Short AbstractsofSpecial Symposium on Geothermal Energy“NEW PERSPECTIVE OF GEOTHERMAL ENERGYUTILIZATION IN JAPAN”

Unzen fumarole area, Nagasaki, Japan

10 October 2006, Makuhari, Chiba, Japan
IGAJ, Geothermal Research Society of Japan
日本地熱学会 IGA 専門部会

Preface
SPECIAL SYMPOSIUM ON GEOTHERMAL ENERGY “NEW PERSPECTIVE
OF GEOTHERMAL ENERGY UTILIZATION IN JAPAN”
We are very happy to hold a special symposium on geothermal energy on 10 October
2006 at Makuhari, Chiba Prefecture, Japan at the occasion of the 41st IGA BoD
Meeting.
In Japan the commercial geothermal power generation started in 1966 at Matsukawa
Geothermal Power Station and in 1967 at Otake Geothermal Power Station. We havereached over 500 MWe at eighteen geothermal power stations in the middle of 2000.
However, we have had no new geothermal power stations since then. Japanese Islands
belong to part of the Pacific Ring of Fire. We have plenty of geothermal resource
amounting over 20,000 MWe (Miyazaki et al, 1991). We also have much more hotspring sources more than 27,000 all over the Japanese Islands. Furthermore, researcheson the ground-coupled heat pump system have started both in the northern and southernparts of Japan. Japan is a country rich in geothermal resources. We may be able tocontribute much more to construct environmentally friendly sustainable society, if weare able to utilize much more geothermal energy.
We, all the geothermists in Japan, are struggling in order to promote the utilization ofgeothermal energy. At the occasion of IGA BoD Meeting where many overseas
geothermal experts participate in, we have planned to have a symposium to promote thegeothermal energy development in Japan. The objective of this symposium is to review
the past developments of geothermal energy in Japan and also to investigate the new
direction of geothermal energy developments in the future in Japan under the advice andsuggestions from overseas geothermal experts.
In this symposium, ten papers are presented. Six of them are from Japanese scientists
and engineers. In their papers, the history, the present situation and some of recent
developments of geothermal energy in Japan are introduced. Several problems which
retard the growth of the utilization of geothermal energy in Japan are also shown. In thelatter half of the symposium, four papers are presented from overseas scientists andengineers. They are introducing recent developments of geothermal energy in eachcountry and also giving some useful comments and suggestions to Japanese geothermalsociety. We will have a panel discussion on the future geothermal energy development
in Japan with six panelists and all the audience at the end of the symposium.
We hope your earnest cooperation in carrying the Special Symposium. We would like toexpress our hearty thanks to all the participants, especially to overseas participants.
Sachio Ehara
Chairman of the Symposium
Professor at Kyushu University
Fukuoka, 819-0395, Japan1

INDEX
Preface

Sachio EHARA

Index
Program of the Symposium (English)
Program of the Symposium (Japanese)

1
2
3
4

History of Geothermal Development in Japan

Mineyuki HANANO

5

History and Present Status of Geothermal Power Generation System
Takuji FUJIKAWA andShojiro SAITO

6

Direct use of geothermal energy in Japan

Kasumi YASUKAWA

7

Obstacles of Geothermal Power Development in Japan

Hirofumi MURAOKA

8EIMY (Energy In My Yard): A Strategy to Increase Practical Usage of Renewable Energy
from Local Sources
Hiroaki NIITSUMA
9
Kalina Cycle Power Plant utilizing “ONSEN” (Hot springs)
Kazumi OSATOThe United States of American Country Update 2006

10

John W. LUND,
R. Gordon BLOOMQUIST,
Tonya L. BOYD andJoel RENNER
11

Recent Geothermal Development in Europe and Comments to Japan
Ladislaus RYBACH

12

Supplementary Injection to Mitigate Environmental Effects: Can it be Applied in Japan?
Jim LAWLESS
13
Present status and future plan of geothermal development in Turkey
Sakir SIMSEK

18

Acknowledgement and contact information

23

2

SPECIAL SYMPOSIUM ON GEOTHERMAL ENERGY“NEW PERSPECTIVE OF GEOTHERMAL ENERGY UTILIZATION IN JAPAN”
Tuesday, 10 October 2006
1:00 pm – 5:00 pm
Room 301, International Conference Hall, Makuhari Messe
Purpose: to investigate the new direction of geothermal energy developments in the future in Japan, byreviewing the past developments of geothermal energy in Japan and with advises from geothermal experts
from overseas.

Part I: Utilization of Geothermal Energy in Japan (100 min.)

1:00 pm – 2:40 pm

Chair: Toshihiro Uchida
0. Introduction (5 min.)Sachio EHARA

1. History and present status of geothermal energy utilization in Japan (50 min.)
1-1 Geothermal energy developments in Japan
Mineyuki HANANO
1-2 Development of geothermal power generation system
Takuji FUJIKAWA
1-3 Direct use of geothermal energy in Japan
Kasumi YASUKAWA
2. Some Problems on Geothermal Energy Utilization in Japan (15 min.)
2-1 Problems on geothermal power generation; economy, national parks, hot spring communities, and RPS
Hirofumi MURAOKA
3. Recent Developments on Geothermal Energy Utilization in Japan (30 min)3-1 Energy In My Yard (EIMY)
Hiroaki NIITSUMA
3-2 Project on Kalina cycle power plant utilizing hot spring water
Kazumi OSATO

Coffee Break (20 min.)Part II: Utilization of Geothermal Energy in Japan – Future (120 min.)3:00 pm – 5:00 pm

Chair: Kasumi YASUKAWA
0. Review: Achievements and Problems on Geothermal Energy Developments in Japan (10 min.)Sachio EHARA
1. Present Status of Geothermal Energy Utilization in Each Country and Some Comments and Suggestions toJapan (60 min.)
1-1 Recent Geothermal Development in the USA
John LUND and Gordon BLOOMQUIST
1-2 Recent Geothermal Development in Europe
Ladislaus RYBACH
1-3 Environmental Developments of Geothermal Energy in New Zealand
Jim LAWLESS
1-4 Present status and future plan of geothermal development in Turkey
Sakir SIMSEK
2. Panel Discussion on Geothermal Development in the Future (45 min.)Chairman
Sachio EHARA
Panelists
John LUND, Ladislaus RYBACH and Jim LAWLESS
Hiroaki NIITSUMA, Mineyuki HANANO and Hirofumi MURAOKA*Comments from the audience are always welcome.
3. Concluding Remarks: New Perspective of Geothermal Energy Utilization in Japan (5 min.)Sachio EHARA

5:00 pm – 5:50 pm: IGA 2006 Annual General Meeting
6:00 pm – 8:00 pm: Geothermal Reception
3

RE2006 地熱特別シンポジウム
2006 年 10 月 10 日（火）13:00－17:00
幕張メッセ国際会議場 301 会議室
テーマ： 「New perspective of geothermal energy utilization in Japan」
目的： わが国のこれまでの地熱開発を総括し、外国の現状およびコメンテーターの意見も参考に、わが国の新しい地熱開発の方向を探る。
参加費： 無料
前半（100 分）：Utilization of geothermal energy in Japan
司会：内田利弘（産総研）
0. 趣旨説明（5 分）
1. 我が国の地熱利用の到達点（50 分）
1) わが国の地熱開発の歴史（20 分）
2) 地熱発電システム開発の歴史と現状（15 分）
3) 直接利用の歴史と現状（15 分）
2. 我が国における地熱開発上の問題点（15 分）
1) 地熱発電の経済性・国立公園問題・温泉問題・RPS
3. 我が国における地熱開発における最近の新しい動き（30 分）
1) EIMY の提案（15 分）
2) 温泉を利用したカリーナサイクル発電（15 分）（13:00 - 14:40）

江原幸雄（九州大学）
花野峰行（日本重化学工業）
藤川卓爾（長崎総合科学大学）
安川香澄（産総研）
村岡洋文（産総研）
新妻弘明（東北大学）
大里和己（地熱技術開発）

休憩（20 分）

（14:40 - 15:00）

後半（120 分）：Utilization of geothermal energy in Japan -future司会：安川香澄（15:00 - 17:00）

0. 我が国における地熱開発の到達点と問題点の総括（10 分）

江原幸雄

1. 各国の地熱開発の現状と日本の地熱開発に関するコメント・提案（60 分）
1) 米国における最近の地熱開発の現状
John Lund, Gordon Bloomquist（米国）2) 欧州における最近の地熱開発の現状
Ladislaus Rybach（スイス）
3) ニュージーランドにおける地熱開発と環境問題
Jim Lawless（ニュージーランド）
4) トルコにおける地熱開発の現状と将来
Sakir Simsek（トルコ）
2. パネルディスカッション（45 分）
司会（江原幸雄）
パネリスト： Lund、Rybach、Lawless、新妻、花野、村岡の各氏を予定
3. まとめ（5 分）
わが国における今後の地熱開発の進め方の提案
New perspective of geothermal energy utilization in Japan

江原幸雄

17:00 - 17:50 IGA・2006 年総会（どなたでも参加できます）
18:00 – 20:00 懇親会（会場：幕張メッセ国際会議場内のレストランＮＯＡ、Ocean B 室)

4

History of Geothermal Development in Japan
Mineyuki Hanano
Japan Metals and Chemicals Co., Ltd.
1918
1925
1926
1947

1948
1949
1951
1952
1955
1956

1960
1966
1967
1974
1975
1977
1978
1980
1981
1982
1990
1994
1995
1996

1999
2000
2003

z Vice Admiral Masuji Yamauchi tapped the first geothermal steam well (about 24m
depth) in Beppu, Oita, for the research on geothermal power generation.
z Dr. Heiji Tachikawa of Tokyo Electric Power Co. first succeeded experimental
geothermal power generation (1.12kWe) in Beppu.
z Kyoto University established the Geophysical Laboratory in Beppu, then started
systematic and academic research on geothermal systems and geothermal energy.
z Geological Survey of Japan (GSJ) started research and exploration for geothermal
power development.
z Ministry of Trade and Industry established the committee on geothermal development
technology.
z Tone Boring succeeded experimental geothermal power generation (3kWe) in
Yunosawa, Shizuoka.
z Kyushu Electric Power Co. (KEP) started studies on geothermal power generation.
z Agency of Industrial Science and Technology succeeded experimental geothermal
power generation (30kWe) in Beppu.
z Tone Boring succeeded experimental geothermal power generation (20 to 30kWe) in
Hakone, Kanagawa.
z KEP started geothermal exploration in Otake, Oita.
z GSJ started geothermal studies in Matsukawa, Iwate.
z Mr. Matier of CGG (French company) visited some Japanese geothermal fields anddenied possibility of geothermal power generation in Japan.
z Japan Metals and Chemicals Co. (JMC) started geothermal exploration in
Matsukawa.
z Fujita-Kanko started geothermal power generation (30kWe) in Hakone for private useat their hotel (decommissioned in 1960).
z Matsukawa geothermal power station (GPS) started first commercial-level geothermal
power generation at 9.5MWe for private-use, using dry steam (12.5MWe in 1967,
20MWe in 1968, 22MWe in 1973, 23.5MWe in 1993).
z Otake GPS started first commercial geothermal power generation using separated
steam from two-phase fluid at 11MWe (12.5MWe in 1979)z Onuma GPS started private-use power generation at 6MWe (9.5MWe in 1986).
z Onikobe GPS started commercial power generation at 9.5MWe (12.5MWe in 1976).
z Hatchobaru GPS started commercial power generation at 22MWe (55MWe in 1980).
z Kakkonda GPS started commercial power generation at 50MWe.
z NEDO started the Geothermal Development Promotion Survey.
z Suginoi Hotel started private-use geothermal power generation at 3MWe.
z Mori GPS started commercial power generation at 50MWe.
z Hatchobaru II started commercial power generation at 55MWe.
z Uenotai GPS started commercial power generation at 27.5MWe (28.8MWe in 1997).
z Yamakawa GPS started commercial power generation at 30MWe.
z Sumikawa GPS started commercial power generation at 50MWe.
z Yanaizu-Nishiyama GPS started commercial power generation at 65MWe.
z Kakkonda II started commercial power generation at 30MWe.
z Ogiri GPS started commercial power generation at 30MWe.
z Takigami GPS started commercial power generation at 25MWe.
z Total installed capacity of the Japanese GPS exceeded 500MWe.
z Hachijojima GPS started commercial power generation at 3MWe.
z Kuju-Kanko-Hotel started private-use geothermal power generation at 2MWe.
z Hatchobaru Binary GPS started commercial power generation at 2MWe.
5History and Present Status of Geothermal Power Generation System
Takuji Fujikawa, Nagasaki Institute of Applied Science
Shojiro Saito, Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd.
1. History of Geothermal Power Generation
Geothermal power generation began in Italy in 1904.
ththe early 20

In Japan, a 1.12kW test was conducted in

century, but industrial scale geothermal power generation began only in 1966 (steam

dominated-type) and 1967 (hot water dominated-type).

At present, approximately 10,000MW total

capacity is available around the world, and 21 units at 18 sites are producing electricity from geothermalenergy in Japan.
2. Development of Geothermal Power Generation Technology
The development of technology to utilize hot water dominated-type geothermal resources increased
the total capacity of global geothermal power generation, while the development of double flash cycle
improved power generation efficiency.

Moreover, the development of steam purification technology

expanded the area of available geothermal resources.
3. Japan’s Role in the Field of Geothermal Power Generation
1) Development of Geothermal Power Generation Technology
Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. and Kyushu Electric Power Co., Inc. jointly developed the twophase flow transmission double flash system and other hot water dominated-type geothermal power
generation techniques. Also, Japanese power plant manufacturers developed highly efficient andreliable geothermal power generation equipment.
2) Supply of Geothermal Power Generation Equipment(a) Japanese manufacturers supplied the main equipment (steam turbine, generator, condenser,
cooling tower, etc.) for domestic geothermal power stations.
(b) They also supplied steam turbine-generators and, in some cases, auxiliary equipment for many
geothermal power plants around the world.

Globally, about 45% of turbine-generator units, and

67% of capacity, are presently derived from Japan.

In the U.S.A., in particular, most of the latest

turbine-generators have been supplied from Japan.

O
15%
A
19%
T
26%

M
24%

F
16%

Total Capacity

O
27%

M
22%

A
27%

F
12%
T
12%

Number of Units

Share of Japanese manufacturers in geothermal
power generation main equipment around the world.
(Ｍ,Ｆ,Ｔ: Japanese Manufacturers)

Kyushu Electric, Hatchobaru Power Station.
Two phase flow transmission, double flash
2×55MW, No.1 unit operation started in 1977.

6

Direct Use of Geothermal Energy in Japan
Kasumi YASUKAWA
Institute for Geo-Resources and Environment (GREEN),
National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology (AIST)

1. Direct use (excluding geothermal heat pumps)
Geothermal energy has been directly used in Japan since the time of myth and legend. The utilized heat by direct use ofgeothermal energy (except for geothermal heat pump application) in Japan is 10,300 TJ/a, 4th in the world, following
China, Turkey and Iceland (Lund et al., 2005). Nevertheless the way of utilization is not very sophisticated: half ofutilization is for bathing (Bathing is not really heat utilization in case of Japan. Though part of heat is used, most part isjust thrown away because hot water constantly recharged from spring source simultaneously flows away from the bathtab in most hot springs. Therefore the heat energy calculated from the flow rate overestimates the utilized energy.)
Percentage of all industrial utilizations in Japan, such as green house, fish farming, industrial processing, agricultural
drying, are less than half of world average. Space heating is also limited in Japan. Only snow melting is larger
percentage, besides bathing. Since bathing is quite a big business in Japan, the highest profit/cost of geothermal energy
utilization may have been obtained by bathing use. Multi purpose and cascade use should be emphasized to encourage
industrial utilization. Cooperation with municipals may also be important under the concept of EIMY (Niitsuma and
Nakata, 2003).

Fig.2 Direct use of geothermal energy in the world (Lund et al.,2005)

Fig.1 Direct use of geothermal energy in Japan (Kawazoe andShirakura, 2005 and Lund et al., 2005)

2. Geothermal heat pump application
Though some Japanese experts have started studies on downhole heat exchanger and geothermal heat pump systems in
1980s in Japan, most geothermists in Japan had not realized the importance of the system until WGC2000. The first
application of Downhole Coaxial Heat Exchanger (DCHE) system for snow melting, which is the earliest geothermalsnow melting system in Japan known as “Gaia system,” has been in operation since 1995 (Morita and Tago, 2000).
Intensive utilization of the system would contribute to 1) reduce the consumption of fossil fuels resulting in reduction
CO2 gas emission, 2) reduce the consumption of electricity with higher COP (Coefficient of performance), and 3)
reduce urban heat island phenomenon by exhaust heat into underground.
The obstacles against dense installation of the system in Japan are: 1) high installation cost of geothermal heat pumpsystem and popularization of low-price high-efficiency air-source air conditioner, 2) ignorance of the people about thesystem, and 3) structure of houses and buildings (low thermal insulation, no domestic pipelines for fluid circulation). To
overcome these difficulties, several organizations such as Geothermal Research Association of Japan, Geo Heat Pump
Association of Japan, and Heat pump & thermal storage Society of Japan are promoting the system since 2001. The
number of installation is still limited, but it increased 100 % in recent two years: 43 installation with capacity of 1,273
kWt in 2003 (NEF, 2003), and 88 installations (or more) with total capacity of 47,745 kWt in 2005 (net searching by theauthor). For further promotion, technology to reduce the installation cost, to perform higher COP, compilation of
subsurface data may be important besides enlightening of the people.
References
Kawazoe, S., Shirakura, N. (2005), Geothermal power generation and direct use in Japan, Proc. WGC2005.
Lund, J. W., Freeston、D. H., Boyd, T. L. (2005), Direct application of geothermal energy: 2005 Worldwide review, Geothermics, 34,
6, 691-727
Morita, K. and Tago, M. (2000) Operational characteristics of the GAIA snow-melting system in Ninohe, Iwate, Japan. Proc. of theWorld Geothermal Congress 2000, 3511-3516 (2000).
NEF(2003)：(cont.) The Current Status of Geothermal Direct Uses in Japan，Chinetsu Energy, 28, 160-169 (in Japaese).
Niitsuma, H. and Nakata, T. (2003): EIMY (Energy In My Yard) – A Concept for Practical usage of Renewable Energy from Local
Sources. Proc., EGC2003, I-2-02.

7

Obstacles of Geothermal Power Development in Japan
Hirofumi Muraoka
Geothermal Resources Research Group,
Institute for Geo-Resources and Environment (GREEN),
National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology (AIST)
Since the Hachijojima Geothermal Power Plant was installed in March 1999, none ofgeothermal power plants have been installed in Japan, except for a 2000 kW demonstration
binary plant in Hatchobaru installed in 2004. How did this dark age come in Japan? The
negative side overview is a main subject of this speech. To answer this, we must consider
about “risks of investment” into a geothermal power development in Japan.
Japan is blessed with huge geothermal resource potentials. Probably Japan is the thirdlargest geothermal resource potential country in the world, following Indonesia and USA.
Natural factors are very optimistic. All the obstacles are derived from the social andpolitical factors. The first obstacle is the National Parks; More than 60% of prospective
areas lie within the parks. The second obstacle is the pre-existing hot spring spas; 27,644
hot spring sources ubiquitously conflict with geothermal developments everywhere in Japan.
The third obstacle is legislation and regulation; They prolong the lead time to be 15 -25 years,
resulting in the high construction cost. The fourth obstacle is the cost of geothermal power;
Land property, public acceptance, drilling and lead time, all of the costs are much higher than
the world standard. The fifth obstacle is the Governmental incentive policy; Geothermalenergy was excluded from “new energy” in 1997 that initiated a tragedy in the geothermalmarket in Japan, though there is the current activity to revive geothermal energy into “newenergy”.
Normally, we must invest 30 billion Yen (256 million US$) for the development of a 30 MWeclass geothermal power plant in Japan. However, it will take at least 15 years to recover thecapital by profits in Japan with large reservoir management risks. This is “high risks andlow returns” compared to other investment fields under such a long deflation economy stage.
This situation is a simple answer to the present dark age in a geothermal power market in
Japan. If reasonable incentives are given by the Government such as a quota system orrenewable portfolio standard (RPS), the situation will be dramatically improved. We havethe RPS Law in Japan since December 2002, but the quota obligation is only 0.52 % in 2006
that is one or two magnitudes less than the world standard. This poor renewable energy
policy is an essential obstacle to geothermal power development in Japan.

8

EIMY (Energy In My Yard):
A Strategy to Increase Practical Usage of Renewable Energy
from Local Sources
HIROAKI NIITSUMA
1

Graduate School of Environmental Studies
Tohoku University, Sendai 980-8579, JAPANA strategy of geothermal development that is consistent with the expected earth
environment of the 21st Century was studied by a group that included 10 people fromuniversities, 2 from a national institute, 2 from NEDO and 4 from industry. The groupconceived the concept of “EIMY; Energy In My Yard”, which is the converse of NIMBY (Not
In My Back Yard). EIMY proposes that local energy demands should be met from an
optimum combination of local, renewable sources to the maximum degree that technical andeconomic considerations permit. Shortfalls and surpluses in local energy production would
be accommodated through an interface with the national grid. This energy/social system iscustomized to the needs and resources of local communities, the design giving precedence tothe welfare of the people in the area as well as the benefits to the local economy and energy
security. This in turn would provide an incentive for local people to utilize local renewableenergy.
The group also discussed the roles that the various kinds of renewable energy could
play within the EIMY framework, according to their nature, ubiquity, and capacity. Sources
such as wind, solar, geothermal, hydro and biomass were considered. Geothermal energy
will play a key role in the EIMY system. One of the required features of geothermal for the
EIMY is consistency with the environment and the other is ubiquity. Zero emission andsustainable production are essential features for the consistency. With regard to the latter,
the technologies of reinjection and HDR/HWR are important. Technology to facilitate
stepwise increases in production rate and their monitoring are also important for sustainableproduction, because an optimum production rate in a geothermal system is usually difficult toestimate in advance, and it is reasonable to start with a lower rate. The technologies of
HDR/HWR, binary system and heat pump allow subsurface heat to be exploited from adiverse range of depths and conditions, and thereby greatly enhance the ubiquity of thegeothermal resource. In this regard, it is necessary to compile a new database that shows thetrue picture of geothermal energy resources in a given area rather than just highdensity/quality resources.

9

Kalina Cycle Power Plant utilizing “ONSEN” (Hot springs)
Kazumi Osato
Geothermal Energy Research and Development Co., Ltd.
There are many high temperature hot springs (“ONSEN”) exceeding 80 degrees C in Japan.
In some cases of them, necessary portion of them is using for taking bath and rest isdischarging without utility – e.g. in Kusatsu Onsen (Gunma prefecture) and Tamagawa Onsen(Akita Prefecture). Since it is important not to mix hot spring water with fresh water and tomaintain the effect with original hot spring water from a viewpoint of balneotherapy in Japan,
the power generation using temperature difference attracts the attention as a method ofcooling high temperature hot spring without dilution. Various governmental programs for CO2
reduction of a local region using renewable energy are carried out by the Ministry of
Economy, Trade and Industry, the Ministry of Environment and others as a subsidy with grant
rate from 20% to 66%. Kalina Cycle© which uses ammonia-water heat medium attracts
attention recently as thermal-energy-conversion technology using heat source less than 100
degree C. We introduce about the concept and possibility of the new geothermal energy
enterprise which contributes to CO2 reduction of a local region, performing power generation
which used high temperature hot springs, and living together with hot spring communities bycombination of geothermal energy and other renewable energy.

10THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICAN COUNTRY UPDATE 2006
John W. Lund – Geo-Heat Center, Oregon Institute of Technology
R. Gordon Bloomquist – Washington State University Energy Program
Tonya L. Boyd – Geo-Heat Center, Oregon Institute of Technology
Joel Renner – Idaho National Engineering Laboratory
ABSTRACT
Geothermal energy is used extensively for electric power generation and direct
utilization in the United States. The present installed capacity (gross) for electric power
generation is 2,534 MWe with about 2,100 MWe net delivering power to the gridproducing approximately 17,840 GWh per year for a 80.4% gross and 97% net capacity
factors. Geothermal electric power plants are located in California, Nevada, Utah,
Hawaii and Alaska. The two largest concentrations of plants are at The Geysers innorthern California and the Imperial Valley in southern California. The latest
development at The Geysers, starting in 1998, is injecting recycled wastewater fromtwo communities into the reservoir, which presently has recovered about 100 MWe of
power generation. The second pipeline from the Santa Rosa area came on line in 2004.
The direct utilization of geothermal energy includes the heating of pools and spas,
greenhouses and aquaculture facilities, space heating and district heating, snow melting,agricultural drying, industrial applications and ground-source heat pumps. The installedcapacity is 9,017 MWt and the annual energy use is about 34,400 TJ or 9,560 GWh.
The largest application is ground-source (geothermal) heat pumps (74% of the energyuse), and the next largest direct-uses are in space heating and agricultural drying. Direct
utilization (without heat pumps) is increasing at about 2.6% per year; whereas electric
power plant development is almost static, with only about 70 MWe added since 2000.
In 2006, a 200 kWe binary plant was placed in service at Chena Hot Springs, Alaska,
using the lowest temperature geothermal resource in the world, 74oC, for power
generation. A new 185-MWe plant being proposed for the Imperial Valley and about
100 MWe for Glass Mountain in northern California could be online by 2007-2008.
Several new plants are proposed for Nevada totaling about 100 MWe and projects havebeen proposed in Idaho, New Mexico, Oregon and Utah. The total planned in the next
10 years is 632 MWe. The energy savings from electric power generation, direct-usesand ground-source heat pumps amounts to almost nine million tonnes of equivalent fueloil per years and reduces air pollution by almost eight million tonnes of carbon annually(compared to fuel oil).

11

Recent Geothermal Development in Europe and Comments to Japan
L. Rybach1),2)
1) Institute of Geophysics ETHZ, CH-8093 Zurich, Switzerland
2) GEOWATT AG, CH-8050 Zurich, Switzerland
rybach@geowatt.ch
Europe summary
The summary of geothermal power generation and direct use in Europe is based on data
presented at the World Geothermal Congress 2005 and subsequent data adjustments. The
operating power generation capacity in 8 European countries is 1.0 GWe and the production
7.2 TWhe/yr. The lead is clearly with the pioneer country Italy. Iceland comes next, followed
by Turkey. France and Russia have significant production, but in non-European regions.
Austria and Germany is newly generating geothermal electricity, albeit at low level.
The total numbers in direct use are 13.6 GWt and 154’000 TJ/yr; in absolute numbers,
Sweden comes before Iceland, the traditional leader in geothermal direct use, and Turkey isnumber three. The largest contribution to direct use (7070 MWt or 52% in capacity and
56’000 TJ/yr or 36 % in production) is provided by geothermal heat pumps, in 26 countries.
Europe has the largest share (nearly 50%) in world-wide direct use.
For the future prospects on the short term a speeding-up in geothermal power development
can only be expected, when guaranteed feed-in tariffs in several European Union (EU)countries show an effect. On the other hand a further, accelerating advance of geothermal heatpumps can definitely be expected. On the long term the prospects depend on the success of
the Enhanced Geothermal Systems (EGS). It will be crucial to demonstrate the feasibility of
EGS technology at various sites with contrasting geologic characteristics.
Comments to Japan
Foremost and urgently: Japan needs the widespread use of geothermal heat pumps! Japan isespecially well suited for this technology, which is booming in many other countries: land israre and expensive, heat pump production is excellent, electricity is available everywhere. The
main obstacle, the high drilling costs can be overcome. The example of Bikkuri Donkey –Geowatt AG Zurich cooperation demonstrates this: Geowatt ordered the special drilling rig,
trained the Japanese drillers in Switzerland, and supervised drilling and system installation in
Japan. By these means drilling costs have been reduced from >100 $/m (before) to < 50 $/m(the cost includes drilling, heat exchanger installation and connection).
Further recommendations: for high enthalpy resource development the dialog with onsen
owners (who fear degradation of thermal spring flow) should continue. The Kazuno
Symposium at WGC2000 was a start. Successful examples of remediation (e.g. from New
Zealand, Chris Bromley’s work) should be publicized. For Enhanced Geothermal Systems(EGS) major cooperative projects started in the European Union, open to international
participation (ENGINE, I-GET). Japan should join in.
Reference
Rybach, L. (2006): Status and prospects of geothermal energy in Europe – a summary.
Geothermal Resources Council Transactions Vol. 30, p. 675-679.

12

Supplementary Injection to Mitigate Environmental Effects: Can it
be Applied in Japan ?
Lawless, J.V.

Sinclair Knight Merz, PO Box 9806 Auckland, NZ Jlawless@skm.co.nz

THE NGAWHA PROJECTSUMMARY

The Ngawha geothermal system is located in Northland, New
Zealand (Figure 1).
The most comprehensive datacompilation on Ngawha is that of Mongillo (1985).

Hot springs are revered because of their practical uses forbathing and cultural value in many countries. The
potential for large scale geothermal energy development
to affect hot spring can be a limitation to development.
A recent initiative in New Zealand has been the use of
supplementary injection at the Ngawha geothermal
project. Ngawha is the only high temperature (>200 °C)
geothermal resource located in New Zealand outside the
Taupo Volcanic Zone. It has been used for 10 MWe of
power generation since 1998, based on extraction of
10,000 tonnes per day (tpd) of fluid.

Ngawha is the only high temperature (> 200°C) geothermal
system in New Zealand that is located outside the Taupo
Volcanic Zone (TVZ). Unlike the TVZ systems, which areassociated with an extremely magmatically active rift, theNgawha system is in a back-arc location. No magmatic heatsource has yet been located at Ngawha, but the hightemperatures (300 °C at a depth of 2255m, Mongillo, 1985),
the close spatial and temporal association with recent basalts
and rhyolites, and the chemistry of the geothermal fluids,
strongly indicate that the heat source is a shallow silicic
intrusive.

The resource is physically capable of much larger
production, but there are concerns that larger extraction,even with full reinjection of all water, may adversely
affect the surface thermal springs. A 3-month trial was
carried out to test the concept that supplementary
injection of up to 1,000 tpd of cold water would be
sufficient to maintain reservoir pressures and hence
maintain the thermal springs. That trial was successful inraising reservoir pressures without affecting production
temperatures. Reservoir modelling has predicted that aslittle as 5% supplementary injection should be capable ofmaintaining reservoir pressures for the next 25 years,
with production of 25,000 tpd, which is sufficient for 25
MWe. No adverse effects on production temperatures or
the springs are predicted. Regulatory permission to
expand the project has consequently been obtained.
Key words: Geothermal, Environmental, Reservoir
Modelling, Injection, New Zealand, Japan.

INTRODUCTION

Figure 1. Location map

Hot springs are revered because of their practical uses forbathing and cultural value in many countries, but especially in
New Zealand and Japan. The potential for large scale
geothermal energy development to affect hot springs has beena limitation to development in both countries.

The geology can be broadly characterised as two layers.
Below 500m depth occur ?Permian-Jurassic metasediments(greywackes and some argillites). They have low intrinsic
porosity, but are locally extensively fractured and comprisethe exploitable geothermal resource. The gas content (mainlyCO2) is comparatively high, at 1 to 2% by weight.

A recent initiative in New Zealand has been the use of
supplementary cold water injection to maintain reservoirpressures at the Ngawha geothermal project. Successful
application of the technique has been the key to unlocking theresource for large scale development and obtaining thenecessary regulatory approvals. This paper describes the
Ngawha example. More details can be found in Lawless et al.
(2006).

The upper 500m is made up of a variety of Tertiary sediments,
predominantly marine and clay-rich, and in part allochthonousand overturned. These sediments form an effective caprock to
the geothermal reservoir, except in a few places where they
are cut through by fault zones, hosting hot and cold springsand gas seepages. Despite these leakages the deep reservoir isstrongly artesian, with a pressure of 65 bars at 600 m depth(Grant, 1981). That is in marked contrast to the TVZ
geothermal systems, which typically have higher verticalpermeability, pressures below cold hydrostatic, and boiling-

It may well be the case that this technique can also be used toovercome similar difficulties in Japan.
AESC2006, Melbourne, Australia.

13

1

Ngawha Mitigation Trial

Lawless, J. V., Franks, K., Scott, P, and Smith A. C. T.

straightforward. The springs have feeble flows. To put that inperspective the total flux of deep geothermal fluid through the
Ngawha springs is estimated to be about 2 kg/s, compared tohundreds of kg/s at some of the TVZ systems. Intense rainfall
events are common in the area in any season of the year,
which can flood or affect the springs. Hence the Ngawha
springs are naturally quite variable in terms of flow rate,
temperature and composition, as well as being affected bymanagement for bathing purposes.

point-for-depth temperature gradients. Most of the fluid in the
Ngawha reservoir is single phase liquid, though some limited
two-phase (and hence gas rich) zones are thought to occur inthe upper part of the reservoir.
Power has been generated at Ngawha since 1998. Two
production wells supply 10,000 tpd of hot fluid to an Ormat
ORC binary plant with a net output of 10 MWe. Apart fromthe non-condensible gases, all of the fluid extracted isreinjected at approximately the same depth as production,using two reinjection wells, two kilometres from theproduction wells. The plant is operating satisfactorily. As itis the only source of generation in the region there is a strong
incentive to increase its capacity. Some additional potential
production and reinjection wells already exist, from a previous
Government-funded exploration programme in the 1980’s.

Because of the reputed healing properties, the composition of
the springs is regarded as important as well as their flow rate
and temperature. However, the small flow rate of the springs
mean that not only does one spring differ in composition fromanother but individual springs vary in composition from time
to time due to climatic effects.
There has been detailed monitoring of physical and chemicalparameters at the springs since 1993, and intermittently since
the mid 1940’s (e.g. Ellis and Mahon, 1966). There have beenboth long and short term variations in that period, but therange of variations since the power plant started operation is
no greater than beforehand and it cannot be demonstrated thatthe current power plant operation has had any systematiceffect on the springs. Nor would any necessarily be expected,
in view of the relatively small pressure change that has
occurred to date.

There is no doubt that in terms of stored heat and fluid
capacity the resource is capable of supporting greater
generation. Applying industry-standard methods on a basis
consistent with that which has been used elsewhere in New
Zealand (Lawless, 2002) a median estimate of the capacity of
the Ngawha system of 75 MWe over 30 years is calculated.
The principal constraint to further development of the Ngawha
system is concern over possible effects on the surface thermal
activity.
There is one main group of hot (but sub-boiling) “springs”
close to Ngawha Village. Some are non-flowing pools, andothers are artificial pits dug for bathing or from previous
mercury mining rather than true springs. There are also a
number of slightly warm springs and cold gas seepages over aseveral kilometre radius. It is the central springs near Ngawha
village that are used for bathing and are valued by the bathowners and local inhabitants as having healing properties.

PREDICTED EFFECTS
The effects of either continuing or expanding the power
scheme have been predicted using two TOUGH2 reservoir
models, one to look at the reservoir as a whole, and the other adetailed model to investigate reservoir–spring interactions.
The models were developed by Auckland University(O’Sullivan) and Industrial Research Ltd respectively: neither
have yet been formally published but details were made public
at a regulatory hearing in 2006.

There was vigorous opposition from some concerned overeffects on the springs of the original power plant and to a
recent proposal to increase extraction and reinjection to
25,000 tpd.

The whole-reservoir model predicts that with the current
10,000 tpd production and reinjection, the reservoir pressuresand temperatures under the springs will not change
significantly and so the spring flows and temperatures should
remain unchanged over the next 25 years.
However,
expansion of the scheme to 25,000 tpd was predicted to cause
an incremental pressure drop during this period of about 3.5bars (though virtually no temperature drop). It was consideredthat this could possibly affect the springs, and a means of
mitigation was sought.

CHANGES AND EFFECTS TO DATE
The production and reinjection of 10,000 tpd of geothermal
fluid since 1998 has had very little effect on the geothermal
reservoir. Pressures at depth have been monitored by a deepwell, NG13, which was directionally drilled and passes close
to the springs at depth (Figure 2). Monitoring of pressures inNG13 shows a deep pressure decline of about 1.25 bar since
production began in 1998. That is much less than the pressure
declines that have been caused by other geothermal projects in
New Zealand and elsewhere (up to many tens of bars) evenwith full reinjection, and is a reflection of the small size of thecurrent scheme compared to the thermal and volumetriccapacity of the reservoir.

MITIGATION PROPOSED AND TRIALLED
Given that there is in excess of 98% mass replacement in boththe current and proposed scheme, the reason for the pressure
declines observed and predicted was principally cooling in thereinjection area rather than mass depletion. It was suggested
that this could be mitigated by injecting a small
supplementary percentage of cold water from a surface
stream.

The gas content of the fluid from one of the production wells
has declined from about 1.3 to 0.9 weight % over the same
period, but mass balance considerations indicate that is likely
to be a near-well effect rather than indicating a bulk degassing of the reservoir.

Full pressure maintenance simply on a density basis if thereservoir is cooled from 230°C to 90°C would require about
14% additional fluid mass, but the reservoir rock has aconsiderable stored heat capacity so in practice less than that

Determining whether there have been any changes in thesprings which have been caused by the power scheme is not

14

Ngawha Mitigation Trial

Lawless, J. V., Franks, K., Scott, P, and Smith A. C. T.

contains effectively no calcium or chloride, this effect cannot
be due to the mitigation trial affecting the well chemistry. It is
probably due to the temporary change in gas content described
below.

To test the concept, a three month trial of supplementary
injection was carried out starting on 4 July 2005. During that
period the regular 10,000 tpd of production and reinjection
continued unchanged. An unused production well, NG4, wasused for the supplementary injection (Figure 2).

1500

Conc (ppm), Molar Ratio, Enthalpy (J/g)

It was originally intended to inject 1,000 tpd of cold water toNG4 for the full 3 month trial period. However, in practiceproblems with the temporary water supply and mechanicalequipment led to lesser amounts being injected for some of theperiod. The average rate was 740 tpd. In fact the change inrate was useful, in that it allowed for some interpretation of
the sensitivity of the reservoir pressure response to changing
injection quantities.

↓

9.20
9.15

Pressure (barg)

1000

1.2

← assumed H =928 J/g

Enthalpy

900

1.0

800
700
600

CO2 TD

0.8

500
0.6

400
300
200

Cl/Ca

100

CO2/H2S

0.4

0.2
1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

There has been a long term overall decline in gas content in
NG9 (Figure 4) and to a lesser extent in NG12. There was aslightly higher than average gas content recorded in both wells
at the end of the mitigation trial, but on a longer time scale,apart from that “blip” the same trends appear to havecontinued during the mitigation trial and the latest
measurements are significantly lower again. It is possible thatthe reservoir pressure rise caused by the mitigation trial has
induced a temporary increase in gas content in the welldischarges. If the previous decline in reservoir pressure had
caused the geothermal fluid to become partially degassed as it
moved towards the well, then it is conceivable that theincrease in pressure due to the mitigation trial may havereversed that trend. In any event this must have been a very
localised effect close to the well bore.

Injection Test Finish
Sep 30 1500hr

No other changes in chemistry outside the previous range ofvariation were measured.

Injection Test Start
July 4, 2005, 1100hr
8.871 b.g.
↓

9.05

1100

Figure 4. Physical and chemical trends in NG9

RESULTS

9.10

1.4

1200

Year

Reservoir Pressures
Pressures in the monitor well NG13, located some 500 m fromthe supplementary injection point, started to rise within 10
hours of increased injection commencing. The pressure rise
continued at a rate significantly greater than the rate ofprevious pressure drawdown (Figure 3). Since injection
stopped, pressures have started to decline again but at a muchslower rate than they rose.

NG-13 Pressure

1.6
Cl TD

1300

0
1998

During the trial, and for a period before and afterwards, theregular monitoring of the individual springs and production
wells was intensified.

9.25

NG-9

1400

9.00

It can be concluded that the mitigation trial has had nodetectable physical effect, and only very minor and reversible
chemical effects on the production wells. The chemical
effects are considered to be due to the effect of the pressure
increase on the fluid near the production wells, rather than to
any mixing of the injected fluid with the produced fluid. That
is as expected, given the small total quantity of injectatecompared to the size of the reservoir and the quantity of
production.

8.95
8.90
8.85
8.80
6
-0
an
-J
01

5
-0
an
-J
01

4
-0
an
-J
01

3
-0
an
-J
01

Time

Figure 3. NG13 pressure response
Before injection the pressure was falling at 2.6x10-4 bar/day or
0.096 bar/yr. During the initial injection period the rise was
2.7x10-3 bar/day or 0.99 bar/yr.

Springs and Stream
Flow rates, temperatures and chemistry were intensively
monitored both in individual springs and in the stream which
captures the flow from all of the principal springs during theperiod of the trial and afterwards (Figure 5).

Production Wells
There were no clear long term trends in temperature or
flowing pressure for either production well, nor any effects
apparent as a result of the mitigation trial (Figure 4).

There were no systematic variations in stream or springchemistry that could be correlated with the mitigation trial(Figure 6). As with the Mangamutu Stream chloride flux, thiswas not unexpected in view of the magnitude of the reservoirpressure rise induced, and the length of the trial. Any change
would have been within the range of variations observed

The final enthalpy measurement in NG12 was lower than the
recent average before the trial, but was within the range ofvariations previously observed.
This variation is notconsidered significant. In both wells higher values in the
Cl/Ca ratios were observed at the end of the mitigation period,
but the trend has quite quickly reversed. This change is due tothe calcium concentration decreasing, rather than the chloride
increasing.
As the supplementary river water injected

The lack of correlation is not surprising. Reservoir modellingby IRL suggested that a period of about 9 months with

15

CO2 TD (WT%)

is needed. Reservoir modelling suggests that about 5%
supplementary injection may be required to give full pressure
support, and indeed restore the current ~ 1 bar drawdown. .

Ngawha Mitigation Trial

Lawless, J. V., Franks, K., Scott, P, and Smith A. C. T.

rate within hours to day, but the effects of deep pressurechanges on the springs are predicted to take about a year toreach the surface, it is anticipated that adequate control shouldbe achievable. Although at the time of writing there are stillsome legal processes to work through, it appears that the
principal technical obstacle to expansion has been overcome.

significantly raised reservoir pressures trial would be required
before any change in the springs became apparent.

CONCLUSIONS
The mitigation trial at the Ngawha Geothermal Project,involving supplementary injection of cold water to maintainreservoir pressures has been a success in demonstrating thepracticality of the concept.
Reservoir pressures in NG13, the closest well to the springs,
showed a rapid response to the injection to NG4. The rate ofpressure increase was several times higher than the previous
rate of pressure decline. It proved possible to maintainreservoir pressure in NG13 with as little as 5% supplementary
injection.

Figure 5. Spring sampling sites
1600

No effects on production well chemistry, temperature or
flowing pressure were detectable, apart from a possible shortterm increase in gas content. That was as predicted in view of
the quantity injected and the duration of the trial.

Jubilee

Chloride (ppm)

1200

800
Kotahitanga

No systematic effects on the springs, baths or Mangamutu
Stream could be detected in terms of changes in chloride flux
or temperature.

Total
Outflow

Tiger

400
Universal
Jupiter

CentreMangamutu
Cl Flux (g/s)

0
3.0

Through supplementary injection the flow rates, temperaturesand composition of the springs and baths should be able to be
maintained as they were before production started.

2.0
1.0

Monthly
Rain (mm)Take (Kt/dy)

0.015This concept has applicability to other geothermal projects,
not only for conservation of surface thermal activity.
Supplementary injection of municipal waste to maintainreservoir pressures has been successfully carried out at The
Geysers dry steam resource in the USA for several years.
Supplementary injection to prevent ground subsidence due toreservoir pressure drawdown (which is not an issue for
Ngawha) has been proposed at the Wairakei-Tauhara field in
New Zealand, but its implementation remains controversial.

10
5
0
600
400
200

2005

2006

2004

2001

2003

1999
2000
Production
Start

Date

2002

2001

1998

2000

1998

1997

1999

1997

0

2002

2003

2004

2005
2006
Mitigation
Trial

REFERENCES

Figure 6. Chloride Concentration in Springs andMangamutu Stream, Daily Rainfall, Cl Flux and Station
Take versus Time

Ellis, A. J. and Mahon, W. A. J. 1966. Geochemistry of the
Ngawha Hydrothermal Area. New Zealand Journal of
Science, 9: 440-456.

ACCEPTANCE BY REGULATOR

Grant, M. A. 1981. Ngawha geothermal hydrology. NZ DSIR
Geothermal Report 7: 60-86.

As a result of the mitigation trial the concept of
supplementary injection has been accepted by the regulatory
agency, and agreement has been reached on a set of conditions
under which the expanded power scheme can operate.
Extraction and reinjection of geothermal fluid will beaveraged on a monthly basis rather than daily (as is morecommon in New Zealand) to give the necessary flexibility.
Supplementary injection of up to 3.000 tonnes per day of
surface water will be permitted.

Lawless, J. V. 2002. New Zealand’s Geothermal Resource
Revisited: Proceedings of the New Zealand Geothermal
Association Seminar, Taupo.
Lawless, J.V., Franks, K., Scott, P., Smith, A. C. T.: 2006:
Supplementary Injection to Mitigate Environmental Effects at
the Ngawha Geothermal Project, New Zealand. Proceedingsof the 2006 Australian Earth Science Convention.

A key requirement will be to maintain deep reservoirpressures no lower than 1 bar less than at the start ofoperation, and no more than 1.5 bar higher. Given that
reservoir pressures appear to respond to changes in injection

Mongillo, M. A. 1985. The Ngawha Geothermal Field: An
Introduction and Summary in The Ngawha Geothermal Field:

16

Ngawha Mitigation Trial

Lawless, J. V., Franks, K., Scott, P, and Smith A. C. T.

PB Power, 2005, Ngawha Geothermal field. Reservoir
numerical modelling. Phase II Extension. Unpublished report
for Top Energy P:\40321

New and Updated Scientific Investigations edited by M. A.
Mongillo. NZ DSIR Geothermal Report Number 8.
PB Power, 2002, Ngawha Geothermal field. Reservoir
numerical modelling: Phase I. Unpublished report for Top
Energy P:\40231“NgawhaSprings”

MAIN SPRINGS AREA

Power plant

Production
area
Reinjection
area

0

0.5

APROXIMATED SCALE

Figure 2. Site map

17

1km

PRESENT STATUS AND FUTURE PLAN
OF GEOTHERMAL DEVELOPMENT IN TURKEY
Sakir Simsek- Prof.Dr. Hacettepe University, Eng. Faculty, Geological (Hydrogeological) Eng.Dept.Beytepe, Ankara-Turkish Geothermal Association (TGA) Chairman of Scientific Committee
ssimsek@hacettepe.edu.tr
Turkey is located on the Alpine-Himalayan orogenic belt, which have high geothermal potential.
The first geothermal researches and investigations in Turkey started in 1960’s. Upon this, 172
geothermal fields have been discovered by MTA (MTA, 2005). Main resources are located on, Aegeangrabens, Northern Anatolian Fault Zone (NAFZ) and Volcanic and tectonic areas in Central andEastern Anatolia (Simsek et al. 2005). Around 1500 hot and mineralized natural springs andgeothermal wells exist in Turkey (Figure.1). With the existing geothermal wells discharge water (2924MWt) and springs (600 MWt), the proven geothermal capacity calculated by MTA is totally 3524 MWt(exhaust temperature is assumed to be 35 °C). The expectations in the commission report preparedby State Planning Organization (SPO-DPT), which includes the geothermal activities in Turkey
between 2007-2013, will also be clarified (Mertoglu et al. 2006).
As it will be considered, the number of geothermal production wells is too few if compared to the highgeothermal potential of Turkey. Most of these wells have been drilled by MTA and financed by theGovernorships, Municipalities and their companies, which constitutes 66.2 % and followed by MTA
with 16.5 % and 11.7 % Private.
.

Figure 1: Main neotectonic lines and hot spring distribution of Turkey
A total of 28 MWe for power production installed capacity (Denizli-Kizildere-20 MWe and AydinSalavatli 8.0MWe) in Turkey. Utilization of the discharge water of Kızıldere-Sarayköy Geothermal
Power Plant - 6,85 MWe, Aydin-Germencik Power Plant- 45MWe and Çanakkale-Tuzla Geothermal
Power Plant -7,5 MWe (total 59.35 MWe) Licence obtained. Kutahya-Simav Geothermal Power Plant– 10 MWe on project phase.
Geothermal Power Plants (GPP) in Turkey.
1) 20 MWe (Denizli – Kızıldere) in operation since 1984
2) Aydin-Salavatlı GPP 8 MWe in operation since 2006

18

Licenced (giving by Ministry of Energy and Naturel Resources and EPDK)And Under construction3) Aydin-Germencik GPP 45.0 MWe4) Denizli- Kızıldere GPP 6,85 MWe
5) Çanakkale-Tuzla GPP 7.5 MWe
On project phase.
6) Kutahya-Simav GPP 10 MWe
Geothermal fields which their reservoir temperatures over than 140 ºC are given below.
1. Denizli-Kızıldere Field (200-242 °C)
2. Aydın-Germencik -Omerbeyli Field (232 °C)
3. Manisa –Salihli-Göbekli Field (182 ° C)
4. Çanakkale- Tuzla Field (174 ° C)
5. Aydın-Salavatlı Field (171 °C)
6. Kütahya-Simav Field (162 °C)
7. Manisa- Salihli-Caferbey Field (150 °C)
8. Izmir- Seferihisar Field (153 °C)
9. Aydın-Sultanhisar Field (145°C)
9. Izmir-Balçova Field (142°C)
10. Aydın-Yılmazköy Field (142 °C)
11. Izmir-Dikili Field (130°C).
Most of the development is achieved in geothermal direct use applications by 103 000 residences
equivalence geothermal heating (827 MWt) including district heating, thermal facilities and 635,000 m2
geothermal greenhouse heating (Table 1, 2). Main city centers heated by geothermal energy as IzmirBalcova, Narlidere, Afyon, Kirsehir and Afyon-Sandikli, Kutahya-Simav, Ankara-Kizilcahamam,
Balikesir-Gonen, Nevsehir-Kozakli, Manisa-Salihli, Agri-Diyadin, Denizli-Saraykoy, Balikesir-Edremit,
Bigadic. 215 spas are used for balneological purposes (402 MWt). By summing up all this geothermal
utilizations in Turkey, the installed capacity is 1229 MWt for direct use (Mertoglu et al. 2006). This
amount of heat is equivalent as 900.000 tons/year fuel oil . A liquid carbon dioxide production factory
120000 tons/year is integrated to power plant in Kizildere (Figure.2).

GEOTHERMAL UTILIZATION IN THE WORLD AND IN TURKEY
27824
MWt
7974
MWe

28
Mwe

120.000
Tons
21.000
Tons

1229
MWt

ELECTRICITYNON-ELECTRIC CO2 PRODUCTION
PRODUCTION UTILIZATION (MWt) (Tons/Year)(Mwe)

TURKEYWORLD

Figure 2. Installed capacities of geothermal applications in Turkey and the World.

19

Being one of the richest countries in geothermal potential, Turkey’s geothermal activity has beendeveloped mostly to district heating systems between 2000-2005 (Table.1).
Table1. Comparison of Geothermal Direct Use Applications for the years 2000 and 2005
Applications

2000

2005

Increament (%)

District Heating (Residences+Thermal
Facilities)

392 MWt

635 MWt

62

Greenhouse Heating

101 MWt

192 MWt

90

Thermal Tourism Applications

327 MWt

402MWt23

Total Direct Use

820 MWt

1229 MWt

50

Mineral Production

120000ton/yıl

120000ton/yıl

Proven capacity of existing geothermal
wells and natural discharges

3045 MWt

3524 MWt

16
Mertoglu et al. 2006

Table.2. Geothermal district heating systems in Turkey

Location

Geoth. HeatedStart-up
Residences

Geoth.
Water
temp.
(oC)

Investor

9 Eylul Unv.
CampusGonen
Simav
Kırsehir
Kızılcahamam
Balçova
Afyon
Kozaklı
Narlıdere
Sandıklı
DiyadinSalihli
Saraykoy
EdremitBigadic

2500

1983

115-60Governorship, University Rectorate

3400
5000
1800
2500
15000
4500
1200
1500
3200/5000
400
4500/24000
1500/5000
1300/7500
500/3000

1987
1991
1994
1995
1996
1996
1996
1998
1998
1999
2002
2002
2003
2005

80
137
57
80
137
95
90
125
70
70
94
140
60
96

Sarıkaya

10/2000

2006

50,5

Mainly Municipality Inc.
Municipality
Governorship (mainly) + Municipality Inc.
Mainly Municipality Inc.
Mainly Governorship Ltd. Company
Governorship (mainly) + Municipality Inc.
Mainly Municipality Inc.
Mainly Governorship Ltd. Company
Mainly Municipality Inc.
Mainly Governorship Inc.
Municipality
Mainly Municipality Inc.
Municipality + Private Sector Inc.
Municipality
Governorship + Municipality+ Private Sector
cooperation is planned

Thermal Facilities and 635.000 m2 greenhouseheating(Şanlıurfa, Dikili, Balçova, …)

Investment in the field= GovernorshipGreenhouse investment= Private Sector
Mertoglu et al. 200620

In addition to these, big portion of geothermal potential in Turkey is suitable for heating purposes,
geothermal district heating investments could be realized and operated with the cooperation of local
governments, municipalities, people and private sector.
The district heating system was established earlier in Turkey using lignite for heating in furnaces.
Moreover the people were introduced to a higher living standard by means of geothermal district
heating systems. People show a very high demand for geothermal district heating systems is Turkey.
The people prefer to buy or rent geothermally heated residences and this causes an increment of therenting or selling prices of these houses 3-4 times in comparison to the other houses.
With
integration of the geothermal district heating systems (GDHS) to the above mentioned electricity
production, greenhouse heating and balneological applications (cascade use), the technical andeconomical aspects of the investment also becomes more favorable and convenient. In addition tothese, big portion of geothermal potential in Turkey is suitable for heating purposes, geothermal
district heating investments could be realized and operated with the cooperation of local governments,
municipalities, people and private sector (Mertoglu et al. 2006).
There is a high thermal tourism potential in Turkey. Moreover combining thermal tourism with thesea/sun/cultural tourism brings important economical development to the region and country. The
demand for balneological utilization of geothermal waters has been increased in the recent years in
Turkey. A possible producable potential amount of geothermal flowrate (~40°) has been estimated forthe balneological use in Turkey, which is 50.000 l/s. This equals to the benefit of 8 million people/day
from thermal waters in spa’s in Turkey.
Main important items for research and development for the next period of geothermal energy in Turkey•••

Existing fields should be managed and developed,
New fields should be investigated,
Deep reservoirs should be searched,•

Exploration of new fields, and for determination of characteristics and capacities of present
field, providing the required support to MTA, Universities and Private Organizations for theirresearch, development and application projects.

•

Since the solution alternatives for waste water problem are incrased (as reenjection), withregard to the environment geothermal fields must be activated very rapidly.

•

Scaling and corrosion problems which effect the management of geothermal energy, havebeen solved by the injection of the chemical inhibitor. Consequently, it is necessary to activate
the fields and to accelerate the investments at this sector.

••

More geothermal wells should be drilled and the well risk should supported by the state,
Determination of utilization possibilities of geothermal fields and planning of these fields in theform of integrated utilization (electricity generation, district heating, thermal and balneologicalapplications) and encouragement of the geothermal uses.
Turkey is suitable for heating purposes, geothermal district heating investments could be
realized and operated with the cooperation of local governments, municipalities, people andprivate sector.
Thermal tourism and balneological utilization with the sea/sun/cultural tourism brings importanteconomical development to the region and country.
More financing aids should be received and international cooperation should be developed forthe geothermal development projects.
To supply the required support about know-how transfer, education, finance and equipment
necessities via realization of projects in common with international organizations,
Turkish geothermal law should be finalized as soon as possible,

•
•
•
•
•

The realization of the World Geothermal Congress 2005 in Antalya/Turkey, has been important benefit
to the development and widening of geothermal explorations and applications in Turkey.
Geothermal energy in Turkey must be used as the main energy source at the regions where it is found,since it is very cheap, clean, and sustainable for the benefit of the mankind.

21

References
MERTOGLU, O. BAKIR,N., SIMSEK, S et al. (2006). Geothermal Energy Development Plan in Turkey.
Turkish Prime Ministry State Planning Organisation (SPO-DPT) 9th Development Plan (2007-2013)
Ankara
MTA, 2005, Geothermal Inventory of Turkey. MTA publication. Ankara
SIMSEK, S, MERTOGLU, O. BAKIR, N., AKKUS, and AYDOGDU, O. 2005. Geothermal energy
utilization, development and projections-Country update report (2000-2004) of Turkey. Proceedings
World Geothermal Congress 2005. R-0126, (Ed.R.Horne&E.Okandan) ISBN 975-98332-0-4, AntalyaTurkey.

22

Acknowledgement
The Geothermal Research Society of Japan is thankful to the following organizations
for their sponsorship to this symposium.
Electric Power Development Co., Ltd.
Fuji Electric Systems Co., Ltd.
Geothermal Co., Ltd.
Geothermal Energy Research & Development Co., Ltd.
Japan Metals & Chemicals Co., Ltd.
Japan Geothermal Developers’ Council
Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd.
West Japan Engineering Consultants, Inc.
YBM Co., Ltd.
(in order of alphabet)
日本地熱学会では、当シンポジウムにご賛同いただき、ご寄付をいただきました以下の団体及び各社に深く御礼申し上げます。
株式会社 地熱、地熱技術開発株式会社、電源開発株式会社、西日本技術開発株式会社、
日本重化学工業株式会社、日本地熱開発企業協議会、富士電機パワーサービス株式会社、
三菱重工業株式会社、株式会社 ワイビーエム （以上、五十音順）

Contact information to the authors
Sachio EHARA

ehara@mine.kyushu-u.ac.jp

Mineyuki HANANO

hananom@jmc.co.jp

Takuji FUJIKAWA

fujikawa@mech.nias.ac.jp

Kasumi YASUKAWA

kasumi-yasukawa@aist.go.jp

Hirofumi MURAOKA

hiro-muraoka@aist.go.jp

Hiroaki NIITSUMA

ni@ni2.kankyo.tohoku.ac.jp

Kazumi OSATO

osato@gerd.co.jp

John LUND

John.Lund@oit.edu

Gordon R. BLOOMQUIST

bloomquistr@energy.wsu.edu

Ladislaus RYBACH

rybach@geowatt.ch

Jim LAWLESS

JLawless@skm.co.nz

Sakir SIMSEK

ssimsek@hacettepe.edu.tr

23

MEMO:

24