See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/358912441

New Opportunities and Applications for Closed-Loop Geothermal Energy

Systems

Article · February 2022

CITATIONS READS

22 200

7 authors, including:

Andrew James Van Horn

GreenFire Energy Inc.
53 PUBLICATIONS 362 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Status of Risk-Benefit Analysis View project

Strange particle baryon resonances - experiments and analysis View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Andrew James Van Horn on 28 February 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

GRC Transactions, Vol. 44, 2020

New Opportunities and Applications for Closed-Loop

Geothermal Energy Systems

Andrew Van Horn1, Alvaro Amaya1, Brian Higgins1, John Muir1, Joe Scherer1, Robert
Pilko2 and Malcolm Ross
1GreenFire Energy, Inc.
2Blade Energy Partners, Ltd.
Keywords
Closed-loop, well retrofit, down-hole heat exchanger, concentric design, supercritical carbon
dioxide, sCO2, decarbonization, renewable power, renewable electricity generation, clean
energy and heat, geothermal energy systems, hydrogen production, lithium extraction

ABSTRACT

Geothermal energy, the world’s most abundant continuous heat supply, is available worldwide.
Renewable geothermal energy systems generate clean, reliable, secure, and resilient electric
power. Despite burgeoning demand for power, geothermal energy growth has been paradoxically
low due to the limitations of legacy hydrothermal technology. However, attempts to use
enhanced geothermal systems (EGS) to remedy legacy limitations have yet to succeed, due to the
complexity of finding, fracturing, and maintaining the subsurface resources to allow the adequate
flow of heated geo-fluids.
In contrast, Closed-Loop Geothermal (CLG) energy systems overcome permeability and flow
issues by circulating fluid through sealed wells and pipes. CLG systems are defined as
commercial-scale installations that provide geothermal heat for power generation, energy
storage, or industrial applications by using an enclosed down-hole heat exchanger (DHX) or
sealed pipes recycling a working fluid. CLG technologies transfer subsurface heat into a thermal
transport fluid continuously circulating within the sealed wellbore. The versatility of carbon-free
CLG applications is evidenced by the wide variety of different well and pipe configurations that
can be evaluated to optimize site-specific costs and performance and by the use of different
working fluids, such as water and supercritical CO2 (sCO2).
This paper first focuses on how CLG expands the range of clean geothermal power generation to
include significant, but previously inaccessible, geothermal resources and how CLG enables
retrofits of unproductive geothermal and oil and gas wells. It then discusses the unique ability of
CLG to provide both continuous renewable electric power and precise flows of heat at high
pressure to increase the efficiency and reduce the costs of high-value industrial applications, such
as hydrogen production and lithium extraction from brines, all while reducing emissions of
global greenhouse gases (GHG).

1123
GRC Transactions, Vol. 44, 2020 Van Horn et al.

1. Introduction
The advent of Closed-Loop Geothermal (CLG) technologies expands the potential production
and consumption of geothermal energy in fundamental ways:

 Closed-loop systems can operate in a much broader range of temperatures and rock
compositions than conventional hydrothermal projects. Applications can range from
relatively low-temperature sedimentary zones to hot dry rock formations. This wide
range not only increases the number of viable geothermal projects but also allows the use
of high-temperature resources (≥300°C) that dramatically increase power output.
 CLG energy systems can produce power from previously unproductive geothermal wells
and from played out oil and gas wells in hot strata.
 The baseload and flexible power generation capabilities of CLG can help stabilize the
electric grid with reliable, resilient, sustainable energy, capacity, and ancillary services.
 On-site production can provide secure, continuous commercial, industrial, and military
uses for heat and power.
 CLG systems can enhance industrial processes, including high-value lithium extraction
and hydrogen production, while lowering GHG emissions.
CLG energy systems are made possible by: 1) significant capability and cost improvements in
deep (especially horizontal) well drilling, logging, construction, and materials that enable
completions into high-temperature regions, greatly expanding the magnitude of useful global
geothermal resources, 2) advances in high-temperature cement and well casing that increase
long-term well integrity, 3) significant research and modeling of the thermodynamic properties
of closed-loop systems that show long-term resource life and viability for CLG systems, 4)
testing the efficiency of different closed-loop well architectures across a broad spectrum of
geophysical conditions using different working fluids, such as water and supercritical CO2
(sCO2), and 5) the pressing need for clean energy to reduce global carbon emissions.
Conventional and closed-loop geothermal systems can provide thermal and electric energy.
However, worldwide estimates indicate that only 2% of the earth’s geothermal resources reside
in permeable regions useful to conventional geothermal technologies (Geiser, 2016).
Consequently, enormous resources of geothermal energy remain untapped in hot dry rock below
the permeable layer. A 2006 study of U.S. geothermal potential compared the 2.8 GW of
geothermal capacity to more than 25 GW of additional resources that were identified, and an
additional 90 GW suspected to be available (Tester, 2006). In short, global geothermal energy
potential is orders of magnitude larger than today’s usage. However, today’s geothermal industry
requires technological advances to capture this potential.
At year-end 2019, installed geothermal power generation capacity in 27 countries was 15.4 GW.
U.S. nameplate capacity reached 3.7 GW, and projects planned or in development could make
geothermal energy available in up to 82 countries (Richter, 2019).
Because California has some of the best geothermal sites in the world (Hulen et al, 2002,
Kaspereit et al, 2016), the state leads the world in geothermal power with an installed capacity of
2.73 GW in 43 operating power plants (Elders et al., 2019). Despite this potential, the number
of net gigawatt-hours generated between 2001 and 2019 decreased (13,984 GWh vs. 11,434
GWh), mainly because of declining production at existing plants and the lack of new projects.

1124
GRC Transactions, Vol. 44, 2020 Van Horn et al.

The Geysers Known Geothermal Resource Area (KGRA) provides a vivid example: the site
now produces only about half the power today compared to its peak in the 1980s.
Worldwide, the geothermal power industry has expanded since the 1960s by accessing prime
sites and generating economically competitive electric power. This expansion eventually forced
the development of less attractive sites with many well failures. This trend significantly reduced
the attractiveness of expanding geothermal power and exacerbated negative perceptions of the
geothermal business model, including high upfront risk, a long lag before revenue generation,
and modest returns on investment (Scherer et al., 2020).
Since the 1970s, government-funded research to resolve these problems has focused on
developing enhanced geothermal systems (EGS). EGS attempts to increase subsurface formation
fractures to permit sufficient geofluid flow rates through permeable rock layers (U.S. DOE et al.,
2019). Despite significant government-sponsored research, EGS has been largely unsuccessful
in establishing and maintaining hot rock fracture pathways and avoiding cool-water break-
through.
New research, development, and demonstration directions recommend using supercritical
geothermal resources (Reinsch et al., 2017; Stimac et al., 2017) and developing closed-loop
geothermal technologies (Moncarz et al., 2017; Brown, 2000; Oldenburg et al., 2016).

2. Closed-Loop, Renewable Geothermal Electric Power Generation

2.1 Closed-Loop Configurations for Geothermal Power Generation
Many hot geothermal prospects locations lack sufficient subsurface permeability or water to be
developed. Multiple researchers (Law et al., 2014; Geiser et al., 2016; Fox et al., 2016; Higgins
et al., 2016; Raihi et al., 2017; Higgins et al., 2019; Amaya et al., 2020) have proposed closed-
loop geothermal systems to ensure fluid flow in both the permeable layer and exploit the deeper
hot rock layer.
CLG technology requires the creation of a sealed well in the subsurface geothermal rock strata.
Within this closed system, a heat transport fluid continuously circulates to absorb and deliver
heat. No fluid is injected into or extracted from the rocks, so environmental permits are
substantially less expensive and time-consuming to obtain. Closed loops also make possible the
use of alternative heat transport fluids that create a strong thermosiphon, such as sCO2, thereby
reducing the parasitic power loss associated with pumping. Compact turbomachinery is also
scalable with sCO2, reducing capital costs.
The diagram on the left in Figure 1 illustrates how conventional hydrothermal and EGS projects
require large amounts of water pumped down an injection well, then through highly permeable
rock as the geofluid collects and transports heat, and into a production well that produces fluid
back to the surface via convection as brine or steam. The closed “U-Loop” shown on the right
does not need subsurface permeability, because an engineered sealed pipe well system conducts
the working fluid through hot rock and up to the surface for power generation.

1125
GRC Transactions, Vol. 44, 2020 Van Horn et al.

Figure 1: Comparison of conventional geothermal vs. closed-loop geothermal (GreenFire Energy).

In a straightforward configuration, a tube-in-tube assembly (an insulated concentric tube,

frequently vacuum insulated tube [VIT]) is run into the well. Heat is absorbed via conduction
from the rock through the well casing, and then into the working fluid. Figure 2 shows a deep
vertical well with the concentric tube configuration circulating sCO2.

Figure 2: Single well with a concentric tube heat exchanger configuration.

1126
GRC Transactions, Vol. 44, 2020 Van Horn et al.

Figure 3 illustrates a highly deviated well design, where the well bore kicks off directionally at
the top of the hot geothermal target zone, increasing the surface area for heat transfer by angling
through the target zone temperature gradient or following a thermal contour to bottom-hole
depth. Multiple onsite deviated wells can increase the energy extracted from a high-quality
resource.

Figure 3: Closed-loop concentric pipe-in-pipe deviated well configuration.

Today’s sophisticated wells can have operating lives of 20-40 years with low yearly operating
expense. The upstream hydrocarbon industry now drills, completes and produces extreme gas
and oil wells from reservoir formation depths over 9,750 m (32,000 ft) with bottom-hole
temperatures above 500°F (260°C) and/or bottom-hole pressures to 30,000 psi (207 MPa)
(Sathuvalli, 2018). The horizontal length of a single wellbore can be over 6.6 miles (10.7 km).
Wells can be drilled in any direction, including a U-shape. Multilateral wells can be drilled and
completed, where downhole multiple ‘branch’ horizontal wellbores emanate from a single
‘mother’ wellbore drilled from the surface. These advances enable oil and gas and geothermal
wells to be used in both new and retrofit applications.
2.2 A Demonstration of Closed-Loop Geothermal Power Technology for Applications in Hot
Dry Rock
During 2019, GreenFire Energy Inc. conducted a field demonstration of a CLG system at Coso,
California (Higgins et al., 2019; Amaya et al., 2020). The project used a DHX to extract heat
from an existing unproductive well. Despite useful enthalpy and satisfactory well integrity,
conventional hydrothermal well 34-A20 was not useable for power generation because of high
concentrations of non-condensable gases. GreenFire’s well modifications included the insertion
of a VIT string and installation of surface equipment. Two different working fluids were tested:
water and sCO2.

1127
GRC Transactions, Vol. 44, 2020 Van Horn et al.

Figure 4 shows the above-ground equipment in September 2019. The project team conducted
tests with varying parameters to build a dataset and calibrate models that could guide the
development of future field-scale projects. An extensive description of the project and its results
were presented in a California Energy Commission (CEC) report (Scherer et al., 2020).

Figure 4: GreenFire Energy’s 2019 demonstration project at the Coso Geothermal Power Plant, Coso, CA.

Due to budget constraints, the closed-loop DHX in this demonstration was only 1,000 feet long.
An obvious question is how power generation might increase with a longer well? Figure 5 shows
the modeled power potential of a field-scale U-Loop system of increasing lengths installed in a
geothermal resource with a thermal gradient of 248°F (120°C)/km. Although convective heat
transfer from water in the resource moving across the well would add substantial power, no
convection was assumed in these calculations.

Figure 5: Power potential vs. horizontal length without convection.

1128
GRC Transactions, Vol. 44, 2020 Van Horn et al.

Because closed-loop wells can be placed wherever there is heat, another question involves
maximum well density without thermal interference. Provided that wellbores through the thermal
target zone are at least 263 feet (80 meters) apart, calculations showed that multiple wells could
be drilled from a single well pad without thermal interference.
Another relevant question is how much more power could be extracted from the Coso KGRA
using CLG wells. Hotter temperatures can geometrically increase power output. By applying the
average Coso temperature gradient of 100°C/km, to estimate temperatures below the 4 km depth
of existing wells, it was determined that temperatures beneath Coso range from 932°F (500°C) to
1472°F (800°C).
Even if the maximum bottom-hole temperature for drilling deep wells is capped at 500°C, the
potential power generation at Coso is an extraordinary 19 GWe. When current limitations on
drilling and materials are considered, plus an acceptable levelized cost of electricity (LCOE), the
potential capacity at Coso with intensive closed-loop development is in the range of 1 to 2 GWe,
compared to its current capacity of about 0.145 GWe. Measurements of CLG performance
parameters during the Coso demonstration confirmed the accuracy of GreenFire’s geothermal
models to predict closed-loop power generation from diverse types of geothermal resources,
including dry steam wells at The Geysers, hypersaline wells near the Salton Sea, and hot dry
rock at Coso. Commercial CLG projects in Asia and Europe are now being modeled and
designed for implementation.
Because power generation is a function of thermal surface area, the industry continues
investigating the potential to multiply heat conduction via well configurations that increase
down-hole surface area, such as an inverted tree-like configuration of fluid-conducting pipes.
GTherm investigated various well architectures to increase down-hole surface area, developing a
proprietary “heat rod” technology utilizing special fluids to conduct and concentrate heat at the
center stem (GTherm, 2014).
2.3 Other Applications for CLG Energy Systems
2.3.1 A Closed-Loop Multilateral-Pipe Energy System for Power and District Heating
In addition to power generation, geothermal energy is well-suited for district heating and
greenhouse applications, as reviewed by M. Soltani (Soltani et al., 2019). Eavor Technologies,
Inc., a Canadian company, is developing CLG systems to produce both power and heat,
primarily in low heat sedimentary basins at pressures higher than 10 MPa and temperatures less
than 180°C (Eavor, 2020). Eavor’s demonstration project near Rocky Mountain House, Alberta,
was designed to generate industrial-scale electricity or sufficient heat to supply the equivalent of
16,000 homes from a single installation. Its technical objectives were to achieve:

 The ability to drill and intersect a multilateral closed loop with two laterals,
 The ability to simultaneously drill and seal the wellbores, creating a closed-loop isolated
from the surrounding formation that does not leak fluid nor allow formation fluids to
ingress into the closed-loop system,
 Prove that the subsurface heat transfer and thermosiphon effect match expectations.

1129
GRC Transactions, Vol. 44, 2020 Van Horn et al.

Eavor’s CAD$10M demonstration project broke ground in August 2019, and successfully
completed tests satisfying the technical objectives in September 2019. The demonstration
project constructed multiple horizontal pipes connecting two vertical wells about 2.4 kilometers
deep with lateral wellbores several kilometers in length (Figure 6.) Because there is no casing on
the laterals, wellbores must be sealed below ground, so that the working fluid re-circulates
without losses.
In May 2020, Eavor and Enex Power signed a letter of intent to use CLG to revitalize a project in
Geretstried, Germany, where two exploratory wells had failed to find sufficient hot hydrothermal
water to enable the economic development of a conventional geothermal project. Other projects
are now being developed to scale-up output and bring down unit costs.

Figure 6: A simple Eavor-Loop™ configuration with lateral pipes several kilometers long connected and
sealed at depth to inlet and outlet wells.

2.3.2 Retrofit of CLG Down-Hole Heat Exchangers (DHX) to Increase Power Generation at
Under-Producing Geothermal Wells
In the U.S., 80% of geothermal wells now operating were drilled before the year 2000. Many
were dry holes when first drilled, failed mechanically, or have experienced severe declines in
production. In addition, conventional geothermal wells were drilled that failed to produce
adequate power, due to a variety of problems common to legacy hydrothermal projects,
including inadequate brine production, high non-condensable gases (NCG), low wellhead
pressure, corrosive brine, and/or insufficient resource permeability. A study commissioned by
the World Bank concluded that approximately 22% of all geothermal wells worldwide have
“failed” (World Bank, 2013). Although some wells can be cured using various “workover”
techniques, these are usually expensive and involve additional drilling.

1130
GRC Transactions, Vol. 44, 2020 Van Horn et al.

A better option - CLG well retrofits - might be used to enable unproductive wells to generate
more power with less risk and lower costs. This is increasingly appealing, because the cost of
plugging and abandoning wells has escalated. The possibility of fixing new wells that fail to
produce power by using low-cost closed-loop retrofit technology is an effective way to mitigate
new project risks (Higgins, 2019). CLG retrofits may also reduce geothermal emissions
experienced with geothermal brines at some conventional hydrothermal geothermal sites
(Yanagisawa, 2017; von Düring, 2016).
A typical hydrothermal well retrofit solution is illustrated in Figure 7, which shows a closed-loop
DHX inserted into an existing well. The working fluid circulates from the steam turbine back to
the bottom of the DHX and extracts more heat on its upward path from the flow of co-produced
geofluid rising in the outer annulus between the well casing and the DHX.

Figure 7: A closed-loop geothermal well retrofit. The DHX fluid can flow in either direction, depending on
the working fluid. Water flows down the annulus and up the center, or sCO2 flows down the center
and is heated more as it flows up the annulus. Cooling water is required to reject excess heat from
circulating sCO2.

The chief advantage of the DHX is that the working fluid is exposed to the higher brine
temperatures near the bottom of the DHX relative to temperatures near the surface. Hence, the
working fluid reaches the surface at a higher temperature than the produced geothermal brine.
When water is used as the working fluid, a key benefit is producing steam that does not contain
contaminants transported from the subsurface, like NCGs, salts, radioactive isotopes, or metals.
Similarly, when sCO2 is the working fluid, heated sCO2 generates power via expansion. Details
of GreenFire Energy’s Coso demonstration using a DHX are discussed in Higgins et al., 2019,
Amaya et al., 2020, and Scherer et al., 2020.

1131
GRC Transactions, Vol. 44, 2020 Van Horn et al.

2.3.3 Retrofit of Oil and Gas Wells for Power Production and Pumping in Suitable Oil and Gas
Reservoirs
Today, there are nearly 100,000 well pads in the U.S. Permian basin alone, as well as millions of
abandoned wells throughout the world. Many wells could be candidates for DHX or another
method of transporting geothermal heat to the surface, rather than being idled. Repurposing
existing hydrocarbon gas & oil wells for geothermal operations, including the combined
production of geothermal heat with hydrocarbons, is a recently re-visited idea (Alimonti, 2020).
Three different business models are envisioned for combining CLG with oil and gas wells. First,
is the idea of inserting a DHX in a defunct oil well to generate power for pumping oil from
producing wells in the same field. This could be economical where diesel generators are used to
power oil field pumps.
Second, geothermal heat might be used directly to pump oil or co-extract methane. One
potential solution comes from the Gravity Head Pump (GHP) developed by GeoTek (GeoTek,
2015). A GHP is a down-hole pump that takes heat from the surrounding rock to create a
thermosiphon that powers the mechanism. This innovation avoids the cost of electricity that
would otherwise be used for submersible or surface pumps and is particularly interesting for off-
grid sites. Third, a CLG system could be inserted into suitable non-productive oil wells to
repurpose them for electric power generation. Because the wells are already drilled, and the
subsurface is well-understood, the most expensive component of conventional geothermal power
generation is avoidable. Another advantage is that repurposing such wells can indefinitely defer
the substantial costs of abandonment.
These different approaches share the common challenge of transferring enough enthalpy to be
cost-effective. CLG casing strings must be large enough to provide sufficient heat transfer across
the down-hole tubulars and annuli into the working fluid. Because the largest percentage of oil
and gas wells have 5-1/2-inch casing or less and have smaller inside diameter than typical
geothermal >7.5-inch casing sizes, a tube-in-tube DHX may only be applicable when it’s
dimensionally possible.
DHX feasibility for oil well retrofits must be determined with accurate thermodynamic models
and analytical engineering design tools. Geo-technical and well data are needed to evaluate
possible retrofit designs, costs, and performance. Required heat transfer values and wellbore
sizes for optimal thermal efficiency can be calculated for different diameter and length
combinations. Well design is an iterative process where the variables of heat transfer are
compared with the circulated fluid flow within the mechanical and dimensional limitations of
well construction materials and components.
2.3.4 Advantages of Geothermal Electricity Generation for Energy and Grid Balancing
The need to reduce global GHG has led to rapid additions of variable wind and solar power. Due
to their intermittency, maintaining reliable electricity service requires many changes to grid
operations and tariffs, and often leads to plans relying on battery storage technologies with
unproven duty cycles, costs, and uncertain lifetimes. Unlike intermittent solar and wind,
geothermal systems operate continuously and reliably - night and day, rain or shine, in winds,
and calm. Geothermal plants can deliver baseload and flexible power required for grid

1132
GRC Transactions, Vol. 44, 2020 Van Horn et al.

reliability, supply diversity, and electricity grid balancing by providing needed capacity, energy,
and ancillary services (Thomsen, 2019; Orenstein and Thomsen, 2017; Matek, 2015;
Luckhardt, 2016; Sepulveda, 2018; Jenkins, 2020).
An intriguing prospect would combine hydrogen production and geothermal power generation to
balance supply and demand in the electricity grid. In California and elsewhere, over-generation
by solar and wind occurs when intermittent electricity supplies exceed power demand. This
oversupply not only causes a curtailment of power plants and falling wholesale prices, but also
requires added available resources for ramping up generation when wind and solar become
unavailable. In this case, geothermal power could be controlled to produce hydrogen
continuously or only during grid oversupply periods, when wholesale power prices are too low.
2.3.5 Advantages of Geothermal Energy Systems Compared to Alternatives
Conventional geothermal systems generally have lower lifecycle environmental impacts than
other electric generating technologies (Heath, 2016; Sullivan et al., 2010; Menberg et al., 2016;
Matuszewska et al., 2019; Paulilloa et al., 2020; Basosi et al., 2020). One significant benefit is
geothermal’s small land footprint in comparison to other renewables. Estimated relative
aggregate lifecycle environmental footprints (RAF) analyzed using lifecycle assessment methods
(LCA) are shown in Figure 8.

Figure 8: Relative lifecycle aggregate footprints (RAF) of different energy sources (Matuszewska et al.,
2019).

CLG technologies also have important environmental advantages over conventional

hydrothermal and EGS:
Air & Water Quality

 Consume little or no process water,

 Produce carbon-free emissions,
 Reduce problems with saline and corrosive brines inside the system,
 Have fewer effluent & waste disposal problems and permitting issues, and
 Do not interfere with subsurface water, such as hot springs and onsens.

1133
GRC Transactions, Vol. 44, 2020 Van Horn et al.

Public Safety & Environmental Soundness

 No surface subsidence,
 No waste streams,
 No hazardous chemicals, and
 No risk of induced seismicity.

3. Potential Hydrogen Production Processes Using Closed-Loop Geothermal Heat and

Power
Because hydrogen creates water and heat when it combines with oxygen (instead of GHG and
other fossil-fuel pollutants), it is a highly attractive fuel for power, heat, and transportation, as
well as being valuable for various industrial processes. Today, most hydrogen is consumed by
on-site industrial applications for refining, ammonia production (which comprises 55% of global
use), treating metals, and electric power generation. Pipelines transport hydrogen to storage and
end-users, sometimes blended with natural gas. End-users include public transportation, diesel
trucks, light-duty fuel cell vehicles (FCV), maritime facilities that refuel trans-oceanic ships, and
steel mills.
Commercial hydrogen production processes have varying costs and environmental impacts.
Steam Methane Reforming (SMR) using natural gas is the predominant process, producing
“Grey Hydrogen” via pyrolysis, which releases significant CO2. Electrolysis of water is a more
expensive process that does not directly produce CO2 but requires substantial electricity, often
generated by fossil fuels. By comparison, “Green Hydrogen” is produced from zero-carbon
feedstock utilizing non-carbon emitting renewable or nuclear energy, while “Blue Hydrogen”
production relies on natural gas accompanied by Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS).
Global hydrogen production exceeds 70 million metric tons per year, emitting more than 830
million tonnes of CO2 (Vine, 2020). Today, the price of hydrogen made by splitting water
(“green hydrogen”) is more than twice the price of “grey” hydrogen produced by traditional
SMR. However, production costs for green hydrogen are anticipated to decline by 40-70 percent
by 2030, with about 0.4 million tonnes/year of green hydrogen capacity and 2.7 million
tonnes/year of blue hydrogen capacity added by 2026 (Platts-S&P Global, 2020).
Geothermal energy could be strategic for reducing the current high cost of clean hydrogen.
Baseload geothermal energy could alternate between commercial power or heat generation and
hydrogen production. When it is more advantageous to sell power to the grid, hydrogen
production processes can be readily curtailed to allow geothermal plants to sell power.
Geothermal capacity could also power other industries, serve consumers, and provide jobs
(Elders, 2016; Shnell et al., 2016; Elders et al., 2018; Van Horn et al., 2016). Hydrogen storage
can be long-term - months longer than battery storage. Mitsubishi is planning the world’s largest
hydrogen energy storage facility inside Utah salt domes with a capacity equivalent to 1GW –
enough to serve 150,000 households with no seasonal variation.
California’s Salton Sea Geothermal Field and Mexico’s Cerro Prieto, two of the world’s largest
and hottest geothermal fields, may be ideally located for hydrogen production and distribution.
In 2019, there were over 400 MWe of operating geothermal plants in California’s Imperial
1134
GRC Transactions, Vol. 44, 2020 Van Horn et al.

Valley, which can accommodate more, and there is a growing market for hydrogen in California
and elsewhere
How can geothermal power contribute? Very pure hydrogen production by electrolysis is much
more efficient at high temperatures. An integrated CLG geothermal hydrogen production system
could produce electrical energy for electrolysis and provide cost-effective thermal energy needed
to achieve high-temperature production. Additionally, because hydrogen must be compressed
for transport, CLG can precisely create and maintain high pressures for compression.
Prospects for using geothermal energy for hydrogen production are doubly attractive since the
use of fossil fuels may be avoided as feedstock and as the energy source. Two types of CLG
processes are feasible:
• Down-hole reaction methods (DHR) using the components installed in the well itself as
reaction chambers, thus applying geothermal heat efficiently to improve production
methods and reduce costs, and

• Transporting higher temperature geothermal heat to the surface to reduce the heat and
power needed from surface sources, thereby reducing costs and the environmental
footprint.
CLG can take advantage of higher down-bore temperatures and pressures to improve the
efficiency of several hydrogen production methods. GreenFire Energy has designed down-hole
apparatus, systems, processes, and methods to reduce the costs of clean hydrogen production,
storage, and delivery by adapting the following hydrogen production methods:

 Alkaline electrolysis method,

 Solid oxide electrolysis cell method,
 Proton exchange membrane method,
 Variations in the above processes that reduce the electrical energy required for
electrolysis and/or control flow rates and circulation of various fluids and electrolytes,
 Partial oxidation method,
 Copper chloride method,
 Copper chloride method combined with a hybrid process capturing, storing, and recycling
exothermic hydrogen production heat that can be used simultaneously or applied in stages
to power endothermic hydrogen production at higher temperature and pressure,
 Steam reformation method,
 Auto-thermal reformation method,
 Liquefaction method, and
 Co-production methods using geothermal brine as a working fluid to generate surface
thermal or electrical power.
In addition to lowering GHG emissions, the use of down-hole CLG for hydrogen production
should be safer than surface hydrogen production and is expected to be more profitable.

1135
GRC Transactions, Vol. 44, 2020 Van Horn et al.

4. Potential Lithium and Mineral Extraction Processes Using Closed-Loop Geothermal

The Department of the Interior classifies lithium as one of 35 minerals critical to U.S. national
security and economy. Today, more than 95 percent of the world’s lithium supply is sold as
lithium carbonate, mostly from brines, and as lithium hydroxide, which is produced by mining.
Geothermal brines can provide significant supplies of lithium and other minerals, as well as
producing electric power.
In 2017, global lithium demand was about 214 kilotons (kt) of lithium carbonate equivalent
(LCE), of which 87 kt LCE was for batteries. In 2025, demand is expected to rise to 670 kt LCE,
with 509 kt LCE for batteries (Azevedo et al., 2018). Lithium demand is driven by growing
markets for electric vehicles (EVs), utility-size storage batteries, electrification, electronics,
tools, equipment, and specific compounds for lubricants and pharmaceuticals. However,
concerns about lithium sources, international supply chains, price volatility, and politically
restricted availability are being voiced by mining and refining companies, automotive OEMs,
battery manufacturers, commodity investors, and politicians.
Four companies dominated global lithium production in 2017, producing about 450 kt, well
above demand. Nevertheless, prices were volatile, rising from an average of $5,000/t in 2016 to
$19,500/t in 2017, possibly because supplies come from only eight countries; China, Chile, and
Australia produce about 85 percent. Because of lower production costs, brine processing is the
most prevalent method, but hard rock production of lithium hydroxide is growing, mostly in
China (Azevedo et al., 2018).
Cost is not the only advantage of lithium production from brine. A recent study by Jade Cove
Partners (Grant, A., 2019) enumerated other benefits:

 Either lithium carbonate or lithium hydroxide can be produced,

 Efficiency – up to 90% of the lithium is extracted vs. 40% via evaporation ponds,
 Speed - lithium is extracted in hours, instead of days,
 Purity – the lithium is pure and highly concentrated for easy processing,
 No need for expensive, large footprint and complicated evaporation ponds,
o Reduces water consumption to 1/50th,
o Minimal footprint,
o Extraction rate and efficiency are not affected by rain or wind speed.
The major components for conventional processes for direct lithium extraction from aqueous
resources are shown in Figure 9.
In 2019, there were nine lithium projects in western U.S. sedimentary basins, including those in
the Salton Sea KGRA. See Figure 10 (Grant, 2020). By itself, California has all the elements to
build an integrated supply chain from “brines to batteries.”

1136
GRC Transactions, Vol. 44, 2020 Van Horn et al.

Figure 9: Advantages of Direct Lithium Extraction from Aqueous Solutions (Jade Cove Partners, Grant,
2019).

Figure 10: Lithium in the Salton Sea Area – CEC presentation. (Stanford Geothermal Workshop, February
2020).

1137
GRC Transactions, Vol. 44, 2020 Van Horn et al.

Recognizing the importance of the Salton Sea area, the CEC conducted a February 2020
symposium to outline California's Lithium Recovery Initiative (CEC et al., 2020). In April, the
CEC awarded $9.34 million for projects to test and develop processes to improve lithium
recovery. If successful, these could reduce the costs of associated geothermal power by up to 35
percent.
Full utilization of the Salton Sea KGRA for lithium production can simultaneously accomplish
other important goals, such as power to desalinate and replenish water evaporating from the
Salton Sea, and to mitigate the growing threat of toxic dust (Wilson, 2019). The same capacity
can provide drinking water for an arid region, produce hydrogen, reduce GHG emissions, and
send flexible power to the grid (Elders et al., 2018; Elders et al., 2019; Shnell et al., 2018).
CLG technology offers a fundamentally different approach to simultaneous power generation
and lithium extraction. CLG DHX circulates a working fluid at different flow rates to optimize
power generation. Meanwhile, mineralized brine annular flow inside the casing is co-produced
at rates selected to co-optimize the efficiency of lithium extraction. Because the brine well flow
transfers heat to the working fluid in the DHX, the two respective fluid flow rates are
thermodynamically connected and constrained. When compared to systems with a single flow of
brine, “two-flow” flexibility makes it easier to optimize the balance between power production
and lithium extraction.
As described in section 2.3.2, a DHX design was successfully demonstrated at GreenFire’s CLG
project at Coso, California, which produced brine to the surface, while alternatively circulating
sCO2 and water as working fluids within a closed loop. However, brines with high Total
Dissolved Solids (TDS) as found in the Salton Sea KGRA present challenges not experienced at
Coso, where no mineral extraction was considered. Potential issues using a DHX inside
conventional geothermal wells relate to (1) chemistry changes associated with the produced brine
as it expands, typically flashing and rising to the surface, (2) concentration of silicate and other
compounds, and (3) corrosion issues (DiPippo, 2020). In principle, these problems are partially
offset by less scaling at the surface and reduced need for water treatment. If implemented, CLG
technologies that co-produce power and lithium could optimize performance by enabling
independent control of each flow within prescribed limits. Specific well designs would be
engineered to account for the wide differences in brine temperature, pressure, and composition
characterizing geothermal resources.

5. Conclusions
Closed-loop geothermal (CLG) systems can make significant contributions toward satisfying
global energy and environmental needs. Overall:

 Advanced technologies are essential to supply clean energy and reduce greenhouse gases.
 Electricity is the world’s most versatile form of energy.
 Reliable, renewable, climate-resilient, and environmentally preferred geothermal energy
provides clean, continuous heat and electric power.
 Innovative, closed-loop geothermal systems can access previously unavailable, abundant
high energy resources and deliver secure, sustainable carbon-free energy at competitive
costs.

1138
GRC Transactions, Vol. 44, 2020 Van Horn et al.

CLG technologies are in their early commercialization stages. Applications accessing permeable
layer geothermal resources can incorporate down-hole heat exchangers (DHX), apply different
concentric pipe-in-pipe architectures, or use single or multi-lateral wellbore configurations to
connect inlet and outlet wells in sealed U-Loop systems. CLG energy systems can also access
the vast, untapped heat in deeper and hotter rocks, greatly expanding available worldwide
geothermal resources. In addition to electric power generation from both new and retrofit
geothermal and oil & gas wells, promising applications of closed-loop geothermal systems can
provide direct heat and cooling, enhance hydrogen production, improve lithium extraction from
geothermal brines, and desalinate water, all while significantly reducing global GHG emissions.

REFERENCES

Alimonti, Claudio, Scrocca, Davide, and Soldo, Elena, “Geothermal energy: developing a
synergistic integration in oil & gas fields looking forward to a decarbonized era”,
Proceedings, World Geothermal Congress, Reykjavik, Iceland, April 26 – May 2 (2020).
Amaya, Alvaro, Scherer, Joseph, Muir, John, Patel, Mehul, and Higgins, Brian, “GreenFire
Energy Closed-Loop Geothermal Demonstration using Supercritical Carbon Dioxide as
Working Fluid,” PROCEEDINGS, 45th Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering,
Stanford University, Stanford, California, February 10-12 (2020).
Azevedo, M, Campagnol, N, Hagenbruch, T., Hoffman, K, Lala, A, and Ramsbottom, O.,
“Lithium and cobalt: A tale of two commodities,” McKinsey & Company: Metals and
Mining, June 2018. https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/metals-and-mining/our-
insights/lithium-and-cobalt-a-tale-of-two-commodities (2018).
Basosi, R., Bonciani, R., Frosali, D., Manfrida, G, Parisi, M. and Sansone, F., “Life Cycle
Analysis of a Geothermal Power Plant: Comparison of the Environmental Performance with
Other Renewable Energy Systems,” Sustainability (2020).
Bergman, T., Incropera, F. and Lavine, A. “Fundamentals of heat and mass transfer.” John Wiley
& Sons (2011).
Brown, D. “A Hot Dry Rock Geothermal Energy Concept Utilizing Supercritical CO2 Instead of
Water”. Twenty-Fifth Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering, Stanford, CA (2000).
California Energy Commission, de Jong, Elisabeth, “Presentations from California's Lithium
Recovery Initiative Symposium – February 12, 2020,”
https://efiling.energy.ca.gov/getdocument.aspx?tn=232064 Geothermal Grant and Loan
Program Workshops and Discussions TN #: 232064 (2020).
DiPippo, R. Private communication, GFO-19-303 (2020).
Eavor Technologies, Inc., https://www.eavor.com/press-release/worlds-first-truly-scalable-form-
green-baseload-power-demonstrated-eavor-technologies, April 24, 2020.
Elders, W., “Geothermal Resources on both sides of the International Border,”
California Energy Commission - Technical Workshop on Clean Energy Across the Border,
February 18-19, Holtville, Imperial Valley, CA (2016).

1139
GRC Transactions, Vol. 44, 2020 Van Horn et al.

Elders, W., Shnell, J., Friðleifsson, G., Albertsson, A. and Zierenberg, R. “Improving Economics
by utilizing supercritical and superhot systems to produce flexible and integrated
combinations of electricity, hydrogen, and minerals.” Transactions Geothermal Resources.
Council, 42, 1914-1927 (2018).
Elders, W., Osborn, W., Raju, A., and Martinez-Morales, A., “The Future Role of Geothermal
Resources in Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions in California and Beyond,”
PROCEEDINGS, 44th Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering, Stanford
University, Stanford, CA (2019).
Fox, Don and Brian Higgins, “The Effect of Well Density on Resource Depletion for a Vertical
Closed-Loop sCO2 Geothermal Well System,” Geothermal Resource Council Transactions,
Vol. 40 (2016).
Geiser, B., Hilpert, M. Marsh, B., “Geothermal: The Marginalization of Earth’s Largest and
Greenest Energy Source,” PROCEEDINGS, 43th Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir
Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, CA (2016).
GeoTEK, GeoTEK Gravity Head Pump: “Magnetically Coupled Expander Pump with Axial
Flow Path” US Patent 9243481 (2015).
Grant, A., “The California Lithium Supply Chain Opportunity,” California’s Lithium Recovery
Initiative Symposium, hosted by the CEC, Stanford University (2020).
GTherm, Heat Rods: “Heat Pipes for a Single Well Engineered Geothermal” U.S. patent
application US20170248345A1 (2014)
Haaland, S.E. “Simple and explicit formulas for the friction factor in turbulent pipe flow.”
Journal of Fluids Engineering, 105(1), 89-90 (1983).
Heath, G., “Environmental Impacts of Renewable Electricity Generation Technologies: A Life
Cycle Perspective,” NREL/PR-6A20-65645 (2016).
Higgins, Brian, Curtis Oldenburg, Mark Muir, Lehua Pan, and Alan Eastman, “Process Modeling
of a Closed-Loop sCO2 Geothermal Power Cycle,” The 5th International Supercritical CO2
Power Cycles Symposium, San Antonio, Texas, March 29 – 31 (2016).
Higgins, B., Muir, J., Scherer, J. and Amaya, A., “GreenFire Energy Closed-Loop Geothermal
Demonstration at the Coso Geothermal Field,” Geothermal Resources Council Transactions,
Vol. 43 (2019).
Hulen, Jeffrey, Kaspereit, Dennis, Norton, Denis, Osborn, William and Fred Pulka, “Refined
Conceptual Modeling and a New Resource Estimate for the Salton Sea Geothermal Field,
Imperial Valley, California,” Geothermal Resources Council Transactions, Vol. 26 (2002).
Jenkins, Jesse, “Decarbonizing Electricity: The Critical Role of Firm Low-Carbon
Resources,”_Clean_Energy_States_Alliance_Webinar,_May_15_(2020).
https://www.cesa.org/event/decarbonizing-electricity-the-critical-role-of-firm-low-carbon-
resources/.
Kaspereit, Dennis, Mann, Mary, Sanyal, Subir, Rickard, Bill, Osborn, William, and Jeff Hulen,
“Updated Conceptual Model and Reserve Estimate for the Salton Sea Geothermal Field,
Imperial Valley, California, ,” Geothermal Resources Council Transactions, Vol. 40 (2016).

1140
GRC Transactions, Vol. 44, 2020 Van Horn et al.

Kato, Stephanie, “Presentation - SB 100 Report – California’s Climate Strategy and Carbon
Neutrality,” California Air Resources Board, October 19, Southern California Scoping
Workshop. (2019).
Law R., Bridgland D., and Nicholson D., “Closed Loop Heat Extraction from Deep Single
Wells,” Proceedings 41st Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering, Stanford
University, Stanford, California (2014).
Luckhardt, J. and Flake, S., “Getting Paid for Grid Services and Supply Diversity: Are the
Regulators Recognizing these Services?” Geothermal Resources Council Transactions, Vol.
40 (2016).
Matek, B., “Geothermal Energy Association Issue Brief: Firm and Flexible Power Services
Available from Geothermal Facilities,” Geothermal Energy Association (2015).
Matuszewska D., Kuta, M, and Gorski, J. “The environmental impact of renewable energy
technologies shown in cases of ORC-Based Geothermal Power Plant,” 2019 IOP Conf. Ser.:
Earth Environ. Sci. 214 012142 (2019).

Menberg, K., Blum P., Pfister S., Rybach L., Bayer P., “Life cycle assessment of geothermal
power generation,” European Geothermal Congress (2016).

Moncarz, P., and Kolbe, W., “Redefining Hot Dry Rock and Closed Loop: Standing on the
Shoulders of Giants – New Directions in Geothermal,” GRC Transactions, Vol. 41 (2017).

Nikolaidis, Pavlos and Poullikkasn, Andreas, “A comparative overview of hydrogen production

processes,” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 67 597–611 (2017).
Oldenburg C., Pan L., Muir M., Eastman A., Higgins B., “Numerical Simulation of Critical
Factors Controlling Heat Extraction from Geothermal Systems Using a Closed-Loop Heat
Exchange Method”. Forty-First Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering Stanford,
California (2016).
Orenstein, R. and Thomsen, P., “The Increasing Comparative Value of Geothermal – New
Market Findings and Research Needs,” Transactions, Geothermal Resources Council. 41,
(2017).
Paulilloa, A., Cotton, L, Lawb, R, Strioloa, A., Lettieria, P., “Geothermal energy in the UK: The
life-cycle environmental impacts of electricity production from the United Downs Deep
Geothermal Power project,” Journal of Cleaner Production 249 (2020).
Platts, S&P Global, “Green Shoots: A Growing Hydrogen Economy Webinar,” March 18 (2020)
Reinsch, T., Dobson, P., Asanuma, H., Huenges, E., Poletto, F. and Sanjuan, P., “Utilizing
supercritical geothermal systems: a review of past ventures and ongoing research activities,”
Geothermal Energy 5:16 (2017).
Riahi, Azadeh, Moncarz, Piotr, Kolbe, Walter, Damjanac, Branko, “Innovative Closed-Loop
Geothermal Well Designs Using Water and Super Critical Carbon Dioxide as Working
Fluids,” PROCEEDINGS, 42nd Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering, Stanford
University, Stanford, California, February 13-15 (2017).

1141
GRC Transactions, Vol. 44, 2020 Van Horn et al.

Richter, A., “Overview of installed geothermal power generation capacity worldwide.” Think
Geo Energy Newsletter- February 1, 2017 (2017).
Richter, Alexander, “Global Geothermal Power Update.” Think Geo Energy News- January
2020. www.ThinkGeoEnergy.com (2020).
San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E), “The Geothermal Loop Experimental Facility.”
Final Report: DOE/ET/28443-71, p. xviii, (1980).
Sathuvalli, Udaya “Critical challenges in ultra-HPHT Well Design”, Presentation to AADE –
American Association of Drilling Engineers, Houston Chapter, Emerging Technologies
Group, Houston, Texas, March 28 (2018).
Scherer, Joseph, Higgins, Brian, Muir, John and Amaya, Alvaro (GreenFire Energy Inc.).
“Closed-Loop Geothermal Demonstration Project.” California Energy Commission.
Publication Number: CEC-300-2020-007. (2020).
Sepulveda, N., Jenkins, J.D., et al., “The role of firm low-carbon resources in deep
decarbonization of electric power systems,” Joule 2 (11). (2018).
Shnell, J., Newman, J.S., Raju, A., Nichols, K., Elders, W.A., Osborn W.L., and Hiriart, G.,
“Combining High-Enthalpy Geothermal Generation and Hydrogen Production by
Electrolysis Could Both Balance the Transmission Grid and Produce Non-Polluting Fuel for
Transportation,” Proceedings, 41st Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering,
Stanford University, Stanford, California (2016).
Shnell, J., Elders, W.A., Kostecki, R., Nichols, K., Osborn, W.L., Tucker, M.C., Urban, J.J. and
Wachsman, E.D. “Supercritical Geothermal Cogeneration: Combining Leading-Edge,
Highly-Efficient Energy and Materials Technologies in a Load-Following Renewable Power
Generation Facility.” Transactions, Geothermal Resources Council. 42, 2043-2054 (2018).
Soltani, M. et al, “A comprehensive study of geothermal heating and cooling systems,”
Sustainable Cities and Society 44, 793–818 (2019).
Stimac, J., Wilmarth, M., Mandeno, P., Dobson, P. and Winick, J., “Review of Exploitable
Supercritical Geothermal Resources to 5 km at Geysers-Clear Lake, Salton Sea, and Coso,”
GRC Transactions, Vol. 41, (2017).
Sullivan, J.L., Clark, C.E., Han, J. and Wang, M, “Life-Cycle Analysis Results of Geothermal
Systems in Comparison to Other Power Systems,” Argonne National Laboratory, Report
ANL/ESD/10-5, (2010).
Tester, J. W., Anderson, B., Batchelor, A., Blackwell, D., DiPippo, R., Drake, E., ... & Petty, S.
“The future of geothermal energy: Impact of enhanced geothermal systems (EGS) on the
United States in the 21st century.” Massachusetts Institute of Technology (2006).
Thomsen, P., “Statement Submitted to the U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources on Behalf of Ormat and GRC, June 20 (2019).
U.S.DOE (Department of Energy), NREL (National Renewable Energy Laboratory,
“GEOVISION: Harnessing the Heat Beneath Our Feet.” www.osti.gov/scitech . May 2019.

1142
 GRC Transactions, Vol. 44, 2020 Van Horn et al.

Van Horn, Andrew and Muir, John, “Renewable, Baseload Geothermal Power Using
Supercritical CO2 Technology,” California Energy Commission - Technical Workshop on
Clean Energy Across the Border, February 18-19, Holtville, Imperial Valley, CA (2016).
Vine, Douglas, “The Climate Case for Hydrogen,” Blog, Center for Climate and Energy
Solutions. March 16, 2020, https://www.c2es.org/2020/03/the-climate-case-for-hydrogen/
(2020).
von Düring, B., Campana, F., and Ueing, L., “An Innovative Concept for Geothermal Energy:
The Closed-Loop Technology Aiming for Zero Emissions,” European Geothermal Congress
(2016).
Wilson, J., “Imperial County seeks to declare Salton Sea crisis a health emergency,” Palm
Springs Desert Sun, October 19 (2019).
World Bank, “Success of Geothermal Wells: A Global Study,” Interational Finance
Corporation, World Bank Group, June, p. 5 (2013)
Yanagisawa, N., Masuda Y., Osato K., Sato M., Kasai K., Sakura K., Fukui T., Akahori M., and
Lichti K., “The material corrosion test using loop system under acidic conditions at
geothermal field in Japan,” New Zealand Geothermal Workshop. (2017).

Submitted July 2020

1143

View publication stats