How much of Canada could be powered by geothermal power? All of it. Many times over.

There is, of course, a catch or two. Cost is one. Location is another, because not all the best sites are near population centres. Still, as two new studies from Canada’s top geothermal researchers show, there’s a heck of a lot of geothermal resource to work with if we tried. And as I point out in my Clean Break column this morning, geothermal could be just as significant a contributor to Canada’s power needs in 20 year2 or 30 years as hydroelectric power is today. Again, that’s if we tried.

Stephen Grasby, a geologist with the Geological Survey of Canada, and co-author Jacek Majorowicz, an Alberta-based geothermal consultant, have come out with two studies looking at enhanced geothermal system (EGS) potential in Canada. One study will appear online this month in the Journal of Geophysics and Engineering (I was expecting it out by now). It looks at the overall potential of EGS in Canada. Another just published study, this one in the journal Natural Resources Research, looks specifically at high-potential regions where EGS development would offer the biggest bang for the buck. “Results show areas with significant EGS potential in northern Alberta, northeastern British Columbia, and southern Northwest Territories related to high heat flow and thermal blanketing of thick sedimentary cover,” they wrote. “Estimated installation costs in 2008 dollars are under $2 million per megawatt.”

That’s about $6 billion for 3,000 megawatts — more than competitive with nuclear, not just with respect to capital costs, but also operational and maintenance costs. Also, none of the high costs associated with storing spent fuel indefinitely or with decommissioning old plants. This figure, of course, is for developing the most promising EGS projects. Cost will rise depending on location, rock conditions, availability of an outside water source, and depth of required drilling. Still, the studies make clear the opportunities are immense.  The Geophysics and Engineering study, for example, said projects could be developed right across the country, including parts of Ontario, if you drill deep enough. Over time, as drilling costs fall and expertise of EGS climbs, this could happen one day.

“At 10 kilometres we can expect EGS temperatures in the 150 to 200 degrees C range across most of Canada, except some areas of the Canadian shield,” wrote Grasby and Majorowicz. “Given the widespread distribution of geothermal energy, and the high energy content, the potential geothermal resource in Canada is significant,” they concluded.

Sure, there’s risk to heading in this direction, just as there was risk of investing in the early days of the oil sands or nuclear industry. I would argue there’s much more risk drilling for oil offshore in the deepest ocean waters. For example, an accident could happen and you could end up with the equivalent of an oil volcano erupting kilometres below the surface. (Okay, now I’m being facetious).

The fact remains: geothermal power is baseload, it’s clean, it’s plentiful, and it can be done using proven drilling and rock fracturing techniques in Alberta’s oil patch. The Canadian Geothermal Association is targeting development of 5,000 megawatts of geothermal power by 2015 using conventional techniques. Imagine, if we started doing that development now in parallel with EGS research and development, what we could accomplish by 2030? It could be possible to wean Alberta entirely off coal, for one, and it would put us in a good position as we move to electrify the transportation sector.

These two Canadian studies come three years after the release of a groundbreaking U.S. study led by experts at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Their research suggested EGS in the United States could realistically supply about 100,000 megawatts of power generation capacity by 2050, assuming the proper policies and R&D investments were committed. The MIT study didn’t cover Canada, but several experts who participated in that study said their conclusions could also apply to the Great White North. Still, it’s nice to have our own data — and this is exactly what Grasby and Majorowicz have given us.

Canada, clearly, needs a national geothermal development strategy — and it needs one now.

Time to beat the drum.

The U.K. plant is expected to be operational by 2012. Needless to say, this approach could easily be done throughout Alberta, particularly in the oil sands, even in some locations in Ontario and other provinces. If the U.K. can do it, hell, certainly there are parts of Canada that can. In late May the Obama administration committed $140 million to geothermal demonstration projects, $80 million for enhanced geothermal R&D, and $100 million for new drilling techniques and innovation.

And Canada? The big goose egg.

The data is old — dating back to 1985 and earlier — but the Geological Survey of Canada is beginning to put together an inventory of geothermal resources across the country. The first study, published online last month in the journal Natural Resources Research, calculated total potential geothermal energy down to 250 metres. One of the most interesting findings, however, was that the temperature gradient wasn’t as steep as historically expected. The reason, the researchers concluded, is that  increases in surface temperature due to global warming was causing the first 50 metres of subsurface to also warm. It means the gap between temperature 50 metres down and temperature 100 metres and 200 metres down has narrowed. (See Toronto Star article here, in which researcher Stephen Grasby says in some locations shallow subsurface temperature has increased by a few degrees Celsius).

They put a positive spin on this finding, suggesting that there’s more thermal energy for home and residential heat-pump systems to tap, and that this energy will displace the use of fossil fuels. Hardly something to cheer about, however, given the initial causes of the warming.

Across Canada, it was found that total potential resource down to 50 metres was the equivalent of 190 million barrels of oil, roughly the size of recoverable oil-sand reserves. Of course, only a small fraction of that could ever be tapped economically because of its distributed nature. But certainly, where there’s population, the renewable resource is there to exploit.

Grasby said another study in the works will estimate likely recoverable shallow geothermal reserves, while a third “EGS” study to be published later this year will estimate total potential high-temperature geothermal reserves down to seven kilometres. But as you’ll read in the Toronto Star article, we’ve got to get some updated data if we are to seriously pursue the geothermal and EGS power generation opportunity in Canada. Funding is needed for the collection of new data from the field and studies must to done to identify high-priority areas for development and to craft the regulatory framework that would support that development.

Alison Thompson, executive director of the Canadian Geothermal Energy Association, told me $1 million in funding would support 30 or so studies that could be turned around in less than six months. Without this kind of up-to-date research it will be difficult to take the industry to the next stage — i.e. project development — because the data will be needed to convince politicians and senior-level bureaucrats that the area is worthy of serious attention and funding.

Just $1 million. It’s not much when compared to the billions being devoted to carbon capture and storage research and development. Funny thing is that geothermal has much more potential to displace natural gas use in the oil sands — and avoid associated GHG emissions — than anything CCS can deliver over the next decade.

BTW: The Canadian Geothermal Energy Association will be holding its first major industry conference in decades on April 22, which is appropriately Earth Day. The buzz or lack of buzz at this conference will be a good barometer of how serious Canadian politicians and industry folk are about pursuing the geothermal opportunity. Stay tuned.

The Pembina Institute came out with a report this month that explores the many ways Alberta could transition away from coal and toward more sustainable and cleaner forms of electricity generation. I was most impressed with the section on geothermal, given that in Canada there hasn’t been much interest in this renewable source of power, with the exception of yours truly and a dozen or so industry and academic folks who are trying to draw attention to this immense opportunity.

According to the Pembina report, “very little information has been gathered on the size of Alberta’s geothermal potential,” however “research data that is available shows that the potential is enormous.”

Pembina says there is an estimated 21 billion gigawatt-hours of energy released every year below the surface of Alberta at depths of less than 5 km. “Even with the conservation assumption that only 0.5 per cent of this potential is recoverable, it represents the equivalent of roughly 14 million megawatts of generating capacity.” That, it goes on the point out, is more than 1,100 times the current total installed generating capacity of Alberta. This doesn’t even include depths greater than 5 km, which could be tapped using enhanced or “engineered” geothermal systems (EGS).

When Pembina explores the barriers to implementation, we get explanations such as “lack of awareness” and “uncertain resource” because of insufficient research and data. There is also the issue of uncertain costs, not so much with conventional geothermal but with the use of EGS. Another barrier is the challenges of drilling to depths of several kilometres.

The first two barriers, of course, shouldn’t be there in the first place. There’s no reason why we can’t raise awareness and conduct more research around this promising form of renewable energy. Sadly, it’s not on the radar of federal politicians (though, to their credit, some bureacrats are working away in the background).

I met up with Canadian Natural Resources Minister Lisa Raitt last week, and when I mentioned geothermal as an opportunity in Alberta she was a deer in headlights. Meanwhile, her colleague Jim Prentice, environment minister, spent much of a speech last week in Calgary downplaying the potential of renewables and talking up the need to “do no harm” against companies in the oil patch. Let me repeat: This guy is environment minister.

On the other two barriers — uncertain costs and drilling challenges — Pembina had this to say:

On costs…

Costs are no less certain than CCS which has already received significant public investments both provincially and federally. The potentially vast scale of geothermal resources in Alberta warrants significant consideration in this same vein.

On drilling:

While wells of 1 or 2 kilometers deep are the norm in Alberta, many wells in Alberta are drilled to depths of 4 km and some as deep as 7 km. Alberta has significant experience in drilling and experimenting with new drilling techniques. Existing research programs should shift from conventional petroleum drilling to geothermal. Research dollars currently allocated to developing drilling capability in the oil patch should be reallocated to applying existing knowledge to geothermal applications.

It did, however, estimate the cost at $70 per megawatt-hour on the assumption 10,000 MW of geothermal was developed in the province. That’s slightly cheaper than its estimates for wind, which is variable. Geothermal, on the other hand, is more valuable as a baseload power source.

Bottom line: Let’s stop ignoring this amazing resource.

But it appears the federal government — or its scientists, at least — are beginning to take notice. I recently had an e-mail exchange with Stephen Grasby, who is a geologist with the Geological Survey of Canada (part of Natural Resources Canada). I had asked Grasby about a rather primitive map of Canada’s geothermal resources that he had prepared, and whether there were more details behind it. He assured me it was “just a first order of approximation” and that the department is “currently working on a series of maps that provide contoured temperatures at different depths.”

Grasby conceded there’s “very little data” for temperatures deeper than 4 kilometres anywhere in the country. “So the best we can do is extrapolate temperature gradients,” he said, adding that the survey also has enhanced geothermal (EGS) on its radar. “The EGS is an exciting opportunity but we know little about the potential in Canada as of yet. Currently we are assessing what data and knowledge on geothermal potential we have as the previous Geothermal Energy Program was ended in 1985 and there is some consideration being given to restarting some activities on that front.”

It’s a small, but positive step. Now, more than ever, is the time to start pressuring the federal government to move faster and more decisively in this direction. The opportunity for renewable baseload power generation in this country is too significant to ignore.