Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “drilling cost curve”

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.

2025 Geothermal Drilling Cost Curves Update: Preprint

Drilling activities account for 30% to 57% of the cost to develop and install a geothermal plant. Therefore, an accurate representation of the cost to drill a well is paramount in techno-economic analysis to determine the feasibility of a geothermal power project. In 2022, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) endeavored to revise the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) GeoVision baseline drilling cost curves due to extensive improvement in drilling rates at the Utah Frontier Observatory Research in Geothermal Energy (FORGE) demonstration site. That effort did not culminate in the recommendation of new curves because the actual project costs did not match the reported performance improvements and were at or above the GeoVision baseline. The need for another iteration of this analysis has arisen from industry record drilling performance reported by recent commercial field-scale and demonstration projects, including Fervo Energy’s Cape Station, the Utah FORGE 16B(78)-32 demonstration and the Geysers Power Company’s GDC-36 demonstration. Therefore, in this work, we have estimated the resulting industry average rate of penetration (ROP) and bit life and applied these parameters as inputs to the Well Cost Simplified model used in the GeoVision analysis. The resulting revised cost curves show a significant decline from the GeoVision baseline. For vertical wells, the magnitude of cost decline ranges between 12% and 24% while for deviated wells, cost reductions between 18% and 26% are estimated. The revised cost curves are in good agreement with actual cost data and therefore, quantify the economic impact of the utilization of (and advances in) polycrystalline diamond compact (PDC) bit technology and the application of physics-based methodologies that optimize mechanical specific energy.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗

2022 GETEM Geothermal Drilling Cost Curve Update: Preprint

The Geothermal Electricity Technology Evaluation Model (GETEM) is an essential tool for the Department of Energy's (DOE) Geothermal Technology Office (GTO) to understand the performance and cost of technologies it is seeking to improve. This detailed model is used for supply curve analyses, assessing the current economic feasibility and Levelized Cost of Energy (LCOE) of hydrothermal geothermal systems and EGS, and evaluating the potential impact of advanced geothermal technologies. GETEM can be used to estimate the performance and costs of currently available U.S. geothermal power systems. It is also used to estimate the costs of technologies 5 to 20 years in the future, given the direction of potential research, development, and demonstration (RD&D) projects. The model is intended to help GTO determine which proposed RD&D programs and projects might offer the most efficient improvement when using taxpayer funding. The model requires annual updates as well as revisions to reflect the current state of the art. Drilling costs are a significant portion of total geothermal development costs. The current GETEM drilling cost inputs rely on drilling data from 2009 and require an updated analysis of more recent data to ensure they remain representative of current technologies. An updated, more accurate understanding of costs could help the geothermal industry secure project development financing and investment funding and better allow the oil and gas (O&G) industry (both operators and service companies) weigh potential geothermal market participation and customization. This report details recent drilling improvements from the Utah Frontier Observatory for Research in Geothermal Energy (FORGE) and O&G, comparing drilling performance and costs with values in GETEM, particularly the baseline drilling cost curves. Though drilling performance at FORGE has improved significantly, we did not find associated cost decreases that would justify lowering the GETEM baseline cost curves as of now.

API↗

2022 GETEM Geothermal Drilling Cost Curve Update

The Geothermal Electricity Technology Evaluation Model (GETEM) is an essential tool for the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) Geothermal Technologies Office (GTO) to understand the performance and cost of technologies it is seeking to improve. This detailed model is used for supply curve analyses, assessing the current economic feasibility and levelized cost of energy (LCOE) of hydrothermal geothermal systems and enhanced geothermal systems (EGS), and evaluating the potential impact of advanced geothermal technologies. GETEM can be used to estimate the performance and costs of currently available U.S. geothermal power systems. It is also used to estimate the costs of technologies 5 to 20 years in the future, given the direction of potential research, development, and demonstration (RD&D) projects. The model is intended to help GTO determine which proposed RD&D programs and projects might offer the most efficient improvement when using taxpayer funding. The model requires annual updates as well as revisions to reflect the current state of the art. Drilling costs are a significant portion of total geothermal development costs. The current GETEM drilling cost inputs rely on drilling data from 2009 and require an updated analysis of more recent data to ensure they remain representative of current technologies. An updated, more accurate understanding of costs could help the geothermal industry secure project development financing and investment funding and better allow the oil and gas (O&G) industry (both operators and service companies) to weigh potential geothermal market participation and customization. This report details recent drilling improvements from the Utah Frontier Observatory for Research in Geothermal Energy (FORGE) and the O&G sector, comparing drilling performance and costs with values in GETEM, particularly the baseline drilling cost curves. Although drilling performance at FORGE has improved significantly, we did not find associated cost decreases that would justify lowering the GETEM baseline cost curves at this time.

API↗

Shallow Geothermal Resources for Cooling Applications at the University of Hawai'i

Drilling activities account for 30% to 57% of the cost to develop and install a geothermal plant. Therefore, an accurate representation of the cost to drill a well is paramount in techno-economic analysis to determine the feasibility of a geothermal power project. In 2022, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) endeavored to revise the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) GeoVision baseline drilling cost curves due to extensive improvement in drilling rates at the Utah Frontier Observatory Research in Geothermal Energy (FORGE) demonstration site. That effort did not culminate in the recommendation of new curves because the actual project costs did not match the reported performance improvements and were at or above the GeoVision baseline. The need for another iteration of this analysis has arisen from industry record drilling performance reported by recent commercial field-scale and demonstration projects, including Fervo Energy's Cape Station, the Utah FORGE 16B(78)-32 demonstration and the Geysers Power Company's GDC-36 demonstration. Therefore, in this work, we have estimated the resulting industry average rate of penetration (ROP) and bit life and applied these parameters as inputs to the Well Cost Simplified model used in the GeoVision analysis. The resulting revised cost curves show a significant decline from the GeoVision baseline. For vertical wells, the magnitude of cost decline ranges between 12% and 24% while for deviated wells, cost reductions between 18% and 26% are estimated. The revised cost curves are in good agreement with actual cost data and therefore, quantify the economic impact of the utilization of (and advances in) polycrystalline diamond compact (PDC) bit technology and the application of physics-based methodologies that optimize mechanical specific energy.

building cooling↗

Geothermal Power Systems Analysis: Outcome of Industry Stakeholders Workshop: Preprint

Geothermal cost and performance evaluation implemented via technoeconomic assessment (TEA) modeling is critical for the Department of Energy (DOE) and other geothermal industry stakeholders in assessing the current state of geothermal technologies and to identify existing hurdles to commercially viable geothermal development. The Geothermal Electricity Technology Evaluation Model (GETEM) is a major TEA tool used in estimating the economic feasibility and levelized cost of energy (LCOE) of conventional hydrothermal systems and enhanced geothermal systems (EGS). Since 2021, GETEM has been transitioning from an intricate spreadsheet model to a user-friendly tool within the System Advisor Model (SAM) developed by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). Apart from enabling an expanded visibility of the geothermal model among other renewable resources, having GETEM in SAM has the advantage of simulation automation, better usability, updates tracking, active user inputs/feedback, and extended financial modeling. GETEM is used in developing supply curves for the Annual Technology Baseline (ATB). The ATB data are inputs to the Renewable Energy Potential (reV) and the Regional Energy Deployment System (ReEDS) models. The geothermal module in NREL’s reV model assesses the geothermal energy potential in the conterminous United States by defining the geospatial intersection of geothermal resources with existing grid infrastructure within the constraint of land use characteristics. The ReEDS model is a capacity expansion model used for simulating the long-term build-out and operation of the US generation and transmission system based on current energy costs and policies. To ensure enhanced representation of current industry trends in our model transitions and development, we organized a two-day virtual workshop to elicit geothermal industry stakeholder input and recommendations on our current approaches and assumptions on technoeconomic, resource assessment, and deployment scenarios modeling of geothermal technologies. Participants included developers, operators, investors, regulatory agencies, system modelers, national laboratory researchers, consultants, and other stakeholders. In this workshop, we gained stakeholder insights on current geothermal plant performance (i.e., capacity factors), updated drilling costs and learning curves, and next generation technologies such as closed loop and superhot rock geothermal. Other outcomes from this workshop and its impact on future geothermal development feasibility, resource availability, and capacity expansion studies are compiled and discussed.

Annual Technology Baseline↗

Geothermal Power Systems Analysis: Outcome of Industry Stakeholders Workshop

Geothermal cost and performance evaluation implemented via techno-economic assessment (TEA) modeling is critical for the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and other geothermal industry stakeholders in assessing the current state of geothermal technologies and to identify existing hurdles to commercially viable geothermal development. The Geothermal Electricity Technology Evaluation Model (GETEM) is a major TEA tool used in estimating the economic feasibility and levelized cost of energy (LCOE) of conventional hydrothermal systems and enhanced geothermal systems (EGS). Since 2021, GETEM has been transitioning from an intricate spreadsheet model to a user-friendly tool within the System Advisor Model (SAM) developed by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). Apart from enabling an expanded visibility of the geothermal model among other renewable resources, having GETEM in SAM has the advantage of simulation automation, better usability, updates tracking, active user inputs/feedback, and extended financial modeling. GETEM is used in developing supply curves for NREL's Annual Technology Baseline (ATB), which provides inputs to the Renewable Energy Potential (reV) and the Regional Energy Deployment System (ReEDS) models. The geothermal module in NREL's reV model assesses the geothermal energy potential in the conterminous United States by defining the geospatial intersection of geothermal resources with existing grid infrastructure within the constraint of land use characteristics. The ReEDS model is a capacity expansion model used for simulating the long-term build-out and operation of the U.S. generation and transmission system based on current energy costs and policies. To ensure enhanced representation of current industry trends in our model transitions and development, we organized a two-day virtual workshop to elicit geothermal industry stakeholder input and recommendations on our current approaches and assumptions on techno-economic, resource assessment, and deployment scenarios modeling of geothermal technologies. Participants included developers, operators, investors, regulatory agencies, system modelers, national laboratory researchers, consultants, and other stakeholders. In this workshop, we gained stakeholder insights on current geothermal plant performance (i.e., capacity factors), updated drilling costs and learning curves, and next-generation technologies such as closed-loop and superhot rock geothermal. Other outcomes from this workshop and its impact on future geothermal development feasibility, resource availability, and capacity expansion studies are compiled and discussed.

annual technology baseline↗

Effect of Vacuum on Force Response of an Ultrasonic Penetrator

Introduction: The Apollo astronauts encountered higher than expected resistances when interacting with the lunar soil via the Apollo Lunar Surface Drill (ALSD) and the trenching tool. Reducing the force required to move tools or other mechanical components through regolith will impact many steps of the resource extraction process. Force reduction has been achieved in soil materials by imparting vibration to tooling interfaces such as a vibratory farming cultivator, a percussive scoop, and ultrasonically resonant penetrators. Vibration-assisted tools in granular media reduce interaction forces by fluidizing a volume around the tool, allowing the tool to progress through a dynamic (fluid) medium instead of a static (solid) medium. This work seeks to quantify ultrasonic vibration’s effect on the force response of a penetrator in lunar soil simulant in vacuum sufficient to be within the molecular flow regime of any disturbed gases. Methods: A custom vacuum chamber setup, CUBEvac, was designed and built to facilitate penetration testing in a high vacuum environment, for comparison to penetration behavior in ambient terrestrial environment. A two-stage pumping system (Agilent Triscroll 600 roughing pump, Agilent VHS-6 oil diffusion pump) reached chamber pressures of about 5x10-6 Torr with regolith simulant in place. Figure 1 is a schematic of the heart of the assembly (note the penetration drive mechanisms above the chamber feedthrough and the regolith simulant sample in the bottom are not shown). The penetration actuation stack was comprised of a stepper motor driving a lead screw to move the ultra-sonic probe vertically inside the chamber. Motion was coordinated with an Arduino Uno. GRC-3 lunar simulant was used for this set of experiments. Samples were prepared in a four-liter stain-less steel, cylindrical pot with an internal diameter of approximately 15.56 cm (6.125 in) and a depth of 19.37 cm (7 5/8 in) for testing. The soil was baked out prior to compaction preparation as a measure to reduce soil moisture which interfered with pump down capacity. The soil was not baked again if it was removed from the vacuum chamber, prepped, and immediately returned to the vacuum chamber for pump down. The soil was compacted using a 60 Hz vibration table with a surcharge of 34 kg place on top of the soil in the container. Prepared soil samples weighed approximately 6.5 kg (bulk density 1.895-1.934 g/cm3). Two probe end effectors were tested: A cone penetrometer (static only) with a nominal diameter of 12.7 mm (0.5 in) and a nominal height of 28.6 mm (1.125 in); and a vibrating cylindrical probe measuring 12.7 mm in diameter and 50.8 mm in effective length from the tip (Figure 2). The cylindrical probe vibrated resonantly at 20 kHz with an amplitude 23 μm. The cone penetration tests were conducted to assess potential soil behavior differences in vacuum. The cylinder probe tests were conducted as the primary subject of this investigation to assess force response in vacuum. For each test, a regolith simulant sample was load-ed and compacted in the chamber, which was then evacuated for roughly 18 hours to reach the lowest possible pressure (approximately 5x10-6 Torr for most tests). The probe was then moved to about 10 mm above the soil surface before being pushed to a depth of 50 mm for the cylinder probe tests and to a depth of 100 mm for the cone penetrometer tests, both at a speed of 2 mm/s. The simulant samples were prepared the same for all tests. Ideally, they would respond consistently to probe penetration under ambient and vacuum conditions. This was evaluated by measuring the resistance of representative prepared simulant beds with a standard cone penetrometer in both environments. Results and Discussion: The resistance of the simulant samples in the vacuum tests was consistently lower than in the ambient tests as determined by the cone penetration tests. Thus, the ambient and vacuum results cannot be compared directly; work is underway to de-confound and better correlate the data. Still, figures 3-6 show that probe penetration forces are lower overall in the vacuum environment. In both environments, resonant vibration of the probe provides two useful effects: It reduces the probe penetration force and smooths the force-depth curve, significantly reducing local maxima. These effects have implications for various potential applications, such as astronaut hand-tools, where benefits (reducing astronaut effort) outweigh the cost of the additional energy re-quired to generate vibration. These results demonstrate that resonantly vibrating tools can meaningfully reduce the penetration force required for excavation, probing, and drilling tools in simulated lunar regolith deposits under vacuum levels approaching those that will be experience on the Moon’s surface. Lunar-gravity, ambient environment tests are scheduled soon. The effects of realistic temperatures and temperature gradients and deeper vacuum remain to be tested.

E Rezich↗