News

Should we sell geothermal more regionally and focus on feasible opportunities?

Should we sell geothermal more regionally and focus on feasible opportunities? Best places for various renewables in the U.S. (source: NREL)
Alexander Richter 12 Sep 2012

Maps showing the best places of development for various renewables by NREL in the U.S., show a stunning picture on how different renewables could complement each other in a balanced regional energy strategy.

The potential of geothermal energy is tremendous, it could provide essentially if not all but a large part of the energy needed today. … at least this is what we as an industry always promote.

The question isn’t if this is true, it is, but how realistic we can sell this in today’s business environment but also in the light of competition from other energy sources. Today the main activities in geothermal development can be found in regions where there is 1. a growing demand for energy, 2. there is some awareness of the need for environmentally friendly energy, and 3. geothermal is competitive with other types of energy (renewable or not).

So growth in geothermal energy power generation capacity is expected in growing economies with an increasing energy demand, e.g. in Indonesia, the Philippines, Kenya and South America. In markets like North America or Europe the situation is a bit more complicated. Here demand is driven by political will and support, e.g. through feed-in-tariff incentivized investor interest, or renewable energy quotas for utilities (like in the U.S.).

At the same time in the developed world, geothermal competes with other renewable energy technologies, that in most cases have a stronger lobby, receive more government support and generally are more present in the public perception through stronger marketing etc. While this presents only one part of the problems for geothermal development and support thereof, e.g. in the U.S. it is an are of concern. What can we do to change this and to help developers and development in the U.S. and elsewhere.

? Can we continue to promise the world the all-inclusive form of energy, or should we focus on the regions where geothermal development is competitive today and could make a real impact in cutting back on greenhouse gases emitting power generation? There probably is not a clear cut answer.

From the perspective of development cost, geothermal energy projects are more economic in certain regions today. This is based on availability and cost of technology, high temperature resources, and power price. So while development e.g. in Germany is really expensive, feed-in-tariffs make it more attractive.

So one cannot focus on high temperature (at economically reachable depth levels) regions solely, one would likely look at several other elements to look at currently more favourable regions for investment and development.  So while geothermal power generation in e.g. California makes sense both economically and environmentally, it might not make sense in e.g. New York State. Therefore I believe one has to focus marketing and promotion efforts for public support of geothermal to regions with potential. The same applies to political support. If we look at the United States only, energy policy should be focused on regional potential and diversified based on what type of energy is more favourable and more economic for the different regions of the country. A good way to look at  this are maps that show the best places for development of the different renewable energy technologies.

The National Renewable Energy Laboratory has provided several maps for the different renewable energy technologies that show the best places for development. They actually show – at least this is what I read out of them – the great diversity of energy sources and the potential of how these technologies could be complimentary to each other. So while the central part of the U.S. is perfect for wind development, biomass for the Eastern U.S., solar for the Southwest, geothermal is great for the West/ Northwest of the U.S. (Great overview on different renewables and the best locations for development in the form of maps via Grist.org/ NREL)

Therefore I guess one can make the argument that we should focus on promoting it in regions where there is a real potential, where people have a sense of what it means and can offer, as well as highlight the fact that it complements other forms of energy. To do this setting realistic and economically feasible targets should also be an area of focus.

There have been several rankings for attractiveness for renewable energy development, and maybe one has to create a similar ranking for geothermal development. While not having been able to work on this yet, it is something I have been looking at for quite some time. This could be done for regions, e.g. in the U.S., or even by country. This could help draw a better picture of what makes regions interesting for investment and development and what doesn’t in other regions. For governments the various rankings of Investment Attractiveness, Business Climate etc seem to make sense, so a geothermal ranking might make sense.