Search results

In: Van Lancker, V. and T. Garlan (Eds.), MARID 2013. Fourth International Conference on Marine and River Dune Dynamics, Bruges, Belgium, 15-17 April 2013, Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences and SHOM.

In order to meet climate goals and provide energy security, geothermal energy can play an important part in Belgium’s energy production portfolio. The current implementation of geothermal energy in Belgium is very limited, making accurate forecasts about the economic potential difficult. In the DESIGNATE project, tools and workflows are developed to investigate the potential of deep geothermal energy and geothermal applications in abandoned mines in Belgium, considering uncertainties at reservoir, technology and economic level. The goal of this project is to make forecasts about the role of these geothermal applications in the Belgian energy portfolio and provide support for strategic planning of subsurface activities by: explicitly considering uncertainties in modelling non-standard geothermal resources; creating tools for integrated forecasts under uncertainty; setting up a methodological framework for territorial LCAs considering surface and subsurface impacts; and analysing interferences and their consequences for geothermal energy deployment in Belgium. These workflows will be developed for and applied to five real and theoretical case studies throughout Belgium, in different geological settings. A first case is the Balmatt deep geothermal project, a deep geothermal research project led by VITO in Mol, of which two wells are operational as a doublet. To allow for a realistic economic assessment, this case takes the basic structure and development of the Balmatt project, but as if it would be a commercial doublet project at the same location and in the same Carboniferous strata. A second case is a deep doublet system in NW Turnhout, currently under development by the geothermal development company HITA. This project allows supplying heat to part of the city of Turnhout’s residential and tertiary sector’s buildings. A third case involves the application of a novel single-well technology for geothermal heat extraction To compensate for the unknowns of the new technology, a more uniform and predictable reservoir type was chosen for this application: the Cretaceous deposits in the Campine Basin. The fourth case will investigate a new deep geothermal doublet in the Mons Basin, the Deep Mons project. At Porte de Nimy, close to a hospital, two wells of about 2.5km depth are planned to reach the Carboniferous. A fifth and last case is the application of an open geothermal system in former coal mine galleries. Preliminary, the Péronnes-lez-Binche coal mines were selected, as the structural separation of the galleries in a shallower colder part and a deeper warmer part allows for several applications such as seasonal use of heat and cold. Because a portfolio of methods will be developed to analyse different aspects of these projects, a solid common base is needed across all methods. These “project concepts” start from a decision tree, listing the major decision steps for each case, such as seismic exploration, well drilling, and the potential use cases. Additionally, options for waiting and abandoning the project are also included. Other data such as duration and cost are tied to this framework. Figure 1 shows a flow chart of such a decision tree for the Balmatt case. Because of their flexibility and speed, analytical solutions will be developed from numerical models for simulating the reservoir behavior and predict the evolution of temperature and pressure. The project uses an innovative approach by stepping away from simple well designs and homogeneous reservoirs, and introducing uncertainty. These analytical models will provide direct input for a geological techno-economic assessment (G-TEA), a territorial life cycle assessment (LCA), and a new version of the PSS simulator. Project development is simulated considering the analytical reservoir models as resource, the technical and economic aspects of project development, heat transport, energy demand, environmental impact, energy market and the policy framework. Acknowledgements This research is carried out under the DESIGNATE project, which receives funding from the BELSPO BRAIN-be 2.0 research programme under contract nr B2/191/P1/DESIGNATE.

Knowledge on the environmental impacts of geothermal energy is of major importance to understand the role this technology could play in the transition towards sustainable energy systems. Life cycle analysis (LCA) methodology is a widely used tool for assessing the environmental impacts of products and systems, which has been implemented numerous times on geothermal systems. Previous reviews on geothermal LCA studies identify large variability on the reported environmental impacts. In this work we aim to provide a more in-depth analysis to explain the variability across the different LCAs. We review 28 LCA studies on geothermal energy published between 2005 and 2020, following a four step reviewing sequence; in step 1 we identify the LCA methodological choices and the plant geo-technical characteristics, in step 2 we identify the LCA results and the LCI inputs, in step 3 we perform contribution analysis based on the reported results and in step 4 we investigate the sensitivity and scenario analysis performed in the studies. If the data is available we triangularly evaluate the reported impacts considering a) the plants’ geo-technical characteristics, b) the hotspot analyses results and c) the Life cycle inventory (LCI) inputs. We focus our analysis on the six most frequently assessed impact indicators (GWP, AP, HTP, FETP, CED, ADP)* and distinguish between the different energy conversion technologies used for geothermal energy exploitation. This way we aim to provide a more transparent picture on the variability of environmental impacts across the LCAs by focusing on the environmental hotspots and on the cause-effect relationships between geo-technical parameters and the environmental impacts. We also aim for drawing LCA guidelines for future LCA studies on geothermal systems and proposing methods for impact mitigation. The variability on the LCA results is caused by differences on the choices of the LCA practitioners, on the energy conversion technologies used, on geological parameters and on plant design parameters. Most studies focus on the GWP and AP impacts, while information for the rest of the impacts is much more limited. For flash and dry steam power plants the direct emissions of non-condensable gases (NCGs) emerging can cause high GWP, AP, FETP and HTP impacts depending on the geofluid’s composition. The CED and ADP impacts are dominated by the steel and diesel consumption during the development of the wells. Thus differences on the geo-technical parameters determining the power output and the total material and energy consumption cause the variability on the reported results. Direct emissions of NCGs do not emerge in plants utilizing binary technology. In these plants the development of the wells dominates the impacts and this phenomenon is more intense when EGS-binary plants are investigated due to the large depth drilled. Also the production of the working fluid used in the ORC and its annual leakage can highly affect the GWP impact in these plants depending on the type of working fluid used. In heating plants high amounts of grid-electricity are needed for the plant operation as no power is produced. Therefore differences in the fossil-fuel-intensity of the electricity mix supplying the plant can result in large variability. The choice of the LCA practitioner to include or not the heat distribution network in the boundaries of the system also affects the results, while a significant portion of the impacts is caused during the development of the wells. Combined heat and power plants using flash or binary technology present similar results. However the co-production of heat and power is expected to lead to some benefits. A direct correlation between the GHGs and the NH3/H2S direct emissions with the GWP and AC impacts, respectively, is observed for flash and dry steam power plants. Direct emissions are determined by the geofluid composition which highly varies between different reservoirs. For mitigating these impacts the installation of abatement systems shall be considered, while the identification of the geofluid composition and of the natural emissions emerging prior to the plant development is suggested for estimating the actual anthropogenic emissions. For plants utilizing binary technology and heating plants it is observed that higher capacity generally leads to lower GWP and AP impacts per functional unit. The capacity is a product function of the temperature and production flow. Similar observation can be extracted for the temperature while this is not the case for the flow. No clear correlation can be seen between the impacts and the depth. This is because larger depths lead –on the one hand– to higher impacts because of higher material and energy consumption which are compensated –on the other hand– to the increase on the fluid temperature and flow. For mitigating impacts caused during the construction phase the use of renewable energy sources for supplying the machinery used is suggested, while proper fluid re-injection should be designed for keeping the capacity constant during the operation. Also for binary plants the working fluid shall be selected such that its GWP impact is low, while for heating plants the installation of a small ORC unit shall be considered if the conditions are appropriate for meeting the pumping needs of the plant. The reviewed studies show that geothermal energy exploitation can lead to significant environmental benefits compared to fossil sources, as most of the times the impacts caused by geothermal plants are in the range of other renewable sources. Further research is needed on deep geothermal energy exploitation to better understand its environmental impacts. A significant portion of the impacts is caused during the operation of the plants regardless of the technology used (direct emissions, electricity consumption, working fluid losses, make-up well drilling). All of the LCA studies reviewed are static LCAs. Thus a dynamic LCA framework considering the time aspect is needed for better estimations of the environmental impacts. Also consequential LCAs on geothermal energy plants need to be conducted in order to assess how the global environmental impacts may change by the wider implementation of geothermal energy. In addition, future LCA studies shall also focus on environmental impacts other than the GWP as information regarding them is limited. Finally the sustainability of geothermal investments is to be further explored by investigating the social impacts of geothermal development and comparing them to other energy sources but also the financial aspect of such investments. Acknowledgments This research is carried out under the DESIGNATE project, which receives funding from the BELSPO BRAIN-be 2.0 research program under contract nr B2/191/P1/DESIGNATE. * GWP: Global Warming Potential, AP: Acidification Potential, HTP: Human Toxicity Potential, FETP: Freshwater EcoToxicity Potential, CED: Cumulative Energy Demand, ADP: Abiotic resources Depletion Potential