1887
banner image
No data available.
Please log in to see this content.
You have no subscription access to this content.
No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
f
Levelized costs of electricity and direct-use heat from Enhanced Geothermal Systems
Rent:
Rent this article for
Access full text Article
/content/aip/journal/jrse/6/1/10.1063/1.4865575
1.
1. J. W. Tester, B. J. Anderson, A. S. Batchelor, D. D. Blackwell, R. DiPippo, E. M. Drake, J. Garnish, B. Livesay, M. C. Moore, K. Nichols, S. Petty, M. N. Toksöz, and R. W. Veatch, Jr., “ The future of geothermal energy: Impact of enhanced geothermal systems (EGS) on the United States in the 21st Century,” Massachusetts Institute of Technology, DOE Contract DE-AC07-05ID14517 Final Report, 2006.
2.
2.EIA, U.S., “ International energy outlook 2011,” U.S. Energy Information Administration, 2011.
3.
3. B. A. Goldstein, G. Hiriart, J. Tester, B. Bertani, R. Bromley, L. Gutierrez-Negrin, C. J. Huenges, E. H. Ragnarsson, A. Mongillo, M. A. Muraoka, and V. I. Zui, “ Great expectations for geothermal energy to 2100,” in Proceedings, Thirty-Sixth Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, California, 31 January–2 February, SGP-TR-191 (2011).
4.
4. B. Goldstein, G. Hiriart, R. Bertani, C. Bromley, L. Gutiérrez-Negrín, E. Huenges, H. Muraoka, A. Ragnarsson, J. Tester, and V. Zui, “ Geothermal energy,” in IPCC Special Report on Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation, edited by O. Edenhofer, R. Pichs-Madruga, Y. Sokona, K. Seyboth, P. Matschoss, S. Kadner, T. Zwickel, P. Eickemeier, G. Hansen, S. Schlömer, and C. von Stechow (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom, New York, NY, USA, 2011).
5.
5. D. B. Fox, D. Sutter, K. F. Beckers, M. Z. Lukawski, D. L. Koch, B. J. Anderson, and J. W. Tester, “ Sustainable heat farming: Modeling extraction and recovery in discretely fractured geothermal reservoirs,” Geothermics 46, 4254 (2013).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geothermics.2012.09.001
6.
6. R. Bertani, “ Geothermal power generation in the world 2005–2010 update report,” Geothermics 41, 129 (2012).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geothermics.2011.10.001
7.
7. R. N. Horne and J. W. Tester, “ Geothermal energy: A scalable option for heat and power,” in The Bridge (National Academy of Engineering, Washington, DC, submitted).
8.
8.Geothermal Technologies Office, EERE, “ Geothermal Electricity Technology Evaluation Model (GETEM), Version August 2012,” see http://www1.eere.energy.gov/geothermal/getem.html, for U.S. Department of Energy Geothermal Technologies Program; accessed April 2013.
9.
9. P. Heidinger, J. Dornstädter, and A. Fabritius, “ HDR economic modelling: HDRec software,” Geothermics 35, 683710 (2006).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geothermics.2006.10.005
10.
10. K. F. Beckers, M. Z. Lukawski, T. J. Reber, B. J. Anderson, M. C. Moore, and J. W. Tester, “ Introducing GEOPHIRES v1.0: Software package for estimating levelized cost of electricity and/or heat from enhanced geothermal systems,” in Proceedings, Thirty-Eighth Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, California, 11 February–13 February, SGP-TR-198 (2013).
11.
11. M. Z. Lukawski, B. J. Anderson, C. Augustine, L. E. Capuano, Jr., K. F. Beckers, B. Livesay, and J. W. Tester, “ Cost analysis of oil, gas, and geothermal well drilling,” J. Petrol. Sci. Eng. (submitted).
12.
12. H. C. H. Armstead and J. W. Tester, Heat Mining (E. & F.N. Spon Ltd., London and New York, 1987), p. 478.
13.
13. J. W. Tester and H. J. Herzog, “ Economic predictions for heat mining: A review and analysis of hot dry rock (HDR) geothermal energy technology,” Final Report for the U.S. Department of Energy Geothermal Technology Division, MIT-EL 90-001, 1990.
14.
14. O. I. Kitsou, H. J. Herzog, and J. W. Tester, “ Economic modeling of HDR enhanced geothermal systems,” Proceedings World Geothermal Congress 2000, Kyushu, Tohoku, Japan, 28 May–10 June (2000).
15.
15.See supplemental material at http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.4865575 for a detailed description of the GEOPHIRES model, including all equations and assumptions, and a table with all cost results for the 18 EGS scenarios. [Supplementary Material]
16.
16.NAG Fortran Library Manual–Mark 23, The Numerical Algorithms Group Limited, 2011.
17.
17.Open Energy Information, see http://en.openei.org/wiki/Transparent_Cost_Database for Transparent Cost Database; accessed May, 2013.
18.
18. T. J. Reber, Master thesis, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA, 2013.
19.
19.EIA, U.S., “ Annual Energy Outlook 2013,” U.S. Energy Information Administration, 2013.
20.
20. L. G. Fishbone and H. Abilock, “ MARKAL—A linear programming model for energy systems analysis: Technical description of the BNL version,” Int. J. Energy Res. 5, 353375 (1981).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/er.4440050406
21.
21. J. Logan, P. Sullivan, W. Short, L. Bird, T. L. James, and M. R. Shah, “ Evaluating a proposed 20% national renewable portfolio standard,” Technical Report, NREL/TP-6A2-45161, 2009.
22.
22.Energy and Environmental Economics, Inc., see http://www.wecc.biz/committees/BOD/TEPPC/Versions/100106_TEPPC_E3_CapitalCosts.ppt_2.0.ppt for Capital Cost Recommendations for 2009 TEPPC Study; accessed May 2013 (2010).
24.
24. G. Mines and J. Nathwani, “ Estimated power generation costs for EGS,” in Proceedings, Thirty-Eighth Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, California, 11 February–13 February, 2013, SGP-TR-198 (2013).
25.
25. C. Augustine, K. R. Young, and A. Anderson, “ Updated U.S. geothermal supply curve,” in Proceedings, Thirty-Fifth Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, California, 1 February–3 February, 2010, SGP-TR-191 (2010).
26.
26. D. B. Fox, D. Sutter, and J. W. Tester, “ The thermal spectrum of low-temperature energy use in the United States,” Energy Environ. Sci. 4, 37313740 (2011).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1039/c1ee01722e
27.
27.EIA, U.S., “ Annual Energy Review 2011,” DOE/EIA-0384, 2011.
28.
28. J. W. Lund, “ Direct utilization of geothermal energy,” Energies 3(8), 14431471 (2010).
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/en3081443
29.
29. J. S. Gudmundsson, D. H. Freeston, and P. J. Lienau, “ The lindal diagram,” GRC Trans. 9(1), 1519 (1985).
30.
30. A. Ragnarsson, “ Geothermal development in Iceland 1995–1999”, in Proceedings of the World Geothermal Congress 2000, Kyushu-Tohoku, Japan (2000), Vol. 1, pp. 363375.
31.
31. A. Ragnarsson, “ Geothermal development in Iceland 2000–2004,” in Proceedings of the World Geothermal Congress 2005, Antalya, Turkey (2005), pp. 2429.
32.
32. A. Ragnarsson, “ Geothermal development in Iceland 2005–2009,” in Proceedings of the World Geothermal Congress 2010, Bali, Indonesia (2010).
http://aip.metastore.ingenta.com/content/aip/journal/jrse/6/1/10.1063/1.4865575
Loading

Figures

Image of FIG. 1.

Click to view

FIG. 1.

GEOPHIRES operating scheme. GUI components are shown in orange ellipses; the FORTRAN model components are shown in green rectangles.

Image of FIG. 2.

Click to view

FIG. 2.

Levelized costs for 18 EGS scenarios. The blue bars represent the LCOE in 2012 U.S. ¢/kWh for the electricity scenarios; the red bars represent the LCOH in 2012 U.S. $/MMBTU for the direct-use heat scenarios.

Image of FIG. 3.

Click to view

FIG. 3.

Fraction of capital cost (initial investment) associated with resource exploration (bottom bars), drilling and reservoir stimulation (middle bars), and surface equipment (top bars) for the 18 EGS scenarios.

Image of FIG. 4.

Click to view

FIG. 4.

Sensitivity of LCOE (left figures) and LCOH (right figures) to various parameters for medium-grade resource and mid-term technology case. High-sensitive and low-sensitive parameters are shown in top and bottom figures, respectively. The base-case LCOE and LCOH are 10.6 ¢/kWh and 5.1 $/MMBTU, respectively.

Image of FIG. 5.

Click to view

FIG. 5.

Effect of drilling depth on the LCOE and LCOH for medium-grade resource and mid-term technology case. The geothermal gradient is constant at 50 °C/km. For the LCOE, the power plant type is a subcritical Organic Rankine Cycle for wells shallower than 3.7 km (<200 °C), and a double-flash power plant for wells deeper than 3.7 km (>200 °C).

Image of FIG. 6.

Click to view

FIG. 6.

Comparison of LCOE expressed in 2012 U.S. ¢/kWh for EGS obtained using GEOPHIRES (red bars) with LCOE for different electricity generating technologies (blue bars). LCOE values for other energy technologies are taken from the OpenEI Transparent Cost Database. 17 The solid bars and striped bars represent the current LCOE and projected LCOE for 2030, respectively. The GEOPHIRES commercially mature technology EGS scenarios are used to model the projected system performance in the year 2030.

Image of FIG. 7.

Click to view

FIG. 7.

Comparison of LCOH (2012 U.S. $/MMBTU) from EGS estimated with GEOPHIRES for industrial direct-use heat processes (light red bars) and district heating systems (dark red bars) with LCOH from natural gas boilers (blue bars). The current and projected residential and industrial gas prices are taken from the 2013 EIA Annual Energy Outlook. 19 It is assumed that the today's technology EGS scenarios in GEOPHIRES represent the 2012 costs. The commercially mature technology EGS scenarios are used to model the projected system performance in the year 2030. Low-, medium-, and high-grade resource refer to a geothermal gradient of 30, 50, and 70 °C/km, respectively.

Tables

Generic image for table

Click to view

Table I.

Technology maturity cases for EGS scenarios.

Generic image for table

Click to view

Table II.

Resource cases for EGS scenarios.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/aip/journal/jrse/6/1/10.1063/1.4865575
2014-02-21
2014-04-24

Abstract

GEOPHIRES (GEOthermal energy for the Production of Heat and Electricity (“IR”) Economically Simulated) is a software tool that combines reservoir, wellbore, and power plant models with capital and operating cost correlations and financial levelized cost models to assess the technical and economic performance of Enhanced Geothermal Systems (EGS). It is an upgrade and expansion of the “MIT-EGS” program used in the 2006 “Future of Geothermal Energy” study. GEOPHIRES includes updated cost correlations for well drilling and completion, resource exploration, and Organic Rankine Cycle (ORC) and flash power plants. It also has new power plant efficiency correlations based on AspenPlus and MATLAB simulations. The structure of GEOPHIRES enables feasibility studies of using geothermal resources not only for electricity generation but also for direct-use heating, and combined heat and power (CHP) applications. Full documentation on GEOPHIRES is provided in the supplementary material. Using GEOPHIRES, the levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) and the levelized cost of heat (LCOH) have been estimated for 3 cases of resource grade (low-, medium-, and high-grade resource corresponding to a geothermal gradient of 30, 50, and 70 °C/km) in combination with 3 levels of technological maturity (today's, mid-term, and commercially mature technology corresponding to a productivity of 30, 50, and 70 kg/s per production well and thermal drawdown rate of 2%, 1.5%, and 1%). The results for the LCOE range from 4.6 to 57 ¢/kWh and for the LCOH from 3.5 to 14 $/MMBTU (1.2 to 4.8 ¢/kWh). The results for the base-case scenario (medium-grade resource and mid-term technology) are 11 ¢/kWh and 5 $/MMBTU (1.7 ¢/kWh), respectively. To account for parameter uncertainty, a sensitivity analysis has been included. The results for the LCOE and LCOH have been compared with values found in literature for EGS as well as other energy technologies. The key findings suggest that given today's technology maturity, electricity and direct-use heat from EGS are not economically competitive under current market conditions with other energy technologies. However, with moderate technological improvements, electricity from EGS is predicted to become cost-effective with respect to other renewable and non-renewable energy sources for medium- and high-grade geothermal resources. Direct-use heat from EGS is calculated to become cost-effective even for low-grade resources. This emphasizes that EGS for direct-use heat may not be neglected in future EGS development.

Loading

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/aip/journal/jrse/6/1/1.4865575.html;jsessionid=38c21sc3uobwa.x-aip-live-06?itemId=/content/aip/journal/jrse/6/1/10.1063/1.4865575&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah&containerItemId=content/aip/journal/jrse
true
true
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
752b84549af89a08dbdd7fdb8b9568b5 journal.articlezxybnytfddd
Scitation: Levelized costs of electricity and direct-use heat from Enhanced Geothermal Systems
http://aip.metastore.ingenta.com/content/aip/journal/jrse/6/1/10.1063/1.4865575
10.1063/1.4865575
SEARCH_EXPAND_ITEM