Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Geothermal power plants”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 91 records · Page 5
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2024

Western Combined Heat and Power Technical Assistance Partnership (Final Technical Report)

Since 2018, the Western Combined Heat and Power Technical Assistance Partnership (CHP TAP) has been dedicated to advancing the adoption and implementation of Combined Heat and Power. The CHP TAP has diligently worked towards its mission of fostering end-user engagement, promoting technical solutions, and enhancing energy security within the region. As we reflect on our journey, we are proud to announce the completion of the required metrics set forth at the beginning of our endeavor. From the outset, our aim has been clear: to leverage CHP technology as a catalyst for bolstering American competitiveness, utilizing local fuels, and fortifying energy resilience. Through collaborative efforts with a diverse array of stakeholders, including manufacturing, commercial, institutional, and federal facilities, and campuses, we have strived to realize this vision. In this report, we outline the achievements, activities, and impact of the Western CHP TAP, highlighting the transformative journey undertaken since 2018. From providing technical assistance and guidance to conducting educational workshops and advocating for supportive policies, our initiatives have been guided by a commitment to excellence and innovation. As we celebrate the completion of our required metrics, we reaffirm our dedication to continuing our mission, building upon our accomplishments, and shaping a sustainable energy future for the Western region. Through ongoing collaboration and engagement, we are confident that the Western CHP TAP will continue to serve as a beacon of progress and a catalyst for positive change in the years to come.

03 NATURAL GAS↗
DOE OSTI2025

PCOR partnership initiative to accelerate CCCUS deployment

The Plains CO 2 Reduction (PCOR) Partnership Initiative, led by the Energy & Environmental Research Center (EERC), was a 5-year collaborative effort under the U.S. Department of Energy’s Regional Initiative to Accelerate CCUS (carbon capture, utilization, and storage). With support from the University of Wyoming School of Energy Resources (UW SER), the University of Alaska Fairbanks Institute of Northern Engineering (UAF INE), and a broad network of public and private stakeholders, the program focused on overcoming regional challenges to CCUS across ten U.S. states and four Canadian provinces. This report summarizes the notable findings of the EERC and its collaborators through the 5-year PCOR Partnership Initiative phase. The EERC developed and demonstrated a risk-based area of review (AOR) workflow for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Class VI carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) storage permitting.

01 COAL, LIGNITE, AND PEAT↗
DOE OSTI2025

Clean Water Production in Cooling Towers

This project developed and demonstrated a novel technology that produces clean water from cooling tower recirculating water by using the natural evaporation and condensation cycle inside cooling towers. The system captures the escaping plume and converts blowdown quality water into high purity water suitable for on-site reuse such as boiler feed. The technology uses electric fields to ionize exhaust plumes, charge the entrained droplets, and direct them toward collection electrodes where they coalesce and flow downward. This allows water recovery at a low energy cost while reducing visible plume emissions. In addition, we developed a complementary software platform that improves overall cooling tower performance. The system uses wireless sensors and physics-based machine learning algorithms to optimize key parameters of the cooling process. For power generation facilities, this increases the thermal efficiency of the cooling loop and condenser, resulting in measurable cycle efficiency gains. Improvements of one percent or more can deliver significant increases in electricity production for the same fuel input.

01 COAL, LIGNITE, AND PEAT↗
DOE OSTI2022

Geothermal Hydraulic Stimulation: Overview of Methods and Best Practices

This paper outlines important information related to the hydraulic stimulation of geothermal wells and considerations for regulators responsible for evaluating applications to conduct these operations. Hydraulic stimulation applied to geothermal wells is an evolving technology that is different from the hydraulic fracturing process widely used to complete unconventional oil and gas wells. Important differences relate to operating pressures, variations in rock and fracture processes, and characteristics and disposal of hydraulic fracture fluids. Hydraulic stimulation is not widely used in the geothermal industry; however, future development of enhanced geothermal systems (EGS) will require hydraulic stimulation in order to enhance and create fracture permeability to allow wells to deliver sufficient heat and fluid to power plants. Gigawatts of EGS potential have been identified (U.S. Department of Energy 2019), so it is expected that the use of hydraulic stimulation of geothermal wells will be more common in the future. At present, there are no formal regulations guiding drilling programs or sundry notices that propose hydraulic stimulation of geothermal wells. On federal lands, important constraints and oversight are embedded in the process for obtaining Geothermal Drilling Permits outlined in the Code of Federal Regulations (43 CFR Section 3262.11); in Geothermal Resource Order 2 (GRO 2) guidance for assessment and mitigation of impacts of geothermal operations as well as construction and testing of geothermal wells; and in a Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Induced Seismicity Instruction Memorandum (BLM 2018). Additionally, local knowledge from BLM field offices and expertise of BLM engineers, or that of state regulators for operations on private and state lands, will be applied to fully assess operator applications to conduct geothermal hydraulic stimulation activities. Significant research effort has been directed toward EGS, so geothermal hydraulic stimulation techniques, impacts, and results are evolving and becoming better understood, including adaptation of decades of oil and gas industry experience with hydraulic fracturing of unconventional reservoirs. Recent EGS activities in the United States provide details about hydraulic stimulation with respect to oversight, stimulation design, execution, and results. Based on experience to date, the important issues to address when hydraulically stimulating a geothermal well include the following: 1. Wellbore construction and integrity must be appropriate to protect groundwater and manage stimulation pressures. 2. Understanding of lithology, faults, fractures, and subsurface stress state is necessary to design stimulation plans and predict results. 3. Seismic monitoring allows for observation and mitigation of induced seismicity.

geothermal↗
DOE OSTI2020

Grid-Scale, Long-Term Energy Storage: Repurposing Hydrocarbon Reservoirs, Resources, and Infrastructure to Store CO 2 and Heat (Mid-Project Progress Report)

The purpose of this project is to create a viable business case for CO 2 capture, use, and storage (CCUS) by enabling grid-scale, long-term energy storage in mature hydrocarbon reservoirs and saline aquifers. Our CCUS approach, called the Earth Battery, is based on patents issued to Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory on Multi-Fluid Geo-Energy and Earth Battery Systems and to the University of Minnesota and TerraCOH, Inc. on CO 2 Plume Geothermal (CPG). Excess energy can be used to compress and store CO 2 and hot brine underground in permeable formations, including: (1) saline aquifers suitable for geologic CO 2 storage (GCS) and (2) hydrocarbon reservoirs, the focus of this project featuring a pilot test in a mature oil and natural gas (NG) field. Excess energy can come in the form of excess electricity from the grid or excess NG that does not have a market. It can also come in the form of excess heat from other sources, such as from the heat of air or CO 2 compression or from a nearby base-load power plant or solar thermal energy (STE) facility, when heat is not needed to generate electricity from those sources.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2020

2020 Annual Technology Baseline (ATB) Cost and Performance Data for Electricity Generation Technologies

Starting in 2015 NREL has presented the Annual Technology Baseline (ATB) in an Excel workbook that contains detailed cost and performance data, both current and projected, for renewable and conventional technologies. The workbook includes a spreadsheet for each technology. This updated version of the workbook provides data for the 2020 ATB. In 2019 and 2020, NREL has also provided selected data in Tableau workbooks and structured summary csv files. A website documents this data at https://atb.nlr.gov .

02 PETROLEUM↗
NASA NTRS1979

Energy: An annotated selected bibliography

This updated bibliography contains approximately 7,000 selected references on energy and energy related topics from bibliographic and other data sources from June 1977. Under each subject heading the entries are arranged by the date, with the latest works first. Geothermal, solar, wind, and ocean/water power sources are included. Magnetohydrodynamics and electrohydrodynamics, electric power engineering, automotive power plants, and energy storage are also covered.

Blow, S. J.↗
DOE OSTI2021

Wyandotte Integrated Renewable Energy Strategy (WIRES 2) (Final Technical Report)

Wyandotte Municipal Services (WMS), a Michigan Municipal Utility offering electric generation, transmission & distribution, water filtration & distribution and Broadband/Video sought to deploy a set of renewable energy projects for their Electric Utility that contributed to reducing the City’s environmental and energy impact, provided examples that would encourage businesses and citizens to adopt cleaner energy practices and help WMS meet the required renewable energy standards of the State of Michigan (10% in 2015, 15% in 2021). WMS generates and delivers roughly 280,000 megawatt hours (MWh) of electricity annually to more than 10,000 homes and 1,000 businesses within the City of Wyandotte. The Wyandotte Integrated Renewable Energy Strategy – WIRES 2 resulted in deployment of a set of community-scale micro-wind turbines, evaluation and installation of energy-efficient and low-maintenance light-emitting diode (LED) street lights and park lights in highly visible locations in the City and expansion of the geothermal heating and cooling district that already included residential geothermal systems, to include larger scale business/institutional systems at the Utility’s largest electric customer and at the City Library. Finally, WMS identified the need for job training in energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies to further develop a local skilled workforce in these areas. Partially funded by the grant, the wind turbine project provides a benchmark for WMS, local businesses and residents in the evaluation of utility-scale wind v. micro-wind in an urban environment as a renewable energy strategy. Also partially funded by the grant, the LED project benefited the City of Wyandotte by reducing load on the electric system for the public utility but also reduced City costs for streetlighting, parking lot lighting and park lighting without a compromise in security. The project also resulted in a visual success that has led to additional approvals for non-Grant related LED lighting installations resulting in further reduction in the electric load in the City. Commercial Geothermal installations resulted in the Utility being able to eliminate steam customers who formerly utilized the byproduct of steam from WMS electric production. Due to the reduction in natural gas prices and the overall reduction in market purchased power, it was no longer feasible for WMS to operate its Power Plant as a base load plant and to only operate on a market dispatch philosophy when market prices dictated that WMS could produce electricity cheaper than the market purchase price. This has resulted in fewer operating days for the WMS Power Plant, resulting in less environmental impact. WMS has now completely exited the steam business and the ability to offer a geothermal option to two (2) former steam customers (BASF-Wyandotte and the Bacon Memorial Library) allowed for that. In addition, peak loads have been shaved for these two (2) large customers due to the consistent temperature offered by geothermal heating and cooling, reducing the swings associated with thermostat changes caused by outside temperature changes during extreme high and low temperatures. Finally, energy efficiency and renewable energy college-level classes at Wayne County Community College allowed a group of interested students to pursue studies in those technologies through grant provided tuition, books and course materials. This effort provided a foundation of potential future employees not only for WMS but other energy efficiency/renewable energy employers such as Franklin Energy, a partner with WMS in energy optimization efforts with Wyandotte businesses.

17 WIND ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2020

GEOPHIRES v2.0

GEOPHIRES v2.0 is a geothermal techno-economic simulation tool upgraded from GEOPHIRES v1.2. The name stands for "GEOthermal energy for Production of Heat and electricity (“IR”) Economically Simulated". GEOPHIRES combines reservoir, wellbore, and surface plant technical models with cost correlations and levelized cost models to estimate the capital and operation and maintenance costs, instantaneous and lifetime energy production, and overall levelized cost of energy of a geothermal plant. In addition to electricity generation, direct-use heat applications and combined heat and power or cogeneration can be modeled. Various upgrades have been implemented to develop GEOPHIRES v2.0, including: updating the built-in cost correlations, coupling to the external reservoir simulator TOUGH2, enhancing the built-in wellbore simulator, converting the programming language to Python, and making the code open-source. Users are encouraged to build upon the tool, e.g. by implementing their own correlations or coupling to other simulators.

Beckers, Koenraad↗
DOE OSTI2020

GBCGE Subsurface Database Explorer and APIs

This submission defines a DOI for the Great Basin Center for Geothermal Energy's (GBCGE) Subsurface Database Explorer web application and underlying data services, and acknowledges the INGENIOUS project as a major source of funding for data compilation and quality assurance. The GBCGE Subsurface Database Explorer is an interactive web mapping application that provides public access to the GBCGE Subsurface Database, and its collection of datasets pertinent to geothermal exploration, oil and gas exploration, critical mineral exploration, and other subsurface characterization for the Great Basin Region, western US. This is a living database, and will be continuously updated with new data and datasets as funding and motivations allow. The underlying database views that populate the web application are on an automated refresh schedule. Data sources and acknowledgements: We thank our partners with the Nevada Division of Minerals (NDOM), the Southern Methodist University (SMU), and Great Basin State Geological Surveys for their active efforts in data curation, schema design, and quality assurance. We also thank contributors among the USGS, Oregon Institute of Technology, State Divisions of Water Resources, State Divisions of Oil, Gas, and Minerals, and State Geological Surveys for open data availability and direct contributions made under the National Geothermal Data System (NGDS).

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2024

Derisking Superhot Geothermal Plays with Value of Information: Utilizing Play Fairway Analysis, Geophysics and Technoeconomics

This paper describes a methodology for evaluating how the play fairways analysis (e.g., favorability) can improve our chances of making geothermal development decisions. We make statistical resource assessments and couple them with technoeconomic analysis utilizing previous favorability work performed for the Newberry Volcano. We demonstrate how the favorability can be used in a decision analysis framework because the Newberry favorability also estimated an associated uncertainty. The specific decision considered is how large of a power plant to build, which is difficult given the uncertainty about the resource size. Our results focus on two resource types, hydrothermal and enhanced geothermal systems, and they demonstrate how estimates of the minimum, most likely, and maximum estimates of the geothermal resource (denoted as the P10, P50, and P90, respectively) can be used in a decision analysis framework. Lastly, the value of information results explore using favorability with and without the magnetotelluric and gravity data from the Newberry Volcano. As expected, the favorability is more reliable, according to our methodology, at indicating the resource size when it includes the two geophysical models.

enhanced geothermal system↗
NASA NTRS1977

Energy and remote sensing

Exploration for uranium, thorium, oil, gas and geothermal activity through remote sensing techniques is considered; satellite monitoring of coal-derived CO2 in the atmosphere, and the remote assessment of strip mining and land restoration are also mentioned. Reference is made to color ratio composites based on Landsat data, which may aid in the detection of uranium deposits, and to computer-enhanced black and white airborne scanning imagery, which may locate geothermal anomalies. Other applications of remote sensing to energy resources management, including mapping of transportation networks and power plant siting, are discussed.

Summers, R. A.↗
DOE OSTI2024

Quantifying Socioeconomic Impacts of Electricity Generating Technologies

The levelized cost of energy (LCOE) and other cost metrics used in energy planning do not account for out-of-market impacts of the technology choice. While a decision-maker at the utility or asset owner level may compare multiple forms of electricity generating technology using LCOE, a decision-maker over energy policy or community stakeholders may be interested in considering impacts beyond those that LCOE measures. This report quantifies economic impacts such as jobs and wage growth across electricity generation technologies then develops an approach to systematically compare socioeconomic metrics across technology choices. To address additional workforce related impacts, this report also compares the typical workforce education requirements and annual income levels for multiple types of electricity generating facilities. The grid scale electricity generating technologies analyzed in this report produce power using conventional hydroelectric dams, coal, natural gas, nuclear reactors, solar PV, land-based wind turbines, geothermal heat, and woody biomass combustion. Although it doesn’t generate electricity itself, the economic impacts associated with battery storage equipment manufacturing and installation were also analyzed.

03 NATURAL GAS↗
DOE OSTI2021

Recent Thermal and Hydraulic Stimulation Results at Raft River, ID EGS Site

The Raft River geothermal system, located 160 km northwest of Salt Lake City, Utah is the site of a Department of Energy Enhanced Geothermal System (EGS) stimulation demonstration project. The target well RRG-9 ST-1, is roughly 1.6 km (1 mile) south of the power plant. This well has undergone a series of thermal and hydraulic stimulation treatments. Furthermore, the well passes through approximately 1,524 m MD (5,000 ft. MD) of laterally discontinuous Quaternary and Tertiary volcanoclastic and volcanic rocks that unconformably overlie the Precambrian basement. The Elba Quartzite formation located in the Precambrian basement is the target zone for the stimulation program. Fluid injected into the well exits through a fracture zone in the Elba Quartzite at 1,567 m TVD (5,140 ft. TVD). In June 2013 low-rate stimulation began at RRG-9 ST-1 using injection water from the geothermal plant. The average injection rate, temperature, and well head pressure of the low-rate stimulation was 163 Lpm (43 gpm), 34°C, and 1,931kPa (280 psig), respectively. This injection continued through late August of 2013 when wellhead pressures were intentionally increased to approximately 5,516 kPa (800 psig) at approximately 984 Lpm (260 gpm). From September 12 to September 24, 2013 cold well water was injected. The average surface injection temperature was approximately 12°C. On September 25, 2013 injection of the warmer plant water was resumed. This was continued through the rest of 2013 and into 2014. Between April 1, 2014 and April 4, 2014, a higher rate hydraulic stimulation was conducted. Colder water (~10°C) was injected at rates of 20 bpm to 30 bpm (3,178 Lpm to 4,770 Lpm) at wellhead pressures of 5,861 kPa (850 psig) over approximately 24 hours. Microseismic activity was recorded near the Tertiary-Precambrian contact. Subsequently, injection of water from the plant was resumed. As of mid-January, 2015, over 666 million liters (176 million gallons) have been injected into the well. The fate of this water is the subject of ongoing numerical analyses and continuous site monitoring. Various analyses have been implemented to monitor and assess the ongoing stimulation program. Modified Hall plot analysis shows increasing conductivity and/or a decreasing skin factor around the wellbore. Since April, 2014, the injectivity index has increased significantly from 0.28 Lpm/kPa (0.5 gpm/psig) to 0.93 Lpm/kPa (1.7 gpm/psig).

enhanced geothermal system↗
DOE OSTI2022

Techno-Economic Performance of Eavor Loop 2.0

This project evaluated techno-economic performance for a sample Eavor-Loop 2.0 design for electricity production and direct-use heating. The Eavor-Loop 2.0 design investigated is a 7.5-km deep closed-loop geothermal system consisting of 12 laterals for a total of more than 90 km of downhole well and lateral length. Both a high geothermal gradient scenario of 60 degrees C/km and a low geothermal gradient scenario of 30 degrees C/km were considered. With pure water injected at 60 degrees C and 80 kg/s, reservoir simulations with the Slender-Body Theory simulator indicate average production temperatures over a 30-year lifetime of ~125 degrees C and ~210 degrees C for the low and high geothermal gradient scenario, respectively. These correspond to heat production of ~22 M Wth and ~51 M Wth, respectively. Using IPSEpro simulations, we find average power production of ~2.2 M We and ~8.6 M We, respectively, for a subcritical organic Rankine cycle power plant with air-cooled condensers. Cost estimates indicate the overall capital and levelized costs are dominated by the lateral drilling cost. Obtaining a levelized cost of electricity below $70/M Wh requires a geothermal gradient of 60 degrees C/km, a discount rate below 9%, and lateral drilling cost below $400/m. A well cost model indicates that ~$400/m for the Eavor-Loop 2.0 design investigated can be obtained for a drilling rate of penetration about 40 ft/hr (with bit life of 50 hours), and omitting casing and cement. Traditional (geothermal) well drilling has achieved these drilling rate conditions, including the Utah FORGE project where the rate of penetration has exceeded 50 ft/hr in granite. However, it is unclear if these conditions are still valid for drilling the Eavor-Loop 2.0 laterals (i.e., ~82 km of laterals at 4 to 7.5-km vertical depth with rock temperatures up to 460 degrees C), as such downhole completion has never been developed before. Competitive levelized cost of heat values ($1.2-$8.2/GJ) are calculated, even for the low geothermal gradient scenario (30 degrees C/km) and lateral drilling cost of $600/m.

advanced geothermal system↗
DOE OSTI2022

Investigating Performance of Geothermal Reservoirs With Bi-Directional Heat Transfer for Seasonal Thermal Storage Using Thermal-Hydraulic Reservoir Simulations

This paper presents initial simulation results of deep subsurface seasonal thermal storage of waste heat from a natural gas-fired power plant during the summer months for providing heating during winter months at the Cornell University main campus in Ithaca, New York. An injection temperature profile is calculated with the MEnU tool and numerical reservoir simulations are conducted with the simulator FALCON. Both a porous medium and large single fracture geothermal reservoir are considered at about 3 km depth with initial reservoir temperature of 75 degrees C. Simulations indicate that a much smaller reservoir - which is technically easier and less risky to develop - is sufficient when operating the reservoir for seasonal thermal storage instead of for continuous heat production. For example, storing 13 GWh of heat seasonally in a 100 m thick porous medium based on the Galway formation requires about 65 m of well spacing to limit the yearly variation in production temperature to 10 degrees C. Operating this reservoir for continuous heat production would require a well spacing of 365 m to limit the thermal decline to 10 degrees C after 10 years. Neglecting wellbore heat losses and assuming uniform and homogeneous properties, a round-trip thermal efficiency of 100% can be obtained if the yearly averaged injection temperature matches the initial reservoir temperature.

district heating↗
DOE OSTI2022

Resilient cooling through geothermal district energy system

Decarbonization and resilience to heat waves have recently become high priorities for building and district energy systems. Geothermal coupled district heating and cooling systems that operate a water loop near ground temperature gain increasing adoption to support decarbonization. In these systems, vapor-compression machines, distributed in the energy transfer stations, lift the temperature up or down to the needs of the particular building. In principle, these systems can provide low-power, free cooling from the geothermal bore field during heat waves when electricity is often scarce. However, the performance of such a resilience operation mode and its implication on the energy system configuration and the sizing of the bore field and HVAC equipment is not yet understood. Consequently, we are assessing their resilience, power use and design implications under a scenario of a heat wave on five working days during which chillers are switched off to reduce electrical consumption. Our analysis is based on high-fidelity, coupled dynamic models of district energy, building-side HVAC and actual control logic, with whole building energy simulation used to assess thermal conditions in a 2004 vintage multi-zone office building in Chicago, IL. The results show that relying only on waterside economizer cooling, the indoor thermal conditions can be maintained in a tolerable range for the majority of the building zones with half the electrical energy compared to standard chiller operation. Thermal comfort in the hottest zones can be further improved by oversizing the cooling coil. However, the waterside economizer has significant implications on the system configuration and sizing: The geothermal bore field needs to be sized about 30% larger than the upper limit of the range observed for conventional geothermal systems. Nevertheless, if a central chiller plant is added, the bore field can be downsized to the typical design range. The latter configuration still allows compressor-less cooling during the heat wave with peak power reduced by 60% compared to the standard design and chiller operation.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2022

Assessment of Economic Impact of Permitting Timelines on Produced Geothermal Power in Imperial County, California

Despite having a large geothermal power potential in the United States, only a small fraction has been developed for power generation. Various barriers, including technical, financial, and regulatory permit delays, are attributed to lower contribution of geothermal energy in the national grid. Unpredictable environmental reviews and permitting timelines are some of the non-technical barriers that can cause delays in geothermal exploration and utilization plans. Our study shows that the geothermal permitting timelines can vary from six months to several years, depending on the presence or absence of biological resources, cultural resources, and sensitive environmental issues at the project site. The potential impacts of these permit barriers can range from investors abandoning geothermal development to making the product (i.e., electricity) more expensive and uncompetitive. In this study, we conducted economic analysis to assess the impact of permitting timelines on cost of produced electricity from geothermal resources using data from existing geothermal plants as well as prospective sites. In this paper, we present collected timelines data, approach, and results of economic impact of permitting timelines on geothermal power. We evaluated the various environmental management and permit review processes by considering a hypothetical geothermal project in the Salton Sea Known Geothermal Resource Area. Because of the variety of the biological and environmental issues and the involvement of local, state, and federal agencies with overlapping jurisdictions, this project could go through one of the many California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review scenarios that range from the least to the most complex in its circumstances. The fastest CEQA/NEPA review timelines would have the project completed in six years. In contrast, the project would substantially need longer time to complete if it were located in an area with significant environmental resources or cultural issues that required permitting from various agencies. With increasing project completion timelines, the simplified levelized cost of electricity (sLCOE) can be 4 to 11% higher with longer CEQA/NEPA review timelines than the sLCOE value with the fastest CEQA/NEPA review timeline. Lengthier CEQA/NEPA review timelines could also result in loss of $64 million to $227 million in potential revenue. Such significant economic impacts could determine the success of a geothermal project.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗