- The Energy Mix - https://theenergymix.com -

Geothermal Would Save 16.6 Gigatons of Carbon by 2050


Geothermal places #18 on the Drawdown list of climate solutions. If it could increase its share of global electricity generation from 0.66 to 4.9% by 2050, geothermal would prevent 16.6 gigatons of CO2 emissions, at a net cost of $US155.5 billion but net savings of $US 1.02 trillion.

As its name implies, geothermal means “earth heat,” and the planet is plenty hot thanks largely to “ongoing radioactive decay of potassium, thorium, and uranium isotopes in the crust and mantle,” Drawdown reports. All told, “the heat energy generated is about 100 billion times more than current world energy consumption.” But to date, “only six to 7% of the world’s potential geothermal has been tapped,” mostly in geologically active regions like Iceland and Kenya, where traditional geothermal using natural hydrothermal reservoirs has long been used.

Like this story? Subscribe to The Energy Mix and never miss an edition of our free e-digest.

New approaches like enhanced geothermal systems (EGS), which uses engineering techniques like hydro-fracturing to inject high-pressure water into areas that “contain ample heat but no water,” could “dramatically increase the geographic reach of geothermal energy”—in theory. But the “up-front costs of drilling are especially steep, particularly in less certain, more complex environments,” which means public investment will be the key increasing geothermal output. [A technique that relies on fracking will also run into some of the fierce worries and objections that have accompanied the natural gas fracking boom, beginning with increased earthquake activity nearby. –Ed.]

Geothermal also faces its share of health and environmental challenges. Whether it is “naturally occurring or pumped in, water and steam can be laced with dissolved gases, including carbon dioxide, and toxic substances such as mercury, arsenic, and boric acid.” And “though its emissions per megawatt- hour are just five to 10% of a coal plant’s, geothermal is not without greenhouse impact.”

But Drawdown notes that geothermal can still deliver huge amounts of either baseload or dispatchable power. “Theoretical projections based on geologic surveys of Iceland and the United States indicate that undiscovered geothermal resources could supply one to two terawatts of power, or seven to 13% of current human consumption.”

Even as innovations like EGS advance, “continued development of traditional geothermal remains indispensable,” the chapter notes, “especially in Indonesia, Central America, and East Africa—places where the planet is most active and ‘earth heat’ is abundant.”

3 Comments (Open | Close)

3 Comments To "Geothermal Would Save 16.6 Gigatons of Carbon by 2050"

#1 Pingback By Geothermal Would Save 16.6 Gigatons of Carbon by 2050 – Enjeux énergies et environnement On January 19, 2020 @ 10:11 PM

[…] post Geothermal Would Save 16.6 Gigatons of Carbon by 2050 appeared first on The Energy […]

#2 Comment By Peter Cooper On January 21, 2020 @ 12:50 AM

Author of this article should do their homework before presuming to be knowledgeable on geothermal power.

I have the cheapest and most efficient heating cooling system which is horizontal geothermal in which pipes circulate a liquid below winter frost line where temperatures are constant 55 degrees.

On the larger scale there are multiple industrial scale geothermal project in Alberta and Saskatchewan which expect to produce base-load electricity cheaper than any other source including solar or wind.

These projects are using technical engineering skills from oilfield drilling and confirming that there is a vast untapped source of very cheap renewable energy to be foung across the prairies and elsewhere in Canada.

#3 Comment By Mitchell Beer On January 22, 2020 @ 1:23 AM

Thanks, Peter, that’s useful. We’re summarizing material from Drawdown that at this point was published about three years ago. We heard at one point that they were planning an update, but no news on that recently. We know how quickly the technologies are improving and costs are plummeting, so it’s no surprise that some of their material is getting out of date — or just conservatively estimated, which I far prefer to the overhyped claims we see from the fossil industry. But I wouldn’t assume that they didn’t do their homework, since I know that every chapter of that book was thoroughly researched.