IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/enepol/v39y2011i1p349-357.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Geothermal power production in future electricity markets--A scenario analysis for Germany

Author

Listed:
  • Purkus, Alexandra
  • Barth, Volker

Abstract

Development and diffusion of new renewable energy technologies play a central role in mitigating climate change. In this context, small-scale deep geothermal power has seen growing interest in recent years as an environmentally friendly, non-intermittent energy source with large technical potential. Following the first successful demonstration projects, the German geothermal industry is currently experiencing an internationally unparalleled growth. In this study we explore the factors driving this development, and the role geothermal power production could play in the future of the German electricity market. For this, we apply the scenario technique, based on literature analysis and interviews with companies operating actively in the field. Our findings highlight the importance of political support and framework conditions in the electricity market, with the best prospects in a decentralised energy system based on renewable energy sources, where high investment costs and the risk of discovery failure are balanced by the benefits of low-carbon base load power.

Suggested Citation

  • Purkus, Alexandra & Barth, Volker, 2011. "Geothermal power production in future electricity markets--A scenario analysis for Germany," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 349-357, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:39:y:2011:i:1:p:349-357
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301-4215(10)00735-4
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Frick, Stephanie & Kaltschmitt, Martin & Schröder, Gerd, 2010. "Life cycle assessment of geothermal binary power plants using enhanced low-temperature reservoirs," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 35(5), pages 2281-2294.
    2. Kjarstad, Jan & Johnsson, Filip, 2007. "The European power plant infrastructure--Presentation of the Chalmers energy infrastructure database with applications," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(7), pages 3643-3664, July.
    3. Pahle, Michael, 2010. "Germany's dash for coal: Exploring drivers and factors," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(7), pages 3431-3442, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Nina Hagemann & Erik Gawel & Alexandra Purkus & Nadine Pannicke & Jennifer Hauck, 2016. "Possible Futures towards a Wood-Based Bioeconomy: A Scenario Analysis for Germany," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(1), pages 1-24, January.
    2. Nadkarni, Kabir & Lefsrud, Lianne M. & Schiffner, Daniel & Banks, Jonathan, 2022. "Converting oil wells to geothermal resources: Roadmaps and roadblocks for energy transformation," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 161(C).
    3. Yue, Ting & Long, Ruyin & Chen, Hong & Zhao, Xin, 2013. "The optimal CO2 emissions reduction path in Jiangsu province: An expanded IPAT approach," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 1510-1517.
    4. Wang, Yuqing & Liu, Yingxin & Dou, Jinyue & Li, Mingzhu & Zeng, Ming, 2020. "Geothermal energy in China: Status, challenges, and policy recommendations," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 64(C).
    5. Weinand, J.M. & McKenna, R. & Fichtner, W., 2019. "Developing a municipality typology for modelling decentralised energy systems," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 75-96.
    6. Abolhosseini, Shahrouz & Heshmati, Almas & Altmann, Jörn, 2014. "A Review of Renewable Energy Supply and Energy Efficiency Technologies," IZA Discussion Papers 8145, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    7. Kubota, Hiromi & Hondo, Hiroki & Hienuki, Shunichi & Kaieda, Hideshi, 2013. "Determining barriers to developing geothermal power generation in Japan: Societal acceptance by stakeholders involved in hot springs," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 1079-1087.
    8. Knoblauch, Theresa A.K. & Trutnevyte, Evelina & Stauffacher, Michael, 2019. "Siting deep geothermal energy: Acceptance of various risk and benefit scenarios in a Swiss-German cross-national study," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 807-816.
    9. Eduardo Vicente Mendoza Merch n & Mois s David Vel squez Guti rrez & Diego Armando Medina Montenegro & Jos Ricardo Nu ez Alvarez & John William Grimaldo Guerrero, 2020. "An Analysis of Electricity Generation with Renewable Resources in Germany," International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, Econjournals, vol. 10(5), pages 361-367.
    10. Motasemi, F. & Afzal, Muhammad T., 2013. "A review on the microwave-assisted pyrolysis technique," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 28(C), pages 317-330.
    11. Hasan, M.H. & Mahlia, T.M.I. & Nur, Hadi, 2012. "A review on energy scenario and sustainable energy in Indonesia," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 16(4), pages 2316-2328.
    12. Abbas, Tauqeer & Ahmed Bazmi, Aqeel & Waheed Bhutto, Abdul & Zahedi, Gholamreza, 2014. "Greener energy: Issues and challenges for Pakistan-geothermal energy prospective," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 31(C), pages 258-269.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Osorio, Sebastian & Pietzcker, Robert C. & Pahle, Michael & Edenhofer, Ottmar, 2020. "How to deal with the risks of phasing out coal in Germany," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(C).
    2. Göransson, Lisa & Goop, Joel & Unger, Thomas & Odenberger, Mikael & Johnsson, Filip, 2014. "Linkages between demand-side management and congestion in the European electricity transmission system," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 860-872.
    3. Abolhosseini, Shahrouz & Heshmati, Almas & Altmann, Jörn, 2014. "A Review of Renewable Energy Supply and Energy Efficiency Technologies," IZA Discussion Papers 8145, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    4. repec:dui:wpaper:1504 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Geels, Frank W. & Kern, Florian & Fuchs, Gerhard & Hinderer, Nele & Kungl, Gregor & Mylan, Josephine & Neukirch, Mario & Wassermann, Sandra, 2016. "The enactment of socio-technical transition pathways: A reformulated typology and a comparative multi-level analysis of the German and UK low-carbon electricity transitions (1990–2014)," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(4), pages 896-913.
    6. Lisa Göransson & Caroline Granfeldt & Ann-Brith Strömberg, 2021. "Management of Wind Power Variations in Electricity System Investment Models," SN Operations Research Forum, Springer, vol. 2(2), pages 1-30, June.
    7. Berndes, Goran & Hansson, Julia, 2007. "Bioenergy expansion in the EU: Cost-effective climate change mitigation, employment creation and reduced dependency on imported fuels," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(12), pages 5965-5979, December.
    8. Lohse, Christiane, 2018. "Environmental impact by hydrogeothermal energy generation in low-enthalpy regions," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 128(PB), pages 509-519.
    9. Agar, David A. & Rudolfsson, Magnus & Lavergne, Simon & Melkior, Thierry & Da Silva Perez, Denilson & Dupont, Capucine & Campargue, Matthieu & Kalén, Gunnar & Larsson, Sylvia H., 2021. "Pelleting torrefied biomass at pilot-scale – Quality and implications for co-firing," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 178(C), pages 766-774.
    10. Govorukha, Kristina & Mayer, Philip & Rübbelke, Dirk & Vögele, Stefan, 2020. "Economic disruptions in long-term energy scenarios – Implications for designing energy policy," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 212(C).
    11. Oei, Pao-Yu & Hermann, Hauke & Herpich, Philipp & Holtemöller, Oliver & Lünenbürger, Benjamin & Schult, Christoph, 2020. "Coal phase-out in Germany – Implications and policies for affected regions," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 196(C).
    12. Yang, Ruiyue & Hong, Chunyang & Liu, Wei & Wu, Xiaoguang & Wang, Tianyu & Huang, Zhongwei, 2021. "Non-contaminating cryogenic fluid access to high-temperature resources: Liquid nitrogen fracturing in a lab-scale Enhanced Geothermal System," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 165(P1), pages 125-138.
    13. Steffen, Bjarne, 2012. "Prospects for pumped-hydro storage in Germany," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 420-429.
    14. Maria Taljegard & Lisa Göransson & Mikael Odenberger & Filip Johnsson, 2019. "Electric Vehicles as Flexibility Management Strategy for the Electricity System—A Comparison between Different Regions of Europe," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(13), pages 1-19, July.
    15. María Dolores Mainar-Toledo & Maryori Díaz-Ramírez & Snorri J. Egilsson & Claudio Zuffi & Giampaolo Manfrida & Héctor Leiva, 2023. "Environmental Impact Assessment of Nesjavellir Geothermal Power Plant for Heat and Electricity Production," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(18), pages 1-21, September.
    16. Zack Norwood & Joel Goop & Mikael Odenberger, 2017. "The Future of the European Electricity Grid Is Bright: Cost Minimizing Optimization Shows Solar with Storage as Dominant Technologies to Meet European Emissions Targets to 2050," Energies, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-31, December.
    17. Goodman, James, 2016. "The ‘climate dialectic’ in energy policy: Germany and India compared," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 184-193.
    18. Shaikh, Mohammad A. & Kucukvar, Murat & Onat, Nuri Cihat & Kirkil, Gokhan, 2017. "A framework for water and carbon footprint analysis of national electricity production scenarios," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 406-421.
    19. Wilson, Ian Allan Grant & McGregor, Peter G. & Hall, Peter J., 2010. "Energy storage in the UK electrical network: Estimation of the scale and review of technology options," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(8), pages 4099-4106, August.
    20. Esteves, Ana Filipa & Santos, Francisca Maria & Magalhães Pires, José Carlos, 2019. "Carbon dioxide as geothermal working fluid: An overview," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 1-1.
    21. Steffen, Bjarne & Karplus, Valerie & Schmidt, Tobias S., 2022. "State ownership and technology adoption: The case of electric utilities and renewable energy," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(6).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:39:y:2011:i:1:p:349-357. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/enpol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.