GEOTHERMAL POWER ·ECONOMICS:

AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

VOLUME II

.. Hawaii Geothermal Project.."l-Un1versityof Haw.aii .

September '974 .

R~ E. PetersonK. K. Seo

"tllSTRlBUTION bFTHIS DOCUMENT IS UNLlMI~

Jo1 .

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Annota ti ons

I. Geotherm~l Costf~nctfons

v'A.rmstead, ·H. C.H., IIGeotherma1 Power for Non-BaseLoadPurpo s es II

. Ja.mes, R., IIPower Station Strategyll

James ,R., liThe Economics of the Small GeothermalPower Station"

II. Nonelectrical Geothermal Utilization

Komagata, S •. ,H•. Iga, H.· Nakamura, and Y. Mino.hara,. II The Sta tus of Geotherma 1 Ut i1 i za t i 0"7) ~oJ';,F)-nll .~. .;-' ' . .,.

Ludviksson, V. and S. Hermannsson,lIGeothermalEnergy Costs for Industrial Uses in Ice1and ll

Tikhonov, A. N.. and.I.M. Dvorov, uDeve10pmentjs: 00<3 S-of Geothermal Resources in the USSR II : (;

..• I .

I I I. Geothermal Deve1 opm~nts i nthe Western Uni ~ed. State~ . .

Pages

11-13

14-17 ~-

IV.

E1-Ramly, Nabi 1, R. E.Peterson, and K.· K. Sea,II Geotherma lWe11sin lfflper.i a1 Vall ey,Calffo~nia: Desalting Potentials,Historical Development, and a SelectedBibliography"

Garside, LarryJ., "Geothermal Exploration andDevelopment in Nevada Through 1973 11

." 7t:(JSI3g-r~7S:/77o-0

White, D. Land J •.R. McNitt, IIGeotherma1 Energyll• 75;· r;:J ..,sPy

Legal and Environmental Aspects

21-24---------

25-28

29-30

. .

\yv liThe Majority Opinion in the Reich Ca.se: theQuestion of Dep1etion ll

'y~ ." '." . ". .

\()"Gofman, JohnW., II Some Important Unexamined.\) . Ques t ion s Co ncerni ng the Ba rnwe11 Nu c lea r

Fuel Reprocessing P1ant ll

~() Zeller, Ed'wardJ., .IIThe Disposal of NuclearWaste ll ..

31-33i~

34-36r

37-38//

V. Energy Demand/Supply

Baxter, R. E. and R. Rees, "Analysis of the ;::7C:06'17/,Industrial D~man~ fDr Electricity"

Pages·

39-42

46-5]~

Houthakker, Hendrik S. and Michael Kennedy,. "Demand for Energy as a Function of Price ll 7~'(JLjr¥f 43-45

-'0 Wilson, John W., IIElectricity Consumption:~ Supply Requirements, Demand Elasticity

and Rate Design" .

Geothermal References 52-66

ltV(Armstead, H.C. 11. , "Geothermal Power for Non-Base LOild purposes,"

Geothermics, Special Issue 2, Vol. 2,Part 1 (1970), 936-949.

1. Areas/places discuss.ed

2. Biproducts

3. Costs x

4. Depletion x

5. Economies of 'scale x

6. EnergY. ~eman4/supply

7. Environmental aspects

8. Historical aspects

9. Legal aspedts, ,

10. Well data

Author's Abstract:

contr'aryto the popular belief . that geothermal power can beeconomic only for supplying pure base ioad, there is no d,oubt thatit can sometimesb~.attractiveeven' when used for non-base loadpurposes. Where available geothermal resource's are more thansUfficient to carry the minimum system load, they could,generallybe 'usedto economic advantage for supplyingsubstanti.ally'morethan the pure base load~-sometimes even the 1JJhoZe ioad--owing tothe phenomenon of IIscaleeffect".Evengreater economies cansometimes be derived from the joint use of geothermal power withspecial plants for carrying the peak loads of short duration.su~h special plants could take the'formof gas turbines or evendiesels or free piston plants. Geothermal steam plants exhau~ting

to atmosphere can also sometimes serve as peaking plants, especiallywhere alternative sources of erter~y are scarc~or costly. As a 'variilntto the·installationof· separate peaking plants a geothermalsteam plant may itself be made capable of carrying short time peakloads by means of fuel fired superheaters. One theoretical wayof using at least the bOJ;'esand a large part of the' plant at hi~h

plant 'factor even though. the plant as a whole may be supplyingnon-base load is to introduce thermal storage. Th,e implicationsof doing this are discussed in the paper; and the order of magni­tude of the'required storage space is assessed. The practicalproblems of providing the storage are a-dmittedlyformidable andthe economics very uncertain, but these questions too are broadlydiscussed.

All these problems are examined in the pilper and are illustratedby means o~ hypothetical examples.

- 2 - .2

.Capital costs for a geothermal project are classified·into.

1. Expl.oration costs

2. Production bore drilling costs

3. Plant and equipment .costs.

ProductLon bore drilling costs--a cost ~nalogous to that ofboile~ plant costs ~h conventionalsteamsystems--exhibit economiesof scale only for very small geothermal installations. plantand equipment cost~sare also less likely to exhibit economies ofscale because geothe~mal plant unitsarel~mited.in size. rte~s

2 and 3 together are less susceptible to scale' effects than isthe case with the cbmpar~ble capital costs of ac6nventionalsteam installation.

Exploration costs,'on the other hand, being a rather fixedsum, are' extremely sensitive to the number of kilowatts ~r.istalled

capacity. Accordingly, the "net result Js that geothermal produc­tion costs are not very susceptible to scale effect in the la,rgerranges of capacity, but [are] very susceptible in the smallerranges."

An abridged version of the author's Table 1 follows.

Table 1

Capital costs·ofGeothermal Power Installations(Dollars:per .. kilowatt ~nstalled) ..

Total'

3. Plant and Equip·ment 3

.'

1.

,.2.•

Capital Costs:

Exploration costs l

.D.ril~ing .. costs2

:Installed Capacity (MW):

5 10 20 40 75 150 200

600 300 15.0 75 40 20 15

35 30 30 30 30 30 30

311 .283 255 230 208 188 179

946. 61,3 435 335 278 238 224

Notes :'

1.2.

3.

Assume~ to be a fixed'amount ($3 million)$60,000 per effectiVe bore (one out of· every three bores isunsuccessful), 2,440 kW per bore, .anda spare' steam marginof 20%. . . . ' 0 85Cos t = $1,125 x (kilowatt installed)'· •

~ 3 -

Conclusions'4rawn by the author are:

"The following' considera tions s,uggest thatgeothermal power may sometimes be economic even when"not supplying pure base load only:

1) ScaZeeffect~ The advantages of scale effect,particularly with small systems, may so mitigate thedisadvaritag~sof operating at reduced plapt factorthat it becomes more economic to supply f'rolll geothermalenergy a considerably larger share of a system loadthan the pure base load: sometimes even the whoZe ofthe load.

2) Combination of geother'maZ power' withspeciaZpeaking pZants~ By combining the use.of specialpeaking plants (such as gas turbines, non-condensinggeothermal plants or even diesels or free pistonPlants)~ith ~~othermal power, substantial economie~

can be effected; eV,enthough the, load carried by thegeothermal' plant would still have a load factor wellbelowlOO%~

3) ~Super'heating. As an alternative to specialPeaking plants it may sometimes be economic toprovide fuel~fired superheaters to boost thecapacity of a geothermal power plant during ,timesOf peak load, while still using un-superheatedsteam 'to carry the bulko£ the load at loadfactors well below 100%.

4) Heat stor'age. Without discounting' thepractical and econo~ic difficulties of proVidingadequate and suitable st'orage space, ·it aahbeshown thatthe,use of. heat storage, especiallywith wet'bores, could effect a very substantialsaving in drilling costs , and (in the case of wetbor~s) at the same time,would reduce the rat~atwhich'heat reserves are squandered. Whether thedifficulties Can be overcome, practically andeconomicallY, islef~ open to question."

3

,MJames, R., "Power station strategy," Geothermics',

2, Vol. 2, Part 2 (1970),1676'-1687.

4

Special Issue

1. Areas/places discussed x 6. Energy demand/supply

2. Byproducts 7. Environmental aspects

3. Costs x 8. Historical aspects-4. Depletion- x 9. Legal aspects

5. Economies of scale x 10. Well data

Author's Abstract:

This paper, describes various factors involved when exploita~

tion of a geothermal field for electric power is being considered.

Studies have-been made which indicate_ that for condensingsets, steam turbine inle~ pressures optimize at about_50,psig forthe longest field life during which the teservoir is drawn clown~o the lowest usable pressure. This figure appljes both forsuperheated stea~reservoirand to pressurized bot water aquifers,and hence appears to be universally ~pplicable, l~ading to the

. possibility of plant standardization with resultant-lower costsand ease of maintenance. .

The feasibility of transmitting steam/watermixtures within­long horizontal pipelines has been tested and found to -have manyadvantage~ compared with the case where ~he watei ~s firstseparated and the,n rejected at the wellheads, with the steamfraction on'ly be:1.ngtransmi tted over the same distance. Inregions where the hot water contains very high amounts of dissolvedchemicals, the possibility of deposition in such lines would~have

to be investigated--although any tendency is usually predictablefrom observation of the characteristics of the local boreholes.

The,non-condensable gas content of geothermalsteam'can beused to determine the optimum condenser pressute; the larger-thegas concentration, the greater the specifiC:: steam rate requiredand the higher the pipeline cost ,_ but the less the capital costof the station equipment, hence high gas content inclines thedesign of the system towards small stations erected at boreholessites instead of central stations supplied bylongp~pelines.

... 2 - 5

The economics of such small stations is very favourable; forinstance, a powerful steam/water bore supplying a condenser-set,can generate electricity.at as low as 0.2 cents/kWh which thesale of the rejec~ed hot water could reduce to a mere frac~ion ofthis figure. The greatest potential for development with regardto hot water fields is in emplo-ying this rejected hot water forindustrial processes or space heabing; every effort should nowbe directed towards· attracting industries to utilise thesewasted assets.

The auth9r indicates that if exploratory drillholes yieldsatisfactory resuits with regard to f10wrate, wellhead ·pressure,enthalpy, botiom hole pressure, tempera~ure,and draw-down, thena small scale geothermal power station can be built which willprovide the information needed to assess the capacity and lifeof the reservoir:

"In fact, if a first power station has littleeffect on th~re~ervoir's performance, {t is almostcertain to he ~ontinuously expanded in scope untilchanges within the reservoir indicate it would beprudent to 9all a halt on fu~therexploitaiion. Atthis point, the subterranean reservoir has beentacitly adceptedas .one of quasi-finite capacity andlimited life."

In the Wairakei field, steam is produced from a hot wateraquifer by both ·(1) undergrOund phaseseparatio~~nd dry steamboreholes·anci. (2) separation of the flashed steam~water mixturesat the wellhead. James has made some calciulatio~s based on atheoretical model (see Figure 1) with·the following ·assumptions:

. 1.

2.

3.

4.

150 MW installed capacity~

2·· .Turbine ~onden~er pressure of 1 lb/in absolute.

A pressure-drop between the wellhead and the turbineof 25 lb/in 2 •

A condensation loss between we;Llhead and turbine of 5percent.

5. An aquifer of approximately one cubic kilometer of hotwater (4l00 - 482°F) associated with vol-canic rock of20\ porosity.

Figure 1 indicates the advant"ages, interlIls offield life,of low wellhead pressures and of the drawing of top steam as

.compared with the inore usual method of tapping·thedeeppressurized hot water and separating the flashed st~am~water

mixture at the wellhead •. The maximuIn field ·life for top waterdraw-off is 26 years at 50 psig and is l3yeai~ at 70 psig for thebottom water mode of draw-off.

- 3 ~ 6

) FIGURE 1

FIELD L:IFl;: AS A FUNCTION QFWELLliEADPRESSUREA~DMODE OF DRAW-OFF

Years ofOperation

drc;lw-off curve

water draw~off curve

5

20

25

10

15

oo 40 80 120 160 180

Wellhead Pressure lb/in2

guage

In conclusiont1::.he author.suggests the economic feasibil'ityof small (10 MW)geothermal power stations:

· - 4 -

"Very high gas content is linked wit~" highcondenser pressures which leads to increasedtransmission costs and comparatively reduced powerhouse costs, hence economics are inclined towardssmall stations built at borehole sites inste~d oflarge central stations "supplied from a distancewith the discharges from many bores. A study of aparticular scheme where a single bore supplies astation in situ shows, in fact, that the economicsare very favourable and that geothermal stationsare not related to a scale effect in which the"specific costs are inversely proportional to thesize of the stat~~n, as in conventional f~el-fired

and nuclear stationS. Hence even fields which havebeen investigated and found to be small, ntay beworth ClXploiting and not just discarded because theyare unable to "SUPport a large sized project."

7

Vt··.8

James) R~, "The EcOnomics of the Small Geothermal Power Station,"Geothermics, Special Issue 2, Vol. 2, Part 1 (1970), 1697­1704.

1. Areas/places discussed x 6. Energy demand/supply

2.• Byproducts x 7.• Envh:onmental. aspects-3. Costs x 8. Historical aspects

.....0--

4. Depletion x 9. Legal aspects I- ~

5. Economies of scale 10. ·Well data

)

Author's .Abstract:

In this p~perihe use of a particul~r geothermal borehole,Tauhara~o. I, near Taupo, is .. investigated for the generationOf electricalenetgy and for the.industrial application of thelarge amount of heat energy usually wasted in the rejected borewater.

On the .~lectrical side alone I atentat.ive estimate of. costsindicate titat a po'wer plant ·of iOMW(e) could be erected forabout 1.14 million dollars (N. Z.) (1. a.capi tal costs of 114dollars/kW(e» at.a generating cost of about O~2 cents/kWh(e),which is a very attractive figure .. This indicates that the'~pecific cost per kilowatt of small plants could be as cheap asthat of a very large plants, in other words~ tha'~cale effect'dOes not app1yfo.r geothe-rmal' power in New Zealand. .

In order to make use of the large quantity of boiling waterdischarged by the bore--about a ~illion gallons perday-~it isrecommended that a government assisted pilot plant be setc:.up witha view to attracting private industries into this. field and toassist them in solving any technical problems which arise. Theplant could be operated by the municipality of Taupo with variousindustries grouped around the bore site. The long term purposeis to promote industrial demand£or this bheap source of pow~r

in order that eventually those, interested may absorb part of theenormous volume of. hot fluids rejected at large geothermalprojects such as ,that at Wairakei, the heat energy from which ifsold at even hali the price of that produced by coal-fired boilers,would realise about 6 million dollars pe~ year. This is too -

- 2 - 9

inviting a figure to be lightly disregarded without making aserious effort to induce wide business~wareness of the existenceOf this hitherto largely wasted but unusual resource.

The author points· out that, although the Tauhara, waiotapu,and Reporoa areas in New Zealand have been drilled, furtherdevelop~ent has not taken plac~for several reasons. These include(1) lack of confidence in reservoir size, (2) chemical deposition,in pipes, and (3) too high a ratio of nonproductiveholes~However, there ~re now (1970) three good bores in the Tauharaarea and the author asks ":Is it worthwhile to· build a small powerscheme merely to.. develop these few holes or do the economicsweigh heavily against such an undextaking?"

His data are based on the TauharaNo.l borehole which wasdrilled.~n 1964 to a depth of 3,953£t. Testing in 1967 indicateda constant enthalpiof. 483 BTU/lb over the flow range tested anda 496 0 F hot wat.er source. Assuming a 10% capital cost, an 85%load factor, and a 20-year bore life, James' estimated costs, in·U. S. dollars, are as follows:

CAPITAL COSTS

Thousands ofu.s. Dollars

Borehole (existing)2 ~teamseparators of 72" di~meter

Turbo-alternator-condenser set. Twin tower concrete silencer (existing)Cooling tower, ·natural ~raughtBuildings, foundations (road existing)Electrical equipmentC., W. pumps,· valves, pipesWater gas ejector, valves, pipesOther mechanical plant

Substation and connnection to Taupo

Engineering and contingencies, 10%

Cost per kW onlO MW(~) gross installed

$ III17

55611

167III

44222244

110550

1155116

$1271= $127.l.1/kW(e)

- 3 -

EST~MATED COST OF ENERGY

Capital charges at 10\ of $1.271 millionMaintenance, 1\Operating salaries, waqes

Administration, 10% surcharge'Total annual cost

Annual energy generated at o.es 10adfactor on 10 MW(e) installed

Less 4% auxil:Qaiypower

Thousands ofu.s. Dollars

12711

7ill"

14ill

Millions ofkWh(e}:

74.53·

71. 5

10

Cost per kWh (e) sent out l59,OOO(lOO)= (71.5}l06

= .22 cents/kWh(e)

The author concludes that this figure of .22.cents/kWh(e} fora small geothermal plarit is v~ry attractive when compared tonuclear. and fossil fired alternatives.

James further sU9ge~ts,that "J;t is evident that geothermalpower stations are'independent,ofthe 'scale effect' and. smallones can be e,rected at a capita1 cost/kW(e) andat,aqeneratinqcost/kWh(e) which is at least as attractive as that obtained forlarge ones, hence isolated bores which are good producers may beexploited even if situated in a field Which is not consideredlarge enouOh for 4evelopment towards a siz~able station."Furthermore, if industries; were encouraqedto build plants nearthewellhead,the'se might include the following industrial activi­tie. based on the reject geothermal hot wate~s:

• curing hides'

• seasoning timber

• . "drying milk

.man~facturing paperfro~wo6d-pulp

In conclusion, it appears that it ~ay be more economicallyfeasible to build small geother~alstationsat the borehole thanto build lar;Je central installations supplied by' many bores.

11

,I Komagata, S., H. Iga,H. Nakamura, and ,Y.Minohara, "The statusof'Geothermal Utilization in Japan," Geothermics, SpecialIssue 2, Vol. 2, Part 1(1970),185:"196.

1. Areas/places discussed x 6. Energy demand/supply

2. Byproducts x 7. Enviromnental aspects--3. Costs 8. Historical aspects ~

4. Depletion 9. Leqal aspects x

5. Economies of scale 10. Well data-

Authors'Ab~tract:

This paper includes the use of geothermal energy for curingsicknesses at.hot springs, convalesce.ntand recreational resorts,agriculture and secondary industries in Japan, intentionallyexcluding the geothermal utilization for elect,ric power generation.

Reference is made to the history of bathing <~thot springsites. since a.ncienttimesinJapan. Also. addedar,e, thedistribti­tionof .hot: s'prings in Japan, the definition thereof based uponthe "Hot Spring Law", and the classification of hot springsaccording to chemical composition. The rapid increase of .theuse. of qeothermalwaters for curing, . convalesqentand recreationalpurposes by so many people is truly surprising, 'and probably thereis no country ,other than Japan, where hot springs are in closecontact with the 'people. According to the statistical data,approxima.telyl50 million people visit hot spring sites annual:ly.The utilizations for agriculture, fisheries and secondaryindu~­trie~ are ·asYet.few'. In particular ,there is littleutilizatioDofqeothermal energy for' heating of buildings, cooking, etc. Inthis paper, We have described the typical examples of use foroorticulture ,animal ~breedingandsecondaryindustries, many' ofwhich are studied'byspecialresearchor~anizationsformed bylocal autonomies, because such utilizations largely dependu~on

regional characteristics.

The larger the scaleo~qeothermalpowergeneration, the moreimportant the problem of the utilization of hot waste water for

I theahove-mentioned purposes. Since it is expected that theefficiency of such hot waste water utilization should contributemuch to regional developments, it. is considered necessary toaccelerate geothermal electric generation particularly in Japan.

...2 ... 12

\

I

Geothermal utilization in Japandatesbackinany,year$., Them~dicinal hot waters at the Tamall;ukuri Hot Sp:r::ing (Shimane~*~fecture) ,were useda,slpngago as '729A.S. Many:shrines werebuilt around hot spring~. In the8"'12th centuries~apaneseBuddhisttemples provided. hbtwater baths and sudatoria. for purification

,ceremonies as ',wel.las for. curing illness. In Shimokama thermal194°F waters were used for heating ,a greenhouse and growing melonsand fI:owers since 1916 • These waters today are also used, for

• hatching eggs• raising poultry• breeding all.igator~,' eels, and carp ,,'• brewing , distillation, and, other ·processing- ,

.'

In BeppuCity54.of 2132 springs are being used forhorticulture and an~ther254 are being used for tourism and otherpurposes. In Ibusuki City, 106 of 571 springs are being used forhorticulture, 6 for, fish breeding, and 1 for brewing and distiila ...tion.

- '. .

Table 1, indicates the extent of hot sprlngs with l,odging,facilities and the number ,of visitQr$.Approximately 100 millionvisitors utilized '. these springs in 1968 • Not included i.n this,total are an additional 50 million visitors on one ...day trips.In addition to the l,590.hot spring sites (as of 1969), there are46 sites with 98 hot springs which have been desiqnated,'inaccordance with the Bot Spring ~aw, as natiotial re¢uperating hotspring site.. ' '

Japan t s Hot spring Law.was ,ena,ctedin 1948 for, the purposeof protecting and rationally utilizing the thermal na~ural,'

resources ~'" The Law defines a hot spring as hot water, mineralwater, v'apor, ,0rnonhYdrocarbon g'ases which issue from undergroundat 77 0 F or higher and which contain specified minimum amounts of19 mineral components.

TheauthorstTable 6 (not reproduced here) contains 27examplesofthe,utili.zation .of geothermal energy in Japan foragriculture and industry. Seventeenof~hese~rivolve greenhousesin various areas which are used fOr the growing of cucumbers,'tomatoes,melons,chrysanthe1t\ums,papayas',bananas,crotons,1il11es, orchids,rubber trees, cacti, eggplant and carnations.other locations u~egeothermal waters for .

• poult~y raising• alligatorbre'ea.ing• saltmaking (150 tons annually)• sulphur extraction '(1;540 tons in 1965)• rice processing (180 kg daily)• medicinal herb culti.vation'. marine ha.tching center ......breedingof eelsatid,carp'

I

- 3 -

, TABLE 1

UTILIZATION OF HOT SPRINGS IN JA~AN

13

Year

1957195819591960

.19611962196319641965196619671968

Number ofHot Spring

Sites .

. 1,207

1,3311,3901,4791,590

, Number of. Lodgin:gFacilities

7,5567,7387,91,38,276~,744

9,24410,31910,42710,90411,41112,58613,553

Annual TotaJ.Lodged orVisitingPerSons

40,701,81247,519,27049,471,91355,251,80377,551,4998Ei,743,79.785 ,675 , 621,8 7 , 371 , 026 '93,311,028,

'89,634,687'.96,050,339100,551,422

Number ofFacilitiesfor Public

Baths

1,588

1,6291,6861,5941,588

. . . .' . . . .

The authors h~ve provided an estimate of the revenues andcosts-for several of these 27. enterprises .In addition, a .detailed analysi,sis provided of the Ho.kkaidoMarine HatchingCenter (Hot Water Breeding Experimental Station), , . the IkedaGeothermal Saltmaking plant near Hokkaido(which,isplanningto expand to 100',000 tons annually with a 7MW geothermal powerplant), and the KokonoeyamaSulphur Mining plant.. '

The first utilization of geothermal energy.£orpowergeneration too)c place at Beppu in 1924 when H. Tachikawa,built a1 kW facility. After World War II small-scale. experimentalgeothermal stations-were attempted at Atagawa, Narugo,Beppu(30kW in 1956), andHakone~ In 1956 a 20 MW plant was constructedat Matsukawaand in 1967 a 13 MW facility opened atOtake.E~ploitation is.xpec~ed ~~ Hachimantai, Onikobe, and Hatchobaru.

14

J Ludviksson~V. and S. Hermannsson, "Geothermal Energy Resources. and Energy Costs for ~ndus~rial Uses in Iceland,"

Geothermal World Directory (Glendora, California: P. O.Box 997, 1972), 125-135.

1. Areas/places discussed x 6. Energy demand/supply

2. Byproducts x 7. Environmental aspects

3. Costs 8. Historical as'pects

,4. Depletion x 9. Legal aspects...

5. Economies, of scale 10. Well data x

The authors report on three recent geothermal developmentsin Iceland. The first is ~he Johns-Manvi~le/Icelandicgovernmentventure in a diatomaceous earth procesjingplant which wascompleted in 1967 near 'Namafjall. This plant uS,esabout ,20 tonsof geothermal steam per hour at 110 psia to dry mud dredged fromnearby Lake Myvatn. The government owns the steam producingfacilities and, as of ,1968, was charging $.39 per ton. This isa relatively high price due to the fact that' the total amount. ofsteam cO,nsumed is considerably less than the output of one

.production steam well. '

The second development is the recent completion of a 2500 KWgeothermal electric power plant in the Namafjall area near the,diatomite plant. Again, the government owns the steam facilitiesand the power plant is owned by the Laxa Power Company. The plantwill use ~pproximately 50, tons/hour ~f steam at 150 psia.

The third development, ,and t.he one most exte.~sively discussedby the authors, is a feasibility study of producing 'sea c,hemicals,'Using geothermal steam as an energy source, in the Reykjanesarea.

According.to the authors,' this sea chemicals industry wouldproceed in three stages:

"The. first step would be the production of commonsalt and potassium cbloride from the brine'. Combinedwith this would be the production of byproducts fromthe mother liquor after salt and potash brystallization.Thes~ byproducts would includ. bro~ine, calciumchloride and possibly lithium salts •••

,)

-2 -

."The s~condmajor stapcoul~ be theprodu¢tionof magnesium chloride from sea water and shells and.which could lead to theproductiono£ magnesium metal.A process based o.n the' use of geothermal steaJIl ascombination with an ionexchange step is being developedunder NRC [National Research Council] sponsorship.This proc.ess produc.essoda ash as a byproduct. Othersteps are possible, such as the production of .chlo;-ine-.sodium metal production. Alternately, titanium metalcould be produced based on the sodium process~

II Ina third group is theprodliction of va:d.ouselectrolytic ~issociationproductsof common salt.Most notable of the products in this category is theproduction of caustic and chlorine. Salt· atfavorable prices .and low. cost power would insure lowproduction costs for these chemicals. II'

15

Although the chlorine ~xport market appears. weak at thepresent· time, it might be possible to convert the chloritie to morevaluable products such as vinyl chloride, ethylene dichlorid..e,polyvinyl chloride, or c.hlorinated solvents. These productsrequire inexpensive ethylene or acetylene ~omloc~l refineries,ethylene cracking ~acilities~ or acetylene prtiduction centers.

The proposed geothermal area is about 2 miles long and 1mile wide and has numerous hotspots, steam springs, boiling mudholes,and hot brine springs. .

The bottom-hole temperature of a 3609 foot borehole drilledin 1968 was 547°F. Recently the eighth well. in the area wasdrilled toa deptl1 of 5906 feet and had a bottom-hole temperatureof 491° F. Wells drilled less than 3,300 feet deep appeared to beaffected by cold s~awater intrusio~. It is anticipated that 40 to80 tons of 266°.F steam per ho~e can be produced when this mostrecent hole is opened. It is estimated that with 3-6 such holesthere will beenoug~ geothermal brine and steam to supply a250,000 ton salt plant.

The brine composition, when flashed to 1 atmosphete and 212° F~

is reported in Table 1 along with th~'correspondin~'v~luesforseawater. In comparing the two fluids, the authors comment thatlithe potassium, calcium and lithium contents are greatlyincreased, making aneconomicextracti~nof these salts possiblewhile magnesium and sulfate ions have greatly decreased in . .concentration,. which reduces the conventional hardness sca1i."ngproblems. However, the enormously ~ncreased silicate concen~ration

gives rise to another scaling agent which will have to be J.

reckoned with. " .

Some of the results of an economic' feasibility study of theproposed sea chemicals industrY are given in Tab1e 2.

- 3 -

TABLE 1

CONSTITUENTS IN SEAWATER ANDGEOTHERMAL BRINE ON 'REYKJANES

1(5

constituent

C1Na'S04MgCaK

HC03Br

Si0 2BFAlLiINH4FeMnCuPbZnAsH2 S

Total soli.ds'PH'

Quantityin Seawater

mg/kg

1a~980

10,5602,6501,270

400380140

65.2.5 .4.61.41.9

• 1• 05

~02

.01

.008

.005

.008

.018

34,500

Quantity inGeothermal Brine

mg/kg' Ratio

1.621.S0

.029

.026.65.8

.0431.7

240.3.2

.57

.3983 •12 •

1.55

Production Unit

The Salt WorksSalt, fine grainedSalt, .course grainedPotash·CalciUm chlorideBromineLithium compounds

Lime CalcinationThe Magnesium­

Hydroxide Works·The Magnesium Chloride

and Soda Ash WorksMagnesium chlorideSoda ash

The Magnesium WorksMagnesiumChlorine

TABLE 2

FEASIBILITY STUDY OF 250,000 TON SALTPLANT AND 24,000 TON MAGNESIUM PLANT

SalesPower Geo- Pro- . Cap- Ope:ra- .. Value

Require- thermal Per- due'" ital ting atment Steam Oil son- tion Cost Cost Factory

Raw Material kW t/h t/yr riel t/yr $Mill $Mill $Mill

270 llsec brine 2,500 270 124 11.5 3.2 3.6200,000

50,00025,00058,000 Il:lo

700 I500

i60 t shellsand 350 12,600 12 70,000 1.5 .81100-1200 l/secsea.w•.

·<70,000 t CaO 300 6 73,000 1.5 .4145,000 tsalt70,000 t Mg(OH)2 1,800 450 12,000 35 11.0 4.1

.107,000120,000 3.36

107,000 MgC12 60,000 300 23.0 10.0024,000 ··13.065,000 2.6

)~"';'khOnov, A.N.aD.d~. M. Dvorov, "llevelopment of Research. Utilization of Geothermal Resources in: the USSR,"

Geothermics, Special Issue 2, Vol. 2, Part 2 (1970),1072-1078.

18

and

1. Area.s/places discussed x 6. Energy demand/supply -2. Byproducts x 7. Environmental aspects-3. Costs 8. Historical aspects

4. Deple,tion 9. Legal aspects

5. Economies of scale x 10. Well data

Authors' Abstract;~ractic~~ utilization rif geotherma1 r~sourc~s inUS~R, now. . . -. .

under way, is closely related.to a large development of sci.,entificresearch inthefieldof.geotbermics. Work concerned with·geot.herm~l research a'ndutilization. of res.o.urces in USSR covers4 mai.nproblems:

·Ca) - regional distribution and condition of. formation of ageothermal fi~ldwithin a zone open to direct measurements;

. . Cbr .. devising and improvement oftheappar.atus and geothermalobaervation techniques;

(c) - study of deep-tectonic processes;

(d) - practicalut.ilization of geothermal resources.

Prospected re~erves of thermal waters oyer therahge oftemperatures from 50 to 200 0 C have been-tentatively estima.ted inUSSR as b~ing over Bmillion m3 pei day.

Geothermal resources in USSRare being ut.iLtzedfor thepurpose of heating, hot water supply.ofli.,vinq .and. industrialbuildings; in agriculture-~for the heating of hotbeds· andgreenhouses; for the growi.ngof vegetablefil and for cattle-breedingneeds; in extracting chemical matter from geothermal waters; fortheir utilization in balneolo·gy; forelectr ic powergenera:tion.·

Approximately 50-60.percent of the USSR contains comm~rcially

expJpitable thermal waters Which could provide sufficient heat toreplace dozens of millions of tons of conventional fuel annually.

- ,2 -

Among the applications of thermal resources in the USSR arethe following:'

. 1. Heating andhot-water supply of industria'1 buildings andresidential dwellinguni-ts., For this type ofapplic:::ationthe'water temperat:;ures m,ustbe l<il0~2l2° F. In a .search for oil inMakhach~Kala years ago, 100 boreholes were drilled 3937 to 4921~eet deep and 40 of these yieldeg,140-l58° -F water. One of theseboreholes has been supplying re,sidential' heat and hot water for

. industry sinc.e 1948 and another has beengiviriglOOO bottles ofnlineralwate:rmonthly since 1956. A beat distribution stationnear Makhach-Kala provides the 15,000 inhabitants of new homestherewith hot water. '

2. Agricultural uses. Also in Makh~ch-Kalathe thermalwaters have been heatingp.,otbedsan~ hothouses in a 5000 :x:5000marea for several years. 11.' 50,000 m hotbed-hothouse is beingbuilt ,for year-round production and it is anticipated that 2,000tons of cucumbers, tomatoes, and other vegetables can be grownthere. '

3. Che,mical processes. Application i,s.being mage of theheat in thermal waters to produce cold in refrigerating machines:"Refrigerating' equipment is increasing every year •. A number ofchemic:::al,plants consumemilliaril'iofcold kilocalories refrigera­tion,units. Cold is used for the production ofsyhthetic rubber,

, ammonia, protein and vi tamins p,reparations , etc. Metallurgicalplants 'al so consume enornious' quantities of cold. It is interestingthat a majority of enterprises are equipped with compressormachines which consume enormous electrical energy.

II In the USSR, the absorption lith.ium br,6mide' machine, with apOwer of 2.5 million kilocalories of cold in an hour, which doesnot operate with electrical 'energy but with thermal water, hasbeen examined and is being mass-produced. This refrigeratingplant is notable ~or the fact that it gives not only cold but alsotransforms heat. It is able to act the whole year round, supplyingCold in summer and heat in winte'r. II .

,4. There has been an experimental 5MW geothermal plant in. Pavjet~kaya .incel967~ TWentyborehol•• ~avebeeh4rilled there

which are 722-.1575 feet deep and which have temperatures up to424 0 F. It is estimated that the Pavjetsk aquifer maybe suffi­cient ior the generation of 50-70 MW •. Exhaust waters (230 0 F) arecurrentlydischatged into a nearby river but plans are to useth~sewaters £oran 80,000m2 hothouse.center.

An experimental ,·freon geothermal station has been put intooperat.ionat Paratunka (Kamchatka). There' are' plans to build a6 MW aeothermal station at Kunashiry in the Kuril Islands aridthe~mal waters~t Big Bath appearsuf£icient for the generationof 15 MW of electric power.

- 3 - 20

5. MedicLna~uses~ Health spas and bottling wo~ksmake

Use of 280 water springs. Thermal water bottling takes place in22 factories. The Telaja sanatorium near Magadan has used thermalwaters for many years from a borehole which has a temper~ture

of 185 0 F. These waters are used not only f~r t~eatment but. also for the heating of dining rooms, staff and guest residences,

and hothouses where their own vegetables are raised.

21

,D,vf.El-Ramly, ,Nabil, R. E. Peterson, and. K. ,'K. Seo, "Geothermal

Wells in I,mperialValley, California: Desalting ~otentials,Historical Development ~ and a Sel.ected Bibliography, II

NWSIA (National Water Supply Improvement Association)Journal, 1 (July 1974),31-38.•

1- Areas/places discussed x 6. Energy demand/supply

2. Byproducts x, 7. Environmental' aspects- --3. Costs 8. Historicalc;lspects x

4. Depletion 9. Legal aspect~

5. Economies of scale 10. Well data x

Authors' Abstract:

Reclamation, importation, and desalting systems are energy­intensive and energy shortages are at hand. A potentiallyimporta.nt source of energy is geothermal brine , a subterraneanresource existing in abundance in ,the Imperial Valley , Californiawhich is, in turn, an area in short supply of goOd quality water.,A'historyof Imperial Valley geothermal well drilling is providedin this. paper. Current developments suggest thepossibi11tiesoftwa,technolo'gical breakthroughs: utilizationpf 300 0 to 400 0 Fbrines'in th.e world 'sfirst binary fluid closed cycle geothermalpower plant and the world's ·first operational geothermal desaltingplant. " "

The authors indicate that the likelihood of future watershortages has become a serious concern in. many areas. PossibleSOlutions include wastewater reclamation, importation, anddesalting of sea.or brackishwater.ibut all of these a,re energy­intensive, and energy shortages are also present. However, a'potentially important source of readilyavail,ableenergy isgeothermalbririe~ Technology is rapidly·.dvancingin geothermalenergy production apd,at the same. time ,desalting. technology hasbeen improving at ,a pronounced rate • Consequently, geothermaldesalting itself is now very promising ilnd may. contribute,significantly to future water resource development.

The pro~l~~ of brine disposal has been 'an impo~tant bottle­neck holding back geothermal development In thermperial.Valley.Approximately tWQpoundsof brine are produced fo~'every pound ofsteam. R. W. Rex, a leader in geothermal exploration and'development, has suggested

- 2-

"development of a large market for geothermal. brine is essential ·for development of the· lowerColorado basin geotherma~potential.Theonly~arket

evident for very large quantities of geothermal brineis for saline water~onversion."

22

. Figure I shows the location e>f the seven known geothermalr.esource areaslocatadwithinthe Imperial Valley of California:the Buttes (w~ich includes the Salton Sea geothermal field),Heber, Mesa, Dunes,. Glamis, Border, and North Brawley anomalies.Geothermal well~have been drilled in four of these regions-­Buttes (first drilled in 1927) and Heber, Mes~, and Dunes (firstdrilled in 1972).

Thirty~tw6geothermalwells have been dri~led o~ are beingdrilled and these are listed.inTable 1. Three periods of activitycan be identified: 1927 toI92S--3wellsi 1955 to 1965--11 wellsand 1972to1973--IS wells. Of the IS recent wells, 14 have beendrilled by Magma Power Company-San Diego Gas and Electric Company,or by Magma Energy, Inc.; a subsidiary e>f Magma Power Company.

Ce>nclusions drawn by the authors are as follows:

.l?:r;ivateenterprisehas been the pioneer since 1927 in theexpie>ration and development of geothermal energy and mineralrecovery within the Imperial Valley. The corrosive and scalingnature of. the. geothermal brines have stymied . largescale commer-.cial development thus far, especially near the Salton Sea wheresalinities are close to 30 percent. In the past two years,however, drilling interest by both private and public organizationshas been rekindled and, for the first time, wells have beendrilled in the Dunes, Heber, and East Mesa geothermal areas.

A joint venture between Magma Energy, Chevron Oil, and SanDiego Gas and Electric at the~Heber ano~aly appears to offergreat promise for future developments. Al~hough the. temperaturesof the geothermal fluids appear to be on the low side (under 400 0 F),both at Heber and East Mesa, the salinities are much less (closeto 2 t03 percent) than they were near the .salton Sea; and theMa9mamaxprocess which utiliZes a binary fluid closed cycle powerPlant could conceivably represent. the technological breakthroughthat will open up the southern end of the Imperial Valley forgeothermal power.. The establishment of the feasibility of .geothermal power will not only provide electrical energy for the·Valley but will also enhance the·prospects of the Bureau ofReclamation·dual purpose geothermal power-desalting project atthe East Mesa geothermaiarea.

- 3 -.23

Dunes

R 18 E

Mexico

Glamis ..........

Figure '1

GEOTHERMAL AREASIN

IMPE RIALVALLEV, ,,', '

CALIFORNIA

ScaZe~ Z"= 7.mi.

Field

R 15 E .R 16E' R17 E'

NorthBrawley

SaltonSea

"

·rJ12

S

jT13 .

t:'J~

,r.44S R11 E R 12 E',--;-__-----+---'---I R13 E R14 E

oJT Impe riali5"S

,,J ,

..

c Table 1GEOTHERMAL WELLS IN. IMPERIAL VALLEY,. CALIFORNIA

Date MaximumCompleted Depth . Temperature

Well LQcation/Anoma1y . (mo ./yr.) (feet) (oF) Operator\

P.o. H1 11S/l3E/Buttes 6/27 728 " 244 ' Pioneer DevelopmentP.O. '2 11 S/13f/IButtes 10/27 1263 ? Pioneer Development'P.O. f/3 1lS/13E/Buttes 2/28 . 1473 ? Pioneer DevelopmentSinc1airf/1' It, 2/58 4723 561 . Kent Imperial Oil Co.Sportsman f/1 1\ 3/61 4730 590 ' O'Neill Geothermal1.1.0. #l '1\ 3/62 5232 " 622' O'Neill GeothermalSinclair #.3 .t 4/63 6921 536 Western Geothermal1.1.0. f/2 1\ ,12/63 5802 626 Shell DevelopmentRiver Ranchf/l . i' 1/64 8098 653-800 Earth Energy, Inc.State of Calif. #1 It' 5/64 4838 590 Shell DevelOpment"

Elmore f/1 It 5/64 7118 770 Earth Energy, Inc.Sinclair f/4 lt, 6/64 5304" 428 Western GeothermalHudson f/1 It 7/64 6114 500 Earth Energy, Inc.Ll.D. f/3 It 3/65., 169,6 392 Imperial Thermal ProductsMagmamax f/l llSll3E/Buttes, 1/72 2804 509 MPC/SDGEDearborn f/1' 12S1l3E/none abandoned : MPC/SDGE

~

Sharp #1 , 15S/16E/Mesa , abandoned MPC/SDGEWoolsey #1 11S/13E/Buttes, 3/72 2401 460 t·1PC/SDGEHoltz //1 16SI14E/Heber 3/72 ? >320 MPC/SDGEHoltzH2 16S/14E/Heber 7/72 ? >320 MPC/SDGEDunes #1 15S/19EIDunes 8/72 2007 270 DWR/UCRMesa 6-1 l6S/l7E/Mesa 8/72 ' 8030 392 Bureau of "Rec1 amationMagmamax f/2 . nS/13E/Buttes 11/72 4303 532 MPC/SDGEMagmamax //3 11S/13E/Buttes 11/72 4003 610 MPC/SDGENowlin Partnership 11 16S/14E/Heber 11/72 5030 >320 Chevron on Co. :Magmamax f/4 11S113E/Buttes ' 12/72 2558' 464· MPC/SOGEBonanza #1 15S/14E/Heber 3/73,· . 5024 ? Magma Energy. Inc.Sharp #2 16S/16E/Mesa 3/73 ,6493 ? Magma Energy, Inc.Fed-Rite #1 17S/16E/Heber 4/73 5380 ? Magma Energy, Inc.Mesa 6-2 l6S/17E/Mesa 8/73 6006 369 Bureau of ReclamationSharp #3 16S116E/Mesa pending Magma Energy. Inc.Bonanza f/2 15Sl14E/Heber pending Magma Energy, Inc.

Notes: MPC is Magma Power Co.; SDGE is San Diego Gas and Electric; DWR is California Dept. of Water Resources; UCRis Univ. of California. Riverside; Chevron Oi 1 Co. 'IS as"~~ i11!\ryof S+llndardOi1 Co. of Calif.; ImperialThermal Products is a subsidiary of Morton International; Earth Energy is a subsidiary of Union Oil Co.;Magma Energy is a subsidiary of MagmaPow.er Co.; I. 1.0. 1s Imperial Irrigation District.

\

25. .

Garside, LarryJ., "Geothermal Exploration and Developme~tinNevada Through 1973,'" Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology(Reno, Nevada 89507), Report ~, 1974, 12 pp.

l. Areas/place's discussed x 6. Energy demand/supply

2. Byproducts x 7. Environment.al aspects

3. Costs 8. Historical aspects x-4. Depletion 9. Legal aspects x-5. Economies of scale 10. Well 'data x

Author's Abstract:

A brief description of Nevada's geothermal resources, andexploratio~activitYforgeothermal. Rower through 1973. Th~Use, geology, exploration, and regulation of the State'sgeothermal energy resources are discussed.

. . . .The author's Table. 1., "Exp~oratorygeothermal drilling in

Nevada through 1973, "reveals that 48 geothermal wells hav.e beendrilled over theperio'd 1954-1965. Exploratory drilling ceasedafter 1965 due to the problems .ofleasingon Fed..eral land. Justrecently (January 1974) ,however, 'Standard Oil Co .of Californiaand American Thermal, Resources started a well in the Beo~aw~

geothermal.area.

Use of hoi springs in NeYada goes back to prehistciric timewhen Indians usedfhe thermal waters to

• ~cald~ucksand geese• bathe,• remove pitch from pine ~ones and seeds.

The 49'ers used these waters for watering stock as well as forbathing and drinking. At the Tonopah mines hot waters werepumped out and used to heat greenhouses. Many'early~dayspas

were located by hot springs and of those surviving at present aresteamboat Hot Springs and Lawton's Hot Springs, both near Reno.Besides being usedbalIleologically at Steamboat Hot Springs, thethermal waters have been used in the processing of asphaltemulsions and in the melting and casting of plastic~xplosives.Farm dwellings have been heated from wells encountering hot

TABLE I (COntinued)ExptomorypoflJermd etrIlllnlln Nenda t!mJaIh 19731

Operator Name AP! No.' Location Depth MaXiMum spring MuirmmlWen COIIIpietion .' Remlllb.Temp. ('IF) Temp.("F) D'te

7. Wabusb Hot SprinpS161,T15N,RZtt

162 222Mapta ro- Co- WabUsb No. 1 27..019-90000 488 1959 Hot water ulle4 for JIN1l"Mapta Power Co- WabUsb No. 2 27..019-90001 SE/4;NE/4,SW/4,816,Tl5N,R25E 5321 1959 house heating.Mapna ro- Co- Wabulb No. 3 27..019-90002 NE/4;S£l4,sE/4,SI6,T15N,R25E . 2223 Ijj59

8. Fernley (Hazen)sWi4,S18?,T2ON,R26E .

? 270Masma Powa Co;. H_ No.l(?)' 27..019-96003 750 1962 Pam Hot Springs.MaplaP_Co. Hazen No.2(?)' 27..019-90004 SI8?,T20N,R26E "'300? 1962Masma Power Co. Hazen No. 3(?)' 27..019-90005 S18?,'I'2flN,R26E "'300? 1962

9. HWs Hot SprlnpSW/4;SE/4,SI6,Tl2N,R23E

144 1U. S. Sled Corp. . Hbld', No. 1m' 27..019-90006 ? 19621 Hot water in weDs coolerU. S. SteelCorp. Qind's No. 2(?)' 27..019-90007 . SW/4,SE/4,SI6,Tl2N,R23E 1 196.21 '. than sprinss at surface.U. S. Steel Corp. Hilid's No. 3(?)' 27..019-90008 SW/4,sE/4,SI6,Tl2N,R23E ,. 19621

10. Durough Hot SprtnpSI7?,TUN;R43E

207? 265Masma Power Co- Dan<Jugh No. 1(?), 27..023-90000 812 1962 Very IaI!e flow ·ofhot

water, Httte steam.

U. Bndy's Hot sprilipBrady No. 1 NE/4,NE/4,sW/4,si2,T22N,R26E

194 418Masma PO- Co- 27-001-90000 100? 19591 Hot water with 5% steamMq'ma Power Co- Brady No. 2 27-001·90001 .'NE/4,NE/4,SW/4,SI2;T22N,R26E 241 1959? flashover. Problem or

INMapla Power Co. Brady No. 3 27-OO1~90002 .sE/4,SE/4,NW/4,SI2,T22N,R26E 610 19611 ~.Malma Power Co- Brady No. 4 27-001·90003 $E/4,SE/4,NW/4,SI2,T22N,R26E 723 19611 ·1Masma Power Co- Brady No. 5 27-001·90004 NW/4,SW/4,NE/4,SI2,T22N,R26E' 593 19611Masma Power Co. Brady No.. 6 . 27-001'90005 NW /4,SW/4,NE/4,SI2,T22N,R26E 770 1MapnarowerCo. Brady No. 7 27-001-90006 NW/4,SW/4,NE/4,SI2,T22N,R26E 250 ?Earth EneIJY Inc. R.BradyEE No. 1 27-001·90007 SI21,T22N,R26E 50621 1964Earth EIIeIJY Inc. Brady Pros. No. 1 27-()o1-9OOO8 Si2?,T22N,R26E 1158? 1965?

12. Stl1JwaterNE/4,SW/~,SW/4,S6,T19N,R31E

240O'Neill GeOtttft'lllll, Inc:. Joseph L O'Neill, Jr. 27-001·90009 '\A200? 1964 SOllIe water weI1s' dJlDed

Reynolds. No.. 1 in this area ellCOUJltered·hot water and steamwhiCh have been used forspace heating. No sprintsor other surface features.

13. WiDy', HotS~ 160 l81U. s.. Steel Corp. wany's No. 1 27-005-90000 SE/4,NW/4,NW/4,S22,Tl3N,RI9E 1268 1962 Twenty-slx shiUow holesU. S. Steel Corp. WiDy's No. 1 27-005-90001 SW/4,SW/4,NW/4,S22,TI3N,RI9E 499 1962 were UIo drilled to mea.

are the tempenturegradient.

IListlns does not include therm&l water weDs or wen.driUed to exploit thermal.waters tor spas, _millS pools, spaceheating,ete.'The American Petroleum Institute Unique well number system has been applied to potherm.t wens as weB as oil and gas weDs, and

Is recommended for the unique Identification of weOs by iD agencies of industry and governmellt..'Name assisned by Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geo!olY; oriJinal name unknown.

-4- 28

water in an area. devoid of thermal manifestations (Stillwater,in·· wes.t-central Nevada, near Fallon). Geothermically heatedgreenhouses at Wabuska near Yerington, Wally's Hot Springs nearMinden, and Werdel Hot springs have been ~sed for growingvegetables, especially tomatoes.

Iri 196~ the Deputy Attorney General of Nevada r~led thatgeothermal resources are water resources' which come under thejurisdiction, 6£ the 'Division of Water ResOurces in the De~artmentof Conservation and Natural Resources~ No state geothermalleasing regUlations have been issued in Nevada~ Approximatelyone· percent of Nevada land is state-owned, whereas. 86 percentif; under the oj urisdiction of the Federal Governmerit. The ·finalregulations arising out of the Geothermal Steam Act becameeffective January 1, 1974. Twelve areas (343,996 acres) havebeen designate~as known Geothermal Resource Areas. These areBeowawe (12,712 acres), Brady Hot Springs (19,020 acres),Darrough Hot Springs (8,398 a~res), Double Hot Spri~g~ (10,816acres), Elko Hot Springs (8,960 acres), Fly Ranch (5,125 acres),Gerlach (8,972 acres), Leach Hot Sprin~s(8,926 acres), MoanaSprings (S,l20 acres), Monte Neva (10,302 acres), SteamboatSprings (8,914 acres), Stillwater-Soda Lake (225,211 acres), andWabuska (11,520 acres). \ .

Nineteen percent of the State lands (13,458,000 acres) areclassified as having prospective geothermal value.

It is uncertain whether or not geothermal resources belongto the owners of the srirface riqhts or to the mineral riqhtsowners. In The United States v. Union Oil Co., Magma power Co.,~ ~., it wuruled that geothermal re"S'OUrces belt:>ng wi€hhomestead water rights rather tllan with the mineral rightsreserved to the Federal Government.

29

y«,i Mhite, D. E. and J. R. McNitt, "Geothermal Energy," in Mineral

j Energy," in MineralReso~ices of~alifornia(FerryBuilding,San Francisco, CA 94111: California Division of Mines andGeology, Bulletin 191, 1966), 174-179.

l. Areas/places discussed x 6. Energy demand/supply

2. Byproducts 7. ' Env'ironmental aspects--3. Costs 8. Historical aspects

4. Depletion 9. Legal aspects

5. Economies of scale 10. Well data x

Fifteen areas in California have been explored for geothermalenergy (see Table 1).

Three areas of pazticular interest have been The Geysers inSonoma County,thesalto~Sea area in Imperial c6unty, and theCasaDlablo area. (Mono County) which, is part of Long Valley., The ~ten wells drilled'in Casa Diablo have been located, in a 2 square­mile area and most of them have produced satisfactorily.

Of the approximately 30 areas in the United States which havebeen explored for geothermai resources, 15 have been in California.

TABLE 1

GEOTHERMAL EXPLORATION IN CALIFORNIA, 1955-1965

rrherma1 Area

1. Lake City, Modoc County2. Cedarville (Surprise

Valley) ,Modoc County3. Terminal Geyser, Plumas County4. Wendel, Lassen County5. Amedee, Lassen County.6. Sulphur Bank, Lake County7. The Geysers, SOnoma COu1'l.ty:

(a) The Big Geysers(b) Sulphur Bank .(c) The Little Geysers

8. Calistoga, Napa County9. Fales Hot Springs, 'Mono County

10. Bridgeport, Mono County.11. Casa Diablo ~ Mammoth,

Mono County12. Tecopa, ,Inyo County13. Randsburg, San Bernadino

County'14. Arrowhead, San Bernadino

,County15. Salton Sea (Niland), Imperial

County

No.of

WellsDrilled

4

11134

2316

2311

101

1

2

10

Max.Depth

2,150

7341,270

6301,1165,000

5,0365,1273,4762,000

413982

1,063422

722

, 571

8,100

Max.Temp.(~F)

320

130264174225

>356

'475437

279<100

124

352low

240

234

>572 ,

DatesDrilled

1959-62

1962,196219621962

1961-64

1955-621962-651964-651960-61

19621962

1959-621962

1960

1963

1961-65

Remarks

Magma Power Co.

... Geysers Steam Co.

Magmapawer Co ....Earth Energy Inc. , Magma Power Co.

Magma & Thermal Power Cos •

"..Magma & calistoga Power Cos •.,Magma Power Co.

t!

..

..

..R. A. Rowan & Co.

O'Neil Geothermal (2), Earth Energy (3),Western Geothermal (2),She11 oil (2),Imperial Thermal Products (I)

w·o

~ •.

"The)

3i

!1ajorit.y Opinion in the Reich Case: The Question of Depletion,"(Arthur E. Reich and Carolyn G. Reich, et al., Petitionersv. Commissioner o£ Internal Rev.enue, Respondent r, 52 TaxCourt of the United states ,Reports, July 31, 1969), inproceedings: Nation.l Conference on:Geothermal Energy (palmsprings, California, May 10-11,1973), Volume II, Universityof California at Riverside, 1973, 283-301.

1. Areas/places discuSsed x 6. Energy demand/supply-2. Byproducts 7. Environmental aspects

3. Costs 8. Historical aspects

4. Depletion x e·g. Legal aspects xJ

5. Economies of scale 10. Well data

JUdge .Fay'ssummary:

The petitioners participated in ventures to drill for andexploit geothermal steam. One of these ventures was successfu'land the resulting wells produced sufficient-steam to supplyelectricalqenerating plants. One.ofthepetitioners claimedpercentage depletion. against the grossi income it received fr.omsteam production in the successful v'enture. All .the petitionersexpe.nsed the .intangible.costs of drilling and developing geothermalsteam wells. Held,'-the petitioner which participated in the·successful venture is entitled to deduct percentage .deplet.ion atthe rate. of 271/2 'percent against gross income. it received fromsteam production. Held, further, all petitioners are entitledto "expense the intangible costs of drilling and developing'geothermal steam wells.

The Judge's "Ultimate Findings of Fact" were as follOWS:

The commercial produc't of th'e geothermal wells at The Geysersis steam.

Geothermal st.am.is a gas.

The geothermal steam at The Geysers is contained within aclosed reservoir in a finite amount with no significant liquidinflux to or boiling within its confines. The geothermal steamat The .Geysers'i.s 'an exhaustible . natural resource which hasdepleted and is continuing to deplete~

I In backing up his opinion that geothermal steam is a gas,Judge Fay indicate4 that,

- 2 -

tlOnthe basis of the record as a whole , ,weconclude that in the,common parlanCe of the industriesinvolved herein the 'term 'gas' includessteain. Thetestimony of every expert witness i~ the trial ofthis case, except Joseph Berman who is~n ~mployee ofrespondent, included references to steam as a 'gas'.

'EvenBermanconceded that other people disagree withhis limited use of the term 'gas'. Morever, the tenorof the record as a whole convinces us that peopleinvolved on a daily basis in the industries inques~ion th~nk of steam as a 'gas'."

32

According to the tax iaws (Sec~ 6l3),"all otherminerals tl'(but with the exclusion of "water tl ) are entit~ed to alS ratherthan a 271/2 percent depletion allowance. The respondent'argued that

"since Congress in Section 6l3(b) (7) specificallydenied a d~pletion allowance of lS percent to wateranddidnot~nclude~tinany oth.rpercentage depletionof Section 6l30f the Code, it is obvious that Congressdid not intend that water existing in the form ofsteam shouldbe'granted the even ~arger depletfonrateof 27 l/2 percent for 'gas wells' by Section 6l3(b) (1)of theCode. tI

The Judge's· response to this argument was as follows:

Wedo,not agree. We think respondent's argument is basedupon a confusion of two ways in which the word 'water' ',is used.In a chem~cal sense, 'water'ls any substance with the chemicalcomposition of H20. ChemiQaily speaking, H20 hasthreeforms-­gaseous, 1. iquid, and solid. Again. speaking ,chemically, any, ofthese three forms ,of H20 is 'water'. In common parlance, howeverthere are separate and"distinct,words to describe the forms ofH20: GaSeous'H20--steam vapor,liquid H2o":'-wa.ter, solid H2o--ice.

In respondent'~ argument, he takes the term 'water' inSection 613 ••• to mean H20 or 'water' in the chemical senseWe think, however ,that· the term 'water ' in Section ,613 .•• doesnot ,refer to H20 ,'or 'water ',inthe chemical sense .We think-itrefers to 'water' 'in the ordinary sense, or liql1idH20.

The secondiss~e of the Reich case was whether or not theintangible costs of drilling and developing geothermal steamwells are deduct~ble underS~ction2~3(c):

SEC 2~3. CAPITAL EXPENDITURES.(c) INTANGIBLE DRILLING 'AND DEVELOPMENT COSTS

IN THE CASE OF OIL AND GAS WELLS. Notwithstandingsubsection (a), regulations shall be ~rescribed bythe Secretary or his delegate under this subtitlecorresponding to the regulations which granted theoption to deduct as expenses ("expense tl ] intangibledrilling and development costs in the case o,f oiland gas well~~ ••

- 3 - 33

Since the product of qeothermal steam wells was ruled to bea gas, the Section 263(c) issue was resolved irifavorof thepetitioners.

In his dissent, Judqe Raum argued that

~This isdepletio~runriot ••• Regardless ofwhether steam may be tedhnically reqarded asa 'gas',it is at~best doubtful that it is so generallyconsi~ered in common usaqe ••• When one considersthatCongre~s has provided for percentage.depletionmeasured by less than 27 1/2 percent in respect ofnatural resources other than 'oil and gas wells'andthat it has specifically indicated that there is tobe no percentage depletion whatever in respect of'water! [Sec. 613 (b) 1, it seems almost beyond beliefthat it intended to grant a 27 1/2 percent bonanza forwater vapor. II

Gofman, JohnW.., "Some Important Unexaminedthe Barnwell Nuclear Fuel ReprocessingWorld Directory (Glendora, C~lifornia:

183-190.

34

Questions ConcerningPlant," Geothermal

P • 0 • Bo x 997, 1 97 2) ,

1. Areas/places discussed 6. Enerqy demand/supply x

2. Byproducts 7. Environmental aspects x

3. Costs 8. Historical C7 spects

4. Depletioh 9. Legal aspects x

5. Economies of scale 10. Well data

Dr .Gof~anis coauthor (with Dr. 'Arthur R. Tamplin) ofPoisoned .Power-- .~~ Against Nuclear Power Plants (RodalePress, 1.971),. isprof~ssor of medical physics at the Universityof California, Berkeley, codiscoverer of U232, Pa232, U233, and isauthor of 150 articles over a 20-year I>eriod.

He examines the question of the possibility of, and thefinancial liability for, nuclear accidents, at the Elarnwellfacility in South Carolina. According to the Price-AndersonAct, liability for.. the consequences of a nuclear accident islimited to $560 million • This Act, in the opiiliol:1 of Dr. Gofman,is unconstitutional because it could mean that9Si of the damagesthat might occur would carry no financial liability.

Dr~Gofman asks what> might be the consequences of a l%·and a.01% (one~ten thousandth) release to the environme~t of theradioacti.einventory at Barnwell. The present summary willconsider the implications. suggested by.Gofman for the .01% release.His attention in this base 'is focused upon the impact of thedeposited ~adioactivity upon forage upon which ~attle feed andWhose milk is d~unk by children (the"qrass-cow-mi~k-child"

pathway). His assumptions are the following:

1. ~ne-ten thousandth o£ the radioactive inventory isreleased to the atmosphere at Barnwell, Soutli Carolina.

2. In 24 hours the center of the radioactive "cloud" will .jbe over some a.griculturalarea. The radius of the cloud will beapproximately 103 miles and its area 33,400 square miles at thetime rainfall is assumed to occur (24 hours after release of

- 2 -35

radioactive materials Cs137,Cs134, and Sr90). The results of" such), a release are, according to pl'. Gofman,as 'follows:

I·Childrendrinking such milk [from cows who grazedwithin the 33,400 sq. miles] would recei"e 5a~4 rads,which is more than 100 times the yearly 'allowable' dose.Such a dOBe-would,cause a many-fold increase inpancersand leukemias in such children. 'It is obvious that milkfrom these 33 ,400 square milesisunthinkablefo,rdrinking purposes • The loss to agriculture ,from t·his and,prop contamination would be phenomenal. In tillle ,the 'Cs134, Cs137,and'Sr90 would find their way into thesoii, having 'been weathere,doff ,the forage,. But theagricultural problem is not over , for we ,must nowcons ider th,e crops ,grown in the area, the so-called'soil-root pathway I ••• I would doubt that suchagricultural products would be salable, and theeffect ~ould last f~r many years •••

"There is little doubt about one primax-y effecto,f either type [1% or .01%] of accident, which wouldbe an immediate demand by the po.blic fora,shutdown,not only ~f, Barnwell but also of theentiie nucle~rpower industry....

, '

Anothe~problem associated with the Barnwell plant is itsproduction ofplutonio.m., Or. Gofman ,feels that "There a'reseveral reasons to consider that the plutonium product may be atotalnightmar,e." , Besides being a fuel foreleC'tricpowerproduction, plutonium is ~he basic {ngredient for the home~madefabrication of atom boinbs.. ,The, 20 ,kiloton atom bomb thatdestroyed Nagasaki contained 14 pounds (7 kilograms) of plutonium.tn the course of a year,accordin'g ,to, Gofman' s <analysis of theBarnwell Environmental Report, there ,would be'about 125 separateshipments of,plutoniumoutof Barnwell. ,Each shipment wouldcontain enough plutonium for about 9 Nagasaki-size atom bombs.Dr. Gofman asks ' ,

"Cansuch shipments be hijacked? Before answeringthis question, it is worthwhile asking anotherquestion. If,two years ago, one had been asked aboutthe likelihood that '.' three huge airliners ",would besuccessfully-hijacked to the Middle East Jithin oneweek by terrorists, r~m sure the probability estimatewould have Been vanishingly small. Until it happened.,Anyone who underestimates the ingenuity of determinedterrorists and underworldoperat:ors does so at grave

'peril. The probability that a plutonium shipment willbe hijacked successfully will be estimated as very lowuntil the fir~t shipmentishijacked.~ ,

If a 25-kilogram container,of plutonium wex-eexploded opennear a metropolitan center, there would be a: potential 44,000lung cancersca~sedthereby:

- 3 -

"That'salot of diplomatic leverage for terrorists.Please note that all the inhalation needn't occur rightaway. The plutonium oxide particles can settle to theground,be resuspended and carried by the winds over andover, even to very great distances from the point o·for~ginal dispersal. with a half-life· of 24,000 years,such plutonium will be around to produce cases of lungcancer for periods of more than fifty times as long asworld history from the birth of Christ to·the presenttime ."

36

37

2eller,~dward J.~ "The Disposal of Nuclear Wa~te," CaliforniaQ!!0lo9Y,' ~" (April 1973), 79-87.

1- Ar~as/places discussed 6. Energy demand/supply

2. By~rod\lcts 7. Environmental aspects x

3. Costs 8. Historical aspects

4. Depletion 9. Legal aspects

5. Economies of scale 10. Well data

Nuclear-reactor generating plants produce radioactive wastematerials which must be stored somewhere. At the end of 1972 ,there were 160 operating or planned reactors in 33 statescapahleof generatLnq 142,500 MW.These plaritsproduce as a byproduct 'high level (radioactive) wastes of two types--£ission products andtransuranium elements.

Most of the fission-products have half lives of less than100 years and emit'betaor gamma r.adiation. Transuraniumelementshave half' lives which are thousands,of'years in,duration and 'theyemit alpha particles as well as beta and gamma radiation.

someo£the fission products are soluble in water and can beabsorbed by various organisms such as the shells of marineanimals. The author 'indicatesthat there isg'eneral agreementthat nuclear wastes must be completely isolated from all biologiclife for at least 250,000 years by preventing them from reachingthe atmostphere,surface, and ground waters throughout such aperiod: "In order to accomplish adequate,storage of radioactivewastes the amount of long range planning needed is greater thanany previously required in human history."

seven methods have been prop6sed ,for the storage of ~igh levelwastes:

1. Rocket" transport' to the sun or deep space.

2. Utilization of present tank storage inde~initely (but thestorage tankli·fetime is itself limited and several leakages havealready occurred).

.. 2 - 38

3. "Disposal" by placement in deep chambers in granite orbasalt.

4. Deep well injection methods.

5 • Deposition in 'subduction zones at edges at continentalplates.

6. rieposition.under ice caps in polar regions.

7. Salt tnine waste storage plan.

According to the author,

"The following criteria must be met before anymethod can.be.given serious consideration;

(1) The wastes mus1: be isolated from all con­tact. with the biosphere for at least 250,000 years.

(,2) Sites must be chos.en which are>proof [failsafe] against;. sabotage or accidental entry for250,000 years.

(3) Sites must be safe from the effects ofnatural disasters, such as earthquakes, floods,tornadoes, and hurri~anes.

(4) Sites ~hich are chosen must not preventthe use of large land areas or destroy orcontaminate valuable resources.

(5) The sites must be c;Jeologically stable tothe extent that the{rintegrityis not breached byerosion, faulting, or volcanic eruptio~s.

(6) Methods must be economically as well astechnologically feasible."

None of the 'proposed methods ofstorag~ meets alLo~ thesecriteria. The author concludes that the problems of nuclear wastedisposal have received inadequate attention both in the United .states andabr,oad.

39

B~xter, R.E. and R. Rees, "Analysis of the Industrial Demand'for ~lectricity," Economic J6urnal, 78 (June 1968), 277-298.

1. ~reas/plac.es discussed 6. Energy demand/supply x

2. Byproducts 7. Environmental aspects

3. Costs 8. Historical aspects

4. Depletion 9. Legal aspects

5. Economies of 'scale 10. Well data

In the case of transportation one could look at the totaldemand o~ at the demand £or each separate mode of transportation.In the case of energy there are like~isetwQPossihle approaches.One could reduce ~he dlfterent fuels to a common measure of"energy" which is an input in' the firm •s production function.Then the share of each fuel in the aggregate would be estimatedin this~' the so-called "energy approach."

An alternate approach, and the one used by the authors, is"simply ·to treat each separate fuel as an input entering into .theprod~ctionfunction, implying that firms have specific demand .-functions for each separate fuel ~"

The outstanding feature of the electricity demand overth~

period 1954-1964 (quarterly data was used) is thatlt has grownfaster than output'i~ every industry. To account for'this·Phenomenon, the authors .propose two hypotheses:

(l) There has been a substitution of electricity fo~ otherfuel inputs and fo.r, possibly, labor because of rela tivepricemovements; and

(2) Electricity·intensive technological change has inducedthe substitution in favor of electricityover'other fuel,inputsand labor. Howeve,r , it was not possible" toclea.:r1y distinguishthese two hypotheses on the basis of the.empirical resultsobtained. .

On the basis c;>f the best performing regression equations,estimates were made ,for each of the 16 indus tr iesco'vered, ofthe elasticities of 'electricity demand with respect to production

- 2 -

and ,with respect to~elative~rice of electricity (price ofel~ctricitydeelatedbyprice ~ndexof allothe~fuels).

40

The prod~ction elasticities f,orthe 16 industries are providedin Table la~d, the priceelastici,ties are in Table 2. Of ,these16 industries, the authors have classified the following as beingcapital-intensive: bricks; chemicals; food, drink, and tobacco;iron and steel; metals, n.e.s. ; non-ferrous metals; other 'manufacturing and paper. The other 8 industries were clas!3ifiedas labor-intensive.

The. authors noted 'that, when industry expenditure on,electricity was expressed as a ratio to value of industry output"there did not appear to be any relationship between the importanceof electricity as a cost factor and the priceela,sticities ofdemand. A possible explanation isa strong complementaritybetween fuels and capital equipment.

The authors conclude that

" ...r~lative price changes are not unambiguouslyan important determin~nt ,of growthin~ndustrialelectricity consumption. ,The chief determinants aregrowth in output and changes intec:hnologY. Taken atface value, the results for the relative pricevariables suggest that in at least nine out of six~

teen industry groups price elasticity of demand ~s

zero1 in a further two it is relatively inelastic; andin only five d6es there appear t6be a markedresponsiveness o£ demand to relative price changes.This, if valid, would seem to have relevance .forcurrent developments in the energy economy. Itsuggests, for example, that quite considerable changesin relative ~uel prices would be necessary to offseteven partially the effects of growth in industrialoutput, so that natural-gas discoveri~s need not, {na time of economic growth, have a significant effecton electricity's share of the industrial energymarket .••

"The main conclusion, then, i~ that electricitydemand is highly responsive to changes in output andfu'el technology but relatively unresponsive to price.n

..; 3 -

.TABLE 1

ELASTICITIES OF ELECTRICITY DEMANDWITH RESPECT TO PRODUCTION

.Industry Group

A. Statistically significant

1 •. Food, Dr ink ,Tobacco2. Iron and Steel3. Non-ferX'ou~ Metals4. Textiles5. Vehicle~ ..6. Other Manufacturing7. Engineering8. Chemicals9. ,Paper

10.. Bricks11. Metals, n.e.s~

12. Mining and~uarrying

B. Not Statistic~11ySi~nifiriant

1. Leather and F~r

2. Timber3. clothin94. Shipbuilding

Elasticity

2.571.511.311.311.221.21

.94

.82

.75

.72

.65-1.95

.30

.18

.16-.62

41

- 4 -

TABLE 2

ELASTICITIES OF ELECTRICITY DEMANDWITH RESPECT TO RELATIVE PRI~~

Industry Group

A.Statistically Significant

Elasticity

42

1.2. '3.'4.5.6.7.

Metals, n .. e.s. " /'Mining and Quarrying,'TextilesPaper~Chemicals

BricksEngineering

'-2.28-2.02.-1.65-1.08-1.07, -.74-.59

B. Not Statistically Significant

1. Timber2. Leather and Fur3. "Clothing4. Iron and Steel5. Vehicles6~ Other Manu£acturing7. Shipbuilding8. Non-ferrous Metals9. 'Fo~d, Drink~ TbbaCco

-3.18-2.53-2.44... 2.26-1.43-1.21".90 ':".84

, - .42

43

Houthakker, Hendrik s. and Michael Kennedy, "Demand for Energy.as a Function of Price," (Harvard University, Department ofEcono~ics, C~mbridge, Massachusetts 02138),Papet presentedto the American Association for the Advancement of science,February 1974, 26 Pl'.

1. Areas/places discussed,

2. Byproducts

3. Costs

6. Enetgy demand/suppLy x, ,

7.Environm~ntal aspects

8. Historicalasl'ects

4. Depletion

5. Economies of scale

9. Legal aspects

10. Well data

,-'-

The authorscritic,ize the ~current "deluge of bad ecOnomics"by pointing out that ltRarel~dowe see any rec09nition thatenergy, i.ncommoll with virtua1lyall'other commodities, 'is usedin larger volume ",hen it is cheap than when it is expensive."Previous projections of energy demand rising geometrically at6-7 percent a year through the year 2000 have failed to take intoa.ccountthat, although the energy-GNP ratio has been rising, realenergypri~es (energy' prices reiative to other'prices) have beenfalling for the past 15 years, until just recently.

The authors' empirical results are based on adynaJllic flow­adjustment model o,f demand. Desired demand for .a particularproduct (q*) depends upon income (y) and price (p):

(1) q*'" f(y"p).

The functional form chosen is ~he log-linear:

(2) q* ... aySp'Y,

which may bere9ard~d as a first order Taylor series apprOXimationof

(3) ln '1* ,c ln .f. '

With this specification, a .and 'Y are, 'respectively, the incomeand price elasticities.

(4 )

Actual demand adjusts toward desired demand gradually:

q/q ~(q*/q.) (1-1)-1 -1

- 2 -44

where q-l is last period,' s consumption.

The estimating. eqUation is obtained by sUbstituting (4) into(2 ):

(5)lnq = ln a + (l-A)a lny+ (l-l)y ln p + 1 ln q-l.,J '

The long-run .lasticities of demand are a andy and the short-runprice and income elasticities, are (l-l ) y and (l.-l) 'a " respectively.

The flow-adjustment model has been applied to 2 sets of u.s.data (demand~y consumers for gasoline and residentialelectric~ty)

and t04sets of O.E.C.D.data(demand for gasoline, kerosene,distillate fuel oil, ~nd residual fuel oil).' The u.s. dataresults will be discussed below~

The gasoline dem~ndfunctiori was based on quarterly datafor 48 13tatesoverthe period 1963-1972 and the followingequation resulte~(standard er;rors in 'parentheses) :

ln q= .593 + .303 ln y - .075 ln p + .696ln q-l(.017) . (.013J (.019)

.92

Elasticities:Short-run Long-run

priceIncome

-.075..303

-.24.98

The13peed of adju13tment ~oefficient value ofl =.696 indicates a"rather sluggish response.o£.demand to changes in price andincome, which is consistent with the long life of automobiles, themain gasoline using equipment •.• the price elasticity of -.24ind~cates that an increase in the pump price of gasoline from 40¢to 80¢ should decrea13e demand 'about 15% in about two years. Thisis precisely the magnitude of the gasoline shortage now quotedin Washington."

The residential electricity demand equation was ba13ed onannual data 'for the states over the period 1961 to 1971:

In q = ~072 + .143 In y - .089 In p + .913 ln q-l(.026) (.020) (.015)

R2

= .99

Elasticities:Short-run Long-run

PriceIncome

-.08'9.143

-1.01.6

- 3 ...

Based on this equation, the authors conclude that "we canconfidently predict that the growth of electricity consumptionwill slow down markedly i~ the coming years."

45

All of the fotirOECD energy equations reveal'that price isan importan~ ·factor' in the deman~ for energy.

The authors suggest that they have. found "strong evidencefor. the influence .ofpric. on gasoline cOnsumption, othei thingsbeing equal ••• [evidence which] lays to rest the idea thatAmericans drive big cars because of advertising pressure or other·psychological factors • Americans drove big cars' because g<;lS wascheap, and now that gasoline is becoming more. expensive they are~apidly changing the pattern."

Wilson, John w., "Elec:tricityConsumption: Supply Requirements,Demand Elasticity ahd Rate Design" (642SBelleview D;r:ive.,· .Columbia, Maryland21046),Pa~erpresented at Annual Meetingof the American Economic Association, New York, Oecember1973, 28pp..

The author discusses both residentiai and nonresidentialpower consumption.. In 1970 the residential use of electricity inthe United States (large cities) was'6,367·kWh per household, anincrease,of 45 percent over the 1965 value; the 1950 valti~ was2,000 kWh per re sidentialunit • This increase has been partlydue to.newproducts lair conditioners; television sets, clothesdryers,.and dishwashers) and partly due to shifts to electricity

'from other fuels in ~nace; beating, water heating, and cooking.Overthe20-Year period personal incomes rose considerably andthe pric~ ~f electri~ity fell.

Tbeauthor' so.rable> 1, reproduc::ed below, ,indicates annualelec.tric energy·requirement.s for major hO,usehold appliances andequipment. Tabl~ 2 reveals that saturation levels have not yetbeen reached for most of these applianbesand equipment.

Nonresidential electricity consumption accounts forapproximately two-thiids of.totalelectricity demand~ Manufacturingindustries, in turn, account 'for close to1::wo-thirds of thenOnresidential electric power consumption. There is considerablevariation across industries and the author provides estimates ofthe electr.icity and total energy intensiveness of 201 industries.

The results for a samplin~ of these industries is, reportedin Table ·3 below. As can be seen, there !sconsiderablaleewayfor additional electric::ity consumption by most of the industriesshown in Table 3. Over the period 1962-1972, the average annualgrowth rate of nonresidential and residential electric energysales (measured in kWh) has been 6.8% and 8.5t, respectively.These rates of increase are expected to decline by 1990 (perElectric World, September i5#l973Y to 6.5~ and 7.1%.

- 2 -

TABLE 1

ANNUAL ELECTRIC ENERGY REQUIREMENTS

47

Type of Equipment

Electric Space HeatingElectric water Heating

. Central Air ConditioningFrost1ess Refrigerator (14 cu. ft.)Frost1ess Food Freezer(l5 cu. ft.)Window Air ConditionerFood Freezer (15 cu. ft.)Electric RangeRefrigerator (14 cu. ft.)Electric Clothes DryerColor TelevisionDishwasherBlack and White TelevisionClothes Washer,

kWhP~r Year

l6,0034,2193,6001,8291,7611,~89

1,1951,1751,137

993502363362'103

,-3 -

TABLE' 2

INCIDENCE O~ ~ESIDENTIAL ELECT~IC EQUIPMENT(PERCENTAGE OF HOUSING UNITS Wlr.J;H SPEC:;I:FIEDEQUIPMENT)

48

Typeof.quipment

Clothes WasherElectric CookingAir ConditioningElectric Clothes DryerTwo or more T.V. set~*

Food Freezer*Electric Water HeatingDishwaslierOne room air condi~ioner

Central Air ConditioningE1~ctricSp~c~ Heating ,Two or more room air conditioners

1960(%)

73.7%30.8,12.411.9

9.918.420.4

7.61.91 ~8,

2.'9

U.S.1970

(%)

71.1%40.635.729.428.728.225.418.917.810.7

7.77.2

*SatUration 1evels are close to 100% for refrigeratorsand oneT~V. set~

49

TABLE 3

INDUS~IALENERGY REQUIREMENTS

SIC Code

20612062206322112221242124912621287129113241

·3251327132733315332334443552357337113731

Indust~y Description

Rilw ,canesuqarCanesuqar refiningBeet sugarWeavingmills~ cottonWeaving mills, syntheticSawmills and planing millswood· preserving .papermills~ except buildingsFerti1i:;ers' . .Petroleum ~efining

Cementhydrau1~c

Brick and structural tileConcrete block. and brickReady'niixed concreteElectrometa11urgical productsSteel foundriesSheet metalworkTextile•machineryElectroniC computing equipment ...Motor vehiclesShipbuilding and repairing

E1ectricity*

.78

.22 .

.524.233.802.11

.705.424.963.689.23

10.753.04

.4840.642.6j

.51

.72

.47

.78

.81

TotalEnergy**

23.5429.69

10L18 ' '10.528.83

11.97 .23.2363.2130.59

·83.14169.30119.68

21.4117.38

105.9821.793.944.141.074.582.87

*Purchasedki1owatt-hours'per dollar of,value added by,manufacturing.

**Quantity.of electric energy and the kilowatt-hour equivalent forall fuels used for heat and power per dollar of value added bymanufacturing. .

50

The author "has used 1962 and 1963 SMSAindustrial electricitypower consumption data (reported in the 1963 Census of Manufactures)for each of 15 SIC two~diqit industry groups in order to estimateprice elasticiti~s and to see i~ there is a relation between this

. e1aiticity and the electr~c-energy-intensivenessof the industry(there is). These results, are sllmmarized in Table 4~

Table 4 reveals that the price elasticity is significant in12 of the 15 industries. It is insignificant only in printing,rubber and plastics, and petroleum and coal products.

Two-digit Industry

.Chemica1sPrim.ary MetalPetroleum & Coal ProductsPaper & ~elatedP~oductsTixti1e productsStone, ~lass, &CLarRubber & PlasticsLumber ProductsFood Products'Transpbrtati6n EquipmentElectrical MachineryMachineryFurnitureLeather ProductsPrinting

- 6 ..

TABLE 4

PriceElasticity

-2.23-1.51

'**-1.48-1.22':'1.08

**. -1.64-1.09""1.01-1.76-1.16-.97-.76

**

kWhIV.A.*

8.396.345.445.282.• 652.611.691.481.01

.90

.78

.67

.62

.49

.38

51

*numberof kilowatt-hours consumed per dollar of value added •. :- -.. -. . " - .. . -: ,. ,

**price elasticity not. statistically significant.

I .

1.

2.

3;

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

.' 11.

12.

13.

52

GEOTHE~MALREFERENCES

. .

Adelman,M. A., uIsTheOil Shortage'Real?'U, Foreign Policy,g (January 1973},69-107. ".

Afanas fev, Bor.i sand Van Ka kt i nsh, II Sl,Ibterranean Ba 1 t i cBas inConstitutes Giant Reservoir of Thermal Water in the USSR II ;Glendora,Ca 1 iforn ia: . Geotherma 1 War 1d Directory, 1972, 95,...96. .

Ajmanj, 'HarJJllder,DeaneShephard,andSteve Storch, IIEnergyCrisis: An Analysis,1I University of Hawai.i,Department ofBusi ne~ s .Economics. and\ Qu anti ta ti ve Method s 11 May J ~74, 76, pp.

Anderson , Davjd, IIfl oWChartof ..Cri ti cal Path of Regu la t ionsin Geotherma lExp10 ra ti on; II National Conference on GeothermalEnergy, May 10-11, 1973, Palm Springs, California, Proceedings,Vo 1 ., 2; Riverside:. Un iyersi ty of Cal ifornia ,1973 ,ltJ. , ,.'

. . . " ..

Anderson; Da vi dN • and Lawrence H• Axtell, II Geotherma 1 Resourcesin California,,,' in Geothermal Overviews of the Western UnitedStates; Davi s ~ ,California: Geotherma 1 Resoiir'Ces Council, 1972,16-52. . . .

.Anonymous, IIBattelle to Carry OU,t Major Geothermal ResearchProgram 'in'Montana,IIGeothermalEnergy, !(September 1973),53.,

Anonymous, IIBroadlands Geothermal Field, New Zealand"j,Glendora,Ca 1 i fo'tni a : Geotherma lWor ldDi rectory, 1972, 106 -11 O.

. -: - ., ' . ".

Anonymo,us, IIDevelopment and Use'.of Geothermal Energy: ASummary Report of an Informal Seminar Held at United Nations,New York, January 8-10,'1973,11 Geothermics, 2 (March 1973),32-37.' . .' . -

Anonymous, IIGeothermal Cool i ng Urged for Managra in Ni ca ragua , IIGeothermal Energy, 2 (January 1973), 51. " . '.

Anonymous ,IIGeotherma1.Deve 1opments in Oregon, II, GeothermalEnergy, ! (September 1973) ,41-42. . '" . .

. . . ,

Anonymous, IIGeothermal Roll Call of Nations ll; Glendora,

California: Geothermal World Directory, 1972,19-28.

Anonymous, iiLafderello and Monte Amiata : Electric Power byEndogenous SteamU j Rome, Italy: ENEl (Ente Nazional e perII Energi aEl ectrica),] 971, 42 pp.

Anonymous, IILawrence Livermore Laboratory New Energy .Technologies,1I Geothermal Energy, !(January 1974), 26-31.

- 2 - 53

.)14. Anonymous, IIMexico City Conference on Geothermal Exploration,'·Geothermal Energy, ! (January 1974), 42-43.

15. Anonymous, IIMorton Bids for Power and Potash from Bri nes,". Chemical & Engineering News, 43 (December 20, 1965), 21-22.

16. Anonymous, IIPower and Boric Acid from Natural Steam in Tuscany,"Chemistry and Industry, 42 (October 26, 1973}, 1022-1024.

17. Anonymous,"Power from the Earth:,. The ,Story of ,:the WairakeiGeothermal Proj~ctll; Wellington, NewZealand: Ministry ofWorks, 1970, 40 pp. ' . . .

18. Anonymous,IIPublicatfons and Periodicals on GeothermalDevelopment"; Glendora, California: G~~therma1 World Directory,1972,37.

. .'

19. Anonymous, "Rec~nt Developments in the Utilization of theEarth's Heat," Mechanical Engineering, 46 (August 1924), 448-449. .• '.

20. Anonymous, "Setting Volcanoes to Work,"Scientific American,117 (October 27, 1917)~ 305.

.. . .. .

21. Anonymous, liThe Utilization ofVo1carlicSteam'in Ita1y,1IScientific ,American,13l(August1924), 97.

22. Anonymous, nUsing Volcanic Steam for the Production ofElectrical Energy," Scientific American, 112 (January 15 ,1915),97-~8.

23. Anonymous, IIUti1izi.ngtheEarth l s InternaL Heat,IISc ientificAmerican, J21 (December 6~1919), 568. .

24. Anonymous, IIWalrakei"; Glendora, California: Geothermal WorldDirectory, 1973, 239-242.

25. Armstead,H. C. H." "Geothermal Power for Non-Base LoadPurposes,lIibeothermics, Special Issue 2, Vol. 2, Part 1 (1970),936-949 •.

26•. Austin,.Car1 F •• , "se1ettion Criteria for Geothermal Prospects,1Iin Proceedings, PartC,AIMt PaciffcSouthwestMinera1 IndustryConference, Sparks, Nevada, May 5-7, 1965; Reno: NevadaBureauofMi nes, Report 11, 1966, 93-125. '

27. Balestra,PietroandMarcNer1Qve,nPoo1 fngCross Section andTime Series Data lnthe Estimation of a Dynamic Model: The .Deinandfor Natural Gas. 1I Econometrica. 34 (July.1966),585-612.

28. Sa 1s ter, C. A• and S. L. Groff," Potent i a1 Geotherma1 Resourcesin Montana,~in Geothermal Overviews of the Western UnitedStates; Davis, California: Geothermal Resources Council, 1972,99-107. .

3 -

·29. Barlett, Donald·L.and James B. Steele,"0il: The CreatedCrisis," The Philadelphia Inquirer (July22,1973).

30. Barnea, Joseph,uA Plan for Accelerated Development ofGeothermal Resources in the U. 5. 11

; Glendora,California:Geothermal World Directory, 1973, 154-159.

54

. .. - .. . .. - - . ; .:- . .'

31. Barnea, Joseph, "Exploration and Development of Wet SteamFie1ds," NationalConferenc~.onGeothermal Energy, May 10-11,1973, Palm Springs, California, Proceedings, Vol.' 1; Riverside:'University of California,1973, 59-68. ...•... . '.

32. Baxter,R .. E.andR.Rees,"Analysis of the Industrial Demandfor Electricity," Economic Journal, 78 (June 1968), 277-298~.... . -

33. B1ackwe11,DavidD., :;'Terrestrial Heat Flow and. its Implicationson the Location of Geothermal Reservoirs inWashington,1I in .Energy Resources of Washington; Olympia, Washington: Departmentof,Na~ural;Resources, In.formation Circular No., 50,1974,25-33.

. .

.34. Bodvarsson, Gunnar, "Downward Continuation of ConstrainedPotentia.1 Fields,il Journal of.Geophysical.Research, 78 (March10,1973 ),1 288 -12 92. '. . . ....•. ". ," '.'

35. Bo,ndarenko, ,5. 5., B. ,F. Mavritsky, and·l. F.P,olubotko,"Methods for Exp10r.ation ..of Thermal .Waters,anda Geological­CommercialAssess~entofTheirD~posits,"Geothermics,SpecialIssue 2, Vol. 2,Part 2(1970),1175-,1183.

. ,

36.' Bowen, R~ G.,' "Geotherma 1 ,Overvi~w of Oregon ," in Geotherma 1Overvi ews of the Western Un i ted Sta tes ; Davis ~ Ca 1i forn i a ,:Geothermal~eSOiTrces Council, 1972, .138-146.' .. '

37. Braun, Jonathan, "Can a Nuclear Plant Be a Good Neighbor?"Parade_Magazine(January20~1974), 4-6. .'

38." Bruce, J. A.andF. B.Shorland, "UtilizationofNatura1 HeatResources in Thermal Regio ns , II NewZea'l and Jour na 1 ofAgriculture, 45 (November 21, 1932), 272-27.8 •. ' '.

39. Burnside, Robert A.""Financing the' New . Geothermal GrowthIndustry ,"~' Geothermal' Energy, I (Augu'st 1973), 43 -44.

40. Burn~ i de, RobertA., II World Geotherma 1 Fi na ncing II ; Glendora,Californ1a: . Geothermal World Directory, 1973,128-133.

41. Cahraman, Thomas H., "The Interrelationship Between Federal,State, and local Regu 1a to.ryAgenc ies on the Deve 1opment'of the

. Geothermal Resource; n Ca 1 i forn; a, " National Conference on'Geothermal 'Energy, MaylO-l1, 1973, Palm Springs, California,Proc~edings, Vol. 2; Riverside: University of California,1973, 104-140.

- 4 - 55

.I 42.

43.

44.

45.

46.

47.

48.

49.

50.

51.

52.

53.

54.

55.

. _. . . . ~

Cahrman,Thomas H.; liThe Interrelationship Between federal,'State. and Local Regulatory Agenc i es /I ;G1 endora , . Ca1; forn i a:Geothermal World Directory, 1973, 220-231.

. . '.

Campbell,' G1 en, II Geothermal Hyd ~o po'ni c s "; Glendora, Ca li forn i a:GeothermalWorld,DirectorY~l973~160-162. ' .

Cam pbell , K. Vincent, J. Mi e r s, B. Ni c hoI s, J. 01 i Pha nt, S.Pytlak, R~Race~ G. Shaw, and R. Gresens, IIA Survey of T~ermal

Springs in',Washington State~1I Northwest.Science, 44 {February1970},1-11. . ' '. . '-.

Cau fo.uri er, ·P., II Power Generation from Na tura 1 Hot Wa ters, /I

Mec ha ni ca 1 Engineer i n9, 43 {March I ~21 }, 200-201 • ,

C'a Ufourier, P., II Util iza t i on of Hea t Content of Hot Spri ng sas a Sour~e of ~ower,IIPower, 53 (April 5, '1921), 565.

Clacy, Gresham)"., ,lILocal lake Microseisms Recorded Near Lake, Taupo in the North Island of New Zealand"; Glendora, California:

Geothermal World Directory, 1973, 235~238.

Comall i , Ernest, II Geotherma 1 Taxation: I ncent i veor Impediment? II ,Nati ona 1 Co'nference on Geotherma 1 Energy ,May 10-11,1973, .Palm Springs, Cal ifornia,proceedinys, VoL 1 ; Riverside:University of Cal ifornia,1973, 16-7. ..'

Con t i, Ere r 0 Gin0 r i , II La r dar e lIoNa t ura 1 St eam Power P1ant, IIpower~ 60 (August 12~ 1924), 251-252. .

~_..-.- - ...- ,

Decker, Edward R., "Geotherma.1 Resources, Present and FutureDemand for Power, and Legislation intbeStateofWyoming,nin Geothermal .Overviewsof the Western United States; .Davis,Cal iforn;a: Geothermal. Resources Council ,1972, 178-200.

Decker, Robert W. and Dallas L. Peck,lIlnfrared' Radiation from'Alae Lava Lake, Hawaii~'; Washington, D.C.:U. S. GeologicalSurvey Professional Paper 575-0, 1967,0169-0175. .

deWeese, R. W.; "GeothermalHeat:. Oregon's Major Pot'ential 'Natura,l. Resource,".Geothermal Energy, £ (January 1974), 58-59.,

Diamond, H. W.,Testimony Before the Geothermal ResourcesBoard October '22, 19,70; Sacramento, Cal if'orilia: State ofCalifornia Division of Ofl and Gas, 1970,4 pp.

Donato, Gduseppe, /lNaturalSteam Power Plants 'of Larderel1o,1IMechanical Engineering, 73 {September 1951),.709-712. '.

Dupree, Walter G., Jr. and James A.West, IIUnitedStatesEnergy Through the Year 2000/1 ; Washington, D. C.: U" S.Government Printing Office (Stock Number 2400-00775, $1),December 1972, 66 pp. ' .

-5 - 56

57.

58.

59.

60:.

61.

62.

63.

64.

65.

66.

67.

68.

Erickson, Edward W~ and· Robert M. Spann, "Supply Respons~ in aRegulated Industry: The Case of 'Natural Gas,"IIBell Journal ofEconomics and Management Science, £ (Spring 191'rr:-94-121. -

Facca, Gi ancarl o,uGeothermal, Economics u ; GJ endora,Ca 1iforn i a:Geotherma 1 World .0 i rectorY, 1972,117-119.

Facca, Giancarlo, liThe Future of Geothermal Energy"; Glendora,California: . Geothermal Wor\ld Directory, 1973, 199-205.

Finn ,Donald F. X., uF~deral Tax ,Policy and Geothermaf EnergyDevelopment U

; Gl endor-a: ,Californ i a : Geothermal World Directory,1973, 209-212 •.

F~rgerson, Robert,S .,uProgress Re.portonEl ectricalRe~isti vi tyStudtes,CosoGe,otherma1 Area, InyoCounty', Ca liforn i au; ChinaLake, Cal iforni a: Na val Wea pons Center,' NWC TP 5497, Ju·ne1"973, 66 pp. . ,

Garstde,Larry J., "Geothermal Exploration and Developmentin Jevada Through 1973 11

; Reno: Nevada Bureau of Mines andGeoJ ogy, Report 21 , 1974, 12 pp.

Garside, Larryj. andJ~hnH.. Schill ing, uGeothe'rma1Exploration andDev~lopmentinNevada,'~ in Geotherma·l Overviewsof the Western United States; Davis, California: GeothermalTresources Council ,1972, 108-114.

Garside, LarryJ.and .JohnH.5chill ing,"Geothe.rmal Explorationand Deve lopmentin Nevadan; Glendora, Ca 1i forn ia : Geothermal.world Directory, 1972, 146-151.

,Gofman , JohnW. ," Some >lmportant Unexamined Quest; onsConcerning the Barnwell N'uc 1ea r Fue 1 Reproces's i ngPl ant II ;Glendora, California: Geothermal World Directory, 1972, 183-190. .

Grant J. D., UNa tura1 Steam Pl antPtopO$e~ 1nCa 1,1 forriia,"Power, 54 (December· 27 , 1921), 1004 ~ '. .- .'., " " ,'" .

Greenbaum, Margaret E.~nd CurtiSE.Harvey, II Surface Mining,Land Reclamation and Acceptable Standards"; Lexington,Kentucky, . Institute for Mining and Minerals Research, .Un i versi tyof .Kentuc~y, June 197.4, 40 pp.

Greider, Robert,. uEconomic Considerations· for GeothermalExp lora t10ni n . the WesternUni tedSta tes ;" Paper presentedat Colorado Department of Natural Resources Symposium, Denver,Colorado, December 6,1973, 20pp.

Hahn~ Emanuel, IISome Unusual Steam Plants in Tuscany," Power,57 . (June 5, 1923) ,882·...885.

- 6.- 57

.)69.

70.

Harrenstien,Howard~"Hawal1Overview," in Geothermal Overviewsof the Western United States; Davis, Cal·ifornia: Geotfierma1Resources Council,. 1972" 70_-91. . ".

Harshbarger, JohnW. ~ "Overview of G.eothe~mal ResourcesPotent ta1i n Arizona," .i n Geothermal Overvi ews·· of the WesternUni tedSta tes ; Da vis ,Ca1 i forn i a : Geotherma 1 Resoi:i"'rC"es Co unc i 1,1972, 3-15 . . < .

. . . .

71 •.. Ha s san ,M. F., liThe Chang ingPa t tern of the Bargaining Powerof the on Exporting Co.untries";Normal, Illinois: IllinoisStateUnivers i ty, 1974, 5 pp.

72. Hayashida, T·., II'Cost Analysis of Geothermal Power," Geothermics',Special. Issue 2, Vol.: 2, Part 1 (1910),950-957'.

. . .

73. Hayas·h.ida,<T.and Y. Ezima,"Developll1ent of Ota~eGeothermalField,JI Geothermics, Special Issue 2, VoL 2, Part 1 (1970),208-220.

74. Hewitt,W. P., Carlton H. Stowe, and Rodney R. Stromberg,IlUtah'sGeotherma1 Resources: Location, Potential, andAdmi.nist.rative Agencies,lIin Geothermal Overviews of the WesternUnited States; Davis, California: Geothermal Resources- .Council ,,1972, 147-16.0.

75. Hoagl and, Donald L., "Di 11 Sl Geothermal Bills in. Cal iforni aLe.gislature,U Geothermal Energy,l (August 1973), 59-60.

76.• Holt, Ben,A. J. L. HutchinsQn,and..Dougla.s S.Cortez,. IIG.eother.mal. Power Gen.er.a tionUsing the Bi nary Cycle , n

Geothermal Ener9l, 1 (August 1973),45-58. .

77. . Horton, R. C., "Geothermal Power i nNevada , "i nMi nera 1 andWater Resources of'Nevada;Reno, Nevada: Nevada BureauofM;nes,·BulletTn' 65, 1964,267~269. '

78. Horvath, JosephC. and Robert t. Chaffin, IIGeothemal Energy:Its Future and Economics"; Glendora, California: GeothermalWorld Directorl, 1972,97-105. '.

79. Houthakker, Hendrik S .. and Michael Kennedy, IIDemand for Energyas a Function of PriCe ll

j Cambridge, Massachusetts: HarvardUniversity, Department of Economics, 1974, 26 pp.

. .

80. Houthakker,HendrickS. and Michael Kennedy, liThe :Outlook forPetr01eumPrices," Wall. Street Journal ~ .January 22, 1974.

81 •. Houtha"ker, Hendrick S., Philip K.. Ver1eger~Jr., a~dDennisP. Sheehan, IIDynamic Demand Analysis for Gasoline and .Residential Electricity"; Lexington, Massachusetts: DataResources, Inc., 1973, 25 pp.

- 7 - 58

85.

)82. Howard, John H•• "Lawrence Livermore Laboratory N.A.T.O.Geothermal Meeting"; Glendora, California: Geothermal WorldDirectory~ 1973,188-192. '

83. Howard, J. H., "Summary o~the NATO/CCMS Geothermal Mee~ing,1973"; Glendora, California: Geothermal World Directory,1973, 193-198.,

84. Huettner~ David, "Electric Generating Plants: ,Analysis andConclusions," in <0. Huettner, Plant Size, TechnologicalChan~e, ~ Investment'Requirements; New York:, ' PraegerPUbllshers, 1974, 63-99.

Hurl,but,ROY B., IlEnergy Resource Surv'ey of the: State .of Oregon,"in Oregon Energy .Study; Salem, Oregon: Public UtilityCommissioner of Oregon, 1973, 25-207.

86.

87.

88.

8.9.

90.

91 •

92.

93.

94.

95.

Iceland National Energy Authority ,"Geothermal Research inIceland u

; 'Glendora, California: Geothermal World Directory,1973, 124-125. '

lnfor~atics, Inc., "Geothermal Bibliogra~hY of the USSR";Glendora, California: Geothermal World'Directory, 1972,51-53.

lnteirna ti onallns t itllte 'forG.eo~hermalResearch,' nproduct ionand Transmission. of Electri cPoweri nIta1y";p isa, Na.tionalE1 ectric Energylnst itute (ENEL), 1971,' 14pp.

Isita, Josey Septien, .'tGeothermalExp1oita~ion";Glendora,

Ca 1lforn ia:, Geotherma 1Wor1 d Oi rectory, 1973 ,102-123.

Jaff~, ~elice C.,"Geothe~ma1 Energy: A Review,fl £ulletih'del' .,vereinigun,schwei Z ,Petro leum-Geo loge" and. Tngenieure,38 (October 19 1), 17-40 (;n£og11 sfiJ. . • ' ,

. . ~.. " .

James.R., uPowerStat.ionS~rategy, II Geothermi cs , Special'Issue 2,' Vo1. 2, Par t 2 (1 970), 1676 - 1687. . ..' , .•..

James, R., liThe Economics of the Sma 11 Gec)thermal PowerStation,"Geothermics, Special Issue 2, Vol. 2, Part 2 (1970),1697-1704. ' '.

Kamins, Robert ,Donald Kornre i ch, and George Sheets, uPreli mi naryRe~ort on Legal and PubliccPolicy Setting for GeothermalResource Development in Hawaii. Honolulu: Hawaii GeothermalProject, University of Hawaii, December 1973,,33 pp.

Kaufman, Alvin, "Comparative Energy Costs by AlternativeGenerating.Methodsll;Grendora, California: Geothermal WorldDirectory, 1973,2U6-208.

Kenda 11, Gl en , (moderator), II Env i ronmenta 1 Consi derat ions, II

Nat i 0 na 1 Conference on Geotherma 1 Energy, May 10-11 , 1973,Palm SpringS, California, Proceedings, Vol.l; Riverside:University. of California, 1973,25-33.

- 8 - 59

.)96,

97.

98.

99.

·100.

101.

102.

103.

104 i

105.

106.

107 .

108.

. .Kennedy, M.and H. S~ Houthakker, "The World Petroleum Model ­An Overview ll

; Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University,Department of Economcis, 1974, 19· pp.

Komagata, S. H. Iga, H. Nakamura, and Y. Minohara, "The Statusof GeothermaL Utilization inJapan,~ ~eoth~rmics, SpecialIssue 2, Vol. 2, Part J (1970),185-19"6. . .

. .

Kremnjov, O.A., V. J. Zhuravl enko, and A. V. Shurtshkov,"Techni ca1.-EconomicEs timat ion of Geothermal Resources,"Geothermi.cs, Special Issue 2, Vol. 2,_Part2 (1970),1688-1696.

Leardini, T., "ENEL' [National Electric Energy Agency] : Notesabout its Constitution, Scope, ·andOrganization" ;Pisa, Italy:International Institute for Geothermal.Research,undated,12~~· ..

Leeman, Wayne A.. JlTheFunctionsof Market and Government inCoping with the Energy Crisjs"; Columbia, Missouri: Universityof Missouri, 1974,10 pp.

Lessing, Lawrence, "Power from the Earth' sOwn Heat," Fortune(June.1969hJ38-141, 192, 196, 198. ..

Livingston, Vaughn E., Jr., "Geothermal Energy in Washington,"in Geothermal .. Overvi ewsof theWesternUni t.ed States; Davis,Cal ; forn ; a :Geotherma 1 Resources Counc ; 1, 197 2, 161-177.

Lloyd, Alan S., "The Energy Situation in Hawaii': December1973"; Honolulu: Hawaiian Electric Co., Inc., December 1973,17 pp ..

; '.. .

Loehwing, Oavid A.,uNatur·e'sTeakettle: Geothermal Power isGetting Upa Head of Steam," Geothermal Energy, ! (September1973),19-23,26-27.

Lovering, ThomasS. ~ "Some Problems in Geothermal Exploration,"Mining Engineering, 17 (September 1965), 95-99.

LUdvfksson"Vi1~JalmurandSteingrfmur Her~annsson, "GeothermalEnergy Resources and Energy Costs forlndustr.ial Uses inIceland"; Glendora ,Cal if'ornia:GeothermalWorld Directory,1972, 125-135.

Lundberg , Edwa rd A., nUti l1za t i on of the Earth I sNa tura 1 .. Heati ng System to Desa 1tGeotherma lBr i nes for Augmenta t ionof the Co lorado River System, II National .. Water Supply ImprovementAssociation (NWSIA) Journal, ! "(JUly 1974) ,39-51. .

Lyon, R. N.~ "A Pr'oposa1for an International GeothermalInformation Ceriter"; Glendora, California: Geothermal WorldDirectory, 1973, 126-127.

- 9 - 60

V109. Manley,.C. Conrad, lI Mexico Turns to Steam Energy," Geothermal

Energy, 1 {August 1973), 22. .

110. MacAvoy, PaulW.and Robert S. Pindyck, IIAlternative RegulatoryPolicies for Dealing with the Natural Gas Short~ge," BelT'Journal of Economics and Management Science, .4 (AutumnT97.3),454-498.-

111. MacDonald, Gordon A,.,. UGeo10gical Prospects for Developmentof Geothermal Energy in Hawaii,1I Pacific Science, 27 ,No.3(1973), 209-219"•.' . -.

112. Mas1an, f. and T. J. Gordon, IIGeotherma1 Energy as a Resourceina Hydrogen Energy Economyll; Gl~stonbury, Connecticut: TheFutures Group, 1974 , 26 pp. . . . .

113. Matthew, Paul" IIGeothermal Operating Experienc~~ Geysers PowerPlant,1I Pap'er presented at National 'StructuralEngineeringMeet ing, Amer i can Soc i ety of C;i vil Engineers, San Francisco,Apr; 19-13 ,,] 973, 18 'pp. .

114. McCabe, . B.C., J.r., IIS radyHotSprings GreenhouseP,rojects,1IGeothermal Energy, 1 (August J973), 65. '

115. McMil1an,D.A., Jr.,' lI Economics of The' Geysers G~otherma1Field, Callfornia,uGeothermics, Special Issue 2, Vol. 2,

. Part 2 (1970) ,170,5-1714.

116. Mori, Y., IIE~p10itation of the Matsukawa Geothermal Area,1IGeothermics, Specia11ssue 2, Vol. 2. Part 2 (1970), 1150-'1156. '. ,.... ...' .'

117. Muraszew, Alex, "Geothermal Resources and the Environment ll •Glendora, California: Geothermal World Directory, 1972,152-153.

118. ,Nakamura, S., "Economics of Geothermal El.ectric Power GenerationatMatsukawa,"Geother~ics~Special lssue2, Vol. 2, Part 2(1970)~1715-1716~ .. ' '

.119 •

120.

. 122.

,Naymanov, o. S., uA Pl1otGeothermoe1 ectric Power Stati oni n

. Pauzhetka, Kamchatka,". Geothermics',. Special Issue 2, Vol. 2,Part '2' (1970), 1560-1566 •• ,' .'. '. .

Nevin, AndrewE. and T. L. Sadlier-Brown, U Exp10rati on' andEconomic Potential of Geothermal Steam in Western Canada .. ;Montreal: Canadian Institut~ of Mining and Metallurgy, 1973,5 pp. .

. . ,

'Ogle, William E., IINon-Electrica1 Uses of Geothermal Resources,",GaothermalEnergy~ ! (January 1974),32-33.

Olds. F. C•• "Capital Cost Calculations for Future Power Plants,"Power Engineering (January 1973), 61-65.

- 10- 61

'-(23. Pearl ,Richard H." IIGeothermal Resources of Colorado"; Denver:Colorado Geological, Survey Special Publication £,Departmentof .Na tura1 Resources, 1972, 54pp.

124. Pearl, Richard Howard,uGeothermal, Resources of Colorado,"ieotbermal', Energy, 2 (January 1974), 18-20.

125. Pearl" Richard Howard, IIGeotherma 1 Resources of Colorado - ASummary,1I .inGeothermal~esourcesof the Western United States;Da v is ,Cal i forn ia : Gecaherma 1 ResourcesCounci 1,1972, 62-69;,

126.' Possel1, C. R., "Bladeless Turbinas," Geothermal Energy, 1(August 1973), 20-21. -

127.

128.

129.

130.

131 .

132.

133~

134.

135.

Ragnars. K.. , K.Saemundsson,S. Benediktsson, and s. S.Einarsson ,IIDevelopment of the Namafjall Area ,NorthernIceland, II Geothermics ,Special Issue 2 , Vol. 2, Part 1(1970), 925-935.',' ,

Read, Thomas T.r~Power from the £art~ls Heat," Mechanical,E,ngineering, II (August 1924},446-447.

Reardon,W111iam A., liThe Energy Situation in Or.egon,"in· "Oregon EneriY ~tUdY ; Sal em, Oregon: Pu b1 i c Utility Comriliss i onerof Oregon", 97 ,1-24. ,

Reed, Marshall, "Imperial Valley,"; Glendora, Calif~rnfa:Geothermal World Directory, 1973, 141-153.,

Romans,Wfl1 i am A • ., liThe Geothermal GeopressureResources andPrahl ems of theGu 1f Coast, II Geotherma 1 Energy ,1 '(Augus t 1973),39-42. " ".,-

Rook, Stephen andGeorgeC.Wi n lams, llImperi alCarbonD iox i deGas Fieldl'; Sacramento: California Division of Oil & Gas"Summary of Operations, ~, No.2 (1942), ,12-33.

Ross, Sylvia H., "Geothermal Potential of Idaholl;'Moscow,Idaho:, Idaho Bureau of Mines and Geology, Pamphlet No. lSD,November 1971, 72pp. - -

Savage, C. N., uEvaluation of Minerals and Mine'ral Potentialof the Salmon River Drainage Basin in Idaho ll ; Mostow, Idaho:Idaho Bureau 'of Mines and Geo1ogy,Pamphlet No. 147 •September 1970. 64pp.' ,

,Schuster.J.Eric, uGeotherrnalEnergy Potential. of Washington,1Iin Energy Resources of Was h1ngton; 01YIJ1P1 a ,Washi ngton : 'Department of NaturarResources. InformationCfrcularNo. 50.1974, 5-19.

Sc1ater, John G. and CharlesE. Corry, "Heat Flo'w Hawa,iianArea," Journal o~ Geophysical Resea~ch, 72 (July 15, 1967).3711-3715. -- --

-11- 62

~37.

138.

139.

140.

141.

142.

143.

144.

145.

146.

147.

148.

] 49.

Seaman ,wn 11 am H• (moderator),UAccesst,o Geothermal Land s, IINat i ona lConference on Geothema lEnergy, May 10-11, 1973,Palm Springs, californ1a,'proceed,irlis, Vol. 1; Riverside:University. of California,1973, 12-1 ••..

Searl, Milton F. and Harry Perry, "Policies for Energy Researchand Deve10pment,1I Paper presented at Annual Meeting, AmericanEconomic Association, New York, ;N.V., December 1973, 29pp.

. . ,

Sheets ,George M•., "Hawaii Volcano Energy, ".Geotherma 1 Energy,1 (August 1973),2.3-24. ',..', .

Slna 11, HyDee, IIMcCabe & McMi 11 an: Geotherma 1 Pi oneers, II

§.eotherma1 Energy, 1 (October 1973 ),47. . .

Small, 'HyDee , II USC S.ympoSi urn 0 nNew Sour'ces of Energy, U Ge9 therma 1Energ), 1 (August 1973), 36-37. . ~ .

".' . ".

Smith, <MortonC ., liThe Potential for the Production of Powerfrom .Geotherma1Resources, II Geothermal Energ,x" 1 (September1973),46-51. . . .

State of Arizona, 1I1972Rul es and Regul ations, GeothermalResources"; Phoenix, Arizona: Oil and Gas· ConservationCommission, 1972,' 39 pp.

State of California, uAdmi nistratfve Regu lat ionsPerta i ni ngto Geothermal ResQurcesand Environmental Impact Reports,"Nationa1Conference on Geothermal Energy, May 10-11, 1973,.palm Springs, California, Proceedings, Vol. 2; Riverside:Univers1tyof Ca1iforni.a, 1973,251-261. .• . .

I .

State of California, uea1 iforniaLawsfor Conservation ofGeothermal Resources" ; Sacramento , California: Division ofOil and Gas, 1971, 35pp.

State of California, Department of Natural Resoorces,"EconomicMineral Map of 'California No. 1. .;.Quicksilver"; Sacramento,California, 1939.

State of California, Division of Mines and Geology, MineralResources of California; San Francisco: Bulletin 19-1, 1966,~50·PP. -

, .

State of California., ~GeothermaJ Regulations in ImperialCounty," Nati ana 1. Co nfer~nce on Geotherma JEnergy, May JO-ll ,1973, Palm Springs, California, Proceedings. Vol. 2; Riverside:University of Callfornia, 1973, 263-282. .. ..' .

. ...

State of Cal ifornia,. Senate Committee on. Natural Resources andW11d-l ife, IIGeothermalResources: Founda ti on fa r a PotentiallySignificant New Industry in California"; Sacramento: Senate,State Capitol, 1967, 66 pp~ .

- 12 -63

-150. state o'f Cal ifornia, "Statutes Pertaining 'to Geothermal "Resources, U National Conference on Geothermal. Energy, May 10-1"1973 ,Palm Springs, Cal ifornia ,Proceedings ,Vol. 2 ; Riverside:University of California, 1913, tZ2-249.

151. state of, Hawa; i , "Energy Use; nHawa; ill ; Honolulu: Departmentof Planning and Econ.omic Deve10ptrient,1974, 27 pp.

152.

153.

154.

155.

156.

157.

158.

159.

160.

'161.

162.

163.

Stala of Idaho, uIdaho Beotherma1 Act"iG1endora,Californ;a:Geotherma lWorl d.D; rec tory, 1913,213 -,219. .

, '..

StateofiWashing ton, Energy Resources of Wash; flgton; 01 ympi a,Washington: Department of Natural Resources, InformationCircular No. 50, 1974, 158 pp.

Summers, W.K., IlA Pre1 iminaryRepor't on New Mex i co' s GeothermalEnergy'Resources"; Socorro, New Mexico: State Bureau of M;nesand Mineral Resources, Circular 80,196.5, 41 pp.'

, . . .. .

Summers, W.K., uGeothermal ·Prospects in New M~xico,1l inGeotherma ,. Overv; ews of ,the Western Un; ted Sta tes ;Dav; s,ea1i forn.i a: GeothermaT Resources Cou nc i 1, 1972, 11 5-137 •.

, . '

Summers, W. K., "Geothermal - The Problem of Definition,"Geothermal Energy,l (August 1973), 29-33.

Tax Court of the Un ited States, JlTheMaj or ityOplnion in theReich Case: The Question of Depletion,lI National Conferenceon Geothermal Energy, May 10-11, 1973, Palm Springs, California,Proceedings, Vol. 2; Riverside: University of California,1973,284 ... 301.· .

Tellier, Anthony H., "Geothermal Waters of Arizona: AProgress Report ll

• Glendora, California: Geothermal WorldDi rectory, 197 2 , 137 ~145 •

Te11i~r, Anthony H. t "Geothermal Waters of Arizona: AProgress Report";Glendora~ California: Geothermal ~or1dDirectory, 1973, )63-175. .

Tichonov, A. N., E.A., Lyubimova, and 1. M•. Dvorov, "Util.iza­ti~n ofU~dergrouhd Heat in the USSR Il ; Glendora, California:Geothermal World Directory, 1972,81~94.

Ti khonov,A. N. andL M. Dvorov, "Development of Researchand Utl1 i za ti on of Geotherma 1 Resources i ntheUSSR,"Geothermics, Special l~sue 2, Vol. 2, Part 2(1970), 1072-1078.

Tompl< ins, Dorothy Camp be 11 , "Power From theEa rth : GeothermalEn~rgyBibliography";Berke1ey: University of California, ,Institute'ofGoverhmenta1 Studies, 1972, 34 pp. '.

United Nations, World Energy su7Plies; New v.ork: Department of

Economic and Social Affairs, S1 STA1/SER.J/16, 1973, 187 pp.

- 13 - 64

J..164. .Uni t.ed States Atomic Energy Commission, II Fusi on Power: Research

and Development RequirementsU;WashingtQn,.O. C.:' u., S.Government Printing Office (WASH-1267,UC-20, $.90), July 1973,57 pp. .

165. United States Atomic Energy Commission, uTheEnvjronmenta1Impact of Electrical Power Genera,tion:' Nuclear and Fossi 1";Washington, ,0 .C. :U. S.GovernmentPrinting Offi ce(WASH-1261,UC 11, $1.25), 1973, 89pp. '

166. Un itedStates ,Congress~'nJheFedera1,Geothermal' Steam A,ct of1970: , Public law 91-581 , II National Conference em, GeothermalEnergy. May 10·11, 1973, Palm Springs, California, Proceedings"Vo1.2; 'Rivers ide: Univers i ,tyofCa1iforn i a, 1973 ,145 -153.

167. United states De.partmentof the Interio,r , "Assessment ofGeothermal Energy Resources"; Wa~hington! O. CA: U. S.Geological Survey".September 25,1972, 84 pp. ,',' "

168. United States' Department of' the Jnterior,BureauofReclama t i on,Bou1 derC i ty • Nevada, II Geotherma LExpl ora t iOll in Reg i 0rt 3. I' '

in Geotherma10verv i ews of the Western United States; Davis,Ca 1 i forn i a: Geothermal Tre"s'O'U"rces Cou nc i 1, 1972, 53 -61.

169. UrtitedStates Department of, the Interior, "Flnal Statementon Geothermal Steam Act of,l970"j Glendora, California:.G.eotherma1 World 'Di rector1. 1973. 135-140 •.

170. United States Department of the Interior. "Geothermal LeasingProgram Fact Sheet and, KGRA"s in Western Uni ted States II; •Boston, Virginia: 'U.S.,Geological Survey, April 1973,'5 pp.

171. United states Depa'rtment of the 'Interior, "Natural Steam forPowern;Washington,D.C.:. U. ,5. G,overnmet')t Printing Office(Stock Number 2.401-00244. $ .10), 1972, 12pp. , '

172. United States Department of the Interfor, "Ru'les~o Implementthe Fed era 1 Geotherma 1SteamAct of 197011

• Na t iOha1 Conferenceon Geotherma 1 Energy • May 10-11, 1973, Pal mS'pri n~s ,Ca1iforni a,Proceedings, Vol. 2; Riverside,: University of CalJfornia, 1973,155-220. . ,

173. United Sta t.esDepU'tment of the Interior, "Secretary MortonApproves Geotherma 1 Development and Fact Sheet on GeothermalLeasing Program"; Washington. D. C.: Department of theInteri or News Release (Wa 11 ace 202/343/7561), December 18 , 1973,14 p'p.

174. United States Department of the Interior. "United States,Energy: A Summary Rev i e~'l.. Washington, D. C.:' U. S. 'Government Printing Office' (0-524-102, $.-80), 1973. 42 pp.

175. United States Federal Power Commission. Bureau of ,Power, IIStaffReport On Wind Power";Washington, D. C. September1973~ 10 pp.

-14 - 65

177.

178 •.

.)176. Un.ited States federal Power Commission~ .IIChanged UnderlyingFactors Influencing E1ectri cLo.ad Growth"; Wash i ngton,O . C.:U.S. Government Print i ngOfJice (.720-132/312), 1971, 46 pp.

United States federal Power Commission, IIElectric PowerTransmission and the Environment," Washington, D. C., November27.. 1910 ,22 pp~ . ." .

United States f~deral Power Commission, Hydroelectric PlantConstruction Cost and Annua1' Prcoduct'i~n ·Expenses; waShing. ton,fi.c.: U. s. GovernmentPrlntlng Offlce (F.P.C.S.-220, $2.10),April 1973,120 pp. .

179. United States Senate, Committee on Government Operations, "StaffStudy of the Oversight and Efficiency of ExecutiVe AgenciesWith Respect to the Petroleum Industry, Especially asit .

. Related to Recent Fuel Shortages"; Washington, D.C.: U. S .. Government Printing Office (23-764, $1), 1973,.112 pp.

180. United States S,enate,Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs,IIprelimi nary Federa 1 TradeCommiss i on Staff Report on its c

Investigation of the Petroleu~ Industry"; Washington, D.C.:U.S •. Government Pr inti ngOffi.ce (Stock Nurriber· 5270-01885,$ .50), 1973, 62pp.· .' ' '. .'

181. Waring, Gera1dA., The'rma1 Springs of the United States andOtherCountri esoftheWorld- A Summary ,Geologica1 SurveyProfessional Paper 492; Washington, D. C.: U. S. GovernmentPrinting Office (0 .. 232-356), 1965, 383.pp.

182.- Warner, Mont M., II Geothermal Resou rces of Id a ho ," inGeothermal Overviews, of the Western Un i ted States; Da vis,tal i forn i a:' Geothermal" Re'Sources Counc 11 ,1972,92 -98., .

183. Weed, Walter Harvey, "Economic Value of Hot Springs and Hot- .Spring Deposits," Economic Geology, Bulletin No. 260, SeriesA (1904), 598-604. .

184. Wehlage, Edward, "Beowawe still Roars"; Glendora, California:Geothermal World Directory, 1973, 182-181.

185. Weh1age, Edward,IIColorado Has Sources of Geothermal Energy,"Geothermal Energy, f-(January 1974), 21-24. .

186. Wehlage, 'Edward, IIGeothermal Plant Engineering"; Glendora,California: . Geothermal World Directory, 1973, 90-101.

187. Weh1age,Edward, "GetithermalPower: Can it Help Solve th~

EnergyCri~isl~; Glendora, California: Geothermal World,DirectorY'~ 1973, 176-181.

188. Weh1age, Edward, "Rotorua, New Zealand," Geothermal Energy, 2(January 1974), 9-16.

- 15 .. 66

189. Wehl age,' Edward", liThe Rotary Hel i ca 1 Screw Ex pa nd er : A'Geothermal ,Water Wheel ,II Geothermal'Energy, ! (August 1973),27-28.

190 • White, Donald Land J. R. McNi·tt ~ IIGeotherma 1 Energy, II inMineral Resources of California; San Francisco: CaliforniaDivision of Mines and Geology, Bulletin 191, 1966, l74-179.

. ,. ' . .

. . . .

191.Wil COX, UthaiV i ncent, IIA New Ni agara ofSu bterranean Power, II .'Scientific American, 132 {January 1925),24-5.

192. Wilfert, G. L. and Mitt Karr, IIEnvironmental and Social.Imp li cations of Energy Utili za ti on, II in Oregon Energy Study ;Salem, Oregon: Public Utility Commissioner of Oregon, 1973,208-252. .

193 • Wilson, John W., II Ant itrust and Monopolyi n the PetroleumIndustry,1I Testimony before United States Senate, Committee.on the Judiciary, Subcommtttee on Antitrust and Monopoly,.June 27, 1973, 106 pp. .

Supply Requirements,presented at Annua 1York, N.Y.,

Wilson, John W., IIElectricity Consumption:Demand Elasticity, and Rate Design,1I PaperMeeting, American Economic,Association, NewDecember 1973, 27 pp. '

195.' Winger, J. G.,G. D. Gunning,J.D,. Emerson,R. C. Sparling,and A. J.Zraly, 1I0utlo~k for Energy in the United States to198511

; New York, N. Y~: The Chase Manhattan Bank, Jun~ 1972,56 pp. .

194.

196. Wong, C. M., IIGeotherma1 Energy and Desalination: ,Partnersin Progress ll

; Glendora, Ca 1 i forn i a: Geotherma 1 Wor 1d Di rec tory,1972, 159-160.

197. Wu, Patzen, IIExpl.oration of Geothermal Resources in Taiwan ll;

Glendora, California: Geothermal World Directory, 1912,123­124.

198. Zeller, EdwardJ.,· liThe Disposal of Nuclear Waste,1I California"§.eo10gy, 26(April 1973),79-87.