Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Article
  • Published:

The role of flexible geothermal power in decarbonized electricity systems

Nature Energy (2024)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Enhanced geothermal systems (EGSs) are an emerging energy technology with the potential to greatly expand the viable resource base for geothermal power generation. Although EGSs have traditionally been envisioned as ‘baseload’ resources, flexible operation of EGS wellfields could allow these plants to provide load-following generation and long-duration energy storage. In this work we evaluate the impact of operational flexibility on the long-run system value and deployment potential of EGS power in the western United States. We find that load-following generation and in-reservoir energy storage enhance the role of EGS power in least-cost decarbonized electricity systems, substantially increasing optimal geothermal penetration and reducing bulk electricity supply costs compared to systems with inflexible EGSs or no EGSs. Flexible geothermal plants preferentially displace the most expensive competing resources by shifting their generation on diurnal and seasonal timescales, with round-trip energy storage efficiencies of 59–93%. Benefits of EGS flexibility are robust across a range of electricity market and geothermal technology development scenarios.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Schematic diagram of the flexible EGS optimization model.
Fig. 2: EGS deployment potential in fully decarbonized electricity systems.
Fig. 3: Optimal system-level capacity mixes.
Fig. 4: System cost reductions due to EGS deployment.
Fig. 5: Optimal system configurations for different levels of EGS penetration.
Fig. 6: Operational profiles for systems with EGSs.
Fig. 7: Annual operational profiles for EGS plants.

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

All GenX input and results datasets relevant to this study are available via Zenodo at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7023225 (ref. 49). Additional data are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Code availability

The ResFrac reservoir simulation code is commercial software developed by the ResFrac Corporation. The GenX electricity system capacity expansion model is open source and available via GitHub at https://github.com/GenXProject/GenX. Source code for the modified version of GenX used in this work is available via Zenodo at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7023225 (ref. 49).

References

  1. Sepulveda, N., Jenkins, J., de Sisternes, F. & Lester, R. The role of firm low-carbon electricity resources in deep decarbonization of power generation. Joule 2, 2403–2420 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Baik, E. et al. What is different about different net-zero carbon electricity systems? Energy Clim. Chang. 2, 100046 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Cole, W. J. et al. Quantifying the challenge of reaching a 100% renewable energy power system for the United States. Joule 5, 1732–1748 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Geothermal Technologies Office GeoVision: Harnessing the Heat Beneath Our Feet (US Department of Energy, 2019).

  5. Annual Energy Outlook 2021 (US Energy Information Administration, 2021).

  6. Williams, C., Reed, M., Mariner, R., DeAngelo, J. & Galanis, S. Assessment of Moderate- and High-Temperature Geothermal Resources of the United States Technical Report No. 2008-3082 (US Geological Survey, 2008).

  7. The Future of Geothermal Energy Technical Report No. INL/EXT-06-11746 (Idaho National Laboratory, 2006).

  8. Augustine, C., Fisher, S., Ho, J., Warren, I. & Witter, E. Enhanced Geothermal Shot Analysis for the Geothermal Technologies Office Technical Report No. NREL/TP-5700-84822 (National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 2023).

  9. Cochran, J. & Denholm, P. The Los Angeles 100% Renewable Energy Study Technical Report No. NREL/TP-6A20-79444 (National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 2021).

  10. Denholm, P. et al. Examining Supply-Side Options to Achieve 100% Clean Electricity by 2035 Technical Report No. NREL/TP6A40-81644 (National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 2022).

  11. Matek, B. Flexible opportunities with geothermal technology: barriers and opportunities. Electr. J. 28, 45–51 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Jenkins, J. D., Luke, M. & Thernstrom, S. Getting to zero carbon emissions in the electric power sector. Joule 2, 2498–2510 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Larson, E. et al. Net-Zero America: Potential Pathways, Infrastructure, and Impacts (Princeton Univ., 2020).

  14. Clack, C., Choukulkar, A., Coté, B. & McKee, S. A Plan for Economy-Wide Decarbonization of the United States (Vibrant Clean Energy, 2021).

  15. Williams, J. H. et al. Carbon-neutral pathways for the United States. AGU Adv. 2, e2020AV000284 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Ricks, W., Norbeck, J. & Jenkins, J. The value of in-reservoir energy storage for flexible dispatch of geothermal power. Appl. Energy 313, 118807 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Jenkins, J. & Sepulveda, N. Enhanced Decision Support for a Changing Electricity Landscape: the GenX Configurable Electricity Resource Capacity Expansion Model Working Paper (MIT Energy Initiative, 2017).

  18. GenX: a configurable power system capacity expansion model for studying low-carbon energy futures https://github.com/GenXProject/GenX (2022).

  19. Blackwell, D. et al. Temperature-at-depth maps for the conterminous US and geothermal resource estimates. GRC Trans. 31, 1545–1550 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  20. Lowry, T. S. et al. GeoVision Analysis Supporting Task Force Report: Reservoir Maintenance and Development Technical Report No. SAND2017-9977 (Sandia National Laboratories, 2017).

  21. Mines, G. GETEM User Manual Technical Report No. INL/EXT-16-38751 (Idaho National Laboratories, 2016).

  22. Michaelides, E. & Michaelides, D. The effect of ambient temperature fluctuation on the performance of geothermal power plants. Int. J. Exergy 8, 86–98 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 2021 Annual Technology Baseline (National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 2021).

  24. Manning, C. E. & Ingebritsen, S. Permeability of the continental crust: implications of geothermal data and metamorphic systems. Rev. Geophys. 37, 127–150 (1999).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Way, R., Ives, M., Mealy, P. & Farmer, J. Empirically grounded technology forecasts and the energy transition. Joule 6, 2057–2082 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Malhotra, A. & Schmidt, T. S. Accelerating low-carbon innovation. Joule 4, 2259–2267 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Latimer, T. & Meier, P. Use of the experience curve to understand economics for at-scale EGS projects. In Proceedings of the 42nd Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering 768–776 (Stanford Geothermal Program, Stanford, CA, 2017).

  28. Rutqvist, J. et al. Coupled process analysis of flexible geothermal production from steam- and liquid-dominated systems: impact on wells. In Proceedings of the 45th Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering 287–303 (Stanford Geothermal Program, Stanford, CA, 2020).

  29. Rutqvist, J., Pan, L., Dobson, P., Zhou, Q. & Hu, M. Coupled process analysis of flexible geothermal production from a liquid-dominated system: impact on wells. In Proceedings of the World Geothermal Congress 2020+1 (Reykjavik, Iceland, 2021).

  30. Pollack, A., Horne, R. & Mukerji, T. What are the challenges in developing enhanced geothermal systems (EGS)? Observations from 64 EGS sites. In Proceedings of the World Geothermal Congress 2020+1 (Reykjavik, Iceland, 2021).

  31. Augustine, C. A methodology for calculating EGS electricity generation potential based on the Gringarten model for heat extraction from fractured rock. GRC Trans. 40, 679–687 (2016).

  32. Sepulveda, N., Jenkins, J., Edington, A., Mallapragada, D. S. & Lester, R. The design space for long-duration energy storage in decarbonized power systems. Nat. Energy 6, 506–516 (2021).

  33. Viswanathan, V. et al. 2022 Grid Energy Storage Technology Cost and Performance Assessment Technical Report No. PNNL-33283 (Pacific Northwest National Lab, 2022).

  34. Lovering, J., Swain, M., Blomqvist, L. & Hernandez, R. R. Land-use intensity of electricity production and tomorrow’s energy landscape. PLoS ONE 17, e0270155 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Haelg, L., Waelchli, M. & Schmidt, T. S. Supporting energy technology deployment while avoiding unintended technological lock-in: a policy design perspective. Environ. Res. Lett. 13, 104011 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Baillieux, P. Multidisciplinary Approach to Understand the Localization of Geothermal Anomalies in the Upper Rhine Grabel From Regional to Local Scale. PhD thesis, University of Neuchatel (2013).

  37. Huang, S. Geothermal energy in China. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2, 557–560 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Grasby, S. et al. Geothermal Energy Resource Potential of Canada (Geological Survey of Canada, 2012).

  39. Mai, T. et al. Electrification Futures Study: Scenarios of Electric Technology Adoption and Power Consumption in the United States Technical Report No. NREL/TP-6A20-71500 (National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 2018).

  40. Schivley, G. et al. PowerGenome/PowerGenome v.0.5.4 (2022); https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6092712

  41. McClure, M., Kang, C., Hewson, C. & Medam, S. ResFrac Technical Writeup (ResFrac Corporation, 2021).

  42. Norbeck, J. & Latimer, T. Commercial-scale demonstration of a first-of-a-kind enhanced geothermal system. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.31223/X52X0B (2023).

  43. Dupriest, F. & Noynaert, S. Drilling practices and workflows for geothermal operations. In SPE/IADC Drilling Conference and Exhibition https://doi.org/10.2118/208798-MS (Galveston, TX, 2022).

  44. Utah FORGE is excited to announce the successful completion of the three-stage hydraulic stimulation of its first highly deviated injection well, 16A(78)-32. Utah FORGE, US Department of Energy https://utahforge.com/2022/04/27/utah-forge-wraps-up-a-3-stage-hydraulic-stimulation-of-well-16a78-32/ (2022).

  45. Jenkins, J. D. et al. Preliminary Report: The Climate and Energy Impacts of the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (REPEAT Project, 2022).

  46. Karadas, M., Celik, H. M., Serpen, U. & Toksoy, M. Multiple regression analysis of performance parameters of a binary cycle geothermal power plant. Geothermics 54, 68–75 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Hourly/Sub-Hourly Observational Data Version 3.0.0 (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Centers for Environmental Information, 2021); Accessed February 2, 2022 at https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/maps/hourly/

  48. McLean, M. L. & Espinoza, D. N. Thermal destressing: implications for short-circuiting in enhanced geothermal systems. Renew. Energy 202, 736–755 (2023).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Ricks, W., Voller, K., Galban, G., Norbeck, J. H. & Jenkins, J. D. The role of flexible geothermal power in decarbonized electricity systems: supplementary data. Zenodo https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7023225 (2022).

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the US Department of Energy, Office of Science Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) programme under award no. DE-SC0020823 (W.R., J.D.J., J.H.N., K.V. and G.G.) and by Princeton University’s Zero-Carbon Technology Consortium, which is funded by gifts from Breakthrough Energy, ClearPath, GE and Google (W.R. and J.D.J.).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, USA

    Wilson Ricks & Jesse D. Jenkins

  2. Fervo Energy, Houston, TX, USA

    Katharine Voller, Gerame Galban & Jack H. Norbeck

Authors
  1. Wilson Ricks
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Katharine Voller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Gerame Galban
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jack H. Norbeck
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Jesse D. Jenkins
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

W.R., J.D.J. and J.H.N. conceptualized the study. W.R. and J.D.J. developed the experimental design. K.V. and G.G. designed and performed the geothermal reservoir simulations. W.R. developed the optimization model, geothermal supply curves and other input datasets. W.R. performed the formal analysis, visualization and investigation, and produced the figures. W.R. draughted, revised and finalized the manuscript. J.D.J. and J.H.N. advised on the analysis and reviewed and revised the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Wilson Ricks.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

K.V., G.G. and J.H.N. are employees of Fervo Energy, a geothermal energy development company. J.D.J. is part owner of DeSolve, LLC, which provides techno-economic analysis and decision support for clean energy technology ventures and investors. Clients within the last 12 months include Radia Inc. and Rice Acquisition Corp II (now doing business as NET Power Inc.). He serves on the advisory boards of Eavor Technologies Inc., a closed-loop geothermal technology company, and Rondo Energy, a provider of high-temperature thermal energy storage and industrial decarbonization solutions, and has an equity interest in both companies. He also provides policy advisory services to Clean Air Task Force, a non-profit environmental advocacy group, and serves as a technical advisor to MUUS Climate Partners and Energy Impact Partners, both investors in early-stage climate technology companies. W.R. has performed consulting work for Isometric, a carbon removal standard and registry.

Peer review

Peer review information

Nature Energy thanks Jonathan Ho, Dev Millstein and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Tables 1–10, Figs. 1–38 and Notes 1–7.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ricks, W., Voller, K., Galban, G. et al. The role of flexible geothermal power in decarbonized electricity systems. Nat Energy (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-023-01437-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-023-01437-y

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing