IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jeners/v14y2021i23p7998-d691754.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comprehensive Survey of Seismic Hazard at Geothermal Sites by a Meta-Analysis of the Underground Feedback Activation Parameter a fb

Author

Listed:
  • Arnaud Mignan

    (Institute of Risk Analysis, Prediction and Management (Risks-X), Academy for Advanced Interdisciplinary Studies, Southern University of Science and Technology (SUSTech), Shenzhen 518055, China
    Department of Earth and Space Sciences, Southern University of Science and Technology (SUSTech), Shenzhen 518055, China)

  • Marco Broccardo

    (Department of Civil, Environmental and Mechanical Engineering, University of Trento, 38123 Trento, Italy)

  • Ziqi Wang

    (Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA)

Abstract

Global efforts to tame CO 2 emissions include the use of renewable energy sources, such as geo-energy harnessing. However, injecting pressurised fluids into the deep underground can induce earthquakes, hence converting CO 2 -related risk into seismic risk. Induced seismicity hazard is characterised by the overall seismic activity a f b that is normalised by the injected fluid volume V and the parameter b of the Gutenberg–Richter law. The ( a fb ,b ) set has so far been estimated for a dozen of reservoir stimulations, while at least 53 geothermal fluid stimulations are known to exist, based on our survey. Here, we mined the induced seismicity literature and were able to increase the number of estimates to 39 after calculating a fb from related published parameters and by imputing b with its expectation where this parameter was missing (0.65 ≤ b ≤ 2.9, with mean 1.16). Our approach was a two-step procedure: we first reviewed the entire literature to identify seismic hazard information gaps and then did a meta-analysis to fill those gaps. We find that the mean and median a fb estimates slightly decrease from a fb ≈ −2.2 to a fb = −2.9 and −2.4, respectively, and that the range of observations expands from −4.2 ≤ a fb ≤ 0.4 to −8.9 ≤ a fb ≤ 0.4, based on a comprehensive review unbiased towards high-seismicity experiments. Correcting for potential ambiguities in published parameters could further expand the range of possibilities but keep the mean and the median relatively close to original estimates, with a fb ≈ −2.3 and −2.4, respectively. In terms of the number of earthquakes induced (function of 10 a fb ), our meta-analysis suggests that it is about half the number that could previously be inferred from published a fb estimates (i.e., half the seismic hazard). These results are hampered by high uncertainties, demonstrating the need to re-analyse past earthquake catalogues to remove any ambiguity and to systematically compute a fb in future geothermal projects to reduce uncertainty in induced seismicity hazard assessment. Such uncertainties are so far detrimental to the further development of the technology.

Suggested Citation

  • Arnaud Mignan & Marco Broccardo & Ziqi Wang, 2021. "Comprehensive Survey of Seismic Hazard at Geothermal Sites by a Meta-Analysis of the Underground Feedback Activation Parameter a fb," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(23), pages 1-15, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:14:y:2021:i:23:p:7998-:d:691754
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/14/23/7998/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/14/23/7998/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Domenico Giardini, 2009. "Geothermal quake risks must be faced," Nature, Nature, vol. 462(7275), pages 848-849, December.
    2. Richard T. Woodward & Richard C. Bishop, 1997. "How to Decide When Experts Disagree: Uncertainty-Based Choice Rules in Environmental Policy," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 73(4), pages 492-507.
    3. Mignan, A. & Karvounis, D. & Broccardo, M. & Wiemer, S. & Giardini, D., 2019. "Including seismic risk mitigation measures into the Levelized Cost Of Electricity in enhanced geothermal systems for optimal siting," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 238(C), pages 831-850.
    4. Lacirignola, Martino & Blanc, Isabelle, 2013. "Environmental analysis of practical design options for enhanced geothermal systems (EGS) through life-cycle assessment," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 901-914.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Mignan, A. & Karvounis, D. & Broccardo, M. & Wiemer, S. & Giardini, D., 2019. "Including seismic risk mitigation measures into the Levelized Cost Of Electricity in enhanced geothermal systems for optimal siting," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 238(C), pages 831-850.
    2. Eyerer, S. & Schifflechner, C. & Hofbauer, S. & Bauer, W. & Wieland, C. & Spliethoff, H., 2020. "Combined heat and power from hydrothermal geothermal resources in Germany: An assessment of the potential," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    3. 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.
    4. Baek, Haein & Chung, Ji-Bum & Yun, Gi Woong, 2021. "Differences in public perceptions of geothermal energy based on EGS technology in Korea after the Pohang earthquake: National vs. local," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 172(C).
    5. Wang, Gaosheng & Song, Xianzhi & Shi, Yu & Yang, Ruiyue & Yulong, Feixue & Zheng, Rui & Li, Jiacheng, 2021. "Heat extraction analysis of a novel multilateral-well coaxial closed-loop geothermal system," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 163(C), pages 974-986.
    6. Trumpy, Eugenio & Bertani, Ruggero & Manzella, Adele & Sander, Marietta, 2015. "The web-oriented framework of the world geothermal production database: A business intelligence platform for wide data distribution and analysis," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 379-389.
    7. Guest, Ross, 2010. "The economics of sustainability in the context of climate change: An overview," Journal of World Business, Elsevier, vol. 45(4), pages 326-335, October.
    8. T. D. Pol & S. Gabbert & H.-P. Weikard & E. C. Ierland & E. M. T. Hendrix, 2017. "A Minimax Regret Analysis of Flood Risk Management Strategies Under Climate Change Uncertainty and Emerging Information," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 68(4), pages 1087-1109, December.
    9. 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.
    10. Hou, Xinglan & Zhong, Xiuping & Nie, Shuaishuai & Wang, Yafei & Tu, Guigang & Ma, Yingrui & Liu, Kunyan & Chen, Chen, 2024. "Study on the heat recovery behavior of horizontal well systems in the Qiabuqia geothermal area of the Gonghe Basin, China," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 286(C).
    11. Qiu, Lihua & He, Li & Kang, Yu & Liang, Dongzhe, 2022. "Assessment of the potential of enhanced geothermal systems in Asia under the impact of global warming," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 194(C), pages 636-646.
    12. Hasson, Reviva & Löfgren, Åsa & Visser, Martine, 2010. "Climate change in a public goods game: Investment decision in mitigation versus adaptation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(2), pages 331-338, December.
    13. Toman Michael, 2014. "The need for multiple types of information to inform climate change assessment," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, De Gruyter, vol. 5(3), pages 469-485, December.
    14. Michał Kaczmarczyk & Anna Sowiżdżał & Barbara Tomaszewska, 2024. "Life Cycle and Water Footprint Assessment in the Geothermal Energy Sector," Energies, MDPI, vol. 17(23), pages 1-23, December.
    15. Giambattista Guidi & Anna Carmela Violante & Simona De Iuliis, 2023. "Environmental Impact of Electricity Generation Technologies: A Comparison between Conventional, Nuclear, and Renewable Technologies," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(23), pages 1-33, November.
    16. Liu, Wen & Ramirez, Andrea, 2017. "State of the art review of the environmental assessment and risks of underground geo-energy resources exploitation," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 628-644.
    17. Cui, Guodong & Ren, Shaoran & Zhang, Liang & Ezekiel, Justin & Enechukwu, Chioma & Wang, Yi & Zhang, Rui, 2017. "Geothermal exploitation from hot dry rocks via recycling heat transmission fluid in a horizontal well," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 366-377.
    18. Ruef, Franziska & Ejderyan, Olivier, 2021. "Rowing, steering or anchoring? Public values for geothermal energy governance," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 158(C).
    19. Chen, Jiliang & Jiang, Fangming, 2015. "Designing multi-well layout for enhanced geothermal system to better exploit hot dry rock geothermal energy," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 37-48.
    20. Cousse, Julia & Trutnevyte, Evelina & Hahnel, Ulf J.J., 2021. "Tell me how you feel about geothermal energy: Affect as a revealing factor of the role of seismic risk on public acceptance," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 158(C).

    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:gam:jeners:v:14:y:2021:i:23:p:7998-:d:691754. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.