U.S. geothermal could supply 7 million people

If current projects under development are completed, the U.S. could have as much as 10 gigawatts of geothermal power at its disposal, according to a new report from the Geothermal Energy Association.

Through several extraction methods, geothermal energy harnesses heat from the Earth for the purpose of heating and cooling buildings or for power generation. Many have argued for years that geothermal is an underestimated resource for clean electricity.

There are currently 144 new geothermal projects under development in 14 states. If successful, those projects could add up to 7,100 megawatts (7 gigawatts) of power to the existing 3,100 megawatts of U.S. geothermal energy output. That would give the U.S. a total of roughly 10 gigawatts of power capacity from geothermal energy, according to data from the GEA's report (PDF) released Wednesday.

"At the high end, that would be enough baseload power to supply about 20 percent of California's total electric power in 2008--or enough generating capacity to supply the power needs of about 7.2 million people," the GEA said.

The GEA gives a state-by-state breakdown, listing how many new geothermal projects are under way and the potential amount of energy they could collectively generate. Nevada leads with 64 new projects that could add a geothermal capacity of up to 3,473 megawatts. California, Oregon, Utah, and Idaho follow respectively, with capacities ranging from 238 MW to 2,436 MW. Here's the breakdown:

1. Nevada, 64 projects, potential 1,876-3,473 MW
2. California, 37 projects, potential 1,842-2,436 MW
3. Oregon, 13 projects, potential 317-368 MW

4. Utah, 10 projects, potential 272-332 MW
5. Idaho, 5 projects, potential 238-326 MW
6. Alaska, 6 projects, potential 70 to 115 MW
7. New Mexico, 1 project, potential 20 MW
8. Arizona, 1 project, potential 2-20 MW
9. Colorado, 1 project, potential 10 MW
10. Hawaii, 2 projects, potential 8 MW
11. Florida, 1 project, potential 0.2-1 MW
12. Louisiana, 1 project, potential .05 MW
13. Mississippi, 1 project, potential .05 MW
14. Washington, 1 project, MW potential "unspecified"

The Geothermal Energy Association is a trade association with an office in Washington, D.C., that promotes public policy to advance geothermal energy projects. The GEA member list reads like a who's who list of major energy and technology companies, some of which are directly invested in geothermal projects.

But it's not just the GEA touting the praises of geothermal as a viable renewable energy source.

In May, President Obama announced that $350 million of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funding would be used by the Department of Energy to accelerate the development and deployment of geothermal projects. It's an unprecedented amount of government backing for geothermal, according to both the DOE and the GEA.

That same month, Dan Reicher, director of climate and energy initiatives at Google.org, said at an Massachusetts Institute of Technology event on clean energy that his organization sees geothermal as a great untapped resource.

[Bob_299]

What about the geothermal projects that have been canceled after being associated with earthquakes? If one of these can disrupt the geology of Switzerland, what will it do to the San Andreas fault?

[texaslabrat]

Yeah exactly. I'm all for researching new energy sources...and I'm probably one of the biggest proponents of the renewable energy bandwagon you'll find...but a lot of these geothermal projects make me a little nervous given their history with triggering earthquakes. We need to tread very carefully with this stuff. Where it makes sense and is safe...I say party on...but we have to be prepared to walk away from developing projects if there's even a hint of a chance of causing destructive tremors down the road. That's an expensive gamble, and one for which I think the economics of geothermal just won't end up being favorable for the majority of the proposed sites. I would love to be proven wrong though ;)

[nicmart]

This is puny, and probably incredibly inefficient. How much are the taxpayers on the hook for this energy hobby?

[mike_ekim]

How much are we on the hook after buying big screen TVs and computers made in China? God firbid we spend a dollar on something built in america that will make electricity in America.

Should we throw $1 billion away on foreign toys that we'll throw away in 5 years, or spend that $1 billion on something that will drop energy prices by 1/2 a penny per kW-h and last (with repairs) longer than us?

[SteveChicago]

This makes the most sense for places like Hawaii which are geothermally active at the surface, similar to what Iceland is doing.

If I was California I would not be drilling holes down deep and pumping water into them. But I am sure that people in Oakland will be happy when the east shore of the bay becomes ocean front.

[Eddie-c]

It's amusing to look at silicon valley and see how much will liquify when the big one hits. Kiss goodbye to a lot of places and buildings.

[jokayhn]

Every little bit matters whether its solar, wave, wind, RF, geothermal, and of course increasing efficiency and reducing waste. Eventually fossil fuels will run out or be too expensive financially or politically to extract. The last drop of oil on this earth will never be drawn out because we won't need it. Better we move now to any and all resources available. Some may be more expensive than fossil fuel today, but in the long run going ahead and switching over now will save us in many ways, not just financial. You cant weigh the earth or our security against a pot of gold. We'll have solar panels and wind even in places where it might not make financial sense in the short run but its one small part of how we as a society break free of those things that are destroying our environment. Sometimes the money we spend on things comes back to us in ways we don't fully account for, one of those is not having to make war around the world (or care about wars elsewhere) and thus save on that expense. Not to mention having air to breath, oceans that fish can live in, predictable weather patterns.

[j-p-brown]

@jakayhn
Cool!! So if we spend massive amounts of money today on deploying early stage technology or better yet, just ban the use of existing proven technology, then we will get "predictable weather patterns"! Maybe the Chinese really are on to something with their attempts to control the weather.

[bitofbetterbutter]

When I consider the unintended effects of other energy initiatives, I start to believe that there is no "perfect" answer. I'm just a casual observer here and most of what I purport to know on the subject has arrived in my consciousness with little effort on my part, so please feel free to "educate" me:

1. Isn't there evidence that hydrogen power merely offsets the 0 emissions by generating it all at production?

2. Didn't ethanol production destabilize the marketplace by effectively creating a cash crop out of thin air? I think we ended up with higher produce costs, created a food supply shortage, did nothing to reduce our dependency on oil, and still ended up with a larger carbon footprint, whatever the heck that is.

[William Crow]

Personal conservation is the key.

[AlexisMadrigal]

A key bit of context on the "geothermal causes earthquakes" meme. The vast majority of manmade earthquakes are caused by damming rivers, mining coal, and extracting oil. Period. How often do you hear that? We have to look at the risks of quakes from geothermal within that framework ? examining that problem like it's some supervillainous and unknown phenomenon just isn't fair.

[USDecliningDollar]

Yikes - Drilling and pumping in water - sounds like a really bad idea. The army or contractor did this near Denver at the Rocky Mountain Arsenal, which stored chemical weapons. In an effort to dispose of these weapons, someone had the idea to drill really deep, then inject a water/chemical weapons mix. Long story short - Denver began having an unusual number of earthquakes. Later someon correlated the data and dates to discover an incriminating link between the earthquakes and the deep chemical injections. To add weight to this theory, the program was suspended for a period and there was a return to average seismic activity, when it resumed - the earthquakes began again. Ultimately, the drilling and injection project was cancelled.

[jessegra]

Ok, so the multi billion dollar of spending on the idea of carbon sequestration is somehow ok compared to this? What about digging @ to bury the nuclear waste at Yuka, lest talk about that bill. Don't (we) already create calculate seismic events when water is pumped into old oil fields to squeeze out the precious last drops? It seems that using geothermal in the middle of plates that are not active would be pretty safe in the long run. Im no geologist though, but none of the naysayer here seem to be either. The face is we are talking about a only taking about the capacity of the project on the books. If this research is transferable, this money is even better spent. The potential for this source is huge and should be tapped! Unless you have a better idea?

[MattC70]

Wow! So much negativity. I'm no greenie weenie but I know a good thing when I see it. Nevada Geothermal (just one example) just went online and will be producing much more electricity than they had even expected. The stock has done very well over the last few months and consolidation in the industry is happening (a good thing).

This isn't something airy fairy or coming down the road, electricity is being produced now and being sold now. Not only that but once operational, the plants can run for eons.

[andrewmongar]

There are currently a number of successful geothermal power generating projects that pose no threats of earthquakes. However, soon all the high temperature sources will have been used up and no existing power plant can run on lower temperatures. Some have already failed because they had water that was not hot enough.
We have just invented and patented a method that uses lower temperature water that is very widely available through most South Western states. This technology poses absolutely no environmental threat. It could be up and running in three years with the right sponsor. I can be contacted with my user name at yahoo. andrewmongar