Study assesses EGS risk-cost balance in Switzerland, Utah
The drilling site at the Haute-Sorne geothermal project, Switzerland (source: Video screenshot, RED Drilling & Services)
Alexander Richter
13 Nov 2025
A new study evaluates EGS development in Switzerland and Utah using a combined risk–cost–benefit method, offering insights for regions assessing next-generation geothermal.
A scientific study published in December 2025 (retrieved Nov. 13, 2025), presents an integrated risk–cost–benefit analysis (RCBA) for enhanced geothermal systems (EGS), comparing project options in Switzerland and Utah. The research combines techno-economic modelling with public-survey data to assess how plant size, location, risks, and benefits influence the viability and acceptance of EGS developments.
ThinkGeoEnergy is reporting on this study as global interest in EGS continues to grow, and the findings offer valuable insight for other regions assessing next-generation geothermal technologies.
How the study was conducted
The RCBA framework integrates three elements: a techno-economic–environmental model, a structured assessment of risks (such as induced seismicity), and public value-based judgments captured through representative surveys in both regions. The model evaluates the performance of 42 different EGS combinations across plant sizes (25-150 litres per second) and population densities around the site (0-400,000 residents within a 5 km radius).
The authors combine cost projections, resource consumption, expected energy revenues, emissions reductions, and seismic-risk modelling with survey-based weights that represent how the public values each criterion. The study then compares these RCBA results with participants’ “holistic judgments,” in which respondents directly selected their preferred plant sizes and locations without the full modelling context.
Key findings
The study shows that in both Switzerland and Utah, smaller or medium-sized EGS facilities located in rural areas tend to provide the most favourable balance of risks, costs and benefits. In Switzerland, the analysis identifies small plants (25-50 l/s) in sparsely populated areas as the most favourable options because these locations reduce investment costs, resource use, and potential impacts from induced seismicity. Larger plants in urban areas consistently score lower due to higher costs and a greater seismic-risk exposure.
In Utah, medium-sized facilities (50-75 l/s) in areas with approximately 5,000-10,000 inhabitants achieve the best balance between technical performance and societal preferences. The region’s geological conditions, including a steeper geothermal gradient, contribute to lower drilling costs and higher emissions-reduction benefits compared with Switzerland. However, the study notes that the absence of district-heating networks in Utah limits potential heat-sales revenue.
The surveys also highlight that public acceptance of EGS is strongly shaped by perceived seismic risk. Respondents in both regions gave significant weight to the risk of damaging nearby buildings, often rating this criterion as highly as the importance of emissions reductions or economic benefits. As a result, public preferences tend to favour rural areas for siting even larger EGS plants, indicating reluctance toward siting projects in densely populated zones.
Public attitudes and acceptance
The study finds that while general attitudes toward renewable energy remain positive, familiarity with EGS is low. Survey participants became more positive toward EGS after receiving balanced explanatory information, yet the authors caution that real-world attitudes may shift differently over time.
Respondents showed a higher willingness to support EGS development at national level than in their own local area. The study suggests that communication strategies must acknowledge seismic-risk concerns, as emphasising environmental benefits alone is unlikely to significantly shift acceptance.
Implications for EGS development
The findings suggest that regions evaluating EGS should consider not only technical feasibility and cost but also public preferences linked to risk, location and perceived fairness. For Switzerland, the emphasis on small rural systems raises questions about economic viability, since smaller projects may struggle to be profitable without supportive policy frameworks or carbon-pricing mechanisms.
In Utah, the study indicates that geological and economic conditions may favour somewhat larger systems, though the lack of district heating infrastructure remains a limitation. In both regions, the authors conclude that achieving successful EGS deployment requires integrating technical performance with transparent engagement on seismic-risk management.
For a full analysis see link to the paper below.
Source: “Preferably safe and small: Findings from a risk-cost-benefit analysis on enhanced geothermal systems in Switzerland and Utah“, Kunnas, S., Wallinger, S., Arnold, Th., Trutvnevyte, E. (December 2025) ScienceDirect/ Elsevier
