The prospects for Geothermal energy: Success potential and CO2 emissions reduction

Hello,


I have written some interesting articles that are related to my subject of today , and here they are in the following web links, and hope that you will read them carefully:

Green Hydrogen’s next step: Why Germany’s electrode innovation is a milestone for the energy transition

https://myphilo10.blogspot.com/2026/01/green-hydrogens-next-step-why-germanys.html

Incremental breakthroughs, systemic impact: Why advances in Green Hydrogen manufacturing may matter more than we think

https://myphilo10.blogspot.com/2025/12/incremental-breakthroughs-systemic.html

Solving climate change in the age of Arctic Tundra emissions: A comprehensive strategy including geoengineering and Arctic community solutions

https://myphilo10.blogspot.com/2025/11/solving-climate-change-in-age-of-arctic.html

A potentially revolutionary leap in battery technology: The KRICT breakthrough

https://myphilo10.blogspot.com/2025/07/a-potentially-revolutionary-leap-in.html

Scientists discover recipe to harness Earth’s hydrogen power for 170,000 years

https://myphilo10.blogspot.com/2025/05/scientists-discover-recipe-to-harness.html

A promising breakthrough in the fight against marine plastic pollution: A novel bioplastic that degrades in the deep sea

https://myphilo10.blogspot.com/2025/07/a-promising-breakthrough-in-fight.html


And for today , here is my below new interesting paper called:"The Prospects for Geothermal Energy: Success Potential and CO2 Emissions Reduction":

And here is my new paper:

---

# **The Prospects for Geothermal Energy: Success Potential and CO2 Emissions Reduction**

### **Abstract**

Geothermal energy, derived from the natural heat of the Earth’s crust, represents a renewable and baseload source of electricity and heat. Despite its historical niche status, recent technological improvements—specifically in Enhanced Geothermal Systems (EGS) and Advanced Geothermal Systems (AGS)—suggest geothermal has the potential to play a significant role in decarbonizing the global energy system. This paper assesses geothermal’s technical and economic growth potential, its projected contribution to reducing CO2 emissions, and the critical challenges—such as induced seismicity and high capital costs—that must be managed. Crucially, it evaluates the pathway for geothermal to achieve cost parity with intermittent renewables and battery storage by 2035.

---

## **1. Introduction**

Geothermal energy has historically played a minor role in the global energy mix, contributing less than 1% of global electricity demand today. However, the sector is currently undergoing a technological transformation. Recent developments in **Enhanced Geothermal Systems (EGS)** and **Advanced Geothermal Systems (AGS, or "closed-loop")** promise to expand geothermal energy far beyond its current geographic limitations (volcanic or tectonic fault regions). This paper evaluates whether geothermal energy can be successful at scale and quantifies its potential to reduce CO2 emissions by mid-century.

---

## **2. Current Status of Geothermal Energy**

Despite being a built-and-tested technology for over a century, geothermal energy’s deployment has been concentrated in geologically favorable regions such as the United States, Indonesia, Kenya, Iceland, and Turkey.

Traditional hydrothermal plants rely on naturally occurring underground reservoirs of hot water. However, these resources are rare. Deeper, hot dry rock resources remain largely untapped due to high drilling and exploration costs. Consequently, geothermal capacity has lagged behind wind and solar, which have benefited from rapid cost declines and easier site selection (IEA, 2024).

---

## **3. Technological Innovations and Expansion Potential**

The International Energy Agency (IEA) and recent academic studies indicate that next-generation technologies could substantially increase geothermal capacity. These technologies leverage directional drilling and stimulation techniques borrowed from the oil and gas industry to access heat in "hot dry rock" formations.

### **3.1 Two distinct paths: EGS vs. AGS**

It is critical to distinguish between the two emerging technologies, as they offer different risk profiles and engineering challenges:
* **Enhanced Geothermal Systems (EGS):** Involves injecting fluid into hot rock to shear existing fractures, creating a permeable reservoir. This offers high heat transfer rates via convection but carries a risk of induced seismicity if not managed via strict "traffic light" protocols.
* **Advanced Geothermal Systems (AGS/Closed-Loop):** Circulates fluid through a sealed, radiator-like network of underground pipes. Because no fluid interacts directly with the rock, AGS eliminates seismic risk entirely. However, it relies on **conduction** rather than convection. To be viable, AGS requires a massive increase in subsurface surface area—often achieved through complex multilateral "spider" wellbores—to compensate for rock’s naturally poor thermal conductivity.

### **3.2 Theoretical vs. Technically Recoverable Potential**

The scale of the resource is immense, but figures must be viewed with caution. While technical estimates suggest EGS resources at depths of up to 8 km could yield a *theoretical* capacity of **almost 600 TW** (IEA, 2024)—dwarfing the world's 8.5 TW installed capacity—only a fraction is economically recoverable. However, capturing even **1% to 2%** of this resource would be sufficient to meet global baseload requirements, making the distinction between "theoretical" and "recoverable" the central engineering challenge of the next decade.

### **3.3 Future Projections**

If costs decline and deployment accelerates, geothermal could supply up to **15% of global electricity demand growth by 2050**. This represents approximately **800 GW of installed capacity** and roughly 6,000 TWh of annual generation—equivalent to the current combined electricity demand of the United States and India (Anadolu Agency, 2024).

---

## **4. Geothermal’s Role in CO2 Emissions Reduction**

### **4.1 Electricity Sector: The Baseload Advantage**

Widespread deployment would allow geothermal to function as a firm, dispatchable baseload power source. Unlike wind or solar, which require battery backup, geothermal can directly replace coal and natural gas plants that currently stabilize the grid.

Economic analyses suggest that next-generation geothermal adoption could reduce fossil CO2 emissions **by up to 17% by 2050**. This figure assumes the specific displacement of **baseload coal generation** rather than intermittent gas peakers. This potential is highest in the **Philippines and Indonesia**, nations that sit on the "Ring of Fire" yet remain heavily dependent on coal. Transitioning these specific grids from coal to geothermal baseload represents one of the highest-impact decarbonization opportunities in the Global South (HSBC, 2024).

### **4.2 Heat and District Heating: The Silent Giant**

While electricity draws the most attention, **thermal energy accounts for nearly 50% of global final energy consumption**. Decarbonizing industrial and residential heat is notoriously difficult.
In the United Kingdom, pilot schemes utilizing mine water geothermal systems (such as the Gateshead project) demonstrate potential emissions reductions of **10–20%** in localized heating networks compared to conventional natural gas boilers (The Coal Authority, 2023). Geothermal offers one of the few viable pathways to decarbonize heavy industrial heat and district heating without relying on biomass or electrification.

---

## **5. Economic and Policy Considerations**

### **5.1 Economics: The LCOE Challenge**

Achieving growth requires geothermal to become cost-competitive. Currently, the Levelized Cost of Energy (LCOE) for geothermal ranges between **$59 and $101 per MWh**, depending on resource quality (Lazard, 2024).

* **The Competitor:** For context, utility-scale solar PV combined with 4-hour battery storage currently holds an LCOE of approximately **$45–$75/MWh**. Geothermal must reach the lower end of this bracket to remain relevant.
* **The Target:** The US Department of Energy’s "Earthshot" initiative aims to reduce EGS costs to **$45/MWh by 2035**.
* **The Path:** This reduction relies on reducing drilling time. The adoption of Polycrystalline Diamond Compact (PDC) bits and physics-based drilling (e.g., millimeter-wave technology) is currently doubling penetration rates, slashing the time rigs must spend on site.

### **5.2 Investment and Policy**
Total global investment could reach **USD 1 trillion by 2035** if deployment accelerates (IEA, 2024). However, current permitting processes are long and complex. Policy reforms targeting risk mitigation—such as government-backed drilling insurance—are necessary to attract private financing.

---

## **6. Challenges and Limitations**

Despite the potential, several challenges impede rapid scaling:

* **High Upfront Capital Costs:** Drilling accounts for 40-50% of a project's total cost. Unlike solar or wind, where resource assessment is cheap, geothermal requires expensive exploratory drilling with a risk of finding no viable heat ("dry holes").
* **Induced Seismicity Risks:** EGS utilizes **"hydroshearing"**—opening natural fractures at lower pressures to allow rocks to *slip*—rather than the high-pressure rock-fracturing used in oil and gas to *shatter* rock. While this presents lower risk than traditional fracking, historical incidents (e.g., Pohang, South Korea) highlight the need for rigorous monitoring. Alternatively, Closed-Loop (AGS) systems offer a zero-seismicity alternative for sensitive urban regions.
* **Skill Shortages:** While there is overlap with the oil and gas workforce, specialized labor for high-temperature geothermal environments is currently limited.

---

## **7. Conclusion**

Geothermal energy possesses the **technical potential** to evolve from a niche player to a cornerstone of the global energy system. By leveraging next-generation EGS and AGS technologies, geothermal could supply a meaningful share of future electricity growth and contribute **double-digit percentage reductions** in global CO2 emissions by mid-century.

However, realizing this potential requires moving beyond theoretical capacity to economic viability. Success depends on **lowering the LCOE to under $50/MWh** to compete with solar-plus-storage, transferring drilling innovations from the fossil fuel sector, and specifically targeting coal-dependent regions like Southeast Asia. If these conditions are met, geothermal stands as one of the most promising baseload solutions for a low-carbon future.

---

## **References**

**Anadolu Agency.** (2024). *IEA report projects geothermal energy to meet 15% of global demand growth.* Retrieved from aa.com.tr

**HSBC Global Research.** (2024). *Geothermal Energy: Digging Deeper for Decarbonization.* HSBC Business Insights.

**International Energy Agency (IEA).** (2024). *The Future of Geothermal Energy: Technology and Policy Pathways to 2050.* Paris: IEA.

**Lazard.** (2024). *Levelized Cost of Energy Analysis+ (LCOE+).* Lazard Financial Advisory.

**The Coal Authority.** (2023). *Mine Water Heat: A recovery opportunity for the UK.* UK Government.

**US Department of Energy (DOE).** (2023). *Enhanced Geothermal Shot: Goals and Metrics.* Washington, D.C.: US DOE.

---


And here is what the AI (Artificial intelligence) from Google called Gemini 3.0 Pro , that is advanced , answered me about my above new paper:

"This is an excellent, high-quality paper. It is concise, well-structured, and demonstrates a sophisticated understanding of the current energy landscape. You have managed to move beyond the generic talking points of renewable energy and drilled down (pun intended) into the specific engineering and economic realities of the industry.

Here is my detailed review and rating of your paper.

### **The Grade: A (92/100)**

**Summary of Rating:**

This paper is an **A**. It is a top-tier policy brief or executive summary. It is clear, persuasive, and technically literate.
* **Why not an A+?** To push this to an A+ (publishable academic standard), you would need to expand the **Methodology** (explain how you selected these sources) and incorporate more peer-reviewed academic journals (e.g., *Geothermics*, *Energy Policy*) rather than relying primarily on industry reports (IEA, Lazard, HSBC).

---

### **Detailed Critique**

#### **1. Strengths (What makes this paper strong)**

* **Technical Nuance (EGS vs. AGS):**

* *Comment:* Section 3.1 is the strongest part of the paper. Most general overviews lump all geothermal together. By distinguishing between **Enhanced Geothermal Systems (shearing/convection)** and **Advanced Geothermal Systems (closed-loop/conduction)**, you show you understand the physics.
* *Highlight:* Your explanation of the trade-off between seismic risk (EGS) and the surface-area challenge (AGS) is spot on.

* **Realism over Hype:**

* *Comment:* In Section 3.2, you immediately differentiate between "theoretical" capacity (600 TW) and "economically recoverable" capacity. This adds significant credibility. You avoid the trap of sounding like a cheerleader and sound like an analyst instead.

* **The "Right" Economic Comparison:**

* *Comment:* In Section 5.1, you compare Geothermal LCOE not just to gas/coal, but to **Solar PV + 4-hour Battery Storage**. This is crucial. In 2024+, geothermal isn't competing with coal for price; it is competing with batteries for the role of "dispatchable renewable." Acknowledging this shows deep market insight.

* **Geopolitical Specificity:**

* *Comment:* Identifying Indonesia and the Philippines as specific targets for coal-to-geothermal switching (Section 4.1) moves the paper from abstract theory to actionable policy.

#### **2. Areas for Improvement (How to make it better)**

* **Citation Quality:**

* *Critique:* Your sources are credible (IEA, Lazard, DOE), but they are mostly "Grey Literature" (government/bank reports).
* *Fix:* To make this more academic, include 2-3 citations from peer-reviewed scientific journals regarding the specific efficiency rates of millimeter-wave drilling or the heat transfer coefficients of closed-loop systems.

* **The "Heat" Section:**

* *Critique:* Section 4.2 (Heat) is vital, but very short.
* *Fix:* Since you mention that heat is 50% of global energy consumption, it deserves slightly more space. Perhaps mention the efficiency of Geothermal Heat Pumps (GHPs) for residential use, not just district heating.

* **Visuals (Implied):**

* *Critique:* Text-only papers on energy economics can be dense.
* *Fix:* If you were publishing this, a chart comparing the LCOE of Geothermal vs. Solar+Storage over the last 10 years would be the single most impactful addition.

#### **3. Line-by-Line Notes**

* **Abstract:** Excellent. Captures the "Hook" (baseload) and the "Hurdle" (cost) perfectly.
* **Section 5.1:** *"The adoption of Polycrystalline Diamond Compact (PDC) bits..."* — This is great specific detail. It shows you aren't just looking at prices, but the technology driving the prices.
* **References:** The use of "Anadolu Agency" (a news wire) for data on global electricity demand is a bit weak. It is better to cite the primary source that Anadolu was quoting (likely an IEA or EIA dataset).

### **Final Verdict**

This is a professional, insightful piece of writing. It reads like a high-quality **Briefing Note** prepared for an Energy Minister or a Venture Capital investment committee. You successfully argue that geothermal’s future lies in its ability to become a manufacturing problem (AGS/drilling tech) rather than an exploration problem.

**Rating:** **Solid A.** Great job."


Thank you,
Amine Moulay Ramdane.