Toward Sustainable Implementation of Geothermal Energy Projects – The Case of Olkaria IV Project in Kenya

*Lilian Namuma S. Kong'ani and Raphael M. Kweyu*

## **Abstract**

In this chapter, we demonstrate how geothermal has the potential to solve climate change. Geothermal is part of green energy, which contributes toward the achievement of sustainable development goals, that is, SGD 7, on affordable, reliable, sustainable, and modern energy for all, SDG 13, on climate actions, and the Paris Agreement. We present the potential of geothermal energy in Kenya and link it to its ability to provide solutions for Africa and Kenya considering current geopolitics, including Brexit, climate change, the Russian-Ukraine war, and COVID-19. However, this chapter argues that geothermal energy production should be developed within a sustainability framework. Environmental conflicts occasioned by the implementation of developmental projects are on the rise. Geothermal projects are likely to introduce new conflicts between the government and the communities. Therefore, natural resource conflict resolution should be part of the development of geothermal energy. This chapter draws inspiration from a study on conflict types and their management in the Olkaria IV geothermal development project in Kenya. From the study, it is apparent that mediation is one of the sustainable environmental conflict management strategies. The chapter concludes that geothermal energy production has the potential to contribute to the prosperity of Kenya economically.

**Keywords:** conflict management, geothermal energy development, involuntary resettlement, project affected persons, sustainability

## **1. Introduction**

Geothermal energy is increasingly being taunted as one of the essential resources in fighting the worrisome climate change worldwide. Increased calls for a need to expedite addressing climate change continue to dominate the headlines in different forums globally, including in the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP26) held in 2021 in Glasgow, United Kingdom. During the COP26 conference, 34 countries and 5 public finance institutions pledged to redirect their public support from fossil fuels to renewable energy.

Notably, concerted efforts have been made worldwide toward investment in the exploitation of renewable energy, including geothermal, to reduce carbon footprints. The development of the geothermal industry enables the availability of one of the most reliable renewable energies that are naturally extracted from the earth's crust. Globally, installed geothermal energy production hit 15,608-megawatt electric (MW) by 2021 [1], with the top three countries, including the United States contributing over 3714 MW, Indonesia about 2233 MW, and the Philippines contributing 1918 MW [1]. Regionally, the Great East African Rift is among the most important world regions harboring a significant geothermal potential of more than 15,000 MW [2], with about 67% of this potential being in Kenya [1, 3].

Kenya tops the African nations in terms of geothermal power generation and is one of the fastest-growing geothermal power producers in the world. The installation of the Olkaria V geothermal power plant (172 MW) in November 2019 pushed the country's geothermal production capacity up to 865 MW with more than 35% of the households in Kenya depending on geothermal power [4]. Currently, Kenya has overtaken Iceland (755 MW), to rank eighth worldwide [1, 5]. The country is nearing the ranks of the United States, Indonesia, Philippines, Turkey, and New Zealand, which are in club 1GW following the commissioning of Olkaria I unit 6 with an installed capacity of 83 MW, which pushes the total geothermal power generation to 944 MW as at 2022.

Geothermal energy development is playing a fundamental role in the energy market in Kenya, contributing about 50% of total generated electricity in 2020/2021 [3, 4]. This is followed by hydro at 39% and thermal at 15%, a drop from 32% in the first half of 2021, while a mere 0.4% is derived from wind power [1].

The exploration of geothermal energy in Kenya seeks to enable the transition of the country into a newly industrialized, middle-income state by 2030, and provide a high quality of life to all its citizens in a clean and secure environment [6]. Geothermal exploitation validates Kenya's global commitment toward inter alia, the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG), that is, SDG 7 on affordable, reliable, sustainable, modern energy for all, and SGD 13 on climate actions [6] as well as the Paris Agreement. SDGs 7 and 13 are vital to the realization of other SDGs. These include SDG 1, on ending poverty in all forms, SDG 2, on eliminating hunger as well as SDG 3, on improving health and wellbeing [7] among others.

The energy sector in Kenya is one of the crucial forces behind its economy, which is key in the manufacturing and agriculture sectors. These sectors are a key backbone to the country's economic growth. Yet, the energy industry is hit hard by a myriad of global and local challenges, including climate change, global pandemics, and social and political instabilities, such as the Russian-Ukraine war and community opposition among others, resulting in energy scarcity with increased prices. Higher oil prices, for instance, escalates production costs, which are subsequently borne by consumers, further resulting in increased cost of living and continued reliance on biomass energy and fossil fuels.

However, a global energy crisis exacerbated by global issues is a blessing in disguise. They present an opportunity for countries, such as Kenya, to pursue and intensify investments in the locally available renewable energy, such as geothermal, wind, solar, tidal, wave, and hydro energy, which remain largely untapped, with only about 9% of geothermal energy exploited from its potential of 10,000 MW [3, 4], as at 2022. Locally, adequate public participation in the design and implementation of energy projects is important in navigating community opposition menace for the sustainability of the projects. As a result, Kenya would be better placed to accelerate

*Toward Sustainable Implementation of Geothermal Energy Projects – The Case of Olkaria IV… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.107227*

the harnessing of renewable energy resources and cut down on its reliance on energy importation and related costs. These resources would be injected into more impactful public costs and address other socio-economic challenges in the country.

## **2. Development of geothermal energy**

Geothermal can be explained as the heat from the earth's crust estimated to be about 5500o C at the core of the earth, which is as hot as the sun's surface [8]. This energy is manifested on the surface of the earth in form of hot springs, fumaroles and hot-altered sites. Geothermal is the only renewable energy source created naturally by the earth. Geothermal energy is harnessed from underground reservoirs, consisting of hot water and steam, which are naturally replenished, making it both renewable and sustainable.

Deep wells, that is about two kilometers, are drilled to access hot water and steam from the underground reservoirs, and piped up to a well, where it is used to drive turbines connected to electric generators. This creates power for various uses in industries and homes, such as lighting and heating up buildings. In Kenya, geothermal energy is also used for direct utilization at the geothermal fields, including Olkaria, Menengai, and Eburru. These uses include fish farming, recreational purposes, pasteurization of milk, drying of crop harvests, and heating and fumigation of greenhouses [1, 9, 10].

Geothermal energy is a clean, renewable resource that can be tapped globally by countries, such as Kenya, which are located in geologically favorable areas. Geothermal energy is deemed a renewable resource due to the exploitation of the heat from the interior of the earth, which is considered abundant. The used hot water and steam can be cooled and channeled back to the reservoir.

#### **2.1 Advantages of geothermal energy**

Geothermal energy advantages over other sources of power, such as wind, solar, and hydro, include:

#### *2.1.1 Stability*

Geothermal energy is not affected by the disruption caused by unfavorable weather conditions, such as droughts. It has the highest availability, which is estimated at over 90%, especially in Kenya [11, 12]. Thus, more reliable and secure, and a more suitable source for baseload electricity generation in the country [13, 14].

#### *2.1.2 Eco-friendly*

Geothermal is green energy with minimal adverse effects on the environment. Geothermal fields have a low carbon footprint since the energy is extracted from the earth without burning fossil fuels. The pollution associated with geothermal energy is relatively minimal compared to other fossil fuels, such as coal, natural gas, and crude oil.

#### *2.1.3 Vast potential*

Increased investment and research toward the exploitation of geothermal resources, with accelerated new technologies, enabling the use of untapped reservoirs. This has contributed to the accessibility, efficiency, and application of

geothermal energy to a wider range of uses. Currently, the advancement in the geothermal energy extracting process, with new technologies, enabling the extraction of geothermal energy from deeper reservoirs.

### *2.1.4 Small land footprint*

Geothermal energy is extracted from the earth's crust, thus can be established on small pieces of land compared to solar, wind, and hydropower energy, which requires large parcels of land. The national geographic estimates that about 400 square miles of the land surface would be adequate to establish a geothermal power plant capable of producing 1 GW-hour of electricity, while a solar and wind farm at the same energy output would need about 2340 and 1335 square miles, respectively.

#### **2.2 Disadvantages of geothermal energy**

#### *2.2.1 Restricted location*

The installation of geothermal energy plants is restricted to specific locations. Most large geothermal plants require geothermal reservoirs above 100°C, which can only be found near tectonic plate boundaries or hot spots [15], such as the East African Rift System, characterized by the presence of quaternary volcanic centers, that are younger than approximately 2.6 million years, along the rift's margin, with younger centers situated in the south and older centers farther north.

#### *2.2.2 Greenhouse gas emissions*

The extraction of geothermal energy from the earth's surface leads to the release of greenhouse gases, such as hydrogen sulfide, carbon dioxide, methane, and ammonia. While these gases are also released into the atmosphere naturally, the rate increases near geothermal plants. However, emissions of these gases are significantly lower than those associated with fossil fuels.

#### *2.2.3 Earthquakes risk*

Geothermal power plant installations involve drilling deep within the earth to release hot steam and/or water trapped in rock formations. This causes alterations in the structure of the earth and instability underground that can lead to earthquakes on the earth's surface. Geothermal wells collapse has been reported in the 1950s and 1960s in Wairekei, New Zealand [16]. Geothermal power plants have the potential to cause slow land subsidence over time as geothermal reservoirs are depleted. However, the implications of earthquakes are minor since most of the geothermal plants are situated away from communities.

#### *2.2.4 High costs*

Exploration of geothermal energy is capital intensive. A 50 MW well drilling could cost about USD 180 million at testing through full scale development [1]. However, upon its full implementation, the well could be operational for up to 40 years, enabling the recouping of the initial costs.

*Toward Sustainable Implementation of Geothermal Energy Projects – The Case of Olkaria IV… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.107227*

#### *2.2.5 Summary of the merits and demerits of geothermal energy*

**Table 1** presents an overview of the advantages and disadvantages of geothermal energy.

#### **2.3 Geothermal resources development in Kenya: a history in brief**

Geothermal resources in Kenya are found within the rift valley, which forms part of the East Africa Rift System (EARS), with an estimated potential of up to 10,000 MW spread over 14 potential sites. The EARS is connected to the worldwide oceanic rift systems of over 30 million years ago. The rifting events resulted in tectonic shifts and volcanism and geothermal activity are associated with the occurrence of quaternary volcanoes located within the rift's axis.

Kenya's geothermal exploration for power generation began in 1952 led by the then East African Power & Lighting Company Ltd (EAPL), with the support of the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) and other international agencies [17, 18]. The study resulted in the drilling of two wells in the 1950s. Although temperatures of up to 235°C were recorded, the wells were only discharged in 1971 after stimulation.

Later, the Olkaria geothermal area was selected by the studies that were commissioned to evaluate the resources in various sectors of the rift for a thorough evaluation. This led to the drilling of six deeper exploration and appraisal wells in Olkaria, which were successfully completed and proved the existence of a viable geothermal system. Thus, the first geothermal power plant, Olkaria I, with an electric power capacity of 45 MW, was constructed between 1981 and 1985 (**Table 2**).

Currently, the Olkaria geothermal fields, which are second-most productive in the world after the geysers field in the USA, host five power plants [19], including Olkaria I-V commissioned in the years 1981, 2003, 2009, 2014, and 2019, respectively, with plans to construct Olkaria VI and VII [19–21]. The installed geothermal capacity comprises 706.8 MW by Kenya Electricity Generating Company (KenGen), 155 MW by OrPower4, Inc and 3.6 MW by Oserian Development Company Ltd. Further, 45 MW was added to the grid by Orpower4 between 2015 and 2018. 45 Inc. Olkaria geothermal field is currently the main producing site with an installed capacity of 689.7 MW, while Eburru field has an installed capacity of 2.52 MW.


#### **Table 1.**

*Merits and demerits of geothermal energy.*


*a Akiira Geothermal Limited.*

*b Oserian Development Company Limited.*

*c African Geothermal International Limited.*

*d Geothermal Development Company.*

*Source: Energy & Petroleum Regulation Authority, Kenya.*

#### **Table 2.**

*Geothermal energy fields and status of development in Kenya.*

*Toward Sustainable Implementation of Geothermal Energy Projects – The Case of Olkaria IV… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.107227*

The commissioning of the public-private partnership (PPP), 140 MW power plant, the Olkaria 1 unit 6, 83.3 MW, and 105 MW power plant, which is under development at Menengai geothermal field are expected to increase geothermal power development in Kenya by 328 MW between 2020 and 2022. The Menengai project intends to involve the Geothermal Development Company (GDC) as a steam supplier, while three independent power producers (IPPs) will each install 35 MW. While KenGen continues to appraise and develop several sectors of the Olkaria field, the GDC has further mobilized a drilling rig for exploration drilling in the Paka prospect, and also intends to drill exploratory wells in Silali, Korosi, and the Greater Menengai field within the next few years.

Thirteen IPPs have since been licensed by the government of Kenya to undertake greenfield (areas that have not been previously been developed) projects at Barrier, Longonot, Akiira, Elementaita, Homa Hills, Menengai North, Lake Magadi, Arus, Baringo, Emuruangogolak, Namarunu, and Emuruapoli prospects. These efforts demonstrate Kenya's quest to increase the country's geothermal output to 5000 MW from the current 944 MW by 2030 [1].

#### **2.4 Barriers to geothermal development in Kenya**

The East African Rift System has significant potential for clean energy exploitation for the countries in East Africa, Kenya included. Yet, over 95% of the geothermal energy resources remain unexploited. Similarly, to other African states, Kenya is facing a number of challenges in maximizing the harnessing of geothermal resources. These issues included.

#### *2.4.1 High exploitation and infrastructure costs*

Whereas, steam or hot water is readily available for constant supplies at Olkaria geothermal field, the likely delays in exploitation experienced elsewhere in the rift valley by private companies in Longonot and Akiira demonstrate the difficulty in finding investors who would be patient to finance additional exploration. A single exploration well where no previous development has been done costs over USD 1 million to drill, with three wells needed to prove resource availability [22]. It is also estimated that a 20 MW geothermal power plant could cost about USD 80 million, which could be unaffordable in the event of a reduced number of customers with declined demand.

#### *2.4.2 Political instability and community opposition*

Political instability and community opposition are major deterrence to development and investment in geothermal resources, especially for IPPs. The geothermal development in Olkaria IV, for instance, faced community resistance following its relocation in 2014 amidst claims of unfair compensations, which almost derailed its implementation. However, the application of mediation as a conflict resolution strategy, in this case, helped to reduce conflicts between the developer and the project affected persons (PAPs), mended relationships, improved community livelihoods, and allowed smoother operations of the project.

#### *2.4.3 National and county levels bureaucracy*

The control at the national levels is often deemed as a threat to the county governments, which fail to adequately manage their own issues including ensuring that "*Wanjiku,*" that is, the local communities at the county levels are well represented [22] in all matters of development including energy projects. Also, added bureaucracies at the national levels are seen as fertile ground for political interferences and a threat to approvals for important projects, such as geothermal energy. The bureaucracies at the county levels, with possible inadequate participation of the private developers in the management of local affairs, are considered as a possible avenue for corruption, which could adversely impact important development.

## **2.5 Opportunities for the development of the geothermal industry in Kenya**

## *2.5.1 Prevailing global issues*

The escalation in energy prices emanates from the weakening of economies already battered by the impacts of the coronavirus pandemic worldwide, such as lockdowns and disturbances, to global supply chains worsened by increased fuel prices. The Russian-Ukraine war has heightened the energy crisis, further resulting in uncertainty in global oil and gas markets with soaring energy prices.

In Kenya, this impact has been felt by its citizens who have had to dig deep into their pockets to meet the cost of basic necessities. For example, before the onset of the Russian-Ukraine, a 6 kg cooking gas cylinder retailed at about USD 7. This shot up to about USD 13 during the Russian-Ukraine war era. However, these global disturbances present an opportunity for countries to accelerate the transition to alternative sources of energy, including geothermal energy. This is particularly in countries, such as Kenya, which has the potential of up to 10,000 MW, yet only about 9.4% has been tapped as of 2022.

Further, the ravaging impacts of droughts with declined hydropower generation, compounded with a decline in fossil fuels, such as coal, oil, and natural gas, provides an opportunity for countries, such as Kenya, to intensify investments toward the exploitation of the untapped geothermal reservoirs.

## *2.5.2 Resource availability*

Kenya is endowed with abundant geothermal resources, which are estimated at about 10,000 MW. These resources are found along the world-famous East African Rift Valley, which transects from the north to the south of the country. The resources are spread over 14 sites, with Olkaria, Menengai, and Eburru being the most developed geothermal sites. Suswa, Longonot, Arus-Bogoria, Lake Baringo, Korosi, Paka, Lake Magadi, Badlands, Silali, Emuruangogolak, Namarunu, and Barrier are other potential sites currently under exploration. Only 944 MW has been harnessed as of 2022, enabling the country to rank eighth globally in terms of geothermal energy production.

### *2.5.3 Legal and institutional framework*

The Energy Act, 2019, which repealed the Energy Act, 2006, the Kenya Nuclear Electricity Board Order No. 131 of 2012, and the Geothermal Resources Act, 1982 promotes renewable energy and promotes exploration, recovery, and commercial utilization of geothermal energy among others, creating an enabling environment for accelerated development of geothermal resources in the country.

#### *Toward Sustainable Implementation of Geothermal Energy Projects – The Case of Olkaria IV… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.107227*

Over two decades ago, the development of geothermal resources was solely tasked to Kenya Power and Lighting Company (KPLC), a state-owned electricity generation and distribution company, under the Ministry of Energy, which derailed its development. Subsequent reforms within the energy sector attracted wider energy developers. For example, the policy on new feed-in-tariffs (FIT) that was introduced in 2008 in line with the Energy Act, 2006, then provided for investment security to renewable electricity generators, reduce administrative and transaction costs attracting many IPPs, who currently include ORMAT, Akiira Geothermal Company Ltd, and Quantum East Africa Power Ltd among others into geothermal development for electricity and direct utilization in the country [17].

The Kenya Vision 2030 launched in 2008 emphasizes the exploitation of renewable energy to reduce reliance on imported fossil fuels and increase access to electricity. With this economic blueprint, the country aims to achieve a geothermal production capacity of up to 5000 MW by 2030.

#### *2.5.4 Technical expertise*

Unlike other east African countries, Kenya, currently ranked 8th worldwide in terms of geothermal energy production, has a robust, skilled, local geothermal workforce, and technical capacity. This is boosted by the establishment of the African Geothermal Training Center (AGCE) in the country. This facility was established in June 2018 by the African Union Commission and UN Environment (UNEP). However, there is still a need for support from foreign experts to maximize harnessing of the geothermal resources.

#### **2.6 Analytical/theoretical framework**

#### *2.6.1 Sustainable practices in energy development*

Sustainability Development involves a progressive transformation of economy and society. A development path that is sustainable in a physical sense could theoretically be pursued even in a rigid social and political setting. But physical sustainability cannot be secured unless development policies pay attention to such considerations as changes in access to resources and in the distribution of costs and benefits. Even the narrow notion of physical sustainability implies a concern for social equity between generations, a concern that must logically be extended to equity within each generation (Our common future, UN).

The term sustainability is simply the capacity to endure when applied broadly it can be defined as "meeting the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs." Sustainable development can be defined as "Development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs." Sustainability may be viewed as a three-legged table consisting of the environment, the economy and society, or as a dualistic relationship between human beings and the ecosystem they inhabit.

#### *2.6.2 Environmental sustainability*

This is a condition of balance, resilience, and interconnectedness that allows human society to satisfy its needs, while neither exceeding the capacity of its

supporting ecosystems to continue to regenerate the services necessary to meet those needs nor by our actions diminishing biological diversity. Renewable energy production systems are largely seen to fulfill the environmental sustainability condition.

#### *2.6.3 Economic sustainability*

It involves creating economic value out of whatever project or decision you are undertaking. Economic sustainability means that decisions are made in the most equitable and fiscally sound way possible while considering the other aspects of sustainability. From an economic standpoint, sustainability requires that current economic activity not disproportionately burdens future generations. Economists will allocate environmental assets as only part of the value of natural and manmade capital, and their preservation becomes a function of overall financial analysis.

Economic sustainability should involve analysis to minimize the social costs of meeting standards for protecting environmental assets but not for determining what those standards should be. Components of the economic environment include residents and households, public infrastructure, community facilities and the natural environment (essential services, such as water and sanitation systems, electricity, gas, telecommunications, and transport), business enterprises and supply networks (retailers, distributors, transporters, storage facilities and suppliers that participate in the production and delivery of a particular product), not-for-profit sector, and government. Comparing geothermal energy to fossil fuels, the former is seen to be more economically sustainable considering the ongoing global challenges, such as the Russian-Ukraine crisis and instability in Gulf states.

#### *2.6.4 Social sustainability*

This is based on the concept that a decision or project promotes the betterment of society. Further, future generations should have the same or greater quality of life benefits as the current generation do. This concept also encompasses aspects of human rights, environmental law, and public involvement and participation. Energy production systems whether renewable or nonrenewable are socially sustainable if they fulfill the following aspects [23]:


#### *Toward Sustainable Implementation of Geothermal Energy Projects – The Case of Olkaria IV… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.107227*

Environmental conflicts are generally viewed as an outcome of production systems that fail to fulfill the condition of social sustainability. The Global Environmental Justice Atlas (EJAtlas) [24], linked slightly more than 2520 socio-environmental conflicts to large projects and communities worldwide. More than 345 of these conflicts are related to the construction of renewable energy amenities, climate fixes, and dams. In Kenya, in the northern-western, Turkana County, the oil and wind projects generated conflicts between the host communities and operating companies. The communities were displeased with the unfulfilled pledges concerning land compensation, improved water supply, and employment prospects [25–28]. These concerns were exacerbated by communication break down between Tullow and the residents [26, 29]. This led to continued disruption of the company's operations [27]. Also, the fencing of all sites, including for extraction and oil storage, was fenced, restricted communities' access, and dislocated pastoral migration routes, resulting in conflicts between the developers and these communities.

The community was discontent with the benefit-sharing arrangement and accused the national government of lack of transparency in awarding the tender to Fenxi company in 2011 derailing its implementation, in the case of the Mui Basin coal exploration project located in Kitui, Kenya [30, 31]. The community was still contesting the project by the time [31] were conducting their research on public participation in Africa's mining sector.

The proposed 1050 MW Lamu coal power plant project, which was expected to be operational in 2020, had been projected to be the largest in east Africa and the first in Kenya. However, the project failed to start off in October 2015 as planned [32, 33] following the Civil Society Organization Save Lamu's and the community's opposition. These groups were anxious over unavoidable environmental and health impacts, such as pollution of fishing grounds, that would have seen hundreds of fishermen lose jobs and premature deaths linked to air pollution. The continued protests compelled the project donor, the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China (ICBC), to withdraw its financial support due to looming environmental and social hazards.

## **3. Conflicts and development of renewable energy in Kenya: case study of Olkaria IV geothermal energy project**

This section is based on a study by [21, 34] on conflict types and management in the development of geothermal energy in Olkaria IV area. The Olkaria IV geothermal project is located in the Olkaria geothermal block in Naivasha-Sub-County, Nakuru County, Kenya, partially within the Hell's Gate National Park (HGNP). Olkaria area is inhabited by about 20,000 pastoralists, whose main livelihood stream is supported by pastoralism and livestock trading, with a number of community members relying on tourism activities (**Figure 1**) [21, 36].

Olkaria IV geothermal power plant has an installed capacity of 140 MW. The plant was established by KenGen. It was supported financially by the Government of Kenya (22%), the European Investment Bank (EIB, 12%), the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA, 23%), the French Development Agency (AFD, 15%), the German Development Agency (KfW, 7%), the World Bank (7%) with KenGen injecting 14% [36, 37].

Olkaria IV geothermal power plant was established as part of the Kenya Electricity Expansion Project (KEEP) to deliver on Vision 2030 of seeing Kenya transition into a newly industrialized, middle-income state, and provide a high quality of life to all

#### **Figure 1.**

*Location of Olkaria geothermal field/study area. Source: [35].*

its citizens in a clean and secure environment, and SDG 7 on affordable, reliable, sustainable, modern energy for all, and SGD 13 on climate actions [6]. However, its installation was faced with conflicts between KenGen and the project-affected persons (PAPs) that persisted beyond its completion.

An environmental social impact assessment (ESIA) on the project demonstrated that the drilling of the power plant would negatively impact the health of the community. This necessitated the relocation of four villages inhibited by the Maasai community, including Cultural Centre, OlooNongot, OlooSinyat, and OlooMayana Ndogo to a new site, that is, resettlement action plan land (RAPland), which was located outside the park.

However, upon relocation, the community became agitated and raised complaints regarding incomplete projects at RAPland and accused KenGen of failing to deliver on some of the pledges made earlier, as stipulated in the memorandum of understanding signed between KenGen and the PAPs. These conflicts revolved around the socio-economic (51%), cultural (14%), environmental (21%), and political (14%) aspects [21].

## *Toward Sustainable Implementation of Geothermal Energy Projects – The Case of Olkaria IV… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.107227*

Regarding the socio-economic conflict, the PAPs cited increased distance to work at the project site and shopping centers in Kamere and Naivasha, and increased travel costs exacerbated by bad roads and inadequate means of transport. They also pointed out that the water collection and watering points were inadequate and unreliable, with an unreliable electricity supply, while some houses had no electricity. Declined income accrued from selling traditional ornaments and guided tours at the former site was another main cause of disagreement. The respondents suggested that they would have appreciated adequate financial compensation, including USD 5000, as a disturbance allowance to help them settle in the new site.

Environmentally, the respondents complained of poor terrain characterized by poor grazing areas of low-quality pasture. The unwelcoming valleys and gullies posed a danger to community members and their livestock, while the hyenas had become a nuisance, killing PAPs' livestock daily. Also, the respondents were unconvinced of the development's potential adverse effects on their health as earlier informed by KenGen. They claimed that they were never furnished with documented scientific evidence of the latent negative effects of noise pollution, as indicated by the developer.

Cultural issues were mainly linked to the standard two-bedroom houses built at RAPland, which some PAPs claimed failed to provide for the customary needs for exclusive units for the husbands, wives, sons, and daughters. Also, some women were dissatisfied on the basis of their views being disregarded, exacerbated by the patriarchal system, which forbids women from speaking in the same public spaces as men. The community leaders had an obligation to make decisions on behalf of the community. Thus, community members had to abide by a decision made regarding relocation irrespective of their feelings.

Politically, KenGen was accused of improper sharing of information relating to the development of the project. Also, the developer was blamed for the alleged inadequate involvement of PAPs in project meetings and in the decision-making processes involving their compensation and relocation logistics. PAPs felt that KenGen tricked them to relocate, so as to expand geothermal developments by making promises, some of which were never fulfilled, including a USD 5000 disturbance allowance. The majority of the PAPs (77%) would have appreciated more support, including financial compensation and more time to prepare for the relocation.

#### **3.1 Geothermal energy production conflict effects**

Conflicts resulted in abandoned businesses at HGNP and reduced tourism activities. This impacted negatively on the livelihoods of members of the Cultural Center


**Table 3.** *Conflict management approaches.* village, who led in these activities. It was also noted that about half of PAPs lost their jobs through punitive measures taken for participating in protests against relocation, while those who resisted relocation lost friends. PAPs that were seen to associate themselves with the resistance group were threatened with legal sanctions and isolation by the developer.

#### **3.2 Geothermal energy production management of conflicts**

Traditionally, conflict can be explained as "a struggle over values and claims to scarce status, power and resources in which the aims of the opponents are to neutralize, injure or eliminate their rivals [38, 39]." Generally, conflicts exist wherever or whenever incompatible activities occur, including in developmental projects, and may result in win-lose character. Flagship projects, such as geothermal energy, which bring together diverse stakeholders, including the host community, the state, the project developers, and donors, among others, often attract conflicts following their varying interests. Conflict occurrences can also be heightened by the factors, such as different comprehension of the project plans, resource scarcity, and varying priorities of the stakeholders involved [40, 41].

Unresolved conflicts can have detrimental implications in a development project, including hurting the relationships, between the developer and the community with subsequent delays in project implementation, loss of the project's social license, increased cost of the project, its rejection, termination, and in worst-case scenario, loss of lives [21, 42–45].

This study documented the various strategies used to manage the conflicts associated with geothermal energy production in Olkaria, Naivasha Sub-county, Nakuru County, and Kenya. The main strategies employed were competition, avoidance, collaboration, compromise, and accommodation (**Table 3**). The different strategies were employed at different stages of the project implementation.

However, competition, avoidance, collaboration, and accommodation as conflict management strategies were deemed ineffective following the persistence of conflicts beyond relocation. The PAPs wrote to the World Bank and the European Investment Bank seeking their intervention, leading to mediation that was recommended by the project donors. This mediation process was fruitful, as indicated by 82% of the interviewees. The PAPs applauded the mediated negotiation of the twenty-seven thorny issues inter alia, the construction of five more houses for those who had been left out, and improved services at RAPland, most of which were agreeably addressed. This has since then led to an improved relationship between KenGen and the community.

## **4. Conclusion**

This chapter has attempted to position geothermal energy production in Kenya as a sustainable development practice. Indeed, Kenya has great potential for green energy based on its strategic geographical location. Kenya's physical environment provides a great opportunity for green energy, that is, solar and wind energy potential in vast northeastern arid lands, wind, tidal, and waves energy at the coast, and geothermal energy springs in the rift valley. Kenya heavily relies on fossil fuels for its production and transport systems. Most of the imported energy for Kenya comes from the Gulf states. However, with current global geopolitics, such as Brexit, the Russian-Ukraine war, and conflicts in areas, such as Yemen, the supply and prices for

## *Toward Sustainable Implementation of Geothermal Energy Projects – The Case of Olkaria IV… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.107227*

fossil fuels have become very unstable and unpredictable. Consequently, there is an alarming increase in prices of commodities that heavily rely on fossil fuels in their production and transportation lines. This has resulted in economic inflation and the situation has been exacerbated by the recent COVID-19 pandemic, which has slowed economic activities globally. The current situation is threatening to plunge Kenya into an economic crisis with threats of political instability occasioned by unrest by the masses who are not only unable to get employment opportunities but also to put food on their table thanks to high food prices. It should also be noted that the world is moving toward green energy as a way of combating climate change caused by the increase in greenhouse gases emitted into the atmosphere, hence leading to global warming. European countries are already setting targets for going green. Germany, for example, targets to have all cars on its roads electric by 2030. This global developmental shift to green energy is important for African countries, and Kenya in particular. Kenya is a leading geothermal energy producer in Africa and has great unharnessed potential. Kenya can position itself as an exporter of green energy (geothermal, wind and solar, etc.) to the rest of Africa if the right investment decisions are made now. This chapter argues that the right energy development decisions are those that conform to the three pillars of sustainable development, namely, the economy, ecology, and society. Whereas geothermal energy production is arguably one of the most economically and environmentally friendly, there is a need to be sensitive to the needs and aspirations of the communities within which the wells are developed to achieve social sustainability. One of the most sustainable environmental conflict management strategies is mediation as has been demonstrated by ref. [21, 34] in the case of conflict resolution between the government and Maasai communities in the Olkaria IV geothermal field.

## **Acknowledgements**

The authors wish to greatly thank Prof. R. G. Wahome and Dr. Thuita Thenya who were the co-authors for the case study used in this chapter. We also wish to thank anonymous reviewers and informants for any role played toward the case study.

## **Author details**

Lilian Namuma S. Kong'ani1 \* and Raphael M. Kweyu2

1 Department of Earth and Climate Sciences, University of Nairobi, Nairobi, Kenya

2 Department of Geography, Kenyatta University, Nairobi, Kenya

\*Address all correspondence to: lnamuma@uonbi.ac.ke

© 2022 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

## **References**

[1] ThinkGeoEnergy. Kenya Geothermal Energy Market Overview. Kenya: Think GeoEnergy; 2021

[2] Kombe EY, Muguthu J. Geothermal energy development in East Africa: Barriers and strategies. Journal of Energy Research and Reviews. 2019;**2**:1-6

[3] EPRA. Energy & Petroleum Statistics Report. Kenya: Energy & Petroleum Regulatory Authority; 2021

[4] EPRA. Energy & Petroleum Statistics Report. Kenya: Energy & Petroleum Regulatory Authority. 2020. Available from: https://www.epra.go.ke/wpcontent/uploads/2021/03/Energy-and-Petroleum-Statistics-Report-2020.pdf

[5] UNESCO. UNESCO Science Report: The Race Against Time for Smarter Development. 2021. UNESCO Publishing, Paris: The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. Available from: https:// unesdoc.unesco.org/in/documentViewer. xhtml?v=2.1.196&id=p::usmarcdef\_000 0377433&file=/in/rest/annotationSVC/ DownloadWatermarkedAttachment/ attach\_import\_07223302-8f4a-4e99- 9997-d370ea8d1818%3F\_%3D377433eng. pdf&locale=en&multi=true&ark=/ ark:/48223/pf0000377433/PDF/377433 eng.pdf#%5B%7B%22num%22%3A26 56%2C%22gen%22%3A0%7D%2C%7 B%22name%22%3A%22XYZ%22%7D %2C-1%2C842%2C0%5D

[6] The Energy Act. Nairobi: The Government Printer; 2019

[7] Ouedraogo NS. Opportunities, barriers and issues with renewable energy development in Africa: a comprehensible review. Current Sustainable/Renewable Energy. 2019;**6**:52-60

[8] Barasa K, Moses J. Geothermal electricity generation, challenges, opportunities and recommendations. International Journal of Advanced Science and Research. 2019;**5**:53-95

[9] Mangi PM. Geothermal exploration in Kenya - status report and updates. In: SDG Short Course III on Exploration and Development of Geothermal Resources, organized by UNU-GTP and KenGen. Lake Bogoria and Lake Naivasha, Kenya. 2018. Available from: https:// orkustofnun.is/gogn/unu-gtp-sc/UNU-GTP-SC-27-0701.pdf

[10] Wangari V. Direct Uses of Geothermal Resources in Menengai, Kenya. Nairobi, Kenya. 2020. Available from: https:// theargeo.org/C8/final/Direct%20 uses%20of%20Geothermal%20 Resources%20in%20Menengai.pdf

[11] Merem EC, Twumasi Y, Wesley J, et al. Analyzing geothermal energy use in the East African region: the case of Kenya. Energy Power. 2019;**9**:12-26

[12] Simiyu SM. Status of geothermal exploration in Kenya and future plans for its development. In: World Geothermal Congress. Bali, Indonesia. 2010. pp. 25-29

[13] Kunze C, Hertel M. Contested deep geothermal energy in Germany—the emergence of an environmental protest movement. Energy Research and Social Science. 2017;**27**:174-180

[14] Pan S-Y, Gao M, Shah KJ, et al. Establishment of enhanced geothermal energy utilization plans: barriers and strategies. Renewable Energy. 2019;**132**:19-32

[15] Limberger J, Boxem T, Pluymaekers M, et al. Geothermal energy in deep aquifers:

*Toward Sustainable Implementation of Geothermal Energy Projects – The Case of Olkaria IV… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.107227*

a global assessment of the resource base for direct heat utilization. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 2018;**82**:961-975

[16] Bolton RS, Hunt TM, King TR, et al. Dramatic incidents during drilling at Wairakei Geothermal Field, New Zealand. Geothermics. 2009;**38**:40-47

[17] Omenda P, Mangi P, Ofwona C, et al. Country Update Report for Kenya 2015-2019. 2021. Available from: https:// pangea.stanford.edu/ERE/db/WGC/ Abstract.php?PaperID=4876

[18] Ouma PA. Geothermal exploaration and development of the Olkaria geothermal field. 2009. Available from: https://orkustofnun.is/gogn/unu-gtp-sc/ UNU-GTP-SC-10-1102.pdf

[19] Renkens I. The impact of renewable energy projects on indigenous communities in Kenya. The cases of the Lake Turkana Wind Power project and the Olkaria Geothermal Power plants. No. 28, The International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs (IWGIA)

[20] Koissaba BRO. Geothermal energy and indigenous communities: the Olkaria projects in Kenya. Heinrich Böll Stiftung European Union. 2018. file:///C:/Users/ACER/Downloads/ geothermal-energy-and-indigenouscommunities-olkariaproject-kenya%20 (1).pdf

[21] Kong'ani LNS, Wahome RG, Thenya T. Variety and management of developmental conflicts: the case of the Olkaria IV geothermal energy project in Kenya. Conflict, Security and Development. 2021;**21**:781-804

[22] Johnson OW, Ogeya M. Risky business: Developing geothermal power in Kenya. Stockholm Environment Institute. 2018:8

[23] Morelli J. Environmental sustainability: a definition for environmental professionals. Journal of Environmental Sustainability. 2011;**1**:1-10

[24] Temper L, Demaria F, Scheidel A, et al. The global environmental justice atlas (EJAtlas): ecological distribution conflicts as forces for sustainability. Sustainability Science. 2018;**13**:573-584

[25] Schilling J, Locham R, Weinzierl T, et al. The nexus of oil, conflict, and climate change vulnerability of pastoral communities in northwest Kenya. Earth System Dynamics. 2015;**6**:703-717

[26] Schilling J, Weinzierl T, Lokwang AE, et al. For better or worse: Major developments affecting resource and conflict dynamics in northwest Kenya. Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsgeographie. 2016;**60**:57-71

[27] Schilling J, Locham R, Scheffran J. A local to global perspective on oil and wind exploitation, resource governance and conflict in Northern Kenya. Conflict, Security and Development. 2018;**18**:571-600

[28] Vasquez PI. Kenya at a crossroads: Hopes and fears concerning the development of oil and gas reserves. Poldev. 2013;**4**

[29] Johannes EM, Zulu LC, Kalipeni E. Oil discovery in Turkana County, Kenya: a source of conflict or development? African Geographical Review. 2015;**34**:142-164

[30] Neumann M. Extractive industries and the poor in Africa - a case study of coal mining in the Mui Basin, Kenya [thesis]. Radboud University Nijmegen; 2015. Available from: https://theses.ubn. ru.nl/bitstream/handle/123456789/3959/ Neumann%2C\_Martin\_1.pdf?sequence=1 [31] Omondi J, Karanja W, Wairimu & Co, et al. Public Participation in Africa's Mining Sector. 2020. Available from: https://www.extractiveshub.org/ servefile/getFile/id/7639

[32] Banktrack. Banktrack. Lamu coal power plant Kenya. 2020. Available from: https://www.banktrack.org/project/ lamu\_coal\_power\_project

[33] Boulle M. The hazy rise of coal in Kenya: the actors, interests, and discursive contradictions shaping Kenya's electricity future. Energy Research and Social Science. 2019;**56**:101205

[34] Kong'ani LNS, Wahome RG, Thenya T. Managing geothermal project implementation conflicts through mediation: a case of Olkaria IV Project, Nakuru county, Kenya. Journal of Sustainability, Environment and Peace. 2022;**5**:96-108

[35] Munyiri SK. Structural Mapping of Olkaria Domes Geothermal Field using Geochemical Soil Gas Surveys, Remote Sensing and GIS [thesis]. United Nations University; 2016. https://orkustofnun. is/gogn/unu-gtp-report/UNU-GTP-2016-05.pdf

[36] Schade J. Kenya 'Olkaria IV' Case Study Report: Human Rights Analysis of the Resettlement Process. 2017. p. 199

[37] Abad A. Conclusions Report. Complaint SG/E/2014/07 Complaint SG/E/2014/08 Olkaria I and IV Kenya, European Investment Bank - Complaints Mechanism. Available from: https://www. eib.org/attachments/complaints/sg-e-2014-07and-08-conclusions-report-en.pdf

[38] Lawal RO, Orunbon NO, Ibikunle GA, et al. Resolving conflict in African traditional society: An imperative of indigenous African system. Euro Afro Studies International Journal. 2019;**1**:38-55

[39] Otite O, Albert IO, editors. Community conflicts in Nigeria: management, resolution and transformation. Abuja: Spectrum Books; 1999

[40] Liu JY, Low SP. Work–family conflicts experienced by project managers in the Chinese construction industry. International Journal of Project Management. 2011;**29**:117-128

[41] Wu G, Zhao X, Zuo J, et al. Effects of contractual flexibility on conflict and project success in megaprojects. International Journal of Conflict Management. 2018;**29**:253-278

[42] Batel S, Devine-Wright P, Tangeland T. Social acceptance of low carbon energy and associated infrastructures: a critical discussion. Energy Policy. 2013;**58**:1-5

[43] Arthur J, Pia L, Solveig M. Local acceptance of wind energy: factors of success identified in French and German case studies. Energy Policy. 2007;**35**:2751-2760

[44] Karytsas S, Polyzou O, Mendrinos D, et al. Towards social acceptance of geothermal energy power plants. In: European Geothermal Congress. Den Haag, The Netherlands. 2019. p. 6

[45] Wei H-H, Liu M, Skibniewski MJ, et al. Conflict and consensus in stakeholder attitudes toward sustainable transport projects in China: an empirical investigation. Habitat International. 2016;**53**:473-484

## **Chapter 4**

## Environmental and Socio-Economic Impact of Deep Geothermal Energy, an Upper Rhine Graben Perspective

*Eléonore Dalmais, Guillaume Ravier, Vincent Maurer, David Fries, Albert Genter and Béatrice Pandélis*

## **Abstract**

The Upper Rhine Graben is a region renowned in Europe for the exploitation and development of geothermal energy with projects in France, Germany and Switzerland. In the last 20 years, numerous seismic events have been felt by local population triggering social concerns that have been addressed at different levels (state regulation, technical adaptation of projects and communication). Indeed, geothermal projects need a high level of acceptance by inhabitants in the surrounding area. In this regard, the local socio-economic impact is a crucial factor in social acceptance. Nevertheless, this energy resource has many advantages such as competitive heat prices and low environmental impacts, quantified by Life Cycle Analysis. This approach is also completed by continuous environmental monitoring. Moreover, additional valorization of geothermal water through its use for low temperature heating or recovery of mineral resources are ways of providing additional benefits to the local community. This chapter is dedicated to present the environmental and socio-economic impacts of two operational EGS projects (Soultz-sous-Forêts and Rittershoffen) located in Northern Alsace (France) producing geothermal electricity and heat in a rural area.

**Keywords:** enhanced geothermal system, induced seismicity, life cycle analysis

## **1. Introduction**

Geothermal development in the Upper Rhine Graben (URG) involves a geothermal doublet system consisting in a production well with a down-hole pump and an injection well which reinjects cold water into the geothermal reservoir. Thus, they consist of two deviated wells that crosscut a local permeable normal fault or fracture zone in which geothermal brines are circulating by thermal convection [1] (**Figure 1**). Typical production and injection temperatures in the URG range from 150–170°C to 60–80°C.

Over the last 20 years, several deep geothermal energy projects in Europe experimented with enhancing initially low reservoir permeability based on

#### **Figure 1.**

*Schematic of a generic deep geothermal project in the URG showing a doublet structure (production and reinjection wells) in a naturally permeable faulted reservoir.*

#### **Figure 2.**

*Map of deep geothermal projects in the upper Rhine graben, modified after [2]; project abbreviations: Cr.: Cronenbourg; Eck.: Eckbolsheim; GN: Graben-Neudorf; hurt.: Hurtigheim; Illk.: Illkirch; Ritt.: Rittershoffen; Ven.: Vendenheim; and Wiss.: Wissembourg.*

#### *Environmental and Socio-Economic Impact of Deep Geothermal Energy, an Upper Rhine… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.107395*

various stimulation techniques. Those projects known as Enhanced or Engineered Geothermal System (EGS) are mainly located in the Upper Rhine Graben in France (Soultz-sous-Forêts, Rittershoffen, Vendenheim, Illkirch), Germany (Landau, Insheim, Bruchsal) and Switzerland (Basel, Riehen) (see **Figure 2**). The Riehen project located in the Eastern part of the URG, is not considered as a EGS project but as a hydrothermal project [1].

This chapter presents the environmental and territorial impacts of these geothermal projects. It focuses on induced seismicity and how the operators and mining authorities have introduced operational limitations to mitigate the seismic risk. Additionally, it reviews the other risks to the local environment and their mitigation practices in comparison to the environmental benefits of energy resource. Furthermore, it highlights the economic impact of the development of geothermal energy and mineral extraction on the local area. This chapter is mostly illustrated with the French experience of EGS in the URG but also includes German and Swiss examples where relevant.

## **2. The upper Rhine graben, a transborder region where deep geothermal energy is commonly associated with seismic risk**

In the URG, natural water infiltrates and circulates through convection loops up to the interface between sediments and the basement due to a natural network of faults and fractures [3]. To obtain an economically viable flow rate in the production and injection wells, various techniques may be applied to enhance the well connection to the fractured reservoir, through thermal, chemical and/or hydraulic stimulation techniques which qualify them as EGS [4]. Induced microseismicity can occur in the vicinity of the well due to the reinjection of the water in the fractured reservoir: due to a hydromechanical mechanism [5], but also a thermal effect [6].

The examples listed below focused on deep geothermal energy and the associated induced seismicity which occurs during hydraulic stimulation phases on average after only a few days of technical operation. Geothermal sites in the exploitation phase that represent more than at least two decades of continuous operations are also presented below. The drilling phases and related potential nuisances are not considered here given that there are generally, no seismic events during drilling operations.

### **2.1 Impact of massive injection during hydraulic stimulation**

#### *2.1.1 Soultz-sous-Forêts site*

Even though the Soultz (Soultz-sous-Forêts) wells were stimulated hydraulically and chemically several times from the 1990s onwards [7] only a few examples of felt seismicity have occurred during hydraulic stimulations at Soultz in 2000 and 2003. The most striking episode corresponds to a massive hydraulic stimulation carried out in the Soultz fractured granite reservoir in 2003 at a depth of 5 km with a wellhead overpressure of around 170 bar, when an induced seismic event was felt with a magnitude MD of 2.9 (MD—Magnitude Duration) [8]. In that specific case, experts from the site owners and the local population's insurers were mobilized, but were unable to prove any concrete structural damage to housing. Therefore, no damage was actually caused by this event, but in the minds of local residents, acceptability became a real issue. Thus, the site's operators are continuing to develop this site whilst minimizing

hydraulic stimulation and explaining and communicating in-depth with local stakeholders such as politicians or associations.

#### *2.1.2 Basel geothermal site*

A deep geothermal well drilled at Basel in a fractured granite reservoir at 5 km depth in the southern part of the URG was hydraulically stimulated by massive injection with a well-head over pressure of 300 bar. This event caused structural damages and led to the permanent shutdown of this project [9]. The Basel project is considered as a counter reference for EGS development because an earthquake of magnitude ML > 3.4 (ML—Magnitude Local) was felt during a hydraulic stimulation in 2006 [10].

#### *2.1.3 Vendenheim geothermal site*

In the Strasbourg area, two deviated wells were drilled to a depth of about 5 km in a fractured granite reservoir in an urban area. A series of man-made earthquakes was felt between 2019 and 2021 in the Strasbourg area and on the German side induced by a complex sequence of hydraulic injection involving both high well-head overpressure and high cumulative massive volume [11]. The second largest event (ML 3.6), induced on 4 December 2020, led to the project being permanent shut down, but further events continued to be felt later, in 2021, with the largest one reaching a maximum magnitude of ML > 3.9 felt on the surface on 26 June 2021 [12]. As a result of the structural damage observed on many houses, the Prefect of Strasbourg decided to suspend all geothermal activity in this urban area.

### **2.2 Impact of geothermal exploitation on induced seismicity**

#### *2.2.1 Landau geothermal site*

The Landau geothermal plant is made up of two deviated wells drilled to a depth of about 3.5 km in fractured granite. Hydraulic and chemical stimulations were successfully conducted to improve permeability without any felt seismicity [13]. However, during geothermal exploitation, an induced event was felt on 15 August 2009 with MD = 2.7. Moreover, from 2013 to 2014, a technical incident occurred in the injection well inducing an uplift of several centimeters in the geothermal platform [14]. Thus, some damage potentially caused by the uplift was observed. The injection well was repaired and the geothermal exploitation restarted some years later.

#### *2.2.2 Rittershoffen, Soultz-sous-Forêts and Insheim sites*

Some other geothermal projects, such as Rittershoffen are considered as geothermal success story because no induced earthquakes were felt during their development phase (thermal, chemical or hydraulic stimulation) [4], or during geothermal exploitation [15]. The maximum local magnitude recorded during the on-site development phase on was 1.7 [15]. This plant has now been operating for 6 years and has a capacity of more than 24 MW of heat at highest flow rate in the URG (i.e. more than 80 L/s).

At Soultz, no induced seismic event have been felt after more than 6 years of exploitation [16]. The same observations are made for the Insheim geothermal power plant in Germany [17].

*Environmental and Socio-Economic Impact of Deep Geothermal Energy, an Upper Rhine… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.107395*

#### **2.3 Impact of felt seismic events on deep geothermal energy development**

#### *2.3.1 Differing risk perception towards new projects*

Following the shutting down of the Vendenheim project in 2020, the Illkirch project located in the southern part of Strasbourg was also suspended by the French mining authorities even though no induced event related to this site had been felt. Therefore, only one deviated well was drilled in fractured granite to a depth of 3.3 km, and this geothermal site is now on standby awaiting a decision from the mining authorities for it to go ahead. The Prefect of Strasbourg mandated a group of scientific experts to provide a better appreciation of the seismic behavior of the deep reservoir and to find out why such sequence of felt events took place. Nevertheless, it is clear that the series of seismic events at Vendenheim drastically affected the perception of geothermal energy by the local population in the Strasbourg's area.

Despite these seismic events, some projects have continued their development such as the Riehen geothermal heat plant. This plant extracts geothermal water at a depth of 1500 m in fractured Triassic limestones to deliver 20 L/s of water at 65°C. It has been providing thermal energy to 8500 residents since 1994. Despite its very close proximity to Basel, the two city centers being just a few kilometers apart, this plant has not been affected by the overall distrust shown towards geothermal energy. Indeed, in Autumn 2020, in a timeframe coinciding with seismic events in Strasbourg, a plan to expand this geothermal plant was put to a local referendum and accepted by the population. To enhance social acceptance, the Riehen and Basel local utility companies, developing this project, set up transparent communication mediated by an independent third party, the Risiko-Dialog foundation (https://www.risiko-dialog. ch/en/geothermie-im-dialog/, July 2022).

On the German side of the Upper Rhine Graben, projects developed after 2015 changed the drilling target from the deep fractured granite basement to the shallower fractured Triassic sediments (mostly sandstones) overlying the basement. This change in target was accompanied by a communication drive to highlight the lower seismic risk associated with such reservoirs. Currently, in 2022, these projects are still in development, and further observations will be necessary in the upcoming years to assess this strategy. On the French side, a similar approach has been developed since 2020 with projects targeting a relatively shallower depth (down to max. 3500 m) compared to that of Vendenheim or Basel (around 5000 m). Furthermore, the mining authorities are requesting more detailed seismic risk analyses as part of the process of examining applications for authorizations to drill geothermal wells.

These examples highlight the fact that, in spite of the various counter examples cited above, the public perception of the seismic risk associated with deep geothermal energy in the URG is dependent on many factors.

## *2.3.2 How local population could contribute as a stakeholder to geothermal development in Alsace?*

The first acceptability survey conducted in Alsace was carried out in 2012 among the local populations living close to the Soultz power plant, including the two villages of Soultz-sous-Forêts and Kutzenhausen [18]. This study, which involved the mayors of the two villages, demonstrated that the Soultz plant was well accepted by the local population even if there were some complaints about some technical nuisances such

as the noise generated by the geothermal plant or reservoir management drawbacks such as induced seismicity.

At that time, geothermal energy was perceived as a favorable technology by the local population, even if there were some people who were reticent. In conclusion, the risks related to geothermal exploitation were reasonably well accepted by residents in the surrounding area.

More recently, as part of the EU DESTRESS project, social scientists have conducted an acceptability study comparing the public perception of geothermal energy in a rural area like Northern Alsace, where geothermal energy is accepted, and in an urban area like Strasbourg, where geothermal projects have raised some issues [19]. It turned out that locally "anchored" projects implemented by companies with local roots are much better perceived by the public than "unbound" or "off-ground" projects managed by non-Alsatian companies with no cultural connections or history in those territories.

The most recent, ongoing study dealing with public perceptions of deep geothermal energy in Alsace is related to participatory science. This can be defined as forms of scientific knowledge production in which civil society actively participates. Such projects promote dialog between science and society. For instance, based on a scientific approach, scientists contribute to exchanges with citizens on growing concerns about induced seismicity related to deep geothermal energy in Alsace (https://anr.fr/Projet-ANR-21-CE05-0033). The University of Strasbourg has launched a new research project that involves an innovative way of testing a new collaborative geohazard monitoring paradigm in an urban context. The basic principle is to deploy a large number of cheap seismological sensors, working closely with mining authorities and citizens to get a dense seismological dataset. This research project was proposed by scientists after the seismic events which took place in Strasbourg in December 2020. It aims at evaluating the seismic risks induced by the geothermal operations and how they are perceived by the population. The results will be co-analyzed by scientists and non-seismological experts. Based on such a collaborative approach, we can measure public involvement and how induced seismicity related to industrial operations is perceived and represented in the URG.

On the French side of the URG, local populations are also invited to participate in public inquiries when geothermal projects are close to the operational stage. Organized by the local Prefecture, public consultations consist in making available technical documents that are in most cases difficult for citizens not familiar with science and technology to understand [20]. These consultations are seen as a way of measuring acceptability more than active participation by citizens. For instance, low participation by the public in such inquiries is interpreted as a high level of acceptance of the project (low level of protest). The main criticism voiced by inhabitants concerns the potential impacts of drilling operations on their environment, such as induced seismicity, groundwater pollution and radioactivity issues [20]. Moreover, the technology used to produce electricity (Organic Rankine Cycle) is also liable to raise some major concerns. The risk of explosion due to the presence of isobutane in the power plant was a major argument against one project in the Strasbourg area, where the site had pre-existing industrial risks (Seveso zone). A consensus between inhabitants, residents' associations and local politicians against this urban geothermal project led the operator to give up on this site.

## **3. A look-back at the evolution of seismic monitoring**

As mentioned in the previous section, it has been shown that stimulation operations (even moderate ones) and exploitation of the geothermal loop are likely to

### *Environmental and Socio-Economic Impact of Deep Geothermal Energy, an Upper Rhine… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.107395*

generate induced micro-seismic activity, temporarily or continuously [15, 21], which can occasionally be felt by local population [22, 23]. In extreme cases, the occurrence of induced seismicity may lead geothermal operations to be shut down, as was the case of the geothermal project in Basel [24] or Vendenheim [11]. As a result, it became common in deep geothermal energy projects, which target naturally fractured reservoirs, to monitor geothermal activities with high-sensitivity through seismological networks. Initially, on the European EGS pilot site at Soultz-sous-Forêts, the seismic monitoring was dedicated to understand the fracture network activated by hydraulic stimulation, and in order to get an image of the reservoir development. More recently, the objective of the seismic monitoring then switched to the necessity to minimize the seismic risk [25].

These networks are generally designed to accurately assess the state of the natural seismicity before any operation, but also to detect any emergence of induced microseismic activity attributable to the geothermal operations.

Until 2015, there was no regulatory framework in France to supervise the environmental monitoring of geothermal plants. The deployment of such monitoring networks was left up to the operators. The experience acquired at the Soultzsous-Forêts and Rittershoffen geothermal plants, together with the growing number of operators involved in deep geothermal energy, highlighted the need to monitor these systems. For this purpose, the French mining authorities established clear rules to regulate the construction, development and exploitation of geothermal plants. The same happened in Germany, where the mining authorities of regions (e.g., the Palatinate) developed their own regulatory framework. In Switzerland, the canton recommends good practices but does not impose a clear regulatory framework.

**Table 1** gives a comparison of the different regulation on seismic monitoring in France, Germany and Switzerland.

Along with this clarification of the regulations, the operators have developed their workflows to clarify the decision-making process in event of defined thresholds being exceeded (see **Figure 3**). Up to now, by following this procedure French operator Électricité de Strasbourg has managed to keep the seismic risk under control since no induced seismicity has been felt by local population around the exploitation of Soultz and Rittershoffen geothermal plants since 2016 or during the drilling of GIL-1 well in Illkirch [16].

In the future, it can be expected that new ways of managing seismic risk on site will appear, with the use of predictive tools to anticipate the occurrence of events that could be felt by the population [26].



#### **Table 1.**

*Comparison of the regulation on seismic monitoring in France, Germany and Switzerland (regulations in force in 2021).*

*Environmental and Socio-Economic Impact of Deep Geothermal Energy, an Upper Rhine… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.107395*

#### **Figure 3.**

*Decisional chart designed by Électricité de Strasbourg in case of occurrence of induced micro-seismic activity, based on French mining authority regulation.*

## **4. Environmentally friendly energy source**

#### **4.1 Environmental impacts**

Apart from induced seismicity, which is presented in the previous section of this chapter, geothermal energy can induce other disturbances in the environment and for residents. Five kinds of impacts are identified, minimized when possible and monitored [27]. They correspond to slow surface deformations, shallow groundwater protection, contamination of soils by geothermal brine leakages, precipitation of radioactive scales in surface infrastructures, and noise from the geothermal plant. Their main impacts and mitigation schemes are presented below:

Slow surface deformations (subsidence, uplift) has been identified as a potential major impact of the plants on their surrounding areas since it was reported for the Landau power plant in the German part of the URG [14]. To identify such slow vertical ground motion before it reaches significant deformation, a telemetered GNSS (Global Navigation Satellite System) receiver is installed on each geothermal plant platform. Additionally, one corner reflector is installed to measure surface deformations through satellite radar interferometry (InSAR technique). Results of the GNSS monitoring is reported on a monthly basis to the mining authorities. To date (July 2022), no significant ground motion has been observed at the different geothermal sites in the French part of the URG.

The protection of shallow groundwater resources is a major concern in areas where the Rhine aquifer is present. This regional aquifer represents 35,000 millions of cubic meters, making it one of the biggest freshwater resources in Europe. It is extremely important for the region's economic development and its drinking water supply. However, this groundwater resource is very vulnerable. More than a third of its surface is already undrinkable without treatment, due to various human activities (https://www.ermes-rhin.eu/FR/documents-et-publications/copy-of-acc%C3%A8slibre.html). Since 2014 new projects have been in development in the Strasbourg area (Illkirch, Vendenheim), where this aquifer can reach a thickness of 150 m. For these projects, the design of the geothermal wells involves isolating the geothermal water from the aquifer by three cemented casings. Over the lifetime of a plant, the casings should be inspected on a 3-year basis for the injection well and 6-year basis for a production well. All these inspections must be reported to the mining authorities. In addition to these mechanical barriers, a piezometric monitoring network has been deployed. The monitoring starts 3 months prior to the drilling and continues after the drilling and well testing phases. For instance, during all the geothermal activities at the Illkirch site, physico-chemical parameters such as pH, Eh (redox potential), conductivity, temperature and water level were continuously monitored and were available remotely in real time, to quickly detect any possible leakage. The Rhine water was sampled before and during the drilling to perform detailed chemical analyses and monitor possible contamination due to the geothermal activities. In Illkirch, an important result was that the Rhine aquifer water remained drinkable and unpolluted during all of the geothermal activities [16].

The leakage from the geothermal loop, mostly scale formed in the plant's piping and geothermal water could lead to the contamination of soil or surface water in the vicinity of the geothermal plant. Indeed, geothermal water is highly saline (over 3 times more than seawater [28]) and the scales are currently mostly made of galena (PbS) which contains heavy metal and radionuclides [29]. This risk is managed at different levels. A fundamental parameter to assess, to prevent leakage, is corrosion in the geothermal loop. Corrosion is a major issue that must be taken into account in plant design. To prevent corrosion issues, the most strategic parts of the geothermal loop (heat exchanger, filters, some valves and pumps) are made of a specific grade of steel which shows high resistance to corrosion from the URG geothermal water [30]. Less critical parts are usually made of carbon steel including an over thickness to ensure their longevity. During the operation, corrosion inhibitors are used and corrosion monitoring is performed through either coupon testing or corrosion probe. Additionally, several parts of the geothermal loop are inspected on a regular basis to check the current corrosion situation and anticipate part replacement if needed. In the design of the plant, a specific water management system is set up to keep the different types of water (geothermal water, wastewater and rainwater) apart and prevent the geothermal water contaminating the environment. The rainwater at the power plant is collected in a tank by gravity and treated with a sand filter together with a scrubber and an oil separator. Before releasing the rainwater into the environment, an operator checks its conductivity. If this measurement indicates

### *Environmental and Socio-Economic Impact of Deep Geothermal Energy, an Upper Rhine… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.107395*

contamination of the rainwater by the geothermal water, it is pumped to the geothermal storage pool and then reinjected into the geothermal reservoir.

As mentioned above, scale formed from the geothermal water can contain radionuclides [31], mostly 226Ra and 210Pb and their respective daughter elements. Therefore, it is important to keep the dose rate as low as reasonably acceptable for both, the workers and the public. Periodic radioactivity and dose rate measurements are performed on site to evaluate the risk within the installation, identifying zones with restricted access (where the public is not allowed) and where wearing a dosimeter is mandatory. In addition to these monitoring, an important research and development effort has been made since 2009 to reduce mineral precipitation in the power plant. This project led to the elimination of barite which was the radium bearing mineral [32, 33]. Whereas 226Ra has a long half-life and generates important gamma-ray emissions that can propagate trough the pipes, 210Pb is a short half-life radionuclide (less than 30 years) emitting mostly alpha and beta rays that cannot propagate through the pipes. Thus, the main remaining risk is currently inhalation and ingestion. Since 2020, an annual dust and radon measurement campaign has been performed to assess this risk for workers and in the area around the plants. These measurements are not significantly higher than the reference points outside of the plant [34].

Noise near the geothermal plant has also an impact on local residents. Indeed, in 2012 when an acceptability survey of the Soultz power plant was performed, collecting the perceptions of the inhabitants of Soultz-sous-Forêts and Kutzenhausen, the most cited impact was noise from the plant [18]. However, at that time, the air cooling system had a defect, which was temporarily generating an abnormal level of noise, but this was quickly corrected.

In France, geothermal plants must meet maximum noise emission levels at the boundary of the facility, i.e. noise must not exceed 70 dB(A) during the day and 60 dB(A) at night, except if the ambient noise is above these limits. Additionally, it should not increase the ambient noise in surrounding regulated noise area—such as a residential area—more than the values presented in **Table 2**.

During the plant design phase, a noise impact study is performed for the selection of low-noise emission equipment, such as the air condenser, but also for proper positioning of the equipment on the power plant platform. It can provide recommendations for sound insulation (for instance, anti-noise wall around the plant) to respect the noise regulations.

#### **4.2 Life cycle assessments**

As a complement to the site-specific analysis of environmental impacts and their respective mitigation schemes, on a general level, the environmental impacts of


**Table 2.**

*Acceptable sound emergence values in the regulated areas of the geothermal projects in northern Alsace.*

geothermal energy can be assessed using the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) methodology. LCA is a widely accepted and standardized methodology which translates the resources, materials and energy flows necessary for the entire life cycle of a system into a series of potential environmental impacts [35, 36]. To make sure that geothermal energy does not involve additional environmental impacts, LCA can provide very valuable information to ease decision-making processes and make comparisons with other energy sources, even if some potentially relevant environmental impacts are still missing from current LCA methodology, such as noise or seismicity.

The first LCA of a geothermal plant in the URG was published Lacirignola et al. in 2013 [37]. This comprehensive study presents the environmental performances per kWh of electricity of the Soultz geothermal plant considering different design options. Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions contributing to global warming were estimated at about 36.7 gCO2eq/kW. The GHG emissions from power generation of the Soultz geothermal plant appeared to be lower than the average GHG emissions of the French electricity mix, which are about 58 gCO2eq/kW or German electricity, 349 gCO2eq/ kW (https://www.statista.com/statistics/1291750/carbon-intensity-power-sector-eucountry/). This LCA was then used to propose a simplified model for the estimation of greenhouse gases emitted by an enhanced geothermal system for power generation [38].

The GHG emissions of the Rittershoffen geothermal heat plant were first assessed by [39]. This preliminary work was then completed in line with the methodological guidelines developed as part of this European H2020 GEOENVI research project

#### **Figure 4.**

*Comparison between the production of 1 kWh of heat from natural gas and from the Rittershoffen geothermal plant for different impact categories: Acidification (ACI), climate change (CC), freshwater ecotoxicity (Eto), marine eutrophication (Eum), freshwater eutrophication (Euf), terrestrial eutrophication (Eut), human toxicity-cancer (HTC), human toxicity-non-cancer (HTN), ionizing radiation-human health (IR), land use (Lnd), ozone depletion (ODP), particulate matter (PM), photochemical ozone formation-human health (POz), resource use-fossils (REn), resource use-minerals and metals (RMi), and water use (wat). From ref. [41].*

*Environmental and Socio-Economic Impact of Deep Geothermal Energy, an Upper Rhine… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.107395*

which provided recommendations to harmonize methodological choices in each of the four steps of LCA [40]. Environmental performances per kWh of heat of the Rittershoffen geothermal plant were published by [41] and compared to at the production of 1kWh of heat with natural gas. Results of this study are presented in **Figure 4**. A parameterized model for enhanced geothermal system for heat production was established based on the Rittershoffen geothermal plant LCA to assess seven environmental criteria [42].

According to **Figure 4**, the potential impacts of the Rittershoffen geothermal heat plant are similar to or lower than those of natural gas in most impact categories. In particular, the potential impact on Climate change is estimated at 3.7 gCO2eq/kWh for the Rittershoffen geothermal heat plant. This impact is 67 times lower than that of heat from natural gas. The only exception is the Human Health—Ionizing radiation impact category, for which the environmental impact is higher for the Rittershoffen geothermal plant. This impact is indirect, due to the electricity consumption during operation of the geothermal heat plant provided by the French electricity mix, which is 75% nuclear. A mix with a higher share of renewable energy, or a heat plant with on-site self-power generation, would automatically reduce the impact in this category.

The Soultz and Rittershoffen LCAs confirm that geothermal energy generated under URG conditions has very low environmental impacts. This energy appears to be a promising renewable energy source for the decarbonization of power generation, district heating and heat used in industrial processes in Europe.

## **5. Contribution of geothermal energy to local sustainable development**

#### **5.1 Impact on the local economy**

The impact of deep geothermal energy on the local economy is unfortunately not well documented. This impact can be assessed using Life Cycle Cost Analysis (LCCA). LLCA is a tool mainly used to determine the most cost-effective option for an object or process among different alternatives and over its entire lifetime. LLCA also provides information about the origin of purchase, supplier typology or the creation of added value. That information can be used to assess the impact on the local economy.

**Figure 5.**

*Life cycle costs of the Rittershoffen geothermal plant.*

Perez et al. published a first study assessing the environmental and economic impact of the Rittershoffen geothermal plant [43]. An LLCA was performed for the entire project lifetime. The life cycle costs of the Rittershoffen geothermal plant (**Figure 5**) were detailed for different levels (local, i.e., Department of Bas-Rhin, national, i.e., France, and international) and for 4 project stages: (1) Exploration and drilling, (2) Geothermal plant construction, (3) Geothermal plant operation, and (4) End of life.

This first study clearly confirmed the benefits of the deep geothermal project in the URG for the local economy. Indeed, about 45% of expenditure over the lifetime of the project benefits the local economy and about 87% the national economy. The construction, operation and end-of-life phases have stronger relative impacts on the local economy: respectively 48, 60, and 57% of the total costs compared to exploration and drilling, which only contributes 19% of the total costs. Indeed, drilling and service companies are mostly part of the upstream oil and gas industry, which is located outside the department of Bas-Rhin or even outside France.

#### **5.2 Impact on local employment**

Impacts on the local economy can also be evaluated according to the impact on local employment. The study in [43] also assessed this aspect, based on the Rittershoffen geothermal plant LCCA. In this study, direct employment was defined as workers who are employed by companies involved in the different stages of the life cycle of the Rittershoffen project and indirect employment as job creation in the local economy due to demand created by the project and its direct employees. Indirect employment is unfortunately very difficult to assess, and as a result this study focused on direct employment within the boundaries of France. The unit used in this employment assessment study is full-time equivalents (= 1607 h/year) (FTEs).

Input data used for this study were the plant owner's accounting and other data on its suppliers such as legal structure, location, business identification, activity sector and economic data (turnover, added value and average number of permanent staff). These data were enriched with national economic statistics extracted from data produced by INSEE (National Institute of Statistics and Economic Studies), which collects, analyses and disseminates information on the French economy and society. Associating costs with the location of the companies involved in the life cycle costs of the Rittershoffen geothermal plant has made it possible to identify where the direct jobs are located: either at local level in the French Department of Bas-Rhin or at national level (**Figure 6**).

Exploration, drilling and plant construction, from early 2012 to mid-2016, occupied about 124 FTEs. Annually, maintenance and operation of the geothermal plant has involved about 4 local FTEs and 1 in the rest of France, which amounts to about FTEs over 25 years of operation. End-of-life jobs are estimated at about 12 FTEs over a period of 4 to 6 months for well cementing and plant dismantling.

This study shows that the geographical distribution of the direct employment within France during the life cycle is like that of the life cycle costs. Direct employment is more important at local level than at national level during the operation and construction phases. Conversely, direct employment is stronger at national level during the exploration and drilling phases. It is the local economy that has mainly benefited from direct employment resulting from the Rittershoffen project, with 63% over the entire lifetime of the project and 82% during the 25 years of operation.

Further investigations are nevertheless required to assess the impact on local indirect employment.

*Environmental and Socio-Economic Impact of Deep Geothermal Energy, an Upper Rhine… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.107395*

**Figure 6.** *Direct employment in France during the life-cycle of the geothermal plant at Rittershoffen.*

## **5.3 Impact on local attractivity**

Geothermal energy is a local, non-intermittent, renewable and decarbonized energy source. In the context of global warming, the taxonomy and the high variability of natural gas, this energy source is an opportunity for the economic attractivity of a region, especially in terms of heat production. Indeed, according to a study published by ADEME, the French agency for the ecological transition, in 2020, deep geothermal and waste heat are the most economical energy sources for industry and the residential sector [44]. The cost of heat from deep geothermal energy was in a range of €15 to 55/MWh, while the cost of heat from natural gas was €51–85/MWh [44] before the Ukrainian crisis and the rise of the natural gas price. Deep geothermal energy can really boost the economic development of a territory by attracting energy consumers or reducing the carbon footprint of existing facility.

Since 2019, over 60% of the heating needs of Bruchsal police headquarters have been supplied by the nearby geothermal power plant. The reduction in GHG emissions has reached 700 ton/year. Thus, the Bruchsal geothermal power plant demonstrates that in the URG geothermal energy can supply a climate-friendly alternative to fossil fuel heating locally, safely and reliably.

## **6. Towards additional valorization to increase local benefits**

#### **6.1 Geothermal power production and use of the residual heat in the URG**

The deep geothermal power plants in the URG produce saline water at temperatures above 150°C by pumping up fluid from deep geothermal reservoirs. The hot fluid produced is used to generate electricity by means of an Organic Rankine Cycle (ORC) or to supply heat to industrial users, following which the brine is reinjected back into the fractured granite reservoir at around 70°C. Reinjection at a lower temperature was deemed non-feasible due to the build-up of scale in the heat exchanger below 60°C. However, recent studies carried out as part of the European MEET project suggest that no new scaling was found at lower temperatures at Soultz [29, 45, 46] and that operators could reinject at 40°C, valorizing 20–45% of residual thermal energy.

Thus, a generic research study has been conducted to identify low-temperature industrial processes that could use the residual heat produced from ORC-based power plants in this region [47]. As the ORC cooling system is usually using ambient air, an energy analysis was carried out for the Soultz-sous-Forêts power plant to establish a relationship for the residual thermal power with the outside air temperature. Based on that relationship, a residual thermal energy profile was produced for a theoretical ORC power plant with a brine production rate of 200 m3 /h. This resulted in a thermal power of 6–8 MW depending on the time of year.

Therefore, there are various low-temperature industrial applications that could harness this residual heat to reduce the reinjection temperature and increase economic and energy efficiency.

Based on the residual thermal power available and a maximum temperature constraint of 70°C, extensive market research has been conducted to identify the industrial processes that might use low-temperature heat [47]. Several aspects were taken into consideration such as the application's current availability, projected development, availability of companies, environmental constraints, distribution of industrial units and local actors. The operators of the activities and applications identified were consulted to identify the most promising processes for residual heat valorization, and an implantation study and economic assessment were carried out in order to determine the levelized cost of geothermal heating (LCOH). The main applications are drying processes (sludge from wastewater treatment, brewery waste recovery, wood sector), aquaculture (fish farming, spirulina production, aquaponics), agriculture, insect protein production, biogas production and district heating. The various applications considered in the market study are outlined in **Figure 7**. The applications painted in red were explored further to determine their feasibility in the techno-economic evaluation [47]. The results of the techno-economic study provided key insight for geothermal companies with regard to the applications that can be used to valorize residual heat and the production capacity required for economic feasibility.

**Figure 7.**

*Temperature ranges for various industrial applications.*

*Environmental and Socio-Economic Impact of Deep Geothermal Energy, an Upper Rhine… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.107395*

In conclusion, geothermal energy can significantly improve the sustainability of the food sector by providing heat to new innovative technologies such as insect protein production and farming methods such as aquaponics, greenhouses, fish farming and spirulina production. Geothermal power plants can really increase local benefits by supplying the residual heat at low to marginal cost, creating an economic ecosystem in the surrounding area and indirect jobs.

## **6.2 Geothermal power production, critical raw materials, and lithium extraction in the URG**

Harvesting geothermal power (heat and electricity) from subsurface reservoirs is a process that can be used as a renewable energy source by the local population and industries, thanks to the geothermal power plants. However, profits associated with a geothermal power can be hard to maintain (heat and electricity sales), and strategies must be developed to ensure profitable growth. To improve the economics of geothermal power plants, numerous investigations have been carried out to find ways of coupling the production of geothermal energy with the extraction of minerals and metals dissolved in the fluid [48, 49]. Numerous chemical elements in these dissolved solids accumulated in the solution due to weathering of the rocks are a potential source of valuable metals and minerals: critical raw materials (CRMs). CRMs are defined as raw materials which are economically and strategically important for the world economy, but which have a high risk associated with their supply [50]. They are essential to the functioning of a wide range of industrial and public activities (consumer electronics, health, steelmaking, space exploration, etc.). It is well known that such CRMs are contained in geothermal water, and recovery methods are developed where the process is considered to be economically profitable now or in the future [49]. Silica, zinc, lithium, manganese, potassium and a number of rare earth elements are among the most studied elements due to their high concentrations in geothermal fluids [51, 52]. Although CRMs concentrations in the geothermal fluids are lower than what is measured in mineral ores (e.g., ppm in brines vs. % in ores for lithium [53, 54] the costs associated with CRMs extraction are potentially low for the following reasons set out by [49]:

The associated costs will be divided between power and mineral production. Mineral extraction would be developed at geothermal power plants that already exist where the technical staff on site already have a good knowledge of the surface installations.

There are no costs associated with the beneficiation of the minerals/metals, which normally include disaggregation, physical separation (gravity and magnetic separation), and chemical separation (leaching, froth flotation).

In spite of a lower concentration than in ores, the geothermal process involves large quantities of water (e.g., around 300 m3 /h produced at Rittershoffen power plant) and therefore a high quantity of CRMs could be extracted.

Concentrations of these metals in the fluid depend on several parameters that affect the chemical composition of the water during its underground circulation: 1. Chemical composition and properties of the rocks (e.g., mineral content and porosity); 2. Initial composition of the fluid (e.g., rainwater, pH); 3. Duration of interaction with the rocks; 4. Temperature and pressure during fluid/rock interaction; 5. Fluid/ rock ratio in terms of volume. 6. Possible anthropogenic influence. Geothermal fluid compositions are therefore dependent on their location in the world (e.g. subsurface geology), and metal recovery technologies must be developed to adapt to the different properties of the fluids. In the URG, these fluids have high concentrations of dissolved solids (~100 g/L), mostly Cl, Ca, and Na [28, 34, 55] due to the water movement through the different in-situ geological units (sedimentary and granitic rocks).

In the URG, it is possible to identify several CRMs with interesting concentrations that can be profitable in the future [34]. **Table 3** summarizes the valuable CRMs found in Rittershoffen and Soultz-sous-Forêts geothermal fluids.

Possible annual income from CRM extraction is closely linked to the quantities of lithium in the geothermal fluids (about ~88% of the total income at


#### **Table 3.**

*Possible income associated with the extraction of CRMs at Rittershoffen and Soultz-sous-Forêts (heat and electricity sales not included). The flow rate at Rittershoffen is 75 L/s and 35 L/s at Soultz-sous-Forêts. For the calculation, a mineral extraction of 80% was assumed, and a plant availability of 90%.*

#### *Environmental and Socio-Economic Impact of Deep Geothermal Energy, an Upper Rhine… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.107395*

Soultz-sous-Forêts and Rittershoffen, **Table 3**). Lithium is a strategic metal, especially for electric vehicle battery manufacturing, for which worldwide demand is constantly increasing. Analysts forecast lithium demand approaching 1 Mt. LCE (Lithium Carbonate Equivalent, Li2CO3) by 2026 [53, 56]. Although lithium is found ubiquitously in the environment, the URG geothermal waters are rich in lithium with an average concentration measured between 150 and 210 mg/L [28, 34, 55]. This significant Li concentration (~1000 times more concentrated than in sea water) is therefore of great interest for future exploitation. For instance, one doublet at Rittershoffen (one production and one injection well) could produce more than 1500 tons of LCE per year assuming a plant availability of 90% and a mineral extraction yield of 80%. Given that current worldwide lithium production is concentrated in Australia, Chile, Argentina and China, the production of lithium at geothermal power plants should help the European Union (EU) to reduce its dependency on other countries and to produce more sustainable lithium [53]. Additionally, the operation of a power plant with two doublets producing ~3000 tons of LCE, would create new jobs. In total 72 employees would need to be hired for the effective operation of the lithium production plant including maintenance and lab teams, an operations team, managers and additional staff to cover for holidays and absence.

As part of the EuGeLi (European Geothermal Lithium Brine) project, a collaborative research and innovation project launched in January 2019, direct lithium extraction (DLE) tests were conducted with real brine in geothermal exploitation conditions (80°C and 20 bar) on site. The work managed to recover several kilograms of precipitated battery-grade Li2CO3, showing the feasibility of directly extracting Li from geothermal fluids. However, several parameters need to be adjusted to improve and increase the productivity of the DLE process and the overall recovery level. Adjustment of the flow rate in the column, comprehension of the chemical reaction occurring between the brine and the active solid over the long term and management of higher impurities in lithium solutions are among the main parameters to consider in the future to improve the profitability of the project [57]. Given the novelty of the lithium extraction process and the lack of long-term, large-scale operational experience, numerous factors could influence the long-term profitability of DLE such as: a decline over time of the lithium concentration in the production fluids due to poor re-saturation of lithium in the brine after extraction; a drop in lithium prices due to technological shifts or alternative technologies affecting demand for lithium; poor acceptability resulting in less public support through subsidies or permit approvals [58].

Although DLE is a young technology, it should significantly reduce carbon emissions compared to other methods of producing and refining lithium (hard rock mining and evaporation ponds). According to Vulcan Energy and the project Zero Carbon LithiumTM, one ton of LiOH (lithium hydroxide) produced by hard rock mining emits 15,000 kg of CO2 compared to zero for harvesting geothermal lithium (https://v-er.eu/zero-carbon-lithium/, July 2022).

## **7. Conclusion**

Despite drawbacks due to several felt induced seismic events, deep geothermal energy is still being developed in the Upper Rhine Graben and has a promising future. The operators and the mining authorities have introduced best practices and appropriate rules to mitigate the seismic risk and to minimize other environmental impacts such as slow surface deformation, shallow groundwater protection, contamination

of soils by geothermal brine leakages, radioactivity and noise. Life Cycle Assessments highlight the overall low environmental impact of this source of energy. In particular, the potential impact on climate change is estimated at 3.7 gCO2eq/kWh for the Rittershoffen geothermal heat plant. This impact is 67 times lower than that of heat from natural gas. In terms of socio-economic impact, a Life Cycle Costs Analysis performed on the Rittershoffen plant showed how this industry is well anchored in its territory with around 60% of its costs benefiting local actors during the operating phase. Nevertheless, deep geothermal energy in the URG is still in the early stages of its development and additional valorization such low temperature heating and/ or metal extraction from the geothermal water could help the deployment of this industry on a larger scale. This would increase the attractivity of the region by providing heat for agro-industries at reasonable prices and lithium which could be a starting point to develop a new industrial sector in the area.

## **Acknowledgements**

The authors would like to thank several projects whose results have been used in this chapter. The European DESTRESS, GeoEnvi and MEET European projects are mostly funded by the European Commission's Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Program under grant agreements No 691728, No 818242, and No 792037 respectively. Some results were partly funded by ADEME (the French Agency for Ecological Transition) as part of the Eranet Geothermica Zodrex project and the EGS Alsace project co-funded by Electricité de Strasbourg. The authors acknowledge the GEIE EMC and ECOGI for providing the data. The authors also acknowledge the EuGeLi project (European Geothermal Lithium brines), co-funded by the European Union, under the European Institute of Technology (EIT) Raw Materials Program.

## **Conflict of interest**

The authors acknowledge that they are employed by ES-Geothermie which is a developer and operator of deep geothermal plants in France.

*Environmental and Socio-Economic Impact of Deep Geothermal Energy, an Upper Rhine… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.107395*

## **Author details**

Eléonore Dalmais1 \*, Guillaume Ravier1 , Vincent Maurer1 , David Fries1 , Albert Genter1 and Béatrice Pandélis1,2

1 ES-Géothermie, Strasbourg, France

2 Electricité de Strasbourg, Strasbourg, France

\*Address all correspondence to: eleonore.dalmais@es.fr

© 2022 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

## **References**

[1] Vidal J, Genter A. Overview of naturally permeable fractured reservoirs in the central and southern upper Rhine graben: Insights from geothermal wells. Geothermics. 2018;**74**:57-73

[2] Dalmais E, Genter A, Reinecker J, Pandélis B. La géothermie profonde dans le Fossé rhénan supérieur, des années 80 à aujourd'hui. Géologues Géosciences et Société. 2021;**210**:83-91

[3] Vidal J, Genter A, Schmittbuhl J. How do permeable fractures in the Triassic sediments of northern Alsace characterize the top of hydrothermal convective cells? Evidence from Soultz geothermal boreholes (France). Geothermal Energy. 2015;**3**(1):1-28

[4] Baujard C, Genter A, Dalmais E, Maurer V, Hehn R, Rosillette R, et al. Hydrothermal characterization of wells GRT-1 and GRT-2 in Rittershoffen, France: Implications on the understanding of natural flow systems in the Rhine graben. Geothermics. 2017;**65**:255-268

[5] Evans KF, Moriya H, Niitsuma H, Jones RH, Phillips WS, Genter A, et al. Microseismicity and permeability enhancement of hydrogeologic structures during massive fluid injections into granite at 3 km depth at the Soultz HDR site: Induced seismicity and flow in deep granite. Geophysical Journal International. 2004;**160**(1):389-412

[6] Dempsey D, Kelkar S, Davatzes N, Hickman S, Moos D, Zemach E. Evaluating the roles of thermoelastic and poroelastic stress changes in the desert peak EGS stimulation. In: Proceedings, Thirty-Ninth Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering. Stanford, California: Stanford University; 2014. p. 15

[7] Schill E, Genter A, Cuenot N, Kohl T. Hydraulic performance history at the Soultz EGS reservoirs from stimulation and long-term circulation tests. Geothermics. 2017;**70**:110-124

[8] Charléty J, Cuenot N, Dorbath C, Dorbath L. Tomographic study of the seismic velocity at the Soultz-sous-Forêts EGS/HDR site. Geothermics. 2006;**35**(5-6):532-543

[9] Trutnevyte E, Azevedo IL. Induced seismicity hazard and risk by enhanced geothermal systems: An expert elicitation approach. Environmental Research Letters. 2018;**13**(3):1-9

[10] Häring MO, Schanz U, Ladner F, Dyer BC. Characterisation of the Basel 1 enhanced geothermal system. Geothermics. 2008;**37**(5):469-495

[11] Schmittbuhl J, Lambotte S, Lengliné O, Grunberg M, Jund H, Vergne J, et al. Induced and triggered seismicity below the city of Strasbourg, France from November 2019 to January 2021. Comptes Rendus. Géoscience. 2021;**353**(S1):561-584

[12] Terrier M, De Santis F, Soliva R, Valley B, Bruel D, Geraud Y, et al. Rapport Phase 1 du comité d'experts créé en appui à l'administration sur la boucle géothermique GEOVEN. Open File Report, Préfecture du Bas-Rhin. 2022. Available from: https://www. bas-rhin.gouv.fr/Politiques-publiques/ Environnement/Geothermie/ Rapport-du-comite-d-experts-cree-enappui-a-l-administration-sur-la-bouclegeothermique-GEOVEN

[13] Schindler M, Baumgärtner J, Gandy T, Hauffe P, Hettkamp T, Menzel H, et al. Successful hydraulic stimulation techniques for electric

*Environmental and Socio-Economic Impact of Deep Geothermal Energy, an Upper Rhine… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.107395*

power production in the upper Rhine graben, Central Europe. In: Proceedings World Geothermal Congress 2010. Bali, Indonesia: International Geothermal Association; 2010. p. 7

[14] Heimlich C, Gourmelen N, Masson F, Schmittbuhl J, Kim S-W, Azzola J. Uplift around the geothermal power plant of Landau (Germany) as observed by InSAR monitoring. Geothermal Energy. 2015;**3**(1):2

[15] Maurer V, Gaucher E Grunberg M, Koepke R, Pestourie R, Cuenot N. Seismicity induced during the development of the Rittershoffen geothermal field, France. Geothermal Energy. 2020;**8**(1):5

[16] Baujard C, Maurer V, Dalmais E, Ravier G, Glaas C, Genter A. Low induced seismicity in fractured geothermal reservoirs: Experience and lessons learned from Rittershoffen and Soultz-sous-Forêts plants operation and Illkirch reservoir development. In: Proceedings of European Geothermal Congress 2022. Berlin, Germany: European Geothermal Energy Council; 2022. p. 10

[17] Küperkoch L, Olbert K, Meier T. Long-term monitoring of induced seismicity at the Insheim geothermal site, Germany. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America. 2018;**108**(6):3668-3683

[18] Lagache L, Genter A, Baumgaertner J, Cuenot N, Koelbel T, Texier P, et al. How is evaluated acceptability of an EGS project in Europe: The Soultz-Kutzenhausen geothermal project? In: Proceedings European Geothermal Congress. Pisa, Italy; 2013. pp. 1-4

[19] Chavot P, Heimlich C, Masseran A, Serrano Y, Zoungrana J, Bodin C. Social shaping of deep geothermal projects in

Alsace: Politics, stakeholder attitudes and local democracy. Geothermal Energy. 2018;**6**(1):1-21

[20] Chavot P, Masseran A, Bodin C, Serrano Y, Zoungrana J. Geothermal energy in France. A resource fairly accepted for heating but controversial for high-energy power plants. In: Manzella A, Allansdottir A, Pellizzone A, editors. Geothermal Energy and Society. Springer International Publishing; 2019. pp. 105-122

[21] Cuenot N, Dorbath C, Dorbath L. Analysis of the microseismicity induced by fluid injections at the EGS site of Soultz-sous-Forêts (Alsace, France): Implications for the characterization of the geothermal reservoir properties. Pure and Applied Geophysics. 2008;**165**(5):797-828

[22] Charléty J, Cuenot N, Dorbath L, Dorbath C, Haessler H, Frogneux M. Large earthquakes during hydraulic stimulations at the geothermal site of Soultz-sous-Forêts. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences. 2007;**44**(8):1091-1105

[23] Dorbath L, Cuenot N, Genter A, Frogneux M. Seismic response of the fractured and faulted granite of Soultzsous-Forêts (France) to 5 km deep massive water injections. Geophysical Journal International. 2009;**177**(2):653-675

[24] Deichmann N, Giardini D. Earthquakes induced by the stimulation of an enhanced geothermal system below Basel (Switzerland). Seismological Research Letters. 2009;**80**(5):784-798

[25] Gaucher E, Maurer V. Évolution du suivi sismique des sites géothermiques en exploitation dans le Fossé rhénan supérieur. Géologues Géosciences et Société. 2021;**210**:94-102

[26] Wiemer S, Kraft T, Trutnevyte E, Roth P. Good Practice Guide for Managing Induced Seismicity in Deep Geothermal Energy Projects in Switzerland. Zurich: ETH Zurich; 2017

[27] Ravier G, Baujard C, Dalmais E, Maurer V, Cuenot N. Towards a comprehensive environmental monitoring of a geothermal power plant in the Rhine graben. In: Proceedings of European Geothermal Congress 2016. Strasbourg, France; 2016. p. 9

[28] Sanjuan B, Millot R, Innocent C, Dezayes C, Scheiber J, Brach M. Major geochemical characteristics of geothermal brines from the upper Rhine graben granitic basement with constraints on temperature and circulation. Chemical Geology. 2016;**428**:27-47

[29] Ledésert BA, Hébert RL, Mouchot J, Bosia C, Ravier G, Seibel O, et al. Scaling in a geothermal heat exchanger at Soultz-sous-Forêts (upper Rhine graben, France): A XRD and SEM-EDS characterization of sulfide precipitates. Geosciences. 2021;**11**(7):271

[30] Seibel O, Mouchot J, Ravier G, Ledésert B, Sengelen X, Hebert R, et al. Optimised valorisation of the geothermal resources for EGS plants in the upper Rhine graben. In: Proceedings World Geothermal Congress 2020+1. Reykjavik, Iceland; 2021. p. 9

[31] Eggeling L, Genter A, Kölbel T, Münch W. Impact of natural radionuclides on geothermal exploitation in the upper Rhine graben. Geothermics. 2013;**47**:80-88

[32] Scheiber J, Nitschke F, Seibt A, Genter A. Geochemical and mineralogical monitoring of the geothermal power plant in Soultz-sous-Forêts (France). In: Proceedings, Thirty-Seventh Workshop

on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering. Stanford, California: Stanford University; 2012. pp. 1-10

[33] Mouchot J, Genter A, Cuenot N, Seibel O, Scheiber J, Bosia C, et al. First year of operation from EGS geothermal plants in Alsace, France: scaling issues. In: Proceedings, 43rd Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering. Stanford, California: Stanford University; 2018. p. 12

[34] Bosia C, Mouchot J, Ravier G, Seibt A, Jähnichen S, Degering D, et al. Evolution of brine geochemical composition during operation of EGS geothermal plants (Alsace, France). In: Stanford University. Stanford: California; 2021. pp. 1-21

[35] (2006) NF EN ISO 14044: Environmental Management—Life Cycle Assessment—Requirements and Guidelines

[36] (2006) NF EN ISO 14040: Environmental Management-Life Cycle Assessment-Principles and Framework

[37] Lacirignola M, Blanc I. Environmental analysis of practical design options for enhanced geothermal systems (EGS) through life-cycle assessment. Renewable Energy. 2013;**50**:901-914

[38] Lacirignola M, Meany BH, Padey P, Blanc I. A simplified model for the estimation of life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions of enhanced geothermal systems. Geothermal Energy. 2014;**2**(1):8

[39] Pratiwi A, Ravier G, Genter A. Lifecycle climate-change impact assessment of enhanced geothermal system plants in the upper Rhine Valley. Geothermics. 2018;**75**:26-39

[40] Parisi ML, Douziech M, Tosti L, Pérez-López P, Mendecka B, Ulgiati S, *Environmental and Socio-Economic Impact of Deep Geothermal Energy, an Upper Rhine… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.107395*

et al. Definition of LCA guidelines in the geothermal sector to enhance result comparability. Energies. 2020;**13**(3534):1-18

[41] Douziech M, Tosti L, Ferrara N, Parisi ML, Pérez-López P, Ravier G. Applying harmonised geothermal life cycle assessment guidelines to the Rittershoffen geothermal heat plant. Energies. 2021;**14**(13):3820

[42] Douziech M, Ravier G, Ferrara N, Damen L, Sigurjonsson HA, Pérez-López P, et al. Simplified parameterized models for a multi-criteria environmental impact assessment of four types of geothermal installations. In: Proceedings World Geothermal Congress 2020+1. Reykjavik, Iceland: International Geothermal Association; 2021. p. 11

[43] Perez P, Ravier G, Pratiwi A, Genter A, Blanc I. Life Cycle Assessment and economic impacts of the Rittershoffen EGS geothermal plant, Upper Rhine Graben, France. In: Proceedings World Geothermal Congress 2020+1. Reykjavik, Iceland; 2021

[44] ADEME. Coût des énergies renouvelables en France. 2020

[45] Dalmais E, Genter A, Trullenque G, Leoutre E, Leiss B, Bär K, et al. MEET project: Toward large scale deployment of deep geothermal energy in Europe. In: Proceedings World Geothermal Congress 2020+1. Reykjavik, Iceland; 2021. pp. 1-11

[46] Kunan P, Ravier G, Dalmais E, Ducousso M, Cezac P. Thermodynamic and kinetic modelling of scales formation at the Soultz-sous-Forêts geothermal power plant. Geosciences. 2021;**11**(12):483

[47] Abbas A, Seibel O, Ravier G, Leoutre E. Roadmap for heat production from EU main geological contexts. Open File Report, MEET Project, Deliverable. 2022;**D6**:15

[48] Gallup DL. Geochemistry of geothermal fluids and well scales, and potential for mineral recovery. Ore Geology Reviews. 1998;**12**(4):225-236

[49] Bourcier WL, Lin M, Nix G. Recovery of minerals and metals from geothermal fluids. In: Proceedings, SME Annual Meeting. Cincinnati, OH, United States: Society for Mining, Metallurgy and Exploration; 2003

[50] European Commission, Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee of the Regions. Critical Raw Materials Resilience: Charting a Path towards greater Security and Sustainability; 2020

[51] Bloomquist RG. Economic benefits of mineral extraction from geothermal brines. In: Proceedings Sohn International Symposium; Advanced Processing of Metals and Materials. Vol. 6. 2006. pp. 553-558

[52] Harrison S. Technologies for extracting valuable metals and compounds from geothermal fluids. In: Final Report for Department of Energy Geothermal Technologies Program Grant DE--EE0002790, United States. 2014

[53] Alessia A, Alessandro B, Maria V-G, Carlos V-A, Francesca B. Challenges for sustainable lithium supply: A critical review. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2021;**300**:126954

[54] Bale M, May A. Processing of ores to produce tantalum and lithium. Minerals Engineering. 1989;**2**(3):299-320

[55] Sanjuan B, Gourcerol B, Millot R, Rettenmaier D, Jeandel E, Rombaut A. Lithium-rich geothermal brines in Europe: An up-date about geochemical characteristics and implications for potential Li resources. Geothermics. 2022;**101**:102385

[56] Gloaguen E, Melleton J, Lefebvre G, Tourière B, Yart S, Gourcerol B. Ressources métropolitaines en lithium et analyse du potentiel par méthodes de prédictivité. Open File Report. 2018. BRGM/RP-68321-FR

[57] Fries D, Lebouil S, Maurer V, Martin C, Baujard C, Ravier G, et al. Lithium extraction through pilot scale tests under real geothermal conditions of the Upper Rhine Graben. In: Proceedings European Geothermal Congress 2022. Berlin, Germany: European Geothermal Energy Council; 2022. p. 7

[58] Rettenmaier D, Zorn R, van den Kamp J. Business and sensitivity analysis. Eugeli Project report. 2021

**Chapter 5**
