SEAD 510: Energy Analysis

Feasibility Study of a Geothermal Power Plant in British Columbia, Canada

Amara Regehr, Judy Park, Elena Prioreschi, Fredrik Bergman

Table of Contents

1. Introduction 2

2. Background 2
Geothermal energy 2
Geothermal power plants 3
Dry steam power plants 3
Flash steam power plants 4
Binary steam power plant​s 4
Flash steam power plant generators 4
Efficiency of geothermal power plants 5

3. Proposed Project Details 6

Location 6
Geothermal Power Plant specifics 6

4. Economic Viability 7
Levelized Cost of Electricity (LCOE) 7
Energy Return on Investment (EROI) 9
Payback Period 9

5. Comparison To Conventional Power Generation 10

Methodology for LCA 10
Operational Emissions 10
Primary GHGs 10
Other Air Pollutants 12
Life Cycle Emissions 13
Lifetime Carbon Tax Comparison 15

6. Other Environmental & Social Impacts 15

Resource Use 15
Impact on Natural Environment 17
Induced Seismic Events 17
Terrain Changes 18

7. Recommendations 19

Works Cited 21

Appendix A: Costs 23

1
1. Introduction
Geothera was retained by Resource Development Administration to provide an assessment of the
potential for geothermal energy as an option for a 500 MW capacity power plant. This report describes
the science behind geothermal energy, the different types of geothermal power plants, and their optimal
placement. The site chosen for the proposed geothermal plant is in Mount Meager, British Columbia
(BC), and will consist of two multi-stage hybrid power plants with 5 different generators across Meager
Creek (MC) and Pebble Creek (PC). A combination of single-flash, multi-flash, and binary generators
will be used to maximize the power output from our reservoir, which is predicted to have temperatures of
around 240 °C. Included within this report is a thorough analysis of the economic viability, a comparison
of greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) with conventional power production, environmental impacts, and
societal impacts.

2. Background

Geothermal energy

The geothermal energy present in the earth’s interior has two sources: radioactive decay and primordial
heat. The radioactive activity mostly takes place in the earth’s crust, at a depth of less than 65 km, and can
be traced to the radioactive compounds part of earth’s original composition. Primordial heat originates
from the planet core and slowly trickles through the earth’s mantle. This heat is a remnant from a time
when earth used to be much hotter, but is also created from the deformation of the planet due to tidal
gravitational friction [1, pp. 96–97].

The ratio of heat from radioactive decay to primordial heat reaching the earth’s surface is roughly 4:1.
The closer one gets to the earth’s core, the hotter the temperature. Conversely, the flow of heat trickling
through the earth’s mantle is bigger near the surface. Hence, there is an optimal depth at which
geothermal power plants should operate. This depth is determined by a multitude of factors, the most
important of which is the actual geothermal system used [1, pp. 97–98]. Contrary to popular belief,
geothermal power is only a renewable resource if the rate of heat replenishment in a particular geothermal
reservoir equals or exceeds the rate of extraction. If the rate of extraction is larger than the rate of heat
replenishment then the temperature of the geothermal reservoir will be reduced and will not return to the
original temperature for a long time [1, pp. 97–98].

Geothermal heat resources are not spread out evenly across the earth. In regions with high seismic and
volcanic activity, like the Pacific Ring of Fire, the temperature gradient between Earth’s crust and its
surface tend to be larger. As seen in Figure 1 below, The Ring of Fire passes through the Canadian
Cordillera, making the provinces of Yukon, British Columbia, Northwest Territories and Alberta suitable
locations for installing geothermal power plants. [2, pp. VII–X].

2
Figure 1: Map showing geothermal energy reservoirs at a depth of 6.5 km across Canada
(Source: Grasby et al., p. VII)

Geothermal power plants

All types of geothermal power plants use water in underground deposits and steam turbines to generate
electricity. Hot water or steam is extracted from the ground using production wells and is lead, either
directly or by means of another working fluid, through a generator to deposit its thermal energy as useful
work. In this process, the water itself loses heat and condenses before being led back into the ground via
injection wells. Depending on the temperature of the water or steam extracted, different systems at put in
place to maximize efficiency [3].

Dry steam power plants

From reservoirs with temperatures above 150 °C steam can normally be lead directly from the production
well to the electricity generator. These types of reservoirs are rare, but highly efficient. Of the global
production of geothermal electric energy about half can be attributed to six vapour-dominated fields
spread out across Italy, California, Japan and Indonesia [2, p. 11]​.

3
Flash steam power plants
Flash steam power plants also operate on water of high temperatures, normally above 180 °C. However,
due to deeper wells and higher ground pressure, this water is extracted in its liquid form and vaporized
into steam in the generator. Reservoirs suitable for flash steam technologies are called wet steam fields,
and are within Canada predominantly found in British Columbia [2, p. IX].

Binary steam power plants

A binary steam power plant functions even if water temperatures are as low as 60 °C, with the use of an
intermediary working fluid with a boiling point lower than that of water. Since the temperature gradient
between the surface conditions and the reservoir is not particularly large, binary systems attain a lower
efficiency than other types of systems. However, being able to operate at lower temperatures allows for
binary steam power plants to be constructed in areas where dry- and flash steam power plants would not
work [3].

Figure 2 shows schematic images of dry steam, flash steam and binary systems.

Figure 2: Schematic images of (from left to right) a dry steam, a single flash steam and a binary system.
(source: ​https://energyinformative.org​)

Flash steam power plant generators

Flash steam power plant generators have different designs, namely single, double or triple flash or hybrid
systems. The number of flashes is essentially an indicator of how many times the working fluid/gas is
separated into different pressures, before it passes through the generator [4]. Experiments on triple flash
steam hybrid systems have shown potential for a 75 % increase in power generation, compared to a
regular single flash steam system. ​The proposed combined-cycle plant maximizes its energy output by
utilizing the waste heat from each stage of the plant as the heat source for the next stage. Following this
model, the geofluid in its vapor state will first be fed separately into two single-flash turbines, whose

4
steam outflow will be merged together to operate a double-flash turbine, followed by a steam binary
turbine and then a liquid water binary turbine. ​Such a multi-stage hybrid system operates most efficiently
under temperatures equivalent to those in wet steam field reservoirs [5].

The proposed technology schematics and T-s diagram is presented in Figure 3.

Figure 3: Schematic image and T-s diagram of the combined flash-binary hybrid system proposed for the
Meager Mountain power plants
(source: Mulyana et al., 2016)

Efficiency of geothermal power plants

Figure 4 shows the efficiency for the three most common types of geothermal power plants, as a function
of their corresponding reservoir enthalpy [5].

Figure 4: Power plant efficiency as a function of corresponding reservoir enthalpy

(source: Moon and Zarrouk, 2014)

5
3. Proposed Project Details

Location

Due to the high temperature reservoirs present in the Canadian Cordillera this region has been chosen for
the RDA power generation facility. In British Columbia, heat reservoirs consist mostly of wet steam fields
suitable for flash steam power generation [2, p. IX]. More specifically, the RDA geothermal power plant
will be located in the Mount Meager massif, approximately 150 km north of Vancouver. In this area,
already completed test drillings​ ​and analysis at Meager Creek (MC) and Pebble Creek (PC) has shown a
most likely 158.5 MW power generation potential at each site, using single flash generators [6].

Geothermal Power Plant specifics

The reservoirs at Mount Meager are predicted to be between 230 and 260 °C [6]. According to the
thermodynamic model of a combined-cycle plant proposed by Mulyana et al. in 2016, a reservoir at this
temperature could support a multi-stage hybrid power plants with 5 turbines across two sites at MC and
PC [7]. ​This results in a net power output of roughly 555MW, hence the combined-cycle system extracts
75% more energy from the geofluid than a system with just one single-flash turbine at each site ​[7]​.
Considering that the capacity factor for geothermal is approximately 90 percent, it is assumed in this
paper that exactly 500 MW of power is generated at the two equally productive sites MC and PC [8].

For these two sites at MC and PC, the land requirement is approximately 5 acres per MW, resulting in a
total of 2500 acres for both plants [9]. Geoscience BC’s initial plan for these sites were for two
geothermal power plants of 100 MW which used approximately 75 wells each [10]. Scaling up the power
output will require additional wells, which was estimated to be a total of approximately 154 wells based
on projects of a similar size [11].

To be able to complete this power plant for RDC, a timeline of five years for completion has been
proposed. The different stages and their order and time are shown in figure 5 below. Resource exploration
involves the drilling of test wells, resource confirmation involves the drilling of full diameter
confirmation wells, and resource development involves drilling of the final wells which will be used by
the power plant.

Figure 5: Timeline of geothermal power plant development

6
4. Economic Viability

Levelized Cost of Electricity (LCOE)

Geothermal energy production requires the completion of different steps before the power plant is up and
running. Different costs we included in our economic analysis included the costs of: land purchase,
transmission lines, road building, permits and leases, resource exploration, resource confirmation,
resource development, power plant, and operating and maintenance costs. Costs were estimated from
different sources and some values were scaled up for the size of the facility [12][6][13]. It was assumed
that energy transmission via BC Hydro’s power lines would be available and free of charge. Furthermore,
depending on RDA’s location, transmission between provinces or countries was also assumed to be free
of charge.

The LCOE was calculated based on the equation below [8]. Note that I​t​ are the investment expenditures in
year t, M​t​ are the operational and maintenance costs in year t, E​t​ is the energy generated in year t, and r is
the discount rate. The discount rate accounts for the time value of money and is used to determine the
present discounted value of a cash flow in the future. Note that the discount rate was chosen as 5% based
on analysis by Geoscience BC . Inflation was not accounted for in this calculation. The total investment
costs over the lifetime were approximately 3.3 billion dollars CAD and operation and maintenance costs
were 1.5 billion dollars. The lifetime was assumed to be 30 years and the energy generation was assumed
to decay at a rate of 0.05% over the lifetime.
n I +M
∑ t tt
sum of costs over lif etime t=1 (1+r)
LCOE = sum of energy generated over lif etime = n
E
∑ tt
t=1 (1+r)

Considering these factors, the LCOE was found to be 9.4 cents per kWh. This LCOE is in the middle of
the typical range for geothermal, which varies from 5 cents per kWh to 13 cents per kWh [8]. When
looking at the different inputs into the LCOE, it is important to note that operating and maintenance costs
remain relatively low and can be estimated accurately while investment costs are highly variable and a
much larger contributor to the sum of costs over the lifetime. Operating and maintenance costs were
estimated to be on the higher end for geothermal plants, at 3 cents per kWh, due to the size and nature of
our plant [13]. This means that approximately 68% of the costs are attributed to investment costs.

Although both MC and PC have been explored to a high degree, there is still a high level of risk. Figure 6
below shows the risk and development costs associated with a typical geothermal power plant. Both sites
have only reached the test drilling phase. This stage is associated with a steep decrease in risk as
geothermal energy generation is confirmed, and a steep increase in cost. Costs are high for drilling wells,
and wells are drilled in the resource exploration, confirmation, and well field development stages.With
each site having only a few test wells drilled, the variability in well number is high, and this may have a
significant impact on the investment costs, and thus the LCOE.

7
It is also important to note that BC Hydro’s LCOE for a medium general service rate is 9.6 cents per
kWh. This is slightly more expensive than the proposed geothermal power plant’s LCOE, showing that
this is an affordable renewable option for power generation.

Figure 6: Risk, cumulative development costs and the bankability of typical geothermal projects. Source:
(IRENA, 2017)

Energy Return on Investment (EROI)

To produce 500 MW, this geothermal plant would require approximately 55 MW input, as well as
approximately 1200 MW of the hot water produced by the power plant [14]. Considering that the hot
water produced by the generators is a waste product, this is not counted within the energy invested. Using
these numbers with the equation below, the EROI is approximately 9:1 [15].
Er usable energy the plant returns during its lif etime
E ROI = EI = energy invested to make this energy

Comparisons with other power generation systems show that other renewables have higher EROI [16].
For example, hydroelectric has a EROI value of 84:1 and coal has a EROI value of 46:1 [16]. This shows
that BC Hydro will produce approximately 9 times the usable energy than this geothermal plant for the
same energy invested.

Payback Period
One way to judge the economic feasibility of a project is by calculating the payback period. A payback
period can be in terms of energy or money. The energy payback time (EPBT) is the time required for this
geothermal energy system to generate the same amount of energy that went into the creation, maintenance

8
and disposal of the system [16]. The energy payback time is 0.27 years when we consider the total input
energy over the lifetime is 1200.77 GWh.

The payback period in terms of money, can be defined in two ways. The first method is comparing the
total amount of investment costs with the amount of time it will take to recuperate costs, referred to as the
payback time (PBT). The PBT for this plant is 27 years, shorter than the lifetime of the plant. This
suggests that the project is economically feasible, because it will have a positive return on initial
investments before the lifetime of the project comes to an end.

The second method for calculating the payback period in terms of money is referred to as the simple
payback time (SPBT), is the time required for this energy system to generate the same amount of money
in savings as was invested to create, maintain and dispose of this system. This requires a comparison with
alternatives to the way energy could be provided to RDA.

The cost of building a coal plant to produce RDA’s 500 MW would cost approximately 2.3 billion dollars
CAD[17]. This is less expensive than the geothermal project proposed, resulting in an SPBT of 57.3
years, longer than the lifetime of the geothermal plant. Comparison was also made with the cost of
supplying electricity from BC hydro. Assuming a medium general service rate, the cost for energy
supplied over 30 years assuming rates remain the same would cost approximately 5 billion dollars CAD
[18]. This would result in an SPT of 30 years. The SPBT when compared to coal is longer than the
lifetime of the plant, meaning that a coal plant would save RDA money compared to the construction of a
coal power plant. However, the SPT when compared to BC Hydro is the same as the lifetime. This shows
that no money would be saved by purchasing energy from BC Hydro.

Comparing the different payback periods shows how short the energy payback period is compared to the
simple payback period. Why is this the case? Both have different uses. The money payback period is
often used to assess the financial feasibility of a project while the energy payback period is more
representative of the sustainability of the project. This comparison shows that the environmental benefits
are not represented in the economic feasibility of this project.

5. Comparison To Conventional Power Generation

In this section, the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the proposed power plant are compared to
GHG emissions from three conventional power generation methods: coal-fired power plants, natural gas
power plants, as well as power from British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority (BC Hydro), which is
the main power provider for our plant’s proposed location in BC. BC Hydro sources the vast majority
(>95%) of its power from hydropower [19].
For this analysis, we examined 6 different gas emissions for each power source: the three primary GHGs
(CO​2​, CH​4​, N​2​O), as well as the air pollutants NOx, SO​2​, and particulate matter (PM).

Methodology for LCA

GHG emissions from all stages of each power generation method were quantified using data from
multiple life-cycle analysis (LCA) studies found in literature [20]–[22]. The LCA stages includes power
plant construction, end-of-life decommissioning, fuel production, fuel transportation, and plant
operations. The functional unit for the LCA is one kWh of energy generated by the plant, so GHG

9
emissions factors (EFs) for each stage were calculated per kWh by factoring in plant capacity, efficiency,
and lifetime, and then net annual emissions rates were calculated by assuming all power plants ran 24/7
without scheduled or unscheduled outages.
For coal plants, EF data was taken from average values for existing coal-fired plants with varying power
outputs of 360-1000MW, plant efficiencies of 37-40%, and various degrees of emissions control
mechanisms. For natural gas, the average figures for existing 500MW steam cycle, simple gas turbine,
and combined cycle power plants were considered. The data used for these plants were sourced from
independent studies as well as the U.S. ​Environmental Protection Agency and Energy Information
Administration​ ​[20], [21], [23], [24].​ ​For flash and binary geothermal plants, no emissions data could be
found on plants with specifically 500MW of capacity, so EFs were found by linearly interpolating
between emissions data from multiple plants with capacity between 10 to 1867 MW [21], [25, p. 288].
Since our combined flash-binary plant produces 8.57% of its power from its binary turbines and 91.43%
from its flash steam turbines, its emissions were calculated as a weighted combination of 91.43% flash
and 8.57% binary emissions. Since binary geothermal plants have completely zero emissions, this means
that our combined geothermal plant produces 91.43% of the emissions than a flash geothermal plant per
functional unit. Finally, as for BC Hydro, 100% of its power was assumed to be hydropower from its
main dam (Site C) on Peace River, BC, which has a capacity of 1100MW [19].

Operational Emissions

Primary GHGs
First, we address GHG emissions from the operations stage of each power plant only. For fossil fuels, this
corresponds to GHG emissions from fuel combustion; for BC Hydro, this consists of GHG emitted during
biomass removal from reservoirs, as well as the natural GHG flux out of reservoir water and flooded
lands [22, p. 110]; for our proposed geothermal plant, these emissions solely consist of sequestered CO​2
in the geofluid, which is released into the atmosphere upon passing through the flash units of the
combined-cycle plant [4, p. 44]. Table 1 below shows the primary GHG EFs for each power plant, and the
net GHG EF in CO​2​-equivalents. The 100-year global warming potentials (GWPs) of CH​4​ and N​2​O
relative to CO​2​ were determined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to be 28 and
265 respectively [26].
Table 1: Operational Emission Factors by Plant Type - Primary GHGs
CO2 (kg/kWh) CH4 (kg/kWh) N2O (kg/kWh) Net CO2-eq.
(kg/kWh)
100-year GWP: 1 28 265

Coal 0.996241 0.000062 0.000016 1.0023

Natural gas 0.472401 0.000008 0.000001 0.4728

BC Hydro 0.008947 0.000226 0.000004 0.0162

Binary Geothermal 0 0 0 0

10
Flash Geothermal 0.103487 0 0 0.1035

Combined-Cycle
Geothermal Plant 0.094617 0 0 0.0946
(proposed)

These results show that per each kWh of energy generated, operating the proposed geothermal plant emits
only 9.4% of GHGs emitted by coal-fired plants and 20% of GHGs emitted by NG plants; however, it
emits 5.83 times as much GHGs as BC Hydro. This shows that although both hydropower and geothermal
power plants contribute to the release of sequestered CO​2​ from water and land, the CO​2​ flux from
high-temperature geofluids are much higher. However, since dissolved CO​2​ concentrations in geofluid
can vary significantly depending on region, the actual emissions from the proposed site in BC may differ.

These results also show that binary geothermal plants have zero emissions, which is due to the fact that
unlike flash plants, they do not use the geofluid directly as a working fluid in the turbine but instead use it
indirectly to heat a separate working fluid for the turbine. Since the geofluid in a binary system is returned
to the reservoirs in a closed-loop system after the heat exchange process, no sequestered CO​2​ or any other
gases are able to escape from it [21]. However, binary systems have a lower efficiency and output
capacity than flash plants, and require more complex infrastructure, deeper wells, and air-cooled
condenser systems [5, 21]. Thus, using a 100% binary system for our geothermal plant to meet RDA’s
large power requirements is not feasible, but incorporating two binary turbines into the proposed
combined-cycle plant helps in reducing GHG emissions.
In order to determine the exact mass difference in emissions for the proposed geothermal plant versus
fossil fuel and BC Hydro plants, the annual GHG emissions of each plant were computed in tonnes. Table
2 below presents the net annual primary GHG emissions by plant type.
​ nnual Operational Emissions - Primary GHGs
Table 2:​ A
Net CO​2​-eq.
CO​2​ [tonnes] CH​4​ [tonnes] N​2​O [tonnes]
[tonnes]
100-year GWP: 1 28 265
Coal 4,363,585 273.40 70.62 4,389,904
Natural gas 2,069,117 34.92 3.56 2,071,037
BC Hydro 39,186 989 15.97 71,110
Binary Geothermal 0 0 0 0

Flash Geothermal 453,273 0 0 453,273

Combined-Cycle
Geothermal Plant 414,421 0 0 414,421
(proposed)

To put these values into perspective, the average vehicle in BC produces approximately 4 tonnes of CO​2
per year [27]. This means that operating the proposed geothermal plant instead of buying energy from

11
BC Hydro would be the equivalent of putting 85,828 more cars on BC’s roads per year, while choosing
the coal power plant over geothermal or BC Hydro would be the equivalent of putting a further 1,087,121
cars on the road per year.

Other Air Pollutants

On top of the three primary GHGs, conventional power generation also produces additional air pollutants
NOx, SO​2​, and PM. While the primary GHGs directly contribute to global warming by absorbing solar
radiation and trapping its energy inside Earth’s atmosphere, these pollutants may or may not directly
absorb solar radiation themselves, but still have adverse effects on climate change, human health, and
ecosystems [28]. The EFs for these pollutants are summarized in Table 3 below. Note that once again, due
to the closed-loop nature of its system, binary geothermal plants emit zero pollutants from operations.
Table ​3: Operational Emission Factors by Plant Type - Other Air Pollutants
SO​2​ [kg/kWh] NOx [kg/kWh] PM [kg/kWh]
Coal 0.004254 0.001548 0.000696
Natural Gas 0.000042 0.000793 0.000064
Binary Geothermal 0 0 0
Flash Geothermal 0.000159 0 0
Combined-Cycle
Geothermal 0.000145 0 0
(proposed plant)

Geothermal plants do not involve combustion processes, so even non-binary geothermal plants produce
zero NOx or PM emissions. This is beneficial because NOx and PM have been shown to act as indirect
greenhouse gases and contribute to global warming, while also negatively affecting human health and
ecosystems. Nitrogen oxides (NOx), for instance, undergo photochemical reactions in the atmosphere to
produce ozone (O​3​), a strong greenhouse gas with GWP up to 1,000 times that of CO​2​ in the short-term
[28]. On the other hand, PM of various sizes, such as soot, have been directly related to human respiratory
problems and other adverse health effects when inhaled [29].
As for SO​2​, its net effect on global warming is unclear [29]; however, it is considered a pollutant because
it negatively affects the respiratory system and serves as a significant cause of water acidification and
deforestation [30]. Although geothermal power plants do not directly emit SO​2​, they release small
amounts of H​2​S, which eventually forms SO​2​ and sulfuric acid in the atmosphere [23]. This results in the
proposed geothermal plant producing 3.45 times as much SO​2​ emissions as natural gas plants do;
however, due to the high sulfur content of coal, our plant still produces only 3.45% of the SO​2 ​emissions
from a coal-fired power plant per kWh produced [31].
Table 4: Annual Operational Emissions by Power Source - Other Air Pollutants
SO​2​ [tonnes] NOx [tonnes] PM [tonnes]
Coal 18632 6780 3050
Natural Gas 184 3472 280

12
Binary Geothermal 0 0 0
Flash Geothermal 695 0 0
Combined-Cycle
Geothermal 636 0 0
(proposed plant)

These findings are also shown in annual figures in Table 4, which shows that the combined geothermal
plant emits 452 tonnes more SO​2​ per year than a natural gas plant, but 17,996 tonnes less than a coal
plant. Compared to coal and natural gas plants, the proposed geothermal plant will lead to 6780 and 3472
tonnes less NOx respectively, and 3050 and 280 tonnes less of PM, eliminating any concerns for mortality
or health complications related to them [32].

Life Cycle Emissions

In power generation, plant operations are not the only source of GHG emissions; to provide a
more accurate analysis of the GHG emissions related to energy production, emissions related to
infrastructure construction/decommissioning, fuel production, and fuel transportation were also
considered. These findings are illustrated in Figure 7, and shows that for all of the power sources
considered, plant operations are responsible for the vast majority of total GHG emissions.
The percentage of EF attributable to infrastructure is especially minimal for fossil fuel plants, with coal’s
being 0.06% and natural gas’s being 0.04%. In comparison, 5% of the emissions from the combined
geothermal plant (0.0057 kg CO2eq/kWh) comes from the construction and decommissioning of the
plant, wells, and other infrastructure and the rest stems from plant operations, which is an interesting

13
Figure 7: Emission Factor for Different Power Plants by LCA Stage
observation because GHG emissions for most other renewable energy systems tend to come mostly from
infrastructure [21]. BC Hydro is also the exception to this, since according to its report for the government
of BC, the construction/decommissioning of the hydro dam accounted for 16% of its EF at 0.0031
kgCO2eq/kWh [22]. This is in slight contradiction to literature, which estimates emissions from hydro
infrastructure to be roughly equal to emissions from geothermal infrastructure [21]. However, this
difference can be explained by the fact that BC Hydro’s Site C Dam was estimated to have a lifetime of
100 years in comparison to the proposed geothermal plant’s lifetime of 30 years [6], [22].
Although both BC Hydro and the proposed geothermal plant have no emissions related to fuel production
or transport, these two stages are responsible for small but significant portions of both coal and natural
gas plants’ emissions. Fuel production for coal makes up 5% of the total EF and includes mining, the
infrastructure needed for mining, processing, and storage of coal, as well as the production of ammonia,
which is used in the combustion stages to reduce NOx emissions [20]. Fuel transport of coal is
responsible for 2% of the total, and includes the transportation of both coal and ammonia, which were
assumed to be transported to the proposed site in Meager Mountain via truck from Coal Valley Mine in
Edson, Alberta, the closest coal mine that produces coal for domestic energy uses [33]. As for natural gas,
11% of the total EF is due to natural gas production, and 10% is from the construction of pipelines needed
to transport the natural gas [21].
The complete figures for EFs calculated by LCA stage is summarized in Table 5 below.

14
Table 5: Net Annual Emissions by LCA Stage for Different Power Sources

Annual Lifetime
(30 years)
Operations
Fuel Fuel
[tonnes CO2-eq] Infrastructure (Power Total Total
Production Transportation
Generation)

Coal 3,066 220,752 106,886 4,389,905 4,720,608 141,618,240

Natural gas 1,095 294,336 250,974 2,071,037 2,617,443 78,523,290

BC Hydro 13,578 71,110 15.97 71,110 84,688 2,540,640

Combined-Cycle
Geothermal 24,966 0 0 414,421 439,387 13,181,610
(proposed plant)

Carbon Tax Comparison

In addition to contributing to global warming, the differences in net emissions have another significant
consequence which may be of interest to RDA: carbon tax. As of April 2019, the BC carbon tax rate was
$40 per tonne of CO2, and the federal carbon tax rate was $20 per tonne of CO2 [34]. Assuming this tax
rate stays constant throughout the plant’s lifetime, choosing the proposed geothermal plant results in
lifetime savings of $3,920,500,800 compared to a natural gas plant and $7,706,197,800 compared to a
coal-fired plant. However, purchasing energy from BC Hydro will lead to further savings of $638,458,200
compared to the proposed geothermal plant. Also, the savings estimated are on the lower end; since
carbon tax in Canada has seen a constant upward trend since its implementation, barring any significant
policy or government changes, the actual differences in carbon tax will likely be greater [34].

Figure 8: The Rising Cost of Greenhouse Gas Emissions (source: cbc.ca/news)

15
6. Other Environmental & Social Impacts

Resource Use

Geothermal plant resource consumption can be split into two sections: infrastructural (concrete, diesel and
metals) and operational (water and/or working fluid). To determine the total resource consumption for the
proposed geothermal plant, two LCAs conducted by the Argonne National Laboratory were consulted.
The first LCA, the same used for the emissions calculations in the previous section, researched the
material consumption required for the construction of various geothermal plants, including the wells and
well-to-plant connections [19]. The results are compiled below in Table 6 and scaled to meet our 500MW
requirement.

Table 6: Infrastructural consumption for proposed geothermal plant

Binary Flash Total
Aluminum (mt) 1975.39 72686.85 74662.235
Concrete (mt) 19668.15 106058.80 125726.95
Cement (mt) 3745.09 35200.55 38945.64
Bentonite (mt) 1456.90 731.44 2188.34
Diesel (litre) 2108262.85 26976421.50 29084684.35
Iron (mt) 183.39 134859.25 135042.648
Steel (mt) 15254.60 319090.70 334345.3

Water is consumed in every life cycle stage of a geothermal plant. With the looming global water crisis,
though Canada’s freshwater resources are much larger than the global average, it is still imperative to
consider water consumption as a decision factor in every project. Therefore, the second LCA studied
discussed the water consumption required for various geothermal plants [35]. The calculations conducted
were similar to those for the material consumption. The results are described in Table 7.

Table 7: Operational water consumption breakdown for proposed geothermal plan​t

Construction & Binary 8.57%,
EGS Stimulation Operations For 500MW Plant Over 30 Flash 91.43%
(gal/kWh) (gal/kWh) (gal/kWh) Years (gal) (gal)
10MW Binary 0.001 0.27 13.5 591300000 50674410
50MW Flash 0.001 0.01 0.1 4380000 4004634
Total 54679044

The average US household consumes 90 gallons of water per day ​[36]​. The total amount of water
consumed by the proposed geothermal plant would be equivalent to the water needed to supply 1700

16
households for an entire year. However, this is less than 1/5th of the water consumption of the
construction and operation of a coal power plant ​[35]​.​ Looking at Figure 9 below, operational water
consumption is the most significant contributor to water consumption over the life cycle of any
geothermal plant.

Figure 9: Contribution of Operations Water Use to Total Water Use in the Power Plant Life Cycle
(source: Clark et al., 2010)

While there are ways to minimize a plant’s water consumption during the construction phase (water reuse,
drilling muds and hydraulic stimulation fluid reuse), there is a lack of available data to identify where
water consumption is occurring during operations [35]. Further evaluation is recommended to identify
these water-consuming processes in order to present opportunities for improving the water efficiency of
the plant.

Impact on Natural Environment

Geothermal power production has three main areas of direct environmental impact in addition to those
previously discussed: induced seismic events, terrain changes, and waste production.

Induced Seismic Events

The drilling of wells, as well as the withdrawal and re-injection of thermal fluids into reservoirs, may
increase the frequency of low magnitude seismic events, and even trigger large seismic events. The
likelihood of this increases as the natural seismicity in an area increases. For example, in 2006, a 3.4
magnitude earthquake was measured in Basel, Switzerland, the cause later attributed to the injection of
high pressure water by a geothermal plant. However, ​induced earthquakes of similar magnitude in
Switzerland have also been observed in relation to construction of dams & tunnels, so it is difficult to use
potential earthquakes as an argument against geothermal if other activities aren’t held to the same
standard. ​[37]​. ​Mount Meager, unfortunately, is an earthquake-prone area, as it lies near the fault line

17
between the Juan de Fuca Plate and North American Plate. However, this did not affect our decision of
location as most regions of high geothermal potential are located along tectonic plate boundaries,
coinciding with volcanic activity and geothermal hotspots ​[38]​. This is depicted in Figure​ 10​ below.
Additionally, limiting pumping rates can minimize the likelihood of induced seismic events ​[39]​.

Figure 10: Correlation between volcanic activity, tectonic plate boundaries, and Mount Meager
(source: ​https://www.kendall.mx/industry​)

Terrain Changes
Geothermal energy production requires the drilling of boreholes and the insertion of pipes into rock.
Through these boreholes and pipes, geothermal plants usually re-inject hot water that was removed from
the ground back into wells. During this removal and re-injection, a small amount of water may evaporate
and not be returned to the ground. This creates the potential for sinkholes and ground collapse, which
destroys habitats, and can pose dangers for nearby communities [40].

Waste Generation & Management

During the construction and operation of geothermal power plants, various wastes are produced. Morris
and Stephens quantified amounts of different wastes expected from the development and 30-year
operation of a flash-steamed plant [41, p. 9]. These values are a general estimate as the calculations were
done for a geothermal plant located in California and, therefore, due to variations in mineral and chemical
water content, the Mount Meager site’s waste generation would differ slightly. Additionally, these
calculations were done for a flash-steam plant, not the proposed multi-stage plant.

Table 8: Solid waste expected from development and 30-year operation of a 500 MW flash-steamed plant
Solid Waste Liters
Drilling mud, well-bore cuttings 4315500

18
Dried brine, well-bore debris 4500450
Separated solids from brine pre-injection treatment 7398000
Scale from process lines, separators, etc. 9247500
Solids from ponding and evaporation of blowdown fluid 64732500
Solids separated from pretreatment of cooling tower makeup water 2466000
By-product from H2S abatement (ammonium sulfate) 493200

During the drilling process, drilling muds are reused and recirculated, but do eventually need to be
disposed of. For best environmental practice, a closed-loop fluid system with no discharge to the
environment is recommended [42]. For the scale and other waste solids, the valuable minerals and metals
can be recovered via hydrogen sulfide treatment systems. For example, in Northern California, at The
Geysers geothermal plant, one system converts the H2S into elemental sulfur, which is then recycled and
used as feedstock for sulfuric acid production [43].

Social Considerations

The construction of geothermal plants, wells, transfer pipes, and transmission lines may cause some
conflict with the neighboring First Nations territory, ​St’at’imc (pronounced:​ stat-liem)​ , and the Canadian
Wildlife Service, if not confronted properly and well ahead of schedule. In the past, St’at’imc has raised
issues with the Canadian Government and Telus, who both claimed to have rights over sections of the
St’at’imc territory, without sitting down to create an agreement. In an interview with the Canadian Press,
Chief Garry John of the St’at’imc commented on the issue: “the bottom line is we want to let people know
that the St’at’imc are very reasonable people. We’ve tried to be good neighbours for the past [...] and we
don’t want to have to do things this way. We’d much rather sit down at the table with the government”
[44]. This statement gives hope that an agreement can be made, as long as the proper conversation is had
before any action is taken. As for the Canadian Wildlife Service, t​here are several protected areas in the
Mount Meager area that must be considered in the selection of well and plant locations. Fortunately, there
are no protected areas located along the potential transmission connection routes. Figure 11 below depicts
the protected wildlife habitat areas in the Mount Meager area, directly South East of the Upper Lillooet
Provincial Park ​[45]​.

19
Figure 11: Map of BC Wildlife Habitat Areas (source: ​https://databasin.org​)

In addition to the environmental and human health effects discussed in Section 4, geothermal emissions
pose a potential for community conflict over the lifetime of the plant due to its odor. Its odor, similar to
that of rotten eggs, ​can be detected by 20% of people at a concentration of only 2 ppmv [38]. BC
provincial health and safety only limits the amount of H​2​S in the atmosphere to 10 ppmv, therefore it must
be RDA’s decision to ensure the concentration of H​2​S remains below 2 ppmv [46].

While there is potential for social conflict, the decision to place a geothermal plant of this magnitude may
also be socially beneficial. The construction and operation of the plant would create a large amount of job
opportunities, fostering economic development in the rural communities that surround the Mount Meager
area. For scale, the Cerro Prieto geothermal plant in Mexico, a plant of similar size, employs over 500
people [47].

7. Recommendations
This report has outlined the technology, economics, environmental and societal factors involved in
making a decision of whether or not a geothermal power plant would be a good option for the production
of 500 MW. Geothera recommends that RDA consider geothermal as an option for providing its energy
needs. Justification is summarized below.

20
The proposed geothermal power plant has an LCOE that is slightly lower than BC Hydro, showing that
this plant would provide an affordable renewable option. Both the energy payback period and the payback
period in terms of money are shorter than the lifetime. This demonstrates that the project is economically
feasible because it will be able to generate more energy than is input, and will generate positive revenue
by the end of its lifetime. Additionally, it is important to note that this 500MW plant produces 4,380,000
MWh per year, assuming it runs 24 hours a day, which is ~85% of the power produced by BC Hydro’s
Site C Dam, and ~10% of BC Hydro’s total annual power generation of ​43,000 GWh/year ​[19]. Due to
these numbers, BC Hydro would most likely be unable to supply all of the energy required by RDA.

Another justification for the implementation of this geothermal power plant are the limited environmental
impacts. Apart from BC Hydro, the proposed power plant has the least net CO​2​-eq. emissions out of all
the power plants examined, with around ten times less than coal and five times less than natural gas,
which is beneficial for global warming concerns, as well as economical savings related to the provincial
and federal carbon tax. When considering other air pollutants, the proposed geothermal plant has barely
any emissions while BC Hydro, coal and natural gas have significant values.

Although this plant would use natural resources for construction, it would use​ one fifth of the water
consumption of the construction and operation of a coal power plant. An impact from this plant is the
potential for induced seismic events associated with the pumping of water into and out of the geothermal
reservoir. However, by limiting pumping rates, induced seismic events can be mitigated ​[39]​. A final
consideration for this project is that it​ would require coordination with the local First Nations territory,
St’at’imc.

Considering these factors, Geothera recommends the use of a geothermal power plant as described in this
report as a suitable option for RDA.

21
Works Cited
[1] D. J. C. MacKay, ​Sustainable energy - without the hot air.​ Cambridge: UIT Cambridge.
[2] S. E. Grasby ​et al.,​ “Geothermal energy resource potential of Canada,” 6914, 2012.
[3] “How a Geothermal Power Plant Generates Electricity,” ​Energy Informative.​ .
[4] M. El Haj Assad, E. Bani-Hani, and M. Khalil, “Performance of geothermal power plants (single,
dual, and binary) to compensate for LHC-CERN power consumption: comparative study,”
Geotherm. Energy,​ vol. 5, no. 1, p. 17, Sep. 2017.
[5] H. Moon and S. J. Zarrouk, “Efficiency of geothermal power plants: A worldwide review,”
Geothermics,​ vol. 51, pp. 142–153, Jul. 2014.
[6] Kerr Wood Leidal Ltd., “An Assessment of the Economic Viability of Selected Geothermal
Resources in British Columbia,” Geoscience BC, GBCR 2015-11.
[7] C. Mulyana, R. Adiprana, A. H. Saad, M. R. H., and F. Muhammad, “The thermodynamic cycle
models for geothermal power plants by considering the working fluid characteristic,” presented at
the 2ND PADJADJARAN INTERNATIONAL PHYSICS SYMPOSIUM 2015 (PIPS-2015):
Materials Functionalization and Energy Conservations, Jatinangor, Indonesia, 2016, p. 020002.
[8] IRENA, “Geothermal Power: Technology Brief,” International Renewable Energy Agency, Abu
Dhabi, 2017.
[9] “Geothermal Power Plants — Minimizing Land Use and Impact,” ​Energy.gov.​ [Online]. Available:
https://www.energy.gov/eere/geothermal/geothermal-power-plants-minimizing-land-use-and-impact
. [Accessed: 02-Nov-2019].
[10] “GBCR 2015-11,” ​Geoscience​. .
[11] “Makiling-Banahaw - National Geothermal Association of the Philippines 2.” [Online]. Available:
https://sites.google.com/a/ngaphil.org/ngap2/services/makiling-banahaw?fbclid=IwAR0Luxwiq6Tn
Gfhf2y5OSz4b1fwM1uBMCgQKbaHBslw6nlMjmlb7WsNiVD0. [Accessed: 02-Nov-2019].
[12] Ram Power, “Early Stage Exploration Properties.”
[13] S. K. Sanyal, “Cost of geothermal power and factors that affect it,” in ​Proceedings world
geothermal congress,​ 2005, pp. 24–29.
[14] R. S. Atlason and R. Unnthorsson, “Hot water production improves the energy return on investment
of geothermal power plants,” ​Energy,​ vol. 51, pp. 273–280, 2013.
[15] D. Weißbach, G. Ruprecht, A. Huke, K. Czerski, S. Gottlieb, and A. Hussein, “Energy intensities,
EROIs (energy returned on invested), and energy payback times of electricity generating power
plants,” ​Energy​, vol. 52, pp. 210–221, 2013.
[16] C. A. S. Hall, J. G. Lambert, and S. B. Balogh, “EROI of different fuels and the implications for
society,” ​Energy Policy​, vol. 64, pp. 141–152, 2014.
[17] D. Schlissel, A. Smith, and R. Wilson, “Coal-fired power plant construction costs,” 2008.
[18] “General Service Business Rates.” [Online]. Available:
https://www.bchydro.com/accounts-billing/rates-energy-use/electricity-rates/business-rates.html.
[Accessed: 02-Nov-2019].
[19] BC Hydro, “BC Hydro’s System,” ​BC Hydro’s System,​ 19-Apr-2013. [Online]. Available:
https://web.archive.org/web/20130419063453/http://www.bchydro.com/energy-in-bc/our_system.ht
ml. [Accessed: 01-Nov-2019].
[20] C. Wang and D. Mu, “An LCA study of an electricity coal supply chain,” ​J. Ind. Eng. Manag.​, vol.
10, no. 1, Jan. 2014.
[21] J. L. Sullivan, C. E. Clark, J. Han, and M. Wang, “Life-cycle analysis results of geothermal systems
in comparison to other power systems.,” Argonne National Laboratory, ANL/ESD/10-5, 993694,
Oct. 2010.

22
[22] Stantec Consulting Ltd., “Site C Clean Energy Project: Greenhouse Gases Technical Report,”
British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority, Vancouver, BC, 2012.
[23] A. Kagel and K. Gawell, “Promoting Geothermal Energy: Air Emissions Comparison and
Externality Analysis,” ​Electr. J.​, vol. 18, no. 7, pp. 90–99, Aug. 2005.
[24] “Geothermal Basics - Environment.” [Online]. Available:
http://geo-energy.org/geo_basics_environment.aspx. [Accessed: 29-Oct-2019].
[25] H. Ármannsson, T. Fridriksson, and B. R. Kristjánsson, “CO2 emissions from geothermal power
plants and natural geothermal activity in Iceland,” ​Geothermics​, vol. 34, no. 3, pp. 286–296, Jun.
2005.
[26] Greenhouse Gas Protocol, “Global Warming Potential Values.”
[27] A. Feinstein, B. Churchill, R. P. Bio, A. Rowan, and B. Com, “BC’S PEACE RIVER VALLEY
AND CLIMATE CHANGE,” p. 81.
[28] F. Marazi, “Chemical Relationships between Greenhouse Gases,” p. 8.
[29] G. Myhre ​et al.,​ “5th Assessment Report,” IPCC, 5.
[30] The State of Queensland, “Sulfur dioxide | Air pollutants,” ​Queensland Government​. [Online].
Available:
https://www.qld.gov.au/environment/pollution/monitoring/air/air-pollution/pollutants/sulfur-dioxide
. [Accessed: 01-Nov-2019].
[31] “Coal and Air Pollution,” ​Union of Concerned Scientists.​ [Online]. Available:
https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/coal-and-air-pollution. [Accessed: 04-Nov-2019].
[32] J. I. Levy, J. K. Hammitt, and J. D. Spengler, “Estimating the mortality impacts of particulate
matter: what can be learned from between-study variability?,” ​Environ. Health Perspect.​, vol. 108,
no. 2, pp. 109–117, Feb. 2000.
[33] “Top active coal mines in Canada.” [Online]. Available:
https://www.miningandenergy.ca/mines/article/top_active_coal_mines_in_canada/. [Accessed:
30-Oct-2019].
[34] Bethany Lindsay, “How B.C. brought in Canada’s 1st carbon tax and avoided economic disaster |
CBC News,” ​CBC​, 04-Apr-2019. [Online]. Available:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/carbon-tax-bc-1.5083734. [Accessed:
03-Nov-2019].
[35] C. E. Clark, C. B. Harto, J. L. Sullivan, and M. Q. Wang, “Water Use in the Development and
Operation of Geothermal Power Plants,” Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, Illinois,
ANL/EVS/R-10/5, 2010.
[36] “Water Q&A: How much water do I use at home each day?” [Online]. Available:
https://www.usgs.gov/special-topic/water-science-school/science/water-qa-how-much-water-do-i-us
e-home-each-day?qt-science_center_objects=0#qt-science_center_objects. [Accessed:
03-Nov-2019].
[37] “SED | Geothermal Energy and Induced Earthquakes.” [Online]. Available:
http://www.seismo.ethz.ch/en/knowledge/things-to-know/geothermal-energy-earthquakes/geotherm
al-energy-and-induced-earthquakes/. [Accessed: 03-Nov-2019].
[38] Kendall Energy, “Industry,” ​Kendall Energy.​ [Online]. Available: https://www.kendall.mx/industry.
[Accessed: 01-Nov-2019].
[39] S. A. Shapiro and C. Dinske, “Fluid-induced seismicity: Pressure diffusion and hydraulic
fracturing,” ​Geophys. Prospect.​, vol. 57, no. 2, pp. 301–310, 2009.
[40] M. Hamburger, Rupp, and Taranovic, “Environmental Impacts of Geothermal Energy Generation
and Utilization,” INDIANA UNIVERSITY BLOOMINGTON.
[41] W.F. Morris and F.B. Stephens, “Characterization of Geothermal Solid Wastes,” Lawrence
Rivermore Laboratory, University of California, UCID-19201, Jul. 1981.

23
[42] John Finger and Doug Blankenship, “Handbook of Best Practices for Geothermal Drilling,” Sandia
National Laboratory, Alberquerque, New Mexico, SAND2010-6048, Dec. 2010.
[43] “Geothermal Power Plants — Minimizing Solid Waste and Recovering Minerals,” ​Energy.gov​.
[Online]. Available:
https://www.energy.gov/eere/geothermal/geothermal-power-plants-minimizing-solid-waste-and-rec
overing-minerals. [Accessed: 04-Nov-2019].
[44] “B.C. First Nation threatens action over infrastructure trespasses - Macleans.ca.” [Online].
Available:
https://www.macleans.ca/news/b-c-first-nation-threatens-action-over-infrastructure-trespasses/.
[Accessed: 03-Nov-2019].
[45] “BC Wildlife Habitat Areas - Map Service | Data Basin.” [Online]. Available:
https://databasin.org/datasets/cada2e982a0c45d49e1e569c2c4bcf11. [Accessed: 04-Nov-2019].
[46] WorkSafe BC, “Hydrogen Sulfide in Industry.” Feb-2010.
[47] M. Quintero-Núñez ​et al.​, “A Comparative Study on the Environmental Impacts of a Binational
Geothermal System: Imperial Valley, CA., U.S.A. and Cerro Prieto, Mexicali Valley, BC, México,”
p. 9.

24
Appendix A: Costs

Cost per year ($ million CAD)

Description of Costs Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
Land costs 6.9 0 0 0 0
Transmission line costs 50 0 0 0 0
road building costs 3 0 0 0 0
permitting and leasing costs 2.5 0 0 0 0
resource exploration 52.959364 52.959364 0 0 0
resource confirmation 0 169.757774 169.757774 0 0
resource development 0 0 1623.93748 0 0
power plant costs 0 0 0 885.25 885.25

25