers to reach “hot spots” located deeper below the surface than thought possible just a few years ago. They could also expand the map for geothermal development far beyond the Western states.
Small wonder that investor interest in geothermal energy has surged in recent years, with more than $1 billion raised since 2022. Tech companies on the hunt for suppliers of baseload electricity to power their data centers see the potential of geothermal energy. Amazon, Google, Microsoft, and Meta – all heavyweights in the booming AI/data center sector – have all inked contracts with geothermal developers.
While the application of fracking and other extraction technologies may bring down the still high cost of geothermal energy, up-front expenses – exploration, drilling, and plant construction – require substantial capital outlays. And one tricky problem remains: getting the power to the electric grid. Electricity generated from geothermal plants must be transmitted to the grid via high-voltage power lines. Getting permits for long-distance power lines comes with substantial delays, adding to a project’s cost.
“Overall,” the Department of Energy points out, “the costs of building a geothermal power plant are heavily weighted toward early expenses rather than fuel to keep them running. However, geothermal’s high-capacity factor – its ability to produce electricity 90% of the time or more – means that costs can be recouped more quickly because there is very little downtime once a plant is operational.”
Geothermal’s potential to join fossil fuels and nuclear energy in powering America’s economy in the years to come far exceeds anything weather-dependent wind and solar could ever match. With the House version of the budget reconciliation bill accelerating the phase-out of the subsidies that prop them up, these once-coddled industries are scrambling to stay relevant.
This article originally appeared at Issues and Insights
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“… and subsidy-dependent wind and solar power may be facing another challenge,”
From subsidy dependent nuclear and geothermal?
No, reliable nuclear and geothermal?
Has always baffled me that “environmental” groups oppose geothermal. It is almost like they oppose anything that helps people and only support things that harm people. Upon further thought, they vociferously support abortion on demand and euthanasia. A pattern is beginning to emerge.
Do they oppose geothermal? I wasn’t aware of that. The Greens in Wokeachusetts actually talk about it but not much chance of it here.
They call it “raping” the land, never mind their phones, computers and EVs are doing FAR more harm to the land.
Unfortunately yes…here in New Zealand we have quite a lot of geothermal power generation. However the Greens do oppose some proposed projects because unfortunately there’s that life giving gas the comes up from the ground along with the hot water. Some fields are richer in CO2 than others. Much better to have more bird choppers or slave labour produced solar cells…
Interesting that CO2 is in the geothermal wells. Had no idea.
Yes, there’s quite a bit of CO2 variability between the various fields…at least in NZ. These plants can be long lived…the Wairaki one in the central North Island started in 1958 and still producing very well. Has been upgraded and uprated several times. I think it was the second one in the world, after Laredo in Italy.
Geothermal in new zealand, iceland, and several other locations have excellent geography for geothermal. Same with several places in the world for hydo (norway, the pacific northwest, etc. where the geography is excellent for hydro. that being said, deep drilling for geothermal is not that practical of an idea. Judith Curry’s website has had several commentaries on the viability of deep geothermal drilling.
If your (secret) goal is deindustrialization then you oppose all solutions that might actually work.
mmm
haha so he wants to kill us all, what a sweet liar
Depopulation is the stated aim of The Optimum Trust, aka Population Matters (David Attenborough, Chris Packham, Jane Goodall, Leilani Münter, Jonathon Porritt, Partha Dasgupta, Paul Ehrlich, and John Guillebaud are all patrons.)
~ David Attenborough
Last centuries problem. The problem du jour is plunging birth rates. Elon is trying to solve it all by himself.
So very last century, true. As for Musk, wellhell, ya gotta have a hobby, and his is not an unpleasant one, no?
He has a strong back.
And yet none of them have killed their families and themselves to save the planet.
Worse than that, they’ve had kids of there own and more than one
As wisely remarked by comrade Moldbug,
Which of course is a part of the strong general trend: positive causes are vain and unaccountable while negative causes are frivolous and doomed.
I think there are a few legitimate concerns about how geothermal might enhance seismic activity. More microquakes but a few large ones have been triggered. It’s something that should be manageable however.
https://news.stanford.edu/stories/2019/05/lessons-south-korea-solving-geothermals-earthquake-problem
And yet environtwats are not raising such concerns. They did try that tactic against fracking and it fell flat.
“Environmental groups” oppose any drilling of any sort. It doesn’t matter what the end result is for. If something is in a round pipe on the ground either horizontal or vertical, its “bad” for “Mother Earth”.
Unfortunately, geothermal is quite expensive to build.
And also to maintain I understand. Plus, it doesn’t benefit the biosphere like fossil fuels do.
But I’d much rather have a geothermal power plant in my neighborhood than a windmill shredding birds and bats or a former cornfield covered in slave-made solar panels that leach toxic metals into my water supply.
How about a cornfield being used to churn out feed stock for oversized digesters?
Or more generally: never underestimate the ability of bureaucrats encouraged by kickbacks and covered by The Great Cause to turn even an useful solution into yet another problem.
But, it all depends on how long it’ll function. If for a very long time, then the cost is spread out over a long time period. Whereas wind and solar may fail in a few decades, I’d think geothermal would last for far longer, no?
Depends where its built.
Ther isn’t an infinitely replenishable source of heat down there.
uh….. but I think there is 🙂
but no doubt the piping has a limited lifespan
Here in New Zealand they go for a long time but to be clear they are now producing from deeper wells as time passes.
New field will not have the ability to progress from 1500M to 3000M they will tend to start deeper.
Geothermal not as cheap as CCG powered generation and not as environmentally sound, but good base load.
There’s a few papers on geothermal here, including one from the IPCC
https://www.gchqventures.com/gallery
Geothermal is Eternal. Well, almost.
If you like drilling technique then there’s a report on drilling straight to magma, done in Iceland a while back.
Now they have magma on the surface.
Uhhh . . . drilling is not always required: reference numerous volcanoes that bring flowing, red-hot magma right to Earth’s surface (aka “lava”).
Of course, there are the related issues of energy source dependability, materials compatibility and long-term site risk, but what the heck.
Let’s not go full Dwarf Fortress…
“….means that costs can be recouped more quickly because there is very little downtime once a plant is operational.”
That’s a figment of someone’s imagination. The corrosion problems are so intense that heat exchange equipment is in need of constant repair or replacement to the point of needing 100% standby of everything…unrealized by investors until a couple of years’ operation has been attempted but not achieved.
Also, the heat is low grade (low temp compared to combustion) so the very heat exchangers that are the heart of the problem are also HUUUUGE and expensive (usually way more than someone budgeted) for little actual electrical generation…from the also very huge and under budgetted specialized long delivery low pressure turbines, or someone thinking that a screw compressor running in reverse can do the job.
Also the “project team” is usually enthusiastic about their various “never-been-done-before” plans…on their way to discovering that it’s “been-done-but-failed-before”. But then, I speak as one of the 3 or 4 engineering company representatives who generally declined such work after the first fiasco, as opposed to one who says “no problem just send money”.
Yes. Real and enduring challenges. No solutions at this time.
When I lived in Iceland I saw geothermal plants. They provide virtually 100% of the heat for homes, pools, and greenhouses. There should be lots of information that we could obtain from them on the issues you raise. Of course they don’t have go very deep to get at the heat.
I’d read some years ago that geothermal was very hard on the equipment used-is this true? If so, how hard on the equipment and why? Hard cost estimates would seem to be in order, but if it pencils out, why not? We do not need another subsidy boondoggle, but again, if its workable, and private investers are on board-why not? Need to add environmental analysis to the pudding, I would think.
Literally, hard water presents scaling problems.
Stinky, sulfurous, H2S poisonous, corrosive, feed water that eats or plugs anything through which it flows…pipes, valves, pump seals….already mentioned the heat exchangers being in need of constant cleaning, retubing, or regasketting, acid washes, whatever is needed, usually unexpectedly, to fix the stand-by unit before the on-line one plugs up again….
And there’s my answer-thanks guys.
While it might make sense in certain locations, geothermal sounds a bit like more of “chasing rainbows”.
I appreciate that this post provides some news about recent investment in geothermal energy production research. Careful research is good news. Regardless, well-known fundamental technical problems continue to exist. These technical problems are much greater than the permitting and powerline issues.
A second thing makes me question the overall value of this post: in paragraph three, “drilling into the earth’s core to harness heat”. Depth to the earth’s core is about 1800 miles.
See the article on drilling to magma at the bottom of this page:
https://www.gchqventures.com/gallery
Yes, I was initially enthused about high temperature geothermal. But a little study shows real problems with pipe scaling, rock formation localized cooling, formation microfracture plugging, and other problems.
I still hope it can be made to work, and directional drilling makes it a little more likely, but it’s got a ways to go before it can compete outside of places where really hot rock is close to the surface. Like Iceland or the Geysers in California.
Seems illogical that “hot rock” is close to the surface in a place with the name “Iceland”.
” geothermal involves drilling into the earth’s core ” {my bold} Who said this?
Yes, I realize this is fluff, but if realists criticize Al Gore and others for silliness, then folks ought not to let it seep into their statements.
The Earth’s core begins at a depth of about 2,900 kilometers (1,802 miles).
Geothermal projects need not go very deep and do not need hot water. Warm water will do. At Central Washington University (CWU), Ellensburg, 68°F water at 800 feet depth is being coupled with a new academic complex and several older buildings. Both environmental and financial factors are cited for the justification.
https://www.cwu.edu/page/geothermal-technology-faqs.php
Kudos on your first point.
However, providing “warm water” (68°F is warm?) locally to heat (perhaps you meant “to cool”?) a few buildings is a far cry from being able to use LOW-GRADE heat to generate electrical energy at commercial scale, and to do such in an economically competitive manner.
As long as you’re getting technical nitpicky, you should use 1800 miles to preserve the two-digit precision.
I too, caught the boo-boo about drilling to the core. More technical information can be found in the publications of the Geothermal Resources Council geothermalc.org and information about geothernal heating (primarily) in the papers of the GeoHeat Center at Oregon Institute of Technology. Both are well worth a look
From the above article:
“Cited by Energy Secretary Chris Wright as among the ‘affordable, reliable, and secure energy technologies’ (along with fossil fuels, advanced nuclear, and hydropower), geothermal . . .”
Well, that properly reflects Mr. Wright’s lack of scientific and engineering prowess.
Humanity has known about the POTENTIAL for geothermal energy for over a thousand years and first used geothermal energy commercially in 1830 in the spring-fed baths of Hot Springs, Arkansas. Geothermal energy was first used commercially for the generation of electricity in 1913 in the town of Prince Piero Ginori Conti, Italy, and in 1960 Pacific Gas and Electric began operation of the first US geothermal power plant at The Geysers in California (source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_energy ).
Yet as of end-2023, some 63 years after 1960, geothermal energy provided only about 0.4% of the utility-scale electricity produced in the US (https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/geothermal/use-of-geothermal-energy.php ), this despite the enormous advancements in underground surveying and drilling and subterranean extraction technologies, as well as in steam turbine and generator technologies, over that time period.
Bottom line: if geothermal energy extraction and use had the potential that is carelessly fronted by Energy Secretary Wright, economic market forces would have seen it more fully developed by now.
There’s also geo-exchange which Princeton university is using for heating and A/C:
https://facilities.princeton.edu/sites/g/files/toruqf5436/files/geoexchange-flyer2.pdf
Don’t have enough insight on the geothermal topic since it doesn’t thrill me sufficiently.
To my knowledge the existing pilot projects were so far plagued with unexpected costs, corrosion and meager output.
My point of view is that unless you’re living in Iceland forget about it on an industrial scale. Interestingly enough I haven’t stumbled so far over data how long the power generating systems in Iceland tend to last or how much maintenance they require. Certainly they must achieve some ROI otherwise the country would not continue using them. That’s my conclusion.
Well what works in Iceland will most likely not work elsewhere. Eyeballing the next virtue signalling miracle global waffle avoiding unicorn fart powered perpetuum mobile?
Well start out of the blue with your personal earth/water heatpump (solar powered of course) and wait for your idiot neighbour to do exactly the same.
If you corner him with the question if he’s done a proper cost analysis prior to the installation and the answer is no, or “ehmm” congratulation, you’ve nailed it: your neighbour ist an even bigger believing idiot than you are.
Geothermal, mostly potential on (toilet)paper like so many other “renewables” and fancy stuff for all those tu/ards that can neither do proper math nor keep a balanced budget (= don’t waste stolen money).
sarcastic sarc tag
Like most “environmentally acceptable” energy sources geothermal has ideal locations for implementation. Iceland is one such place. Iceland also has frequent magma flows and eruptions. It’s a trade off for them. I suspect the cost of finding, building, and maintaining suitable geothermal locations is prohibitive or we’d be seeing more of them.
Agreed, nothing wrong with harvesting low hanging fruits, the problem lies with all the idiots that think what is good for the goose is even better for the chicken.
As ludicrous as to force people to install rooftop PV systems in the UK and then consider plans to block the sun.
If a natural resource can be economically feasable exploitet it will be – and most likely it already has been done.
Geothermal, solar, wind, nuclear fusion…I wonder when people clinging to a BStraw to safe them from drowning realize:
WE ARE ALL ON DRY LAND
no sarc, sadly
Most electricity is produced by boiling water into steam. We live on the cooled surface of a molten ball. Seems like boiling water shouldn’t be too much of a problem.
Why are all these desires for exotic, complex, expensive, distracting sources of energy entertained when we already have SMRs ready for advancement?
Well dreamers and illusionists need distractions…at the and it’s all back to basics: coal, oil, gas, nuclear and hydro.
Maybe to explain the stupidity mankind suffers from by a simple example:
Masses will pay to attend a 3h Copperfield show but you couldn’t possibly pay them enough to watch a chess standoff between two grandmasters.
Let my brain get lulled by illusions, hey great here’s my money
What??? Use my brain to forecast the next move on the board? fackoff
Follow the money?
Geothermal uses water. If you got plenty of water, like Iceland or the Northwest, then you just have the other costs and problems. In the Southwest water scarcity is possibly a showstopper for any geothermal project.
Available and usable water…SAGD sites in Alberta have the same problem.
You’d think there is no problem anywhere in Canada. Out in the SW deserts pretty much all you have is fossil (there’s that word again) ground water from the last glacial. Pumping ground water from one place, injecting it in another place, using some in cooling towers. Robbing Peter to pay Paul.
I worked in the AB oil patch and lived in SK, potash mines “nearby”. saline and almost undrinkable water, great to boil potatoes and cook pasta though…
Water is life and oil is fuel, both enable life and living…take your pick over geothermal adventures 😉
Greetings from southern Spain where people call me crazy for collecting and storing rain water – of course no subsidies or recognition whatsoever for doing so….hehe wait until the next drought.
I lived in Bermuda for awhile and everyone there collects rainwater. There are huge catchments. A small amount of fresh water from underground.
Even in desert low rain areas collecting rain is practical in off-grid situations. It takes some doing and prep. I only think about it when it is pouring, which might be a year from the last big rain.
In our case, drilling a new 540′ deep well should take care of the next 30 years (more years than I have left).
Geothermal, like hydro, only makes sense in special locations (where heat is constantly replenished) . Otherwise in the end you cool the rock down and it stops working after a few years.
That doesn’t mean its pointless, only that there are not many places in the world where it makes sense.
I lurk and watch the usual comments about renewable energy. Most of them are valid, in the case of geothermal not so much. Yes, water is needed, no it doesn’t have to get full of corrosive chemicals. Engineering is necessary. Piping is needed all the way to the bottom and back. Maybe direct conversion to electricity? None of this is free. It does work. The delta changes in metallurgy since the 1960s is huge. TANSTAAFL.
The eternal and simple question: is it economically feasable?
And that includes the cost of
of unecessarily and forceful dismantling of existing powerplants.
And for what all the fuzz? That’s the second question.
I’m not far from the Coso geothermal plant. Reportedly it’s been generally beneficial for ROI and IRR, but water availability is an ongoing issue – you don’t hear much about this outside the local interested. I have heard some other grumblings from insiders, but you always heard that on any big affair. On the other hand, I wouldn’t be surprised if it folds suddenly.
“, geothermal involves drilling into the earth’s core to harness heat “
This is sloppy journalism… the “core” has a technical meaning in the context of the Earths geology… and geothermal wells drill no where close to the core… or even the mantle, for that matter
If you go back in the archives of WUWT, you will see a reprinted article from me on Geothermal. It was a reprint of the original on Climate Etc.
https://judithcurry.com/2025/04/11/geothermal-electricity-generation/
In it I covered geothermal and give info about why Hot dry rock (what “enhanced geothermal” was called then and its history of failure. I also covered why deep geothermal isn’t viable. All both are is just an exercise to get money from the government.
In 1983 after doing the biggest frac in the southern hemisphere in gas saturated rocks at 425 degF our minds wandered to huff and puff geothermal uses of this heat for electricity generation for our own purposes. We did some rough sums on heat flow and made some estimates on CAPEX and calculated a rough NPV. The initial transient heat flow looked OK, but the steady state heat flow killed the concept stone dead. Temperature logging of a shut in waterflood project nearby confirmed the very low thermal conductivity of rocks. 25 years later someone else with a spinning bowtie and $ signs on his eyelids managed, despite my querying the heat transfer physics of the process at the prospectus meeting, to convince some gullible people to put up some heard earned cash to invest in this remarkable innovative process. It shut down soon after start-up. The fracced well is still producing gas.
Geothermal is also used for heating buildings. Boise, Idaho has one of the largest geothermal heating systems in the world, and it was the first in the USA, The city is working to expand the system by 40%. It currently provides heat to around 400 buildings with over 6 million square feet of floor space. Idaho’s Capitol building is the only geothermally heated one in the USA.
It’s intrinsically limited, but yes. There are many options possible or viable only at certain places, this does not mean net total of them cannot pull a significant share. So geothermal, dam hydroelectric, suspended hydroelectric, tidal…
More useful than vast majority of the bird-grinders, anyhow.
This gives a pretty good overview of the state of the art in geothermal:
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2025-06-02/100-billion-ghost-field-discovery-could-power-america-30000-years
It is a state of the art scheme for extracting taxpayer’s money to fund things that will never be economically viable.
In the category of unintended consequences, watch the movie Crack in the World.
Not saying it will happen or even could, but somebody needs to think it through.
The question is, how much deep drilling can we do before we alter, if possible, the geo-physics of the planet?