Potential Improvements

to
Existing Geothermal
Fields in California
 Authors
 Jim Lovekin – GeothermEx Inc.
 Subir Sanyal – GeothermEx, Inc.
 Adil Caner Sener – George Washington University
 Valentino Tiangco – California Energy Commission
 Pablo Gutiérrez-Santana – California Energy Commission

GeothermEx, Inc. 2006

 Acknowledgements
 California Energy Commission
 Public Interest Energy Research (PIER) Program
 San Francisco Public Utilities Commission
 Hetch Hetchy Water and Power
 Ronald DiPippo
 Geothermal Power Plants (2005)
 Ray Dracker
 Center for Resource Solutions

GeothermEx, Inc. 2006

 CEC Reports
 2004 - New Geothermal Sites
 Focus on California and western Nevada
 Provide realistic estimates of MW available
 Estimate capital costs to bring power on line

 2006 - Improvements at Existing Facilities

 Focus on existing geothermal plants within California
 Describe and quantify potential improvements in:
 Resource supply

 Surface facilities

 Estimate capital costs and O&M costs

GeothermEx, Inc. 2006

 GEOTHERMAL FACILITIES
45 geothermal power plants in California

7 geothermal fields
 Coso
 East Mesa

 Heber

 Honey Lake

 Mammoth Pacific (Long Valley)

 Salton Sea

 The Geysers

GeothermEx, Inc. 2006

 CAPACITY DEFINITIONS
Terminology to provide basis for comparisons
 Original capacity (“rated,” “nameplate”)
 Electro-mechanical capacity (“capability”)
 Allows for conditions better than design
 Accounts for turbine modifications, if known

 2005 capacity (gross and net MW)

 Accounts for limitations of resource supply
 Actual annual average power (net MW)

GeothermEx, Inc. 2006

 CAPACITY AMOUNTS
Totals for Seven California Fields
 Original capacity: 2,680 MW gross
 Electro-mechanical capacity: 2,640 MW gross
 2005 capacity: 1,830 MW gross
1,600 MW net
Actual annual average power: 1,500 MW net

Most-Likely Resource Capacity: 3,900 MW gross

(2004 CEC Report)

GeothermEx, Inc. 2006

POTENTIAL FROM IMPROVEMENTS IN
RESOURCE SUPPLY
Electro-mechanical capacity
minus
2005 capacity (gross):

Total = 810 MW gross

Geysers alone = 760 MW gross

This is the amount of power that existing California

geothermal plants could generate if there were
no limitations of resource supply.
GeothermEx, Inc. 2006
POTENTIAL FROM IMPROVEMENTS IN
SURFACE FACILITIES
Most-likely resource capacity
minus
Electro-mechanical capacity

Total = 1,600 MW gross (excluding Geysers)

Salton Sea alone = 1,400 MW gross

This is the the amount of incremental power

that could be achieved by

improvements in existing plants (assuming no increase
in resource supply) or by constructing new plants in
currently producing fields.
GeothermEx, Inc. 2006
 GEYSERS – SPECIAL CASE
 Electro-mechanical capacity exceeds
most-likely resource capacity
 Surplus in plant capacity is concentrated
in certain areas – other areas remain
underdeveloped
 Potential for new capacity at The Geysers
that would not interfere excessively with
existing plants = 100 to 150 MW (Calpine)

GeothermEx, Inc. 2006

 EXAMPLE OF RESOURCE SUPPLY
IMPROVEMENT

Effect of injection augmentation in southeast Geysers

GeothermEx, Inc. 2006
 EXAMPLE OF SURFACE FACILITY
IMPROVEMENT

Advanced direct-contact condenser at Calpine Unit 11

GeothermEx, Inc. 2006
FRAME OF REFERENCE FOR
COST COMPARISONS

Capital costs for new geothermal plants:

$2,900 to $3,500 per kW installed
(2005 dollars)

O&M costs for existing geothermal plants:

2.0 to 2.5 ¢/kWh

GeothermEx, Inc. 2006

 O&M DEFINITION
 Includes
 Labor and benefits
 Services and supplies
 Property taxes
 Royalties and lease payments
 Insurance
 Workovers
 Administrative costs at plants
 Excludes
 Financing costs
 Depreciation
 Ongoing capital expenditures

Note: Financing typically adds several ¢/kWh to effective cost

of operating geothermal facilities – needs to be considered
in determining price at which operators can sell power.
GeothermEx, Inc. 2006
 CONCLUSIONS
 Improvements to existing geothermal
facilities are worth considering if less than
the cost of a new plant, i.e. capital costs less
than about $2,900 per kW improvement.
 O&M savings of a fraction of a cent per kWh
can be significant in comparison to total
O&M in the range of 2.0 to 2.5 ¢/kWh.

GeothermEx, Inc. 2006