• 2 days U.S. On Track To Unseat Saudi Arabia As No.2 Oil Producer In the World
  • 3 days Senior Interior Dept. Official Says Florida Still On Trump’s Draft Drilling Plan
  • 3 days Schlumberger Optimistic In 2018 For Oilfield Services Businesses
  • 3 days Only 1/3 Of Oil Patch Jobs To Return To Canada After Downturn Ends
  • 3 days Statoil, YPF Finalize Joint Vaca Muerta Development Deal
  • 3 days TransCanada Boasts Long-Term Commitments For Keystone XL
  • 3 days Nigeria Files Suit Against JP Morgan Over Oil Field Sale
  • 3 days Chinese Oil Ships Found Violating UN Sanctions On North Korea
  • 3 days Oil Slick From Iranian Tanker Explosion Is Now The Size Of Paris
  • 4 days Nigeria Approves Petroleum Industry Bill After 17 Long Years
  • 4 days Venezuelan Output Drops To 28-Year Low In 2017
  • 4 days OPEC Revises Up Non-OPEC Production Estimates For 2018
  • 4 days Iraq Ready To Sign Deal With BP For Kirkuk Fields
  • 4 days Kinder Morgan Delays Trans Mountain Launch Again
  • 4 days Shell Inks Another Solar Deal
  • 5 days API Reports Seventh Large Crude Draw In Seven Weeks
  • 5 days Maduro’s Advisors Recommend Selling Petro At Steep 60% Discount
  • 5 days EIA: Shale Oil Output To Rise By 1.8 Million Bpd Through Q1 2019
  • 5 days IEA: Don’t Expect Much Oil From Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Before 2030
  • 5 days Minister Says Norway Must Prepare For Arctic Oil Race With Russia
  • 5 days Eight Years Late—UK Hinkley Point C To Be In Service By 2025
  • 5 days Sunk Iranian Oil Tanker Leave Behind Two Slicks
  • 5 days Saudi Arabia Shuns UBS, BofA As Aramco IPO Coordinators
  • 5 days WCS-WTI Spread Narrows As Exports-By-Rail Pick Up
  • 5 days Norway Grants Record 75 New Offshore Exploration Leases
  • 6 days China’s Growing Appetite For Renewables
  • 6 days Chevron To Resume Drilling In Kurdistan
  • 6 days India Boosts Oil, Gas Resource Estimate Ahead Of Bidding Round
  • 6 days India’s Reliance Boosts Export Refinery Capacity By 30%
  • 6 days Nigeria Among Worst Performers In Electricity Supply
  • 6 days ELN Attacks Another Colombian Pipeline As Ceasefire Ceases
  • 6 days Shell Buys 43.8% Stake In Silicon Ranch Solar
  • 7 days Saudis To Award Nuclear Power Contracts In December
  • 7 days Shell Approves Its First North Sea Oil Project In Six Years
  • 7 days China Unlikely To Maintain Record Oil Product Exports
  • 7 days Australia Solar Power Additions Hit Record In 2017
  • 7 days Morocco Prepares $4.6B Gas Project Tender
  • 7 days Iranian Oil Tanker Sinks After Second Explosion
  • 9 days Russia To Discuss Possible Exit From OPEC Deal
  • 10 days Iranian Oil Tanker Drifts Into Japanese Waters As Fires Rage On
Alexis Arthur

Alexis Arthur

Alexis Arthur is energy policy associate at the Institute of the Americas, a think tank on Western Hemisphere Affairs based in La Jolla, Calif. She…

More Info

Benefits Of Geothermal Power Outweigh The Risks

Benefits Of Geothermal Power Outweigh The Risks

The debate over geothermal energy has generally been a quiet one. With just 13 gigawatts (GW) of global installed capacity, it is considered by some to be a relatively non-controversial (or even irrelevant) energy issue. Yet a new study questioning the health risks associated with geothermal power generation could bring this neglected energy source into the spotlight.

Brushing the usual fear-mongering headlines aside, the study raises an important question – what are the risks associated with geothermal power?

The study itself is careful not to equate correlation with causation. The authors suggest that exposure to hydrogen sulfide (H2S) emanating from geothermal power plants near the Icelandic capital, Reykjavik, could have adverse effects on respiratory health. The study further proposes that elevated H2S levels could increase morbidity in people who were already ill. However, the authors conclude that the results “should be interpreted with caution.” Studies on H2S exposure in Rotorua, New Zealand, were similarly inconclusive about the impact of H2S emissions. Further study is clearly warranted.

Iceland is a very particular case. The nation is a global leader in geothermal energy, where it accounts for 66 percent of Iceland’s primary energy use. Geothermal energy is not just used for power generation but also heats 90 percent of the island’s homes. Related: Recession Risk Mounting For Canada

Still, an endless supply of renewable energy has its consequences. Icelanders are the world’s largest per capita electricity users. Industrial electricity demand – in particular from the aluminium industry – has also spiked in the last decade.

As a result, the emissions from geothermal power plants have almost tripled since 2000. The government has responded with stricter regulations designed to reduce the amount of H2S in the atmosphere. Technological innovations in H2S sequestration are already reducing emissions from geothermal power production.

In terms of geothermal energy use, no other nation comes close. Many are far more concerned with emissions from coal-fired plants and other fossil fuels. Still, geothermal power is being increasingly pushed alongside wind and solar as an essential element in any decarbonization strategy.

Geothermal energy is not only the cheapest form of renewable power but also the most reliable. It is the only renewable energy source that can provide baseload power to the grid, complementing the intermittency of solar and wind. Related: A Reality Check For U.S. Natural Gas Ambitions

The greenhouse gas emissions from geothermal are essentially negligible. A U.S. Department of Energy study estimated that the lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions from geothermal power plants were four times less than solar PV and six to 20 times less than natural gas.

Geothermal power plants are also more efficient in terms of land and water use. A geothermal plant requires an estimated 404 mi2 per GWh. This is compared to 3642 mi2 for coal, 1335 mi2 for wind and 3237 mi2 for solar PV.

As other Oilprice commentators have noted, however, a combination of policy, financing, and resource availability are likely to keep geothermal power on global energy sidelines in the coming decades.

However, a pessimistic global outlook should not stop nations with geothermal reserves from exploiting their potential. Mexico is one case bucking the trend.

Mexico’s energy reforms, passed in 2014, included new legislation designed to spark geothermal exploration and production. The Federal Electricity Commission (CFE) has just been awarded 13 areas across five states for geothermal exploration. The first private bid round for geothermal is expected to open in August. Related: Buffet’s Solar “Insurance” Coup In Nevada

Mexico’s Energy Ministry (SENER) is banking on the country’s geothermal resource abundance to lower energy costs. SENER estimates that geothermal energy could cost between $55 – 75 per MW, making it the second cheapest renewable energy source and 20 percent cheaper than burning diesel or fuel oil. Mexico estimates its geothermal potential at over 13 GW, or the fourth largest in the world.

The initial results of this strategy will be evident during the first private auction.

Mexico is not the only country in the region hoping for a geothermal power surge.

Nicaragua is promoting geothermal energy as part of a much larger renewable push. Geothermal power now comprises 14 percent of the nation's electricity generation. At an estimated cost of $74 - 92 per MWh (the second cheapest source of renewable energy after wind), geothermal's contribution will continue to rise.

For nations in Central America, in particular, geothermal energy is attractive given the lack of indigenous fossil fuels. The region’s power mix has historically depended on hydropower as well as fuel oil and diesel. Climate change is making hydropower a less reliable resource, while the deleterious effects (and high expense) of burning petroleum are well known.

From El Salvador to Chile to Colombia, Latin American countries are exploring their geothermal options as part of a sustained initiative to diversify their energy matrices. The environmental risks and social backlash against large-scale hydropower further support geothermal’s case.

Overall, the benefits of geothermal power are clear. That said, the lack of controversy surrounding geothermal generation should not be a reason to exempt it from scrutiny regarding its impact on health and safety. As further analysis comes to light, technology and regulatory policy must come together to raise the standard of geothermal power generation. A better understanding of the long-term effects could very well cement the resource’s role in a low carbon energy future.

By Alexis Arthur for Oilprice.com

More Top Reads From Oilprice.com:




Back to homepage


Leave a comment
  • rob on August 05 2015 said:
    I don't look at their total capacity as a metric I look at their year over year growth. Since 2010, when everyone in energy was scrambling, Geothermal has consistently put up 10% and up higher growth. while the actual dollar amount isn't really anything to get excited about it's a stable dollar amount. The contracts that geothermal companies set up to sell their power are out 25 and 30 years. There is no decline curve since its the earth's heat....stable and consistent. For an investment it has everything i'm interested in. Stability and growth with potential for a huge expansion over time as technology improves and cost efficiencies go up and exploration costs diminish in the same way the Shale revolution happened.
  • Rob B on August 05 2015 said:
    as far as Hydrogen Sulfide in steam that seems like a severe issue that no one would want...It was delt with in Oil and gas it shouldn't be a problem with geothermal.... especially since geothermal industry can piggyback off any of the technologies of the Shale Revolution. "This paper documents impacts on human health caused by exposure to hydrogen sulfide (H2S) associated with oil and natural gas development."
    http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.368.3550&rep=rep1&type=pdf
  • Jonathan Hernandez on August 26 2015 said:
    H2S, is a problem but as the last two gentlemen have pointed out, there are abatement solutions that solve it, as well as H2S monitors both on the crew and the mud system. The jump from O&G tech to Geothermal is pretty big, mostly because of the upfront cost and the long term ROI (Return on Investment) that geothermal presents when compared to O&G--basically by the time the plant is up and producing, and the haggling for the PPA (power purchase agreement) investors are already expecting a huge return, as opposed to a trickle over 30 years. Hopefully it plays out in geothermal's favor, and this health study is a nice stepping stone to build some positive public perception.

Leave a comment




Oilprice - The No. 1 Source for Oil & Energy News