North Milford Valley, in western Utah, is home to dormant volcanoes, subterranean lava deposits, and smatterings of obsidian—black volcanic glass—that Paiute peoples once collected for arrowheads and jewelry. Scalding groundwater still bubbles to the surface in places. In such a landscape, you remember that the planet’s hard exterior, where we spend our entire lives, is so thin that we call it a crust. Its superheated interior, meanwhile, burns with an estimated forty-four trillion watts of power. Milford was once a lead-, silver-, and gold-mining town, but when I visited the area on a sunny spring morning a scientist named Joseph Moore was prospecting for something else: heat.
Heat mined from underground is called geothermal—“earth heat,” in ancient Greek—and can be used to produce steam, spin a turbine, and generate electricity. Until recently, humans have tended to harvest small quantities in the rare places where it surfaces, such as hot springs. Moore’s mission, as a geologist at the University of Utah and the project leader of the Frontier Observatory for Research in Geothermal Energy (FORGE), is to “develop the roadmap that is needed to build geothermal reservoirs anywhere in the world.” This road is long, and much of the map remains blank. The biggest problem is drilling miles through hot rock, safely. If scientists can do that, however, next-generation geothermal power could supply clean energy for eons.
During my trip, Moore’s corps of consultants and roughnecks were drilling the fifth borehole of their experimental project. Their rig, armed with a diamond drill bit, towered like a rocket over the rural landscape; miles of solar panels and wind turbines receded into the distance. The hole, which would eventually be L-shaped, was five thousand feet deep, and the team had another five thousand to go, horizontally. But, before they could drill any farther, they needed to install a hundred-and-fifty-ton steel tube in the hole, using special heat-resistant cement to glue it into place. The tube was like a massive straw that was meant to transport hot water and steam from an artificial underground reservoir—without contaminating local groundwater or triggering earthquakes.
At 6:15 P.M. on May 3rd, cement had started flowing into the hole. Four hours later, part of the cement folded in on itself. The next morning, the cement supply ran out; the men had miscalculated how much they needed. This brought the three-hundred-million-dollar operation to a maddening halt. Moore, in bluejeans and a FORGE-branded hard hat, called his supplier. The nearest batch of suitable cement was five hundred miles away, in Bakersfield, California. The truck would not arrive until after dark.
Right now, geothermal energy meets less than one per cent of humanity’s electricity and heating needs—a puny, almost irrelevant portion. Fossil fuels power about eighty per cent of human activity, pumping out carbon dioxide and short-circuiting our climate to catastrophic effect. Converts argue that geothermal checks three key boxes: it is carbon-free, available everywhere, and effectively unlimited. Crucially, it is also baseload, which means that, unlike solar panels or wind, it provides a constant flow of energy. Companies and governments have taken notice. “Over the last two years, I have watched this exponential spin-up o
23 Comments
pseudolus
https://archive.ph/mkwrR
iancmceachern
I've designed a lot of hardware in the Oil and Gas, HVAC and pump spaces. If anyone wants to design and build hardware in this space my contact info is in my bio.
There is real opportunity here.
ahmedfromtunis
Is this a PR campaign by Quaise?
Yesterday Real Engineering published a video about the importance of geothermal energy and talked about them and today it's the New Yorker.
And unless I'm missing something, neither outlets mentioned this being part of a campaign or anything of that sort.
giantg2
I wonder what affects we might have when cooling the earth (ground). Smacks of the same sort of hubris that we couldn't possibly warm the earth. I guess conservation of energy is a hard concept to comprehend.
outime
At least here in Finland, it’s becoming more and more common for houses to use this kind of energy. I’ve even noticed a few isolated apartment blocks using it. Finland obviously requires a lot of heat, and it seems that everyone I know who uses it is happy, so it’s certainly interesting technology.
Animats
2008 article on deep geothermal power plant.[1]
2016 article on shutdown of plant.[2] "The technology worked but unfortunately the cost of implementing the technology and also the cost of delivering the electricity that was produced to a market was just greater than the revenue stream that we could create."
There's a group called DEEP which is trying to combine deep geothermal with fracking technology, to get better heat transfer. This creates small earthquakes as a side effect. They're working on that.[3]
A startup called FERVO is still trying.[4]
Shallow geothermal for building heat works fine, but it takes a lot of drilling just to get some heat.
So far, nobody seems to have a profitable deep geothermal power operation.
[1] https://e360.yale.edu/features/deep_geothermal_the_untapped_…
[2] https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-08-30/geothermal-power-plan…
[3] http://deepgeothermal.org/home/
[4] https://fervoenergy.com/
znkynz
Makes the classic mistake that claims that Geothermal power is carbon free. Its not. It can be made better through reinjection = https://www.gns.cri.nz/news/carbon-re-injection-revealed-to-…
knappe
If you're interested in geothermal, David Roberts did an interesting podcast on Fervo who are experimenting with fracking style drilling but used for geothermal, which is now being called "enhanced geothermal".
https://www.volts.wtf/p/catching-up-with-enhanced-geothermal
phreeza
One thing I have never quite understood about geothermal, maybe someone can enlighten me: the energy flow from the Earth's core to the surface is not that huge, less than 1 watt per square meter. Doesn't that fundamentally limit the usefulness of geothermal power as a general solution outside of exceptional spots where this gradient is locally much higher, or there is an opportunity to collect from a wide area with a single small borehole? And if I drill a hole and collect 500 watts from it on a 100 sqm plot, am I effectively siphoning the heat from my neighbors plots?
electric_mayhem
I’m renovating an old building that doesn’t currently have any HVAC.
I tried like hell to get a geothermal heat pump set up for it.
This entailed researching companies that make good geothermal equipment and talking to all of their preferred vendors to get quotes.
Literally every shop I talked to, and they were over a dozen that are supposed to be installing these companies equipment told me they don’t install them because air source heat pumps are so much cheaper.
Even with tax credits and rebates (which may not exist by tax time next year when they would pay out), when I finally found a company that would do geothermal, they want 120K USD for a basic system.
if I want to be able to run different rooms in different modes (entirely possible given that it’s a 5500 square-foot building) we’re talking 180K total to work in a heat recovery option.
Meanwhile the same company will do Mitsubishi H2i air source heat pump set up for the entire building for 57K after credits and rebates.
The air source heat pump solution is less efficient and uses more electricity, but the clincher for me was that the cost of each as a complete system, ground source or air source plus the cost of solar raised to drive their respective loads…. Came out as a wash over their lifetimes. Except the air source plus solar solution costs 40K less upfront than even the cheapest and least functional ground source solution.
I would genuinely love it if it were otherwise, but I have months into this and ground source just doesn’t seem economically viable at this point
emtel
As pointed out in the intro to the article, the total amount of power generated in the earth's center is ~50TW.
Global total energy (not just electricity) consumption is currently 180,000TWh/year, or about 20TW. So we would have to capture nearly half of all available geothermal energy to replace current energy usage.
Meanwhile, Solar PV covering (a favorably located) 1% of the earth's surface area would generate 20TW. (This is based on the estimate of 400kwh/year for a 1m^2 panel in a sunny area from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar-cell_efficiency.
I don't expect geothermal to do well in this showdown.
metalman
Here are a few examples of drilling technology that will try and drill 10-30 km down through the crust into areas with enough heat to make supercritical steam.
Lasers, plasma, etc.
Russians did it the hard way back in the day.
https://www.foroenergy.com/drilling
https://www.ieg.fraunhofer.de/en/references/ppgd.html
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S199582262…
https://www.wired.com/story/new-tech-cuts-rock-without-grind…
piokoch
“There’s a very decent chance you can do that with wind and solar,”
It is so pathetic that Standford professor spreads this kind of crap. No, wind and solar will not save us, as on majority of our planet we have long period of time without wind and solar.
Unpredictability of solar/wind energy forces to use something to balance the grid. Which, typically, has to be gas, as only gas power station has sufficiently fast start/stop cycle (about 1h in case of modern installation, lignite power plant has several hours cold start, coal power plant even more).
And gas means CO2 emission, even though in some countries, which were buying gas from Russia through Nord Stream, it was considered to be "ecological", similarly like "biomass", that is burning wood and corn (and as we all know burning wood does not emit CO2, right?).
In addition, this is economical idiocy. When there is too much wind/sun, you need to pay producers to stop producing, not to overload the grid. When there is no wind/sun you need to buy energy paying overpriced spot prices. That's why "renewable energy champion" – United Kingdom has the most expensive energy on the planet.
We have one ecological, 100% CO2 emission free, source of energy – nuclear energy (check France if you don't believe it works).
But how Standford professor might promote nuclear power plants when for long, long years all major universities and organizations, with Greenpeace on the head, were fighting nuclear energy, leading to the shitty situation we have now.
10 years ago anyone who wanted to work on nuclear energy research were treated like Holocaust denier, so there was almost no development of new tech in that area.
And now exactly the same people, who were telling us how bad is nuclear energy, are telling us to use wind/solar. What can go wrong…
alas44
Recent video on the topic by Real Engineering, interviewing a start-up in this domain that aims at creating new technology to dig 10km+ bore holes using plasma to vaporise rocks https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_EoZzE7KJ0
adrithmetiqa
These guys have made huge progress with their closed loop system
https://www.eavor.com/technology/
sampo
Finland tried a project, drilling two 6km deep holes. The temperature at 6km depth is 120C. The idea was to pump water down one hole, and get heated water up from the second hole. But the rock wasn't porous enough, they could not get enough water to flow from the bottom of one hole to the other hole. So in the end, they couldn't extract enough heat out of the setup.
https://www.thinkgeoenergy.com/drilling-finlands-deepest-wel…
https://yle.fi/a/3-12414600
dboreham
Planetary Dyson Sphere.
kragen
The big issue I'm not seeing any discussion of in the comments here is cost per watt. We can divide this into two big buckets: the cost of heat, and the cost of turning heat into electricity. This article is all about how geothermal can reduce the cost of heat (especially EGS), how immense that resource is, and how it's basically carbon-free.
But I think the bigger issue is the second bucket: the cost of turning heat into electricity seems to still be too high to compete with solar and wind, even if the heat were free. The article doesn't mention this at all, but I think it's the crucial issue. I don't understand why heat engines are still so expensive 250 years after James Watt, but they do seem to be. In January I came across https://www.eia.gov/analysis/studies/powerplants/capitalcost… which is an EIA-commissioned study of the capital cost of building different kinds of power plants, and I am hoping that studying it will give me the answer.
The article mentions the intermittency of wind and solar a few times as if it were a showstopper—as if no amount of solar and wind power generation capacity could be an adequate substitute for any amount of geothermal power, because you don't have solar power at night, for example. But actually that's just a question of how much it costs to store the energy until it's needed or transmit it from where it's still being produced. We have upper bounds on those storage costs from existing utility-scale storage facilities, and they already look pretty okay. We can expect that they will get cheaper over time.
modeless
I wonder, if geothermal was somehow scaled to supply a large fraction of our current energy use, would we start influencing plate tectonics? Couldn't it actually thicken the plates under the power plants and influence how they respond to currents underneath?
qwerty_clicks
I work for a O&G super major. You’d think that one of these groups would be more interested right? It’s all about money, if one can’t make huge profits (especially with huge gov subsidies) then they will continue to ignore the prospect.
Megacorps aren’t trying to save the world they are trying to get mega rich.
lisper
Coincidentally (at least I presume it was) Sabine Hossenfelder just published a piece about geothermal today as well:
https://backreaction.blogspot.com/2025/03/i-was-wrong-about-…
ggm
The problem is motivations in the capital investment market related to energy. Australia has hot rocks. We are ideally placed to capitalise on this. The last attempt failed at scale, when the test bore and fracking had problems and the money sucked out of the project, the entire thing ground to a halt and rusted in the tin shed in the outback for 5 years before being formally closed down.
You can make faster ROI in energy plays by doing other things. Thats the sad truth: It required public finance models of ROI, expectations on energy supply markets, basically a different approach to funding and returns to make it work.
But it definitely can work, and is used e.g. in New Zealand where its vented closer to the surface. But, we have the hot rocks. we have the deep water. we have all the mechanistic requirements to do the rock splitting to make a two or ten or twenty hole thermal energy extraction method work, and we even routinely do the fracking for gas well optimisation: we know how to do this.
It's just that other things make money faster, and thats what motivated people to do things: making money, not fixing climate
newman314
On a related note, I remember reading about Dandelion Energy a while but have not heard much since.
I'm interested in knowing if anyone here has gotten it installed and their experience with it.