Big plans for geothermal energy

Vast stretches of federal land in the West would be open to geothermal energy development under a plan released by U.S. Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne on Wednesday.

The plan identifies 190 million acres — nearly twice the size of California — that would be available for geothermal leasing in 12 Western states. The document, which is expected to be finalized in December, essentially clarifies which public lands are open to geothermal prospecting and which are not.

"Geothermal energy will play a key role in powering America's energy future," Kempthorne said in a news release, "and 90% of our nation's geothermal resources are found on federal land."

Federal spokesmen said the proposal does not open lands previously closed to geothermal development but would speed leasing by laying the groundwork for environmental reviews of individual projects.

California leads the nation in producing geothermal energy and is expected to continue to do so as interest in alternative energy spurs more development. Six long-established fields, including the most productive in the world, are operating on U.S. Bureau of Land Management holdings in Northern California and in Inyo, Mono and Imperial counties.

Of the 190 million acres available for leasing under the Interior proposal, 118 million are managed by the BLM and 79 million by the U.S. Forest Service. All National Park Service lands, as well as wilderness and wilderness study areas and national monuments, would be off limits.

All of Nevada, much of Idaho and Oregon and good chunks of California, Colorado and New Mexico have geothermal potential, based on heat flow maps. Heat from Earth's interior escapes in cracks and fissures in the crust that frequently follow fault networks. The Great Basin, which includes most of Nevada, is slowly pulling itself apart and California is riddled with fault lines, making them hot spots of geothermal production.

Jack G. Peterson, national project manager for the leasing plan, said it is not known how much of the identified acreage will actually yield viable production fields.

In theory, enough energy to supply 12 million homes could eventually be produced under the leasing plan, according to the Interior Department.

Although geothermal facilities have a smaller footprint than solar or wind fields, they would leave their mark on the land much like oil and gas development — with roads, pipelines, power plants and transmission lines.

Daniel Patterson, Southwest director of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, said geothermal energy holds potential. "But we still have to consider, are our public lands there to be turned into energy farms? Or should we be investing in rooftop solar?"

— Bettina Boxall

Photo: A geothermal electric power generation plant under construction near Minersville, Utah. Credit: George Frey / Bloomberg News

Comments

[Thomas Blakeslee]

Daniel Patterson needs to lighten up. Of course we need to respect the landscape but geothermal is the cleanest and least conspicuous way to produce renewable energy. Solar farms and windmills clutter up large land areas but geothermal takes up hardly any space on the surface because most of the action is underground. www.clrlight.org/coal.htm

[sheila]

Daniel Patterson nails it. he is not suggesting that destroying natural habitats by wind or solar is preferable to destroying them by geothermal. he is suggesting that local, point of use solutions, like rooftop solar, will save ALL THAT LAND 200 MILLION ACRES - plus will prevent massive, GHG-emitting transmission lines and new roads systems, which will require large-scale exercise of eminent domain.

all developing our open spaces for energy profits will do is destroy effective carbon sinks (like the Mojave) and wildlife habitats in order to enrich Big Energy, instead of investing in rooftop solar, which, when properly incentivized with feed in tariffs, would empower and enrich PEOPLE, create jobs, and would save the planet, wildlife and the wallets of ratepayers and taxpayers.

it's a no-brainer unless you are a Big Energy monopolist. this is wrong.

[Rahul Venkatraman]

As far as carbon footprints go, solar isn't exactly as clean and green as it is touted to be. Processing and fabrication of silicon (most conventional panels in use today) is highly energy intensive and not even remotely cost effective. The next generation of thin film though cost effective has ridiculously low efficiencies.

Secondly, if solar was to be INCENTIVIZED how is the government supposed to offset the clear deficit being caused. The logical answer would be taxes which nobody wants raised. In that scenario, there need to be budget cuts in other essential programs which taxpayers aren't interested in either. The obvious Catch 22 situation is starting to build.

Its really easy to point fingers at any proposal, but you need to lose some to gain some. Geothermal is one of the cleanest and most cost effective renewable energy sources out there currently. Wasting this abundant resource with pointless bickering only benefits big oil and big energy. As an environmentalist, at times I feel that all we do is really impede the progress of our cause and actually help big energy. The energy of the future is not here today nor will it be in any of our lifetimes. What we need is a stopgap to bridge this transition in any way better than what we are up to today.

[Lee M. Rohde]

It is unreasonable to castigate the big energy (oil,gas power) companies as though they are somehow monopolistic thieves. True, recent profits have been high partly because the oil they pumped themselves cost much less than the world market price. This will change as the price drops. I am a supporter of geothermal within reasonable levels of "injury" to the environment. I have a concern that has not been mentioned..impact on water tables and supply. In Western states water is more precious than oil or gas. Also, while not really renewable, extracting the heat of the earths core will last quite a while. The expertise and financing of geothermal development is best done by the energy companies. It is up to the public to insure that the public interests are met whether in pricing, profit, environmental damage and social impact.

[sheila]

Rahul, you should feel free to do the research on these subjects, since feed in tariffs are never taxpayer-related. they are ratepayer related. in other words, instead of ratepayers shelling out extra monthly charges to pay for new utility infrastructure (billions and billions of dollars in power plants and lines, which is 100% passed on to ratepayers), ratepayers shell out that extra few bucks a month to pay for renewable energy that their neighbors are feeding into the grid. it is a beautiful system and is already working in 40 nations. rates are going up. the only question is do we pay that money to Big Energy monopolists or do we pay it to PEOPLE LIKE US who want to do the right thing by producing clean power and conserving?

also, an "energy payback" time of ~2 years for crystalline silicon PV is hardly "highly energy intensive." what do you think the "payback" is for nuclear? CSP (which uses tons of gas and water, too)? Big Wind? you have to include the huge new transmission infrastructure and roads systems (including widespread eminent domain, forcing families from their homes), and the cost of the lost carbon sinks (like the Mojave). call that "affordable" or "efficient?" it's not.

permanent decimation of 200 million acres cannot be considered a "stopgap" because it's permanent and total destruction - unnecessary, wasteful and harmful. we can easily skip this step and move straight into a point of use paradigm as both a "transition" and a "long term" solution, so why would we kill off our ecosystems with Big Energy power plants and power lines? it doesn't make sense to this environmentalist who works roughly 20 hours a week on renewable energy issues.

Lee, perhaps you can tell us the exact "environmental injury" that geothermal causes so we can all make an informed decision. start with earthquakes, sulfuric acid, roads, powerlines, huge amounts of water and energy for "injection" systems, 200 million acres of ecosystem, and, for Rahul's sake, the exact "payback time" for a geothermal plant to fully generate 100% of the energy required to build and maintain the full infrastructure required from "cradle to grave," including 10% transmission losses, opportunity costs, etc.

i have been looking very, very hard at renewable energy for the past several years from the vantage of the environment, the ratepayer and the taxpayer. the ONLY solution that creates a winning scenario is leading with an enormous push for oversized point of use renewables (incentivized by FITs), no new power lines or power plants, and much greater emphasis on conservation and efficiency. after that, we can see where we stand, where the tech is, and see what Phase II would be.

Big Energy has proven time and again that they are eager to manipulate supplies and pricing to suit their bottom lines. it will be NO DIFFERENT with a new fuel source. as long as we allow them to control pricing and supply, they will hijack us, so why would we agree to pay 100% of their costs of new infrastructure so they can do that? let's pay ourselves AND save the planet!

[Fred Neal Landry, PhD]

If Geothermal energy will play a key role in powering America's energy future, then we should also began to study Geothermal opportunities on Native American Trust Lands. This may, in the future, provide a major source of income and new job creation.