TITLE: ECONOMICS OF GEOTHERMAL ENERGY

AUTHOR(S): Glenn E. Morris, . .

S-2

Jefferson W. Tester, G-3 Glen A. Graves, DIR

SUBMITTED TO: American Nuclear Society Topical Meeting,

February 27-29, 1980 Hyatt Regency Hotel, Los Angeles, CA. Meeting Titled "A Technical Assessment of Nuclear Power and Its Alternatives. 'I

This book pmwed 01 an m u n f 01w a k vponsored by an a e r r v 01 the United Sa r Govetnmnt. te ~ e i t h n United Smer G o w n m n t ngr any agency mwmf. mr my of their emplovser. makoranv the mrranty. express or impkd. or ~ U U W am lWi liability or r w n r i b i l i w for the m-. mmpletsnsrJ. or usefulness of any information. B P P ~ ~ ~ U I . d u n . 01 w'mstr dielond. a rqr-rns that its use -Id m t infrlnps privafeiy o w e d riaMs. Reference herein to am wifii mmmacial pmdun. wces. OT m i c e by trade m m ,trademark. manufectumr. M otlwmise, doer not ngenatily mnslitute or imply ill endoramsnt. rsmmmsndstion. or favorinp by the United Safer Government 01 any agethereof. The viand opinionli of aufh-m t a p r d herein do mt

DISCLAIMER. - . - - . -. . .

Y-

B y acceptance of this article, the publisher recognizes that the

U.S. Government retains a nonexclusive. royalty-free license to publish or reproduce the published form of this contribution, or to allow othen to do so, for U.S. Government purposes.
The Lot Alamos Scientific Laboratory requests that the publisher identify this article as work performed under the auspices of the US. Department of Energy.

LOS ALAMOS SCIENTIFIC LABORATORY

Post Office Box 1663 Los Alamos, New Mexico 87545 An Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer

Form No. 836 R3 St. No. 2629 12/78

L

U N I T E D STATES O E r A R T M E N T OF E N E R G Y C O N T R A C T W-740s-ERG. S 6

blSrtllBUTlON OF THIS DOCUMENT I UNLlMltM S

DISCLAIMER This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency Thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof.

DISCLAIMER Portions of this document may be illegible in electronic image products. Images are produced from the best available original document.

..
. -*

ECONOMICS OF' GEOTHERMAL ENERGY

Glenn E. M o r r i s , J e f f e r s o n W. T e s t e r , and Glen A. Graves Los Alamos S c i e n t i f i c L a b o r a t o r y U n i v e r s i t y of C a l i f o r n i a B O X 1663 M 981 S Los Alamos, NM 8 7 5 4 5 ( 5 0 5 ) 667- 4318

ABSTRACT

T h i s paper p r e s e n t s a selected summary o f t h e res o u r c e , t e c h n i c a l , and f i n a n c i a l c o n s i d e r a t i o n s w h i c h i n f l u e n c e t h e economics o f g e o t h e r m a l e n e r g y i n t h e U.S. E s t i m a t e s o f r e s o u r c e b a s e and l e v e l i z e d b u s b a r c o s t o f base l o a d power f o r s e v e r a l t y p e s o f g e o t h e r mal r e s o u r c e s a r e compared w i t h s i m i l a r e s t i m a t e s f o r more c o n v e n t i o n a l e n e r g y r e s o u r c e s . C u r r e n t g e o t h e r mal e l e c t r i c power p l a n t s p l a n n e d , u n d e r c o n s t r u c t i o n , and o n - l i n e i n t h e U.S. a r e n o t e d . The s h o r t n e s s o f t h i s p a p e r p r o h i b i t s a n i n - d e p t h p r e s e n t a t i o n of t h e c u r r e n t " s t a t e o f t h e a r t " i n g e o t h e r m a l development i n t h e U.S. W have t r i e d t o f o c u s on t h e most i m p o r t a n t e items of economic i n t e r e s t c o n c e r n i n g t h e resource and end-use c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of b o t h n a t u r a l and a r t i f i c i a l l y - s t i m u l a t e d g e o t h e r m a l s y s t e m s . W i t h i n t h e p a s t 5 y e a r s , i n t e r e s t i n geot h e r m a l e n e r g y h a s grown c o n s i d e r a b l y a s e v i d e n c e d by t h e i n crease i n a v a i l a b l e l i t e r a t u r e on t h e s u b j e c t . A more t h o r o u g h d i s c u s s i o n and r e v i e w of t h e s e r e c e n t developments a r e p r e s e n t e d b y Tester (1) and Cummings and M o r r i s ( 2 ) . Much o f t h e c u r r e n t i n t e r e s t i n g e o t h e r m a l e n e r g y is d u e t o t h e e s t i m a t e d magnitude of t h e resource. T a b l e 1 compares res o u r c e b a s e e s t i m a t e s f o r t h e United S t a t e s f o r s e v e r a l convent i o n a l energy resources w i t h those f o r s e v e r a l of the-geothermal energy e x t r a c t i o n concepts. As s u c h , i t h i g h l i g h t s t h e f a c t t h a t g e o t h e r m a l s y s t e m s encompass a wide v a r i e t y o f b o t h geol o g i c c o n d i t i o n s , r e s e r v o i r e n g i n e e r i n g c o n c e p t s , and end-use d e s i g n s . T h e r e is d e f i n i t e l y a broad r a n g e o f u n c e r t a i n t y s u r rounding t h e m a g n i t u d e o f t h e r e s o u r c e b a s e v a l u e s e s p e c i a l l y t h o s e e n t r i e s f o r geothermal c a t e g o r i e s . StP11, t h e f i g u r e s i n T a b l e 1 i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e U.g. h y d r o t h e r m a l g e o t h e r m a l r e s o u r c e b a s e is a p p r o x i m a t e l y s i x times g r e a t e r t h a n t h a t f o r o i l / g a s ( e x c l u d i n g o i l s h a l e ) and 60% a s l a r g e a s t h a t f o r U.S. c o a l . The h o t d r y r o c k (HDR) o r conduction-dominated r e s o u r c e , which is i n a n e r l y d e v e l o p m e n t a l s f e g t , claims a U.S. r e s o u r c e b a s e of 13 x 1 0 q u a d s (1 quad = 1 0 ] o u l e s ) - - a l m o s t two o r d e r s of magnitude g r e a t e r t h a n t h a t of c o a l .

V.5-1

From the commercial perspective, however, what really counts is the fraction of the resource base which can be extracted at competitive costs. Table 2 presents some estimates of levelized busbar costs of new base load electic capacity for several conventional generation systems and the geothermal energy resource types introduced above. Table 2 highlights again the enormous variation in both the nature and quality of geothermal resources and the primitive state of knowledge associated with most of the extraction concepts. For example, hydrothermal systems are characterized by convection-dominated flow within a permeable, water saturated reservoir. This encompasses both vapor-dominated and liquid-dominated systems. The vapor-dominated resource, as epitomized by The Geysers reservoir in northern California, produces high temperature dry steam which can be utilized directly to produce low cost electricity. This electricity, in turn, is economically transported to load centers. The Geysers system currently has 663 MW(e) of generating capacity in place with over 1700 MW(e) planned for 1985.- The difficulty is that, at best, only 2% of the hydrothermal resource is vapor dominated (3). Liquid-dominated hydrothermal systems, on the other hand, are generally characterized by relatJvely low temperatures: perhaps half the resoure base is <90 C,Oand most of the "high temperature" half has temperatures (200 C. Futhermore, the fluids extracted from the liquid-dominated reservoirs often contain large amounts of dissolved material, frequently corrosive salts, and this threatens equipment performance and operating life. Hence, utilization of this resource for electric generation ordinarily entails a host of fluid handling, power conversion, and heat rejection problems which necessitate careful design and state-of-the-art conversion and concepts e.g., advanced direct-steam flashing and organic binary conversion cycles. Overcoming these problems has proved to be technically challenging and very expensive. Even so, several electric power plants which utilize high-temperature, shallow hydrothermal brines are either under construction or planned (see T a b l e 3). The operation of these plants should help resolve some uncertainty which currently surrounds the technical and economic feasibility of electric power production using high-grade, liquid-dominated systems. However, there will still be important site-specific features associated with even this subcategory of the hydrothermal resource, e.g. , drilling conditions, fluid chemistry, reservoir life, and ambient temperatures which will make investing in such facilities a relatively risky proposition for the foreseeable future. The direct utilization of fluids from liquid-dominated systems for space or process heating applications has a fairly long, if limited, history even in the U.S., e.g., Klamath Falls, Oregon and Boise, Idaho. In order to be economic, however, the resource must exist in close proximity to a load center since the transport of geothermal fluids is very expensive. Unfortunately, in the U.S. there appears to be a fairly poor match

V.5-2

between sites of high load, low temperature use and liquiddominated hydrothermal systems. As one considers geothermal energy possibilities which offer the prospect of a significantly greater resource base, one is confronted with a corresponding increase in the technical and commercial uncertainties associated with resource utilization. Geopressured-geothermal resources, a s typified by the geologic ,formations lying along the Gulf Coast from Mexico 80 Mississippi, contain moderately hot water (150-180 C) under extremely high pressure (200-400 bars). There is the possibility that some of these brines are saturated with methane. If this is the case, then the energy content of the fluid would be enormously enhanced. Few wells have been drilled to produce geopressured-geothermal brine; although the U.S, DOE has initiated a substantial program to increase knowledge of this area (4). There are engineering problems associated with drilling, producing, and re-i'njecting fluids into such high pressure formations. For example, there is considerable concern that pressure reductions associated with production would cause the collapse of the geologic formation and reduce well productivity significantly. Even if geopressured-geothermal energy utilization should prove technically feasible, the drilling, pumping, and methane separation costs may overwhelm the value of the recovered product. In short, geopressured-geothermal energy is still in an early experimental stage and serious commercial consideration must await the resolution of these technical difficulties. Extraction of energy from low-permeability HDR geothermal resources will involve the circulation of pressurized water through man-made fracture systems in deposits of hot, crystalline rock. This approach to geothermal heat extraction is also in the early stages of development. Currently there is one experimental HDR system operating at Fenton Hill, New Mexico with another, commerical-size sub-surface system under construction at the same site. The research is being financed primarily by U S . . DOE with additional help from the Federal Republic of Germany. While the experimental results so far have been quite positive, ( 5 , 6 ) e g , .. good fracture propagation, acceptable fluid chemistry, fluid confinement, and flow impedances; it is difficult to know how well they can be generalized to larger-sized fracture systems and other geologic conditions. Of particular concern is the long-term performance (effective heat transfer area and flow capacity) of a man-made HDR fracture system; only an extended test of a commercial scale system will really resolve this issue. Two important aspects of HDR's appeal as a geothermal energy resource are the facts that it is nearly ubiquitous and that the temperature of the produced fluid is a function of the depth to which one drills. One can therefore match the fluid temperature to the use temperature at nearly any site! The key question then for HDR, as it is f o r all of these geothermal resources, is whether the costs of drilling, fracturing, and producing fluids are recovered by the revenues generated (or

v. 5-3

expenses saved) by the HDR system. Considerable effort has been devoted to establishing the resource, engineering, and financial conditions necessary for commercially feasible HDR/electric systems (2). In general, such economic,analyses show that a relatively high geothermal gradient (40 C/km) and good reservoir performance (10% temperature loss over 5 years) will result in a commercially attractive baseload system. It would be a mistake to assume, however, that the'satisfaction of certain technical conditions would be sufficient to quarantee commercialization of HDR or any other geothermal resource. The cost estimates and financial procedures which are employed can vary significantly depending upon who is conducting the financial analyses. El-Sawy, Leigh, and Trehan (7) recently demonstrated this; for the same set of geothermal resource, power plant, and cost assumptions, they found that differences in busbar cost estimates could be as much a s 3 2 &/kwh depending . upon which financial model is employed. Actual operating experience is needed to help narrow the estimates of financial a s well a s technical performance of geothermal energy systems. While much of the emphasis, up to this point, has been on the technical and economic uncertainties which currently surround the non-vapor-dominated geothermal resources, there are a number of important features of geothermal energy which favor its ultimate acceptance as a major commercial energy resource. Once the resource development costs are incurred, the costs of the primary resource will be essentially fixed over the life of the system. This frees geothermal energy resources from many of the primary resource market and production uncertainties which currently plague the conventional alternatives. The economies of scale associated with geothermal/electric production are currently regarded as exhausted at individual unit capacities of 50 MW(e) or greater. Thus, geothermal energy is a relatively small scale, deCentraliZed, energy alternative. As such it offers real advantages in meeting utility expansion planning and reliability objectives. In addition, the U.S. Government has been active in creating a more favorable investment climate for geothermal energy: intangible drilling c o s t s can now be e x pensed, geothermal depletion allowances are a legitimate preference item, geothermal development qualifies for a special alternative energy investment tax credit, and there is a Federal Geothermal Loan Guarantee Program which can cover up to 75% of the costs of selected projects. Another advantageous feature of the utilization of geothermal resources is their environmental impact relative to other alternatives, eg, .. coal and nuclear. Still, one must recognize that geothermal energy extraction does pose some real or potential environmental problems. At The Geysers, for example, a great deal of expense is being incurred in the effort to control atmospheric emissions o f H S. Developers and environmental observers of liquid-dominazed systems are also concerned that potential emissions of undesirable gases to the atmosphere are controlled and that neither the quantity nor quality of subsurface aquifers is significantly reduced due to production or

v.5-4

reinjection. Advocates o f g e o p r e s s u r e d - g e o t h e r m a l r e s o u r c e s a r e p a r t i c u l a r l y concerned about t h e p o t e n t i a l f o r massive s u b s i d e n c e due t o a d e c l i n e i n t h e p r e s s u r e which c u r r e n t l y s u p p o r t s t h e rock s t r a t a o f t h e r e g i o n . A l l t h e geothermal resources, e v e n HDR, have a remote p o t e n t i a l f o r i n d u c i n g seismic e v e n t s and a l l i n v o l v e h e a t r e j e c t i o n which would c o n t r i b u t e t o t h e t h e r m a l burden on o u r a t m o s p h e r e and/or w a t e r r e s o u r c e s . What, t h e n , is t h e f u t u r e o f t h e commercial development o f g e o t h e r m a l e n e r g y ? As t h e d i s c u s s i o n above s u g g e s t s , t h e l o n g e r - t e r m f u t u r e o f commercial g e o t h e r m a l e n e r g y a w a i t s a r e s o l u t i o n of t h e s i g n i f i c a n t t e c h n i c a l and economic q u e s t i o n s which remain o u t s t a n d i n g i n t h e c a s e s of lower-grade hydrot h e r m a l , g e o p r e s s u r e d - g e o t h e r m a l , and HDR g e o t h e r m a l r e s o u r c e s . I n t h e n e a r e r term, we f o r e s e e a c o n t i n u e d development of t h e a l r e a d y commercial vapor-dominated g e o t h e r m a l r e s o u r c e s and a markedly a c c e l e r a t e d a p p l i c a t i o n of h i g h - g r a d e l i q u i d - d o m i n a t e d h y d r o t h e r m a l r e s o u r c e s d u e b o t h t o t h e e s c a l a t i o n of e n e r g y p r i c e - s i n g e n e r a l and t h e t e c h n i c a l and management e x p e r i e n c e g a i n e d from t h e p i o n e e r developments s i t e d i n T a b l e 3. Direct u t i l i z a t i o n of g e o t h e r m a l r e s o u r c e s , e s p e c i a l l y t h e l i q u i d dominated r e s o u r c e s , w i l l i n c r e a s e i n r e s p o n s e t o e x p e c t e d i m ' p r o v e m e n t s i n t h e e x p l o r a t i o n and e v a l u a t i o n t e c h n i q u e s f o r geothermal energy resources The f o l l o w i n g summary c o n c l u s i o n c a n t h e r e f o r e be drawn: 0 Geothermal e n e r g y is a n i n c r e d i b l y l a r g e and d i v e r s e energy resource. 0 E x t r a c t i o n and u t i l i z a t i o n of much o f t h i s r e s o u r c e i s c a p i t a l i n t e n s i v e and t e c h n i c a l l y complex. 0 The l a r g e s t g e o t h e r m a l r e s o u r c e s , h o t d r y r o c k and geopressured-geothermal, a r e still i n t h e e a r l y s t a g e s of r e s e a r c h b u t r a p i d advances a r e c u r r e n t l y being made 0 The s u c c e s s f u l d e m o n s t r a t i o n o f power p r o d u c t i o n and d i r e c t u t i l i z a t i o n from l i q u i d - d o m i n a t e d r e s e r v o i r s i n t h e near f u t u r e w i l l provide both t h e t e c h n i c a l b a s i s and f i n a n c i a l i m p e t u s f o r g r e a t l y a c c e l e r a t e d g e o t h e r mal development i n t h e U.S.

REFERENCES

1.

T e s t e r , "Energy C o n v e r s i o n and Economic I s s u e s , " Geot h e r m a l Energy: An A l t e r n a t e Energy S o u r c e , Gulf Publ i s h i n g Co, Houston, Texas, ( f o r t h c o m i n g , 1 9 8 0 ) .
J. W.

2.

G. Cummings and G. E. M o r r i s , "Economic Modeling of E l e c t r i c i t y p r o d u c t i o n from h o t Dry Rock Geothermal Reserv o i r s : Methodology and A n a l y s e s , " E l e c t r i c power R e s e a r c h I n s t i t u t e , P a l o A l t o , CA (September 1979)
R.

3.

L J. P. M u f f l e r , "Assessment o f Geothermal R e s o u r c e s o f . t h e U n i t e d States--1978," U. S. G e o l o g i c a l S u r v e y C i r c u l a r 790, Reston, VA ( 1 9 7 9 ) .

v. 5-5

4.

G.

Samuels, "Geopressure Energy Resource E v a l u a t i o n , " Oak Ridge N a t i o n a l L a b o r a t o r y r e p o r t ORNL/PPA-79/2 (May 1 9 7 9 ) .

5.

J. W.

T e s t e r and J. N. A l b r i g h t ( E d s . ) , "Hot Dry Rock Energy E x t r a c t i o n F i e l d T e s t : 7 5 Days o f O p e r a t i o n of a P r o t o t y p e R e s e r v o i r a t Fenton H i l l Los Alamos S c i e n t i f i c L a b o r a t o r y r e p o r t LA-7771-MS ( A p r i l 1 9 7 9 ) .

,"

5-

6.

J. W.

7.

T e s t e r (Ed.) , "Phase I-Energy E x t r a c t i o n F i e l d T e s t R e s u l t s from t h e Fenton H i l l Hot Dry Rock Geothermal System Segments 1-2," L o s Alamos S c i e n t i f i c L a b o r a t o r y r e p o r t , ( t o be p u b l i s h e d )

N. El-Sawy, J. G. L e i g h , and R. K. T r e h a n , " A Comparat i v e A n a l y s i s o f Energy C o s t i n g Methodologies ," The Mitre C o r p o r a t i o n r e p o r t MTR-7689, McLean, VA ( F e b r u a r y 1 9 7 9 ) .

A.

8.

Dept. o f Energy, O f f i c e of Energy Technology, F o s s i l Energy D i v i s i o n , "Market O r i e n t e d Program P l a n n i n g S t u d y (MOPPS)," Washington, D.C., (August 1978) See a l s o USGS C i r c u l a r 725.

9.

HDR P r o j e c t S t a f f , "Hot Dry Rock Geothermal Energy Development P r o j e c t . Annual Report. F i s c a l Year 1977," Los Alamos S c i e n t i f i c L a b o r a t o r y r e p o r t LA-7109-PR ( F e b r u a r y 1 9 7 8 ) . G.

10.

Ramachandran, e t a l . , "Economic A n a l y s i s o f Geothermal Energy Development i n C a l i f o r n i a , " V o l s 1 and 2 , S t a n f o r d Research I n s t . , p r o j e c t ECU 5013, Menlo P a r k , CA (May 1977)

11.

S. L. M i l o r a and J. W. T e s t e r , Geothermal Energy a s a S o u r c e of E l e c t r i c Power, MIT P r e s s , Cambridge, MA (1976).

12.

A.

D. R o s s i n and T. A. R i e c k , "Economics o f Nuclear Power," S c i e n c e 201 (August 1978)

13.

B. H o l t and E. L. Ghormley, "Energy Conversion and Economi c s f o r Geothermal Power G e n e r a t i o n a t Heber, C a l i f o r n i a , V a l l e s C a l d e r a , N e w Mexico, and R a f t R i v e r , I d a h o Case ' S t u d i e s , ' E l e c t r i c Power Research I n s t i t u t e r e p o r t EPRI ER-301, T o p i c a l r e p o r t # 2 , P a l o A l t o , CA (November 1 9 7 6 ) .

14.

J. S Wilson, "A Geothermal Energy P l a n t , " .

P r o g r e s s . 72 v. 11, 95-98 15.

%

Chem. Eng.

(1977).

J. S. Wilson, e t a l . , "Economic Analysis o f t h e Use o f Texas G e o p r e s s u r e d R e s o u r c e s f o r t h e P r o d u c t i o n of Elect r i c a l Power," i n P r o c . of F i r s t G e o p r e s s u r e d Geothermal Energy C o n f e r e n c e , M.H. Dorfman and R. W. Deller (Eds.) Univ. of Texas, Austin, TX June 3-4, 1975. pp. 267-282.

V. 5-6

16.

. . C. H Bloomster and C A. Knutsen, "An Analysis if Electricity Production Costs from the Geopressured Geothermal Resource," Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories report BNWL-2192 (February 1976).
J. W. Tester, G. E Morris, R. G. Cummings, and R. L . . Bivins, "Electricity from Hot Dry Rock Geothermal Energy: Technical and Economic issues ," Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory report LA-7603-MS (January 1979).

18.

D. N. Anderson, "The Most Promising Geothermal Fields in the Western United States," Geothermal Resources Council (Spring 1979)

v. 5-7

TABLE 1. ENERGY RESOURCES OF THE UNITED STATES

Resource Type

Estimated Resoujce Basea (10 Quads) 1.5

4.0

References

Oil/Gas (not including shale)

a
3 3

D i r e c t Magma
Hyd ro e rma 1 (>90 t o 3 km) Coal

tg

96 .

15
170
200

Geopressured (i,ncluding methane) Hot Drg Rock 0 4 0 /km, >15OoC t o 10 km) Hot Dr yo Roc k 0 1 5 0 C to 1 0 km) a T o t a l thermal energy i n p l a c e .

13 000

V. 5-8

TABLE 2

BASE LOAD BUSBAR COST ESTIMATES FOR NEW GENERATION CAPACITY I N THE UNITED STATES I N 1980 $

Nuclear
Oil

Installed Power Plant costs

S/kW

Annual Power Plant costs

C/kW

O+M

Well o r Fuel Cost

C/kWh
0.1

f/km
0.4 3.0 ( $ 18 / b b l )
1.2

1200 600-800d

2.9 1.5-1.9

0.1 0.2 0.1

Total Generating Cost fkWh 3.4 4.1 2.9-3.8

2.1

References (10-12) (10-11) (10-11) (10,131

Coal

600-1000 d 1.5-2.4 0.8

Hydro300 thermalb (vapor) Hydrothermal c (liquid) Flashing500-800 B i n a r y 550-950 Fluid Geoprgs-875-750 sured (incl Methane a t 40 SC F/ bb 1) Hot Dry 550-950

($30/ton) 1.3

1.2-1.9 1.3-2.3 2.1-1.8

0.3 0.3 0.4

1.7-2.7 1.5-2.5 1.8-3.8

3.2-5.3 3.1-5.1 4.3-6.0

(10-11,13)

(4,14-16)

1.3-2.3

0.3

1.8-4.2

3.4-6.8

(2p17)

.
I

a B a s e d on a 17% a n n u a l f i x e d c h a r g e r a t e , 80% l o a d f a c t o r ( 7 0 0 0 hr/yr a t capacity) b C u r r e n t p r o j e c t i o n s f o r The G e y s e r s (see Ref 1). c150-2000C r e s o u r c e s w i t h w e l l f l o w r a t e s from 100-300 l b / s , r e i n j e c t i o n r e q u i r e d , approx. 0 % non-condensible g a s e s . dHigher c a p i t a l c o s t s i n c l u d e more advanced p o l l u t i o n abatement systems. e40 000 b b l / d a y p r o d u c t i o n , 1 5 5 O C , 2000 p s i g e o p r e s s u r e d resource f I n c l u d e s c r e d i t f o r methane r e c o v e r e d .

v.5-9

TABLE 3 LIQUID-DOMINATED HYDROTHERMAL POWER PLANTS UNDER DESIGN OR CONSTRUCTION IN THE U.S. a (January 1980) Plant Capacity [MW(e)] 10 49 50 10 50 48 10 50
20

Area/KGRA Imperial Valley, Calif./ Salton Sea

Utility/Developer Southern California Edison/Union Oil Imperial Irrigation District/Magma Power Co.

Status/Scheduled On-Line Design Completed/l982 Construction Complete/ 1980 Under Design/1982 Under Construction/Late 1980 Design Completed/l983 Under Construction/Late 1981 Final Construction/Late 1980 Two Plants Under Preliminary Design Design Complete/l982 Design Complete/l984

Imperial Valley, Calif./ Westmorland Imperial Valley, Calif./ Brawley Imperial Valley, Calif./ Heber Imperial Valley, Calif./ East Mesa

Republic Geothermal Inc. and MAPCO Southern California Edison/Union Oil Southern California Edison/Chevron Resources Republic Geothermal Imperial Magma

Reno, Nev./Brady-Hazen Utah/Roosevelt Hot Springs

Sierra Pacific Power/ 'Phillips Petroleum

.

Utah Power and Light/ Phillips and Thermal Power

30 55 55

TABLE 3 (CONT,
c

' I

Area/KGRA New Mexico/Baca Location #l

Utility/Developer Public Service of New Mexico/Union Oil 18

Plant Capacity
[MW(e)]

Status/Scheduled On-Line Construction About To Begin/1982

50

aBased upon Anderson, David N.