Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 40 references

Market Integration Pathways for Enhanced Geothermal Systems in Europe

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Heat-generating enhanced geothermal systems can already compete in Europe's carbon-neutral energy system, and a 60 percent drilling-cost cut would make them competitive for electricity.

desk verdict Solid, reproducible scenario analysis with a clear cost-tipping-point story; the headline capacity numbers are more conditional than the abstract admits. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.06600 v1 pith:NOMG6SQY submitted 2025-01-11 physics.soc-ph

Lukas Franken , Elisabeth Zeyen , Orestis Angelidis , Tom Brown , Daniel Friedrich This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.soc-ph
keywords enhancedgeothermalsystemsenergysystemmodellingdistrictheatingtechnologylearningsectorcouplingcarbon-neutralmarketintegrationdrillingcosts
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper argues that enhanced geothermal systems (EGS), which tap hot dry rock by fracturing it, can enter the European energy market in two phases. At today's drilling costs, EGS that supplies district heating is already cost-competitive in a carbon-neutral system and can support 20–30 GWth of capacity. If drilling costs fall by about 60 percent, the same technology becomes competitive with wind and solar in electricity markets, expanding its market opportunity roughly tenfold. The paper identifies district-heating rollout as the crucial early-market 'runway' that lets EGS learn its way down the cost curve; without it, the early market roughly halves and the path to electricity-market entry is much harder.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by a cost-reduction ladder: the paper runs the same European energy-system model at drilling costs of 100, 70, 55, 40, 30, 25, and 20 percent of 2020 levels, for three EGS configurations (electricity only, combined heat and power, heat only), and reads off the cost-optimal borehole capacity and system-cost saving at each rung. A standard learning-rate identity, $LR = 1 - 2^{-b}$, converts the installed capacity at each rung into the learning rate needed for EGS to finance its own next cost reduction. The 'two-phase' narrative emerges directly from this ladder: heat demand saturates first, then electricity markets open once the 40 percent threshold is crossed.

What would settle it

Track the first several gigawatts of commercial EGS deployment in Europe against this paper's spatial predictions: if heat-led EGS does not appear first in Scandinavia, the Baltics, and Central Europe at near-current drilling costs, or if realised drilling costs fall by 60 percent without electricity-only EGS entering the modelled Central European regions, the two-phase mechanism is not operating as claimed. A simpler check is whether district heating rollout proceeds at all, since the paper's own sensitivity analysis shows that stagnation there halves the early market.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central finding is a cost threshold with a market-size jump. In a cost-optimised, sector-coupled model of a carbon-neutral European energy system, heat-generating EGS is competitive at current drilling costs wherever district heating demand exists, giving an early market of 20–30 GWth. When drilling costs fall to about 40 percent of 2020 levels (a roughly 60 percent reduction), electricity-only EGS outcompetes wind and solar in a confined set of Central European regions where high geological suitability coincides with weak renewable resources, unlocking 20–100 GWel of power capacity and a market an order of magnitude larger. The paper further derives that a learning rate of 20–25 percent would let the early heat-driven deployment generate the cost reductions needed to reach this tipping point.

Load-bearing premise

The early market size depends on an assumed rollout of district heating that reaches 30 percent of the way from today's networks to a cap of 60 percent of urban residential heat demand; if district heating stays at 2020 levels, the paper finds the early EGS market roughly halves, weakening the learning runway that the whole two-phase pathway relies on.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At current drilling costs, EGS for district heating is already cost-competitive in parts of Scandinavia and the Baltics even at CAPEX of 4,500–5,500 €/kWth.
  • Reaching 40 percent of 2020 drilling costs lets electricity-only EGS compete with wind and solar, unlocking about 20–100 GWel of power capacity concentrated in Central Europe.
  • A learning rate of roughly 20 percent (25 percent in the early phase) would allow heat-driven deployment to generate the cost reductions needed to reach the electricity-market tipping point.
  • Electricity-generating EGS displaces about 22 TWh of hydrogen storage and gradually displaces 5–40 percent of wind and solar generation as costs fall.
  • Expanding transmission capacity helps electricity-generating EGS but does little for heat-supplying EGS, so grid reinforcement should not be treated as a general EGS catalyst.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If EGS cost learning is counted globally rather than only in Europe, the required European learning rate would be lower than 20–25 percent, since extra deployment elsewhere also drives costs down.
  • The district-heating subsidy case can be reframed as a technology-learning subsidy for the power sector: every unit of heat-led EGS built today reduces the cost of the electricity-market entry later.
  • The flexible-operation benefit of roughly 10 percent additional borehole capacity could be capped in practice by induced-seismicity risk, which the model treats as an optimistic scenario.
  • Coupled extraction of lithium or other by-products, which the paper does not model, could shift the tipping point to a higher drilling-cost level than 40 percent.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper uses the open-source sector-coupled PyPSA-Eur model to assess the market potential of Enhanced Geothermal Systems (EGS) in a carbon-neutral European energy system. EGS is represented in three modes (electricity-only, combined low-grade heat and power, and heat-only) across 72 regions and seven drilling-cost reduction levels derived from an existing EGS potential dataset. The central findings are that heat (co-)generating EGS is already cost-competitive at current drilling costs in regions with district heating demand, and that when drilling costs fall to roughly 40% of 2020 levels, electricity-only EGS becomes competitive with wind and solar, expanding the market by an order of magnitude. The paper also derives a 'self-sufficient' learning rate of approximately 20-25% that would allow first-phase heat deployment to unlock the second phase of electricity-generating EGS, and it analyses the spatial distribution of adoption and several sensitivities.

Significance. The study addresses a timely and policy-relevant question with a reproducible, open-source modelling framework and a detailed spatiotemporal representation of the European energy system. Its explicit treatment of three EGS operating modes and a continuum of cost levels rather than a binary optimistic/pessimistic framing is a genuine step beyond previous work. The paper is transparent about many limitations, including simplified reservoir physics, regionally averaged cost assignment, and the exogenous district-heating rollout assumption. If the numerical results are reconciled and the learning-rate derivation corrected, the two-phase deployment concept would be a useful framework for EGS stakeholders. The sensitivity analysis around renewable costs, district heating rollout, flexible operation, and transmission capacity is valuable, although some sensitivities are reported only for heat capacity.

major comments (5)
  1. [Methods, Technology Learning Rate] Equation (6) contains a sign error. With the cost reduction factor defined in Eq. (5) as y = cost_original/cost_reduced, so that y > 1 for reduced costs, the formula b = ln(1/y)/ln(C_y/C_0) is negative whenever capacity grows (C_y > C_0). Substituting a negative b into Eq. (4) gives a negative learning rate, which contradicts the positive 20-25% values reported in the text and Figure A.9. Please correct the derivation, reconcile Eq. (5) with Eq. (6), and recompute the learning-rate results.
  2. [Abstract, Results, Discussion, Conclusion] The paper reports incompatible market sizes for the same scenarios. The abstract states 20-30 GWth at current cost, while the Discussion states that district heating demands enable around 100 GWth of already cost-competitive capacity, and the Conclusion refers to a 100-200 GWth market entry. Likewise, the Results state that electricity-only borehole capacity peaks at approximately 4,000 GWth, whereas the Discussion gives about 900 GWth at 20% costs. Since the 'order of magnitude' expansion claim is central, please reconcile these numbers, state consistently whether capacities are thermal borehole capacity or electrical output, and specify the exact cost level for each figure.
  3. [Methods, Technology Learning Rate; Discussion, Two Phases of EGS Deployment] The 'required learning rate' is derived from an identity rather than estimated from data. Given the model-selected capacity C_y at cost-reduction level y, Eq. (6) returns the learning rate that exactly rationalizes y; the reported 20-25% is therefore a consistency condition under the model's own capacity-cost curve, not an empirical estimate. The statement that first-phase deployment 'could suffice to unlock the second phase' assumes real EGS learning matches this required rate. Please support this claim with an independent empirical learning-rate estimate or an explicit range, and clearly label the quantity as a required rate.
  4. [Higher Renewable Costs and Larger Roll-Out of District Heating; Table A.1] The sensitivity to district heating rollout is reported only for heat-generating capacity, not for the electricity-only capacity at the tipping point or for the required learning rate. The paper's learning-runway argument depends on cumulative installed capacity in phase 1; a zero-rollout scenario roughly halves the heat market (Discussion, 'Risks and Opportunities During EGS Rollout'), which should raise the required learning rate to reach 40% drilling cost. Please report electricity-only capacity and the resulting required learning rate under the 'today's rollout' and '60% rollout' sensitivities.
  5. [Methods, Modelling Enhanced Geothermal Systems] Several parameters that determine the tipping point are set as single deterministic values without sensitivity analysis, including the ORC efficiency (12% default), EGS surface plant CAPEX (1500 EUR/kWel), the heat integration cost (25% of ORC cost), and the 7% discount rate. The claimed ~60% drilling-cost threshold is directly conditional on these values; for instance, a change in ORC efficiency shifts the conversion in Eq. (7). Please provide a sensitivity analysis over at least the ORC efficiency and surface plant CAPEX, or explicitly demonstrate that the tipping-point result is robust to these parameters.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Methods] The text refers to 'Methods Subsection d' and similar letters, but the Methods sections are not alphabetically labeled; please use descriptive section names for clarity.
  2. [Figure A.9] The y-axis label 'Self-Sufficient Learning Rate' conflates a required rate with a measured one; please rename it to 'Required Learning Rate' to avoid ambiguity.
  3. [Figure 7] The transmission sensitivity entries are labeled '112.5% Capacity' and '125% Capacity', but the caption does not state that these are percentages of the base transmission capacity; please clarify the reference level.
  4. [Introduction] The comparison with Dalla Longa et al. [4] reports 25 GWel, while the present paper mostly reports GWth; adding an explicit sentence about unit conversions would help readers compare the results.
  5. [Appendix] Figure A.19 has a truncated caption ('…'); please complete the caption so that the figure is self-contained.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the cost threshold and market-expansion claims emerge from an exogenous cost scenario set and an open energy-system model; the learning-rate figure is a transparently derived requirement, not a fitted prediction.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are not circular. Drilling-cost scenarios (100% down to 20% of 2020 levels) are exogenous inputs taken from Aghahosseini & Breyer [2], not outputs of this study; the approximately 60% reduction tipping point is an emergent result of cost-minimizing capacity expansion in PyPSA-Eur relative to an EGS-free counterfactual, not a quantity defined into the model. The 20-25% learning rate is presented in Methods (Eq. 6) as the rate that would be required for the model's own cost-optimal capacity levels to generate the next cost reduction under a power-law learning curve; it is labeled a 'self-sufficient learning rate' (Fig. A.9) and is not used as evidence that EGS will actually achieve that rate, so it is a derived requirement rather than a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The district-heating rollout assumption is exogenous and policy-dependent, and the paper explicitly reports the sensitivity that 2020-level rollout roughly halves the heat market (Discussion), which is a stated limitation rather than a hidden circular dependency. Self-citations to PyPSA-Eur [21,23] refer to an open-source, externally used modeling framework and do not supply the EGS-specific result. No uniqueness theorem, ansatz, or renamed empirical pattern is imported from the authors' prior work. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks and assumptions.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The analysis introduces no new physical entities or mediators. Its burden sits in input assumptions: the EGS cost and suitability data, the district heating rollout scenario, and simplified reservoir physics. These are all acknowledged in the paper's Limitations section, but they are load-bearing for the quantitative capacities.

free parameters (8)
  • ORC efficiency = 12%
    Chosen as default from a 7-15% range based on temperature assumptions; directly sets electricity output and competitiveness.
  • EGS surface plant CAPEX = 1500 e/kWel
    Average of literature range 1300-2000 e/kWel; affects electricity EGS economics.
  • Heat integration cost = 25% of ORC cost
    Assumed additional cost for district heating supply; affects CHP economics.
  • Base district heating rollout progress = 0.3
    Exogenous scenario between 2020 levels and 60% of urban heat demand; the most important sensitivity for heat EGS market size.
  • Discount rate = 7%
    Used to annualise capital costs; standard in energy models but affects competitiveness.
  • Flexible reservoir storage = 24h charge, 25% discharge
    Assumed for flexible operation sensitivity; larger than field-tested values but smaller than [15].
  • Heat-to-power capacity ratio = ~8
    Fixed ratio between heat and electricity capacity based on efficiencies; sets CHP sizing.
  • EGS heat generation loss = 5% (plus 15% distribution loss)
    Assumed loss in heat delivery, concatenated with PyPSA-Eur district heating loss.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption PyPSA-Eur accurately represents a carbon-neutral European energy system with 72 regions and 3-hourly resolution
    All results are conditional on this model's representation of demand, renewable potentials, and grid constraints (Methods, Energy System Model).
  • domain assumption EGS geological suitability and drilling costs from Aghahosseini and Breyer [2] are reliable
    Spatial cost levels and reduction scenarios are inherited from [2]; private gridded data was provided personally by the author.
  • ad hoc to paper Drilling cost reductions apply proportionally across regions, preserving relative cost differences
    Used to build the scenario sweep in Figure 1; real cost reductions may be geographically uneven.
  • standard math Technology learning follows a power law with learning rate formula LR = 1 - 2^-b
    Standard learning curve from [30]; used to compute required learning rates.
  • domain assumption Geothermal reservoir can be treated as a firm, dispatchable heat source with no reservoir performance risk
    Acknowledged in Limitations; real EGS projects face geological uncertainty and induced seismicity risk.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Market Integration Pathways for Enhanced Geothermal Systems in Europe." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NOMG6SQY

@misc{pith2026250106600,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Market Integration Pathways for Enhanced Geothermal Systems in Europe},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NOMG6SQY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.06600}
}
read the original abstract

Enhanced Geothermal Systems (EGS) can provide constant, reliable electricity and heat with minimal emissions, but high drilling costs and uncertain cost reductions leave their future unclear. We explore scenarios for the future adoption of EGS in a carbon-neutral, multi-sector European energy system. We find that in a net-zero system, heat (co-)generating EGS at current cost can support 20--30 GWth of capacity in Europe, primarily driven by district heating demands. When drilling costs decrease by approximately 60%, EGS becomes competitive in electricity markets, expanding its market opportunity by one order of magnitude. However, the spatially dispersed rollout of district heating contrasts with the confined overlap of high geological potential and low potential for other renewables, which conditions the competitiveness of electricity-generating EGS. This results in a challenge where the majority of EGS market potential depends on pan-European technology learning for cost reductions, emphasising coordination is crucial in stakeholders' efforts to reduce EGS cost.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.06600 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Scenarios of potential drilling cost reductions evaluated in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Flowchart of a simplified representation of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Changes of installed capacities for different [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Cost reduction relative to today’s estimated cost required for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Correlation between cost-optimal borehole capacity and various features for electricity-generating EGS and combined low-grade heat [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The change in borehole capacity and total system cost is evaluated for given sensitivities relative to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 40 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    IEA, World energy outlook 2023, International Energy Agency (2023)

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    Aghahosseini, C

    A. Aghahosseini, C. Breyer, From hot rock to useful energy: A global estimate of enhanced geothermal systems potential, Ap- plied Energy 279 (2020) 115769

    work page 2020

  3. [3]

    U. D. of Energy, Geovision, Geothermal Technologies Office (2019)

    work page 2019

  4. [4]

    Dalla Longa, L

    F. Dalla Longa, L. P. Nogueira, J. Limberger, J.-D. van Wees, B. van der Zwaan, Scenarios for geothermal energy deployment in europe, Energy 206 (2020) 118060

    work page 2020

  5. [5]

    Lu, A global review of enhanced geothermal system (egs), Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 81 (2018) 2902–2921

    S.-M. Lu, A global review of enhanced geothermal system (egs), Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 81 (2018) 2902–2921

    work page 2018

  6. [6]

    Eyerer, C

    S. Eyerer, C. Schifflechner, S. Hofbauer, W. Bauer, C. Wieland, H. Spliethoff, Combined heat and power from hydrothermal geothermal resources in germany: An assessment of the poten- tial, renewable and sustainable energy reviews 120 (2020) 109661

    work page 2020

  7. [7]

    J. W. Tester, B. J. Anderson, A. S. Batchelor, D. D. Blackwell, R. DiPippo, E. M. Drake, J. Garnish, B. Livesay, M. Moore, K. Nichols, et al., The future of geothermal energy, Massachusetts Institute of Technology 358 (2006) 1–3

    work page 2006

  8. [8]

    C. Jain, C. Vogt, C. Clauser, Maximum potential for geother- mal power in germany based on engineered geothermal systems, Geothermal Energy 3 (2015) 1–20

    work page 2015

Show all 40 references
  1. [9]

    Genter, K

    A. Genter, K. Evans, N. Cuenot, D. Fritsch, B. Sanjuan, Contribu- tion of the exploration of deep crystalline fractured reservoir of soultz to the knowledge of enhanced geothermal systems (egs), Comptes Rendus Geoscience 342 (7-8) (2010) 502–516

    2010

  2. [10]

    G ´erard, A

    A. G ´erard, A. Genter, T. Kohl, P. Lutz, P. Rose, F. Rummel, The deep egs (enhanced geothermal system) project at soultz-sous- forˆets,(alsace, france)., CABI Digital Library (2006)

    2006

  3. [11]

    Bertani, Geothermal power generation in the world 2010– 2014 update report, Geothermics 60 (2016) 31–43

    R. Bertani, Geothermal power generation in the world 2010– 2014 update report, Geothermics 60 (2016) 31–43

    2016

  4. [12]

    DiPippo, Geothermal power plants: principles, applica- tions, case studies and environmental impact, Butterworth- Heinemann, 2012

    R. DiPippo, Geothermal power plants: principles, applica- tions, case studies and environmental impact, Butterworth- Heinemann, 2012

    2012

  5. [13]

    Dulian, Geothermal energy in the eu, European Parliament Briefing (2023)

    M. Dulian, Geothermal energy in the eu, European Parliament Briefing (2023). 13

    2023

  6. [14]

    Limberger, P

    J. Limberger, P. Calcagno, A. Manzella, E. Trumpy, T. Boxem, M. Pluymaekers, J.-D. Van Wees, Assessing the prospective resource base for enhanced geothermal systems in europe, Geothermal Energy Science 2 (1) (2014) 55–71

    2014

  7. [15]

    Ricks, K

    W. Ricks, K. Voller, G. Galban, J. H. Norbeck, J. D. Jenkins, The role of flexible geothermal power in decarbonized electricity sys- tems, Nature Energy (2024) 1–13

    2024

  8. [16]

    J. M. Weinand, G. Vandenberg, S. Risch, J. Behrens, N. Pflugradt, J. Linßen, D. Stolten, Low-carbon lithium extraction makes deep geothermal plants cost-competitive in future energy systems, Ad- vances in Applied Energy 11 (2023) 100148

    2023

  9. [17]

    Deichmann, D

    N. Deichmann, D. Giardini, Earthquakes induced by the stimu- lation of an enhanced geothermal system below basel (switzer- land), Seismological Research Letters 80 (5) (2009) 784–798

    2009

  10. [18]

    F. J. Nijsse, J.-F. Mercure, N. Ameli, F. Larosa, S. Kothari, J. Rick- man, P. Vercoulen, H. Pollitt, The momentum of the solar energy transition, Nature Communications 14 (1) (2023) 6542

    2023

  11. [19]

    Eyerer, F

    S. Eyerer, F. Dawo, C. Wieland, H. Spliethoff, Advanced orc ar- chitecture for geothermal combined heat and power generation, Energy 205 (2020) 117967

    2020

  12. [20]

    Brown, D

    T. Brown, D. Schlachtberger, A. Kies, S. Schramm, M. Greiner, Synergies of sector coupling and transmission reinforcement in a cost-optimised, highly renewable european energy system, En- ergy 160 (2018) 720–739

    2018

  13. [21]

    Neumann, E

    F. Neumann, E. Zeyen, M. Victoria, T. Brown, The potential role of a hydrogen network in europe, Joule 7 (8) (2023) 1793–1817

    2023

  14. [22]

    Hofmann, J

    F. Hofmann, J. Hampp, F. Neumann, T. Brown, J. H¨orsch, Atlite: a lightweight python package for calculating renewable power potentials and time series, Journal of Open Source Software 6 (62) (2021) 3294

    2021

  15. [23]

    Zeyen, V

    E. Zeyen, V. Hagenmeyer, T. Brown, Mitigating heat demand peaks in buildings in a highly renewable european energy sys- tem, Energy 231 (2021) 120784

    2021

  16. [24]

    Joint Research Center (JRC), Integrated database of the european energy system (idees), https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/potencia/jrc-idees (2021)

    2021

  17. [25]

    Eurostat, Energy balances, https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/en ergy/data/energy-balances (2016)

    2016

  18. [26]

    Eidgenossisches Departement f ¨ur Umwelt. Verkehr, Energie und Kommunikation (UVEK) Bundesamt f ¨ur Energie (BFE), Analyse des schweizerischen energie- verbrauchs 2000 - 2015 nach verwendungszwecken, https://pubdb.bfe.admin.ch/de/publication/download/8461 (2016)

    2016

  19. [27]

    Statistics Norway, Energy consumption in house- holds, 2012, https://www.ssb.no/en/energi-og- industri/statistikker/husenergi/hvert-3-aar/2014-07-14#content (2014)

    2014

  20. [28]

    Eurostat, Nuts - nomenclature of territorial units for statistics, https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/nuts (2013)

    2013

  21. [29]

    Euroheat and Power, Country profiles, https://www.euroheat.org/knowledgehub/country-profiles (2017)

    2017

  22. [30]

    Basalla, The evolution of technology, Cambridge University Press, 1988

    G. Basalla, The evolution of technology, Cambridge University Press, 1988

    1988

  23. [31]

    E. E. G. E. Council, Factsheets on geothermal electric- ity, http://www.geoelec.eu/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/All- Factsheets+-folder.pdf (2020)

    2020

  24. [32]

    Ahmadi, M

    A. Ahmadi, M. E. H. Assad, D. Jamali, R. Kumar, Z. Li, T. Salameh, M. Al-Shabi, M. Ehyaei, Applications of geother- mal organic rankine cycle for electricity production, Journal of Cleaner Production 274 (2020) 122950

    2020

  25. [33]

    Tarti `ere, M

    T. Tarti `ere, M. Astolfi, A world overview of the organic rankine cycle market, Energy Procedia 129 (2017) 2–9

    2017

  26. [34]

    M. Frey, J. van der Vaart, K. B ¨ar, C. Bossennec, P. Calcagno, C. Dezayes, I. Sass, Techno-economic assessment of geothermal resources in the variscan basement of the northern upper rhine graben, Natural Resources Research 32 (1) (2023) 213–234

    2023

  27. [35]

    Ricks, J

    W. Ricks, J. Norbeck, J. Jenkins, The value of in-reservoir en- ergy storage for flexible dispatch of geothermal power, Applied Energy 313 (2022) 118807

    2022

  28. [36]

    Benato, M

    A. Benato, M. Kaern, L. Pierobon, A. Stoppato, F. Haglind, Anal- ysis of hot spots in boilers of organic rankine cycle units during transient operation, Applied Energy 151 (2015) 119–131

    2015

  29. [37]

    Kelkar, G

    S. Kelkar, G. WoldeGabriel, K. Rehfeldt, Lessons learned from the pioneering hot dry rock project at fenton hill, usa, Geother- mics 63 (2016) 5–14

    2016

  30. [38]

    Karadas, H

    M. Karadas, H. M. Celik, U. Serpen, M. Toksoy, Multiple re- gression analysis of performance parameters of a binary cycle geothermal power plant, Geothermics 54 (2015) 68–75

    2015

  31. [39]

    G. R. Beardsmore, L. Rybach, D. Blackwell, C. Baron, A protocol for estimating and mapping global egs potential, GRC Transac- tions 34 (2010) 301–312

    2010

  32. [40]

    base case

    M. J. Aljubran, R. N. Horne, Thermal earth model for the con- terminous united states using an interpolative physics-informed graph neural network, Geothermal Energy 12 (1) (2024) 25. 14 No EGS Elec. Only CHP Heat Only 10 5 0 5 10 Demand [PWh] Energy Generation [PWh] 4.3 2.4 0...

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.