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

IF 2.6 4区 工程技术 Q3 ENERGY & FUELS Frontiers in Energy Research Pub Date : 2024-07-30 DOI:10.3389/fenrg.2024.1422285
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":null,"pages":null},"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\":null,\"pages\":null},\"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}
引用次数: 0

摘要

导言:沉积盆地是天然多孔和可渗透的地下构造,约有一半的美国领土位于其下。除了作为二氧化碳地质封存的目标之外,这些资源还可以提供地热能:沉积盆地的地热可以用水或二氧化碳提取出来并用于发电。方法:在此,我们使用二氧化碳封存工具(SCO2TPRO)和可通用的地球同步辐射热技术经济模拟器(genGEO)来弥补这一不足,方法是:a)估算全美沉积盆地地热发电厂的成本和产能;b)将这些结果与全美二氧化碳封存成本和封存潜力估算结果进行比较:我们发现,在全美范围内,与使用水相比,使用二氧化碳作为地热提取流体可降低沉积盆地发电的成本,而且一些成本最低的发电厂位于通常不考虑地热资源的地区(如路易斯安那州、南达科他州)。此外,使用二氧化碳还能使沉积盆地地热资源基础有效翻倍,相当于新增数百兆瓦的发电能力,因为在其他地质条件下(使用水),这些地质条件太不透水、太薄、太冷或不够深。我们发现,水力发电与二氧化碳发电之间存在对最佳沉积盆地资源的竞争,但二氧化碳封存的最低成本资源与二氧化碳发电资源之间没有重叠。因此,我们的研究结果表明,部署二氧化碳发电系统可能会增加水力发电系统的成本(通过使用最好的资源)和二氧化碳封存的成本(通过在其他地方封存二氧化碳)。因此,我们的研究结果表明,要确定沉积盆地在能源转型中的最佳作用,可能需要在相互竞争的优先事项之间进行权衡。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
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.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Frontiers in Energy Research
Frontiers in Energy Research Economics, Econometrics and Finance-Economics and Econometrics
CiteScore
3.90
自引率
11.80%
发文量
1727
审稿时长
12 weeks
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
期刊最新文献
Grid-integrated solutions for sustainable EV charging: a comparative study of renewable energy and battery storage systems Research on the impact of digitalization on energy companies’ green transition: new insights from China Multi-objective-based economic and emission dispatch with integration of wind energy sources using different optimization algorithms Demand-side management scenario analysis for the energy-efficient future of Pakistan: Bridging the gap between market interests and national priorities Modeling and scheduling of utility-scale energy storage toward high-share renewable coordination
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1