Emily Cairncross, Jonathan D. Ogland-Hand, Benjamin M. Adams, Richard S. Middleton
{"title":"全国沉积盆地地热发电成本和容量估算及对二氧化碳地质封存的影响","authors":"Emily Cairncross, Jonathan D. Ogland-Hand, Benjamin M. Adams, Richard S. Middleton","doi":"10.3389/fenrg.2024.1422285","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: Sedimentary basins are naturally porous and permeable subsurface formations that underlie approximately half of the United States. In addition to being targets for geologic CO<jats:sub>2</jats:sub> storage, these resources could supply geothermal power: sedimentary basin geothermal heat can be extracted with water or CO<jats:sub>2</jats:sub> and used to generate electricity. The geothermal power potential of these basins and the accompanying implication for geologic CO<jats:sub>2</jats:sub> storage are, however, understudied.Methods: Here, we use the Sequestration of CO<jats:sub>2</jats:sub> Tool (SCO2T<jats:sup>PRO</jats:sup>) and the generalizable GEOthermal techno-economic simulator (genGEO) to address this gap by a) estimating the cost and capacity of sedimentary basin geothermal power plants across the United States and b) comparing those results to nationwide CO<jats:sub>2</jats:sub> sequestration cost and storage potential estimates.Results and discussion: We find that across the United States, using CO<jats:sub>2</jats:sub> as a geothermal heat extraction fluid reduces the cost of sedimentary basin power compared to using water, and some of the lowest cost capacity occurs in locations not typically considered for their geothermal resources (e.g., Louisiana, South Dakota). Additionally, using CO<jats:sub>2</jats:sub> effectively doubles the sedimentary basin geothermal resource base, equating to hundreds of gigawatts of new capacity, by enabling electricity generation in geologies that are otherwise (with water) too impermeable, too thin, too cold, or not deep enough. We find there is competition for the best sedimentary basin resources between water- and CO<jats:sub>2</jats:sub>-based power, but no overlap between the lowest-cost resources for CO<jats:sub>2</jats:sub> storage and CO<jats:sub>2</jats:sub>-based power. In this way, our results suggest that deploying CO<jats:sub>2</jats:sub>-based power may increase the cost of water based systems (by using the best resources) and the cost of CO<jats:sub>2</jats:sub> storage (by storing CO<jats:sub>2</jats:sub> in locations that otherwise may not be targeted). As such, our findings demonstrate that determining the best role for sedimentary basins within the energy transition may require balancing tradeoffs between competing priorities.","PeriodicalId":12428,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Energy Research","volume":"74 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Nationwide cost and capacity estimates for sedimentary basin geothermal power and implications for geologic CO2 storage\",\"authors\":\"Emily Cairncross, Jonathan D. Ogland-Hand, Benjamin M. Adams, Richard S. Middleton\",\"doi\":\"10.3389/fenrg.2024.1422285\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Introduction: Sedimentary basins are naturally porous and permeable subsurface formations that underlie approximately half of the United States. In addition to being targets for geologic CO<jats:sub>2</jats:sub> storage, these resources could supply geothermal power: sedimentary basin geothermal heat can be extracted with water or CO<jats:sub>2</jats:sub> and used to generate electricity. The geothermal power potential of these basins and the accompanying implication for geologic CO<jats:sub>2</jats:sub> storage are, however, understudied.Methods: Here, we use the Sequestration of CO<jats:sub>2</jats:sub> Tool (SCO2T<jats:sup>PRO</jats:sup>) and the generalizable GEOthermal techno-economic simulator (genGEO) to address this gap by a) estimating the cost and capacity of sedimentary basin geothermal power plants across the United States and b) comparing those results to nationwide CO<jats:sub>2</jats:sub> sequestration cost and storage potential estimates.Results and discussion: We find that across the United States, using CO<jats:sub>2</jats:sub> as a geothermal heat extraction fluid reduces the cost of sedimentary basin power compared to using water, and some of the lowest cost capacity occurs in locations not typically considered for their geothermal resources (e.g., Louisiana, South Dakota). Additionally, using CO<jats:sub>2</jats:sub> effectively doubles the sedimentary basin geothermal resource base, equating to hundreds of gigawatts of new capacity, by enabling electricity generation in geologies that are otherwise (with water) too impermeable, too thin, too cold, or not deep enough. We find there is competition for the best sedimentary basin resources between water- and CO<jats:sub>2</jats:sub>-based power, but no overlap between the lowest-cost resources for CO<jats:sub>2</jats:sub> storage and CO<jats:sub>2</jats:sub>-based power. In this way, our results suggest that deploying CO<jats:sub>2</jats:sub>-based power may increase the cost of water based systems (by using the best resources) and the cost of CO<jats:sub>2</jats:sub> storage (by storing CO<jats:sub>2</jats:sub> in locations that otherwise may not be targeted). As such, our findings demonstrate that determining the best role for sedimentary basins within the energy transition may require balancing tradeoffs between competing priorities.\",\"PeriodicalId\":12428,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Frontiers in Energy Research\",\"volume\":\"74 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Frontiers in Energy Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"5\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3389/fenrg.2024.1422285\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"工程技术\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ENERGY & FUELS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in Energy Research","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/fenrg.2024.1422285","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ENERGY & FUELS","Score":null,"Total":0}
Nationwide cost and capacity estimates for sedimentary basin geothermal power and implications for geologic CO2 storage
Introduction: Sedimentary basins are naturally porous and permeable subsurface formations that underlie approximately half of the United States. In addition to being targets for geologic CO2 storage, these resources could supply geothermal power: sedimentary basin geothermal heat can be extracted with water or CO2 and used to generate electricity. The geothermal power potential of these basins and the accompanying implication for geologic CO2 storage are, however, understudied.Methods: Here, we use the Sequestration of CO2 Tool (SCO2TPRO) and the generalizable GEOthermal techno-economic simulator (genGEO) to address this gap by a) estimating the cost and capacity of sedimentary basin geothermal power plants across the United States and b) comparing those results to nationwide CO2 sequestration cost and storage potential estimates.Results and discussion: We find that across the United States, using CO2 as a geothermal heat extraction fluid reduces the cost of sedimentary basin power compared to using water, and some of the lowest cost capacity occurs in locations not typically considered for their geothermal resources (e.g., Louisiana, South Dakota). Additionally, using CO2 effectively doubles the sedimentary basin geothermal resource base, equating to hundreds of gigawatts of new capacity, by enabling electricity generation in geologies that are otherwise (with water) too impermeable, too thin, too cold, or not deep enough. We find there is competition for the best sedimentary basin resources between water- and CO2-based power, but no overlap between the lowest-cost resources for CO2 storage and CO2-based power. In this way, our results suggest that deploying CO2-based power may increase the cost of water based systems (by using the best resources) and the cost of CO2 storage (by storing CO2 in locations that otherwise may not be targeted). As such, our findings demonstrate that determining the best role for sedimentary basins within the energy transition may require balancing tradeoffs between competing priorities.
期刊介绍:
Frontiers in Energy Research makes use of the unique Frontiers platform for open-access publishing and research networking for scientists, which provides an equal opportunity to seek, share and create knowledge. The mission of Frontiers is to place publishing back in the hands of working scientists and to promote an interactive, fair, and efficient review process. Articles are peer-reviewed according to the Frontiers review guidelines, which evaluate manuscripts on objective editorial criteria