Nationwide cost and capacity estimates for sedimentary basin geothermal power and implications for geologic CO 2 storage
Sedimentary basins are naturally porous and permeable subsurface formations that underlie approximately half of the United States. In addition to being targets for geologic CO 2 storage, these resources could supply geothermal power: sedimentary basin geothermal heat can be extracted with water or CO 2 and used to generate electricity. The geothermal power potential of these basins and the accompanying implication for geologic CO 2 storage are, however, understudied. Here, we use the Sequestration of CO 2 Tool (SCO2T PRO ) and the generalizable GEOthermal techno-economic simulator (genGEO) to address this gap by a) estimating the cost and capacity of sedimentary basin geothermal power plants across the United States and b) comparing those results to nationwide CO 2 sequestration cost and storage potential estimates. We find that across the United States, using CO 2 as a geothermal heat extraction fluid reduces the cost of sedimentary basin power compared to using water, and some of the lowest cost capacity occurs in locations not typically considered for their geothermal resources (e.g., Louisiana, South Dakota). Additionally, using CO 2 effectively doubles the sedimentary basin geothermal resource base, equating to hundreds of gigawatts of new capacity, by enabling electricity generation in geologies that are otherwise (with water) too impermeable, too thin, too cold, or not deep enough. We find there is competition for the best sedimentary basin resources between water- and CO 2 -based power, but no overlap between the lowest-cost resources for CO 2 storage and CO 2 -based power. In this way, our results suggest that deploying CO 2 -based power may increase the cost of water based systems (by using the best resources) and the cost of CO 2 storage (by storing CO 2 in locations that otherwise may not be targeted). As such, our findings demonstrate that determining the best role for sedimentary basins within the energy transition may require balancing tradeoffs between competing priorities.