Geothermal Power Could Produce Abundant Clean Energy, If We Let It
Geothermal projects promise nearly limitless energy, but they are being stymied by environmental policies.

Two to three miles below our feet lies a nearly inexhaustible source of energy, and a number of startups are working to harness it to provide carbon-free electricity. Unlike solar and wind generation, which depend upon a shining sun or a stiff breeze, geothermal power could offer consistent 24/7 energy derived from heat that increases the deeper into the earth's crust we go.
"Recovery of just 1–2% of the thermal energy stored in hot rock at 3 to 10 km depths would be sufficient to meet world energy consumption for many centuries," noted a report at the World Geothermal Congress in 2021. The geothermal gradient averages 25–30 degrees Celsius per kilometer, originating from the decay of radioactive elements and residual heat from the earth's formation.
The most easily accessible geothermal resources in the U.S. are located on federal lands in the western states. But proposed geothermal projects have been stymied for years by having to undergo as many as six environmental reviews under the National Environmental Policy Act before proceeding.
In contrast, oil and gas projects have been granted categorical exclusions, which exempt them from detailed environmental reviews due to their minimal impact. In April the Bureau of Land Management, which administers 245 million acres of federal land, finally adopted categorical exclusions for geothermal energy exploration.
As of 2023, traditional geothermal power generated only about 0.4 percent of the total electricity in the U.S., mainly because it's currently limited to areas where steam is produced by water heated in naturally occurring fissures within near-surface hot rocks. A National Renewable Energy Laboratory report estimates that tapping heat at depths between three and seven kilometers (two to four miles) could generate over 4,200 gigawatts in the United States. That's more than three times our current generation capacity of about 1,200 gigawatts.
Several startups are tackling the considerable technical hurdles for accessing heat at these depths. Using drilling and fracking techniques developed by the oil and gas industry, Fervo Energy is now constructing a 400-megawatt enhanced geothermal power plant at Cape Station in Utah. The company has contracts to supply 320 megawatts to Southern California Edison—enough to power 350,000 homes.
The Canadian company Eavor uses complex drilling to connect two vertical wells with many horizontal multilateral wellbores to create a giant underground closed-loop system. This Eavor-Loop system circulates a proprietary fluid to harvest heat and generate electricity. Eavor is currently drilling wells in Germany 15,000 feet underground where its loop system will extend about 200 miles. The loop will circulate hot water to heat homes and businesses and generate 8.2 megawatts of electricity.
Other companies are pursuing even more ambitious and technically challenging efforts to draw heat from superhot rocks even deeper down where the temperature exceeds 400 degrees Celsius. Accessing such temperatures could deliver up to 10 times more energy than conventional geothermal wells. An environmental think tank, the Clean Air Task Force, estimates we could generate 4,300 gigawatts by developing just 1 percent of superhot rock energy in the United States. Depending upon location, this could involve drilling wells six to nine miles deep. The deepest well ever drilled was the Kola Superdeep Borehole in the Soviet Union, at 7.6 miles.
Several U.S. companies are developing and testing drilling techniques that can withstand high underground temperatures by initially drilling into superhot rocks in volcanic zones closer to the surface. Hephae Energy Technology has recently announced its Pandora210 directional drilling tool, which can work at up to 210 degrees Celsius. The company has signed an agreement to deploy its drilling technology in collaboration with the Turkish geothermal company GMK Enerji. The startup boldly claims its technology will enable the drilling of 1 million geothermal wells into superhot rocks globally by 2050.
AltaRock Energy has teamed up with Quaise Energy to deploy Quaise's novel millimeter wave drilling technology to reach superhot rocks. Instead of mechanical drilling, Quaise's directed energy technology increases drilling speeds by 10 times through melting and vaporizing rock for removal. AltaRock has begun a demonstration project drilling into superhot rocks at the relatively shallow depth of 10,000 feet near the Newberry Crater in Oregon. The initial project aims to develop 35 megawatts of generation capacity with the potential to grow to 2,500 megawatts, enough to power 2.5 million homes. (For reference, the capacity of the two North Anna nuclear power plants in Virginia is 1,800 megawatts.)
Estimates suggest that superhot rock geothermal could supply electricity at costs between $20 and $46 per megawatt-hour, comparing favorably with natural gas, wind, and solar power, currently at $37, $38, and $36 per megawatt-hour, respectively.
With some federal regulatory barriers finally being eased, geothermal power could become a significant source of steady, carbon-free renewable electricity for Americans.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
I've been saying this for years, and getting laughed at for it. We live on a ball of molten rock. There's an unlimited source of heat right under us. Tap into it and energy scarcity is over.
One cool thing about geothermal power is that the colder it gets outside, the more power you can make. There are engines that can operate on a delta-T of only 40C, and there are already a lot of depleted oil and gas wells around the USA that are deep enough.
-jcr
On a related note, there's a startup called "Hyper Sciences" developing a drilling technology that involves firing concrete slugs into rock at mach 5, propelled by a natural gas cannon. By their numbers, it should be possible to drop the cost of hard-rock drilling by 90% over conventional drills.
-jcr
With this one new trick, you can power your car with just a few ounces of water per day. The auto industry bought the patent to hide it from you.
Damn that Henry Ford!
Drill 2 miles into the earth
Yup you can do it
Or build a wind turbine
Which will make money first?
Considering a wind turbine takes 30-years just to pay for itself I'd go with the first.
geothermal payoff: never.
Have any wind turbines made money without government subsidy?
It is cheaper to build and run a wind turbine than run an existing coal plant. Wind turbines don't actually take 30 years to pay back, more like 6. Some areas it is months.
great, what do you do when the wind doesn’t blow, turn the AC off?
The geothermal, no question.
I know what you are all thinking. How will this affect the whales?
Make them more tender and delicious?
What would Greta do?
Yell at people and support genociding the Jews?
How dare you?
Until she goes to Gaza and lectures Hamas about their eco-footprint, I will dare.
Emissions from rockets launched into Israel do not affect climate. It's like how BLM riots couldn't spread Covid.
Follow "The Science."
“…originating from the decay of radioactive elements…”
Well, that’ll finish it.
I installed a heat pump (Air to air) in my mansion. It dropped heating and cooling cost by 30% ($50/month). An underground loop transferring heat into the ground in summer and extracting in the winter would help. It would seem that a big loop for the neighborhood would be really practical. It was too much expense for me though. And payback at current prices is also not good.
This Old House had a feature on making home geothermal cheaper.
https://www.thisoldhouse.com/21097209/future-house-affordable-geothermal
I also have an air-to-air heat pump and really like it. In Wisconsin I have to have a dual fuel system and do need a gas furnace but now use that furnace for far fewer days.
In Iowa. Furnace ran 2 weeks last year.
I was going to install a ground water heat pump in my house in Michigan, but I turned out to be in one of the two counties in the state that had outlawed them. Supposedly out of concern about exhausting aquifers.
It would seem that a big loop for the neighborhood would be really practical.
I don't think you know what the word 'practical' means.
The company has contracts to supply 320 megawatts to Southern California Edison
Fuck that. Don't ship electricity to CA! Make them generate their own, or starve to death if they refuse to do so.
Indeed. +100000000
Whatever electricity Commie-CA buys is just an addition to everyone's tax bill anyways by their Green-Commie lobbying in D.C.
I’ll notify Enron.
Boring!
We certainly need to explore all options, and I hope geothermal get the attention and support it needs. I think we are brink of a new future in energy production that relies on broader sources of energy. That why I support Harris ideas instead of Trumps let's just go back the old fuels when I was a kid.
I feel certain that Kamala’s low wattage IQ will solve our energy problems as effectively as SleepyJoe did.
Yet all the left and Harris ideas are about pinching “sources of energy” (killing pipelines, gas, fossil fuels) instead of making them ?broader?….
It floors me just how F’En stupid you leftards are.
You literally live in a flipped-reason world where UP is DOWN.
Nuclear seems like a lot less hassle honestly, and it's already proven to work.
Geothermal would almost certainly be way cheaper, and produces essentially no waste, but really it should be a deregulated market making the decisions.
Oh, I agree. Let the market figure it out. I'm just skeptical that if it's supposedly so great, why does it only make financial sense on federal lands? Shouldn't people be digging these projects anywhere? Doubly so because digging on federal lands means that the government doles out the contracts and who knows what kind of underhanded games get played then. Something just doesn't smell right to me.
Of course, people should be free to invest their money as they see fit. I just wouldn't put any of mine on this.
> why does it only make financial sense on federal lands?
The west happens to be the part of the Lower 48 with the highest geothermal potential, and the west happens to be the part of the Lower 48 that the Feds kept title to.
The map of US geothermal resources:
https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/geothermal/images/geothermal-map-large.png
The map of Federally-owned lands:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1f/Map_of_all_U.S._Federal_Land.jpg
Lot of overlap between the red on the first map and the red on the second. Assuming the economically-best sites for geothermal power are in the area of highest geothermal potential on the first map, they're quite likely going to be on land the Feds own.
But I don't think we can expect the feds to issue very many permits for powerplants in Yellowstone.
Some of the proposals in that article involve drilling deeper than any government-supported science/prestige projects have. That's NOT going to be cheap - and even the much less ambitious projects that limit themselves to a few hundred feet deep will not be cheap.
Then it proposed drilling by heating the rock until it vaporizes. I wonder how many years it will take for the energy collected to equal the energy used for drilling - and if breakeven will be before the pipes corrode away or are broken by shifts in the earth.
Don't tell the Greenies, but hydrothermal requires fracking. Lots and lots of fracking. It also has to deal with the same nasty subsurface fluids.
And while the energy down there is "free", producing it is not. Some people might consider the economics along with the technical excitement.
It doesn't need to be "free"; just competitive with non-renewables.
The Earth has enough energy to last us forever. What it lacks is energy that is as cheap to produce as fossil fuels are.
For now.
"could generate over 4,200 gigawatts in the United States"
4200 divided by 1.21 = a whole lot of bolts of lightning
Sorry but geothermal is not "nearly limitless" - at least not at any practical level.
Geothermal energy extraction works by the exploiting the temperature difference between underground and above ground. While in theory that's a lot of energy, in practice it diminishes quickly. The problem is the heat conductivity of the underground environment. As you tap the geothermal energy, you inherently cool the surrounding soil and rock. You deplete the temperature differential to make the geothermal engine work.
That thermal energy will eventually replenish itself via conduction from deeper sources but that process takes millennia. Depletion, however, only takes a few decades. Then you have to find a new location to dig a new geothermal well and build new infrastructure. We are already seeing this with some of the earliest geothermal installations. They are shutting down or redigging to find a new temperature differential to replace the one they've locally depleted.
So yeah, if your time horizon is only a decade, geothermal looks great. If you're looking for the long term, geothermal is a lot more limited than this industry advocacy group tries to imply.
Yeah, that's what people mostly don't understand about it; Rock is a lousy conductor of heat, which means that you can only sustain a very low rate of heat extraction, outside of some very geologically active areas. And you generally have to go quite deep to get temperatures high enough for high efficiency generation of electricity.
I think it's actually got some potential for things like home heating, where the necessary heat flux is fairly low, and you don't need really high temperatures. But it's not really all that great for power production, most places.
But it’s not really all that great for power production, most places.
Yeah - I was wondering about this. I've heard that it's viable in the SF Bay Area for exactly the reason you say, i.e. very geologically active area, but I've been curious whether this is really viable in, say, Kansas. Sounds like maybe not.
Who cares about Kansas?
The deep rock under Kansas is just as hot as anywhere else. We live on a ball of molten rock and metal.
Sure, the very deep rock. Like, REALLY deep. You drill a kilometer deep in Kansas, and how hot does it get? Maybe 50 C, not even hot enough to cook an egg. You'd be many miles down before it got hot enough for power production.
The problem is, even if you drill down to hot enough rock, pumping water through pipes embedded in it *cools* it. And rock doesn't conduct heat very well.
So the mass of rock around your pipe gradually cools down as you run your plant, and the power output gradually drops off. Then you have to drill new holes.
Sure, it's renewable, which is to say, EVENTUALLY that rock will heat up again if you stop pumping water. So, with enough wells, you can just keep switching between them every few years. But at that point you're having to drill so many holes it's not cost effective anymore!
It's different in places where the magma is close to the surface, so your frequently drilled holes don't need to be very deep. The repeated drilling is more affordable.
Note, I'm assuming that you're pumping water through a pipe. If you frack, and pump water through cracks in rock, it seems more affordable... If you ignore that the water comes up saturated with minerals, that end up coming out of solution in your heat exchanger, filling it with rock.
Dissolved minerals have been the bane of geothermal energy from the very beginning.
" But at that point you’re having to drill so many holes it’s not cost effective anymore!"
You're making a good point, but assuming that our hole drilling technology will remain stagnant and not improve over time. With research and ingenuity, hole drilling may improve and become cheaper. Such things have happened before in the energy business. Wasn't diagonal drilling for oil an impossibility not long ago?
In any case, it seems logical that geothermal will get off the ground in places like Iceland where there is lots of activity close to the surface, and places like Kansas will import their electricity over power lines.
Like I said, you can imagine applications for geothermal even in Kansas, but they wouldn't be for power generation.
You don't need to drill very deep at all to use the ground as a uniform temperature source/sink for heat pumps for home heating. It's not as exciting as power generation, but it's a lot more economically sensible. Go a little bit deeper, 500m or so, and you don't even need the heat pump, a simple heat pipe will passively heat your house in winter.
" but I’ve been curious whether this is really viable in, say, Kansas. Sounds like maybe not."
It's a problem of distribution. The lack of oil in Kansas hasn't stopped it from relying on oil, for heating, transport, agriculture etc. Perversely, countries blessed with abundant reserves of fossil fuels seem cursed with corruption, maldevelopment and international manipulation and conflict.
What lack of oil in Kansas? Kansas is an oil producing state.
ALL places have very hot, even molten, rock beneath them, if you go deep enough. That's what the article is about, not today's conventional geothermal.
"But it’s not really all that great for power production, most places."
Some places it's great. I'm thinking of Iceland which is now one of the world's biggest aluminum producers. In a few decades aluminum rose from nothing to Iceland's third largest industry behind tourism and fishing.
It's already great in Iceland. If I remember correctly, it's over 70% of their total energy production. Iceland is a very special case.
It's people using the resources at hand. I'm wondering if there are places similar to Iceland but have remained relatively uninhabited because of the geological activity. Iceland may provide a reason why such places are crying out for similar development.
You're conflating conventional geothermal with the "geothermal 2.0" being shared in the article, which would tap into deeper and much hotter strata.
No, I'm not. The same problem applies. Going to a deeper, hotter layer just means it will take longer to deplete the temperature differential - at the same usage rate. But since the whole point of going deeper is to extract more energy, you will also accelerate the rate of depletion.
It's inherent to the system. It works by temperature differential. As you extract energy, you deplete the differential. And again, the thermal conductivity of rock low so it will take a LONG time for the cooled-off volume to reheat from the surrounding sources.
By the way, the relevance of geological activity (or the lack of it in Kansas) has to do with convection supplementing conductance in the replenishment of the depleted temperature differential. In the SF area, we expect that differential to recover faster (though still slowly) than it would be in Kansas.
The other way to think about it is that for the same underground infrastructure, the SF plant will be able to tap a much larger energy sink than the Kansas plant.
The "cooled-off volume" will be a tiny pinprick in the mass of the molten Earth. I'm not buying that re-heating would take a long time. If any.
The "cooled-off volume" will be limited to the rock that is in direct contact with the system but, that is enough to make the system too inefficient to work as a viable source of energy. Rock conducts heat poorly (thankfully, otherwise the surface of the Earth would be molten) so, once the thermal gradient is degraded, it takes a long time to replenish it.
Maybe you should do an experiment to prove this fact. Get a fist-sized rock and put a live soldering iron in contact with one side of it. Then periodically feel the other side of the rock and see how long it takes for that side to get warm. This is the process in reverse but, it will demonstrate why geothermal belongs in the same category as hydro: it only works in a very limited number of locations. It works in places where magma is very close to the surface, equating to having your rock sitting on top of a gas range or a bed of burning coals. I wouldn't advise touching the rock to test how hot it is in this case, just drip some water on it and watch it instantly turn to steam.
You missed the point of the article. They're talking about a new type of geothermal that would reach down to the very hot rock that is now available only where magma is very close to the surface.
They're talking about digging down 10km or so. Outside of geologically active areas, molten rock is closer to 200-250km below the surface.
Am I the only one here who can read?
Your problem is that we can reason, and some of us are actually familiar with geothermal energy, and its problems.
But you seem oblivious to the fact that the article is not about current geothermal technology.
Here is some free science for those who don't understand science.
https://youtu.be/rqkJiMDAIpA?si=z3G6U6ov6lcdGNlz
You can't arbitrarily drill into geothermal features. Yes, you will fuck them up irreparably. Humans have been fucking up geothermal features for generations.
Like most people who misread this issue, Bailey blithely talks about the trees while not grasping that there's a forest.
We have no 'energy creation' problem.
Energy is everywhere.
What we have is an energy storage problem.
And all the geothermal energy in the world can't fix that.
"What we have is an energy storage problem."
It's also a problem of energy distribution. The author skips over this when he writes about wind and solar: 'which depend upon a shining sun or a stiff breeze, He implies that the sun stops shining for 12 hours a day, when in reality it continues to shine, dependably, even when it's dark in our neck of the woods. I'd like to see a global network of high voltage direct current power lines linking the darker, energy starved regions to where the sun is presently shining. Such a plan would require unprecedented international cooperation, but it would be an improvement over a system of reliance on fossil fuels and the endless conflict and dependency it engenders. See the Middle East and Russia for current examples.
Long distance power transmission, in order to substitute for storage, would require a global scale network. Even from the East coast to the West coast you only gain 4 hour of sun, after all.
So, even assuming you build a power grid across the deep ocean, how are you going to like it when a terrorist can turn the lights out across the US by attacking anywhere across thousands of miles of powerline located outside the US?
Gas pipelines can also be targeted by terrorists. Or governments. There was the attack on the Nordstream a while back. I generally oppose attacks on energy distribution infrastructure, by anyone. However, if the network is robust enough, it should be OK. The internet was designed to withstand not only terrorist attacks, but nuclear attacks from the Soviet Union. If we keep that in mind things should be more secure. It's clear that the designers of Nordstream weren't thinking about making their 'network' impervious to state terror attacks.
"how are you going to like it when a terrorist can turn the lights out"
Or when any ship can turn the lights out _accidentally_ just by dragging its anchor.
Stymied by environmental issues? How about the efforts of politicians beholden to big oil? Like they did with nuclear energy a few decades back.
It's worth noting that Kenya is probably the most enthusiastic about geothermal energy. By 2030 Kenya aims to have 5,530 MW of geothermal power or 51% of total capacity. This will make it Kenya's largest source of clean energy by 2030. It's also worth noting that Kenya has almost nothing in the way of fossil fuel reserves, and nothing at all in the way of an oil lobby. Coincidence?
But proposed geothermal projects have been stymied for years by having to undergo as many as six environmental reviews under the National Environmental Policy Act before proceeding.
I find it odd that you spent exactly zero words talking about repealing that.
Measure twice cut once is what the carpenters say. But if the piece of wood is worth hundreds of millions (estimated cost of a large scale geothermal facility) measuring 6 times might be a good idea.
So, to be clear, you're for the six environmental reviews?
Depends on the scale of the proposed project. The larger the scale, the more scrutiny is necessary. Imagine you're a carpenter about to saw through a $2 piece of wood. Now you're faced with a piece of $2 billion piece of wood. Do you spend more or less time deliberating over the second, more expensive piece than the cheap one?
Perhaps you have a problem with the original adage, measure twice, cut once. Measuring twice? This clearly doubles the work leading to enormous waste of time and effort. It's also insulting to the professional skill of the carpenter. Once is enough for any skilled professional, surely.
So, to be clear, you're for the six environmental reviews?
Depends on the scale of the proposed project. The larger the scale, the more scrutiny is necessary. Imagine you’re a carpenter about to saw through a $2 piece of wood. Now you’re faced with a piece of $2 billion piece of wood. Do you spend more or less time deliberating over the second, more expensive piece than the cheap one?
Perhaps you have a problem with the original adage, measure twice, cut once. Measuring twice? This clearly doubles the work leading to enormous waste of time and effort. It’s also insulting to the professional skill of the carpenter. Once is enough for any skilled professional, surely.
Just say yes or no to the pointless bureaucracy dude.
I know you think blue-collar workers, in this case carpenters, are total drooling idiots and thus absolutely need governmental Nanny State Big Brother oversight to provide a six-fold analysis by people who have never held a saw, but try to give them just a little more respect for their skill in their trade. You’re really being kind of a bigot here. And trying to hide that bigotry behind some kind of environmental claptrap. Which everyone can see through.
Stop hating tradesmen. Or just admit that you're a Statist.
Will this interfere with earthworm migration?