Prof D Chandrasekharam

IPCC report in 2007 concluded that CO₂ emissions has to be cut by 50% by 2050 compared to 2000 to stabilize the global average temperature increase at 2 to 2.4 °C above the pre-industrial levels. This has led to a series of debates on CO₂ sequestration, offsetting fossil fuel based power by renewables…solar pv, wind, biomass, geothermal hydro,. developing renewables giving encouraging incentives etc etc etc etc. After 5 years we have not made any breakthrough in our aims and objectives. In several cases BAU prevails. The case of CO₂ and policy makers  is like lilliputs trying to tie Gulliver on an island!!

According to a  recent news item titled “CCS is a necessity for a world hooked on fossil fuels”  IEA  feel that only 1/5 of world energy supply is from renewable sources thus making fossil fuels as the primary source of energy and will continue be so for a long time. Similarly in another publication IEA indicates that without CCS it is difficult to contain CO₂ emissions and with out CCS it is difficult also to reduce the cost of CO₂ emission by 2050. In a way we are conceding to the fact that fossil fuels will be there to rule for the next two decade in spite of the efforts (??) being made by international panels and national governments to reduce dependence on fossil fuels by offsetting their use through renewables.

In its “Blue Map”, IEA  indicted that cost incurred in CCS technology from 2010 to 2050 will be of the order of 2 to 3 trillion US$ distributed  over as many as  3400 CCS projects. These projects envisages about 62 Giga tonnes of CO₂ capture from coal based power plants, 9 Gt from gas based power plants and  7 Gt from biomass based power plants. The big question is, will the technology to contain such large volume of CO₂ in geological formations be in place by 2050?   One has to wait and see. Perhaps some other CCS technology may emerge by then!! One thing for sure is, carbon capture and transport technology may mature by then but storage in geological formations may not. Geological formations do not behave the way we wish!  Capturing CO₂ from fossil based power plants is expensive as the process of capture reduces the net out put of electricity by about 20% thus attracting penalty. But, the current concern on global climate change and the deliberations of IPCC may reduce the penalty in future. This is not an incentive for the coal based power plant to go in for CCS but reduces the burden on consumers.

During the same period another publication by IRENA reads “…….as the world embarks on the transition to a truly sustainable energy future, the world’s renewable resources and technologies increasingly offer the promise of cleaner, healthier and economically and technically feasible power solutions and sustainable energy access for all. With over 100 gigawatts of renewable power generation capacity added in 2011 alone, renewables have gone mainstream and are being supported by a “virtuous circle” of increasing deployment, fast learning rates and significant, often rapid, declines in costs”” (IRENA 2013).

To the reader the two reports are at variance!!

Electricity from renewables may be cheaper compared to fossil fuels generated electric power. A recent report published by IRENA on the cost of all the renewables indicate a wide variation in the LCOE. This is mainly related to the geographic location of the site, available source and climate.  The cost of PV Solar ( in some regions CSP) power is the highest, varying from 15 to 55 US cents/kWh, the highest being in Asian countries ( except India and China). The cost of electricity from these two sources in China and India shows cost variation with the cost in China (15 to 30 US cents/kWh; LCOE 21 US cents/kWh) is lower than India (15 to 39 US cents/kWh; LCOE 24 US cents/kWh). Although the LCOE from wind in China and India is more or less same, the variation in India is large (5 to 20 US cents/kWh) compared to China (5 to 12 US cents). The reason is very obvious. China has a monopoly in manufacturing magnets as it has a full control on the world REE market and is a major supplier of wind turbines.  This will help China to control wind turbine market of the world and drive other international manufacturer’s to bankruptcy. This  has happened  and continue to happen in the solar field. Companies that make glass that is used to cover and protect the solar cells are up in their arms against China for selling this product below the production cost. As long as one has the Govt.’s blessings, no one can do anything about such costs and the companies that are dumping the products into other countries. China has entirely a different strategy. This has made several US companies to down their shutters!!

Even though the cost of CCS is much higher (that reflects in the unit cost of electricity sold to customers) compared to that of renewables, the installed grid connected power supply is considerably low from the above sources except for geothermal.  Solar PV and wind may be attractive in rural areas where villages are connected to the grid. In both the sources, batteries are required.

The deployment cost of  3400 projects projected to mitigate CO₂ through CCS between now and 2050, as per the road map of IEA, would be around US$ 3 trillion amounting to 3% of the low carbon technology investment that is required to achieve the envisaged CO₂ emissions in 2050. Since the CCS activity runs across a wide range of geographical locations with varying socio-economic group of countries, an additional cost of 125 billion US$ per year is anticipated between the above years..

These are all estimates. There is no large scale commercially proven technology available to check these estimates.  But the cost estimates of generating power from renewable sources are realistic. Thus it is difficult to judge whether the costs related to CCS is cheaper or expensive relative to the cost of generating power from renewable sources. One can get more details on cost and performance of CCS technology from a working paper published by IEA in 2011. Since costs of renewables are realistic, then, contrary to the IEA view, world should encourage renewable sources that have the advantage of reducing the cost and reducing the CO₂ emissions.  Again going through the target achieved by renewables and projected numbers, renewables, especially solar pv and CSP have a long way to go to supply grid connected power in par with hydro or geothermal.

Recalling the views expressed by Swaminathan S Anklesaria Aiyar in TOI of 8 August 2010, Aiyar  said   ‘’The National Solar Mission has set a target of 20,000 MW of solar electricity by 2020. This may be desirable, but at today’s solar technology costs, it will be economic suicide……”.

A 1MWe solar PV needs 6 to 10 acres of land and a 100 MWe PV solar power plant needs 600 to 1000 acres of land. (1 acre is equal to 4047 sq. m or 43200 sq. ft). In fact the world is hopeful of getting a break through in Solar PV but that did not happen even after 30 years of research. To generate power from solar PV, an intermediate device is needed. Solar PV remains, according to S  A Aiyar, “hopelessly uneconomical even today”. Today power generated from roof top solar PV coasts any where between Rs. 9 to 10/ unit. Technological breakthrough hopefully may bring the unit coast crashing down in the coming decade.   All the major Western and European companies involved in the manufacture of PV cells are pushing millions of rupees to keep solar PV hype at high level for their own survival. S A Aiyar puts this truth in his sarcastic comment……..  “Swami the Government. knows all this. But it needs to do something in global climate negotiations. The US will not come on board unless China and India are seen contributing, and with out US participation the climate talks will fall. So we have made a fancy long term projections 20,000 MW by 2020, 100,000 MW by 2030- getting good publicity. But our near term target of 1000 MW by 2013 implies no more than some pilot projects. This will keep climate negotiations going at little cost”” Solar PV and Solar thermal are land intensive and site specific. It may be possible to get large stretch of land in Rajasthan desert to install solar power plants. But where do we get water for cooling towers? and to clean the dust over the panels to maintain efficiency?

Solar PV and wind are very popular in Sub-Sahara countries, although the unit cost is much higher compared to thermal. For example, LOCE of grid supplied  solar PV is about 15 to 30 US cents in areas with good net work connectivity while the cost escalates to one dollar per unit in remote areas in Ethiopia.   Diesel generated power costs between 35- 50 US cents per unit, while fossil fuels generated power cost ranges between 5 to 12 US cents, according to the recently published cost of renewables report by  IRENA . Thus in certain regions diesel and solar PV are on par with each other as for as the unit cost is concerned while unit cost of electricity from geothermal is in par with hydro and fossil fuel based power (IRENA, 2013). The only difference is diesel has to be transported from the nearest sea port Djibouti, which is several hundreds of kilo meters away from Ethiopia.

Compared to solar PV, geothermal power in Ethiopia is very competitive to all the renewable and with an estimated resources of 60000 MWe spread over the entire East African Rift  valley.  The Aluto Lungano geothermal field alone is capable of generating 500 MWe. Unit cost of geothermal power is about seven US cents. The advantage here is to have local grid systems that can supply power to clusters of rural areas. Small geothermal power plants that can generate 5 to 10 MWe are most suitable and cost effective in the entire rift valley.  A 50 MWe geothermal power plant may need only one acre of land (1 acre is equal to 4047 sq. m or 43200 sq. ft). This is far less compared to the land requirement of solar. In future, with the hot dry rock technology taking shape, power can be generated in everyone’s back yard! Let’s hope that this will happen before the next young generation retires!

Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is one way of mitigating carbon dioxide emission in to the atmosphere. What it means to a layman is, carbon dioxide gas, especially from coal fired power plants, will be captured (with out being emitted in to the atmosphere) and stored in a container. This container could be a natural geological formation i.e. say a sedimentary rock like sandstone, saline aquifer (aquifer that contains water with salinity > 10,000 mg/L, a coal seam or the ocean.  The oceans are in fact natural sinks for the CO₂ that is being ejected in to the atmosphere either from power plants or from other sources.

According to the estimates reported by the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (1966), the amount of carbon in the oceans, in the atmosphere and the biosphere is 40,000, 750 and 2200 billion tonnes of carbon respectively. Thus oceans are the main CO₂ sink.

The process sounds very simple and exciting.  This process i.e. CCS, is also known as carbon dioxide sequestration. This idea started a decade ago when countries are debating on methods to control carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere to contain global climate change by not increasing the global temperature. This idea emerged from oil and gas industry as early as 1970s where CO₂ was injected into the reservoirs to enhance the oil recovery.  This process was economical as long as the oil prices was at its peak. When the oil price dropped in mid 1980s, oil recovery through CO₂ injection  became expensive and hence was kept in abeyance.

In this case the CO₂ injected escapes to the atmosphere while the present concept of CCS is to retain it in the reservoirs.  CO₂ by itself will escape from the reservoirs since it is in gas form but if the phase is changed in to a carbon compound, then it can be stored for a long period of time. In fact this process is not new. Oil industry using this process for enhanced oil recovery from the reservoirs by pumping carbon dioxide and forcing oil to be expelled from the aquifer.

Why the world is analysing CCS to mitigate global climate change?  In a recent news item by IEA titled “CCS is a necessity for a world hooked on fossil fuels” IEA feel that only 1/5 of world energy supply is from renewable sources thus making fossil fuels as the primary source of energy and will continue be so for a long time. Then CCS is going to be the future technology to mitigate carbon dioxide emissions and mitigate global climate change scene.  IEA in its “Blue Map” indicted that cost incurred in CCS technology from 2010 to 2050 will be of the order of 2 to 3 trillion US$ distributed  over as many as  3400 CCS projects. These projects envisages about 62 Giga tonnes of CO₂ capture from coal based power plants, 9 Gt from gas based power plants and  7 Gt from biomass based power plants. The big question is, will the technology to contain such large volume of CO₂ in geological formations will be in place by 2050?   One has to wait and see. Perhaps some other CCS technology may emerge by then!! One thing for sure is, carbon capture and transport technology may mature by then but storage in geological formations may not. Geological formations do not behave the way we wish!

CCS is not a new technology.  In 1996 the first CCS facility started by Statoil in Norway where CO₂ was stored in a sandstone aquifer in the North Sea at the rate of about 20000 tonnes in a week. The CO₂ was captured from a 140 MWe coal based power plant. The Govt. gave an incentive of US$ 50 per tonne of CO₂ stored.

Capturing CO₂ from fossil based power plants is expensive as the process of capture reduces the net out put of electricity by about 20% thus attracting penalty. But, the current concern on global climate change and the deliberations of IPCC may reduce the penalty in future. This is not an incentive for the coal based power plant to go in for CCS but reduces the burden on consumers.

Although  it is claimed that CCS is an established technology, there are several issues related to site selection,  capturing and purification,  environmental issues and cost.  Not all geological formations are suitable for carbon sequestration.  Similarly CO₂ capturing may be relatively easy but purifying  CO₂ is a cost intensive. The cost, ,in all cases, can not be thrust on the consumer, even though industry is given incentives by the governments. The most critical aspect is the fate of CO₂ injected into the formation. In the past attempts have been made to inject CO₂ in to sandstone formation sandwiched between two shale beds. Initial runs gave encouraging results but subsequently CO₂ started leaking through  microfractures in the shale. Phase transformation through rock-water interaction process, in the geological formation, however, may captures the CO₂ permanently. Not one, but several methods needs to be employed on case to case basis, geological strata wise depending on the existing physico-chemical environment of the geological strata,  to evolve economically sustainable and feasible  CCS methodology.

The CCS based sustainable development is being implemented by several countries along with the development of all available renewable energy sources like solar, wind and geothermal. Under the business as usual situation IEA estimates that India and China projected to capture 29 Mt CO₂/year by 2020. China is developing all it renewable sources on war footing to reduce CO₂ emissions. China is emerging as the forerunner in utilizing GSHP for space heating and cooling, green house cultivation etc.  Very soon China may emerge as the leader in accumulating carbon credits to its advantage and out beat Europe.  Hence IEA’s prediction may be true with China but not India.  India’s renewable energy development, especially geothermal resources, is limping for no reason. Even if investors are ready to fund geothermal projects, govts are not ready to pick up the opportunities in implementing sustainable development.  This is true with solar PV projects as well. If countries are dreaming of energy source mix with solar PV to mitigate carbon foot prints, it is a day dream. Countries have a long way to go to make solar PV affordable to common man.  “ National solar mission may get derailed as banks hesitate to give loans for its high risk projects’ states a special report  in the recent edition of Down to Earth ( March 1-15, 2011).  A mission without financial support is created. Newspapers, weekly magazines and all other print media talk about availability of large funds for solar power. The numbers run into crores!! Where are these funds? If funds are not available within the country under the solar mission scheme, how can entrepreneurs expect grants/loans from foreign financial institutions or investors?  The solar PV needs a break-though. Until then the unit cost of solar PV will stay high. The ground reality is different. The type of data required for the financial institutions to release funds are not available. Solar PV  is not just to keep a solar panel and generate electric power. There is science behind it and handful of entrepreneurs know about it!! The rest go with the tide and jump into the bandwagon.

Solar PV and wind are very popular in Sub-Sahara countries, although the unit cost is much higher compared to thermal. For example, the levelized grid supplied cost of solar PV is about 16 to 50 US cents in areas with good net work connectivity while the cost escalates to one dollar per unit in remote areas in Ethiopia.   Diesel generated power costs little over 70 US cents per unit. Thus diesel and solar PV are on par with each other as for as cost is concerned. The only difference is diesel has to be transported from the nearest sea port Djibouti, which is several hundreds of kilometres away from Ethiopia.

Compared to solar PV, geothermal power in Ethiopia is very competitive to all the renewable and with an estimated resources of 60000 MWe spread over the entire East African Rift  valley.  The Aluto Lungano geothermal field alone is capable of generating 500 MWe. Unit cost of geothermal power is about seven US cents. The advantage here is to have local grid systems that can supply power to clusters of rural areas. Small geothermal power plants that can generate 5 to 10 MWe are most suitable and cost effective in the entire rift valley.  A 5 MWe geothermal power plant may need only one acre of land (1 acre is equal to 4047 sq. m or 43200 sq. ft). This is far less compared to the land requirement of solar. In future, with the hot dry rock technology taking shape, power can be generated in everyone’s back yard! Let’s hope that this will happen before the next young generation retires!  We should work on what is possible immediately to reduce carbon foot prints rather than dreaming of methods that are not cost effective to the country in the near future ..that too with a large socio-economically population depending on lost cost energy source.

Space cooling and heating using geothermal energy is an age old techniques adopted by ancient civilization. This technology is refined and being practiced by several countries… thanks to the cap imposed on carbon dioxide emissions to control global warming and to save the fast melting glaciers of Greenland, Antarctica and the Himalayas. If the geothermal circulation is under artisan condition, then a single production well do the magic as has been demonstrated recently by the Peppermill resort in Reno.

This resort spanning over 190 sq. m area,  has over 2000 rooms and suits. Like any other 5 star hotels, it has a convention centre ( where the GRC annual meetings are generally held), spa, fitness centre, swimming pools, restaurants etc. A couple months ago, this resort hosted the Annual GRC meeting and exhibition and became the most popular and most wanted resorts in the world for the geothermal community. Reason? The entire hotel facilities are supported by geothermal system……space heating & cooling, hot water to the baths and pools and kitchen…with one single 1.5 km deep well. This well produces, 4730 L/m of hot water at 80 °C under artisan flow. This geothermal system converted this resort in to “Green Resort” cutting down carbon dioxide emissions drastically and gaining carbon credits.  The total expenditure will be recovered by 2013. The annual savings will be about US$ 2 million that was spent on other energy source to sustain the resort activities. According to the estimates, as of now this system can generate 270 KWe. However, the project is expected to be expanded with more deeper wells to generate electrical power to support other activities of the resort.

Space heating and cooling using geothermal fluids or heat not new and several countries have already adopted this system long time ago. For example, Oregon Institute of Technology, Klamath falls installed space heating and cooling facility using geothermal decade ago!

Klamath Falls residents stated using geothermal fluids for heating homes since the turn of the century. More than 500 wells with depth ranging from 25 to  600 m were used to draw thermal waters with temperature varying from 38 to 100 and heat more than 600 buildings like schools, apartments, commercial buildings, hospitals, swimming pools etc. The total power generated is of the order of 35 MWt. Down the hole heat exchangers were also utilized for this purpose. City district heating system was set in place in 1981.

In case artisan condition does not exists, GSHP ( Ground Source Heat Pump; Ground Coupled Heat Pump-GCHP; Ground Heat Pump- GHP; Groundwater Heat Pump-GWHP….all mean the same) come very handy and can be installed any where on earth. Here hot water aquifer is not required.

The technology is very matured and systems can be installed adopting the local temperature variations. According to the reports published in the World Geothermal Congress 2010, up to the year 2010 (ending December 2009) the installed capacity of GSHP in the world is 50583  MWt and the energy generated was 438071 TJ/year (121696 GWh/y: CF of 0.27). The country that has the highest installed capacity of GSHP is USA (12611 MWt) followed by China ( 8898 MWt).  In China the amount of utilizable geothermal energy (for space cooling and heating) at shallow depths, according to a news  published in “Renewable Energy World.com” in 2011, is equivalent to about 350 million tons of standard coal, which is equivalent to 2.8 million GWh of electricity. If this energy source is tapped, then this will reduce emission of 500 million tons of CO₂ by avoiding to mine 250 million tons of coal. The extractable geothermal energy in China’s 12 major geothermal provinces is equivalent to about 853 billion tons of standard coal that could generate seven billion GWh of electric power!! Use of this source will reduce CO₂ emissions by 1.3 billion tons.

Heat pumps are being in use for several decades in refrigerators and air conditioning units.  It is a well insulated unit that move heat from one “space A” to ” space B. When heat is removed from space ‘A’ and space ‘ A’  becomes cool and ‘B’ becomes hot.   Based on the need and space ‘A’ can be made cool or hot. This concept is in use since 1850 when James Harrison made the first refrigerator.  The ground source heat pump works on the same principle.  The ground source heat pumps (GSHP) are also known under several names: Ground Heat Pumps-GHP, Ground Coupled Heat Pump-GCHP,  Groundwater Heat Pump-GWHP.

The basic principle on which the GHP works is “refrigeration cycle”. The refrigerant carries the heat from one “space” to another. The heat pump’s process can be reversed.  The earth is the main source and sink of heat.  In winters it provides heat and summers it takes the heat.  The heat pumps are very common in USA, Europe, E. Europe and China. The heat pumps can be adopted to any kind of building at any place.  In the United States of America, over 400 000 GHPs are working in schools, hospitals, commercial complexes and government buildings. GHPs have low carbon dioxide emissions, low energy consumption (~ 40-60 % lower than the conventional systems),  low operating cost and competitive life cycle cost compared to the conventional HVACs.

The common two types of GHPs in use are 1) earth-couple (closed loop) system that uses sealed pipes/tubes-placed vertically or horizontally, through water or a mixer of water and antifreeze circulates transferring heat to and from the earth and 2) water source (open loop) system where water from the underground aquifer pumps water to the heat exchanger. Between the two, earth coupled GHPs are very popular because they are very adoptable.

China is using its GSHP technology to adjust/ modify its energy structure to reduce CO₂ and other GHG emissions. Today in China research on GSHP technology is given top priority with full government support. Thus academic institutions, industries and companies are enjoying a boom with regard to this technology and it is paying rich dividends to the country today. According a paper published in the Proceedings of the World Geothermal Congress 2010, China has proved its supremacy in GSHP technology by providing 26% of energy to the Olympic Games in 2008 from geothermal sources. Excellent examples where such GSHP technology in the Olympic games is seen from the Olympic tennis courts, the National Olympic Stadium ( Bird’s nest), National Swimming Centre and Olympic Gymnastics Hall and Badminton Hall. Besides this, the hostels for the athletes were also temperature controlled through GSHPs. For the tennis courts, 35 holes were drilled within a 7 x7m layout. This GHP unit has 138.2 kW heating capacity ( in put power 37.5 kW) and cooling capacity of 139.6 kW (in put power 32 kW). The Olympic National Stadium (Bird’s Nest) drilled 140 holes with depth of 80-100 m. With such a strong GSHP technology in hand, it is not surprising to read about China’s determination to reduce CO₂ emissions and phase out HCFC by 2015 by adopting clean technology for space heating and cooling.

The performance of a heat pump is a measure of its COP ( Coefficient of performance). Commercially available HVAC systems have COP of 3 to 4 while GHPs have greater than 6. The COP also depends on the temperature difference.  When the temperature difference is small then the COP will be large.  Similarly the cooling performance, measured as energy efficiency ratio (EER). The GHPs EER, depending on the seasonal temperature variation is about 80% and above.

In the case of HVAC systems, the heat is transferred between the inside and out side air to cool or heat the space. The COP of such systems vary drastically since air temperature variation is  diurnal and as well as seasonal.  This problem does not arise in the case of GHP system. The heat transfer takes place in the ground/soil that maintains more or less constant temperature. This is a very great advantage where GHPs score its COP. The GHPs can be installed vertically/horizontally, before the construction of the building or after the construction of the building. It is cost effective if the design of the system goes along with the building plan. The builder and the architect should work in collaboration in the installation of GHPs for cooling and heating.   Besides heating and cooling the space, GHPs can also provide hot water to the house hold at no cost.

Indian weather conditions are best suited to adopt this technology.  According to the recent report, GeoSyndicate Power Pvt. Ltd is executing geothermal based space heating and cooling projects for multi-storied apartments, hospitals and residential buildings in collaboration with a French company. India can earn huge carbon credits by controlling carbon dioxide emissions and the users can save large electricity bills.

It wasKenyaabout a few months ago and it isNicaraguanow!! World Bank through, IFC is fundingNicaraguato develop its geothermal energy resources for power generation!

 The geothermal energy resources for power generation and direct application in central America  are underused market opportunities and the governments have realized it now (though it not too late). The lack of development is due to several factors: regulatory, financial barriers, institutional and economic barriers even though this sources have proven environmental and socioeconomic benefits. Of late private sector participation in geothermal development is becoming very dominant. Private participation is essential due to inherent high cost and risk of exploration of geothermal fields. But the advantage is, once developed the returns masks the initial costs and the plants will run 97% line with minimum interruption and supplying base load electric power that no other source will ensure. It is estimated that the Central America (Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Panama) geothermal potential is about 3500 MWe where Nicaragua’s potential is maximum (1100 MWe). Yet to be discovered resources are not included in the above estimate.

 The Nicaragua National Assembly approved national geothermal law and policy in 2002 that established a mechanism for foreign investment in geothermal energy sector. In 2004 approved the first energy policy for the country with an aim to developNicaragua’s energy sector. This energy policy priotorized the use of renewable energy for the national development.

 According to the international market overview report ( 2012) on geothermal energy released by GEA,  in Nicaragua, 251 MWe of electric power is generated from diesel and 230 MWe from Heavy Fuel Oil, 105 MWe from hydro, 88 MWe from geothermal and 40 MWe from gas turbine.  As a result of the country’s energy policy, Ram Power Corp. Has entered the geothermal market in 2011 to develop 36 MWe from San Jacintofield and expects to put power on line by 2012.  Prior to this, Magma Energy  and  Polaris agreed to invest US$ 50 million to develop San Jacinto andSanta Clarafields. 

With the development of San Jacinto fieldNicaraguacan decrease its oil dependence from 70 percent to 50 percent.  IFC is lending about US$ 50 million and secured additional US$ 90 million from private lenders.Nevadabased Ram power is the main leader in developing this asset. The risk taken by the power company in an emerging market like this clearly shows that unlike other renewable power sectors, geothermal has a potential to sell itself with out any market influences or lobbying. It is a fact that geothermal can supply base load uninterested power 97% on line and needs less maintenance unlike other renewable sources. It is expected that by 2013, renewables will provide 51% of electric power (~ 300 MWe) toNicaragua. By exploiting the entire geothermal potential (~ 1200 MWe) Nicaragua will become energy independent in the very near future. Within a short period, the country is able to surge ahead in putting geothermal energy sources at the top the agenda and credit goes to the current presidential team. Other countries that has huge low enthalpy geothermal energy resources should emulate this example and develop this renewable with other non-polluting sources of energy thus reducing the dependence on imported fossil fuels and thereby reducing the carbon dioxide emission.

 In fact the central American geothermal resources were not tapped for a very long time..if one looks at the geothermal development of these countries.Guatemala, for example, started using geothermal heat for dehydration. Direct utilization of geothermal heat for dehydration was started about more than a  decade age…..that too by a farmer and not by a geologist!! These dehydrated fruits and vegetables were then sold in European market and it has a big business now and captured the entire world.  There are several developing countries across the world that need to wakeup and utilize the low enthalpy geothermal resources that untapped.  Governments in some countries are ignorant of the existent of this resource and in a few other countries “”quacks”” are spoiling the development of this resource

May 23, 2012 was a great day for the geothermal community at the GEA’s International Geothermal Showcase in Washington D C, USA. Representative from US, foreign geothermal companies, government officials and several geothermal experts, numbering 270, participated in this showcase.  The Geothermal Showcase was attended by government and industry leaders of 27 countries that include countries like Belgium, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Djibouti, France, Germany, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Mexico,  New Zealand, Nicaragua, Pakistan, the Philippines, Romania, Rwanda, St. Vincent &  Tanzania, Turkey, the United States, and the West Indies. Majority of these countries belong to non OECD group and their socio-economic development depends of energy independence rather than energy security.  Energy security automatically derives the country to depend on “well to do” countries.  The energy source for these countries is fossil fuels.  Such countries’ development will be at risk due to oscillating oil prices as being experienced in the past and present. There are several non-OECD countries that have abundant geothermal resources but still depend on import oil source for development. For example, Djibouti, Eretria, Greece, Mongolia, Somalia depend on 100% imported fossil fuel. Other countries like Nicaragua, Jordan import nearly 99% of fossil fuels.  The CO₂ emission by the non-OECD countries will be of the order of 10000 million metric tonnes by the year 2030.

Out of the countries listed above, Nicaragua’s, according to the President of the National Electric Company,   policy is wide open to develop geothermal energy in a big way.  Nicaragua’s San Jacinto Geothermal resource will be developed by Ram Power of USA. The total geothermal power that is expected to  be online by the end of this year (2012) will be 72 MWe. This will be a great relief to the country that depends on imported fossil fuels to the tune of 99%.  Additional geothermal power will be added once the exploration work on other geothermal sites is completed.

The main focus of the days showcase was to promote geothermal business across the world and support successful geothermal ventures. Delivering the keynote address at the workshop Sen. Bingaman said ” The only losers in the clean energy race will be those who do not compete”. Karl Gawell, Executive Director, GEA remarked ” it is critical that U.S. policy makers act immediately to keep the United States with the rest of the world”.

The main focus was drawn to the geothermal energy resources of East Africa.  Even though East Africa has abundant geothermal resources, the country is still depends on high cost imported diesel and unreliable hydro power. The East African rift valley is a loci of abundant low as well as high enthalpy geothermal resources.  Several international funding agency spent millions of dollars in geothermal exploration activity in the region and several detailed projects reports were prepared and several conferences were held to focus the international community’s interest in developing this resource and uplifting the socio-economic status of the rural communities.   The next ARGeo-C4 is going to be held in Kenya in November 2012.   Geothermal technology is highly matured now. Efficient heat exchangers, high performance binary fluids and very efficient drilling techniques are available and installing a power plant is very easy.  In spite of these facts, one wonders why millions of MWh of electricity that can be tapped from the geothermal sources is allowed to go waste!! The resources are in basalt formations and challenges associated with reservoirs are not difficult to tackle. There seems to be some “supernatural power” that is coming in the way of such development.  Perhaps lack of required economic strength of the country ( all the technology has to be imported) is making it difficult to develop the resources. But then, the funds needed to develop the resources comes from international community and hence funds should not be a cause for not developing this easily accessible, base load providing green energy.

Although India was represented at the above workshop, there is no news about the country’s reaction and or initiative in this direction even though M/s GeoSyndicate Power Pvt. Ltd., the only geothermal company made remarkable progress in obtaining PPA from certain state governments and waiting for power tariff to be fixed.  Once the power tariff is fixed, work on the pilot power plant in Andhra Pradesh will commence followed by the province in Leh.

In the past low enthalpy geothermal resources (LEG)  were considered economically not  viable.  Considering the constant build-up of CO₂ in the atmosphere, CO₂ reduction strategies countries have to adopt and compelling situation for a constant industrial growth by developing countries, policy makers are and planners are encouraging development of low enthalpy geothermal resources. Now it is possible to generate power from geothermal fluids with temperatures as low as 82 °C.  According to estimates,  use of geothermal fluids with temperature of about 100 °C will increase the energy available for electricity generation from 11200 TWh per year to 22400 TWh per year with the advancement taking place in binary power generation technology.

“a continued focus and expansion of trying to utilize lower-temperature resources  so that we can continue to bring what was once thought uneconomical and unattractive for geothermal, but often more abundant. These low-temperature resources actually can produce utility-scale power production”…………….. commented one of the leading geothermal company scientist in one of the recently posted article by a  leading renewable energy site under a news item  “Low-Temperature Geothermal: Digging for Its Vast Opportunity”. Thus the potential of low enthalpy geothermal resources has been underestimated worldwide.

Compared to other low CO₂ emission sources like wind and solar, geothermal supplies base load power, does not require storage systems and back-up power facility. Once commissioned, the system runs for several years with proper maintenance. In fact for many countries are using low enthalpy geothermal resources for recreation, balneology, space heating, dehydration etc (direct applications). Now these countries can evaluate their low enthalpy resources for power generation. 400 000 TJ/y of geothermal energy is in use for direct application world over according to a recent publication by the World Geothermal Congress, 2010 held at Bali in April 2010. As mentioned above, countries such as those like the Caribbean islands ( Nevis, St. Kitts, Montserrat, St. Lucia etc) according the book mentioned above import oil and gas for electrification even though these countries have large low enthalpy geothermal resources.  This is true even with countries in Eastern Africa. Those located within the rift environment with plenty of geothermal energy sources, depend on imported oil  to support their electricity demand and increase the GDP of the country as well as that of rural regions.