Geothermal power is a growing energy source; however, efforts to increase production are limited by concern over induced seismicity and
potential environmental impacts. Although induced seismicity has been noted for many years during geothermal exploitation, recent attention on this related aspect severely threatens to block or at least slow down its development. Probably we need to more intensely work on the social acceptability to mitigate this. Do you believe that mine is an excessive alarmism or that there really is a risk that this could really lock the geothermal development? In my opinion, at least in Italy and Europe, there are already many warning signs of this. What can be the medicine? And who should provide it?
In Switzerland, the first deep geothermal project in Basel (lead by the private sector) stopped completely after a ML3.4 occurred. Although the earthquake magnitude remains minor, the population was not ready for such an earthquake so close to their homes and maybe not even aware that it could happen. On the contrary, in St. Gallen where another deep geothermal well has been bored (project lead by public goverment) and an earthquake of magnitude 3.6 occured after an emergency water pumping procedure, the population agreed to continue with the project.
The difference is that in Basel little communication was carried out on the geothermal project and its inherent risks and no real effort was put in trying to convince the population of its benefits. Whereas, in St. Gallen an extensive communication campaign on the geothermal project, explaining all advantages and disadvantages of the project was undertaken. My impression is that the population in Basel was not really concerned, and only new that a certain project was underway. But in St. Gallen the people did not only know that a geothermal power plant was going to be built, but were convinced of its utility and of the inherent risks it implied.
Conclusions are that, yes, induced seismicity is an important aspect of geothermal projects, although they are side effects. It is a societal decision, therefore the population needs to know, to be part of the project and process and to be convinced of the benefits of geothermal power. If so, it will also accept the risks.
Very strongly!!!!!,depends on size of generating plant. Disturbed heat energy pattern and generated pressure gradient, due to plant may induced seismicity at very dangerous level.
I do not believe that you are unduly alarmist. There are far too many people, here in Canada as well, who are opposed to anything. They have heard that seismicity can be induced by different activities, such as hydrofracking, and panic sets in. Good people in the USA have lost their jobs because they have supported human activities, and have explained why. No you are not unduly alarmist!
As to what the medicine is and who should provide it, that would be relatively easy to answer if the regulatory bodies could be trusted. Without getting specific I can document two such bodies, one at the federal government level and another at the provincial government level who, by their actions and inactions, have made it abundantly clear that they support the industry. I do, too, but am not willing to let them operate without being sensibly regulated.
The regulatory bodies to which I am alluding refuse to listen to reasoned arguments by professionals who have contacted them. That, to me, is the problem. Consequently those regulators are not trusted, which brings me back to your very valid dilemma.
According to your opinion , people are foolish who are opposing the clean energy source, the neuclear power plants too!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!. Japanies new year gift, you knew!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.
Induced seismicity is highlighted as a key discriminating factor, as it increases proportionally to the environmental benefit. There is no win/win situation. More on Environmental analysis of practical design options for enhanced geothermal systems (EGS) through life-cycle assessment
Lacirignola M., Blanc I.
Renewable Energy 50 (2013) Pages 901-914
I agree with your concern, Domenico. I think the main point is to inform the public properly, take their concerns seriously and be careful when making predictions on the absolute magnitudes of induced seismic event. Look at the recent examples of the EGS project under Basel, Switzerland. The public was given a certain absolute threshold for seismic event, which was surpassed several times. The public (and with them the politicians) felt like they were taken for a ride and that the developer didn't know what they were doing. ... and the multi-million Franc project was stopped!
Maybe developing an EGS right under a city that was totally flattened by a natural M6 earthquake in the 14th century was always going to be a PR nightmare, but I think by better and more openly discuss probabilities rather than thresholds of certain magnitude EQ (agreeably a difficult grasp for the public as well as some politicians) would have been much better. In any case, if we as a people want to move towards geothermal energy, we have to accept some downsides. A good PR campaign, good and clear information for the public and a simple reimbursement scheme for building damage is key!
In Switzerland, the first deep geothermal project in Basel (lead by the private sector) stopped completely after a ML3.4 occurred. Although the earthquake magnitude remains minor, the population was not ready for such an earthquake so close to their homes and maybe not even aware that it could happen. On the contrary, in St. Gallen where another deep geothermal well has been bored (project lead by public goverment) and an earthquake of magnitude 3.6 occured after an emergency water pumping procedure, the population agreed to continue with the project.
The difference is that in Basel little communication was carried out on the geothermal project and its inherent risks and no real effort was put in trying to convince the population of its benefits. Whereas, in St. Gallen an extensive communication campaign on the geothermal project, explaining all advantages and disadvantages of the project was undertaken. My impression is that the population in Basel was not really concerned, and only new that a certain project was underway. But in St. Gallen the people did not only know that a geothermal power plant was going to be built, but were convinced of its utility and of the inherent risks it implied.
Conclusions are that, yes, induced seismicity is an important aspect of geothermal projects, although they are side effects. It is a societal decision, therefore the population needs to know, to be part of the project and process and to be convinced of the benefits of geothermal power. If so, it will also accept the risks.
Ignoring regulations and societal decisions, extraction of geothermal energy is self-limiting. The process of extracting energy from geothermal structure destroys the structures themselves. That is why geothermal energy projects within 15 miles of Yellowstone National Park were outlawed about 15 years ago. The process of fluid extraction and cooling induces seismicity which can speed up the destruction of the underground structures. It is rare that the seismicity reaches a damaging level and geothermal energy plants are not usually located near large population centers. It is the energy source itself which is more likely to be damaged.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Physical Sciences
- Energy
- Energy-Generating Resources
- Renewable Energy