ISSN 0276-1084

VOL. 29 NO. 1 MAY 2010

GEO-HEAT CENTER QUARTERLY BULLETIN

USA Geothermal update

OIT Campus Development Promoter pipe with

downhole heat exchanger

OREGON INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY • KLAMATH FALLS, OREGON 97601-8801 • (541) 885-1750

Vol. 29 No. 1 MAY 2010
GEO-HEAT CENTER QUARTERLY BULLETIN
ISSN 0276-1084
A Quarterly Progress and Development Report on the Direct Utilization of Geothermal Resources

CONTENTS PUBLISHED BY
GEO-HEAT CENTER
Comments from the Editors................................ 1 Oregon Institute of Technology
3201 Campus Drive
Klamath Falls, OR 97601
The United States of America Phone: (541) 885-1750
Email: geoheat@oit.edu
Country Update 2010......................................... 2
John W. Lund, Karl Gawell, Tonya L. Boyd and Dan Jennajohn All articles for the Bulletin are solicited. If you wish to contribute
a paper, please contact the editor at the above address.

Geothermal Uses and Projects on the EDITORS

Oregon Institute of Technology Campus........... 12 John W. Lund
Tonya “Toni” Boyd
John W. Lund and Tonya “Toni” Boyd Cover Design – SmithBates Printing & Design

WEBSITE:
Use of Promoter Pipes with Downhole Heat
http://geoheat.oit.edu
Exchangers in Klamath Falls, Oregon............... 18
Tonya “Toni” Boyd and John W. Lund ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This material is based upon work supported by the Department
of Energy (National Nuclear Security Administration) under
Oregon’s First Geothermal Combined Heat
Award Number DE-EE0002741.
and Power Plant Dedication.............................. 24
DISCLAIMER
Kristina Hakanson Maupin and John W. Lund
This Bulletin was prepared as an account of work sponsored by
an agency of the United States government. Neither the United
States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their
employees, makes any warranty, express or implied or assumes
any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness,
or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product or process
disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately
owned rights. Reference herein any specific commercial product,
process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or
otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply endorsement
recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government
or any agency thereof.

SUBSCRIPTIONS
The Bulletin is mailed free of charge. Please send your name and
address to the Geo-Heat Center for addition to the mailing list.
If you wish to change your Bulletin subscription, please complete
the form below and return it to the Geo-Heat Center.

Cover - Upper figure: Geothermal projects and

resource areas in the United Sates Name _ _____________________________________________

Lower Left Figure: Picture of the 280 kW binary Address_ ____________________________________________

unit on the Oregon Institute of Technology
campus showing the turbine generator set on the City, State, Zip_ ______________________________________
evaporator.
Lower Right Figure: Promoter pipe with Country_____________________________________________
downhole heat exchanger
COMMENTS FROM THE EDITORS
We are back!! Our last Quarterly Bulletin was the January
2008 issue (Vol. 28, No. 4). With a reduction in the USDOE
Office of Geothermal Technologies budget over the past
years, no funds were available to continue the publication of
the Bulletin. With the recent Stimulus Funds for geothermal
and an increase in the Office of Geothermal Technologies
budget, we have again been funded for at least three years to
publish the Bulletin.
Much has happened in the past two years on campus. In
February of 2009 the drilling of a deep geothermal well on
campus was started (see article this issue). In just under 40
days, the well was drilled 5,300 ft (1,600 m) and intersection
the high angle (70˚) normal fault on the east side of campus.
We had hoped to reach around 300˚F (150˚C) geothermal
fluids (based on geochemistry), but a subsequent pump test
produced only 196˚F (91˚C) water, and the well proved to be
isothermal over the entire length. Even though we only test
pumped the well to 1,500 gpm (95 L/s) with a 23-ft (7-m)
drawdown, it appears that we can pump up to 2,500 gpm (158
L/s) with only a 75-foot (23-m) drawdown. If this is proven and
we obtain the water rights for the higher amount, this flow
should be adequate for a 1.0 to 1.2 MWe (gross) binary power
plant, which we hope to install by 2012.
The second major event on campus was the installation and
commissioning of a 280 kW (gross) binary power plant (see
article this issue). The plant, installed in our heat exchange
building near our existing production wells, is a PureCycle¨
United Technology Corporation (UTC) unit (now under Pratt
and Whitney). The plant was delivered on campus in March
2009 and was dedicated in an official ceremony April 20,
2010. It uses geothermal water from our existing wells, up to
600 gpm (38 L/s) at up to 196˚F (91˚C), and uses a wet cooling
tower for the condenser water. The “waste water” is then used
to heat campus. The electricity from the plant can either be
used directly on campus or fed into the Pacific Power grid.
Much has happened to the original founders of the Geo-
Heat Center in 1975. Paul Lienau, the first Director, passed
away on Camano Island, Washington on September 27, 2008
after a long bout with cancer. John Lund and Toni Boyd
attended his memorial service. Lars Svanevik has retired but
continues as an adjunct professor of chemistry and renewable
energy on campus. Unfortunately, he suffered a stroke in
December 2009 and is convalescing in Klamath Falls. Gene
Culver, retired for several years, continues to ranch and raise
sheep and alpacas south of Klamath Falls. He also occasionally
helps with research projects at the Center. John Lund, after
working on campus for 43 years, both as a professor of Civil
Engineering and then as Director of the Center will retire in
June. Toni Boyd, who was hired 15 years ago, is still with the
Center as the Assistant Director. A Mechanical Engineer and
Program Manager will be hired and hopefully will be on
board in July. The Center is now part of the Oregon Renewable
Energy Center (OREC) established on campus in 2001. John
and Toni have been teaching geothermal classes for the new
GHC BULLETIN, MAY 2010
Renewable Energy Engineer Bachelors degree that is offer
both at our Portland and Klamath Falls campuses.
In August of 2010, the Geo-Heat Center along with the
Geothermal Energy Association of Washington, D.C. held a
two-day geothermal conference and field trip on campus. The
emphasis was on the direct utilization of geothermal energy,
with presentation by many local geothermal developers. The
field trip visited the campus, the downtown district heating
system, and various agri-business applications at “Gone
Fishing” and the Liskey Ranch south of Klamath Falls. It was
attended by over 100 persons.
Both John and Toni were actively involved with the recent
World Geothermal Congress 2010 (WGC2010) that was held
in Bali, Indonesia in late April. Around 2,500 persons from
at least 85 countries attended the Congress, with over 1,000
papers and posters presented. John and Toni were involved
with five papers, including the World Direct-Use Summary
and the U.S. Geothermal Summary (see paper this issue).
John was also convener of geothermal heat pump workshop
at the Congress, and his son Thomas (age 16) as the youngest
participant, presented a paper on the heating systems of the
three Klamath Falls schools he had attended. Toni presented
the other two papers published in this issue.
The Geo-Heat Center has received a number of contracts
recently that has helped to continue the operation of the
Center. These included:
“A Review of the Geothermal Resources Underlying
Glenwood Springs, Colorado and of the Technologies
Appropriate for Use in Their Potential Development” (a
feasibility study and final report was prepared and submitted
to the City of Glenwood Springs in September, 2009).
“Oregon Institute of Technology Geo-Heat Center” – a grant
from USDOE Office of Geothermal Technologies for
funding the drilling of the deep well and for the 1.0 to 1.2
MWe binary power plant. It also provides funding to
continue the operation of the Center
“National Geothermal Database” a contract to Boise State
University of which the Center is a subcontractor. This is
five-year contract.
“The Potential Employment, Energy and Environmental
Impacts of Direct-Use Applications” a USDOE subcontract
under Bob Lawrence & Associates, Inc., Virginia. This is a
three-year contract, and includes providing technical
assistance and the publication of our Quarterly Bulletin.
“Geothermal Workforce Education Development and
Retention” to establish a geothermal training facility on the
University of Nevada, Reno campus. The Center is
subcontracted to provide the geothermal direct-use training.
This is a one-year contract with possible extensions.
The Editors
1
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA COUNTRY UPDATE 2010
John W. Lund and Tonya L. Boyd, Geo-Heat Center, Oregon Institute of Technology
Karl Gawell and Dan Jennejohn, Geothermal Energy Association, Washington, DC
ABSTRACT volcanic and mountain building activity have occurred
Geothermal energy is used for electric power generation (Figure 1). The San Andreas fault, running through
and direct utilization in the United States. The present California from the Imperial Valley to the San Francisco
installed capacity (gross) for electric power generation is area, and the subduction zone off the coast of northern
3,048 MWe1 (installed) with 2,024 MWe net (running) California, Oregon and Washington and Cascade volcanism
delivering power to the gird producing approximately are the source of much of the geothermal activity in the
16,603 GWh per year for a 0.62 gross capacity factor and United States. However, geothermal (ground-source) heat
a 0.94 net capacity factor. Geothermal electric power plants pumps extend the utilization to all 50 states. The total
are located in California, Nevada, Utah and Hawaii with identified potential for electrical production is estimated at
recent installation in Alaska, Idaho, New Mexico, Oregon, 21,000 MWe (above 150˚C) and 42 EJ (between 90˚ and
and Wyoming, with 514 MWe being added the last five 150˚C) of beneficial heat (Muffler, 1979), and a recent
years. The two largest concentrations of plants are at The estimate by the U.S. Geological Survey estimates a mean
Geysers in northern California and the Imperial Valley in probability of electrical power generation from identified
southern California. The Geysers continues to receive geothermal resources in12 western states during the next
waste water from Clear Lake and Santa Rosa, California 30 years of 8,866 MWe (USGS, 2008), which would nearly
that is injected into the field and has resulted in the recovery triple the existing electrical capacity.
of approximately 200 MWe of power generation. The
lowest temperature installed plant is at Chena Hot Springs
in Alaska, where binary cycle plants uses 74˚C geothermal
fluids to run three units for a total of 730 kWe (gross). With
the recent passing of the production tax credit by the
federal government (2.0 cents/kWh) and renewable
portfolio standards requiring investments in renewable
energy, the annual growth rate for electric power generation
over the past five years is 3.7 percent. The direct utilization
of geothermal energy includes the heating of pools and
spas, greenhouses and aquaculture facilities, space heating
and district heating, snow melting, agricultural drying,
industrial applications and ground-source heat pumps. The
installed capacity is 12,611 MWt and the annual energy
use is 56,552 TJ or 15,709 GWh. The largest application is
ground-source (geothermal) heat pumps (84% of the
energy use), and the next largest direct-use is fish farming
and swimming pool heating. Direct utilization (without Figure 1: Geothermal resource map of the United States.
heat pumps) remained static over the past five years with Source:UURI(EGI)
gains balancing losses; however, ground-source heat
pumps are being installed at a 13% annual growth rate Achieving this electric capacity potential will be
with one million units (12 kW size) in operation. The dependent upon a number of factors including competing
energy saving from all geothermal energy use is about 7.3 prices for energy and incentive programs that encourage
million tonnes of equivalent fuel oil per year (48.5 million development of renewable energy resources. Recently
barrels) and reduces air pollution by almost 6.6 million passed Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) in a number
tonnes of carbon and 18.8 million tonnes of CO2 annually of states along with the extension of the Production Tax
(compared to fuel oil). Credit (PTC) by Congress to 2015, which provides a 2.0
cent per kilowatt hour credit, have attracted developers to
INTRODUCTION start new projects. Other incentives are the recent stimulus
Geothermal resources capable of supporting electrical funds for geothermal energy, at US$400 million, approved
generation and/or direct use projects are found primarily by Congress which will shortly be allocated for various
in the Western United States, where most of the recent types of geothermal projects, along with a tax credit (30%
of the cost up to US$1,500) for geothermal heat pump
1
The total installed capacity number (3,048 MWe) closely parallels
installations under the 2005 Energy Policy Act and
estimates of recent reports such as the Geothermal Energy Associa-
tions U.S. Geothermal Power Production and Development Update extended by the American Recovery and Reinvestment
which estimates installed capacity to be 3153 MWe (See Figure 2, Act of 2009. All of these measures will greatly improve
page 6) geothermal’s ability to compete with fossil fuel generation,
2 GHC BULLETIN, MAY 2010
both for electrical energy and direct-use. The federal
government has also approved a 30% investment tax credit
as a grant for commercial operation of power plants. A
recent report by the Energy Information Administration
(EIA, 2009), confirms the continued growth of renewables
as fossil fuel use plummet and nuclear power stalls.
The United States continues to lead the world in installed
geothermal power capacity as well as in electrical
generations, and along with geothermal heat pumps, is one
of the leaders in direct-use applications. Geothermal
energy remains, however, a small contributor to the electric
power capacity and generation in the United States. In
2009, geothermal plants constituted about 0.27 percent of
the total operable power capacity, and those plants
contributed an estimated 0.48 percent of the total
generation.
Since the last U.S. Country Update was completed in
2005 gross geothermal electrical production capacity has
increased in the United States by approximately 514 MWe
to a total an installed capacity of 3,047.66 MWe and a net
running capacity of 2,023.51 MWe due to derating of
plants in The Geysers, for a gross capacity factor of 0.62
and a net of 0.94. The low gross value is due to plants,
especially in The Geysers, operating in a load following
mode rather than in a base load mode and due to a reduction
in pressure and output of the steam field. Total generation
in 2007 was 14,974 GWh and the geothermal electric
power generation accounted for 4% of the total renewable
based electricity consumption in the United States. On a
state level, geothermal electric generation is a major player
in California and Nevada. It is a minor source of power in
the other states. The generation in California provides
about 4.5% of the state’s energy consumption. It is also
significant on the Big Island of Hawaii where it now
provides approximately 20% of the electricity requirements.
Recent projects have brought several new states into the
electricity “club”, including, Alaska, Idaho, New Mexico,
Oregon and Wyoming. Alaska is most noted, as a 225 kW
binary cycle generator installed in 2006 uses the lowest
temperature geothermal fluid in the world to produce
electricity at 74˚C, however, it should be noted that it also
has 4˚C cooling water from a stream allowing for an
acceptable “∆T” (Lund, 2006). The growth in installed
capacity during the 1980s was about 11 percent, however,
from 1990-1998 it averaged only 0.14 percent due to a
leveling off of new plant construction, and from 2000 to
2004 only approximately 70 MWe of new capacity was
added. Since, 2005, the growth has been almost 20
percent.
The period 1990-2004 also saw a reduction at The
Geysers geothermal field in northern California from
1,875 to around 1,529 MWe installed capacity and 945
MWe running capacity. Today, the installed capacity is
1,584 MWe and 844 MWe running capacity. This was due
to the closing of four units and a reduction in the steam
availability. Some capacity has been restored due to the
GHC BULLETIN, MAY 2010
construction of two effluent pipelines, one from Clear
Lake and the other from Santa Rosa, that brings about
72,000 tonnes of water per day (19 million gallons/day) to
The Geysers for injection. This has restored an estimated
200 MWe of capacity to the field.
Direct-use, other than geothermal heat pumps, has
remained static with increases being balanced by closing
of some facilities. The main increases has been in
expanding the Boise City District Heating System from 48
to 58 buildings; adding additional wells for space heating
in Klamath Falls; expanding the snow melting system on
the Oregon Institute of Technology campus from 316 m2
to 3,753 m2, increasing the amount of aquaculture product
being produced, mainly Tilapia; starting two biodiesel
plants; adding an absorption chiller for keeping the Ice
Museum at Chena Hot Springs in Alaska intact during the
summer months, and adding additional space heating to
the Peppermill Casino in Reno. Losses have been the
closing of the district heating systems at the California
Correctional Center (now using natural gas) and the New
Mexico University heating system (due to difficulty with
maintenance), and the closing of the Empire onion
dehydration plant (due to competition with imported garlic
from China) near Gerlach, Nevada.
Geothermal heat pumps have seen the largest growth,
increasing from and estimated 600,000 to 1,000,000
equivalent 12 kWt installed units. The estimated installation
rate is from 100,000 to 120,000 units per year, or about a
12 to 13 percent annual growth, with most of the growth
taking place in the mid-western and eastern states. A few
states have tax rebate programs for geothermal heat pumps,
and as mentioned above, Congress has established a tax
credit of 30% of costs up to $1,500 for installations.
Otherwise, there is little support for implementing direct-
use projects.
Enhanced (Engineered) Geothermal Systems (EGS) is
the current R&D interest of the U.S. Department of Energy,
Office of Geothermal Technologies as part of a revived
national geothermal program. EGS includes the earlier hot
dry rock technology, but now includes any other method in
which to improve geothermal reservoir performance. EGS
is associated with both magmatic and high heat producing
crustal sources of geothermal energy commonly at depths
of about 4 to 5 km to reach 200˚C, but also having
applications with normal gradient resources. However,
EGC projects are currently at an early experimental
demonstration stage. Several technological challenges
need to be met for widespread efficient use of EGS. The
key technical and economic changes for EGS over the next
two decades will be to achieve economic stimulation of
multiple reservoirs with sufficient volumes to sustain long
term production, with low flow impedance, limited short-
circuiting fractures and manageable water loss (Tester et
al., 2006). Over the next 10 to 30 years, lessons learned
while deploying early EGS power plants can reasonably be
expected to facilitate wider, efficient deployment of EGS
3
technologies for both power production and direct use, or fluctuations or supply disruptions.” Unfortunately, a current
as in Europe
Richter scale),in that
a combined heatthreatened
has slowed, and powerorinstallation.
shut down project
inferred near The Geysers
generation hasearthquakes
of micro been placedaffecting
on hold nearby
due to
One of the
projects.
Richter public
scale), relations
that problems
has slowed, associated
threatened with down
or shut EGS the inferred
residences.
inferred generation
generation of micro
of micro earthquakes
earthquakes affectingaffecting
nearby
projects,
projects. is the generation of micro earthquakes (usually nearby residences.
residences.
In a Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)-led
<3.5 on the Richter scale), that has slowed, threatened or PRODUCTION OF ELECTRICITY
assessment
shut down
(Tester et Institute
In a Massachusetts
projects.
al., 2006), the U.S. geothermal
of Technology (MIT)-led PRODUCTION
PRODUCTION OF
OF ELECTRICITY
ELECTRICITY
resource was estimated to be 14 million EJ with a
assessment (Tester et al., 2006), the U.S. geothermal Table 1 presents operable electric production
production capacity
Table 1 presents operable electric capacity
In a Massachusetts
technically
resource wasextractable
estimatedInstitute
to beofof14
capacity Technology
about 1,200
million (MIT)-led
EJ GWe
with toa and power generation in the United States from all sources
andTable
power1generation
presents operable electric
in the United production
States from allcapacity
sources
assessment (Tester et al., 2006), the U.S. geothermal
depths of
technically 10 km. The
extractable report estimated
capacity of that
about with
1,200 reasonable
GWe to for
and2005-2008. All data
power generation ininthe
this table came
United Statesfrom
fromthe
allUSDOE
sources
investment in R&D, EGS could provide 100 GWe or more for 2005-2008. All data in this table came from the USDOE
resource was estimated to be 14 million EJ with a
depths of 10 km. The report estimated that with reasonable Energy Information
for 2005-2008. Administration
All data in this table(EIA,
came2009).
from the USDOE
of cost-competitive
investment in R&D,generating
EGS capacity
could provide in100
the1,200
next 50
GWe or years.
more Energy Information Administration (EIA, 2009).
technically extractable capacity of about GWe to Energy Information
Geothermal power Administration
production is(EIA, 2009). in Table 2
summarized
It
of further stated:
cost-competitive “…EGS provides
generating a
capacitysecure
in source
the next of
50 power
years.
depths of 10 km. The report estimated that with reasonable
for the long term“…EGS
that would help protect
a secureAmerican
source ofagainst byGeothermal
plant
Geothermal power
power production
and location. production is
is summarized
The total installed capacity
summarized inin
in Table
2009
Table 22
It further
investment
economic
stated:
in R&D,
instabilitiesEGSprovides
could from
provide
fuel100 GWe orpower
more by
wasplant
3,048and location.
MWe The
producing total installed
16,603 GWh capacity
from
by plant and location. The total installed capacity in 2009a in 2009
running
for the long term that resulting
would help protect price
Americanfluctuations
against
of
or cost-competitive
supply instabilities
disruptions.”generating capacity
Unfortunately, in the
a current next 50
project was
was 3,048
3,048of MWe
capacity 2,024 producing
MWe 16,603
MWe. A 16,603
producing GWh
total ofGWh from aahas
514 from
MWe running
been
running
economic resulting from fuel price fluctuations
years.
near It further
The Geysers
or supply stated: “…EGS
has been
disruptions.” provides
placed on ahold
Unfortunately, a secure source
due project
current to the capacity
installed
capacity of of 2,024
2,024
since MWe.
the MWe.
WGC2005A
A total of 514
report,
total of 514 MWe
amounting
MWe has has been
to abeen
20
of power
near TheforGeysers
the long has
termbeen
that would
placedhelp
on protect
hold due American
to the installed
percent since the
installedincrease
since the WGC2005
or 3.7 report,
percent annual
WGC2005 report, amountingtoto aa 20
increase.
amounting 20
against
Table 1.economic
Present and instabilities resulting offrom
Planned Production fuel price
Electricity percent increaseoror3.7
percent increase 3.7percent
percentannual
annual increase.
increase.
Table 1. Present and Planned Production of Electricity
Geothermal Fossil Fuel Hydro Nuclear Other Renewables Total
Geothermal Fossil Fuel Hydro Nuclear Other Renewables Total
Capacity Gross Capacity Gross Capacity Gross Capacity Gross Capacity Gross Capacity Gross
MWe
Capacity Prod
Gross MWe
Capacity Prod
Gross MWe
Capacity Prod
Gross MWe
Capacity Prod
Gross MWe
Capacity Prod
Gross MWe
Capacity Prod
Gross
MWe GWh/yr
Prod MWe GWh/yr
Prod MWe GWh/yr
Prod MWe GWh/yr
Prod MWe GWh/yr
Prod MWe GWh/yr
Prod
GWh/yr GWh/yr GWh/yr GWh/yr GWh/yr GWh/yr
In Operation in 3,048 16,6 850,486 2,928 97,999 248.1 105,764 806.2 33,542 127.7 1,090,839 4,126.6
December
In 2009
Operation in 3,048 16,6 850,486 2,928 97,999 248.1 105,764 806.2 33,542 127.7 1,090,839 4,126.6
December 2009
Under Construction in 0
December
Under 2009
Construction in 0
December 2009
Funds committed, but 4,239-
not yetcommitted,
Funds under but 6,643
4,239-
construction
not yet underin 6,643
December 2009 132
construction in projects
December 2009 132
Total projected use by projects
7,482-
2015 projected use by
Total 9,676
7,482-
Ref: www.eia.doe.gov
2015 9,676
Ref: www.eia.doe.gov
Ref: www.eia.doe.gov

Table 2. Utilization of Geothermal Energy for Electric Power Generation as of 31 December 2009
Table 2. Utilization of Geothermal Energy for Electric Power Generation as of 31 December 2009
Locality Total Installed Capacity Total Running Capacity Annual Energy Total under
Locality Total Installed Capacity Total MWe*Capacity
Running Produced
Annual 2009
Energy Construction or Planned
Total under
MWe*
MWe* Produced
GWh/yr 2009 Construction
MWe or Planned
MWe*
ALASKA 0.73 1,626.80 GWh/yr
3.94 MWe
50 – 95
ALASKA 0.73 1,626.80 3.94 50 – 95
CALIFORNIA 2,496.80 1,471.75 13,604.60 1,555 – 1,939
CALIFORNIA 2,496.80 1,471.75 13,604.60 1,555 – 1,939
HAWAII 35 30.00 236.52 8
HAWAII 35 30.00 236.52 8
IDAHO 15.80 11.50 90.67 238 – 326
IDAHO 15.80 11.50 90.67 238 – 326
NEVADA 447.56 311.26 2,278.97 1,776 – 3,323
NEVADA 447.56 311.26 2,278.97 1,776 – 3,323
NEW MEXICO 0.24 0.15 0.54 20
NEW MEXICO 0.24 0.15 0.54 20
OREGON 0.28 0.15 0.11 317 – 368
OREGON 0.28 0.15 0.11 317 – 368
UTAH 51 43.00 387.54 272 – 332
UTAH 51 43.00 387.54 272 – 332
WYOMING 0.25 0.15 0.48 0
WYOMING 0.25 0.15 0.48 0
Total 3,047.66 2,023.51 25,116 4,249 – 6,443
*Total
Installed capacity is maximum gross output of the plant; running
3,047.66 capacity is the actual gross being
2,023.51 25,116produced. 4,249 – 6,443
* Installed capacity is maximum gross output of the plant; running capacity is the actual gross being produced.
4 GHC BULLETIN, MAY 2010

4 GHC BULLETIN, MAY 2010

Installed & Future Capacity Update
Alaska
Alaska’s first geothermal power plant came online in 2006
in Chena Hot Springs. It is a small organic rankine cycle
(ORC) unit (225 kWe gross) and produces electricity from
the area’s low temperature (74˚C) geothermal resource. Since
coming online the power plant has added another 225 kWe
unit as well as a 280 kWe unit, bringing total production
capacity to 730 kWe (gross).
Alaska currently has 70 to 115 MWe of planned geothermal
production coming down the pipeline. Of projects with
potential to come online, the Southwest Alaska Regional
Geothermal Energy Project, 25 MWe, is in an exploratory
drilling and resource confirmation phase. Other notable
projects are Tongass (20 MWe), Unalaska (10–50 MWe),
Pilgrim Hot Springs (10 MWe), and Chena Hot Springs II
(5-10 MWe).
Arizona
Geothermal power production does not currently occur in
Arizona. However, the Arizona Public Service is currently
planning a 2 – 20 MWe development known as the Clifton
geothermal project. Also, although the scope of electricity
production is not known, Northern Arizona University is
planning a geothermal plant for which they have federal
funding for drilling.
California
Current geothermal electricity production capacity in
California is approximately 2,497 MWe. In 2007, 4.5% of
California’s electricity generation came from geothermal
power plants, amounting to a net total of 13,605 GWh. The
50 MWe North Brawley facility is the states most recent
geothermal power plant addition. Generally, geothermal
power generation remains concentrated in California with
the majority of production occurring at The Geysers in the
north and Imperial Valley in the south.
California has approximately 1,841.8 – 2,435.8 MWe of
planned geothermal resource production in various stages of
development. Production drilling and facility construction
are underway at Western GeoPower Corp.’s Unit 1 (35 MWe)
at The Geysers as well as CHAR, LLC’s Hudson Ranch I
(49.9 MWe). Final permitting and PPA’s are being secured
for Ormat Technologies East Brawley project (30 MWe),
Calpine Corporations Buckeye-North Geysers (30 MWe)
and Wildhorse-North Geysers (30 MWe) projects, and
CalEnergy’s Black Rock 1, 2, and 3 units (53 MWe each)
(California Energy Commission, 2009).
Colorado
Although there are no geothermal power plants currently
producing electricity in Colorado, Mount Princeton
Geothermal is currently conducting exploratory drilling and
resource confirmation operations at its Mount Princeton Hot
Springs project site. Total capacity of the project is expected
to be 10 MWe once completed.
GHC BULLETIN, MAY 2010
Florida
No geothermal power production is occurring in Florida at
this time. However, Quantum Resources Management, and
Pratt and Whitney (UTC Power) are in the early stages of
developing a 200 kWe co-production geothermal power
project. The project has the potential to produce 1 MWe of
power.
Hawaii
There is only one geothermal power plant in all of Hawaii.
Located on the big island, the Puna Geothermal Venture
facility has a 35 MWe nameplate capacity and delivers 25–
35 MWe of energy on a continuous basis and supplies 20%
of the electricity needs of the big island. Ormat is in the
process of securing a PPA and final permitting for an 8 MWe
expansion of its Puna project.
Idaho
Idaho’s first geothermal power plant, Raft River, came
online in January 2008. Raft River is a binary plant that uses
a 150˚C resource and has a nameplate production capacity of
15.8 MWe. Current net production output is between 10.5
and 11.5 MWe. US Geothermal is securing a PPA and final
permitting for a 13 – 26 MWe expansion of the Raft River
plant.
Another geothermal company, Idatherm, is developing a
number of projects throughout Idaho. Idatherm has begun
exploratory drilling and resource confirmation operations
for its Willow Springs project (100 MWe). It is also planning
to develop its China Cap (100 MWe), Preston Area Project
(50 MWe), and Sulfur Springs (25 – 50 MWe) resources, but
is still in the process of conducting initial exploratory drilling
and securing rights to resource. Total potential geothermal
production for Idaho is 238 to 326 MWe (Idaho Office of
Energy Resources, 2009).
Nevada
In 2008 Nevada had 18 geothermal power plants with a
total nameplate capacity of 333 MW and with a total gross
output of 10,791 MWh. In 2009 Nevada increased its installed
geothermal capacity with the addition of the Stillwater
(ENEL, 47.3 MWe), Salt Wells (ENEL, 18.6 MWe), and the
Blue Mountain “Faulkner 1” (Nevada Geothermal Power,
49.5 MWe) power plants. Currently Nevada has more
developing projects than any other state and it is expected
that gross capacity will increase significantly in the future.
The following companies have begun production drilling
and facility construction at various project sites: Vulcan
Power (Salt Wells, 175 – 245 MWe), Presco Energy (Rye
Patch, 13 MWe), and US Geothermal (San Emidio “Repower”
Project, 8.4 MWe), Ormat (Jersey Valley, 18 – 30 MWe).
Many other companies are in the process of securing PPA’s
and final permitting for a number of projects and other
companies are in the early exploratory stages of developing
numerous geothermal resources. Nevada currently has 1,876
to 3,473 MWe of geothermal capacity in development.
(Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology, 2009).
5
 New
New Mexico
Mexico 2009, the2009,
January unit had produced
the unit more than
had produced more485thanMWh
485 of
MWhpower
of
power from
from 413,000 413,000 tonnes of hot water annually. The
In In
New July
Mexico2008,
July 2008,a 0.24
a 0.24MWe
MWepilot
pilotinstallation
installationproject
projectcame
came January 2009,tonnes
demonstration the of had
unit
project
hot water annually.
willproduced
operate more The
than
until 2009.
demonstration
485 MWh
September of
2009.
online
online atat Burgetts
Burgetts Greenhouses
Greenhouses near near Animas.
Animas. The The pilot
pilot project
power will operate until September During its
Duringfrom 413,000 there
its operation tonneswillofbehot
an water annually.
evaluation of howThe
to
In July 2008,
installation
installation isis parta 0.24
part of aaMWe
of larger
larger pilot installation
project
project known project
known as came
as Lightning
Lightning operation thereproject
demonstration will be anoperate
will evaluationuntilofSeptember
how to reduce
reduce fluctuations of power and to generate more than2009.
250
online
Dock
Dock thatatthatBurgetts
aims totoGreenhouses
aims bring
bring aa 20 20 MWe near capacity
MWe Animas.
capacity geothermalThe pilot
geothermal fluctuations
During its of power there
operation and towill
generate
be an more than 250
evaluation kWe.to
of how
installation is part of a larger project known as Lightning kWe.
power
powerplantplantonline online in in 2009.
2009. reduce fluctuations of power and to generate more than 250
Dock that aims to bring a 20 MWe capacity geothermal kWe.3500 3 15 3
Oregon
power
Oregon plant online in 2009. 3000

While there
thereis isonlyonlyone onesmall
smallunitunitproducing
producinggeothermal
3500 2 6 05 .3
3 15 3

Oregon While geothermal 2500

(MW) (MW)
electricity,
electricity, significant developments are forthcoming.
significant developments are forthcoming. The The
3000
2000 2 6 05 .3

Oregon
WhileInstitute
there isofonly ofTechnology
one small(OIT) hashas installed a 280kW

Capacity
Oregon Institute Technology unit
(OIT)producing geothermal
installed a 280
2500
1500
(gross)
electricity,
kW (gross) binary units units
significant
binary and is currently
developments
and producing
are
is currently forthcoming.
producing power for
The
power 2000

use
for use on campus – the first campus in the world its
on campus – the first campus in the world to generate

Capacity
1000
Oregon Institute of Technology (OIT) has installed a 280 to 1500 4 48 .4
own
kW powerits
(gross)
generate from
binaryown a resource
units
powerandfromdirectly under producing
is currently
a resource campus.directly OIT
powerhas
under
500
1000 47 35 15 .8 0 .73 0.2 8 0 .25 0.2 4
also
for completed
use
campus. on OIT campus production
has also– the drilling of
first campus
completed a 1,600-m
production deep
in thedrillingworldwell
oftoa 0
4 48 .4

and will install a 1.0 to 1.2 MWe abinary

a 1.0power unit byunder
2012
500
generate
1,600-m its
deep own well power
and from
will install resource to 1.2 directly
MWe binary

ka
ah
it y

i
ia

o
o

g
47 35

ai
15 .8 0 .73 0.2 8 0 .25 0.2 4

go
ad

ah

ic
rn

in
using
powertheunit 93ºC resource at 158theL/s. Davenport Power, U.S.

las
aw
Ut
ac

ex
campus. OIT byhas alsousing
completed production
resourcedrilling at 158of a

m
0
2012 93ºC L/s.

ev

Id

e
ifo

A
ap

Or

yo

M
N
al
lC

ew ingew
on W
Renewables Group, andwillRiverstone
install a are securing aRiverstone
PPA and

C
1,600-m
Davenport deepPower, well and U.S. Renewables 1.0 to 1.2and
Group, MWe binary

ta

ka
ah
it y

i
ia

o
o

m N
ai
ad

ah

ic
To

rn

las
aw

eg
Ut
ac
final permitting for their 120
theMW 93ºCNewberry Geothermal

ex
power unit bya 2012
are securing PPA usingfinal
and permitting resourcefor their at 158120 MW L/s.

ev

Id
ifo

A
ap

Or

yo

M
N
al
lC

W
Figure 2. November 2009 Geothermal Power Capacity

C
project
Davenport
Newberry as isPower,
Nevada
Geothermal Geothermal
U.S. project Power
Renewables is for
as Group, Nevada itsand40Geothermal
– 60 MWe
Riverstone

ta

N
To
Crump
Power
are securing Geyser
for its a PPA project.
40 –and60 U.S.
MWeGeothermal,
final Crump Geyser
permitting forInc. successfully
project.
their 120 MW U.S. Figure Online (MW).2009
2. November Source: GEA
Geothermal Power Capacity
Geothermal, Inc. successfully completed
completed the drilling of its second full sized production
Newberry Geothermal project as is Nevada the drilling
Geothermalof its Figure
Online (MW). Source: GEA Geothermal Power Capacity
2. November 2009
well at Neil Hot Springs (20 – 26 MWe) in October 2009.–
second
Power for fullits sized
40 –production
60 MWe well
Crump at Neil
Geyser Hot Springs
project. (20
U.S. Online (MW). Source: GEA
26 MWe)
Geothermal,
Overall thereinInc.October 2009.
aresuccessfully
317.2 Overall
to 368.2 ofthere
completed are drilling
the
potential 317.2 to of
geothermal368.2
its Table
Table 3.
3. Developing
Developingprojects
projectsby
bystate.
state.
of potential
second full sized geothermal
production power
well atcapacity
Neil Hot inSprings
planning (20 –in
power capacity in planning in Oregon. TOTAL (with
26Oregon.
MWe) in October 2009. Overall there are 317.2 to 368.2 Table 3. Developing projects by state.
Phase I to Phase IV Unconfirmed)
Utah
of potential geothermal power capacity in planning in State
(MWe)
Utah
Oregon.
Currently, Utah has three power plants online. Unit 1 of
TOTAL
(MWe) (with
Phase I to Phase IV Unconfirmed)
State
the Blundell
Currently, PlantUtah hashas a gross capacity
three power of 26online.
plants MWe and UnitUnit1 of Alaska (MWe)
5/50 – 95 6/70 – 115
Utah
2the
hasBlundell
a capacity Plant of has
11 MWe.
a grossUtah’s
capacitythird of power
26 MWe plantandcame
Unit (MWe)
online
has aincapacity
2 Currently, December
Utahofhas 112008
MWe.and
three was
Utah’s
power the online.
third
plants first commercial
power plant
Unit came
1 of Arizona
Alaska
1/2 – 20
5/50 – 95
1/2 – 20
6/70 – 115
power
online
the plant
Blundell in thehas
in December
Plant state in more
a2008
gross and than
was20
capacity years.
the
of 26firstMWe The Thermo
commercial
and Unit California 32/1,554.9 – 1,938.9 37/1,841.8 – 2,435.8
2Hot
has Springs
power plant in
a capacity powerthe
of 11 plant,
state
MWe. a Utah’s
in more Raser Techologies
thanthird
20 years.
power The operation,
plant Thermo
came Arizona 1/2 – 20 1/2 – 20
came
online online
Hot Springs
in December inpower
2009 2008and has
plant, a gross
a Raser
and capacity
was Techologies
the of operation,
first commercial14 MWe Colorado 1/10 1/10
cameisplant
online California 32/1,554.9 – 1,938.9 37/1,841.8 – 2,435.8
and
power in in
expected the2009 to and
state in has athan
generate
more gross
with 20 capacity
a net The
years. of 14
capacity MWe
Thermo of Florida 1/0.2 – 1 1/0.2 – 1
and is
approximately
Hot expected
Springs power 10 MWe. to generate with a
plant, a Raser Techologies operation, net capacity of Colorado 1/10 1/10
approximately 10 MWe.
came online in 2009 and has a gross capacity of 14 MWe Hawaii 2/8 2/8
andShoshone
is expected
Shoshone
Energytois currently
Energy is generate working
currentlywith working a tonet secure a PPA of
capacity
to secure a PPA
as Florida 1/0.2 – 1 1/0.2 – 1
well as
approximately other final
10 MWe. permitting for its 100 MW Shoshone Idaho 5/238 – 326 5/238 – 326
as well as other final permitting for its 100 MW Shoshone Hawaii 2/8 2/8
Renaissance Geothermal Project. ENEL North America Louisiana 0 1/.05
Renaissance Geothermal Project. working
ENEL North America has
has
begunbegun
Shoshone exploratory
exploratory drillingand
Energy is currently
drilling and resource
resource confirmation
to secure a PPA
confirmation Idaho 5/238 – 326 5/238 – 326
operations
as
operations atat its
well as other final
its Cove
Cove Fort Fort (69
permitting
(69 MWe)
MWe) project
for its 100
project site. site. Other
MW Shoshone
Other
Mississippi 0 1/.05
Louisiana 0 1/.05
companies
companies have
Renaissance
have potential
Geothermal
potential geothermal
geothermal sites
Project. ENEL
sites that
North
that areare in
America
in the
has
the Nevada 60/1,776.4 – 3,323.4 64/1,876.4 – 3,473.4
early
earlystages
begun
stagesofofplanning/development
exploratory
planning/development and
drilling and
and overall
resource
overall Utah Utah has
confirmation
has Mississippi 0 1/.05
operations
272.4 at its Cove of Fort (69 MWe) project site. Other
272.4 toto 332.4 332.4MWe MWe ofplanned planned geothermal
geothermal capacity capacity for
New Mexico 1/20 1/20
for Nevada 60/1,776.4 – 3,323.4 64/1,876.4 – 3,473.4
companies
future have potential geothermal sites that are in the
futureproduction.
production. Oregon 13/317.2 – 368.2 13/317.2 – 368.2
early stages of planning/development and overall Utah has
New Mexico 1/20 1/20
Washington
272.4 to 332.4 MWe of planned geothermal capacity for
Washington
Utah 10/272.4 – 332.4 10/272.4 – 332.4
future production.
Although Washington is not currently producing power Oregon 13/317.2 – 368.2 13/317.2 – 368.2
Washington 1/Unspecified 1/Unspecified
fromAlthough
any of Washington is not
its geothermal currentlyVulcan
resources producing power
Power is Utah 10/272.4 – 332.4 10/272.4 – 332.4
Washington
from anyto ofdevelop
planning its geothermal resources
the Mt. Baker Vulcan resource.
geothermal Power is 132 Projects 144 Projects
planning to develop the Mt. Baker geothermal resource. Total
AltaRock Energy is pursuing an currently
EGS project in Snohomish Washington 1/Unspecified
4,249.1 – 6,442.9 1/Unspecified
4,699.9 – 7,109.9
Although
AltaRock Washington
Energy is not
is pursuing an EGS projectproducing power
in Snohomish
County.
from any of its geothermal resources Vulcan Power is Phase I: Indentify 132 site, Projects
secured rights to 144 resource,
Projectsinitial,
County. Total drilling.
planning to develop the Mt. Baker geothermal resource. exploration Phase II: Exploratory drilling and
Wyoming
AltaRock Energy is pursuing an EGS project in Snohomish
4,249.1
confirmation underway; PPA– 6,442.9
not secured. 4,699.9
Phase –III:7,109.9
Securing
Wyoming
In August 2008, a 250 kWe Ormat organic Rankine cycle
County. Phase I: Indentify site, secured rights to resource,
PPA and final permits. Phase IV: Production drilling initial,
underway;
facility underdrilling.
exploration construction. Unconfirmed:
Phase II: Proposed drilling
Exploratory projects that
and
(ORC)In power
Augustunit was installed
2008, a 250 kWe at Rocky
OrmatMountain
organic Oil Test
Rankine
may or may not have secured
confirmation underway; PPA thenotrights to thePhase
secured. resource,
III: but some
Securing
Site and
cycle
Wyoming a month
(ORC) powerlater it
unit began
was operating.
installed at As
Rockyof January
Mountain exploration
PPA haspermits.
and final been donePhase
on theIV:
site.Production
Source: GEA
drilling underway;
Oil Test Site and a month later it began operating. As of facility under construction. Unconfirmed: Proposed projects that
6 In August 2008, a 250 kWe Ormat organic Rankine may or may not have secured the GHC BULLETIN,
rights to the resource,MAY but 2010
some
cycle (ORC) power unit was installed at Rocky Mountain exploration has been done on the site. Source: GEA
Oil
6 Test Site and a month later it began operating. As of GHC BULLETIN, MAY 2010
 heat pumps,
swimming pooltheheating,
distribution
15% for of individual
annual energy
space use is as
heating,
follows: 34% for fish farming, 28% for bathing and
320 0

9% for greenhouse heating, 8% for district heating, 3% for

310 0
Install ed Capacity (MW)
swimming pool
agricultural heating,
drying, 2% for15% for individual
industrial process space heating,
heating, 1%
300 0
320 0
9%
for for greenhouse
cooling
swimming and
pool <1% heating,
for 15%
heating, snow 8% for district
melting.
for heating,
Geothermal
individual 3%
heat
space heating,for
290 0 agricultural
pumps
9% foraccountsdrying,
for 84%
greenhouse 2% of
heating,fortheindustrial
8% annual process
use,
for district heating,
and has
heating, almost1%
3% for
for cooling and <1% forforsnowfivemelting. Geothermal heat
310 0
double (1.81 times)
agricultural drying, in2%the past yearsprocess
industrial with a 13% annual
heating, 1%
Install ed Capacit y (MW)

pumps accounts
and for
<1%84% for of the annual
melting.use, and has almost
280 0
300 0 growth rate.
for cooling snow Geothermal heat
270290
0 0 double
pumps (1.81 times)
accounts forin84%the ofpast
thefive yearsuse,
annual with
Table 4. Utilization of Geothermal Energy for Direct Heat
a 13%
and annual
has almost
260280
0 0 growth rate.
double (1.81 times) in the past five years with a 13% annual
as of 31 December 2009 (other than Heat Pumps)
Mar -0 6 Nov-0 6 M a y- 07 Jan-0 8 A ug-0 8 Mar - 09 Oc t-09 growth rate.
Table 4.4.Utilization ofofGeothermal Energy for
forDirect Heat
270 0
Figure 3. Total Installed Capacity 2006 – 2009. Source: Table
Locality Utilization
Type *Geothermal Energy
Capacity Annual Direct Heat
Utilization
Figure 260
3. 0 Total Installed Capacity 2006 – 2009. Source: as of 31 December 2009 (other than Heat Pumps)
as of 31 December 2009 (MWt)
(other than Heat Pumps)
GEA
GEA Mar -0 6 Nov-0 6 M a y- 07 Jan-0 8 A ug-0 8 Mar - 09 Oc t-09 Energy Capacity
Locality Type * Capacity (TJ/yr) Factor
Annual Utilization
Figure
1 40
3. Total Installed Capacity 2006 – 2009. Source:
132
(MWt)
1 20 GEA
121
Alaska H,G,B,C 7.8 156.2
Energy 0.63
Capacity
(TJ/yr) Factor
Number of Projects

1 00
1 40 97
132
83 Arkansas H 0.4 7.3 0.66
121
80
1 20 69 Alaska H,G,B,C 7.8 156.2 0.63
Arizona H,F,B 23.5 317.4 0.43
Number of Projects

60
1 00 51 97
83 Arkansas H 0.4 7.3 0.66
40 80 34
69 California D,H,G,F,B 105.1 2138.6 0.66
20 60 Arizona H,F,B 23.5 317.4 0.43
51
Colorado D,H,G,F,B 29.5 627.6 0.67
0 40 34
Mar- 06 No v- 06 M ay-07 Jan-08 Aug -08 Mar-09 Oct-09
California D,H,G,F,B 105.1 2138.6 0.66
20 Georgia H,B 0.6 11.0 0.57
Colorado D,H,G,F,B 29.5 627.6 0.67
Figure
Figure 4. TotalTotal
0 4. confirmed development
confirmed project for
development project for
electricity power 2006-2009.
v- 06 M ay-07 Source:
Jan-08 GEA Idaho D,H,G,F,B 89.3 1429.1 0.51
electricity
Mar-
power
06 No
2006-2009. Source: GEA
Aug -08 Mar-09 Oct-09
Georgia H,B 0.6 11.0 0.57

GEOTHERMAL DIRECT UTILIZATION

Figure 4. Total DIRECT
confirmed UTILIZATION
development project for Montana H,G,F,B 15.8 297.8 0.60
GEOTHERMAL Idaho D,H,G,F,B 89.3 1429.1 0.51
electricity power 2006-2009. Source: GEA
Background New Mexico D,H,G,F,B 38.7 335.7 0.28
Background
Geothermal energy isDIRECT
estimated UTILIZATION
to currently supply for
Montana H,G,F,B 15.8 297.8 0.60
GEOTHERMAL
direct heat uses and
Geothermal geothermal
energy (ground-source)
is estimated to currently heat supplypumps
for
Nevada D,H,F,A,B
New Mexico D,H,G,F,B
74.8
38.7
1153.6
335.7
0.49
0.28
56,552
direct TJ/yr
heat
Background uses(15,709
and GWh/yr)
geothermal of heat energy
(ground-source) in the
heat United
pumps
New York H,B 0.9 12.1 0.44
States.
56,552TheTJ/yrcorresponding
(15,709 GWh/yr) installed capacity
of heat energyisin 12,611 MWt.
the United Nevada D,H,F,A,B 74.8 1153.6 0.49
Of these
States. values,
Geothermal
The direct-use
corresponding is installed
9,152 TJ/yr
energy is estimated (2,542issupply
to capacity
currently GWh/yr)
12,611for
Oregon D,H,G,F,I,A,S,B 78.2 812.4 0.33
anddirect
MWt. heat
611 MWt, uses
Of these and geothermal
andvalues,
geothermal (ground-source)
heat pumps
direct-use is 9,152the TJ/yr heat
remainder. pumps
(2,542It New York H,B 0.9 12.1 0.44
56,552 TJ/yr (15,709 GWh/yr) of heat energy heat in the United
should
GWh/yr) be and
noted 611that
MWt,values
and for the capacity
geothermal and
pumps energy
the
South Dakota D,H,F,B 66.3 577.6 0.28
States. The corresponding installed capacity is 12,611
supplied by geothermal heat pumps are only approximate
remainder. It should be noted that values for the capacity Oregon D,H,G,F,I,A,S,B 78.2 812.4 0.33
MWt. Of supplied
these values, direct-use heatis 9,152 TJ/yrare (2,542
(and
and probably
energy
GWh/yr) and conservative)
611 MWt, sincegeothermal
by geothermal
and it is difficult
pumpsto determine
heat pumps
only
the Texas H,B 4.0 27.4 0.22
approximate
theremainder.
exact number(and probably
of units conservative)
installed, and since
sincefor it
most is difficult
are sized South Dakota D,H,F,B 66.3 577.6 0.28
to determine It should be noted that values the capacity
forand coolingthe
the energy exact
load, number
they of unitsoversized
aregeothermal
generally installed,inand since
terms of Utah H,G,F,B 45.8 449.9 0.31
most are sizedsupplied
for thebycooling load, heat
theypumps are only
are generally
capacity for the heating load.
approximate (and probably conservative) since it is difficult
Texas H,B 4.0 27.4 0.22
oversized in terms of capacity for the heating load. Virginia H 0.3 3.1 0.30
to determine
Most the exact
of the direct number of units
use applications installed, and
have remained since
constant Utah H,G,F,B 45.8 449.9 0.31
Mostareofsized
most the direct
for theuse applications
cooling load, they have
areremained
generally
or decreased
constant slights over
orindecreased the over
slights past five past
years;fivehowever Washington B 1.9 45.5 0.76
oversized terms of capacity for the the
heating load. years;
geothermal heat pumps have increased
however geothermal heat pumps have increased significantly. A total Virginia H 0.3 3.1 0.30
of 20 Most
new projects
significantly. of Athe have
total of come
direct20 use
new onapplications
line in the
projects havepast
have
come fiveonyears.
remained
line West Virginia B 0.1 3.7 0.80
Agricultural
constant or drying
decreasedhas decreased
slights over the
the
in the past five years. Agricultural drying has decreasedmost
past due
five toyears;
the
the
Washington B 1.9 45.5 0.76
closing
however of the onion/garlic
geothermal dehydration
heat pumps plant
have
most due to the closing of the onion/garlic dehydration plant at Empire,
increased Wyoming H,G,F,S,B 28.3 701.0 0.79
West Virginia B 0.1 3.7 0.80
Nevada.
Empire,Two
atsignificantly. district
Nevada. A totalheating
Two projects
of district
20 new have
projects
heating alsocome
have
projects shut
havedown;
onalso
line
thein the past
Litchfield five years.
CorrectionalAgricultural
Facility drying
in has decreased
California
shut down; the Litchfield Correctional Facility in California and the
the TOTAL 611.5 9,151.8 0.47
most due to the closing of the onion/garlic dehydration plant Wyoming H,G,F,S,B 28.3 701.0 0.79
New
and theMexico
New MexicoState University system.
State University There There
system. have have
been I – Industrial Process Heat; A – Agricultural Drying; F – Fish
at Empire,
slight Nevada. Twosnow district heating projects and havefishalso
slight
been increase in snowinmelting,
increase cooling cooling
melting, and fish farming, Farming;
TOTAL S – Snow Melting; H – Individual
611.5 Space Heating;0.47
9,151.8 D–
shut down; the Litchfield Correctional Facility in California
with a major
farming, with increase in industrial
a major increase processprocess
in industrial
and the New Mexico State University system. There have
heatingheating
due to District Heating; B – Bathing and Swimming; G – Greenhouse and
two
due tobiodiesel
two biodieselplants (Oregon
plants (Oregon and andNevada),
Nevada),aa brewery
been slight increase in snow melting, cooling and fish brewery I – Heating
Soil Industrial Process Heat; A – Agricultural Drying; F – Fish
Farming; S – Snow Melting; H – Individual Space Heating; D –
(Oregon)
(Oregon) and
farming, withaa laundry (California)
and a laundry (California)
major increase coming
coming
in industrial
ononline.
process line. In
In
heating District Heating; B – Bathing and Swimming; G – Greenhouse and
summary,
summary, whenwhen considering
considering direct-use
direct-use without
without geothermal
due to two biodiesel plants (Oregon and Nevada), a brewery
geothermal
Soil Heating
heat pumps, the distribution of annual energy use is as
(Oregon) and a laundry (California) coming on line. In
follows:
GHC 34% forMAY
BULLETIN, fish 2010
farming, 28% for bathing and 7
summary, when considering direct-use without geothermal
heat pumps, the distribution of annual energy use is as
GHC BULLETIN,
follows: 34% forMAY fish 2010
farming, 28% for bathing and 7
 States
East:5.20%
Table 5-25
Geothermal (Ground-Source) 12.0 Pumps as of 31 December
Heat V=45%
2009 3.5
Midwest:
Table
Table 34%
5.5.Geothermal
Geothermal 5-25
(Ground-Source)
(Ground-Source) 12.0
Heat
Heat Pumps
Pumps as
asofof31 H=45%
31December
December 2009
2009* 3.5
Locality Ground or Typical Heat Pump Number Type COP Heating Thermal Cooling
South: 35% 5-25
Water 12.0
Rating or Capacity of Units W=10% 3.5 Equivalent Energy Energy
Locality Ground
Temp. or Typical(kW)
Heat Pump Number Type * COP Heating
Full Load Thermal
Used Cooling
(TJ/yr)
West: 11% 5-25
Water 12.0
Rating or Capacity of Units 3.5 Equivalent Energy Energy
(oC) Hr/Year (TJ/yr)
Temp. (kW) 1,000,000 Full2,000
Load Used
47,400 (TJ/yr)
29,600
(oC) Hr/Year (TJ/yr)
States
TOTAL 1,000,000 2,000 47,400 29,600
East:
States•20%V = vertical ground
5-25 coupled; H =12.0
horizontal ground coupled; W V=45% 3.5(well or lake water) ** Residential: V/H =
= water source
30%/70%, Commercial/Industrial: V/H = 90%/10%. Ref: www.eia.doe.gov
East: 20%34%
Midwest: 5-25 12.0
12.0 V=45%
H=45% 3.5
3.5
Midwest:
South: 35% 34% 5-25 12.0
12.0 H=45%
W=10% 3.5 3.5
Figure
South: 11%35% 5 shows the direct-use
5-25 development
12.0 over the past buildings
W=10% to their system and will be extended to Boise State
3.5
West: 12.0 3.5
35 years, without heat pumps. A summary of direct-heat University next year. Klamath Falls system has expanded by
West:
use by11% 5-25 in Table 6. 12.0
category is presented 1,000,000adding a brewery 3.5and an additional
2,000 greenhouse.
47,400Extensions
29,600
have also been added for a future commercial develop on
TOTAL
10000 1,000,000
1,000,000the edge of a local lake in 2,000
2,000 47,400
47,400 29,600
town. The local hospital29,600
and
TOTAL• 8000V = vertical ground coupled; H = horizontal ground 1,000,000 Oregon
coupled; Institute
W = water sourceof(well
Technology
2,000
or have47,400
lake water) both
** added new
29,600
Residential: V/H =
Annual Energy (TJ/yr)

buildings to their systems (Lund and Boyd, 2009). Installed

• 30%/70%,
• V = verticalVground Commercial/Industrial:
= vertical ground
coupled; H = coupled; = V/H
horizontalHground
= 90%/10%. coupled;
horizontal
coupled; ground
Ref: www.eia.doe.gov
W = water source W = or
(well water
lake source (well
water) ** or lake V/H
Residential: water) ** Residential:
= 30%/70%, V/H =
Commercial/
6000
30%/70%, Commercial/Industrial: V/H = 90%/10%. Ref: capacity is 75 MWt and annual energy use is 773 TJ (215
www.eia.doe.gov
Industrial: V/H = 90%/10%. Ref: www.eia.doe.gov
GWh).
4000
Figure 5 shows
Figure the direct-use
5 shows development
the direct-use over the
development overpast
the35
past Table 6.6.Summary
buildings
Table Table
Tableofand
to their system
Summary ofGeothermal Direct
DirectUses
will be extended
Geothermal toUses asasofState
Boise of
years, without
35 years, heat
without pumps.
heat A summary
pumps. A of direct-heat
summary of use by
direct-heat
Figure 5 shows the direct-use development over the past
2000 31 December 2009
buildings to their system and will be extended to Boise State by
University
31 next
Decemberyear. Klamath
2009 Falls system has expanded
category
use
35 by is presented
category
years, without in Table
is presented
heat in6.Table
pumps. 6.
A summary of direct-heat adding a brewery
University next year.and an additional
Klamath greenhouse.
Falls system has expandedExtensions
by
use10000 0
by category
1975 is1980
presented
1985 in1990
Table1995
6. 2000 2005 2010 have also
adding been and
Use
a brewery added an for aInstalled
future
additional commercial
greenhouse. develop
Capacityon
Annual Extensions
10000Resort /Spa
the edge
have of a added
also been for ainCapacity
local lake future Energy
town.commercial
The Use
local Factor
hospital
develop
12
onand
Space Heating Fish Farming Greenhouse Industrial
Oregon
the edge of Institute
a local of (MWt)
lakeTechnology
in town. The (TJ/yr
have
local = 10
both addedandnew
hospital
(TJ/yr)

8000
J/yr)
buildings
Oregon to theirof
Institute systems (Lund and
Technology haveBoyd,
both2009).
addedInstalled
new
(TJ/yr)

8000
Figure
6000 5. Direct-use growth in the United States. buildings
capacity tois their systems
75 MWt and(Lund
annual andenergy
Boyd, use
2009).
is 773Installed
TJ (215
Energy

Individual Space Heating 139.89 1,360.6 0.31

6000 capacity
GWh). is 75 MWt and annual energy use is 773 TJ (215
Energy

Space Heating 4000 GWh).

District
Table 6. Heating
Summary Table of75.10 Geothermal773.2 Direct Uses 0.33as of
Annual

4000
Table 6.31Summary Table of Geothermal Direct Uses as of
Annual

Space heating of individual buildings (estimated at over

2000 December
Air Conditioning 2009 2.31
(Cooling)* 47.6 0.50
2,000 in 17 states) is mainly concentrated in Klamath Falls,
2000 31 December 2009
Oregon 0 where about 600 shallow wells have been drilled to
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 Use
Greenhouse Heating Installed
96.91 Annual
799.8 Capacity
0.26
0
heat homes, 1975 apartment
1980 1985houses 1990 and 1995businesses.
2000 2005 Most
2010 of Use Installed Energy UseCapacity
Capacity Annual Factor
these Resort
wells /Spa
use downhole
Space Heating
heatFishexchangers
Farming
to supply heat
Greenhouse
to
Industrial Fish Farming Capacity
(MWt) Energy
141.95 (TJ/yr
3,074.0 = 121012Factor
Use 0.69
Resort /Spa Space Heating Fish Farming Greenhouse Industrial (MWt) (TJ/yr =J/yr)
10
the buildings, thus, conserving the geothermal water (Culver
Agricultural Drying ** 22.41 J/yr)
292.0 0.41
Figure
and 5.
Figure 5.Direct-use
Lund, 1999).growth
Direct-use A in
growth thethe
similar
in Uniteduse States.
United ofStates.
downhole heat
Figure 5. Direct-use
exchangers is foundgrowth in the inMoana the United area States.
of Reno, Nevada Individual Space Heating 139.89 1,360.6 0.31
Space
(Flynn,Heating
2001). Installed capacity is 140 MWt and annual
Industrial Space
Individual ProcessHeating
Heat *** 17.43
139.89 227.1
1,360.6 0.41
0.31
Space
Space Heating
energy heating of individual buildings (estimated at over District Heating 75.10 773.2 0.33
Space Heating
use is 1,361 TJ (378 GWh). Snow Melting
District Heating 2.53
75.10 20.0
773.2 0.25
0.33
2,000 in 17
Space states)of isindividual
heating mainly buildingsconcentrated in Klamath
(estimated at over Air Conditioning (Cooling)* 2.31 47.6 0.50
Falls, Space
Oregon heatingwhere of individual buildings
shallow (estimated haveatbeen
over
District
2,000 in 17Heating
states) is about
mainly600 concentrated wells
in Klamath Falls, Bathing
Air and Swimming
Conditioning ****
(Cooling)* 112.93
2.31 2,557.5
47.6 0.72
0.50
2,000 in 17 states) is mainly concentrated in Klamath Falls,
drilled
Oregontowhere heat about homes,600 apartment
shallow wells houses have andbeenbusinesses.
drilled to Greenhouse Heating 96.91 799.8 0.26
Oregon where about 600 shallow wells have been drilled to Subtotal 611.46 9,151.8 0.48
heat There
Most of these
homes, areapartment
20
wellsgeothermal
usehouses district-heating
downhole systems
heat exchangers
and businesses. Mostin totheof Greenhouse Heating 96.91 799.8 0.26
heat homes, apartment houses and
United States, most being limited to a few buildings. The businesses. Most of
supply
these
these heat
wells
wells
use to the
downhole buildings,
heat thus,
exchangers conserving
to supply heatthe to Fish Farming
Geothermal
Fish FarmingHeat Pumps
141.95
12,000.00
141.95
3,074.0
47,400
3,074.0
0.69
0.13
0.69
newest is ause downhole
small projectheat exchangers
in northern to supply(Merrick,
California heat to
geothermal
the
the buildings,
buildings,
2002 water
and 2004).
thus, (Culver
conserving
thus, conserving and
In this the Lund,
the 1999).
geothermal
ruralgeothermal
community A similar
water
water use
(Culver
of (Culver
Canby, AgriculturalDrying
Drying ** 22.41 292.0 0.41
ofand
downhole
and Lund, heat
Lund,
geothermal
1999).
1999).
heat exchangers
is used
A similar
A is found
similar
for heating
useinof
use the Moana
of downhole
buildings,
downhole areaheat
a greenhouse, of
heat Total
Agricultural ** 12,611.46
22.41 56,551.8
292.0 0.12
0.41
Reno, Nevada
exchangers
exchangers is
is (Flynn,
found
found in 2001).
in the Moana
the Moana Installed area of
area capacity
of Reno, is
Reno, Nevada 140
Nevada **Other
Other than
Industrial heatheat
than pumps;
Process Heat** Includes
pumps; drying or
***** Includes dehydration
17.43 drying of grains, of
or dehydration
227.1
and most recently driers and washers in a laundry (Merrick, Industrial Process
and Heat *** ***17.43 227.1 0.410.41
MWt
(Flynn,and2001).
(Flynn,
2009). annual
2001).
The city energy
Installed
Installed
system use is 1,361
capacity
capacity
in Boise,isis TJ
140
140 (378
Idaho MWt
MWt GWh).and
hasand annual
annual
added 10
grains,
fruits andfruits
vegetables;vegetables;
*** Excludes Excludes agricultural
agricultural drying and
drying and dehydration;
energy use is 1,361 TJ (378 GWh). dehydration;
**** Includes
SnowMelting
Melting **** Includes
Balneology Balneology
2.53 20.0
energy use is 1,361 TJ (378 GWh). Snow 2.53 20.0 0.250.25
District Heating
8
There areHeating
District 20 geothermal district-heating systems in the State
Bathing
Bathing University
andSwimming
and next
Swimming year.GHC
****
**** Klamath
BULLETIN,
112.93
112.93 Falls system
MAY
2,557.5
2,557.5 0.72 has
2010
0.72
District Heating
United States, most being limited to a few buildings. The expanded by adding a brewery and an additional
There are 20 geothermal district-heating systems
systemsininthe
the Subtotal 611.46 9,151.8 0.480.48
There
newest is a are 20 project
small geothermal district-heating
inlimited
northern greenhouse.
Subtotal Extensions have also
611.46 been9,151.8
added for a future
United
United States,
States, most being limited to aCalifornia
a few (Merrick,
few buildings.
buildings. The commercial develop on the edge of a local
47,400 in0.13
lake town.
to The
2002
newestand a2004). In this rural community of (Merrick,
Canby, GeothermalHeat
Geothermal Heat Pumps
Pumps 12,000.00 47,400
12,000.00 0.13
newest is
is a small
small project in northern
northern California
California (Merrick, The local hospital and Oregon Institute of Technology
geothermal
2002
2002 and
heat
and 2004).
is used for heating
2004). In this rural
buildings,
rural community a greenhouse,
community ofof Canby,Canby,
and most recently have
Totalboth added new buildings to their56,551.8
systems
56,551.8(Lund and
heat isdriers
used and washersbuildings,
in a laundry (Merrick, Total 12,611.46
12,611.46 0.120.12
geothermal
geothermal heat heating
for heating buildings, aagreenhouse,
greenhouse,
2009). Therecently
city system in washers
Boise, Boyd, 2009). Installed capacity is 75 MWt and annual
and
and most
most recently driers and washersIdaho has added
in aa laundry
in laundry 10
(Merrick,
(Merrick, * Other than heat pumps; ** Includes drying or dehydration of of
* Other than heat pumps; ** Includes drying or dehydration
buildings to their system and will be extended to Boise energy use
fruitsis
grains,fruits
grains, and 773
and TJ (215***
vegetables;
vegetables; GWh).
*** Excludes
Excludes agricultural
agricultural drying
drying andand
2009).
2009). TheThe city system in Boise,Boise, Idaho
Idaho has has added
added 10
10 dehydration;****
dehydration; **** Includes
Includes Balneology
Balneology
8 GHC BULLETIN, MAY 2010
88 GHC BULLETIN,
GHC MAY
BULLETIN, 2010
MAY 2010
Aquaculture Pond and Raceway Heating
There are 51 aquaculture sites in 11 states using geothermal
energy. The largest concentration of this use is in the Imperial
Valley in southern California and operations along the Snake
River Plain in southern Idaho. There is a report that some of
the facilities in the Imperial Valley have closed, but reliable
information is lacking. A large facility at Kelly Hot Springs in
northern California has been expanding and now produces
slightly over half a million kg of tilapia annually. Two unique
aquaculture related projects are in operation in Idaho and
Colorado – that of raising alligators (Clutter, 2002). Recent
trends in the U.S. aquaculture industry have seen a decline in
growth due to saturation of the market and competition from
imports. Installed capacity is 142 MWt and annual energy use
is 3,074 TJ (855 GWh).
Greenhouse Heating
There are 44 greenhouse operations in nine states using
geothermal energy. These cover an area of about 45 ha, have
an installed heat capacity of 97 MWt and an annual energy
use of 800 TJ/yr (222 GWh). The main products raised are
potted plants and cut flowers for local markets. Some tree
seedlings and vegetables are also grown in Oregon; however
vegetable raising is normally not economically competitive
with imports from Central America, unless they are
organically grown. One unusual greenhouse product, started
recently, is spider mites grown on lima bean plants at Liskey
Farms south of Klamath Falls, Oregon. They are grown for
their eggs which are then shipped south as feed for predator
mites, which in turn are sold to farms to eat spider mites – a
complicated process, as the mites and eggs are almost
microscopic in size and difficult to see (Northwest Farm
Credit Services, 2009).
Industrial Applications & Agricultural Drying
Industrial applications have increased significantly due to
the addition of two biodiesel plants (Oregon and Nevada).
These plants primarily use geothermal energy for the
distillation of waste grease from restaurants, but one also used
canola oil. Small industrial uses include clothes driers and
washer installed in Canby, California, and a brewery using
heat from the Klamath Falls district heating system for
brewing beer and heating the building (Chiasson 2006,
Merrick, 2009). The main loss is the closing of an onion/garlic
dehydration plant at Empire, Nevada due to competition with
imported garlic from China. The installed industrial capacity
for these two applications is 40 MWt and the annual energy
use 519 TJ/yr (144 GWh/yr) with nine facilities located in
three states.
Cooling and Snow Melting
The two major uses of geothermal energy are for pavement
snow melting, on the Oregon Institute of Technology (OIT)
campus, and keeping the Aurora Ice Museum frozen year-
round at Chena Hot Springs, Alaska. OIT has increase their
campus snow melt system from 316 m2 to 3,753 m2 and the
ammonia absorption chiller in Alaska keeps a 1,000 tonnes
of ice frozen even though it reaches 32˚C outside in the
GHC BULLETIN, MAY 2010
summer. Over 10,000 visitors a year visit the facility that has
a bar, beds and many ice sculptures (Holdman and Erickson,
2006). The installed capacity for this application is 2.5 MWt
and the annual energy use is 20 TJ/yr (6 GWh/yr).
Spas and Swimming Pools
This is one of the more difficult applications to quantify
and even to find all the actual sites, as most owners do not
know their average and peak flow rates, as well as the inlet
and outlet temperatures. Most of the locations and some of
the data, have come from a number of hot spring/spa
publications available for most states. As a result, we often
have to estimate the capacity and energy use based on our
experience with similar facilities. There are 242 facilities in
17 states that we have identified, with an estimated installed
capacity of 113 MWt and annual energy use of 2,557 TJ/yr
(711 GWh/yr).
Geothermal (Ground-Source) Heat Pumps
The number of installed geothermal heat pumps has
steadily increased over the past 15 years with an estimated
100,000 to 120,000 equivalent 12 kWt units installed this past
year. Present estimates are that there are at least one million
units installed, mainly in the mid-western and eastern states.
The present estimates are that approximately 70% of the units
are installed in residences and the remaining 30% in
commercial and institutional buildings. Approximately 90%
of the units are closed loop (groundcoupled) and the remaining
open loop (water-source). Within the residential sector, of the
closed loops systems, approximately 30% are vertical and
70% horizontal, as the latter are cheaper to install. In the
institutional and commercial sector, 90% are vertical and
only 10% horizontal, constrained by ground space in urban
area. Presently, the ratio of new installation to retrofit
installations is 3:1. The estimated full load hours in heating
mode is 2,000/yr, and in cooling mode is 1000/yr. The
installation cost is estimated at US$6,000 per ton (3.5 kWt)
for residential and US$7,000 per ton (3.5 kWt) for commercial.
The units are found in all 50 states and are growing 12 to 13%
a year. It is presently a US$2 to US$3 billion annual industry.
Even though the actual number of installed units is difficult to
determine, input has been provided from various industry
representatives for these estimates (personal communication:
John Geyer, Warren (Trey) Austin, and Patrick Hughes,
October, 2009, Dan Ellis, November 2009). The current
installed capacity is 12,000 MWt and the annual energy use
in the heating mode is 47,400 TJ/yr (13,1678 GWh/yr). The
largest installation currently under construction is for Ball
State University, Indiana where 4,100 vertical loops are being
installed to heat and cool over 40 buildings.
Conclusions – Direct-Use
The distribution of capacity and annual energy use for the
various direct-use applications are shown in Table 6 and are
based on records keep at the Geo-Heat Center. We estimate
that the estimates are anywhere from 10 to 20% under
reported, due to their small sizes, lack of data and often
isolated locations.
9
 under reported, due to their small sizes, lack of data and on funding from USDOE Office of Geothermal
often isolated locations. Technologies, during the years 2005 to 2008, personnel in
private industry as well as with the government institutions,
The growth
under reported, of direct
due to usetheirover the sizes,
small past fivelackyears
of data is all
and asonwellfunding from Laboratories
as National USDOE Office of Geothermal
and Universities were
The
due togrowth
often the of direct
increased
isolated use
useover
locations. of the past five years
geothermal heat is all dueas
pumps, to Universities
Technologies,were reduced.
during the Only
years about
2005
reduced. Only about 50 person/years are due to50
to person/years
2008, personnelare due
in
direct-use
the increaseddirect-use
traditional use of geothermal
development heathaspumps,
remainedas traditional
flat as to direct-use
private geothermal.
industry as well See
as Table
with
geothermal. See Table 8 for details. the 8 for details.
government institutions,
shownThe
direct-use
growth4.ofUnfortunately,
in development
Figure direct use overthere
hasuseremained
the past
flat as
fiveinterest
shown
is little years isforall
in Figureas as well as National Laboratories and Universities were
due
4.direct-use
to
Unfortunately,
the increased
there
at the federal
traditional and direct-use is little
level, of geothermal
asinterest
development for
their interests heat
direct-use
has remained
pumps,
are mainly at
flattheas
in INVESTMENT
Table
reduced.8. Only about IN50GEOTHERMAL
Allocation of Professional
person/years are duePersonnal
to direct-useto
promoting
federal level, developing
as their4.interests Enhanced
are mainly (Engineered)
inis promoting and Geothermal
geothermal. See (Restricted
Table 8 for to personnel
details. with University
Again, the majority of the investment in geothermal was for
shown
Geothermal in Systems
Figure Unfortunately,
(EGS). There are therefew little interest
incentives for
for degrees)
developing
direct-useEnhanced (Engineered)
at the federal level, as theirGeothermal
interests are Systems
mainly in Table 8. Allocation of Professional Personnal to
the traditional direct-use development, but as mentioned Table 8.Geothermal
Allocation of Professional Personnelwith
to Geothermal
(EGS). There areand
promoting few incentives
developingfor the traditional(Engineered)
Enhanced direct-use (Restricted to personnel University
earlier, there are tax incentives for geothermal heat pumps at Year degrees)
(Restricted Professional
to personnel Person-Years
with University of Effort
degrees)
development,
Geothermal but as mentioned
Systems (EGS).earlier,
Therethere
are are
the federal level and in some states such as Oregon. Since,
fewtax incentives
incentives for
for geothermal
the traditional heat pumps
direct-use at the federal
development,
most direct-use projects are small, there are few, if any, level
but and in some
as mentioned
(1) (2) (3)Person-Years
(4) of Effort
(5) (6)
states suchthere
earlier,
developers as Oregon.
and/or Since,
whomost
are tax incentives
investors direct-useinheat
for geothermal
are interested projects
pumps
supporting areat Year Professional
small,
the
these there are few, if any, developers and/or investors who
federal
uses.
level and in some states such as Oregon. Since,
most direct-use projects are small, there are few, if any, 2005 2 (1) 2 (2) 10(3) 0 (4) 0 (5) 1,200
are interested in supporting these uses. (6)
developers and/or investors who are interested in supporting
WELLS
WELLS DRILLED
DRILLED
these uses. 2006
2005 22 22 10
10 00 00 1,200
1,200
Most
Mostwells
wellsdrilled
drilledforfor geothermal
geothermal use use were
were forfor power
power
WELLS DRILLED
generation. Assuming 3 MWe per well, and each approximately
generation. Assuming 3 MWe per well, and each 2007
2006 22 22 10
10 00 00 1,000
1,200
2,000 meters
approximately deep drilled
Most wells 2,000(deeperfor
meters at geothermal
The Geysersuse
deep (deeper andwere
at shallower
The Geysers
for powerin
andgeneration.
shallower inAssuming
Nevada where most of the 2008
2007 22 22 10
10 00 00 1,000
1,000
Nevada where most of the wells 3 were
MWe drilled),
per thewells
well, and were
increase of
each
drilled),
514 MWethe increase
added
approximately of 514
approximately
2,000 metersMWe 400
deepadded
km approximately
(vertical)
(deeper at The 400
including
Geysers
kmand(vertical) including exploratory and injection wells, and 2009
2008 22 22 10
10 00 0 1,500
1,000
exploratory and injection
shallower in Nevadawells, where and mostdirect
of theuse wellsadded
were
direct use
drilled),added
the approximately
increase of 514 4
MWe km. Most
added direct-use
approximately work
400
approximately 4 km. Most direct-use work concentrated on Total 10 10 50 00 0 5,900
concentrated
km (vertical) on including
improvingexploratory
and refurbishing existing
and injection wells.
wells, and 2009 2 2 10 1,500
improving
Seedirect
Tableuseand forrefurbishing
7 added details. existing
Geothermal wells.
heatSeepumps
Tablewells,
7 for
approximately 4 km. Most direct-use work
details.
which Geothermal
are not included
concentrated
heatinpumps
on improving
wells,probably
this table, which are
and refurbishing
not included
added 200,000
existing wells.
(1) – Government; (2) – Public Utilities; (3) – Universities; (4) –
Total 10Consultants;
10 (5) 50 0 0 Foreign 5,900
Paid Foreign – Contributed through Aid
in this
vertical table,
holes probably
at 75 m
See Table 7 for details. added
each 200,000
for vertical
Geothermal heat km
a total of 15,000 holes at 75
over
pumps m
the
wells, Programs; (6) – Private Industry
each for
fivewhich a are
years.totalnotof included
15,000 km overtable,
in this the five years. added 200,000
probably (1)(1) – Government;
– Government; (2) –(2) – Public
Public Utilities;
Utilities; (3) – Universities;
(3) – Universities; (4) –
(4) – Paid
Paid Foreign
Foreign Consultants;
Consultants; (5) – Contributed
(5) – Contributed through
through Foreign AidForeign Aid
Programs;
vertical holes at 75 m each for a total of 15,000 km over the INVESTMENT – PrivateIN GEOTHERMAL
Table
Table7.7.Wells
WellsDrilled
DrilledforforElectrical,
Electrical,Direct
DirectandandCombined
Combined Programs;
(6) – Private (6)
Industry Industry
five years.
Use of Geothermal
Use of GeothermalResources from January
Resources 1, 2005 1,
from January to 2005 geothermal
Again, the electric power
majority plants. We estimate that US$4,000
December
Table 31,Wells
to 7. 2009Drilled
Decmeber (excluding
31, 2009 heat pump
for (excluding
Electrical, wells)
Direct
heat and wells)
pump Combined INVESTMENT INofGEOTHERMAL
the investment in geothermal was
Use of Geothermal Resources from January 1, 2005 (Western
for Governor’s
geothermal Association,
electric power plants.2006) isWe invested for every
estimate that
Purposeto Decmeber
Wellhead31, 2009 Number(excluding
of Wells heat pump wells)
Drilled Total
kilowatt of installed capacity. Thus, for the new 514 MWeisof
Again,
US$4,000 the majority
(Western of the
Governor’s investment in geothermal
Association, 2006) was
Temp. Depth installed
invested capacity
for geothermal
for over
everyelectric thepower
kilowatt past five
of installed years,
plants. WeUS$2,000
capacity.estimate
Thus,billion
that
for
US$4,000 514 (Western
MWe of Governor’s
installed Association,
was invested. Above half of this was for field and plant
the new capacity over the 2006)
past is
five
Purpose WellheadElectric
Number of Wells
Direct Drilled (km)
Combined Total
invested for every kilowatt ofinvested.
installed capacity. Thus, for
Temp. Power Use Depth development and 25% each for R&D and for the operation.
years, US$2,000 billion was Above half of this
the for
was newfield
514and MWe ofdevelopment
plant installed capacity and 25%overeach
the for
pastR&D
five
Electric Direct Combined (km) Direct-use
years, only added
US$2,000 about
billion US$2,000
invested. million;
wasDirect-use Aboveadded however,
half ofaboutnot
this
Exploration * (all) Power 0Use
50 50 25
and
shown forin the
Table operation.
9 is the approximately only
US$2.5 billion is spent
was for field
US$2,000 and plant
million; development
however, not shown and 25% each for
in Table 9 isR&Dthe
annually
and foronthe geothermal
operation.heat pump installations
Direct-use and
only annually
addedequipment
about
approximately US$2.5 billion is spent on
Exploration >150
* (all) 10050 0 0 10050 25
(personal
US$2,000communication, JohnnotGeyer, Oct.in2009).
o
Production C 200 million; however, shown Table (personal
9 is the
geothermal heat pump installations and equipment
approximately John
communication, US$2.5
Geyer, billion is spent annually on
Oct. 2009).
>150ooC
Production 150-100 C 67100 6 0 73100 200
135 ENERGY
geothermal heat AND CARBON
pump installations SAVINGS
and equipment (personal
The total electricity
communication, produced
John Geyer, Oct.from
2009).geothermal energy in
ENERGY AND CARBON SAVINGS
o
150-100
o C 0 67 4 6 4 73 4135
<100 C the U.S. is equivalent to savings 28.3 million barrels (4.24
<100 C o
0 4 4 4 million
ENERGY tonnes)
The total ANDof fuel
CARBON
electricity oil perfrom
produced yearsgeothermal
SAVINGS (generating at 0.35
energy in
Injection (all) 20 0 20 40
efficiency).
the This produces
U.S. is equivalent a savings
to savings of
28.3 3.71 million
million barrels
The total electricity produced from geothermal energy in
tonnes
(4.24of
Injection
Total
(all)
237
20
10
0 20
247
40
404
carbon
the U.S.annually.
million tonnes) of The
is equivalent to total
fuel oil perdirectyears utilization
(generating including
savings 28.3 million
at 0.35
barrels (4.24
geothermal
million tonnes) of fuel oil per years (generating at 0.35to
efficiency). heat
Thispump
producesenergy use
a savings in the U.S.
of 3.71 is equivalent
million tonnes
**Includes
Includes thermal
Total thermal gradient
gradient well,
well, but
not not
but237 onesones
10 less than
less than 247m100
100 m 404
deep deep saving
of carbon13.3 million
annually. barrels (2.01
The total tonnes)
direct of fuel
utilization
efficiency). This produces a savings of 3.71 million tonnes oil per years
including
geothermal
(producing heat at
pump energy use This
in theproduces
U.S. is aequivalent
* Includes thermal gradient well, but not ones less than 100 m deep of carbon annually. The total direct utilization includingof
heat 0.70 efficiency). savings
PROFESSIONAL
PROFESSIONALGEOTHERMAL GEOTHERMAL to saving
1.76 million
geothermal 13.3 million
tonnes
heat pump barrels
of carbon (2.01
use intonnes)
energy annually. theofis
theIfU.S. fuel
savings oilinper
equivalent the
PERSONNEL
PERSONNEL
PROFESSIONAL GEOTHERMAL
years
cooling
(producing
to savingmode
heat
13.3ofmillion at
geothermal
0.70 efficiency).
barrelsheat pumps
(2.01 This produces
is considered,
tonnes) of fuel oil per a
then
savings of 1.76 million tonnes of carbon annually. If the
Professional
PERSONNEL geothermal personnel with university degrees this is equivalent
years (producingtoheatan additional savings of 6.9
at 0.70 efficiency). Thismillion
producesbarrels
a
Professional geothermal personnel with university savings inofthe cooling mode of of
geothermal heat pumps is
are higheraremainly
degrees higherdue to andue
mainly increase
to an in the installed
increase capacity
in the installed (1.03 million
savings tonnes)
1.76 of
million oil annually.
tonnes carbon annually.
considered, then this is equivalent to an additional savings
If the
of powerProfessional
plants. geothermal
Geothermal personnel
Power plants with
are university
estimated to savings in the cooling mode of geothermal heat pumps is
capacity
degrees ofare
power
higherplants.
mainly Geothermal
due to an Power
increase plants
in the are
installed In
6.9 total,
millionthe
ofconsidered, then savings
barrels
this(1.03 from
million
is equivalentpresent
to an geothermal
tonnes) additional energy
of oil annually.
savings
employ 1.7 person/years per installed megawatt (Kagel, 2006).
estimated
capacitytoofemploy
power1.7 person/years
plants. per installed
Geothermal Powermegawatt
plants are production
of In
6.9total,inthe
million the U.S.,
barrels both
(1.03 electricity
million and
tonnes) direct-use
of oil amounts
annually.
It(Kagel,
is assumed that It
approximately 0.5 person/year is due0.5to savings from present geothermal energy
2006). is assumed that approximately
estimated to employ 1.7 person/years per installed megawatt to 48.5
production millionthebarrels
In total,inthe U.S., (7.28
both million tonnes)
electricity and of fuel oil
direct-use
professional
person/year personnel. Due to limits
is due to Itprofessional on funding
is assumedpersonnel. from USDOE
Due to limits savings from present geothermal energy
(Kagel, 2006). that approximately 0.5 equivalent
amounts to (TOE)
48.5 per
millionyear, and
barrels reduces
(7.28 air
millionpollution
tonnes) byfuel
of 6.65
Office of Geothermal
is due Technologies,
to professionalduring the years
Due 2005 to production in the U.S., both electricity and direct-use
person/year personnel. to limits million tonnes of carbon annually. CO 2
reduction is estimated
2008, personnel in private industry as well as with the amounts to 48.5 million barrels (7.28 million tonnes) of fuel
10 at 18.8 million tonnes GHC BULLETIN, MAY 2010
government institutions, as well as National Laboratories and
10 GHC BULLETIN, MAY 2010
10 GHC BULLETIN, MAY 2010
 Western Governor’s Association, Denver, CO, (2006) 66 p.

Table
Table9.9.Total
TotalInvestments
InvestmentsininGeothermal
Geothermalinin(2009)
(2009)US$
US$

Period Research & Field Development Utilization Funding Type

Development Incl. Including Production
Surface Explor. And Drilling & Surface Direct Electrical Private Public
Exploration Drilling Equipment
Million US$ Million US$ % %
Million US$ Million US$

1995 – 1999 N/A N/A

2000 – 2004 250 200 100 200 80 20

2005 - 2009 500 1,000 2 500 95 5

GHC BULLETIN, MAY 2010 11

REFERENCES
Austin, W. (Trey): Geo-Energy Services, LLC, Centennial, CO,
personal communication (October, 2009).
California Energy Commission: http://energyalmanac.ca.gov/
powerplants /POWER_PLANTS.XLS (2009).
Chaisson, A.: “From Creamery to Brewery with Geothermal
Energy: Klamath Basin Brewing Company”, Geo-Heat Center
Quarterly Bulletin, 27/4, Oregon Institute of Technology,
Klamath Falls, OR, (2006) pp. 1-3.
Culver, G and J. W. Lund: “Downhole Heat Exchangers”, Geo-
Heat Center Quarterly Bulletin, 20/3, Oregon Institute of
Technology, Klamath Falls, OR, (1999) pp. 1-11.
Clutter, T.: “Out of Africa – Aquaculturist Ron Barnes Uses
Geothermal Water in Southern Oregon to Rear Tropical Fish
from African Rift Lake”, Geo-Heat Center Quarterly Bulletin,
23/3, Oregon Institute of Technology, Klamath Falls, OR, (2002)
pp. 6-8.
EIA: Energy Information Agency, Washington, D.C., (2009)
from their website: www.eia.doe.gov.
Ellis, D.: Climate Master, Oklahoma City, OK. personal
communication (November, 2009)
Flynn, T.: “Moana Geothermal Area, Reno, NV – 2001 Update”,
Geo-Heat Center Quarterly Bulletin, 22/3, Oregon Institute of
Technology, Klamath Falls, OR, (2001), pp. 1-7.
Geyer, J.: John Geyer and Assoc., Vancouver, WA, personal
communication (October, 2009)
Holdmann G., and D. C. Erickson: “Absorption Chiller for the
Chena Hot Springs Aurora Ice Museum”, Geo-Heat Center
Quarterly Bulletin, 27/3, Oregon Institute of Technology,
Klamath Falls, OR, (2006) pp. 5-6.
Hughes, P.: Oakridge National Laboratory, TN, personal
communication (October, 2009).
Jennejohn, D.: U.S. Geothermal Power Production and
Development Update, Geothermal Energy Association,
Washington, DC (2009).
Kagel, A.: A Handbook on the Externalities, Employment, and
Economics of Geothermal Energy, Geothermal Energy
Association, Washington, DC, (2006) 65 p.
Lund, J. W.: “Chena Hot Springs”, Geo-Heat Center Quarterly
Bulletin, 27/3, Oregon Institute of Technology, Klamath Falls,
OR, (2006) pp. 2-4.
Lund, J. W. and T. L. Boyd: “Geothermal Utilization on the
Oregon Institute of Technology Campus, Klamath Falls,
Oregon”, Geothermal Resources Council Transactions, 33,
Davis, CA (2009)(CD-ROM).
Merrick, D.: “Adventures in the Life of a Small District Heating
Project”, Geothermal Resources Council Transactions, 28,
Davis, CA (2002).
Merrick, D.: “Adventures in the Life of a Small District Heating
Project (or The Little Project That Could)”, Geothermal
Resources Council Transactions, 26, Davis, CA (2004)
(CDROM).
Merrick, D.: “Canby’s Geothermal Laundromat”, Geothermal
Resources Council Transactions, 33, Davis, CA (2009)
(CDROM).
Muffler. L.J.P., (editor): “Assessment of Geothermal Resources
in the United States – 1978”. U.S. Geological Survey Circular
790, U.S. Department of Interior, Arlington, VA (1979).
Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology: Geothermal Energy –
2008, Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology, Reno, NV (2009).
Northwest Farm Credit Services: “Geothermal Ingenuity”,
Yields, Spokane, WA (2009).
Tester, J. W., B.J. Anderson, A. S. Batchelor, D.D. Blackwell, R.
DiPippo, and E.M, Drake (editors): The Future of Geothermal
Energy Impact of Enhanced Geothermal Systems on the United
States in the 21st Century, prepared by the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology for the U.S. Department of Energy,
Washington, D. C., (2006) 358 p.
USGS U.S. Geological Survey: Assessment of Moderate- and
High-temperature Geothermal Resources of the United States,
U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet 2008-3082, by Williams,
Colin, F., Reed, Marshall J., Mariner, Robert H., DeAngelo,
Jacob, Galanis, S. Peter, Jr., Menlo Park, CA (2008).
Western Governor’s Association: Geothermal Task Force
Report, Western Governor’s Association, Denver, CO, (2006)
66 p.

GHC BULLETIN, MAY 2010 11

GEOTHERMAL USES AND PROJECTS ON THE OREGON INSTITUTE
OF TECHNOLOGY CAMPUS
John W. Lund and Tonya “Toni” Boyd, Geo-Heat Center, Oregon Institute of Technology
ABSTRACT
Oregon Institute of Technology moved their campus to
the present location in the early 1960s to take advantage of
the geothermal hot water that could be used for heating the
buildings. Three wells between 1,200 and 1,800 feet (365
and 550 m) deep were drilled, producing 192˚F (89˚C) water
at a maximum flow of 980 gpm (62 L/s). There are presently
12 buildings being geothermally heated covering approxi-
mately 732,000 ft2 (68,000 m2) of floor space, saving ap-
proximately $1,000,000 annually in heating costs. Line-
shaft pumps with variable frequency drives are used to pro-
duce the geothermal fluids from the well, and then the hot
water is gravity fed to all buildings on campus. Plate heat
exchangers are located in each building to separate the po-
tentially corrosive geothermal fluids from the secondary
“clean” water for heating the various rooms. The geother-
mal water is finally injected into two injection wells located
approximately 2,000 feet (610 m) from the production wells.
A 280 kWe (gross) binary power plant was installed on
campus to use the existing well water to provide some of the
electricity needs for the campus. In addition, a 5,300 foot
(1,600 m) deep well was drilled to tap into a 196˚F (91˚C)
geothermal resource in the fault system on the east edge of
campus. The fluids would be used to power a 1.0 to 1.2 MWe
(gross) binary plant to provide some of the electricity needs
for campus. Thus, the campus would become the first in the
world to provide some of its energy needs from a geother-
mal resource found on its property. Finally, the “waste” fluid
from the heating system would be used to provide heat for
experimental greenhouses and aquaculture facilities on
campus. All of these future uses would be available for stu-
dent projects and as a demonstration site for interested in-
vestors and developers of geothermal energy.
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND (PURVINE,
1974, LIENAU, 1996)
In 1959 the Oregon State Board of Higher Education was
awarded a State appropriation of $150,000 for use in explo-
ration related to the selection of a new campus for Oregon
Institute of Technology. The old campus was a military fa-
cility, built for the treatment of malaria victims from World
War II. These funds were to be used for the master plan of
the new campus and for exploration to determine the avail-
ability of geothermal water for space heating. At that time,
approximately $100,000 per year was spent on coal and oil
heating for the campus. Since the Board wished this to be a
decision based on good information, a study was made as to
the location of hot wells, hot springs, faults, and other fac-
tors useful in determined the potential location of the cam-
pus. This study was carried out by Gene Culver, a Mechani-
cal Engineering Technology faculty member and later one
of the founders of the Geo-Heat Center. One of the early
observations was the existence of a broad series of normal
faults running from Ft. Klamath (south of Crater Lake) in
12
the north to Alturas in northern California in the south. At
various locations along this broad fault zone were hot springs
and hot water wells. The fault zone seemed to be the source
of subsurface hot water which many of the wells had en-
countered.
Local well drillers were interviewed based on their expe-
rience with drilling geothermal wells in the area. In addition
the Oregon State Engineer’s Office was consulted, and
based on a US. Geological Survey map that was in prepara-
tion, it indicated that the fault system in the area consisted
on northwest-southeast trending fracture zone with perpen-
dicular offsets producing faults in echelon. Finally, to con-
firm the locations of these faults and the potential for pro-
ducing hot water, then President Winston Purvine noticed
that for one area being considered for the new campus, the
frost and light snowfalls would be melted off by as early as
8:30 to 9:30 in the morning, too early to be influenced by the
sun. This was assumed to indicate that the soil was being
warmed by subsurface hot water, and thus the site was a
prime candidate for geothermal drilling.
After these preliminary studies the location for the geo-
thermal wells and potential campus was selected in the
northern edge of the City of Klamath Falls. The first well
(OIT #1) was drilled in 1959 to a depth of 1,200 feet (366 m)
and produced 510 gpm (32 L/s) of 78˚F (26˚C) water, which
was later used for the domestic water supply. Moving fur-
ther west and south within the border of the new campus, a
second 1,200-foot (366 m) well (OIT #2) was drilled in
1960. This was more successful, producing 170 gpm (11 L/s)
of 176˚F (80˚C) geothermal water (Fig. 2). Two other wells
(OIT #5 and #6) were later drilled in 1963 in the same area
to depths of 1,716 feet and 1,800 feet (523 and 549 m) both
producing 191˚F (88˚C) geothermal water at 442 gpm and
250 gpm (28 and 16 L/s) of geothermal water respectively
(Fig. 2). This temperature, with time, increased to 192˚F
(89˚C). We later learned that the first or cold water well was
drilled into the up-throw (hanging wall) of the normal fault
and the latter three in the down-throw (foot wall) of the fault
block tapping the outflow zone of the geothermal water
from the fault. At the time, these two deeper wells were
drilled for about $32,000 each or $18 per foot!!! The wells
penetrated at mixture of volcanic ash (tuff) and diatoma-
ceous earth (locally called “chalk rock”), then into various
layers of dense basalt and andesite, clayey tuffs, broken lava
and cinders. The casing varied from 12 inches (30.5 cm) at
the surface to 6 inches (15 cm) at the bottom. The static
water level was at 358 feet (109 m) for the deeper wells. The
original wells were set in a cellar, but were later raised to
ground level and enclosed in a building in 1970 (Fig. 3).
Enclosed lineshaft pumps with the bowls set at around 550
feet (168 m) with 26 stages are used in the deeper wells. The
original pumps were basically irrigation well water pumps
with direct-coupled motors, open lineshaft with rubber bear-
GHC BULLETIN, MAY 2010

Figure 1: 1963 photograph of Storey Drilling, completing
one of the deep geothermal wells with a cable tool.
Figure 2: OIT campus map showing the location of wells
and distribution pipelines.
ings and standard lateral pumps with bronze bearings and
impellers. Problems were experienced with broken line-
shafts, motors overheating, pump impellers loosened on the
shaft due to differential expansion and bronze bearings corro-
sion (Culver, 1994). Since hot water does not lubricate the
bearings well, an oil drip system had to be installed within an
enclosed lineshaft, and allowance had to be made for the dif-
ference in thermal expansion between the line shaft and the
impellers – which can be as much as 5.5 inches (14 cm) as the
system is heated during the initial startup (Rafferty and Ke-
iffer, 2002). The wells are pumped with 75 hp (56 kW) pumps,
and a variable speed fluid drive to regulate the amount of
water needed was added in 1970. These were later replaced
with variable frequency drives. The water is then piped into a
heat/water collection building where it enters a settling tank
for removal of sand and to meet peak demands. From here the
GHC BULLETIN, MAY 2010
water is then gravity fed into the various buildings on cam-
pus. Initially the geothermal water was used directly in the
heating systems, but due to 2 ppm (2 mg/L) of hydrogen sul-
fide which attacked the copper and solder in the radiators,
isolation plate heat exchangers had to be installed in each
building (Fig. 4) at a later date. In the beginning, the waste
water was disposed into a drainage ditch and eventually end-
ed up in Upper Klamath Lake, about one mile (1.6 km) to the
west. However, based on a 1990 ordinance passed by the City
of Klamath Falls, all geothermal water produced has to be
returned to the reservoir. As a result, two injection wells (INJ
#1 and INJ #2) were drilled in 1990 to 2,005 and 1,675 feet
(611 m and 510 m) on the southwest side of campus, approxi-
mately 2,000 feet (610 m) from the production wells. These
two well can handle up to 2,500 gpm (158 L/s).
Figure 3: Gene Culver at well #6 showing the 75 hp (56
kW) motor and fluid coupling drive. The well house
is moved for maintenance.
The distribution pipeline around campus initially con-
sisted of steel pipe covered by a rigid foam glass insulation
buried directly in the ground between buildings. Unfortu-
nately, the metal pipe would expand and contract depending
upon flow rate which changed with the supply temperature
of the geothermal water, however, the insulation did not.
Thus, ground water leaked into the cracks in the insulation
and corroded the steel pipe. Oxygen was introduced into the
water from a vent in the storage tank causing some minor
internal corrosion of the pipes as well. Also, since the pipe
was direct buried, it was often dug up by accident, since the
exact location was not well documented. Thus, in 1980 a
utility tunnel at 6 feet (1.8 m) on a side was constructed to
house most of the pipeline, as well as other utilities on cam-
pus being added later (Fig. 5) (Lund and Lienau, 1980).
Where possible, the tunnel was located under sidewalks, so
any residual heat would melt the snow and ice above. The
cost at that time was about $160/ft. ($525/m). A 312 ton
(1,095 kW) lithium-bromide/water absorption cycle chiller
was installed on campus in 1980 using the 192˚F (89˚C )
geothermal water to provide cooling in the summer for
about half of campus (Lund and Lienau, 1980). Chilled
fluid at 44˚F (7˚C ) was delivered to the space cooling
system in several of the buildings. Unfortunately, the unit
at that time required 240˚F (116˚C ) geothermal water to
operate at 100% efficiency, thus the machine only pro-
duced half of the normal output. For this reason, and the
13

Figure 4: Plate heat exchanger in the College Union
building.
required high geothermal flows (600 gpm – 38 L/s), high
discharge temperature and corrosion of the copper pipes in
the generator section, the unit was replaced with an elec-
tric chiller in 1998 (Lienau, 1996).
In the beginning the geothermal water, which could be
pumped up to 750 gpm (47 L/s) using two wells, heated
440,000 ft2 (40,900 m2) of floor space in six buildings us-
ing either forced air for interior rooms or base-board hot
water for exterior building walls. An average of 2.8 mil-
lion Btu/hr (3.0 GJ/hr) with a maximum of 24.8 million
Btu/hr (26.1 GJ/hr) was used on campus, costing about
$12,000 to $14,000 per year compared with $94,000 to
$100,000 per year on the old campus with conventional
fuel. A standby oil fired boiler from the old campus was
installed in the Heat Exchange building, however, it was
never used and was eventually removed in the 1990s. To-
day, only one well is normally used, with two being re-
quired during extreme cold weather (below 0˚F or -18˚C ).
The third well is used for standby, and allows maintenance
to be performed without interrupting the usage.
PRESENT CAMPUS OPERATION
(BOYD, 1999)
Today, geothermal water is produced from three wells at
a temperature of 192˚F (89˚C ), which are located in the
southeast corner of the campus (Fig. 2). Well water tempera-
ture can vary between 192˚ and 196˚F (89˚ and 91˚C ), de-
pending on the pumping rate and location of the well. The
14
Figure 5: OIT utility tunnel with geothermal pipe and other
utilities.
water is pumped individually from each well, with a maxi-
mum total flow of all the wells at 980 gpm (62 L/s). The
water is then collected in a 4,000-gallon (15 m3) settling
tank in the Heat Exchange building before it is delivered to
each building via gravity through the distribution system
according to the demand on the system. The settling tank
provides the necessary head for the gravity flow system and
allows the fines from pumping to settle out of the water. Due
to pipe failures from the direct buried distribution system, a
concrete utility tunnel was constructed in 1980. When new
extensions to the tunnel are added, corrugated galvanized
steel culvert are used instead of concrete, costing about 25%
of the tunnel cost.
In the original design, the geothermal water was used di-
rectly in each of the building mechanical systems. This
“once through” approach eliminated the need for circulation
pumps in the buildings. The direct use of the geothermal
fluids caused problems due to the corrosive nature of the
water. The original chemical analysis of the water failed to
consider the effect of hydrogen sulfide and ammonia on the
copper alloys used in the mechanical system. There were a
number of different types of failures identified that occurred
as a result of using the water directly. The more important
ones were:
• Failure of the 50/50 tin/lead solder connections,
• Rapid failure of 1% silver solder,
• Wall thinning and perforation of copper tubing was a
common occurrence,
• Control valve failure where plug (brass) was crimped to
the stem (stainless steel). The threaded ones experienced
no problems, and
• Control valve problems associated with packing leakage.
To address these problems, the geothermal water was
isolated from the building heating systems using plate heat
exchangers. The type selected consists of 316 stainless steel
plates and Buna-N gaskets. The heat exchanger for the
campus swimming pool failed due to the chlorine in the
pool water, and thus, had to be replaced with titanium
plates, which was eventually replaced with a brazed plate
heat exchanger due to the cost of the titanium plates.
GHC BULLETIN, MAY 2010
 The original discharge temperature of the waste effluent
was initially quite high (135˚F - 57˚C in winter and 170˚F
­77˚C in summer) when it was delivered to a drainage ditch.
This method presented a safety hazard and was stopped
when the City Ordinance was put into effect in 1990, as
mentioned earlier. Two injection wells were drilled, that
can now handle up to 2,500 gpm (158 L/s). To reduce the
effluent temperature, when Purvine Hall was constructed,
it was designed to use the effluent from the rest of campus.
The temperature of the effluent as it enters the building is
around 155˚F (68˚C) and leaves at a temperature of around
130˚F (54˚C). The main components of this building’s heat-
ing system are a 4,000-gallon (15-m3) storage tank, circu-
lating pumps and heat exchangers. On the building heating
side, space heating is accomplished by 54 variable air vol-
ume terminals equipped with hot water coils.
The newest additions to the OIT geothermal system are
sections of sidewalks, stairs and handicap ramps equipped
with geothermal snow melting system. In 2009 approxi-
mately 37,000 ft2 (3,400 m2) of sidewalk and driveway
systems were installed in front of the administration build-
ing (Snell Hall) (Fig. 6). The pipes in the concrete are 5/8-
to 3/4-inch (1.6- to 1.9-cm) diameter cross-linked polyeth-
ylene tubing (PEX), placed 8 to 10 inches (20 to 25 cm)
apart. The system should be able to maintain a slab surface
temperature of 38˚F (3˚C) at -5˚F (-21˚C) air temperature
and 10 mph (16 km/h) wind when the entering 50/50 pro-
pylene glycol/water temperature is 144˚F (62˚C). Each ma-
jor area has a separate plate heat exchanger and the system
will activate when the outside air is 30˚F (-1˚C). The total
amount installed on campus to date covers around 40,400
ft2 (3,750 m2).
(1) a low-temperature, 280 kWe (gross) binary power plant
using the existing well water, (2) completing a deep well on
campus producing 196˚F (91˚C) geothermal water, (3) a 1.0
to 1.2 MWe (gross) binary power plant to use the energy
from the deep well, (4) an incubator greenhouse facility,
and (5) an incubator aquaculture facility. Each of these
projects is described in detail below.
Low Temperature Power Plant
A contract was signed with United Technology Corpora-
tion of Connecticut (now Pratt and Whitney, Co.) for a 280
kWe (gross) binary power plant that can use the 192˚F
(89˚C) geothermal from the existing wells on campus. We
are taking approximately 15˚F (8˚C) off the top, and then
the remaining 177˚F (81˚C) is still adequate to supply the
heating needs of campus. Maximum flow would be 600
gpm (38 L/s). In summer and warmer periods, the reject tem-
perature can be reduced to as low as 150˚F (66˚C), when the
campus heating demand is less. This unit purchased uses a
single-cell wet cooling tower with 70˚F (21˚C) cooling water
and produce an average net output of 85 to 140 kWe depending
on the outside temperature and humidity. This will provide
approximately 10% of the campus electrical energy demand
and save $100,000 annually. In addition, the project will serve
as a demonstration site and student laboratory, mainly for stu-
dents in the new Renewable Energy Engineering Program.
Real time monitoring would be available for students on our
campus and at other universities.

Figure 9. The low-temperature power plant inside the

building.

Figure 6: Installation of PEX pipe for the campus entrance

snow melting system in 2008.

At present twelve buildings are heated totaling 732,000

ft2 (68,000 m2). At peak use, the system provides 16 mil-
lion Btu/hr (16.9 GJ/h) or a capacity of 4.7 MWt. The an-
nual use is approximately 64.4 billion Btu (67.9 TJ), saving
around $1,000,000 annually in heating costs as compared
to natural gas.

FUTURE CAMPUS PROJECTS

Five new geothermal projects are being planned and Figure 10. Building housing the low-temperature power
some are already underway for the campus. These include: plant and the associated cooling tower.
GHC BULLETIN, MAY 2010 15
Deep Well Drilling Project
To produce additional electrical energy for campus, we
drilled a deep (5,308 feet – 1,618 m) geothermal well that in-
tersected the high angle normal fault on the east side of cam-
pus. The geothermally heated fluid upwelling along the fault is
already tapped by our existing geothermal wells. Geochemis-
try predicted that up to 300˚F (150˚C) geothermal fluids might
be found at depth – however, the depth and amount could not
be predicted. Unfortunately, the highest temperature found in
the well was just under 200˚F (93˚C). We have tested the well
at 1,500 gpm (95 L/s) and proposed to test it at 2,500 gpm (158
L/s) which can supply a 1.0 MWe to 1.2 MWe (gross) power
plant, depending upon the final temperature and flow rate of
the fluid. The surface water level is at 320 feet (97.5 m) below
the surface, which is typical of the other wells in the area. The
drawdown at 1,500 gpm (95 L/s) was only 23 feet (7.0 m) and
predicted to be 75 feet (23 m) at 2,500 gpm (158 L/s). Funding
was provided by the US Department of Energy and the Ore-
gon University System in a matching grant.
The following projects were completed prior to drilling the
well to better define the resource and drilling target. In 2008,
we contracted for and completed a reflection seismic survey of
campus to better locate the fault and thus located the drilling
site. Approximately 64 2.2 lb (1 kg) dynamite charges at 18
feet (6 m) depth were set off on campus and surrounding prop-
erty to bounce energy waves off subsurface structures. The
seismic survey can be viewed at http://geoheat.oit.edu/oit/Ses-
imic_Final _Report.pdf. This investigation determined the
optimum drilling target at about the 3,000 to 4,000 foot (900
to 1,040 m) depth (Fig. 7). The drill site was located in the
southeast corner of the upper parking lot.
As a part of the USDOE grant requirements, we completed
an environmental assessment (EA) under the NEPA require-
Figure 7: East-west seismic profile showing the fault and
fracture zone with the deep well location
16
ments. The final EA can be viewed at http://geoheat.oit.edu/oit/
OIT-Deep-Geothermal-Well-andPower-Plant-Project-
FEA_0908.pdf.
A Request for Proposal (RFP) for drilling the deep well was
prepared and a contract was awarded to ThermaSource, Inc. of
Santa Rosa in December 2008. Drilling of the 30foot (9-m)
deep surface casing (conductor pipe) of 30 inch (76 cm) was
completed in early January by a local contractor. Ther-
maSource had their drilling rig on site and started their drill-
ing by the 2nd week of January 2009 (Fig. 8). They then drilled
to 300 feet (91 m) and set and cemented a 20-inch (51-cm) di-
ameter casing. This was followed by a 2,500-ft (760 m) hole
for a 13-3/8-inch (34cm) casing cemented back to the surface.
The well was finished with a 9-5/8-inch (24-cm) diameter pro-
duction liner that was slotted at selected intervals. Deviated
drilling was used to better intersect and tap the fractured fault
zone from 3,200 ft (975 m) to bottom. The only problem that
we experience on campus was complaints by student due to
lack of parking, as the drill site had temporally taken out about
75 parking spaces. Noise was not a problem with the residence
hall or the adjacent hospital that are located only 500 ft (150
m) on either side of the project site.
Figure 8: ThermaSource drilling rig on the OIT campus.
Moderate Temperature Power Plant
A 1.0 to 1.2 MWe power plant (gross) would be design to
use the fluids from the deep well. It will be a binary type (or-
ganic Rankine cycle using a secondary low boiling point hy-
drocarbon) supplying around 0.8 MWe to 1.0 MWe (net) to
campus, enough to cover approximately half of the electric
energy requirements. This would save the campus round
$300,000 per year.
The cost of the well and the 1.0 to 1.2 MWe (gross) power
plant would be around $11.7 million, however, the “waste wa-
ter” from the power plant at around 175˚F (80˚C), could then
be sold to adjacent property owners or used to supplement the
existing and new OIT heating demands, generating additional
income or savings. The site would also become a demonstra-
tion site and student laboratory with real time monitoring
available. Funding for the projects will come from a US De-
partment of Energy grant, and from Oregon State bonds and
grants. Additional support will be provided from the Energy
Trust of Oregon and the Climate Trust.
GHC BULLETIN, MAY 2010
Incubator Greenhouse Facility
We are proposing to construct two geothermally heated
greenhouses on campus. The greenhouses would be 100
by 60 feet (31 by 18 m) covering 6,000 ft2 (560 m2) and
designed to grow a variety of cut flowers, potted plants and
vegetables. Different heating and cooling systems would
be provided to each greenhouse as a research and demon-
stration project. All heating and cooling in the greenhouse
would be monitored and controlled by a computer system.
The greenhouses would be an incubator facility for inter-
ested investors/developers to test the feasibility of growing
their crop in a controlled environment utilizing geother-
mal energy. The facility would also provide research proj-
ects for students on campus and for the local agricultural
programs at the community college and rural high school.
The facility would require around 140˚F (60˚C) and 60
gpm (4 L/s), that could easily be met from our existing
geothermal wells, mainly by cascading the effluent water
from the campus heating system.
Incubator Aquaculture Facility
We are also proposing to construct two geothermally
heated outdoor aquaculture ponds and a covered nursery
tank facility on campus. The outdoor ponds would be 100
by 30 feet (31 by 9 m) of 3,000 ft2 (280 m2) and the indoor
covered facility would be of greenhouse construction 100
by 60 feet (31 by 19 m) covering 6,000 ft2 (560 m2). Dif-
ferent heating systems would be provided to each pond as
a research and demonstration project. The covered facility
would consist of a series of fiberglass tanks, heated by the
geothermal water. All heating systems would be monitored
and controlled by computer. Various fish species, hard-
shell aquatic species and even various algae could be test-
ed. Effluent water from the campus geothermal heating
GHC BULLETIN, MAY 2010
system at around 140˚F (60˚C) and 150 gpm (9 L/s) would
be required, that could easily be met by cascading. The
facility would provide an incubator facility for potential
developer/investors and also be used as a laboratory for
campus students.
CONCLUSIONS
The campus was built on its present location mainly to
take advantage of the geothermal energy that is provided
by water moving up along the high-angle normal fault on
the east side of campus. Using three geothermal wells that
tap a 192˚F (89˚C) fluid and are pumped up to 600 gpm (39
L/s), provides an installed capacity of 3.8 MWt and annual
supply of 64.4 billion Btu (67.9 TJ), saving an estimate
$1,000,000/yr in heating costs.
A 280 kWe (gross) binary power plant has been installed
and is operating providing between 80 and 140 kWe of net
energy to campus, which satisfies about 10% of the cam-
pus electric needs and saves approximately $100,000 an-
nually. This is the first combined geothermal heat and
power plant installed and operating in Oregon, and also
the first on a university campus.
With the deep well completed and when the 1.0 to 1.2
MWe (gross) power plant is up and running on campus,
Oregon Institute of Technology will be the first campus in
the world to supply all its heating and a majority of its
electrical energy from a geothermal resource directly un-
der campus. We will be a showplace for all forms of geo-
thermal utilization. Along with our Renewable Energy
Engineering Program and technical assistance provided
by the Geo-Heat Center (http://geoheat.oit.edu), we will be
a leader for renewable geothermal energy utilization.
REFERENCES
Boyd, T. L.: “The Oregon Institute of Technology Geothermal
Heating System – Then and Now”, Geo-Heat Center Quarterly
Bulletin, Vol. 20, No. 1, (March), Klamath Falls, OR, pp. 1013
(1999).
Culver, G.: Results of Investigations of Failure of Geothermal
Direct-Use Well Pumps. Technical Report prepared for U.S. De-
partment of Energy, Grant No. DE-FG07-90ID 13040, Geo-
Heat Center, Klamath Falls, OR, 33 p (1994).
Lienau, P. J.; “OIT Geothermal System Improvements”, Geo-
Heat Center Quarterly Bulletin, Vol. 17, No. 3 (August), Klamath
Falls, OR, pp. 24-28 (1996).
Lund, J. W., and P. J.Lienau: “New Geothermal Construction on
the OIT Campus”, Geo-Heat Center Quarterly Bulletin, Vol. 5,
No. 3. (September), Klamath Falls, OR, pp. 21-23 (1980).
Purvine, W. D.: “Utilization of Thermal Energy at Oregon Insti-
tute of Technology, Klamath Falls, Oregon”, Proceedings of the
International Conference on Geothermal Energy for Industrial,
Agricultural and Commercial-Residential Uses, Oregon Insti-
tute of Technology, Klamath Falls, OR, pp. 179191 (1974).
Rafferty, K., and S. Keiffer: “Thermal Expansion in Enclosed
Lineshaft Pump Columns”, Geo-Heat Center Quarterly Bulle-
tin, Vol. 23, No. 2 (June), Klamath Falls, OR, pp. 11-15 (2002).
17
Use of Promoter Pipes with Downhole Heat Exchangers
in Klamath Falls, Oregon
Tonya “Toni” Boyd and John W. Lund, Geo-Heat Center, Oregon Institute of Technology
Abstract
A promoter pipe is simply a pipe that is open at both ends
that is placed in a well with a downhole heat exchanger.
These have been used extensively in Rotorua, New Zealand.
The promoter pipe sets up a convection cell that is necessary
to increase the temperature of the water over the length of
the downhole heat exchanger. It is used when the well casing
has not been perforated just below the low water line and the
live water flow at the bottom of the well, thus preventing the
hot water flow from mixing sufficiently along the entire
well-bore length. The temperature and heat output of the
downhole heat exchanger can be significantly increased if a
convection cell is set up in the well. Several examples of
wells that have promoter pipes installed in them in Klamath
Falls are documented, comparing the temperature output
before and after installation.
Introduction
The downhole heat exchanger (DHE) exchanger consists
of a system of pipes or tubes suspended in the well through
which “clean” secondary water is pumped or allowed to
circulate by natural convection, thus eliminating the problem
of disposal of geothermal fluid, since only heat is taken from
the well. These systems offer substantial economic savings
over surface heat exchangers where a single-well system is
adequate (typically less than 0.8 MWt, with well depths up
to about 500 ft (150 m) and may be economical under certain
conditions at well depths to 1500 ft (460 m)(Lund, et al.,
1975; Culver and Lund, 1999).
Several designs have proven successful; but, the most
popular are a simple hairpin loop or multiple loops of iron
pipe (similar to the tubes in a U-tube and shell exchanger)
extending to near the well bottom (Figure 1). An experimental
design consisting of multiple small tubes with “headers” at
each end suspended just below the water surface appears to
offer economic and heating capacity advantages in shallow
wells (Culver and Reistad, 1978).
Downhole heat exchangers extract heat by two methods–
extracting heat from water flowing through the aquifer and
extracting stored heat from the rocks surrounding the well,
the former being most significant.
In order to obtain maximum output, the well must be
designed to have an open annulus between the well bore and
the casing, and perforations at the well bottom for the inflow
aquifer and just below the lowest static water surface.
Natural convection circulates the water down inside the
casing, through the lower perforations, up in the annulus
and back inside the casing through the upper perforations. If
the design parameters of bore diameter, casing diameter,
heat exchanger length, tube diameter, number of loops, flow
rate and inlet temperature are carefully selected, the velocity
and mass flow of the natural convection in the well may
approach those of a conventional shell-and-tube heat
18
Figure 1: Typical downhole heat exchanger systems in
Klamath Falls, Oregon.
exchanger. However, this balance is often difficult to achieve,
and is usually done by trial and error or based on local
experience.
The interaction between the fluid in the aquifer and that in
the well is not fully understood; but, it appears that outputs
are higher where there is a high degree of vertical fluid
mixing in the well bore indicating that somewhat permeable
formations with high flows are preferred. Although the
interaction between the water in the well, water in the
aquifer, and the rock surrounding the well is poorly
understood, it is known that the heat output can be
significantly increased if a vertical convection cell can be
set up in the well. Also, there must be some degree of mixing
(i.e., water from the aquifer) continuously entering the well,
mixing the well water, and water leaving the well to the
aquifer. There are two methods of inducing convection in
the past: 1) casing perforations, and 2) “pumping and
dumping”.
When a well is drilled in a competent formation and will
stand open without casing, an undersized casing can be
installed. If the casing is perforated just below the lowest
static water level and the near the bottom at the hot aquifer
level, a convection cell is induced and the well becomes
very nearly isothermal between the perforations (Figure 2).
Cold surface water and unstable formations near the surface
are cemented off above a packer. If a DHE is then installed
and heat extracted, a convection cell is induced, flowing
down inside the casing and up in the annulus between the
well wall and casing. The driving force is the density
difference between the water surrounding the DHE and
water in the annulus. The more heat extracted, the higher
the velocity. Velocities of 2 ft/s (0.6 m/s) have been measured
GHC BULLETIN, MAY 2010
with very high heat extraction rates; but, the usual velocities
are between 0.03 - 0.3 ft/s (0.01 – 0.1 m/s).

Figure 2: Well completion systems for DHE (type c with the

vertical convection cell – preferred).

Many of the earlier wells drilled in Klamath Falls were

not completed with the two sets of casing perforations that
would generate the convection cells to maximize the output
of the downhole heat exchangers (DHE). To provide for this
vertical convection of the hotter water from the bottom of
the well, they were equipped with a small suction pump that
pumped water from the well to the storm sewer – locally
referred to as “pumping and dumping.” This pumping
provided approximately the same energy transfer to the
downhole heat exchanger as the convection cell.
Approximately 60 wells in the City had these pumps, and
could be identified by the steam rising from the storm water
grates adjacent to the well. In addition, larger users, such as Figure 3: Temperature vs. depth for a geothermal well (with
Oregon Institute of Technology, who could not generate and without perforations).
enough energy from a downhole heat exchangers, pumped
water for the plate heat exchangers in the various buildings
on campus, and dumped the waste water to surface
drainage.
In Klamath Falls, it has been experimentally verified that
when a well is drilled there is no flow in the wellbore (see
Figure 3). When the undersized perforated casing is installed,
a convection cell is set up flowing up the inside of the casing
and down the annulus between the casing and well wall.
When a DHE is installed and heat is extracted, the convection
cell reverses flowing down in the casing (around the DHE)
and up the annulus. Similar circulation patterns were noted
in New Zealand using convection promoters.
The convector pipe is simply a pipe open at both ends
suspended in the well above the bottom and below the static
water level (Figure 4). The DHE can be installed either in
the convector or outside the convector, the latter being more
economical since a smaller convector is used. Both lab and
field tests indicate that the convection cell velocities are
about the same in optimized designs and are similar to those
measured in the undersized casing system. A summary of
the New Zealand research can be found in the following
references: Allis and James, 1979; Freeston and Pan, 1983;
Dunstall and Freeston, 1990; Hailer and Dunstall, 1992.
Promoter pipes had been tried on a limited scale in
Klamath Falls previous, but not documented to any extent Figure 4: Convector promoter and DHE (New Zealand
(see Chiasson, et al., 2005; Chiasson and Swisher, 2007). type) (Allis and James, 1979).

GHC BULLETIN, MAY 2010 19

System One 4 loops of ¾-in (1.9-cm) PEX tubing installed in the well for
The first well system investigated was originally completed use as downhole heat exchangers for the homes. Figure 7
in 1929 as either a type A or B as shown in Figure 2. It has a shows the installation of the promoter pipe along with the PEX
10-in (25-cm) diameter hole with an 8-in (20-cm) casing. The downhole heat exchanger.
type was determined from the temperature probe completed
in September 2008 (Figure 5) since we were not able to find a
well log from the original drilling. The well had been losing
temperature over time and was having trouble heating the two
homes connected to the system.

Figure 6: Schematic of System One well.

Figure 5: Temperature vs. depth profile of System One well

before and after the operation of the promoter pipe.

The well was cleaned out in September to remove all the

lose materials in the well since our first temperature probe
stopped at 160 ft (49 m) and the owner knew the well was
deeper than that. From the temperature probe we were able to
determine that there was no convection cell which did not
allow the hotter water to circulate and that a promoter pipe
should be installed to help with the circulation of the hot water.
The perforations should be placed at the live water zone and
just below the lowest static water level on the well. According
to the new well log the static water level was at 56 ft (17 m).
The unconventional promoter pipe (Figure 6) that was
installed in the well had three tee openings. There were located
at 1) 50 feet (15 m) below the top of the casing, 2) 30 feet (9 m)
from the bottom of the well and 3) 10 feet (3 m) from the
bottom of the well. Eight inch perforations were also placed at
the top and bottom of the second tee opening. There were also Figure 7: Placing the promoter pipe and PEX tubing into
the System One well.
20 GHC BULLETIN, MAY 2010
 Another temperature probe was completed in October
2008 to see how the system was performing. The system
was in operation at the time of the temperature probe. As
can be seen from Figure 5, the temperature from the top tee
to the second tee the temperature is constant, which shows
that a convection cell has been obtained. This was probably
due to the fact that the system was in operation and not from
the promoter pipe since the top tee is unfortunately above
the water level of the well. If the water level happens to
increase enough to cover the first tee then the temperature
curve from 50 ft to 262 ft should shift to the right.
System Two
The second system had an 8-in (20-cm) well drilled in
2002 to 370 ft (113 m). The well was originally cased with a
6-in (15-cm) casing and perforated with the lower
perforations located in the “live water” zone 10 to 20 ft (3 to
6 m) from the bottom of the well and the perforations in the
upper part of the casing (170 to 190 ft (52 to 58 m) from the
top of casing) placed at the estimated lowest static water
level. Static water at the time was 170 ft (52 m) below the
casing and the temperature coming into the home was 175˚F
(79˚C). Temperature probes were completed after the well
was drilled and after the casing was installed as can be seen
in Figure 8 and shows that a convection cell was obtained in
the well.
Figure 8: Temperature vs. depth profile of the System Two
before and after casing installation and after installation of
the promoter pipe.
After 6 years of operation, during the early part of 2008,
the owner of the system reported that he was having trouble
GHC BULLETIN, MAY 2010
heating his home. The temperature of the DHE entering the
home was down to 130˚F (54˚C). At that time it was
determined that the water level in the well dropped to 188
ft (57 m) and has apparently dropped below the top level of
the perforations in the upper level, causing the convection
cell of the well to decrease or disappear all together thus
decreasing output temperature of the DHE. The home
owner put water down into the well for 4 hours to raise the
level of the water into the well. This seemed to help and
the temperature into the house did increase. The
temperature again decreased in the later part of 2008 and
we were able to determine that the water level has again
dropped below the bottom part of the upper perforations.
It was then decided to insert a 2-in (5-cm) diameter
promoter pipe into the well to get a convection cell started.
The perforations in the 2-in (5-cm) promoter pipe were
torch cut 1/2-in X 3-in, spaced approximately every 12
inches (30.5 cm) alternated in three areas along 18ft (5.5-
m) of two lengths. The promoter pipe perforations are now
placed from approximately 336 ft to 316 ft (102 to 96 m)
and 210 ft to 190 ft (64 to 58 m) as shown in Figure 9. The
length of the DHE was also extended another 21 ft (6 m).
After the promoter was placed in the well another
temperature probe was completed and as seen in Figure 8
it shows that convection cell has returned. As a result of
this improvement, the home’s DHE incoming temperature
is approximately 170˚F (77˚C).
Figure 9: Schematic of System Two well.
21
System Three (Lund et al., 2008)
The third system, at time of completion, was cased with
a 12-in (30.5 cm) diameter casing from the surface to 219
ft (67 m) and then with a 10-in (25-cm) casing from 210 ft
(64 m) to the bottom at 354 ft (108 m). It only had
perforations at the bottom to allow for hot water inflow
from the fractured basalt aquifer as can be seen in Figure
10. Due to the way this well was completed there was no
natural convection cell generated. This well was considered
a “pumper and dumper” for they used a suction pump to
bring the heat from the bottom of the well and then
discharged to the storm sewer.

Figure 11: Cutting the 1-in diameter perforations in the

promoter pipe for System Three.

Figure 10: Schematic of System Three well.

System Three was having trouble heating the facility

even when the pump was running. This was especially
true for cold mornings and warm afternoon where the
system had to adjust to the changing weather conditions.
The problem was researched and discussed and there were
several options on how to fix the problem. The options
were rip the casing to produce the necessary openings for
a convection cell, install a smaller perforated casing inside,
Figure 12: Temperature vs. depth profile of System Three
lengthen the downhole heat exchanger or install a promoter
well before and after the operation of the promoter pipe.
pipe. It was decided the best solution was to install a 4-in
(10-cm) diameter promoter pipe then the estimated 200 ft
the casing top – which is about 3 ft below street level. We
(61 m) of downhole heat exchanger pipes would not have to
elected to hang the casing off the bottom, as setting it on
be removed.
the bottom might bury the lower holes in fines sloughed
Conclusions into the bottom, thus preventing the circulation cell from
working. The static water level was about 8 ft (2.4 m)
In early March, 2008, 354 ft (108 m) of 4-in (10-cm)
below the surface. Before the top holes were cut, we
diameter promoter pipe was installed. Very few problems
measured the water temperature inside the promoter pipe
were encountered getting the pipe past the downhole heat
as show in Figure 12 the following day. The problem with
exchanger and the casing size change. Approximately 1-in
the well is readily shown, with only about 154˚F (68˚C) for
(2.5- cm) diameter holes were torch cut in the pipe 7 to 10
the first 150 ft (46 m) and then increasing to 192˚F (89˚C)
ft (2 to 3 m) off the bottom and 15 to 20 ft (4.5 to 6 m) from
from 225 ft (69 m) to the bottom. Thus, the downhole heat
the top (Figure 11). The casing was hung from a plate at

22 GHC BULLETIN, MAY 2010

exchanger was only exposed to the cooler temperature
which is marginal for this type of installation, and since
there was no convection cell, would cool even more with
heating demand.
The top holes in the promoter pipe were then cut and the
pipe installed. We then measured the water temperature
profile the next day and received encouraging results. The
promoter pipe was working and providing around 171˚F
(77˚C) over the entire well depth and obviously creating a
convection cell bringing hot water up from the bottom (see
Figure 12). Subsequent reading produced similar results as
shown in Figure 12. The slight variations are due to
variations in heating demand for the building, lower
readings on cold days and higher reading on warm days.
The readings were taken from March 5 through March 14
(all around 1:00 PM) where the low temperatures were
around 28˚F (-2˚C) and the highs around 50˚F (10˚C).
Another temperature probe was completed in August
which shows the temperature has increase from 175˚F to
192˚F (79 to 89˚C).
As can be seen from the three systems described above
the design and placement of the convection cell system is
very important to the operation of the downhole heat
exchanger. The three systems have been completed
differently and the results have varied greatly. System One
will probably encounter problems in the future unless they
decide to lower the location of the top tee or the water level
increases. One of the owners has replied that the
temperature coming in to his home is adequate, but not as
high as he expected considering the temperature at the
bottom of the well. When System Two was completed the
perforations should have been placed lower that they were
for they were placed just below the water level. With the
installation of the promoter pipe the system seems to be
operating in a satisfactory matter at this time and the
owner is pleased with the temperature coming in to his
home. The less costly option for System Three was the
installation of the promoter pipe and they have reported
they are getting very adequate and uniform heat into the
building now.
GHC BULLETIN, MAY 2010
REFERENCES
Allis, R. G.: A Study of the Use of Downhole Heat Exchangers
in the Moana Hot Water Area, Reno, Nevada. Geo-Heat
Center, Klamath Falls, OR (1981).
Allis, R. G. and R. James: A Natural Convection Promoter for
Geothermal Wells, Geo-Heat Center, Klamath Falls, OR
(1979).
Chiasson, A. D., G.G. Culver, D. Favata, and S. Keiffer:
“Design, Installation and Monitoring of a New Downhole Heat
Exchanger”, Transactions, Geothermal Resources Council
Vol. 29, Davis, CA (2005).
Chiasson, A. D. and R. Swisher: “Continuing Advances in
PEX Downhole Exchangers for Direct-Use Heating
Applications”, Geo-Heat Center Quarterly Bulletin, Vol. 28,
No. 2, Klamath Falls, OR (2007).
Culver, G. G., and G. M. Reistad: Evaluation and Design of
Downhole Heat Exchangers for Direct Applications, Final
Report, Contract No. EY-76-S-06-2429, prepared for the U.S.
Energy Research and Development Administration, Oregon
Institute of Technology, Klamath Falls, Oregon (1978).
Culver, G. G.: DHE. Report prepared for USDOE, Geo-Heat
Center, Klamath Falls, OR (1990).
Culver, G.G. and J. W. Lund: “Downhole Heat Exchangers”,
Geo-Heat Center Quarterly Bulletin, Vol. 20, No. 3, Klamath
Falls, OR (1999).
Dunstall, M. G. and D. H. Freeston: “U-Tube Downhole Heat
Exchanger Performance in a 4-Inch Well, Rotorua, New
Zealand”, Proceedings, 12th New Zealand Geothermal
Workshop, pp. 229-232 (1990).
Freeston, D. H. and H. Pan: “Downhole Heat Exchanger”,
Proceedings, 5th New Zealand Geothermal Workshop, pp.
203-208 (1983).
Hailer, S. and M. G. Dunstall: “Downhole Heat Exchanger
Experiments in a Laboratory Scale-Model Well”, Proceedings,
14th New Zealand Geothermal Workshop, pp. 93-98 (1992).
Lund, J. W., T. Boyd, B. Hackman, and B. Huffman: “Use of
Promoter Pipe with Downhole Heat Exchangers in Klamath
Falls, Oregon”, Proceedings, New Zealand Geothermal
Workshop and NZGA Seminar 2008 (2008).
Lund, J. W.; Culver, G. G. and L. S. Svanevik: “Utilization of
Intermediate-Temperature Geothermal Water in Klamath
Falls, Oregon”, Proceedings, 2nd U.N. Symposium in the
Development and Use of Geothermal Resources, San Francisco,
CA, Vol. 2, p. 2147-2154 (1975).
23
OREGON’S FIRST GEOTHERMAL COMBINED HEAT AND POWER PLANT DEDICATION
Kristina Hakanson Maupin and John W. Lund, Oregon Institute of Technology
Photographs by Kristina Hakanson Maupin
Oregon Institute of Technology (OIT) dedicated its new
geothermal electric generation project in a ceremony on
April 20, 2010. The event was followed by tours of the pow-
er plant located on the southeast corner of the campus adja-
cent to the existing geothermal wells.
This “small” power plant is the first geothermal combined
heat and power plant in Oregon, and the only geothermal
electric plant currently operating in the state. It is also the
first geothermal power plant in the world to operate on a
campus from a resource directly underfoot. It has a maxi-
mum installed capacity of 280 kilowatts gross power utiliz-
ing existing geothermal wells on the campus.
The emcee for the event was John W. Lund, Professor
Emeritus and Director of the Geo-Heat Center who outlined John Lund, Director of the Geo-Heat Center
the geothermal development on campus from 1959 to pres-
ent. Other speakers at the event were: Oregon State Repre-
sentative Bill Garrard; Bob Simonton, Assistant Vice Chan-
cellor for Capital Programs, Oregon University System; and
Peter West, Director of Energy Programs for Energy Trust
of Oregon. Mr. West presented a check for $487,000 from
the Energy Trust of Oregon to help cover the cost of the
geothermal plant. Funding support was also provided by the
Oregon University System, Oregon Department of Energy
and a “Blue Sky” grant from Pacific Power. The Klamath
Union High School Jazz Band performed before and after
the event.
Dave Ebsen, OIT Director of Facilities along with staff
members, Scott Keiffer and Don Depuy, were instrumental
in insuring that the plant was operational in time for the
dedication.
Bill Garrard, Oregon State Representative
The OIT campus has been entirely heated with geother-
mal energy since the early 1960s, saving approximately
$1,000,000 per year in heating costs. These wells produce
600 gallons per minute (38 liters per second) of 192 to 196˚F
(89 to 91˚C) water. After the geothermal water passes
through the power plant and 15 to 20˚F (8 to 11˚C) is ex-
tracted, the water is then used to heat campus buildings be-
fore it is injected into wells on the lower part of campus. The
power plant produces net electricity from 150 to 200 kW,
depending upon the season, which is either used on campus
or fed into the Pacific Power grid.
A second “big” geothermal power plant is planned, too.
The 1.0 to 1.2 megawatt proposed project will utilized a
5,300-foot (1,600-meter) deep well drill on campus in 2009.
The big project is expected to be complete in 2012.
Bob Simonton, Assistant Vice Chancellor, Oregon
University System

24 GHC BULLETIN, MAY 2010

Right: Presentation of the check from Energy Trust of The power plant inside the building.
Oregon. From left to right: Peter West, OIT President Chris
Maples, John Lund, OIT Interim Vice President for Finance
and Administration Mary Ann Zemke, OIT Geo-Heat
Center Assistant Director Toni Boyd, OIT Director of
Facilities Dave Ebsen, and Bob Simonton.

John Lund describing plant operation to Bob Simonton,

with State Senator Doug Whistett and Brian Brown in the
Klamath Union High School Jazz Band led by Drew background.
Langley.

The power plant building with cooling tower. Toni Boyd conversing with a visitor about the power plant.

GHC BULLETIN, MAY 2010 25

Dave Ebsen discussing the power plant operation with Scott Keiffer describing the plant operation with Peter West.
Brian Brown.

Don Depuy conversing with Mike Ronzello about the power Pratt & Whitney representative Mike Ronzello.
plant.

GEO-HEAT CENTER Non-Profit

Organization

Oregon Institute of Technology

U.S. Postage
PAID
Klamath Falls, OR 97601-8801 Klamath Falls, OR
Permit No. 45