1
Supporting Information
Cumulative Energy, Emissions and Water Consumption of Geothermal Energy
Systems
J. L. Sullivan, C. Clark, J. Han, C. Harto, and M. Wang
The primary purpose of our study was to determine the energy and water consumption
and greenhouse gas emissions from geothermal power production. Toward that end, numerous
technical details are required on plant and well materials, many of which are listed in this
document. Because one of our objectives was to compare geothermal power to other power
generating technologies, relevant technical data for them are also provided herein.
Sections
I.
II.
III.
IV.
V.
Power Plant Materials
Well Diagram and Materials
Discussion of Geothermal Well Material to Power Ratios (MPR)
MPRs for Various Power Generating Technologies
Water Consumption Results
2
I.
Material to power ratios for various power generating technologies
including cited references
TABLE S-I: Plant Details and Material Requirements per MW for Three Conventional and One
Renewable Generating Technologies (Note: mt denotes metric tons – tonnes)
a
b
c
d
System [ref]
Capacity
MW
Lifetime
Yr
Cap. Factor
%
Aluminum
mt/MW
Boiler [1]
Boiler [2]
Boiler [3]
IGCC [4]
913
360
1,000
344
30
30
40
15
70
60
75
80
NGCC [1]
NGCC [5]
NGCC [6]
875
505
620
30
30
40
72.4
80
75
PWRb [7]
EPWRb [9]
BWRc [8]
ABWRc [9]
1,000
1,600
1,155
1,380
40
40
40
40
75
75
75
75
Coal-Boiler
0.68
195
0.42(.004)a
159
0.26
74.3
165
Natural Gas
0.26
81.4
0.20
97.8
0.00
47.7
Nuclear
0.018
180
307
0.061
307
320
Gravity dam [1]
Run of river [10]
Gravity dam [11]
1,296
10
432
100
30
100
50
45
50
Hydroelectric
0.052
7,644
552
6,680
Material for either gas pipelines or coal cars.
Pressurized water reactor (PWR); EPWR – European PWR
Boiling water reactor (BWR); ABWR – Advanced BWR
Only the most significant materials are shown in the table
Concrete
mt/MW
Diesel
m3/MW
Steel
mt/MW
Total Massd
mt/MW
2.20
1.95
0.85
2.28
68.2
50.7(0.06)a
40.3
34.9
264
210
115
201
1.6
0.84
0.08
58.5
31(218)a
2.5(30.1)a
140
129
50
1.1
1.02
1.02
1.18
42.6
44.3
29.5
46.0
225
351
337
378
303
1.6
284
24.8
7,669
552
6,736
54.5
1
TABLE S-II: Plant Details and Material Requirements per MW for Renewable Electricity-Generating Technologies (Note: mt denotes
metric tons – tonnes)
System [ref]
Capacity
MW
Lifetime
Yr
Cap. Factor
%
Aluminum
mt/MW
Turbine [12]
Turbine [13]
Farma [14]
Turbine [15]
Farm [16]
25
25
300
91
9
25
25
20
100
20
24.0
24.0
40.8
45.0
25
4.8
4.2
2.8
mc-Si Array/BOSb
[17.18]
mc-Si Array/BOSb
[18,19]
mc-Si Array/BOSb
[18,20]
CdTe Array/BOSb
[18,20]
HCPV [21]
3.5
25.0
15.5
3.5
30.0
21.3
Concrete
mt/MW
Glass
mt/MW
Diesel
m3/MW
Si
mt/MW
Other
mt/MW
Wind
Steel
mt/MW
Total Masse
mt/MW
59
84.6
102
222
129
493
410
592
821
704
55.9
227
397
305
443
526
565
14.8
29.4
2.2
12.7
76.3
46
1472
2.5
Plastic
19.9
19.9
6.4
19.5
4
Plastic
20.0
15.0
24.3
76.3
69
1472
4.5
15.6
66.8
271
0.0
76.3
8.4
0.0
1,472
0.0
3.2
0.0
76.7
0.0
3.5
30.0
15.0
1.3
76.3
88
10.5
56.1
241
0.024
30.0
23.2
17.8
213
35.5
612
878.3
a-Si Roof Topc
[22,23]
0.030
20.0
15.0
3.5
19.5
56
Trough [24]
Trough [25]
Trough [26]
Tower [27]
Tower [24]
46
100
103
1
15
30
25
30
30
30
44
40
47
30
95
0.46
30.8
Thermal Storage
623f
300f
601
none
817g
405
250
269
545
779
2,516
1,150
1642
2,534
4,087
51(14)d
58.5
227
216
PV
1
0.06
CSP
1,303
480
613
1,850
2,242
0.9
133
120
109
12.2
21.7
11.1
212
7.4
Biomass
Boilerh [2,28]
IGCC [29]
a
88.5
115
30
30
88.2
80
1.3
0.5
160
156
For 182 turbines, each with 1.65-MW capacity plus grid connection; b multi-crystalline Si array data combined with Mason balance of system data; c
Amorphous Si array; d Steel for the trucks to deliver the biomass to the plant; e Only the most significant materials are shown in the table; f Sodium and
potassium nitrate use for 7-8 hrs of thermal storage, g Same as f but for 16 hours of thermal storage; h Estimated as the sum of MPRs from a coal boiler plant and
biomass handling system
1
II.
Well Materials
FIGURE S-1: Depiction of a Geothermal Well in the Well Field
1
TABLE S-III: Well Characteristics for EGS Power Plant Scenarios 1 and 2
Well Depth
(km)
4
5
5
6
6
Casing Schedule
Conductor Pipe
Surface Casing
Intermediate Liner
Production Casing
Production Slotted Liner
Conductor Pipe
Surface Casing
Intermediate Liner
Production Casing
Production Slotted Liner
Conductor Pipe
Surface Casing
Intermediate Liner #1
Intermediate Liner #2
Production Casing
Production Slotted Liner
Conductor Pipe
Surface Casing
Intermediate Liner #1
Intermediate Liner #2
Production Casing
Production Slotted Liner
Conductor Pipe
Surface Casing
Intermediate Liner #1
Intermediate Liner #2
Intermediate Liner #3
Production Casing
Production Slotted Liner
Material
Welded wall
Welded wall
K-55 Premium
T-95 Premium
K-55 Buttress
Welded wall
Welded wall
K-55 Premium
T-95 Premium
K-55 Buttress
Welded wall
Welded wall
Welded wall
L-80 Buttress
T-95 Premium
K-55 Buttress
Welded wall
Welded wall
Welded wall
L-80 Buttress
T-95 Premium
K-55 Buttress
Welded wall
Welded wall
Welded wall
Welded wall
L-80 Buttress
T-95 Premium
K-55 Buttress
Depths
(m)
24
381
1,524
3,249
3,999
24
381
1,524
3,999
4,999
30
381
1,524
2,743
3,999
4,999
30
381
1,524
3,048
4,999
5,998
30
381
1,524
2,591
3,658
4,999
5,998
Length
(m)
24
381
1,204
3,249
811
24
381
1,204
3,999
1,061
30
381
1,204
1,280
3,999
1,061
30
381
1,204
1,585
4,999
1,061
30
381
1,204
1,128
1,128
4,999
1,061
Hole Casing Weight/length
(cm)
(cm)
(kg/m)
91.44 76.20
176
66.04 55.88
219
50.80 40.64
162
37.47 29.85
97
26.99 21.91
54
91.44 76.20
176
71.12 55.88
219
50.80 40.64
162
37.47 29.85
110
26.35 21.91
54
106.68 91.44
215
81.28 71.12
390
66.04 55.88
306
50.80 40.64
190
36.20 29.85
120
26.04 21.91
54
106.68 91.44
215
81.28 71.12
390
66.04 55.88
306
50.80 40.64
190
36.20 29.85
120
26.04 21.91
54
152.40 132.08
827
121.92 106.68
668
91.44 76.20
418
71.12 60.96
334
50.80 40.64
190
36.20 29.85
120
26.04 21.91
48
2
TABLE S-IV: Well Characteristics for Hydrothermal Power Plants in Scenario 3 (depth less than
2 km) and Scenario 4 (depth between 1.5 and 3 km)
Well Depth
(km)
0.67
1
1.5
2
2
2.5
3
Casing Schedule
Material
Conductor Pipe
Welded wall
Surface Casing
K-55 Buttress
Production Casing
K-55 Premium
Production Slotted Liner K-55 Buttress
Conductor Pipe
Welded wall
Surface Casing
K-55 Buttress
Production Casing
K-55 Premium
Production Slotted Liner K-55 Buttress
Conductor Pipe
Welded wall
Surface Casing
K-55 Buttress
Production Casing
K-55 Premium
Production Slotted Liner K-55 Buttress
Conductor Pipe
Welded wall
Surface Casing
K-55 Buttress
Production Casing
K-55 Premium
Production Slotted Liner K-55 Buttress
Conductor Pipe
Line Pipe
Surface Casing
X-56, Line Pipe
Intermediate Liner
K-55 Buttress
Production Casing
K-55 Premium
Production Slotted Liner K-55 Buttress
Conductor Pipe
Line Pipe
Surface Casing
X-56, Line Pipe
Intermediate Liner
K-55 Buttress
Production Casing
K-55 Premium
Production Slotted Liner K-55 Buttress
Conductor Pipe
Line Pipe
Surface Casing
X-56, Line Pipe
Intermediate Liner
K-55 Buttress
Production Casing
K-55 Premium
Production Slotted Liner K-55 Buttress
Depths
(m)
24
152
457
610
24
152
695
1,000
24
152
1,042
1,500
24
152
1,390
1,999
24
152
762
1,390
1,999
24
152
1,067
1,890
2,499
24
152
1,067
2,390
2,999
Length
(m)
24
152
457
213
24
152
695
366
24
152
1,042
518
24
152
1,390
671
24
152
671
1,390
671
24
152
975
1,890
671
24
152
975
2,390
671
Hole
(cm)
91.44
66.04
44.45
31.12
91.44
66.04
44.45
31.12
91.44
66.04
44.45
31.12
91.44
66.04
44.45
31.12
121.92
91.44
66.04
44.45
31.12
121.92
91.44
66.04
44.45
31.12
121.92
91.44
66.04
44.45
31.12
Casing Weight/length
(cm)
(kg/m)
76.20
176
50.80
251
34.73
122
24.45
80
76.20
176
50.80
251
34.73
122
24.45
80
76.20
176
50.80
251
34.73
122
24.45
80
76.20
176
50.80
251
34.73
122
24.45
80
101.60
239
76.20
234
50.80
251
34.73
122
24.45
80
101.60
239
76.20
234
50.80
251
34.73
122
24.45
80
101.60
239
76.20
234
50.80
251
34.73
122
24.45
80
3
Table S-V: Production-well Component Characteristics at Specified Depths for GPGE-gf, based
on GETEM
Well
Depth
(km)
4
5
6
Casing Schedule
Conductor pipe
Surface casing
Intermediate
casing
Production casing
Production liner
Production tubing
Conductor pipe
Surface casing
Intermediate
casing
Production casing
Production liner
Production tubing
Conductor pipe
Surface casing
Intermediate
casing
Production casing
Production liner
Production tubing
Material
Welded wall
H-40 and K-55 casing
S-95, L-80, and N-80
casing
S-105, S-95, and S-105
buttress
P-110 SHFJ liner
P-110 tubing
Welded wall
H-40 and K-55 casing
S-95, L-80, and N-80
casing
S-105, S-95, and S-105
buttress
P-110 SHFJ liner
P-110 tubing
Welded wall
H-40 and K-55 casing
S-95, L-80, and N-80
casing
S-105, S-95, and S-105
buttress
P-110 SHFJ liner
P-110 tubing
Depth
(m)
31
338
2,058
Hole
diam
(cm)
76.20
60.96
44.45
Casing
diam
(cm)
66.04
50.80
33.97
3,463
31.12
24.45
Weight/Length
(kg/m)
202.64
139.89
107.15
79.62
(69.94 for S-95)
3,992
3295
38
423
2,572
21.59
76.20
60.96
44.45
17.78
13.97
66.04
50.80
33.99
4,329
31.12
24.46
56.55
25.35
202.64
139.89
107.15
79.62
(69.94 for S-95)
4,989
4,119
46
507
3,086
21.59
76.20
60.96
44.45
17.78
13.97
66.04
50.80
33.99
5,194
31.12
24.46
56.55
25.35
202.64
139.89
107.15
79.62
(69.94 for S-95)
5,987
4,943
21.59
17.78
13.97
56.55
25.35
4
Table S-VI: Injection-well Component Characteristics at Specified Depths for GPGE-gf; Based
on GETEM
Well
Depth
(km)
2
Casing Schedule
Conductor pipe
Surface casing
Injection casing
Buttress
Injection tubing
Conductor pipe
Surface casing
2.5
Injection casing
Buttress
Injection tubing
Conductor pipe
Surface casing
3
Injection casing
Buttress
Injection tubing
Material
Welded wall
H-40 and K-55 STC
casing
S-95, N-80 SSTC, and
buttress casing
N-80 buttress casing
K-55 and J-55 tubing
Welded wall
H-40 and K-55 STC
casing
S-95, N-80 SSTC, and
buttress casing
N-80 buttress casing
K-55 and J-55 tubing
Welded wall
H-40 and K-55 STC
casing
S-95, N-80 SSTC, and
buttress casing
N-80 buttress casing
K-55 and J-55
Depth
(m)
20
396
Hole
diam,
(cm)
76.20
60.96
Casing
diam,
(cm)
66.04
50.80
Weight/Length
(kg/m)
202.39
139.89
2,000
44.45
33.99
107.15
1,832
1,751
25
495
33.97
76.20
60.96
24.46
13.97
66.04
50.80
59.53
23.07
202.39
139.89
2,500
44.45
33.99
107.15
2,289
2,188
30
593
33.97
76.20
60.96
24.46
13.97
66.04
50.80
59.53
23.07
202.39
139.89
3,000
44.45
33.99
107.15
2,747
2,626
33.97
-
24.46
13.97
59.53
23.07
Table S-VII: Existing Casing and New Tubing Dimensions for Production Wells of GPGE-rw
Well
Depth
(km)
4
5
6
Casing Schedule
Production casing
Production tubing
Production casing
Production tubing
Production casing
Production tubing
Material
Various
P-110
Various
P-110
Various
P-110
Depth
(m)
4000
3500
5000
4500
6000
5500
Casing/Tubing
diam (cm)
15–18
13.97
15–18
13.97
15–18
13.97
Weight/Length
(kg/m)
existing
25.3
existing
25.3
existing
25.3
TABLE S-VIII: Material Requirements for a Downhole Pump According to Scenario
Requirements
Scenario Pump
Configuration
EGS ESP
Binary ESP
Binary lineshaft
Steel (Mg)
8.4 - 30.3
14.0 - 24.0
42.2
Copper
(Mg)
1.0 - 2.2
1.3 - 1.9
1.6
Brass
(Mg)
0.5 - 0.6
0.5 - 0.6
1.2
Lead (kg) Oil (kg)
Rubber (kg)
0.5 - 0.9 18.1 - 20.4 199.0 - 559.2
0.5 - 0.9 18.1 - 20.4 349.1 - 437.8
0
45.4
453.6
5
III.
Discussion of Well Material to Power Ratios
Figures S-2 and S-3 show the cement and casing (steel) per MW of plant capacity
as a function of well depth. The data points in the figures can readily be converted to a per-well
basis using the factors found in Table S-9. The results in the figures represent material and fuel
requirements as a function of depth for six well configurations: 1) the comparatively shallow
wells for the HT-Binary plant, 2) the intermediate-depth wells of the HT-Flash plant, 3) three
variants of deep EGS wells, and 4) geo-pressured wells at a green field site.
The step changes seen in Figures S-2 and S-3 in cement and steel demand within
technologies for HT-F at 2 km and EGS at 5 and 6 km are due to the need for intermediate
casings for geothermal wells of greater depths. In general, because of the need to isolate
groundwater from source fluid and limitations on a drilling rig’s load-bearing capacity to support
a casing string, deeper wells will have a greater number of casing strings, each with a smaller
diameter than the one above it (see Tables A-1 and A-2 of supporting material). Further, EGS
wells have to be large and robust enough to accommodate in-line pumps and the pressures
required for well stimulation to hydraulically open existing fractures in the resource rock for
enhancing geofluid flow and heat exchange. This requirement is particularly evident for the EGS
facilities shown in the figures, where the data points for 1, 2, and 3 intermediate liners appear to
correspond to progressively greater cement and steel (casing) demand trend lines.
1500
Cement - tonnes/MW
1250
1000
EGS-3 lnr
EGS-2 lnr
750
EGS-1 lnr
HT-Binary
500
HT-Flash
GPGE
250
0
0
2
4
6
8
Well Depth - km
Figure S-2: Average Cement Demand ± 1 stdev vs. well depth for five well cases; to
facilitate comparison overlapping range bar data have been shifted by ±0.05 km
On the other hand, considerably less cement and steel are evident in Figures S-2 and S-3
for a MWmx of GPGE output. The reasons are twofold: 1) smaller-diameter casings required for
gas vs. strictly geothermal wells, and 2) the leveraging effect of two coproduced energy
6
products. Because these are artesian wells with significant pressures, there is no need for the
larger-diameter casings to accommodate line pumps as is the case for EGS wells.
1600.0
Steel - tonnes/MW
1200.0
HT-Binary
HT-Flash
800.0
EGS-1 lnr
EGS-2 lnr
EGS-3 lnr
400.0
GPGE
0.0
0
2
4
6
8
Well Depth - km
Figure S-3: Average Steel demand ± 1 stdev vs. well depth for five well cases; to
facilitate comparison overlapping range bar data have been shifted by ±0.05 km
Figure S-4 shows the diesel fuel demand for drilling the various geothermal wells. While
the demands for the various well trends very much like the corresponding cement and steel
demand, there is less evident the step changes observed for the steel and cement upon switch to
multiple liners.
500.0
Diesel Fuel - 1000 Liters/MW
400.0
EGS-3 lnr
300.0
EGS-2 lnr
EGS-1 lnr
200.0
HT-Binary
HT-Flash
GPGE
100.0
0.0
0
2
4
6
8
Well Depth - km
Figure 1: Average diesel demand ± 1 stdev vs. well depth for five well cases; to
facilitate comparison overlapping range bar data have been shifted by ±0.05 km
7
The reason for this is that onsite drilling rig operation, consuming 1300 gallons of diesel per day,
is only modestly less for a 2 vs. 3 liner system or a 1 vs. 2 liner system.
Another feature to be noted in Figures S-2 and S-3 is the comparatively wide range of
results associated with each data point. This width is due to variations in modeling assumptions
concerning source temperatures and well flow rates (see Tables 1 and 2 of main paper), which
affect the number of wells needed to provide the design power output. The error bars in the
figures correspond to the following standard deviations: 27% for HT-B, 30% for HT-F, and 52%
for EGS. For the GPGE-gf wells, cement and steel MPRs range around 24% about the median.
Table S-IX: Modeling Variation Assumed for the 5 Geothermal Scenarios
Plant
HT-Binaryb,c
HT-Flashb,c
EGSb
GPGE-gf
GPGE-rw
Depth (km)
Tsource (oC)
0.7, 1, 1.5, 2
150, 165, 185
1.5, 2.5, 3
175, 200, 250, 300
4, 5, 6
150, 175, 200, 225
4, 5, 6
130 - 150
4, 5, 6
150
Flow Rate (kg/s)
60, 90, 120
40, 60, 80, 100
30, 60, 90
35 - 55
27 - 47
<wells/MW>a
0.42
0.41
0.48
0.14
0.19
Capacity (MW)
10
50
20
16, 21, 26
16, 21, 26
aAverage
bBased
on Raft River well configurations.
to both production and injection wells.
cApplies
Water use demand for geothermal well drilling is shown in Figure S-5. The values are the
sum of water for drilling muds, by far the largest component, and water in the cement. Details on
how they were calculated have been presented by Clark et al [45]. As expected, it trends very
much like the steel and cement demands for geothermal well drilling. Water needed for well
stimulation, which is only required for EGS, is not included in the figure.
10,000
Water - 1000 liters/MW
8,000
6,000
HT-B
HT-F
4,000
EGS
GPGE-gf
2,000
0
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Depth - km
Figure S-5: Average Water demand ± stdev vs. well depth for five well cases; to
facilitate comparison overlapping range bar data have been shifted by ±0.05 km
Because drilling geothermal wells at a potential site is a very expensive and risky
undertaking, geothermal developers typically employ a combination of geological, geochemical
(CO2 and Hg concentrations of fluids, elemental and isotopic ratios, temperature gradients) and
8
geophysical (magnetics, resistivity, gravity and seismicity) methods [46] to establish the
presence of a geothermal resource. If test results are encouraging, the next step would be to
initiate exploration drilling, either core or slim holes. Unfortunately there is little published
information on the number of such wells needed to confirm the viability of the geofluid resource,
thus making it difficult to ascertain the impact of the exploration well drilling on geothermal
power life cycles. To fill this information gap, we assumed one additional production well
approximates exploration.
Though we feel that well material variation of MPRs has been adequately represented,
range data for the power house and equipment MPRs were unfortunately not available.
IV.
MPRs for Various Power Generating Technologies
Tables S-1 and S-2 list concrete, steel and other MPRs for a wide range of power
generating technologies, along with the references they were derived from. Also listed in the
tables are plant operational details. From these results, Epc and GHGpc values were calculated;
they are listed in Table S-10. The results are also shown in Figures S-6 and S-7. From the figures
and table, it appears that the highest values of Epc and GHGpc are for PV followed by EGS and
CSP. Another trend evident in the table is that renewable technologies generally have higher
values of Epc and GHGpc than fossil and nuclear thermal electric facilities. Run of the river
hydroelectric and GPGE (both renewable and fossil driven) might be exceptions. We attribute
this to the higher specific energies of fossil fuels thus requiring less material to harness the power
derived from them. The trends seen in the figures for Epc and GHGpc more or less mirror the
MPR trends revealed in Tables S-1 and S-2.
0.20
Epc - MJ/MJ
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
Figure S-6: Plant cycle energy ratios for geothermal and other power generating technologies.
References for filled bars follow the same sequences listed in Tables S-7 and S-8. Empty bars
represent published literature values for Epc [47].
9
Both figures and Table S-10 reveal considerable variation within the technologies. Such
variation in life cycle metrics is not uncommon for power generating technologies. In fact, a
series of papers have just been published on the harmonization of results [48-51] for complete
life cycles from numerous studies (plant cycle, decommissioning, fuel cycle) within power
generating technologies based on a number of relevant parameters including plant lifetime,
capacity factors, fuel cycle, irradiation, conversion efficiencies, ore grades, enrichment, and life
cycle methodology (process chain analysis vs. EIO), and many other factors germane to specific
technologies. Mean values extracted from those studies are also shown in the figures (empty
bars).
60.00
50.00
GHGpc - g/kWh
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00
Figure S-7: Plant cycle GHG emissions for geothermal and other power generating technologies;
references for filled bars follow the sequences in Tables S-7 and S-8. Empty bars represent published
literature values for GHGpc ; reference are: [48] for nuclear, [49] for wind, [50] for PV, [51,47] for CSPtrough, [47] for CSP-tower, and finally [15] for HT-binary.
With the exception of nuclear, the literature values (unfilled bars) shown in
Figures S-6 and S-7 are in reasonable accord with our computed values using GREET1 [52]. The
primary reason the nuclear literature values are about a factor of two higher than our values is
likely due to our values being based on PCAs whereas the nuclear values were based on both
PCAs and hybrid analysis which employs economic input/output methods. It is generally
considered that the latter overestimates energy and emissions.
10
Table S-X: GHGpc emissions from Various Power Generating Technologies;
values appear in same order as shown in Tables S-1 and S-2.
Technology
1
2
3
Coal
C-IGCC
NGCC
Biomass
IGCC-Biomass
N-PWR
N-BWR
Hydro
Wind
PV
CSP-Trough
CSP-Tower
EGSa
HT-Flashb
HT-Binaryc
GPGE-gfd
GPGE-rw
GPGE-el
0.92
0.423
0.57
0.68
0.70
0.45
0.68
9.04
7.30
38.7
12.5
23.8
6.82
1.61
335
99
67.8
287
0.83
0.32
0.37
0.08
0.62
0.60
1.69
6.95
54.0
8.8
12.1
13.1
2.24
361
134
85.4
2.00
1.10
8.12
6.96
42.7
10.6
17
27.7
4.96
384
186
111
4
5
2.6
18.9
11.8
15.0
32.0
566
a
From left to right, 4, 5 and 6 km wells, rightmost material data from [39]; b From left to
right 1.5, 2, 2.5 km wells; c From left to right 1, 1.5, 2 km wells, rightmost from [11];
d
From left to right, 4km max output, 5km well average output, 6km well minimum
output.
V.
Water Consumption Information
TABLE S-XI: Average Flow Rates from Historical Production and Injection Data for Several
California Geothermal Power Plants [53]
Average flow rates (gal/day)
Site
Casa Diablo
East Mesa
Heber
Coso
Salton Sea
a
Categorya
Production
Injection
Makeup
Loss
Binary
Binary
Binary
Multi-stage flash
Multi-stage flash
14,317,000
46,091,000
35,386,000
25,195,000
53,381,000
13,980,000
44,198,000
33,126,000
13,113,000
43,664,000
(219,000)
(204,000)
(22,000)
(6,000)
(15,000)
556,000
2,248,000
2,282,000
12,088,000
9,648,000
Some plants may generate electricity from both binary and flash systems. The category designation
represents the majority type of generators at a particular site.
TABLE S-XII: Aggregated Water Consumption for Electric Power Generation at Indicated Life
Cycle Stages in Gallons Per kWh of Lifetime Energy Outputa: a consolidation of Table S-13.
Power Plant
Fuel
Plant
Plant
Total Life
Production
Construction
Operations
Cycleb
Coal
Coal w. CCe
Nuclear
NG-boiler
NGCC
Hydro-dam
CSP
PV
Wind (onshore)c
EGS
HT-Bd
HT-Fd
Biomass
a Sources:
0.26
0.01–0.17
0.14
0.29
0.22
-
0.13–0.25
0.02–0.08
0.06–0.15
0.02
0.01
0.001
0.001
-
0.004–1.2
0.5–1.2
0.14–0.85
0.09–0.69
0.02–0.5
4.5
0.77–0.92
0.006–0.02
3.62E-08
0.29–0.72
0.08–0.27
0.005–0.01
0.3–0.61
0.26–1.46
0.57–1.53
0.28–0.99
0.38–0.98
0.24–0.72
4.5
0.87–1.12
0.07–0.19
0.01
0.3–0.73
0.08–0.271
0.01
0.3–0.61
[37-44]; b Reported when provided, otherwise summed from values in table. c Assumes recovery of water
in the end-of-life management stage. d Assumes water consumed as makeup for operational loss is a small
percentage of total operational geofluid loss. e Carbon Capture
TABLE S-XIII: Water Consumption where Significant for Electric Power Generation at Indicated
Life Cycle Stages — in Gallons per Kilowatt-Hour of Lifetime Energy Output
Life Cycle Stage
Fuel Production
Plant Operation
Plant Operation
Plant Operation
Plant Operation
Plant Operation
Cooling System Type
Once
Pond
Cooling Towers
Through
Cooling
Coal
0.3
0.32
0.064–0.14
Other
Reference
0.26
55
40
56
55
58
57
0.01–0.17
0.13–0.25
0.5–1.2
0.57–1.53
41
41
41
41
0.14
55
40
55
57
0.29
55
40
55
57
0.22
55
40
56
58
38
0.3–0.48
0.48
0.68
0.69
1.2
0.004–0.8
0.46
Coal with Carbon Capture
Fuel Production
Plant Construction
Plant Operation
Total Life Cycle
Nuclear
Fuel Production
Plant Operation
Plant Operation
Plant Operation
0.14
Fuel Production
Plant Operation
Plant Operation
Plant Operation
0.3
0.29
0.09
Fuel Production
Plant Operation
Plant Operation
Plant Operation
Plant Operation
Dam
Plant Construction
Plant Operation
Total Life Cycle
Plant Construction
Plant Operation
Total Life Cycle
0.4
0.1
0.4–0.72
0.72
0.85
0.62
Natural Gas Conventional
0.3–0.48
0.48
0.69
0.11
0.16
Natural Gas Combined Cycle
0.18
0.27
0.5
0.32
Hydroelectric
4.5
54
Solar Thermal (Concentrated Solar Power)
0.02–0.08
0.77–0.92
0.87–1.12
Solar Photovoltaic
0.06–0.15
0.006–0.02
0.07–0.19
41
41
41
41
41
41
Life Cycle Stage
Cooling System Type
Once
Pond
Cooling Towers
Through
Cooling
Wind Onshore
Other
Reference
0.02
3.62E-08
0.01
44
44
44
Plant Construction
0.01
Argonne
Plant Construction
Plant Operation
0.36
0.29–0.72
39
Argonne
Plant Construction
Plant Operation
Total Life Cyclea
Geothermal — EGS
Plant Operation
0.08
Geothermal —Binaryeb
Plant Construction
Plant Operation
Plant Operation
0.001
0.27
0.15
Geothermal — Flash
Plant Operation
Plant Operation
a
eb
0.001
0.005
0.3
Argonne
Argonne
37
Plant Construction
Plant Operation
Plant Operation
39
0.3–0.48
Argonne
Argonne
0.01
Biomass
0.48
37
0.61
55
40
Assumes recovery of water in the end-of-life management stage.
Assumes water consumed as makeup for operational loss is a small percentage of total operational geofluid loss.
eb
References
1. Pacca, S., and A. Horvath, 2002, “Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Building and
Operating Electric Power Plants in the Upper Colorado River Basin,” Environ. Sci.
& Technol., 36, 3194–3200.
2. Spath, P.L., M.K. Mann, and D.R. Kerr, 1999, “Life Cycle Assessment of CoalFired Power Production,” NREL/TP-520-25119.
3. White, S.W., and G.L. Kulcinski, 1998a, “Birth to Death Analysis of the Energy
Payback Ratio and CO2 Gas Emission Rates From Coal, Fission, Wind and DT
Fusion Electrical Power Plants,” UWFDM-1063.
4. Fiaschi, D., and Lombardi, D., 2002, Integrated Gasifier Combined Cycle Plant
with Integrated CO2-H2S Removal: Performance Analysis, Life Cycle Assessment
and Exergetic Life Cycle Assessment, Int. J. Applied Thermodynamics, 5(1), 1324.
5. Meier, P.J., 2002, “Life Cycle Assessment of Electricity Generation Systems and
Applications For Climate Change Policy,” UWFDM-1181.
6. Spath, P.L., and M.K. Mann, 2000, “Life Cycle Assessment of a Natural Gas
Combined-Cycle Power Generation System,” NREL/TP-570-27715.
7. Bryan, R.H., and I.T. Dudley, 1974, “Estimated Quantities of Materials in a 1000Mwe PWR Power Plant,” ORNL-TM-4515.
8. NUREG-1640, 2004, “Radiological Assessments for Clearance of Materials from
Nuclear Facilities,” Appendices A through E, Vol. 2.
9. Peterson, P. F., Zhao, H., and Petroski, R., 2005, Metal and Concrete Inputs for
Several Nuclear Power Plants, Report UCBTH-05-001.
10. Hondo, H., 2005, Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emission Analysis of Power
Generating Systems: Japanese Case, Energy 30, 2042–2056.
11. Rule, B.M., Z.J. Worth, and C.A. Boyle, 2009, “Comparison of Life Cycle Carbon
Dioxide Emissions and Embodied Energy in Four Renewable Electricity
Generation Technologies in New Zealand,” Environ. Sci. & Technol., 43, 6406–
6413.
12. White, S.W., and G.L. Kulcinski, 1998b, “Net Energy Payback and CO2 Emissions
from He-3 Fusion and Wind Electrical Power Plants,” UWFDM-1093.
13. White, S.W., and G.L. Kulcinski, 1998a, “Birth to Death Analysis of the Energy
Payback Ratio and CO2 Gas Emission Rates From Coal, Fission, Wind and DT
Fusion Electrical Power Plants,” UWFDM-1063.
14. Vestas (Vestas Wind Systems A/S), 2006, “Life Cycle Assessment of Electricity
Delivered from an Onshore Power Plant based on Vestas V82-1.65 MW
Turbines,” Dec. 29 [http://www.vestas.com/], accessed August 2010.
15. Rule, B.M., Z.J. Worth, and C.A. Boyle, 2009, “Comparison of Life Cycle Carbon
Dioxide Emissions and Embodied Energy in Four Renewable Electricity
Generation Technologies in New Zealand,” Environ. Sci. & Technol., 43, 6406–
6413.
16. Schleisner, L., 2000, “Life Cycle Assessment of a Wind Farm and Related
Externalities,” Renewable Energy, 20, 279–288.
17. Phylipsen, G.P.M., and E.A. Alsema, 1995, “Environmental Life Cycle
Assessment of Multi-Crystalline Silicon Solar Cell Modules,” Report #95057,
Department of Science, Technology and Society, Utrecht University, Netherlands.
18. Mason, J.M., V.M. Fthenakis, T. Hansen, and H.C. Kim, 2006, “Energy Pay-Back
and Life Cycle CO2 Emissions of the BOS in an Optimized 3.5 MW PV
Installation,” Prog. In Photovoltaics Res. and Applications, 14; 179–190.
19. de Wild-Schoulten, M.J., and E.S. Alsema, 2005, “Environmental Life Cycle
Inventory of Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Module Production,” presented at the
MRS Fall Meeting, Boston, MA, ECN-RX-06-2005.
20. Fthenakis, V., Kim, H.C., Frischknecht, R., Raugei, M., Sinha, P., and Stucki, M.,
2011, “Life Cycle Inventories and Life Cycle Assessments of Photovoltaic
Systems”, Report IEA-PVPS T12-02:2011.
21. Kim, H.C., Fthenakis, V., 2006, “Life Cycle Energy Demand and Greenhouse Gas
Emissions from an Amonix High Concentrator Photovoltaic System, IEEE Fourth
World Conference on Photovoltaic Energy Conversion”, Hawaii, 628-631.
22. Pacca. S., Sivaraman, D. and Keoleian, G. A., 2007, “Parameters affecting the life cycle
performance of PV technologies and systems”, Energy Policy 35 (2007) 3316–3326.
23. Pacca. S., Sivaraman, D. and Keoleian, G. A., 2006, “Life Cycle Assessment of the 33
kW Photovoltaic System on the Dana Building at the University of Michigan: Thin Film
Laminates, Multi-crystalline Modules, and Balance of System Components”, CSS05-09
24. Viebahn, P., Kronshage, S., Trieb, F., and Lechon, Y., 2008, D 12.2, “Final Report on
Technical Data, Costs, and Life Cycle Inventories of Solar Thermal Power Plant”, New
Energy Externalities Developments for Sustainability, http://www.needsproject.org/RS1a/RS1a%20D12.2%20Final
%20report%20concentrating%20solar%20thermal%20power%20plants.pdf.
25. Steinhagen, H.M., and Trieb, F., 2004, “Concentrating Solar Power for Sustainable
Electricity Generation, Part 2: Perspectives”, Institute of Technical Thermodynamics,
German Aerospace Center (DLR), Stuttgart, Germany, DLR 2004.
26. Burkhardt, III, J. J., Heath,G. A., and Turchi, C. S., 2012, “Life Cycle Assessment of a
Parabolic Trough Concentrating Solar Power Plant and the Impacts of Key Design
Alternatives”., Environ. Sci. Technol. 2011, 45, 2457–2464.
27. Koroneous, C.J., Piperidis, S.A., Tatatzikidis, C.A., and Rovas, D.C., 2008, “Life Cycle
Assessment of a Solar Thermal Concentrating System”, Selected Papers from the
WSEAS Conferences in Spain.
28. Heller, M.C., G.A. Keoleian, M.K. Mann, and T.A. Volk, 2004, “Life Cycle Energy and
Environmental Benefits of Generating Electricity from Willow Biomass,” Renewable
Energy, 29, 1023–1042.
29. Mann, M.K., and Spath, P.L., 1997, Life Cycle Assessment of a Biomass Gasification
Combined-Cycle System, NREL Life Cycle Assessment,
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/legosti/fy98/23076.pdf.
30. Whitaker, M., Heath, G. A., O’Donoughue, P., and Vorum, M., 2012, “Life Cycle
Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Coal-Fired Electricity Production: Systematic Review and
Harmonization”, J. Industrl. Ecol., 16, S1, S53-S72.
31. Warner, E. S., and Heath, G. A., 2012, “Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emission of Nuclear
Electricity Generation: Systematic Review and Harmonization”, J. Industrl. Ecol., 16, S1,
S73-S92.
32. Dolan, S. A. and Heath, G. A., 2012, “Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Utility
Scale Wind Power, Systematic Review and Harmonization”, J. Industrl. Ecol., 16, S1,
S136 – S154
33. Hsu, D. D., O’Donoughue, P., Fthenakis, V., Heath, G. A. Chul, H., Kim,C.H., Sawyer,
P., Choi, J., and Turney, D. E., 2012, “Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions of
Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Electricity Generation: Systematic Review and
Harmonization”, J. Industrl. Ecol., 16, S1, S122-S135.
34. Burkhardt III, J. J., Heath, G., and Cohen, E., 2012, “Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas
Emissions of Trough and Tower Concentrating Solar Power Electricity Generation:
Systematic Review and Harmonization”, J. Industrl. Ecol., 16, S1, S93-S109.
35. Bloomfield, K. K., Moore, J. N. and Nielsen, R. N., 2003, “Geothermal Energy Reduces
Greenhouse Gas Emissions”, Climate Change Research, GRC Bulletin, 77-79.
36. Sullivan, J. L., Clark, C. E., Yuan, L., Han, J., and Wang, M., 2011, “Life Cycle Analysis
Results of Geothermal Systems in Comparison to Other Power Systems”, Part II,
ANL/ESD 11-12.
37. Adee, S., and S.K. Moore, 2010, “In the American Southwest, the Energy Problem Is
Water,” IEEE Spectrum, June, available at
http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/environment/in-the-american-southwest-the-energyproblem-is-water.
38. Maulbetsch, J.S., and M.N. DiFilippo, 2006, “Cost and Value of Water Use at CombinedCycle Power Plants,” Pier Final Project Report, CEC-500-2006-034, prepared for
California Energy Commission, Public Interest Energy Research.
39. Frick, S., M. Kaltschmidt, and G. Schroeder, 2010, “Life Cycle Assessment of
Geothermal Binary Power Plants using Enhanced Low-Temperature Reservoirs,” Energy,
35, 5: 2281–2294.
40. Goldstein, R., and W. Smith, 2002, “Water & Sustainability (Volume 3): U.S. Water
Consumption for Power Production — The Next Half Century”, EPRI 1006786,
available at http://mydocs.epri.com/docs/public/000000000001006786.pdf, March.
41. Harto, C., R. Meyers, and E. Williams, 2010, “Life Cycle Water Use of Low-Carbon
Transport Fuels,” Energy Policy 38:4933-4944.
42. NETL, 2007, “Estimating Freshwater Needs to Meet Future Thermoelectric Generation
Requirements, 2007 Update,” DOE/NETL-400/2007/1304, available at
http://www.fypower.org/ pdf/DOE_WaterNeedsAnalysis_2007.pdf, September 24.
43. National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL), 2008, “Estimating Freshwater Needs
to Meet Future Thermoelectric Generation Requirements, 2008 Update”, DOE/NETL400/2008/1339, available at
www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/coalpower/ewr/pubs/2008_Water_Needs_AnalysisFinal_10-2-2008.pdf.
44. Vestas (Vestas Wind Systems A/S), 2006, “Life Cycle Assessment of
Electricity Delivered from an Onshore Power Plant based on Vestas
V82-1.65 MW Turbines,” Dec. 29 [http://www.vestas.com/], accessed
August 2010.
45. Clark, C.E., Harto, C.B., Sullivan, J.L., and Wang, M.Q., 2011a, “Water Use in the
Development and Operation of Geothermal Power Plants”, ANL/EVS/R-10/5.
46. Jennejohn, D., 2009, “Research and Development in Geothermal Exploration and
Drilling”, Geothermal Energy Association, Washington, D.C.
47. Lechon, Y. and Saez, C., “Life Cycle Environmental Impacts of Electricity Production by
Solar thermal Plants in Spain”, J. Solar Engineering, Transactions of ASME, 130,
021012-1 to 021012-7.
48. Warner, E. S., and Heath, G. A., 2012, “Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emission of Nuclear
Electricity Generation: Systematic Review and Harmonization”, J. Industrl. Ecol., 16, S1,
S73-S92.
49. Dolan, S. A. and Heath, G. A., 2012, “Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Utility
Scale Wind Power, Systematic Review and Harmonization”, J. Industrl. Ecol., 16, S1,
S136 – S154
50. Hsu, D. D., O’Donoughue, P., Fthenakis, V., Heath, G. A. Chul, H., Kim,C.H., Sawyer,
P., Choi, J., and Turney, D. E., 2012, “Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions of
Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Electricity Generation: Systematic Review and
Harmonization”, J. Industrl. Ecol., 16, S1, S122-S135.
51. Burkhardt III, J. J., Heath, G., and Cohen, E., 2012, “Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas
Emissions of Trough and Tower Concentrating Solar Power Electricity Generation:
Systematic Review and Harmonization”, J. Industrl. Ecol., 16, S1, S93-S109.
52. GREET1_2012, “Greenhouse Gases, Regulated Emissions and Energy in Transportation
(GREET) model”, http://greet.es.anl.gov/greet_1_series, last accessed 7/31/2012.
53. California Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources (CDOGGR), 2009,
“Summary of Geothermal Operations,” The Preliminary 2008 Annual Report of
California Oil, Gas and Geothermal Production, available at
ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/oil/annual_reports/
2008/0109geofin_08.pdf.
54. Gleick, P.H., 1992, “Environmental Consequences of Hydroelectric Development — the
Role of Facility Size and Type,” Energy 17(8), 735-747.
55. Gleick, P.H., 1994, “Water and Energy,” Ann. Rev. Energy Environ. 19, 267-299.
56. NETL, 2007, “Estimating Freshwater Needs to Meet Future Thermoelectric Generation
Requirements, 2007 Update,” DOE/NETL-400/2007/1304, available at
http://www.fypower.org/ pdf/DOE_WaterNeedsAnalysis_2007.pdf, September 24.
57. National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL), 2008, “Estimating Freshwater Needs
to Meet Future Thermoelectric Generation Requirements”, 2008 Update, DOE/NETL400/2008/1339, available at
www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/coalpower/ewr/pubs/2008_Water_Needs_AnalysisFinal_10-2-2008.pdf.
58.National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL), 2005, “Power Plant Water Usage and
Loss Study,” U.S. Department of Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory,
available at
http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/coalpower/gasification/pubs/pdf/WaterReport_Rev
ised%20May2007.pdf, revised May 2007.