Siting enhanced geothermal systems (EGS): Heat benefits versus induced seismicity risks from an investor and societal perspective. Theresa A.K. Knoblauch ...
Accepted Manuscript Siting enhanced geothermal systems (EGS): Heat benefits versus induced seismicity risks from an investor and societal perspective Theresa A.K. Knoblauch, Evelina Trutnevyte PII:
S0360-5442(18)30746-1
DOI:
10.1016/j.energy.2018.04.129
Reference:
EGY 12768
To appear in:
Energy
Received Date: 14 November 2017 Revised Date:
9 March 2018
Accepted Date: 22 April 2018
Please cite this article as: Knoblauch TAK, Trutnevyte E, Siting enhanced geothermal systems (EGS): Heat benefits versus induced seismicity risks from an investor and societal perspective, Energy (2018), doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2018.04.129. This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 1
Siting enhanced geothermal systems (EGS): Heat benefits versus induced
2
seismicity risks from an investor and societal perspective
3 4
Theresa A. K. Knoblauch1) *, Evelina Trutnevyte1) 2)
5 6
1)
7
SoE) and D-USYS Transdisciplinarity Lab, Department of Environmental Systems
8
Science (D-USYS), ETH Zurich, Switzerland
9 2)
Renewable Energy Systems, Institute of Environmental Sciences (ISE), Section of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Faculty of Science, University of Geneva, Switzerland
SC
10 11 12 13
M AN U
14 15
*corresponding author
16 17 Manuscript
19
Energy
AC C
EP
TE D
18
20
RI PT
Swiss Competence Center for Energy Research-Supply of Electricity (SCCER-
1
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 21
Abstract Enhanced geothermal systems (EGS) harness thermal energy from the deep
23
underground to produce renewable and low-carbon electricity and heat. Siting EGS
24
in rural versus urban areas involves trading off benefits of sold heat and avoided
25
CO2 emissions and induced seismicity (IS) risk. In remote areas, IS risk is minimal,
26
but EGS heat cannot be purposefully used for residential district heating. In urban
27
areas, the heat can be sold, but EGS poses higher IS risk. We quantify this trade-off
28
using cost-benefit analysis (CBA) from both private and social perspectives. We
29
model 12 hypothetical EGS scenarios, with EGS of differing size (water circulation
30
rate of 50 to 150 l/s) and siting (0 to 100’000 residents nearby). We bound
31
uncertainties using Monte Carlo and sensitivity analyses. According to CBA, from the
32
private perspective, large EGS (150 l/s) near a large population (10’000 or 100’000
33
residents), enabling high heat sales, are most profitable. The CBA from the social
34
perspective shows that medium- or large-sized EGS (100 or 150 l/s) near some
35
residents (1’000 or 10’000) are most beneficial, based on reasonable heat sales
36
while limiting potential IS damage. Siting EGS in remote areas is less favorable,
37
even if expected IS damage is zero.
AC C
EP
TE D
38
M AN U
SC
RI PT
22
2
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 39
1 Introduction Enhanced geothermal systems (EGS) harness thermal energy from the deep
41
underground to produce electricity and heat. Electricity production requires
42
subsurface temperatures above 100 °C, which are com monly found at depth of at
43
least 3 km [1]. At this depth, an artificial reservoir is created by enhancing the
44
permeability of the subsurface. Fluid is then circulated through the reservoir,
45
absorbing heat from deep underground and transporting it to the surface. As the
46
reservoirs can be artificially created, in contrast to other types of geothermal
47
systems, EGS (also known as petro-thermal or hot-dry-rock systems) can be
48
deployed nearly anywhere [2]. Other benefits of EGS are its negligible direct
49
greenhouse gas emissions [3,4], its renewable resource abundance, and its reliable
50
base-load availability. EGS is already contributing to electricity and heat production
51
in Australia, France, Germany, and elsewhere [5], while energy strategies in
52
countries like Switzerland [6] and the United States [7] include planned
53
implementation of EGS in the near future which requires strategic siting of EGS. If
54
sited successfully, EGS can technically meet 3% of global electricity and 5% of
55
global heat demand by 2050 [4].
TE D
56
M AN U
SC
RI PT
40
However, creating EGS reservoirs by injecting highly pressurized fluid into the deep
58
underground and later, circulating water for energy production, carries the risk of
59
induced seismicity (IS) [1]. Although unavoidable and even helpful for reservoir
60
creation [8], IS can lead to public nuisance and damage to buildings and
61
infrastructure and interrupt or even delay projects [9,10]. Induced earthquakes
62
associated to EGS projects have been observed around the globe [11–15]. For
63
instance an EGS project in Basel, Switzerland, caused an induced event of ML 3.4,
64
resulting in damage claims of 9 million USD [9]. A deep geothermal project in St.
65
Gallen, Switzerland, an induced earthquake of ML 3.5 occurred. However, damage
66
claims were negligible [16]. Within the EGS project in the Geysers, United States, an
67
induced earthquake of ML 4.6 was recorded [17]. Likewise, in Berlin, El Salvador, an
68
induced earthquake of ML 4.4 was observed [18] and one of ML 3.7 in the Cooper
69
Basin, Australia [12]. After a M 5.4 event in November 2017 near the deep
70
geothermal site in Pohang, South Korea, investigation is ongoing with respect to
71
potential links between this earthquake and the injections activities, although it is too
AC C
EP
57
3
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT early for any conclusions [19].
Current risk assessment from industry anticipate
73
possible IS events equal or larger than ML 4.5 for Switzerland [20,21]; whereas
74
detailed forecasting models from seismologists anticipate potentially maximum IS
75
events that can be coextensive with the largest naturally possible earthquakes
76
[22,23]. This range of potential IS events is confirmed by a recent EGS expert
77
elicitation which also revealed disagreement between the various seismological
78
schools of thoughts [24].
RI PT
72
79
The literature has repeatedly drawn attention to the dilemma of siting EGS projects,
81
as siting influences both IS risk and EGS profitability (see, for instance, [1,25]). IS
82
risk is a composite of the IS hazard, local soil amplification, exposure of buildings,
83
and vulnerability of those buildings, whereat IS hazard specifies the energy released
84
during an earthquake in magnitude and probability of occurrence and exposure
85
specifies how many buildings, and thus how much value may be damaged by the
86
seismic hazard [26]. On the one hand, siting EGS projects in remote areas away
87
from populated spaces and buildings can reduce exposure and thus IS risk
88
[17,27,28]. Recent EGS guidelines accordingly allocate urban EGS projects to a
89
higher risk class than remote projects in terms of both physical risk and public
90
concern and recommend more extensive risk governance as compared to projects in
91
less populated areas [29,30]. On the other hand, heat sales, especially to a dense
92
district heating network (DHN), make EGS projects more economically viable and
93
the price of electricity more competitive and reduce CO2 emissions as compared to
94
conventional heat systems [25,31–33]. Proximity to infrastructure and buildings is
95
necessary to efficiently use heat. Thus, there is a trade-off between IS risks and heat
96
benefits when siting EGS projects.
M AN U
TE D
EP
AC C
97
SC
80
98
Motivated by ambitious EGS targets and hence complex siting decisions, we use
99
cost-benefit analysis (CBA) to quantify the trade-off of siting EGS of different
100
capacities in remote or in densely populated areas. Among all parameters that could
101
be varied for CBA, we put primary emphasis on the trade-off between benefits of
102
supplying geothermal heat to residential buildings and avoiding CO2 emissions from
103
fossil fuel heating versus IS risk to the same residential buildings. As both the
104
benefits of selling heat and IS damage to residential buildings can be monetized,
105
CBA is an adequate tool for quantifying the siting trade-off. We analyze 12 4
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT hypothetical scenarios combining different EGS size (water circulation rates of 50,
107
100, or 150 l/s) and siting (0, 1’000, 10’000, or 100’000 residents nearby). We model
108
the EGS plant and its heat and electricity production in detail and couple it to a
109
purposely developed model of IS hazard and risk that is adequate for first order-of-
110
magnitude estimates, given the high uncertainties and lack of data for IS [24]. We
111
distinguish between CBA from the perspectives of both private investors: hereafter
112
CBA (private) and society (CBA (social)) [34]. CBA (private) reflects the viewpoint of
113
the EGS operator and thus includes net present value (NPV (private)), internal rate
114
of return (IRR), and levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) for every scenario. CBA
115
(social) reflects costs and benefits, to society as a whole, including damage due to
116
IS, CO2 savings, and revenues, in order to quantify NPV (social) and benefit-to-cost
117
ratio (B/C ratio). We complement both private and social CBA with an uncertainty
118
assessment by using Monte Carlo and sensitivity analyses.
M AN U
SC
RI PT
106
AC C
EP
TE D
119
5
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 120
2 Past studies on EGS cost and benefits and IS Table 1 summarizes the literature on EGS profitability for both current and
122
prospective projects. According to this literature, EGS has the potential to become
123
an economically viable supplier of electricity and heat in the future. Efficiency of
124
converting thermal energy to electricity is crucial for profitability of EGS and has
125
been investigated in [35,36]. The conversion system has further been considered
126
with regard to optimally exploiting EGS reservoirs [37–39]. Although IS is typically
127
covered within environmental impact assessment of EGS [29] and carries a
128
monetary risk to EGS projects, few scientific studies that modelled EGS from techno-
129
economic perspective have explicitly addressed IS. In addition, other studies have
130
discussed EGS lifecycle assessment of environmental impacts [40–42] and
131
sustainability performance as compared to other renewable energy sources [43].
132
Further, techno-economic assessments have investigated the profitability for heat
133
from deep geothermal energy [44], as well as from shallow heat pumps [45,46].
M AN U
SC
RI PT
121
AC C
EP
TE D
134
6
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Table 1 Past studies on EGS and other deep geothermal systems profitability assessment
International Energy Agency (IEA) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety
OM/ yr [USD/kWhe] 87.3–134.3
LCOE [USD/kWhe] 0.3
2008
2000–5900
0.09–0.25
0.1–0.3
[32]
1800– 5200
83–187
0.03–0.17
[4]
2005 2011
JRC Geothermal energy status report Association of Swiss Electricity Companies Financial valuation of EGS (Euronaut) Assessment of reservoir management scenarios (3D thermo-hydraulic geologic model) Economic optimization of CO2 based EGS (Thermodynamic model [54])
2675–5350
Electric efficiency 40%
8–12%
2020 / 2030 2018
746
2020
11021
2010/ 2050
7315/ 12428
261
3.5% of CAPEX
Ref. [47]
[48]
0.2 / 0.16
TE D
UK Department of Energy & Climate Change
[49]
0.09–0.33
10–13%
[31]
0.06–0.18
11.2%
[50]
0.28/0.1
10–15%
[51]
@ 180°C 14%
[52]
10.5%
[53]
0.24–0.5
[55]
Combined heat and power (CHP), USA
0.11–0.57
34%
[56]
Economic evaluation of EGS plants (GETEM [57])
Combined heat and power (CHP), Switzerland Electricity only, USA Combined heat and power (CHP), Germany Electricity only, Europe
0.06–0.31
16%
[14]
0.035– 0.085 0.31–0.38
10%
[3]
10–12%
[58]
AC C
Technical and financial performance of EGS systems (Geophires)
Economic feasibility of EGS (MIT EGS)
Economic and environmental assessment of EGS (Generic model) Comparison of electricity from EGS to other renewables (LCOE)
136
Electricity only, EU Combined heat and power (CHP), UK Combined heat and power (CHP), EU Electricity only, Switzerland Electricity only, Soultz-sous-Forets, France Electricity only, Soultz-sous-Forets France
2000-2030
CAPEX [USD/kWe] 6663–13853
M AN U
GEO-ELEC
Ref year
RI PT
Swiss electricity model (TIMES)
Case study, Country Electricity only, Switzerland Combined heat and power (CHP), Worldwide Electricity only, Worldwide Electricity only, Germany
SC
Study (model)
EP
135
2020
8326
0.18–0.24
[59]
.
7
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Literature touching topically on siting trade-offs that take into account IS has not
138
addressed EGS costs and benefits. More specifically, IS caused by EGS projects
139
has been the focus of multiple seismic hazard and risk assessments, among them
140
[10,12,13]. In addition to geophysical considerations, Hosgör et al. have also looked
141
at social concern initiated by IS and spatial siting of EGS [60]. Another study
142
contrasted IS in Swiss projects in Basel and St. Gallen and the resulting damage
143
claims, which were considerably apart partially due to differing perception of IS [16].
144
One lifecycle assessment incorporates IS in a qualitative way; however, it does not
145
consider siting or heat production [41]. Thus, a more holistic model of benefits and
146
costs, including IS, is needed to quantitatively assess EGS siting trade-offs.
SC
RI PT
137
AC C
EP
TE D
M AN U
147
8
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 148
3 Method
149
3.1 EGS scenarios and case study To quantify the trade-offs described above, we generate 12 EGS scenarios with
151
different siting and water circulation rates (Table 2). Siting ranges from remote areas
152
(no residents or residential buildings within a radius of 5 km [29]) to urban areas (in
153
the middle of a larger city). Based on siting and thus number of surrounding
154
residents, we estimate the amount of heat that can be sold to a local DHN and how
155
many residential buildings are exposed to potential IS. Circulation rate determines
156
the rate at which heated water is withdrawn from the reservoir by two production
157
wells and thus how much electricity and heat can be produced. The smallest
158
considered circulation rate of 50 l/s corresponds to the operating range of current
159
EGS plants (e.g. [15]). The largest considered circulation rate of 150 l/s is limited by
160
the range of current pump capacity and their maximum flow rates [61,62]. We take
161
Switzerland as a case study because the ambitious goals of the Swiss Energy
162
Strategy to produce up to 4.4 GWhe/year of electricity by 2050 [6] require
163
coordinated planning for multiple EGS plants.
M AN U
SC
RI PT
150
164
Table 2 Characteristics of 12 EGS scenarios
TE D
165
Total circulation rate
during operation (triplet well configuration) Number of residents 0
Village
1’000
Town Urban
166 167
100 l/s
150 l/s
S1
S2
S3
S4
S5
S6
AC C
Remote
50 l/s
EP
Siting
10’000
S7
S8
S9
100’000
S 10
S 11
S 12
3.2 Cost-benefit analysis framework
168
The quantification of the EGS siting trade-off needs to compare the benefits of sold
169
heat with the costs of IS damage to buildings. As both these costs and benefits
170
involve direct and indirect costs to society, we choose the cost-benefit analysis
171
(CBA) as a method. While we acknowledge the limitations of CBA [63,64], CBA is
172
common in policy assessment as well as energy research [65], including renewable
9
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT energy specifically [66,67]. We conduct private and social CBA for the scenarios
174
presented in Table 2. Figure 1 depicts the system boundaries for the respective
175
analysis. CBA (private) takes the viewpoint of a project investor. Thus, for CBA
176
(private), we quantify direct costs and revenues, such as investment, operation and
177
maintenance cost, and revenues from electricity and heat. For estimating the
178
project’s value over the EGS lifetime of 30 years, we use net present value from the
179
private perspective (NPV (private)), for which cash flows are discounted [53]. To
180
further compare EGS scenarios, we calculate internal rate of return (IRR), which is
181
less influenced by initial investment than NPV. For both, NPV (private) and IRR,
182
prices of electricity are exogenously assumed. To calculate the cost of producing
183
one unit of electricity in each EGS scenario, we use levelized cost of electricity
184
(LCOE). These three parameters are commonly used for appraising investments in
185
energy technology [28], [54].
M AN U
AC C
EP
TE D
186
SC
RI PT
173
187 188 189 190
Figure 1 EGS framework for CBA from private and social perspectives. Respective EGS scenarios are determined by water circulation rate and residents near the EGS.
191
CBA (social) includes external costs and benefits that are borne by other actors in
192
addition to the investor [68]. The boundaries of CBA (social) thus include damage
193
due to IS and reduction in CO2 emissions. To compare the various EGS scenarios
10
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 194
from a social perspective, we use NPV (social) and cost-benefit ratio (C/B ratio)
195
[63,69,70].
196 197
3.3 Model of EGS plant and its operation According to Figure 1, we will now discuss major technical aspects of the EGS under
199
consideration. Among all possible configurations, the assumed EGS always
200
produces electricity that is entirely supplied to a transmission grid. Residual heat
201
from the EGS is supplied to a local DHN according to the scenario’s heat demand.
202
We do not further differentiate seasonal EGS configurations or seasonal heat
203
demand but base our calculations on annual heat demand for residential buildings.
204
The respective equations are given in Supplement A. The EGS is based on a triplet
205
well configuration (one injection and two production wells), which has been
206
suggested for efficient extract of heat from deep underground [71]. Well depth,
207
production temperature, temperature drawdown, reservoir impedance, circulation
208
fluid loss, and thermal drawdown are kept constant across all scenarios (Table 3).
209
With carbon dioxide plume technology being still in research stage [72], it is
210
assumed that water is circulated through the deep-underground reservoir as a heat
211
carrier. The water’s circulation rate determines at what rate thermal energy is
212
extracted from the subsurface and thus the conversion rate to electricity and heat for
213
DHN.
SC
M AN U
TE D
214
RI PT
198
Heated water is circulated from the reservoir to the EGS conversion system by
216
downhole pumps. The EGS converts the extracted heat to electricity through a
217
binary conversion cycle, known as the organic rankine cycle (ORC). Binary ORC is
218
an established technology which reaches relatively high efficiencies [35,73]. We
219
calculate the EGS plant’s capacity based on the scenario’s circulation rate. One
220
downhole pump per well maintains this circulation rate by overcoming the reservoir
221
pressure drop. The downhole pump power that is necessary to maintain the
222
circulation rate quadruples with increasing circulation rate [52] and increases linearly
223
with reservoir impedance [74] and can be modelled accordingly (Supplement A,
224
Equation (3)) [39]. Table S1 in Supplement B summarizes technical details for
225
downhole pumps. Further, we do not consider wellbore pressures losses, buoyancy
226
effects, hydraulic drawdown, or thermosiphon effect. Thermal drawdown is kept
AC C
EP
215
11
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 227
constant across scenarios in Table 3. In scenarios where the necessary pump power
228
exceeds the electricity produced by EGS, downhole pumps are powered with
229
electricity bought from the grid.
230 Depending on the siting scenario, the EGS either produces electricity only or
232
operates as a combined heat and electricity plant (CHP). We do not consider
233
exclusive heat production by EGS. In the electricity-only case, the circulated water
234
must be cooled down after using it for electricity production. To protect local water
235
sources, this can be done by dry cooling, which means additional parasitic power
236
consumption of approximately 10–12% of gross power [75]. In the CHP case, we
237
assume a topping or serial cycle [39,56]. In a serial cycle, residual heat is fed into a
238
local DHN after heat withdrawal for electricity production. The amount of residual
239
heat supplied to the DHN corresponds to the respective scenario’s heat demand,
240
which is specified by number of residents multiplied by living space per resident [76],
241
times heat demand per living space in Switzerland [77] (Table S3 in Supplement D).
M AN U
SC
RI PT
231
242 243
Table 3 EGS assumptions that are kept constant across analyzed scenarios
244
Symbol ηele ℎ,
TE D
EP
Unit
km % h/ yr MPa*s / l %/ yr °C °C °C
Value 0.13 0.95 5 8 8’760 0.2 3 1 55 170 90
Ref. [14,31,35,48,51,78] [50,52] [79] [14,52] [56] [57] [3] [26] [80]
AC C
245
Definition Thermal efficiency Availability factor Reservoir depth Circulation fluid loss Full electricity load hours / year Reservoir impedance Number of wells Thermal drawdown of reservoir Reinjection temperature Production temperature Temperature to feed to DHN
3.4 Induced seismicity risk and hazard of EGS scenarios
246 247
For estimating IS risk, we use the composite definition of IS hazard, local soil
248
amplification, exposure of buildings and infrastructure, and vulnerability of those
249
buildings [28]. IS hazard describes how much energy is released during an
250
earthquake and is specified by magnitude and probability of occurrence [29]. Local
251
soil amplification characterizes how the hazard propagates through geology,
252
resulting in ground shaking. Exposure defines how many buildings, and thus how
253
much value, may be damaged by the seismic hazard [28]. Vulnerability defines the
12
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT extent of damage and depends on the fragility or resilience of the exposed buildings
255
[30].
256 257
We couple each EGS scenario with a stylized IS model to estimate hazard during
258
creation of the EGS reservoir and later operation of the EGS. Addressing EGS IS
259
hazard entails lack of data, deep uncertainty, and disagreement among experts
260
[9,22,24,29]. Evidence suggests that injection volume during hydraulic stimulation is
261
a major determinant of IS activity during reservoir creation [17,23,81]. The
262
seismogenic index offers one generic way to estimate IS hazard related to injection
263
volume. It describes the injection site’s seismotectonic features and, together with
264
the Gutenberg-Richter distribution, can be used to calculate occurrence probability
265
for IS earthquake magnitudes [82,83]. This approach has been validated for
266
reservoir creation but not operation [22,84]. To couple our EGS scenarios to IS
267
hazard model, we assume that higher EGS circulation rate (capacity), requires
268
increased reservoir size [85] and hence increased injection volume for stimulation.
269
We therefore linearly relate EGS circulation rate to injection volume around data
270
points from past EGS projects [24,86].
M AN U
SC
RI PT
254
271
Only a few studies describe EGS IS hazard after reservoir stimulation during long-
273
term operation, for instance [87,88]. It is typically argued that a felt and damaging
274
earthquake would anyway lead to a project’s termination and hence long-term EGS
275
operation with IS is unrealistic. We, however, assume a hypothetical case, where
276
EGS would still continue operating, for example, similarly to geoenergy projects
277
continue operating in Oklahoma despite periodic IS [89]. Owing to the lack of data on
278
IS during long-term EGS operation, we illustrate two different IS hazard cases during
279
the 30-year operation phase. These two cases are derived from the IS hazard during
280
creation (Figure 2) and bound our analysis [90]: (i) no IS during operation (lower
281
bound); and (ii) low IS during operation (base case). Further results are conditional
282
to those two IS cases.
AC C
EP
TE D
272
283
13
284 285
RI PT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Figure 2 Assumed EGS IS hazard during reservoir creation and operation.
287
SC
286
3.5 Direct costs and revenues for CBA (private)
Direct EGS costs include investments and operation and maintenance; revenues are
289
generated from selling electricity and heat. Investments must be made for both the
290
subsurface and the surface portions of the EGS. Subsurface investments include
291
well drilling and reservoir creation. Cost for well drilling increases with well depth, but
292
there is no generalizable pattern (Figure S1 in Supplement E). Hence, we assume a
293
fixed cost of 10 million USD for each well drilling plus a fixed cost of 1 million USD
294
for reservoir creation (Table 4). Reservoirs and consequently their costs are kept
295
constant across scenarios.
TE D
M AN U
288
296
Table 4 Cost assumptions for CBA (private and social) Definition Scaling factor for EGS plant cost Cost of cooling unit (electricity only case) Cost of heat unit (CHP case) Cost of operation and maintenance Cost of reference EGS plant Cost of water Private discount rate Social discount rate Number of downhole pump Power capacity reference EGS plant Cost of downhole pump Lifetime of EGS Lifetime of pumps Average value of a building Building class ratio B to C Cost of creation reservoir Cost of electricity Cost of heat Cost of well drilling
EP
Symbol ∝ ! "# " $ % $ &'! &$
AC C
297
Unit USD USD/ kW th million USD/ yr USD 3 USD/m
kW e USD Year years million USD million USD USD/kWhe USD/kWhth million USD/
Value 0.5 0.3 of plant 150 1 8'560'000 1.8 10 % 3% 2 4000 100’000 30 5 1.95 0.5 1 0.043 0.07 10
Ref. [56,73] [75] [56] Table S2 [91] [85] [68] Table S2 Table S1 Table S1 [10] [92] [93] [25] Figure S1
14
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Emission allowance price of CO2 for electricity production Emission allowance price of CO2 for heat production Greenhouse emissions electricity mix Greenhouse emissions heating oil
well USD/tCO2
4.53
USD/tCO2
88.03
g CO2-eq/ kWhe g CO2-eq/ kWhth
181.5 313
[94]
[95] [96]
298 Surface investments include an EGS plant to convert thermal energy to electricity
300
and either a unit to cool residual heat or a unit to supply residual heat to the DHN.
301
The EGS plant’s cost is scaled from previous projects on the basis of the scaling
302
factor ∝ (Table 4 and Supplement A, equation (3)) [56,73]. Table S2 in Supplement
303
C shows the range of EGS plant costs from previous projects and literature. To
304
process residual heat, the electricity-only EGS is assumed to have a dry cooling unit,
305
which comes at relatively high investment cost [75]. For the CHP EGS plant, we
306
consider an additional investment cost for the heat unit proportional to its heat output
307
[56].
M AN U
SC
RI PT
299
308
For operation and maintenance costs, we account for the currently limited lifetime of
310
downhole pumps and recurring additional costs by assuming replacement of both
311
downhole pumps every 5th year (Table S1 in Supplement B). An additional operation
312
and maintenance cost of 1 million USD is assumed to compensate for salaries, small
313
repairs, and the like. Also, 8% of the circulating water is assumed to diffuse through
314
the reservoir, which must be replaced [79].
EP
315
TE D
309
Direct revenue calculation assumes that all produced electricity is sold at average
317
market price (mean of Swissix Day Base and Swissix Day Peak 2016: 43.04
318
USD/MWh) [93]. Produced heat is sold to the local DHN up to its maximum heat
319
demand [25] (Table 4). We assume a discount rate (private) of 10% [85], which is
320
relatively high [25] but justifiable regarding the risks of EGS projects. All cost and
321
revenues estimates are converted to USD2017. In general, we do not consider
322
inflation because it is relatively low in Switzerland [97].
AC C
316
323 324
3.6 Indirect and external costs and benefits for CBA (social)
325
To calculate indirect costs and benefits of EGS projects, we also consider damage to
326
residential buildings caused by IS as well as CO2 savings. We monetize damage to
327
buildings caused by IS by linking the respective IS hazard described in Section 3.4 to 15
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT the scenario’s exposure and vulnerability of buildings. More specifically, we translate
329
hazard magnitudes into intensities by using the Earthquake Catalogue of Switzerland
330
(ECOS) [98], assuming no spatial variation of earthquake intensity. We then
331
calculate the scenario’s building exposure in two steps: first, we calculate the
332
number of exposed buildings by multiplying the number of residents in scenarios by
333
the average number of residents per household and average number of households
334
per building in Switzerland [99,100]. Second, to obtain a monetary value for buildings
335
exposed, we multiply the number of exposed buildings by the average value of
336
buildings for the city of Basel (Swiss part) (Table 4) [10]. For building vulnerability,
337
that is, the extent to which buildings will be damaged by various IS intensities, we
338
use a simplified approach developed by Fäh et al. [92]. This approach quantifies
339
vulnerabilities for different building types and for earthquake intensities leading to an
340
overall expected damage ratio, which indicates what share of total exposed building
341
value will become damaged on an aggregated level, so a village, town, or urban area
342
(Table 2). Within this study, we assume equally spatially distributed residential
343
buildings of building classes B and C, as suggested for the city of Basel [92].
M AN U
SC
RI PT
328
344
In terms of benefits, we calculate CO2 savings from electricity and heat production by
346
EGS with respect to current electricity and heat production in Switzerland. As EGS
347
issue no direct greenhouse gases during operation [3,4], CO2 savings are calculated
348
by comparison to the Swiss electricity mix [95] or heating with heating oil [96], which
349
is commonly used in Switzerland [101]. CO2 savings from electricity production are
350
then monetized using the current price of European Emission Allowances [94] as
351
suggested by the European Commission [68] (Table 4). CO2 savings from heat
352
production are monetized using an emission tax according to Swiss Federal
353
regulations [102]. We further assume a social discount rate of 3% [68].
355
EP
AC C
354
TE D
345
3.7 Monte Carlo analysis and sensitivity analysis
356
We proceed in four steps to obtain and interpret results from both private and social
357
CBA. First, we conduct deterministic CBA based on data presented in Table 3 and
358
Table 4. Second, due to the limited empirical evidence, we use Monte Carlo analysis
359
for pivotal parameters where data is ambiguous or uncertain [103], allowing us to
360
simultaneously capture the uncertainty of various parameters. Those parameters
16
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT (Table 5) concern more specifically technical and cost aspects of the EGS
362
conversion system as well as input parameters for the seismogenic index applied for
363
estimating IS hazards. Third, we illustrate sensitivity cases for different discount
364
rates. For CBA (private), we bound our analysis with discount rates of 7% and 12%;
365
for CBA (social), we bound our analysis with discount rates of 1% and 5%. Fourth,
366
as discussed in Section 3.4, we consider two sensitivity cases for IS hazard during
367
the 30-year operation phase of the EGS: no or low IS hazard (Figure 2), where the
368
low IS case is our base case while the no IS case are the bounds of our analysis.
Table 5 Parameters varied in Monte Carlo Analysis Symbol α
Definition Scaling factor for EGS plant cost
ηele Σ
Thermal efficiency of EGS plant Seismogenic Index
b
b-value
Thermal drawdown
Ref. [56,73]
Normal Normal
[14,31,35,48,51,78] [82]
Normal
[10]
Normal
[56] [57] [3]
Uniform
[24], [73]
EP AC C
371
Distribution Uniform
TE D
Coefficient to linearly model water volume for reservoir creation
Value M = 0.33, σ = 0.19 13%, σ = 2% M = 0.25, σ = 0.05 M = 1.50, σ = 0.05 M = 1% σ = 0.5% M = 20.000 3 m ,σ= 3 5’773m
M AN U
370
SC
369
RI PT
361
17
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 372
4 Results
373
4.1 Results of CBA from the private perspective In this section, we present characteristics of the 12 EGS scenarios and then present
375
CBA (private) results, including NPV (private), IRR, and LCOE. Table 6 shows
376
technical details and intermediate results for these 12 EGS scenarios, such as gross
377
electricity output in year 1 of operation, which ranges from 2.2 MW for the lowest
378
circulation rate (50 l/s) to 6.53 MW for the highest circulation rate (150 l/s). Electricity
379
output decreases considerably over the lifetime of EGS due to thermal drawdown of
380
the reservoir. These technical details translate into discounted direct costs and
381
revenues, as depicted for EGS scenario 9 (150 l/s circulation rate, 10’000 residents)
382
in Figure 3a. EGS entails high upfront investment costs, in this case 42.7 million
383
USD, followed by decreasing revenues from electricity during lifetime (Figure 3a) due
384
to thermal drawdown (Section 3.3).
AC C
EP
TE D
385
M AN U
SC
RI PT
374
18
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
- Base case: low IS during OP
387
2 100 4.35
3 150 6.53
4 1'000 50 2.18
5 1'000 100 4.35
6 1'000 150 6.53
7 10'000 50 2.18
8 10'000 100 4.35
9 10'000 150 6.53
10 100'000 50 2.18
11 100'000 100 4.35
12 100'000 150 6.53
MW
1.01
2.01
3.02
1.01
2.01
3.02
1.01
2.01
3.02
1.01
2.01
3.02
MW
0.33
1.33
3.00
0.33
1.33
3.00
0.33
1.33
3.00
0.33
1.33
3.00
MW
1.63
2.58
2.88
1.84
3.02
3.53
1.84
3.02
3.53
1.84
3.02
3.53
MW
0.57
0.48
-0.28
0.67
0.68
0.02
0.67
0.68
0.02
0.67
0.68
0.02
12.82 4.52 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.42 2.32
20.37 3.78 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.67 3.29
22.68 -2.21 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.39 4.02
1’000 USD 1’000 USD 1’000 USD
11 4 0
18 3 0
1'000 USD/ year 1'000 USD/ year
0 0
M AN U
GWh GWh GWh GWh GWh million USD million USD
RI PT
l/s MW
1 50 2.18
14.53 5.31 11.54 6.71 6.71 5.42 0.77
23.81 5.37 23.07 6.71 6.71 7.67 1.54
27.83 0.17 34.61 6.71 6.71 9.39 2.31
14.53 5.31 11.54 67.14 11.54 5.42 0.77
23.81 5.37 23.07 67.14 23.07 7.67 1.54
27.83 0.17 34.61 67.14 34.61 9.39 2.31
14.53 5.31 11.54 671.38 11.54 5.42 0.77
23.81 5.37 23.07 671.38 23.07 7.67 1.54
27.83 0.17 34.61 671.38 34.61 9.39 2.31
20 0 0
188 180 387
196 180 701
200 175 964
314 306 3'872
623 607 7'009
927 903 9'638
314 306 38'716
623 607 70'093
927 903 96'379
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
27
54
80
272
539
803
2'716
5'391
8'027
TE D
Unit
EP
Scenario Number of residents Water circulation rate Gross electricity output (year 1) Gross electricity output (year 30) Electricity for downhole pump Net electricity output Pnet (year 1) Net electricity output Pnet (year 30) Net electricity (year 1) Net electricity (year 30) Heat output Heat demand Heat sold Cost of EGS plant Cost of heat exchanger / cooling unit CO2 savings (year 1) CO2 savings (year 30) IS damage during reservoir creation Annual IS damage sensitivity cases - Case no IS during OP
SC
Table 6 Technical details and intermediate results of 12 EGS scenarios (yr: year; OP: operation)
AC C
386
19
RI PT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
SC
Figure 3 EGS scenario 9: (a) Discounted costs and revenues from private perspective using private discount rate; (b) discounted costs and benefits from social perspective using social discount rate.
Error! Reference source not found.a shows the resulting NPV from the private
389
perspective. In general, NPV (private) ranges from -17 to 30 million USD and
390
increases for both EGS siting in an area surrounded by a growing number of
391
residents and increasing circulation rate. NPV remains constant from EGS siting
392
surrounded by approximately 10’000 residents and upwards because in these
393
scenarios, heat demand from residents exceeds heat produced by EGS. Thus, all
394
heat produced by EGS can be supplied to the local DHN. Thus, NPV is the highest
395
for scenarios 9 and 12. Thus, locating an EGS near many residents (10’000 and
396
100’000) combined with relatively high circulation rate (150 l/s) makes investing in
397
EGS most profitable from the private perspective. In contrast, NPV (private) is
398
negative for EGS scenarios in remote areas or with few residents as well as for EGS
399
scenarios with the lowest circulation rate. In these scenarios EGS is unprofitable
400
from the private perspective. This investment appraisal is confirmed by IRR, the
401
results of which correspond to those of NPV (private) and show a similar pattern:
402
IRR below an assumed discount rate, in this case 10%, would not be considered an
403
attractive investment.
AC C
EP
TE D
M AN U
388
404
20
SC
RI PT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
M AN U
Figure 4 (a) NPV (private) and IRR for EGS scenarios where bold typeface represents profitable scenarios; (b) LCOE for EGS scenarios. Green corresponds to less favorable and yellow to more favorable scenarios from the private perspective. 405
LCOE, which represents the cost of producing one unit of electricity, shows a similar
407
but inverted pattern compared to NPV (private) and IRR. According to Error!
408
Reference source not found.b, LCOE ranges from 0.16 to 0.50 USD/kWhe across
409
EGS scenarios. Generally, LCOE decreases with both EGS siting near a growing
410
number of residents and increasing circulation rate. LCOE remains constant when
411
EGS is located near 10’000 residents and upwards because all heat can be sold to
412
the DHN. LCOE is lowest for EGS scenarios 9 and 12 thus highest circulation rate
413
(150 l/s) and many surrounding residents (10’000 or 100’000 residents). In contrast,
414
LCOE is highest for EGS scenarios without any surrounding residents in remote
415
areas as well as EGS scenarios with low circulation rate.
417
EP
AC C
416
TE D
406
4.2 Results of the CBA from the social perspective
418
CBA (social) includes indirect and external costs and benefits, such as damage to
419
buildings due to IS or benefits of CO2 savings. Table 6 lists the intermediate results
420
such as damage due to IS during operation (base case), which ranges from no
421
damage for EGS located in remote areas to 8 million USD for EGS surrounded by a
422
large number of residents (100’000) and operating at the highest circulation rate.
423
Monetized CO2 savings (year 1 of operation) range from 11,000 USD to 927,000
424
USD, respectively. Figure 3b displays costs and benefits from the social perspective
425
during EGS lifetime for scenario 9 (150 l/s circulation rate, 10’000 residents).
21
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 426
Damage due to IS amounts to significant costs when creating the reservoir (9.6
427
million USD), whereas during operation, the cost of IS (800’000 USD) roughly
428
balances against benefits of CO2 savings (927’000 USD for year one of operation
429
and 903’000 USD for year 30 of operation).
430 Error! Reference source not found.a displays NPV from the social perspective
432
which spans from -154 to 74 million USD. Essentially, the most profitable EGS
433
scenarios for society according to the NPV (social) are located centrally right in
434
Error! Reference source not found.a: these are the scenarios with mid- or large-
435
size circulation rate (100 or 150 l/s) combined with siting near some but not too many
436
residents (10’000 or 100’000 residents). Among eight EGS scenarios with positive
437
NPV (social), the most profitable is EGS scenario 9, wherein EGS is located near a
438
considerable number of residents (10’000) combined with highest circulation rate
439
(150 l/s). Mid-range profitability can be expected from EGS scenarios near some
440
residents (1’000 or 10’000 residents) in combination with the small circulation rate
441
(50 l/s) and EGS scenarios located near no residents combined with medium
442
circulation rate (100 l/s). Regarding negative NPV (social), EGS scenarios located
443
near an especially large number of residents are clearly unattractive investments
444
from the social perspective. This can be attributed to extensive damage due to IS.
445
Also, EGS scenarios surrounded by no residents show negative NPV for the
446
smallest circulation rate (50 l/s). In this scenario, EGS produces too little electricity to
447
compensate for high upfront investment (50 l/s).
SC
M AN U
TE D
EP AC C
448
RI PT
431
22
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Figure 5 (a) NPV (social) for EGS scenarios (base case); (b) B/C ratio for EGS scenarios (base case). Blue corresponds to less favorable and green to more favorable scenarios from the social perspective; bold typeface represents profitable scenarios. 449 Error! Reference source not found.b presents the B/C ratio, which divides benefits
451
by costs (social). Preferably, benefits outweigh risks, resulting in a B/C ratio
452
exceeding 1, as is the case for most scenarios. The B/C ratios of these scenarios
453
show a similar pattern to NPV (social); the most attractive scenarios are located
454
centrally right and are a combination of EGS near medium density (1’000 and
455
10’000) and medium or large circulation rate (100 l/s or 150 l/s). According to the B/C
456
ratio, scenario 9 (150 l/s circulation rate, 10’000 residents) is the most preferable for
457
investment from the social perspective. Other scenarios with mid-range B/C ratios
458
include EGS located near a medium number of residents (1’000 or 10’000) and small
459
circulation rate (50 l/s) or scenarios with location near no residents combined with
460
medium circulation rate (100 l/s or 150 l/s). In contrast, costs (social) outweigh
461
benefits when EGS is sited near a large number of residents (100’000). These
462
scenarios do not generate enough benefits from electricity and heat sales and CO2
463
savings to compensate IS damage. Likewise, costs (social) outweigh benefits for the
464
EGS scenario near no residents with the smallest circulation rate (50 l/s). Again,
465
revenues from electricity do not compensate high upfront investments.
SC
M AN U
TE D
466
RI PT
450
IS becomes increasingly substantial when siting EGS in areas with a growing
468
number of residents. Figure 6 displays the development of costs (social) and benefits
469
across the 12 EGS scenarios. Two factors contribute to damage due to IS other than
470
siting EGS in remote areas: increasing circulation rate and the number of
471
surrounding residents, which is illustrated by vertical comparison of the EGS
472 473 474
scenarios, shown in Figure 6.
AC C
EP
467
23
481
TE D
Figure 6 Discounted costs and benefits, summed, and NPV [millions USD] for 12 EGS scenarios from the social perspective. Benefits are displayed counterclockwise from top, and costs are displayed clockwise from top. Benefits and cost are separated by black lines.
4.3 Monte Carlo and sensitivity analyses
EP
475 476 477 478 479 480
M AN U
SC
RI PT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
We now assess the uncertainty of the CBA results via Monte Carlo analysis. Figure 7
483
shows the distribution of intermediate technical results, specifically, the produced
484
electricity in year 1 versus year 30 of operation and heat supplied to the DHN. For
485
both electricity and heat production, results become more uncertain with increasing
486
circulation rate. This is because, according to our model, electricity and heat
487
production are proportional to circulation rate and thermal efficiency. Further, results
488
for electricity production in year 30 of operation are more dispersed than in year 1 of
489
operation. This can be attributed to potentiation of uncertainty over EGS lifetime with
490
regard to thermal efficiency and reservoir drawdown temperature. Electricity
491
production decreases to thermal drawdown of the reservoir over lifetime. In contrast,
492
pump power remains constant, which can lead to pump power exceeding net
AC C
482
24
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT electricity output and the consequent additional expense of buying electricity from
494
the grid, which is presented as negative electricity production in Figure 7. For the first
495
two EGS siting scenarios (0 and 1’000 residents), heat supply is limited by residents’
496
heat demand and is thus constant, while for the remaining siting scenarios, all
497
produced heat can presumably be sold to the DHN, which is linked to some
498
uncertainty.
RI PT
493
AC C
EP
TE D
M AN U
SC
499
25
M AN U
SC
RI PT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Figure 7 Monte Carlo sensitivity analysis for electricity in year 1 and year 30 of EGS operation and heat. Thermal drawdown can lead to insufficient net electricity production, leading to purchase of additional electricity from the grid, presented as negative electricity output.
506
Error! Reference source not found. presents the uncertainty of monetized results
507
from both the private and social perspectives (NPV (private), NPV (social), LOCE,
508
and B/C ratio). Four major findings can be derived from Error! Reference source
509
not found. and the corresponding analysis. First, in general, uncertainty becomes
510
larger with increasing circulation rate, which can be attributed to uncertainty in
511
electricity production as discussed above plus uncertainty within cost assumptions
512
that depend on EGS size and therefore also on circulation rate (Section 3.5).
513
Second, mid-range NPV (private) and NPV (social) amounting to approximately
514
9 million USD in absolute value can easily flip between positive and negative if input
515
values are slightly varied, as demonstrated by EGS scenarios 3 (150 l/s circulation
516
rate and no residents). Consequently, for EGS projects of comparable NPV, there is
517
no clear evidence whether the project will eventually be profitable according to our
AC C
EP
TE D
500 501 502 503 504 505
26
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 518
analysis. For remaining NPV (private) and (social), outliers indicate that only
519
substantial changes in parameters lead to flipping NPV (private) or NPV (social).
TE D
M AN U
SC
RI PT
520
Figure 8 Monte Carlo analysis for NPV (private), NPV (social), LCOE, and B/C ratio (base case). 521
Third, results are more dispersed for NPV (social) than for NPV (private). This is
523
because of uncertainties within CO2 savings for scenarios in remote areas and
524
additional uncertainty from IS estimates for all other scenarios, which are only
525
considered for the social perspective. CO2 savings uncertainty can be attributed to
526
uncertainty within electricity and heat production, and estimated IS uncertainty
527
reflects the current state of knowledge [24], which, in our analysis, is represented by
528
the input values from the seismogenic index (Table 5). For NPV (social), these
529
uncertainties are amplified with increasing number of residents, most prominently for
530
urban scenarios (100’000 residents). Fourth, in contrast to NPV (social), uncertainty
531
of B/C ratio is relatively stable across increasing numbers of residents, indicating that
532
uncertainty of cost (social) and of benefits develop more or less the same. Yet,
533
uncertainty in the B/C ratio declines for EGS scenarios with the largest number of
AC C
EP
522
27
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT residents. The reason is the growing uncertainty in cost (social), which is reflected in
535
the denominator of the B/C ratio.
536 537
Error! Reference source not found. and Error! Reference source not found.
538
present sensitivity cases for LCOE and the B/C ratio for a range of private and social
539
discount rates. In general, lower discount rates lead to higher profitability from both
540
private and social perspectives and consequently to lower LCOE and higher B/C
541
ratio. LCOE shows substantial sensitivity to private discount rates while the pattern
542
of LCOE over EGS scenarios holds across sensitivity cases. Similarly, B/C ratio is
543
highly sensitive to social discount rates but its pattern remains stable across
544
sensitivity cases.
SC
RI PT
534
EP
TE D
M AN U
545
546
AC C
Figure 9 Sensitivity of LCOE for EGS scenarios for private discount rates: (a) 7%; (b) 12%. Green corresponds to less favorable and yellow to more favorable scenarios from the private perspective
28
SC
RI PT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
M AN U
Figure 10 Sensitivity of B/C ratio for EGS scenarios for social discount rates. (a) 1%; (b) 5%. Blue corresponds to less favorable and green to more favorable scenarios from the social perspective; bold typeface represents profitable scenarios. 547 Error! Reference source not found. contrasts the sensitivity of the B/C ratios for no
549
IS during operation to potentially low IS during operation (base case) as discussed
550
above. As described in Section 3.7, the no IS case anticipates no damage during
551
operation past the IS hazards during reservoir creation. The respective B/C ratios for
552
the 12 EGS scenarios show patterns similar to the base case but reach higher
553
values. For the top and central EGS scenarios, benefits outweigh risks (Error!
554
Reference source not found.a). In contrast to the base case (Error! Reference
555
source not found.b) B/C ratios are around one for EGS in a city near large
556
population (100’000 residents) when no IS during operation is to be expected. Thus,
557
when no IS is to be expected, siting EGS in a city could be an option although not
558
the most attractive one.
EP
AC C
559
TE D
548
29
SC
RI PT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
M AN U
Figure 11 Sensitivity of B/C ratio for EGS scenarios for IS cases. Left: no IS during 30-year operation; right: base case of IS during 30-year operation as in Error! Reference source not found.a. Blue corresponds to less favorable and green to more favorable scenarios from the social perspective ; bold typeface represents profitable scenarios. 560 561
AC C
EP
TE D
562
30
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 563
5 Discussion
564
5.1 Discussion of the results and practical implications Siting EGS of different capacities in remote or densely populated areas involves
566
trading off IS damage with the benefits of supplying heat to surrounding residents
567
and avoiding CO2 [1,25]: in remote areas the IS risk is minimal, but EGS heat cannot
568
be fully used for district heating, whereas in densely populated areas, the residual
569
heat can be supplied into the DHN, but IS risk is higher. This study quantifies for the
570
first time this trade-off using CBA from both the private and social perspectives. We
571
modeled 12 EGS scenarios differing by siting and circulation rate with their heat and
572
electricity production and coupled it to a simplified IS model. Our underlying
573
assumptions seem to be reasonable as we obtain LCOE estimates (Error!
574
Reference source not found.b) that are exactly in the same range as LCOE
575
estimates from previous literature (Table 1). Our IS damage values during operation
576
are similar to damage observed in the past and in detailed risk assessments [10,20].
577
Also, our finding that EGS are less profitable in remote areas with no revenues from
578
residual heat is in line with previous research [25]. This suggests quantitative
579
validation of our results.
SC
M AN U
TE D
580
RI PT
565
The results of CBA (private) suggest that EGS should be located in areas where all
582
residual heat can be sold to a DHN, thus, towns or cities with 10’000 or more
583
residents. In contrast, the results of CBA (social) suggest locating EGS where a fair
584
amount of residual heat can be sold but potential damage due to IS is limited, thus
585
areas with 1’000 to 10’000 residents. Sensitivity analysis to IS cases showed that
586
EGS are significantly more profitable in areas where no potential IS hazards are to
587
be expected during operation. There, benefits outweigh costs for society as a whole
588
for most cases, even when siting EGS in large cities.
AC C
589
EP
581
590
Concerning circulation rate and hence EGS capacity, CBA from both the private and
591
social perspectives suggest implementing EGS of a certain circulation rate with
592
respect to two technical constraints: on the lower end, circulation rate must ensure
593
that the EGS produces sufficient electricity and heat to compensate and ideally
594
exceed the high upfront investment costs. On the higher end, the circulation rate
595
should ensure that pump power does not exceed net electricity output, thus avoiding
31
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 596
additional purchase of electricity from the grid, which would considerably decrease
597
profitability. This could be bypassed by increasing wellbore diameter with installation
598
of additional wells; however, this in turn significantly increases the cost of EGS.
599
Additionally, according to our model, IS damage increases with circulation rate which
600
could be an additional constraint.
RI PT
601 Close attention should be paid to uncertainties regarding electricity and heat
603
production and costs, which themselves present a risk to investors and society.
604
Within this study, uncertainties in cost, efficiency, thermal drawdown, and IS input
605
parameters have been analyzed. These uncertainties amplify with increasing
606
circulation rate, which seems plausible as only EGS with relatively small circulation
607
rates have been realized so far. Uncertainties also affect indirect costs and
608
externalities, such as benefits of CO2 savings and, in particular, estimated damage
609
due to IS [9,22,24,29]. Furthermore, EGS scenarios with positive but rather low
610
expected NPV (both private and social) can easily flip to unprofitability if EGS
611
parameters change slightly. Consequently, when designing and siting EGS, thorough
612
analysis of parameters as well as sufficient swing of investment is vital.
M AN U
SC
602
TE D
613
The results have implications for practical and scientific discussions of siting and
615
designing EGS. Our results do not necessarily sustain the arguments for siting EGS
616
in remote areas [17,27,28] because of the lack of revenues from heat sales. Poor
617
profitability from private perspective can, however, be enhanced with incentives for
618
investors, such as feed-in tariffs [104], for EGS scenarios that are profitable for
619
society. In our case, this would apply to EGS scenarios with circulation rates of 100 l/
620
and 150 l/s and no surrounding residents, which are beneficial for society but would
621
not be considered profitable from the private perspective unless incentivized. When
622
IS risk is not considered, EGS are most attractive in areas where all residual heat
623
can be sold. When IS risk is considered, EGS should be sited where a considerable
624
amount of heat can be supplied to a DHN while IS damage is limited, not
625
automatically zero. When designing EGS, water circulation rate and thus capacity
626
must be optimized with respect to revenues to compensate large upfront investments
627
and with respect to the auxiliary power demands of downhole pumps.
AC C
EP
614
628
32
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 629
5.2 Limitations and future research Quantifying the trade-off when siting EGS with different circulation rates is not
631
without limitations. We omitted variation of technical and economic parameters
632
where plausible and included relevant parameters in uncertainty analysis in order to
633
make the trade-off clearly visible. More specifically: first, regarding EGS and its
634
integration into DHN, we have merely considered a simplified thermodynamic EGS
635
model without varying reservoir configuration, such as thermal drawdown across
636
different circulation rates and thus different EGS capacities [3]. We also neglected
637
the uncertainty of the thermal gradient and thus adequate reservoir temperature. For
638
integrating EGS into DHN, we limited our analysis to constant heat patterns of
639
residents
640
surroundings. We also limited our analysis to constant future heat demand despite a
641
potential future decline due to better insulation. Further, we have not considered the
642
cost of connecting EGS to the transmission grid or DHN or the cost of the DHN itself.
643
We also excluded long-distance transmission of EGS residual heat from our
644
analysis, focusing instead on residential heat customers nearby, and did not include
645
industrial heat users or alternative heat applications.
of
potential
differences
between
remote
and
urban
M AN U
regardless
SC
RI PT
630
TE D
646
Second, our IS model relied on very little empirical data. Creating and operating EGS
648
does not necessarily induce seismicity. However, regarding the large uncertainties
649
characteristic to EGS and other subsurface projects [9,22,24,29], our approach might
650
be justifiable. Also, we have simplified the IS hazard model by not spatially varying
651
earthquake intensity and not considering differences in regional seismic and
652
geological conditions, for instance, faults. We captured some of these differences
653
through uncertainty analysis of the seismogenic index parameters and further
654
acknowledge that in-depth modeling of IS is much more complex. Regarding
655
damage due to IS, we used an overall expected damage ratio [92] that only
656
considered earthquakes equal to or greater than intensity 5. Thus cosmetic, non-
657
structural, and other minor damage is neglected in our analysis. We further limited
658
our study to residential buildings and have not considered differences in housing
659
structure or spatial arrangement of houses across siting scenarios, such as less
660
dense housing in remote areas. Scenarios of siting EGS close to sensitive or critical
661
infrastructure such as archaeological sites, research laboratories, or nuclear power
AC C
EP
647
33
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT plants are also outside the scope of our analysis; the consequences due to IS in
663
such locations would be dire and realization of such EGS projects is problematic
664
[29]. We have also not incorporated potential differences in building value across
665
EGS sites (villages, towns, or urban areas). Further, damage due to IS could have
666
been accounted for through insurance costs for CBA (private) instead of only
667
including it in CBA (social) as a cost to society. Third, limitations concerning CBA in
668
general [63,64] include monetizing certain aspects of EGS, which might not
669
necessarily reflect the actual price society would be willing to pay to avoid damage
670
due to IS or CO2.
RI PT
662
SC
671
Forth, for our specific study, we restricted our analysis to 12 discrete, very specific
673
EGS scenarios within the boundaries presented in Figure 1. This led to reasonable
674
complexity of our CBA from both the private and social perspectives while
675
representing reality only to a certain degree. Also, we primarily derived costs from a
676
few pilot EGS. This again implies large uncertainties [32], which we tried to account
677
for via Monte Carlo analysis. Thus, results might only be applicable to real EGS
678
projects under consideration of the limitations described.
M AN U
672
TE D
679
In reality, however, investor’s or society’s profitability are not the only elements that
681
will influence decisions about the future deployment of EGS; public reaction towards
682
EGS and its IS risks [105] and whether society is willing to trade off these risks [9]
683
will also be considered. This has not been quantified within our study, as CBA
684
glosses over such trade-offs by simply summing costs (social) and benefits, limiting
685
the analysis to set parameters. We therefore suggest four specific questions for
686
future research: First, what costs and benefits matter to society and to society’s
687
acceptance of EGS when siting and designing projects? Second, how does society
688
trade off these costs and benefits of EGS projects beyond simply summing? Third,
689
how can science provide the best available information about risks and uncertainties
690
inherent to EGS projects and how can this be communicated to facilitate wiser
691
decisions [106]? Fourth, how can society, which eventually bears the IS risk of such
692
EGS projects, contribute to IS risk appraisal and IS risk management, for instance,
693
by participation [107]? This study as well as future research can contribute to more
694
robust decision-making when siting EGS in conjunction with efforts to reduce
AC C
EP
680
34
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 695
greenhouse gas emissions from electricity and heat production while continuously
696
providing both.
AC C
EP
TE D
M AN U
SC
RI PT
697
35
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 698
6 Conclusion In this study, we quantified the trade-off between heat benefits and IS risks when
700
siting EGS projects of different sizes using CBA from both the private and social
701
perspectives. Despite uncertainties inherent to EGS and model limitations, our study
702
provides relevant implications for practitioners, policy makers and further research.
703
Accordingly, our study does not necessarily support the claim to site EGS in remote
704
areas to avoid IS risks due to lacking benefits from remaining heat. Considering CBA
705
from the private and social perspectives jointly, EGS should be sited where
706
considerable heat can be sold but damage due to IS remains limited not necessarily
707
zero. In addition, EGS need to be carefully designed in order to generate sufficient
708
revenues from electricity and heat sales in order to pay-off high upfront investment
709
costs.
M AN U
SC
RI PT
699
710
With only few realized projects worldwide, EGS is a rather emerging, yet promising
712
low-carbon renewable energy resource. In order for EGS to contribute to energy
713
strategies realization, EGS projects need to be sited within boundaries that are
714
attractive for both, private investors and the society. Ultimately, however, not only the
715
EGS project’s viability will decide whether or not a project is being realized but also
716
the outcome of societal and political discourse around EGS and its uncertainties
717
which should be informed by scientific evidence.
EP AC C
718
TE D
711
36
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 719 720
7 Acknowledgements This work has been completed within the Swiss Competence Center for Energy
722
Research-Supply of Electricity (SCCER-SoE) Task 4.1 “Risk, safety, and social
723
acceptance”. This is one of only a few teams worldwide in which seismologists,
724
earthquake engineers, energy analysts, and social scientists collaborate closely to
725
tackle the challenge of induced seismicity while fostering exchange with
726
practitioners. The support of the Energy Turnaround National Research Program
727
(NRP70) of the Swiss National Science Foundation (T.K.) and of the Swiss National
728
Science Foundation Ambizione Energy grant No.160563 is also acknowledged
729
(E.T.). The authors thank Koenraad Beckers, Falko Bethmann, Dimitrios Karvounis
730
and Michael Stauffacher, as well as two anonymous reviewers for their constructive
731
feedback.
M AN U
SC
RI PT
721
AC C
EP
TE D
732
37
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
8 Bibliography
[5] [6]
[7]
[8]
[9] [10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
RI PT
[4]
SC
[3]
M AN U
[2]
Kraft T, Mai PM, Wiemer S, Deichmann N, Ripperger J, Kästli P, et al. Enhanced Geothermal Systems: Mitigating Risk in Urban Areas. Eos, Trans Am Geophys Union 2009;90:273–4. doi:10.1029/2009EO320001. Chamorro CR, García-Cuesta JL, Mondéjar ME, Pérez-Madrazo A. Enhanced geothermal systems in Europe: An estimation and comparison of the technical and sustainable potentials. Energy 2014;65:250–63. doi:10.1016/j.energy.2013.11.078. Tester JW, Anderson BJ, Batchelor AS, Blackwell DD, DiPippo R, Drake EM, et al. Impact of enhanced geothermal systems on US energy supply in the twenty-first century. Philos Trans A Math Phys Eng Sci 2007;365:1057–94. doi:10.1098/rsta.2006.1964. Goldstein B, Hiriart G, Bertani R, Bromley C, Gutiérrez-Negrín L, Huenges E, et al. Geothermal energy. In: Edenhofer O, Pichs-Madruga R, Sokona Y, Seyboth K, Matschoss P, Kadner S, et al., editors. IPCC Spec. Rep. Renew. Energy Sources Clim. Chang. Mitig., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA; 2011, p. 401–36. Bertani R. Geothermal power generation in the world 2005-2010 update report. Geothermics 2012;41:1–29. doi:10.1016/j.geothermics.2011.10.001. Swiss Federal Office of Energy. Energy Strategy 2050 2013. http://www.bfe.admin.ch/themen/00526/00527/index.html?dossier_id=05024&l ang=en (accessed May 1, 2016). U.S. Senate Committee on Energy & Natural Resources. Energy Policy Modernization Act of 2015 2015. http://www.energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/files/serve?File_id=55bdaf359055-431f-b0de-24473d58af4d. Gischig V, Wiemer S, Alcolea A. Balancing reservoir creation and seismic hazard in enhanced geothermal systems. Geophys J Int 2014;198:1585–98. doi:10.1093/gji/ggu221. Giardini D. Geothermal quake risks must be faced. Nature 2009;462:848–9. Mignan A, Landtwing D, Kästli P, Mena B, Wiemer S. Induced seismicity risk analysis of the 2006 Basel, Switzerland, Enhanced Geothermal System project: Influence of uncertainties on risk mitigation. Geothermics 2015;53:133–46. doi:10.1016/j.geothermics.2014.05.007. Grigoli F, Cesca S, Priolo E, Rinaldi AP, Clinton JF, Stabile TA, et al. Current challenges in monitoring, discrimination, and management of induced seismicity related to underground industrial activities: A European perspective. Rev Geophys 2017. doi:10.1002/2016RG000542. Zang A, Oye V, Jousset P, Deichmann N, Gritto R, McGarr A, et al. Analysis of induced seismicity in geothermal reservoirs - An overview. Geothermics 2014;52:6–21. doi:10.1016/j.geothermics.2014.06.005. Evans KF, Zappone A, Kraft T, Deichmann N, Moia F. A survey of the induced seismic responses to fluid injection in geothermal and CO2 reservoirs in Europe. Geothermics 2012;41:30–54. doi:10.1016/j.geothermics.2011.08.002. Hirschberg S, Wiemer S, Burgherr P. Energy from the Earth- Deep Geothermal as a Resource for the future? TA Swiss Centre for Technology Assessment; 2015. doi:10.3218/3655-8. Breede K, Dzebisashvili K, Liu X, Falcone G. A systematic review of enhanced (or engineered) geothermal systems: past, present and future. Geotherm
TE D
[1]
EP
734 735 736 737 738 739 740 741 742 743 744 745 746 747 748 749 750 751 752 753 754 755 756 757 758 759 760 761 762 763 764 765 766 767 768 769 770 771 772 773 774 775 776 777 778 779 780 781
AC C
733
38
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
[21]
[22]
[23]
[24] [25]
[26]
[27]
[28]
[29]
[30]
[31] [32]
RI PT
[20]
SC
[19]
M AN U
[18]
TE D
[17]
EP
[16]
Energy 2013;1:1–27. doi:10.1186/2195-9706-1-4. Edwards B, Kraft T, Cauzzi C, Kastli P, Wiemer S. Seismic monitoring and analysis of deep geothermal projects in St Gallen and Basel, Switzerland. Geophys J Int 2015;201:1022–39. doi:10.1093/gji/ggv059. Majer EL, Baria R, Stark M, Oates S, Bommer J, Smith B, et al. Induced seismicity associated with Enhanced Geothermal Systems. Geothermics 2007;36:185–222. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geothermics.2007.03.003. Bommer JJ, Oates S, Cepeda JM, Lindholm C, Bird J, Torres R, et al. Control of hazard due to seismicity induced by a hot fractured rock geothermal project. Eng Geol 2006;83. doi:10.1016/j.enggeo.2005.11.002. DESTRESS | News and events. 2018 n.d. http://www.destressh2020.eu/en/stay-informed/news-and-events/#it_00019.xml (accessed March 9, 2018). Baisch S, Carbon D, Dannwolf U, Delacou B, Devaux M, Dunand F, et al. Deep Heat Mining Basel - Seismic risk analysis. Technical report SERIANEX; 2009. Bethmann F, Meier P, Zingg O. Seismic risk analysis for the EGS pilot-project int he community of Haute-Sorne, Switzerland. Schatzalp Work. Induc. Seism., Davos, Switzerland: 2015. Mena B, Wiemer S, Bachmann C. Building robust models to forecast the induced seismicity related to geothermal reservoir enhancement. Bull Seismol Soc Am 2013;103:383–93. doi:10.1785/0120120102. Gischig VS. Rupture propagation behavior and the largest possible earthquake induced by fluid injection into deep reservoirs. Geophys Res Lett 2015;42:7420–8. doi:10.1002/2015GL065072. Trutnevyte E, Azevedo IL. Induced seismicity hazard and risk by Enhanced Geothermal Systems: An expert elicitation approach. Environ Res Lett 2017. Schenler W. Economy. In: Hirschberg S, Wiemer S, Burgherr P, editors. Energy from Earth Deep Geotherm. as a Resour. Futur. TA Swiss Geotherm. Proj. Final Report., Villingen, Switzerland: Paul Scherer Institute; 2015, p. 155– 82. doi:10.3218/3655-8. Wiemer S, Kraft T, Landtwing D. Seismic risk. In: Hirschberg S, Wiemer S, Burgherr P, editors. Energy from Earth Deep Geotherm. as a Resour. Futur. TA Swiss Geotherm. Proj. Final Report., Villingen, Switzerland: Paul Scherer Institute; 2014, p. 263–95. McGarr A, Bekins B, Burkhardt N, Dewey J, Earle P, Ellsworth W, et al. Coping with earthquakes induced by fluid injection: Hazard may be reduced by managing injection activities. Science 2015;347:830–1. Bommer JJ, Crowley H, Pinho R. A risk-mitigation approach to the management of induced seismicity. J Seismol 2015;19:623–46. doi:10.1007/s10950-015-9478-z. Trutnevyte E, Wiemer S. Tailor-made risk governance for induced seismicity of geothermal energy projects. Geothermics 2017;65:295–312. doi:10.1016/j.geothermics.2016.10.006. Majer E, Nelson J, Robertson-Tait A, Savy J, Wong I. Best practices for addressing induced seismicity associated with enhanced geothermal systems (EGS), DRAFT, 23 May 2013. 2013. Department of Energy & Climate Change (DECC). Deep geothermal review study. Final report. 2013. Beerepoot M. Technology roadmap - geothermal heat and power. 2011.
AC C
782 783 784 785 786 787 788 789 790 791 792 793 794 795 796 797 798 799 800 801 802 803 804 805 806 807 808 809 810 811 812 813 814 815 816 817 818 819 820 821 822 823 824 825 826 827 828 829 830 831
39
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
[37]
[38]
[39]
[40]
[41]
[42]
[43]
[44]
[45]
[46]
[47] [48]
RI PT
SC
[36]
M AN U
[35]
TE D
[34]
EP
[33]
doi:10.1787/9789264118485-en. Lund H, Möller B, Mathiesen B V., Dyrelund A. The role of district heating in future renewable energy systems. Energy 2010;35:1381–90. doi:10.1016/j.energy.2009.11.023. Blok K, Nieuwlaar E. Economic analysis of energy technologies. In: Nieuwlaar E, editor. Introd. to energy Anal. Second edi, London, New York : Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, earthscan from Routledge; 2017, p. xxv, 310 pages. Tchanche BF, Lambrinos G, Frangoudakis A, Papadakis G. Low-grade heat conversion into power using organic Rankine cycles - A review of various applications. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2011;15:3963–79. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2011.07.024. Chamorro CR, Mondéjar ME, Ramos R, Segovia JJ, Martín MC, Villamañán MA. World geothermal power production status: Energy, environmental and economic study of high enthalpy technologies. Energy 2012;42:10–8. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2011.06.005. Gerber L, Maréchal F. Environomic optimal configurations of geothermal energy conversion systems: Application to the future construction of Enhanced Geothermal Systems in Switzerland. Energy 2012;45:908–23. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2012.06.068. Gerber L, Maréchal F. Defining optimal configurations of geothermal systems using process design and process integration techniques. Appl Therm Eng 2012;43:29–41. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2011.11.033. Saadat A, Frick S, Kranz S, Regenspurg S. Energetic use of EGS reservoirs. In: Huenges E, editor. Geotherm. energy Syst. Explor. Dev. Util., Weinheim: Wiley; 2010. doi:10.1002/9783527630479. Frick S, Kaltschmitt M, Schröder G. Life cycle assessment of geothermal binary power plants using enhanced low-temperature reservoirs. Energy 2010;35:2281–94. doi:10.1016/j.energy.2010.02.016. Lacirignola M, Blanc I. Environmental analysis of practical design options for enhanced geothermal systems (EGS) through life-cycle assessment. Renew Energy 2012;50:901–14. doi:10.1016/j.renene.2012.08.005. Lacirignola M, Meany B, Padey P, Blanc I. A simplified model for the estimation of life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions of enhanced geothermal systems. Geotherm Energy 2014;2:8. doi:10.1186/s40517-014-0008-y. Evans A, Strezov V, Evans TJ. Assessment of sustainability indicators for renewable energy technologies. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2009;13:1082–8. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2008.03.008. Daniilidis A, Alpsoy B, Herber R. Impact of technical and economic uncertainties on the economic performance of a deep geothermal heat system. Renew Energy 2017;114:805–16. doi:10.1016/j.renene.2017.07.090. Esen H, Inalli M, Esen M. Technoeconomic appraisal of a ground source heat pump system for a heating season in eastern Turkey. Energy Convers Manag 2006;47:1281–97. doi:10.1016/j.enconman.2005.06.024. Esen H, Inalli M, Esen M. A techno-economic comparison of ground-coupled and air-coupled heat pump system for space cooling. Build Environ 2007;42:1955–65. doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2006.04.007. Kannan R, Turton H. Documentation on the Development of the Swiss TIMES Electricity Model (STEM-E). 2011. Dürrschmidt W, Böhme D, Hammer E. Erneuerbare Energien: Innovtionen fuer eine nachhaltige Zukunft [Renewable energies: innovations for a sustainable
AC C
832 833 834 835 836 837 838 839 840 841 842 843 844 845 846 847 848 849 850 851 852 853 854 855 856 857 858 859 860 861 862 863 864 865 866 867 868 869 870 871 872 873 874 875 876 877 878 879 880 881
40
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
[54]
[55]
[56]
[57]
[58]
[59]
[60]
[61] [62]
[63] [64]
RI PT
[53]
SC
[52]
M AN U
[51]
TE D
[50]
EP
[49]
future]. 2011. doi:10.1007/978-3-8348-9891-3_1. van Wees J-D, Boxem T, Angelino L, Dumas P. A prospective study on the geothermal potential in the EU 2013:42. Sigfusson B, Uihlein A. 2014 JRC Geothermal Energy Status Report. 2015. doi:10.2790/460251. Verband Schweizer Elektrizitätsunternehmen [Association of Swiss electricity companies]. Electricity from geothermal energy [Strom aus Geothermie] 2015;2014:1–14. http://www.strom.ch/fileadmin/user_upload/Dokumente_Bilder_neu/010_Downl oads/Basiswissen-Dokumente/14_Geothermie.pdf (accessed February 1, 2017). Heidinger P. Integral modeling and financial impact of the geothermal situation and power plant at Soultz-sous-Forêts. Comptes Rendus Geosci 2010;342:626–35. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.crte.2009.10.010. Held S, Genter A, Kohl T, Kölbel T, Sausse J, Schoenball M. Geothermics economic evaluation of geothermal reservoir performance through modeling the complexity of the operating EGS in Soultz-sous-Forêts. Geothermics 2014;51:270–80. doi:10.1016/j.geothermics.2014.01.016. Atrens AD, Gurgenci H, Rudolph V. Electricity generation using a carbondioxide thermosiphon. Geothermics 2010;39:161–9. doi:10.1016/j.geothermics.2010.03.001. Atrens AD, Gurgenci H, Rudolph V. Economic optimization of a CO2-based EGS power plant. Energy and Fuels 2011;25:3765–75. doi:10.1021/ef200537n. Beckers KF, Lukawski MZ, Anderson BJ, Moore MC, Tester JW. Levelized costs of electricity and direct-use heat from Enhanced Geothermal Systems: Supplement material 2014. doi:10.1063/1.4865575. Department of Energy. Geothermal Electricity Technology Evaluation Model 2016. https://energy.gov/eere/geothermal/geothermal-electricity-technologyevaluation-model (accessed June 6, 2017). Frick S, Wees JD Van, Kaltschmitt M, Schr G. Economic performance and environmental assessment. Geotherm. energy Syst. Explor. Dev. Util., 2010. doi:10.1002/9783527630479.ch7. Clauser C, Ewert M. The renewables cost challenge: Levelized cost of geothermal electric energy compared to other sources of primary energy – Review and case study. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2017;82:3683–93. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2017.10.095. Hoşgör E, Apt J, Fischhoff B. Incorporating seismic concerns in site selection for enhanced geothermal power generation. J Risk Res 2013;16:1021–36. doi:10.1080/13669877.2013.788058. Lobianco LF, Wardani W. Electrical submersible pumps for geothermal applications. Geotherm. energy power Prod., Mainz: 2010, p. 1–7. Tester JW, Anderson BJ, Batchelor AS, Blackwell DD, DiPippo R, Drake EM, et al. The future of geothermal energy: Impact of Enhanced Geothermal Systems (EGS) on the United States in the 21st Century. INL/EXT-06. Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology; 2006. Fischhoff B. The realities of risk-cost-benefit analysis. Science 2015;350:527– 34. doi:10.1126/science.aaa6516. Schmidt P, Lilliestam J. Reducing or fostering public opposition? A critical
AC C
882 883 884 885 886 887 888 889 890 891 892 893 894 895 896 897 898 899 900 901 902 903 904 905 906 907 908 909 910 911 912 913 914 915 916 917 918 919 920 921 922 923 924 925 926 927 928 929 930 931
41
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
[69] [70]
[71]
[72]
[73]
[74] [75]
[76]
[77]
[78]
[79]
RI PT
SC
[68]
M AN U
[67]
TE D
[66]
EP
[65]
reflection on the neutrality of pan-European cost-benefit analysis in electricity transmission planning. Energy Res Soc Sci 2015;10:114–22. doi:10.1016/j.erss.2015.07.003. Diakoulaki D, Karangelis F. Multi-criteria decision analysis and cost-benefit analysis of alternative scenarios for the power generation sector in Greece. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2007;11:716–27. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2005.06.007. Snyder B, Kaiser MJ. Ecological and economic cost-benefit analysis of offshore wind energy. Renew Energy 2009;34:1567–78. doi:10.1016/j.renene.2008.11.015. Ramadhan M, Naseeb A. The cost benefit analysis of implementing photovoltaic solar system in the state of Kuwait. Renew Energy 2011;36:1272– 6. doi:10.1016/j.renene.2010.10.004. European Commission. Guide to cost-benefit analysis of investment projects: Economic appraisal tool for cohesion policy 2014-2020. 2014. doi:10.2776/97516. Pearce D, Atkinson G, Mourato S. Cost-benefit analysis and the environment: Recent developments. vol. 115. 2006. doi:10.1086/426308. Dreze J, Stern N. The theory of cost-benefit analysis. In: Auerbach AJ, Feldstein M, editors. Handb. Public Econ., Elsevier SCience Publishers B.V.; 1987. Jiang F, Chen J, Huang W, Luo L. A three-dimensional transient model for EGS subsurface thermo-hydraulic process. Energy 2014;72:300–10. doi:10.1016/j.energy.2014.05.038. Buscheck TA, Bielicki JM, Edmunds TA, Hao Y, Sun Y, Randolph JB, et al. Multifluid geo-energy systems: Using geologic CO2 storage for geothermal energy production and grid-scale energy storage in sedimentary basins. Geosphere 2016;12:678–96. doi:10.1130/GES01207.1. Franco A, Vaccaro M. A combined energetic and economic approach for the sustainable design of geothermal plants. Energy Convers Manag 2014;87:735–45. doi:10.1016/j.enconman.2014.07.073. Karvounis D. Induced seismicity during hydraulic stimulation of geothermal reservoirs. Swiss Seismol. Serv., Zurich, Switzerland: 2015. Franco A, Villani M. Optimal design of binary cycle power plants for waterdominated, medium-temperature geothermal fields. Geothermics 2009;38:379–91. doi:10.1016/j.geothermics.2009.08.001. Schweizer Bundesamt für Statistik [Swiss Federal Office for Statistics]. Flächenverbrauch [Living space use] 2015. https://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/de/home/statistiken/bauwohnungswesen/wohnungen/wohnverhaeltnisse/flaechenverbrauch.html (accessed July 25, 2017). Girardin L, Marechal F, Dubuis M, Calame-darbellay N, Favrat D. EnerGis : A geographical information based system for the evaluation of integrated energy conversion systems in urban areas 2010;35:830–40. doi:10.1016/j.energy.2009.08.018. Wyborn D. Hydraulic stimulation of the Habanero enhanced geothermal system (EGS), South Australia. Presentation held at the 5th BC unconventional gas technical forum. 2011. Treyer K, Oshikawa H, Bauer C, Miotti M. Environment. In: Hirschberg S, Wiemer S, Burgherr P, editors. Energy from earth Deep Geotherm. as a Resour. Futur. TA Swiss Geotherm. Final Rep., Villingen, Switzerland: Paul
AC C
932 933 934 935 936 937 938 939 940 941 942 943 944 945 946 947 948 949 950 951 952 953 954 955 956 957 958 959 960 961 962 963 964 965 966 967 968 969 970 971 972 973 974 975 976 977 978 979 980 981
42
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
[85]
[86] [87]
[88]
[89]
[90]
[91]
[92] [93]
[94]
[95] [96]
RI PT
[84]
SC
[83]
M AN U
[82]
TE D
[81]
EP
[80]
Scherer Institute; 2015, p. 183–221. doi:10.3218/3655-8. Quoilin S, Broek M Van Den, Declaye S, Dewallef P, Lemort V. Technoeconomic survey of organic rankine cycle (ORC) systems. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2013;22:168–86. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2013.01.028. Ellsworth WL. Injection-induced earthquakes. Science 2013;341. doi:10.1126/science.1225942. Shapiro SA, Dinske C, Langenbruch C, Wenzel F. Seismogenic index and magnitude probability of earthquakes induced during reservoir fluid stimulations. Lead Edge 2010;29:304–9. doi:10.1190/1.3353727. Shapiro SA, Dinske C. Fluid-induced seismicity: Pressure diffusion and hydraulic fracturing. Geophys Prospect 2009;57:301–10. doi:10.1111/j.13652478.2008.00770.x. Király-Proag E, Zechar JD, Gischig V, Wiemer S, Karvounis D, Doetsch J. Validating induced seismicity forecast models - Induced Seismicity Test Bench. J Geophys Res Solid Earth 2016:1–21. doi:10.1002/2016JB013236. Sanyal SK, Morrow JW, Butler SJ, Robertson-tait A. Cost of electricity from Enhanced Geothermal Systems. Thirty-Second Work Geotherm Reserv Eng 2007:11. McGarr A. Maximum magnitude earthquakes induced by fluid injection. J Geophys Res Solid Earth 2014:1–12. doi:10.1002/2013JB010597.Received. Langenbruch C, Shapiro SA. Decay rate of fluid-induced seismicity after termination of reservoir stimulations. Geophysics 2010;75:MA53-MA62. doi:10.1190/1.3506005. Kwiatek G, Martínez-Garzõn P, Dresen G, Bohnhoff M, Sone H, Hartline C. Effects of long-term fluid injection on induced seismicity parameters and maximum magnitude in northwestern part of the Geysers geothermal field. J Geophys Res B Solid Earth 2015;120:7085–101. doi:10.1002/2015JB012362. Keranen KM, Weingarten M, Abers GA, Bekins BA, Ge S. Sharp increase in central Oklahoma seismicity since 2008 induced by massive wastewater injection. Science 2014;345:448 LP-451. Gasman EA, Morgan MG, Dowlatabadi H. Mixed levels of uncertainty in complex policy models. Risk Anal 1999;19:33–42. doi:10.1023/A:1006950109424. StWZ Energie AG. Preise/Konditionen - StWZ Energie 2017. http://www.stwz.ch/de/konditionen-wasser/konditionen-fuer-wasser (accessed June 6, 2017). Fäh D, Kind F, Lang K, Giardini D. Earthquake scenarios for the city of Basel. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 2001;21:405–13. doi:10.1016/S0267-7261(01)00023-9. European Energy Exchange AG. Auction | EPEX Spot 2017. https://www.eex.com/de/marktdaten/strom/spotmarkt/auktion#!/2017/06/14 (accessed June 14, 2017). European Energy Exchange. European Emission Allowances (EUA) 2017. https://www.eex.com/en/market-data/environmental-markets/spotmarket/european-emission-allowances#!/2017/05/16 (accessed May 16, 2017). Stolz P, Frischknecht R. Umweltbilanz Strommix Schweiz 2014 2016. Institut Wohnen und Umwelt. Kumulierter Energieaufwand und CO 2 Emissionsfaktoren verschiedener Energieträger und –versorgungen 2014. http://www.iwu.de/fileadmin/user_upload/dateien/energie/werkzeuge/kea.pdf (accessed June 6, 2017).
AC C
982 983 984 985 986 987 988 989 990 991 992 993 994 995 996 997 998 999 1000 1001 1002 1003 1004 1005 1006 1007 1008 1009 1010 1011 1012 1013 1014 1015 1016 1017 1018 1019 1020 1021 1022 1023 1024 1025 1026 1027 1028 1029 1030 1031
43
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
EP
TE D
M AN U
SC
RI PT
[97] Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development OECD. OECD Factbook 2015-2016 2016. doi:10.1787/factbook-2015-en. [98] Fäh D, Giardini D, Bay F, Bernardi F, Braunmiller J, Deichmann N, et al. Earthquake Catalogue Of Switzerland (ECOS) and the related macroseismic database. Eclogae Geol Helv 2003;96:219–36. doi:10.1007/s00015-003-10870. [99] ArcGIS. Average household size in Switzerland 2016. https://www.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=604c7ff62f854d53b637f5313bab03 e8 (accessed May 9, 2017). [100] Bundesamt für Statistik [Swiss Federal Statistical Office]. Gebäude nach Anzahl Wohnungen im Gebäude [Buildings by number of dwellings per building] 2015. https://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/de/home/statistiken/bauwohnungswesen.assetdetail.1641077.html (accessed May 9, 2017). [101] Schlegel M, Trutnevyte E, Scholz RW. Patterns of residential heat demand in rural Switzerland. Build Res Inf 2012;40:140–53. doi:10.1080/09613218.2011.650005. [102] Eidgenössisches Departement für Umwelt, Verkehr E und KU. Energie sparen und Effizienz erhöhen 2017. https://www.uvek.admin.ch/uvek/de/home/energie/energiestrategie2050/energieeffizienz.html (accessed August 28, 2017). [103] Doubliet P, Begg CB, Weinstein MC, Braun P, Mcneil BJ. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis using Monte Carlo Simulation. Med Decis Mak 1985;5:157– 77. doi:10.1177/0272989X8500500205. [104] International Energy Agency. Renewable Energy Costs and Benefits for Society. 2008. [105] Stauffacher M, Muggli N, Scolobig A, Moser C. Framing deep geothermal energy in mass media: The case of Switzerland. Technol Forecast Soc Change 2015;98:60–70. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2015.05.018. [106] Knoblauch TAK, Stauffacher M, Trutnevyte E. Communicating low-probability high-consequence risk, uncertainty and expert confidence: Induced seismicity of deep geothermal energy and shale gas. Risk Anal 2017. doi:10.1111/risa.12872. [107] Trutnevyte E, Ejderyan O. Managing geoenergy-induced seismicity with society. J Risk Res 2017;0:1–8. doi:10.1080/13669877.2017.1304979. [108] VDI Nachrichten. Tiefe Geothermie bringt Pumpen an ihre Leistungsgrenzen 2013. http://www.vdi-nachrichten.com/Technik-Wirtschaft/Tiefe-Geothermiebringt-Pumpen-an-Leistungsgrenzen (accessed February 16, 2017). [109] Regenspurg S, Blöcher G, Saadat A. Impact of geothermal stimulation treatment on the environment - a risk assessment. In: International conference on enhanced geothermal systems, Freiburg; 2012. [110] Minder R, Ködel J, Schädle K-H, Ramsel K, Girardin L, Maréchal. Energy conversion processes for the use of geothermal heat. vol. 42. Bern, Switzerland: 2007. [111] Geothermie Unterhaching GmbH & Co KG. Datenblatt: Geothermie Unterhaching 2016. [112] Enerchange GmbH & Co. KG. Bruchsal | Informationsportal Tiefe Geothermie 2017. http://www.tiefegeothermie.de/projekte/bruchsal (accessed April 6, 2017). [113] Gemeindewerke Holzkirchen GmbH. Geothermie 2017. https://www.gwholzkirchen.de/cms/Geothermie/Geothermie.html (accessed April 6, 2017).
AC C
1032 1033 1034 1035 1036 1037 1038 1039 1040 1041 1042 1043 1044 1045 1046 1047 1048 1049 1050 1051 1052 1053 1054 1055 1056 1057 1058 1059 1060 1061 1062 1063 1064 1065 1066 1067 1068 1069 1070 1071 1072 1073 1074 1075 1076 1077 1078 1079 1080 1081
44
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
EP
TE D
M AN U
SC
RI PT
[114] Vélez F, Segovia JJ, Martín MC, Antolín G, Chejne F, Quijano A. A technical, economical and market review of organic Rankine cycles for the conversion of low-grade heat for power generation. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2012;16:4175–89. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2012.03.022.
AC C
1082 1083 1084 1085 1086 1087
45
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Supplemental material
1089
This supplemental material provides additional information regarding literature on
1090
downhole pumps, EGS surface cost, living and heating in Switzerland, well-drilling
1091
cost, and equations underlying the cost-benefit analysis from both private and social
1092
perspectives.
1093 1094
Supplement A. Underlying equations for CBA
1095
RI PT
1088
This section presents equations underlying the CBA that are explained and
1097
referenced in the main manuscript of this study.
%,( = * ∗ ,- ∗ .,/ ∗ ( (&) − ) %$
%$4 = 9
1
M AN U
%,! = %( − %$3 %$4 ,- / = 6 8 *$ 7
|;% 0.1 ∗ %( |>?>.&@"."&A B?A
(1) (2) (3)
(4)
%!C = *!C ∗ ,- ∗ .,/ ∗ ( − )
(5)
D,! = %! ∗ >? ∗ ℎ, D!C,! = %!C ∗ &ℎ ∗ ℎ!C,
(7)
TE D
(&) = (0) ∗ (1 − )!
D!C,
EP
D!C, = ! ∗
@> D!C ∗ @>E">& @>
0; >?>.&@"."&A B?A = F D!C, | D!C, < D!C,! D!C,! | D!C, > D!C,!
AC C
1098
SC
1096
∗
JKD =
∑!
%∗ ∝ = 6 8 %
.BE&(&) − @>MC! (&) (1 + ")! D (&) ∑! ! (1 + ")
(6)
(8) (9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
46
@>M(&) + K/ EM(&) (1 + ")! O = .BE&E(&) + ,P>QR (&) ∑! (1 + ")! ∑!
1099
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT (13)
1100
AC C
EP
TE D
M AN U
SC
RI PT
1101
47
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 1102
Supplement B. Literature on EGS downhole pumps
1103 1104
Table S1 summarizes values, specifically price, lifetime, maximum flow rates, and
1105
pump efficiency from literature concerning downhole pumps.
1106
Table S1 Literature values for downhole pumps Lifetime 12 month 10 years
Value 125 160 0.5-0.75 0.5-0.65 0.5-0.85
SC
Maximum flow rate Maximum flow rate Downhole pump efficiency Downhole pump efficiency Downhole pump efficiency
Price [USD] 1’180’965 94’477 118’097 2’361- 8’857/m3/h Unit l/s l/s
M AN U
1107
Ref. [108] [52] [52] [58] Ref [62] [61] [39] [52] [109]
RI PT
Description Electro submersile pump Line-shaft/ submersible pump Reinjection pump Downhole pump
AC C
EP
TE D
1108
48
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 1109
Supplement C. Literature on EGS surface cost
1110 1111
Table S2 presents cost estimates from both past projects and literature for EGS
1112
surface plants.
1113
[USD/kWe] 2’361
Neustadt-Glewe, Germany Bruchsal, Germany St. Gallen, Switzerland Holzkirchen, Germany Literature estimates
4’499
1’181-4’724 4’200 1’771 2’361
1115
Ref. [110] [111] [110] [112] [51] [113]
[114] [14] [52] [110] Part I/14
AC C
EP
TE D
1116
Plant [USD] 9’447’720 18’895’440 944’773 20’076’405 (heat only) 25’925’543 (heat only) 34’247’985
SC
Project Unterhachingen, Germany
RI PT
Table S2 Surface EGS surface plant cost Cpp
M AN U
1114
49
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 1117
Supplement D. Literature on externalities for CBA from social perspective
1118 1119
Table S3 shows average values concerning heat consumption and living conditions
1120
of residents in Switzerland.
1121 Table S3 Input values heat demand Definition Heat consumption per living area Residents per household Households per building Living area per capita
Unit 2 kWhth/ m / yr cap/ househ. househ./ house 2 m
Ref. [77] [99] [100] [76]
SC
1123
Value 149.2 2.2 2.56 45
RI PT
1122
1124 1125
AC C
EP
TE D
M AN U
1126
50
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 1127
Supplement E. Well-drilling cost estimates from the literature Figure S1 displays cost estimates by reservoir depth for EGS wells from the
1130
literature.
1131 1132
Figure S1 Cost for well drilling from literature
M AN U
SC
RI PT
1128 1129
AC C
EP
TE D
1133
51
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Highlights •
First analysis of EGS siting trade-off of induced seismicity (IS) and heat benefits
•
Cost-benefit analysis from private and social perspective of EGS size and siting Large EGS sited in urban areas are most profitable from investor’s
RI PT
•
perspective •
Medium EGS sited in smaller towns are most profitable from societal perspective
SC
Siting EGS in remote areas is unfavorable despite lack of expected IS
EP
TE D
M AN U
damage
AC C
•