Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 114 (2019) 109331

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/rser

Carbon dioxide as geothermal working fluid: An overview T

∗
Ana Filipa Esteves, Francisca Maria Santos, José Carlos Magalhães Pires
LEPABE - Laboratory for Process Engineering, Environment, Biotechnology and Energy, Faculty of Engineering, University of Porto, Rua Dr. Roberto Frias, 4200-465,
Porto, Portugal

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Carbon dioxide (CO2) has been proposed to be used as the geothermal working fluid, as it presents enhanced
Carbon capture thermodynamic properties for this application when compared with the water-based system. This paper aims to
Utilisation and storage present an overview of the recent research advances on CO2-based geothermal systems, particularly CO2-en-
CO2–enhanced geothermal system hanced systems and CO2-plume geothermal energy technology. The results of the recent operational projects are
CO2 plume geothermal
also described. This emerging technology can improve the efficiency of geothermal systems and their environ-
Geothermal energy
Sustainability
mental impact, promoting the process sustainability and helping to tackle some of the most important issues that
Working fluid Humanity is facing: (i) global climate change; (ii) energy availability; and (iii) water scarcity. For deployment of
this technology at a large scale, some issues and uncertainties were identified. Special attention was focused on
the basic findings achieved in operational projects.

1. Introduction
The rapid growth of the world's population and the associated an-
thropogenic activities have been increasing the concentration of
greenhouses gases (GHG) in the atmosphere, mainly carbon dioxide
(CO2). To show the dimension of this environmental concern, the at-
mospheric CO2 concentration was around 200 parts per million (ppm)
in the glacial period, while this level historically exceeded 400 ppm in
2013 [1]. The increase of atmospheric CO2 concentration is mainly due
to human actions (e.g. burning fossil fuels), and it is leading to climate
change that causes negative impacts all over the world. The continuous
increase of CO2 atmospheric concentration creates an Earth's energy
imbalance due to the reduction the emitted infrared radiation to space,
which causes the increase in global temperature. Besides that, loss of
glaciers and snowpack, permafrost melt, intensification of severe
weather phenomena (heavy rainfall and stronger hurricanes) and the
rise of the sea levels can be some of the irreversible impacts [2].
Moreover, the rise of atmospheric CO2 concentration increases the
dissolution of this gas in the ocean, causing its acidification with the
associated negative impacts on biodiversity.
The consequences mentioned above of the current trend of the at-
mospheric CO2 levels became one of the most important environmental
issues for the world sustainability; therefore, it is extremely urgent to
find solutions to mitigate CO2 concentrations. The mitigation of these
emissions can be accomplished by two ways: (i) reducing the emissions
generated from the production activities; or (ii) using technologies by
the end of the processes to control the CO2 emissions, also called the
end-of-pipe technologies [3]. In the production activities, electricity
and heat generation, industry and transportation are the main con-
tributors to the global CO2 emissions. The emissions from these sectors
can be effectively controlled with the application of some approaches
and policies: (i) the enhancement of energy efficiency and promote
energy conservation; (ii) use of public transportation; (iii) producing
energy from renewable sources, such as solar or geothermal [4,5].
Using geothermal systems to produce energy have several advantages
over other renewable sources, namely: (i) the continuous electricity
production; (ii) clean and sustainable energy generation; (iii) reduced
CO2 emissions and other air and water contaminants; (iv) small fresh-
water usage [6].
Essentially, geothermal power generation relies on the extraction of
the thermal energy and for that, three main technologies, based on the
operational temperature, can be distinguished: (i) flash steam; (ii) dry
steam; and (iii) binary cycle. The first two technologies are used when
the geothermal resources have high temperatures, while the last is used
for lower temperatures [7–10]. These systems operate using a working
fluid, generally water [11]. In the binary cycle, it is required a second
working fluid, where the most common fluids are propane, i-butane, n-
butane, i-pentane, n-pentane and ammonia (NH3) [8]. Geothermal
systems normally use cold water to transport to the surface the heat
absorbed from the hot rock. In the surface, the thermal energy in the
water is transformed into electrical energy using turbines and gen-
erators [11]. The binary cycle operates in two separated cycles, the

*
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: jcpires@fe.up.pt (J.C. Magalhães Pires).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2019.109331
Received 28 November 2018; Received in revised form 4 August 2019; Accepted 8 August 2019
1364-0321/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
A.F. Esteves, et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 114 (2019) 109331

Abbreviations GA-TOUGH2 – Genetic algorithm - Transport of Unsaturated

Groundwater and Heat Version 2
CCS – CO2 Capture and Storage GHG – Greenhouse gases
CCUS – CO2 Capture, Utilisation and Storage HDR – Hot dry rock
CNRS National Center for Scientific Research LCA – Life cycle assessment
CPG – CO2 Plume Geothermal TOUGH2 Transport of Unsaturated Groundwater and Heat Version 2
EGS – Enhanced or engineered geothermal systems

geothermal loop, that transport the heat absorbed from the hot rock to environmental impact and cost). Thus, this paper aims to review the
the evaporator, and the power loop, where the second working fluid recent research advances on CO2-based geothermal systems, trying to
emerges as a saturated vapour (heat exchange process at the eva- answer to the mentioned knowledge gap. Special focus will be given to
porator), expanding in the turbine and generating electricity in the the basic discoveries achieved in the recent operational projects.
generator [8,12]. Geothermal systems operate through a continuous
circulation of heat and fluid [13]. 2. CO2-based geothermal systems
Enhanced or engineered geothermal systems (EGS) are the geo-
thermal technologies more efficient for producing electricity since it is a As aforementioned, CO2 has been proposed as a geothermal working
high-temperature system. The EGS focus on extract the geothermal fluid due to its enhanced thermodynamic properties compared with
energy from zones where the natural permeability is low or regions of water-based systems, representing an opportunity to store it geologi-
hot dry rock. To enhance the permeability, hydraulic fracturing is ap- cally. In this paper, CO2-based geothermal systems are referring to both
plied to create or to open existing fractures through the injection of CO2-EGS and CO2 plume geothermal (CPG) system. The application
pressurised fluid [10]. Then, production wells and systems of injection CO2 as a geothermal working fluid was first described in EGS
are constructed to circulate the geothermal fluid to extract the heat [14,18,23,24]; however, Randolph and Saar [25] presented an in-
[14]. The improvements that can be made in this area are mainly re- novative approach designated CO2-plume geothermal (CPG) system
lated to the drilling costs and water losses [11]. However, the devel- (Fig. 1). Comparing these systems, CO2-EGS requires the artificial
opment of EGS may present some environmental impacts, being a generation of high permeable reservoirs with limited CO2 storage ca-
barrier to its worldwide application. For instance, it may include air pacity. On the other hand, CPG eliminates the need for fracturing the
and water pollution, induced seismicity and water consumption. rock to create high permeable regions. It uses natural high permeability
Table 1 shows the potential environmental impacts and barriers of EGS sedimentary basins with high CO2 storage capacity. Typically, in the
implementation. Besides the potential environmental impacts, there are CO2-based geothermal systems, CO2 is injected in its supercritical form
institutional, regulatory, technological and financial aspects that im- (sCO2); therefore, it is possible to have CO2 in the liquid or gaseous
pose a drawback in deploying EGS [6]. phase or a two-phase mixture. In its supercritical form, CO2 can change
In recent years, CO2 has been proposed as a working fluid, replacing from the gas phase to the liquid phase and vice versa with no phase
the water in the geothermal systems [15–17]. The use of CO2 in EGS has boundaries [26]. In the CO2 injection into the reservoir, three main
as main advantages: (i) CO2 is a poor solvent for the minerals in the
rock; (ii) lower viscosity, which allows higher heat extraction rate Table 1
(when compared with water); (iii) large compressibility and ex- Potential impacts and barriers of EGS deployment [6] (Copyright 2019, Else-
pansibility that can generate buoyancy forces; (iv) sequester of CO2 can vier).
occur in deep subsurface [18]. However, the use of CO2 as a working
Impacts Description
fluid is dependent on the advance of CO2 capture and storage (CCS)
technologies. CO2 can be captured from an industrial source or from the Land and landscape Land use; change of the natural sights
atmosphere following by storage in deep underground formations (e.g. Heat-tolerant vegetation Increase of the rhizosphere temperature
Induced seismicity Injection of high-pressure fluids into the deep
depleted oil and gas reservoirs or deep saline aquifers) or in the ocean.
formation
It is estimated that 90% of the CO2 emissions from large sources could Induced landslides Caused by the temperature and water level,
be trapped and securely stored. The use of CCS technologies can reduce particularly in areas with a high level of tectonic
CO2 emissions by 19% in 2050 [19]. According to the Paris Agreement activity
(signed by several countries), the use of CCS technologies is important Water usage Resource scarcity
Waste heat Inefficiency in the electricity conversion
because the emissions of GHGs should be reduced to limit the increase
Noise Drilling, discharge and machinery
in global average temperature to below 2 °C [20]. In the Intended Na- Air quality Emissions of CO2, hydrogen sulfide (H2S), methane
tionally Determined Contributions, the EU established the objective of (CH4), mercury (Hg) and ammonia (NH3)
40% reduction of the GHGs emissions by 2030 (comparing with the Water quality Fluids containing heavy metals, NH3, H2S, and
chloride (Cl)
values in 1990) [21]. Besides geological storage, CO2 can be used in
Barriers
other industrial processes, such as the fuel production, value-added Institutional Land suitability and availability
chemicals, green and high value-added products (e.g. glass-ceramics) or Lack of awareness from government institutions about
be used to enhance biological processes [22]. Therefore, the CO2 cap- the benefits of geothermal energy
ture and valorisation offer an opportunity to promote the sustainability Regulatory Complex legal and regulatory bureaucracy
Unclear regulation in the assessment procedure
of processes, while also generating revenues. The use of CO2 as a geo-
Incompatibility between regulations and acts
thermal working fluid may improve the efficiency of geothermal sys- Technological Knowledge gaps and technology uncertainties
tems and, simultaneously, this gas may be trapped in the geological Lack of expertise and research centre
reservoirs, contributing for the reduction of CO2 emissions to the at- Limited access to data
High risk
mosphere (however, the net CO2 capture potential is limited when
Financial No economic feasibility
compared with CCS). High price for water use
As far it is known, there is not any published work presenting a Low electricity purchasing price
systematic overview of the application of CO2 as geothermal fluid in Others Lack of social acceptance and public awareness
terms of both energy and climate issues (including the analysis of the Lack of stakeholders/private investors

2
A.F. Esteves, et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 114 (2019) 109331

Fig. 1. CO2-plume geothermal systems [25] (Copyright 2011, Wiley).

zones are created (see Fig. 2). In zone 1, the fluid is CO2 in its super- other hand, CPG eliminates the need for hydrofracturing since the re-
critical form. In zone 2, the fluid consists of a two-phase mixture of CO2 covery heat is made through large, naturally porous reservoirs
and water, and finally, in zone 3, the fluid has dissolved CO2 and is in a [25,47,48]. The major differences between CPG and CO2-EGS are the
single aqueous phase [27]. Table 2 presents several recent research permeability and the depth of the reservoir. CPG technology is applied
studies about CO2-based geothermal systems. to natural sedimentary reservoirs that have high permeability and
porosity, which are overlain a low-permeability cap rock [38,49]. These
reservoirs are usually shallower (1–4 km instead of 4–7 km), and
2.1. Properties and system design
therefore, the temperature is lower (< 100 °C). Therefore, this system
may allow the exploration of geologic formations with lower
The concept of EGS comprises the Hot Dry Rock (HDR). HDR con-
sists of obtaining heat from rocks that naturally do not have fractures
with low permeability [11]. Generally, water is used as a working fluid
that is pumped through areas of hot rock, where occurs the heat ex-
change [41]. Since the rocks do not have fractures, a process named
hydrofracturing is used to create areas of heat exchange between the
HDR and the working fluid. This process may induce seismicity due to
the intentional exceedance of the critical fracture stresses [42]. Taking
into account the properties of the geothermal working fluids, CO2
presents the following advantages when compared with water: (i) large
compressibility and expansibility that can generate buoyancy forces,
which leads to a lower pumping consumption to maintain the fluid in
circulation; (ii) CO2 is not an ionic solvent and it is a poor solvent for
rock minerals; (iii) CO2 has a greater heat exchange rate when com-
pared to water; (iv) lower viscosity, which allows high flow velocities
that would result in larger mass extraction rates, for a given pressure
gradient. As a disadvantage, CO2 has a smaller specific heat; however,
this is compensated by its lower viscosity [14,43]. As the viscosity of
CO2 slightly rises with the temperature, most of the pressure can be
used in the production well instead of using for moving the fluid [31].
When compared with water-EGS, CO2-EGS takes advantages when: (i)
the surrounding formation has a high permeability; (ii) the average
reservoir permeability is low; and (iii) the wellbores have a large ra- Fig. 2. Zones created when CO2 is injected in hot fractured rock [27] (Copy-
dius, and the initial reservoir temperature is low [14,33,44–46]. On the right 2015, Elsevier).

3
A.F. Esteves, et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 114 (2019) 109331

Table 2
Summary of CO2-based geothermal systems latest studies.
Type Scope Ref.

Experimental Experimental investigations of laminar convection heat transfer of supercritical CO2 in an artificial smooth parallel-plate fracture and a [28]
rough fracture for enhanced geothermal systems.
Experimental investigation of laminar convective heat transfer of CO2 at supercritical pressures in an artificial horizontal fracture of granite [29]
rock to analyse the effects of mass flow rate and initial rock temperature on the heat-transfer performance in the fracture.
Experimental and Modelling Numerical simulations to evaluate the interaction between the fluid and the rock that occur in the CO2-EGS. [27]
Modelling Comparative analysis between CO2 versus H2O as an EGS working fluid and analysis of alternative working fluids. [30]
Numerical simulations to extract the heat through subsurface flow in CO2-EGS simulations using the multi-phase flow solver TOUGH2 and [31]
optimisation.
Evaluation of enhanced geothermal systems performance using impure CO2 as fluid for large-scale CO2 utilisation. [32]
Simulation of heat extraction and CO2 sequestration simultaneously in a CO2-EGS based on a developed 3D thermal-hydrologic model, and [33]
comparison between CO2-EGS and water-EGS for different parameters.
Study of the impact of fluid-rock interactions in CO2-geothermal systems and their impact on fluid circulation. [34]
Description of hybrid solar and EGS system using a CO2-EGS system and a supercritical CO2 Brayton cycle and efficiency comparison [35]
between the hybrid system and the two systems separately.
Study of the hydrogeochemical characteristics of different geothermal fields to evaluate the mechanisms of CO2 trapping in hydrothermal [36]
reservoirs.
Development of a model for simulating CO2 flow in a geothermal horizontal well. [37]
Performance of a geothermal horizontal well using CO2 as working fluid [16]
Numerical simulations and comparison between CPG, CO2-EGS and water-EGS [26]
Comparison of CO2-based geothermal systems (CPG and CO2-EGS) with water-EGS and with conventional water-based geothermal reservoir [25]
systems.
Evaluation of the thermosiphon effect at different depths and geothermal gradients [38]
Numerical modelling to evaluate the heat extraction at a CPG with multi-layered [39]
Review Review the studies about analytical analyses, lab-scale experiments, field-scale modelling methods, heat transfer in the reservoir energy [40]
conversion in EGS using water/CO2 as working fluid.

temperature and permeability that generally are not economical viable
[50]. The CPG reservoir is much larger, and the high permeability al-
lows a higher fluid flow and heat transfer rates producing a strong
thermosiphon effect. The thermosiphon effect is developed through the
combination of the CO2 properties, which can generate a large pressure
gradient even at low temperatures (the result of the shallower depth).
Additionally, since the reservoirs are much larger, the CO2 sequestra-
tion potential is higher compared to CO2-EGS [48,50].
2.2. Simulation and optimisation
Several simulation studies were performed to evaluate different
phenomena in CO2 geothermal systems: (i) the system performance
with different geothermal working fluids; (ii) mass and heat transfer;
(iii) geochemical reactions, among others. For instance, Pruess [14]
evaluated the efficiency of the use of CO2 instead of water through
modelling of CO2 injection, energy production, and fractured reservoir
development using their thermophysical properties. CO2-EGS generate
50% larger net heat extraction rates compared to water-EGS. The use of
CO2 also presents advantages in terms of hydraulics. Its large com-
pressibility and expansibility reduce the parasitic power consumption
of the fluid circulation system. However, the simulations were per-
formed without considering the creation of the EGS reservoir. More-
over, the environmental benefit associated with this technology (CO2
geological storage) was only estimated based on the water-based system
tested in the Fenton Hill hot dry rock project, remaining uncertainties
regarding the chemical interactions between the fluid and rocks. Sev-
eral parameters may influence the loss of CO2 in the circulation system:
(i) rock permeability; (ii) porosity; (iii) water chemistry; and (iv) re-
servoir mineralogy. Contrary to water-based systems, the loss of CO2
could provide economic benefits and incentives (improving the eco-
nomics of CO2-EGS), if CO2 emissions are taxed for climate change
mitigation. The study of CO2 geochemistry is also important due to the
modification of porosity and permeability of the reservoir, affecting the
heat extraction efficiency. Wang et al. [33] compared CO2-EGS and
water-EGS for different parameters and simulated heat extraction and
CO2 sequestration simultaneously in a CO2-EGS. Their study showed
that the amount of sequestered CO2 increased with the permeability of
the surrounding formation. Besides, the cumulative amount of CO2
increased with the geothermal gradient, and this value was two times
higher than water losses. Another important parameter to be analysed
is exergy that represents the maximum amount of mechanical work that
an energy carrying fluid at a given temperature and pressure can pro-
vide [51]. Water and CO2 were compared to determine which fluid
offers an enhanced geothermal energy extraction. Depending on the
temperature and pressure of the fluid, CO2 can carry a total exergy 4.3
to 15.7 times higher than water. Olasolo et al. [30] studied the possi-
bility of using other geothermal fluids rather than water and CO2 and
studied which thermodynamic properties of geothermal working fluids
are considered important for this application. In their study, they
compared cyclopentane, acetone, hydrazine, carbon suboxide and ni-
trous oxide with CO2 as a working fluid. The high performance of CO2
as a working fluid compared to water was corroborated. The working
fluid properties to take into account are: (i) high compressibility and
expansibility; (ii) low viscosity and increase in viscosity for lower
temperatures; and (iii) high mass heat capacity. Taking into account
these properties, the nitrous oxide was also considered a potential al-
ternative to the most studied working fluids (water and CO2). However,
the presented results depend on the considered assumptions and para-
meters. For different EGS plants, a new analysis should be performed.
Zhang et al. [32] studied the possibility of using impure CO2 as a
working fluid rather than treating CO2 only to be stored underground.
They evaluated the system performance for large-scale CO2 utilisation
and predicted the temperature and pressure variation in the injection,
production wells and the reservoir between them. However, to use
impure CO2 in this system, there are some limitations: (i) the impure
CO2-EGS design must guarantee a self-driven cycle (since the com-
pressibility and expansibility is reduced, which can increase the power
consumption due to the pumping necessity); (ii) the Organic Rankine
cycle working fluid choice should be made in accordance to the tem-
perature of the impure CO2 during its production; (iii) when the im-
purity fractions are high, the efficiency of the EGS decreases and should
not surpass 10%.
During the EGS processes, supercritical pressure conditions
(P > Pcrit) are achieved [40]. When this occurs, the properties of the
fluid can change, which mainly affects the heat extraction ratio. In the
case of the CO2-EGS, the heat extraction is higher in supercritical
conditions than in subcritical conditions (P < Pcrit) due to the low

4
A.F. Esteves, et al.
density of the CO2 in subcritical conditions [24,41]. One of the main
problems of CO2-EGS is that along with the production well the CO2
expands, causing the temperature drop. Therefore, the production well
needs to be isolated thermally [40]. Concerning heat transfer of this
system, Zhang et al. [28] compared the convective heat transfer in a
smooth parallel-plate fracture and a rough and tortuous fracture. This
study is important to predict the heat transfer performance in EGS. The
heat extracted was less in the rough and tortuous fracture than in a
smooth parallel-plate fracture, with an equivalent hydraulic aperture
(measured in volumetric flow and pressure drop based on a cubic law).
The cause of the lower heat exchange efficiency was the channelling
(occurrence of a region of local stagnation where the fluid flow around)
and disturbance (the Nusselt number increases for higher Reynolds
number) effects. Jiang et al. [29] evaluated the effect of mass flow and
initial rock temperature on the convective heat transfer by supercritical
CO2 in an artificial granite rock fracture. The experiments were carried
out with mass flow rates of 0.35 and 0.75 kg·h−1 (with initial rock
temperature of 80 °C and 200 °C) and with initial rock temperature of
50, 150 and 250 °C. The heat transfer was enhanced by a higher mass
flow (CO2 approaches its pseudocritical point) and a lower initial rock
temperature. The determined relationships between variables may be
incorporated in the field-scale simulations to evaluate the performance
of EGS reservoirs and to optimise their design.
Concerning the study of geochemical reactions, Na et al. [27] per-
formed batch experiments under in-situ reservoirs of the Songlian Basin
(China) to analyse fluid-rock interaction of a CO2-EGS. Additionally, the
experimental data were used to validate the numerical model. Experi-
ments were performed at high temperature and pressure reactors. This
study aimed to evaluate the change of minerals solubility due to the
presence of water in CO2-EGS, which can have an impact on reservoir
longevity. Significant mineral composition changes were identified at
CO2-EGS reservoir, which changes the fluid flow. The injection of su-
percritical CO2 led to the dissolution of primary minerals (e.g. calcite
and K-feldspar) and the precipitation of secondary carbonate (e.g. cal-
cite and ankerite). However, the numerical simulations were partially
successful in the prediction of the laboratory results. Some factors were
identified for the achieved deviations: (i) solubility and kinetic data
using in the simulations; and (ii) impurities not considered in the mi-
nerals that could affect the solubility of other minerals. The dissolution
and precipitation of minerals were also identified as a result of the
injection of supercritical CO2 by Xu et al. [34]. In this study, reactive
transport modelling was performed using thermal conditions and
composition of minerals of two reservoirs: Songliao and Cranfield sites.
Besides the evaluation of mineral dissolution and precipitation, the
authors aimed to analyse the porosity change (affecting fluid and heat
transfer) and CO2 loss rates. Based on the simulations, the precipitation
of carbonates did not affect the porosity and the fluid flow significantly
and can contribute to the sequestration of CO2. However, as in other
referred studies, the results are specific to the considered conditions and
parameters (e.g. salinity). Elidemir and Güleç [36] studied high- and
low-temperature geothermal reservoirs from western Anatolia
(Turkey), trying to evaluate the mechanisms of CO2 sequestration.
Temperature showed to be an important variable for CO2 stabilisation,
as high values promote mineral trapping (by carbonate precipitation).
At the low-temperature geothermal reservoir, carbonate precipitation is
followed by its dissolution. In this case, base cations should be supplied
to mineral trapping. Xu et al. [52] analysed the interactions between
the CO2 and the rocks around, using one and two-dimensional models
and realised that the CO2 had been sequestrated in the rock. By car-
bonate precipitation, a maximum of 50 kg CO2·m−3 of the medium was
trapped. However, the precipitation and mineral alteration generally
decreases the porosity, which reduces the heat transfer rate of the re-
servoir. Therefore, additional research studies should be performed to
find a trade-off between geothermal energy production and CO2 se-
questration. Xu et al. [17] analysed the sequestration capacity of the
Habanero geothermal field (Australia) and discovered that the major
5
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 114 (2019) 109331
CO2 sequestration mechanism is the storage in the stimulated reservoir.
The existing Habanero 1−Habenero 4 doublet model estimated CO2
storage of 94,500 tonnes per year and this value could increase to
572,000 tonnes of CO2 per year in the next stage base project with a six-
spot well pattern (assuming of 5% fluid loss). The use of supercritical
CO2 may require the water removal from the reservoir. CO2 mixed with
water form an acidic solution, causing dissolution and precipitation
problems in the reservoir and corrosion of the pipes.
Biagi et al. [31] optimised a CO2-EGS system by numerical simu-
lations, combining a genetic algorithm and a multi-phase flow solver
TOUGH2 (Transport of Unsaturated Groundwater and Heat Version 2),
designated as GA-TOUGH2. The GA-THOUGH2 optimised the CO2 in-
jection rate with constant mass and pressure to control the production
temperature variation and to guarantee the heat extraction. The simu-
lations were performed in a timeline of 35 years with an optimisation
baseline of 200 bar and 200 °C for the injection of the CO2. The optimal
constant mass injection rate was 34.92 kg ·s−1, which gives a produc-
tion temperature after 35 years slightly higher than 100 °C. However,
for a constant mass injection rate, the injection well pressure declines
with time. Therefore, the temperature profile for a constant pressure
injection was optimised, and the pressure drop between the injection
and the production was 19.3 bar. For this optimised pressure injection,
the reservoir has a slower temperature decline, which was kept above
100 °C for the entire 35 years. Additionally, the heat extraction is less
than the baseline case; however, the upgraded temperature profile re-
sults improve the sustainability of the EGS operation. Jiang et al. [35]
compared the potential of using a hybrid system (a combination of a
CO2-EGS and a closed-loop supercritical CO2 Brayton cycles for solar
thermal) with the two systems used separately. The hybrid system had
equal or higher efficiency than the two separated systems. Additionally,
there was no need for a compressor in a hybrid system due to the re-
duction of the operation pressure, which reduces the installation and
maintenance costs.
Oldenburg et al. [53] evaluated the performance of a U-shape
closed-loop geothermal system using CO2 as a working fluid. The re-
servoir permeability, the injection temperature and the flow rate had an
important impact on energy recovery. Natural convection favoured the
heat transfer, and the flow rate should be about 25 kg·s−1 for a 15 cm
pipe with CO2 at 35 °C to produce a sustainable thermosiphon. More-
over, although water presented better heat extraction for certain flow
rates, CO2 achieved higher pressures at the production well, which can
help the superficial energy recovery. Sun et al. [16] evaluated the
performance of the geothermal horizontal well and concluded that a
larger mass flow rate and lower injection temperature are suggested to
improve the energy extraction rate. Higher injection pressure might
overload the equipment. The parameters to improve the economic
performance of the horizontal well were also optimised [37], where a
low injection rate and pressure were recommended.
Regarding CPG systems, Randolph et al. [50] evaluated the hy-
pothesis of considering the wellbore flow and heat transfer as an
adiabatic process. The authors used a quasi-one-dimensional heat
transfer model, assuming only radial heat transfer. The model was de-
veloped using the Engineering Equation Solver (EES) software in
combination with MATLAB. The initial conditions for the CO2 at the
inlet of the well were fixed at 25 MPa, 100 °C, and 80 kg·s−1. The au-
thors concluded that adiabatic conditions are achieved approximately
five days after the system operation and that the flow rate of 80 kg·s−1
will extract 9 MW of thermal energy. The authors recommended that
new CPG studies should consider adiabatic flow in the well.
Cui et al. [48] performed a numerical simulation to analyse the
effect of CO2 geochemical reactions and salt precipitation on the heat
mining rate of CPG. The evaporation induced by the negative gas-liquid
capillary pressure gradient can result in salt precipitation, which its
accumulation can reduce heat mining rate. Additionally, salt pre-
cipitation has a greater impact than CO2 geochemical reactions because
it can influence its flow and distribution, affecting heat mining rate up
A.F. Esteves, et al.
to 2/5. For the CPG application, geothermal reservoirs with high tem-
perature, high porosity and permeability and low salinity should be
selected first. Moreover, to solve the energy problem caused by the salt
precipitation, injections of low salinity water prior CO2 injection de-
monstrated to improve the production rate from 13 to 30 kg·s−1 and the
heat mining rate from 6 to 14 MW after 30 years. Vernooij [54] also
indicated that the reservoir salinity has an important factor to have in
consideration in CPG systems. Also, the most important parameters that
can affect the CPG energy generation are the temperature and depth
(high at low depths or depths of 4–4.5 km) of the reservoir, the injection
rate (optimum value 140 kg·s−1), the mixing rate and the presence of
impurities from previous injections. However, some limitations of the
developed model were identified concerning operational and infra-
structure issues.
Fleming et al. [55] simulated the CPG development in a saline re-
servoir and combined with Active CO2 Reservoir Management (ARM).
The ARM techniques allow limiting the reservoir overpressures mainly
during the initial CPG development through brine production. The use
of ARM techniques for the development of a CPG can reduce the CO2
breakthrough time (moment, at the production well, with a gas sa-
turation of > 1%) up to 7% and overpressures up to 30%. Additionally,
by combining the CPG with ARM, electricity can be generated from the
produced hot brine before the CO2 breakthrough.
Adams et al. [38] performed a numerical modelling to estimate the
intensity of the thermosiphon effect at different depths and geothermal
gradients for CO2 and 20 wt% NaCl brine. CO2 generates high con-
vective mass flow rates than brine without mechanical pumping. With
CO2, a reservoir pressure drop of 3–12 times less than brine was
achieved at the same flow rate, presenting a larger thermosiphon in-
duced mass flow rate. The difference between the heat extraction rates
became more significant for low-depth reservoirs (with a geothermal
gradient of 35 °C km−1, the heat extraction rate is 300 times higher).
The use of CO2 as working fluid should be particularly more advanta-
geous at depths between 0.5 km and 3 km. Randolph and Saar [25]
compared the conventional water-based, the water-EGS and CO2-EGS
with CPG. Heat extraction when CO2 was used as working fluid was
significantly higher. The CPG compared to water-based and water EGS,
show a superior geothermal heat energy extraction up to 2.9 and 5.0,
respectively. Also, CPG may improve the economic viability of geo-
thermal energy production and CO2 capture and storage. Geothermal
energy can be produced continuously or intermittently. Thus, this re-
newable energy can fulfil the energy requirement (peak demand) that is
difficult to do with other renewable energies (solar and wind). Gupta
and Vashistha [26] performed a numerical simulation to compare the
CPG with CO2-EGS and water-EGS. CPG provides a better heat extrac-
tion rate than CO2-EGS, and the CPG system is economically and
technologically more advantageous to produce electricity in regions
with relatively low-moderate surface temperatures and heat flow rates
(e.g. in India provinces). Garapati et al. [39] analysed the effects of
multi-layered geothermal reservoirs on CPG system performance ana-
lysing the CO2 mass fraction in the produced fluid, pore-fluid pressure,
and heat extraction rate. The geothermal reservoir was divided into
two, three, or four horizontal layers and each layer had a different
permeability. It was simulated two different scenarios: (i) low-perme-
ability layers at the top; and (ii) high-permeability at the top. The CO2
mass fraction is dependent on the high-permeability layers (at either
the top or the bottom) and independent on the number of the layers.
The pore-fluid pressure is affected by the permeability of the layers,
which effect is more pronounced with low-permeability layers at the
top and by the number of layers that decreases as the number increase.
Regarding the heat extraction rates, it is constant for the low perme-
ability layers at the top and decreases as the permeability of the bottom
layers decrease.
Besides energy production, CPG was also proposed as an energy
storage option, due to the intermittency of wind and solar energy
production systems [56]. Using this renewable energy, CO2 can be
6
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 114 (2019) 109331
stored in geological reservoirs, and the energy produced by geothermal
energy can be greater than the energy stored (ratio between produced
and stored energy from 1 to 3). The electrical energy is stored in the
form of pressure and heat (with supercritical CO2), enabling the tem-
poral separation between power production and consumption. Also,
this storage system can operate with any cycle duration that may be
required by the intermittent renewable energy sources.
3. Environmental effects and cost
Some limitations of the CO2 based geothermal system are the cost of
the CO2 and the cost of its pressurisation and transportation [57].
Therefore, to overcome this limitation, it is important to improve CCS
economic feasibility by coupling it with electricity production, renew-
able energy capture, and/or district heating leading towards CO2 cap-
ture, utilisation and storage (CCUS). The use of CO2 in geothermal
systems could offset the sequestration and operation costs of CCS [26].
Life cycle assessment (LCA) studies showed that the GHG emissions
produced by an EGS plant are frequently below 79 g CO2eq·kWh−1,
with a median value of 32 CO2eq· kWh−1 [58]. In the future, techno-
logical developments will enable the reduction of GHG emissions of
EGS plants close to the emissions of nuclear plants (20 g CO2eq·kWh−1),
not havingthe environmental problems related with nuclear power
production (thus, with high social acceptance for the development of
this renewable energy technology) [59].
Frick et al. [60] performed a LCA of geothermal binary power plants
using enhanced low-temperature reservoirs at sites A1 and B1. At site
A1, the reservoir had 3.8 km of depth, two wells and an installed ca-
pacity of 1240 kW; at site B1, the reservoir had 4.7 km of depth, two
wells and 1290 kW of installed capacity. The estimations of GHG
emissions were 54 g CO2eq·kWh−1 and 53 gCO2eq·kWh−1 at the site A1
and B1, respectively. Lacirignola and Blanc [61] analysed the en-
vironmental performance of EGS systems with 10 different design op-
tions. The depth studied was between 2.5 and 4 km, the number of wells
between 2 and 3 and the installed capacity ranging 0.91 and 4.37 MW.
The obtained values of GHG emissions were within the range of 16.9
and 49.8 g CO2eq·kWh−1.
An EGS power plant is similar to binary power plants, so do not
produce GHG emissions during energy production. Therefore, the GHG
emissions are generated mainly during the construction phase due to
the use of diesel in drilling and during operation associated with the
infrastructure [62,63]. To reduce the GHG emissions during the con-
struction phase, it is possible to use as energy supply electricity from
the grid instead of diesel [59].
The capital costs of EGS technologies in 2030 were estimated to be
between 6600 and 20,000 USD·kW−1, the operation and maintenance
costs between 130 and 390 USD·kW−1 and the Levelized Cost of Energy
ranging from 92 to 270 USD·kW−1 [64].
4. Research and demonstration projects
ECO2G™ is a project held by GreenFire Energy with U.S Department
of Energy (DOE), the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL),
the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL), and the Pacific
Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) as research partners [65].
ECO2G™ involves using an underperforming hydrothermal well for
geothermal power generation using sCO2. This demonstration project
will be located at the Coso KGRA (California), and it is expected to
generate data to further develop commercial projects from geothermal
plants ranging from 20 to 1000 MW [66]. The experimental tests started
in April 2019, and a report with final results will be available at the end
of 2019 [67].
Research projects that studied the geological storage of CO2 are also
important to understand the behaviour of this geothermal working fluid
in the reservoir. This knowledge can be helpful for further studies of the
CO2-based geothermal systems.
A.F. Esteves, et al.
The In Salah CCS project was a pioneer onshore CO2 capture and
storage project in operation between 2004 and 2011. This project was a
partnership between BP, Sonatrach, and Statoil and aimed to provide
evidence that geologic storage of CO2 can be cost-effective, and that
long-term assurance can be given with short-term monitoring [68].
Additionally, this project aimed to demonstrate to stakeholders that
geological storage of CO2 is a viable GHG mitigation option. For the
injections, the CO2 was extracted from different gas fields, treated with
MEA amine process, compressed, and then, transported and storage at
about 1.9 km deep at the Krechba field (Algeria). The injection was
monitored using several geophysical and geochemical methods such as
4D seismic, microseismic, groundwater aquifer monitoring, satellite
InSar data, among others. Along with these methods, procedures to
collect and evaluate the data were developed, which gave appropriate
insights on the Monitoring, Modelling and Verification (MMV) ap-
proaches. A total of 3.8 million tonnes of CO2 was storage in the
Krechba field [68,69].
In the Snohvit gas fields at Barents Sea (Norway), Statoil started, in
2008, reinjecting Snohvit's CO2 emissions. First, natural gas is pumped
to a carbon capture plant at Melkoya (on-shore), and CO2 is separated
from the gas stream using amine. Then, the rich-CO2 stream is trans-
ported by pipeline back to the Snohvit field (offshore) and injected at
2.6 km deep into a sandstone formation. In collaboration with Statoil,
the Imperial College, as part of the CO2ReMoVe project (funding of the
6th Framework Program), analysed the short-term injection pressure
performance using a 4D seismic survey [70]. By August 2012, a total of
1600 ktonnes of CO2 was injected [71].
The Development of innovative technology for the CO2 fixation by
GEOREACTOR” program is a collaboration between the Central
Research Institute of the Electric Power Industry and the Research
Institute of Innovative Technology for the Earth. The research and de-
velopment program is funded by the Ministry of Economy, Trade &
Industry of Japan. In 2007, at the Ogachi HDR site (Japan), field ex-
periments of CO2 sequestration were performed. The field study in-
volved the injection of 1 wt% dissolved CO2 at a depth between 700 and
1100 m with a temperature of 200 °C. The injection also contained
tracers to investigate the mineralisation of CO2 as carbonates through
interaction with rocks. The results of the experiments yielded evidenced
that, within a few days, CO2 was partially sequestrated in the pre-
cipitation of calcite [72,73]. At the Hijori HDR site (Japan), around 6
tonnes of dissolved CO2 was injected over 3 months at a depth of 2000
m. In this experiment, 68% of the CO2 precipitated in the production
well with lower temperature, while in the production well with a higher
temperature, only 20% of the CO2 precipitated as calcite [74].
5. Future trends
CO2-EGS is a promising concept as a strategy to mitigate the in-
crease of the atmospheric CO2 concentrations. However, to a successful
large-scale application, some issues and impacts need to be addressed
and completely understood. There are some uncertainties regarding the
CO2 trapping mechanism since the quantification of the CO2 im-
mobilised in the basaltic rocks is indirectly determined. The carbonate
precipitation minerals are likely the main cause of the sequestration;
however, microbial communities can have a greater impact on CO2
sequestration, which requires further investigation. In the field, the
reservoirs are considered an open system, which makes the under-
ground CO2 injections imprecise and difficult to track and measure.
Therefore, the amount of carbonate formed, and the sequestered CO2 is
unclear. Moreover, CO2 losses in the reservoir can affect the effective-
ness of the CO2-based geothermal system and therefore, should be in-
cluded in the studied models. Experimental studies should be per-
formed to quantify the amount of CO2 captured through the
mechanisms mentioned above. Its impact on geological energy extrac-
tion should be assessed.
The formed carbonate minerals can also cause negative impacts in
7
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 114 (2019) 109331
the bedrock. The influence of this chemical process on reservoir per-
meability and porosity should be evaluated as it reduces the storage
capacity due to limited pore space and lowered rocks reactivity. More
extensive studies should include models that considered the reactivity
of the transport, experiments on hydrothermally altered basalts to ob-
serve the water-gas-rock interaction, and deeper characterisation of the
reservoir rocks are needed to better constrain these storage potential
estimates.
6. Conclusions
The CO2-based geothermal system is an emerging technology to
replace water-based systems. Using CO2 as a working fluid has several
advantages, such as: (i) the high flow velocities due to its lower visc-
osity; (ii) it is a poor solvent for rock minerals; (iii) its large compres-
sibility and expansibility reduces the power energy consumption for
geothermal fluid pumping. Therefore, using the anthropogenic CO2 as
geothermal working fluid will enable the production of low carbon
energy (being able to achieve negative carbon emissions), which is a
requirement for sustainable development. Additionally, this technology
can help tackle three of the most challenging problems that Humanity is
facing: (i) global climate change; (ii) energy availability; (iii) water
resources conservation. However, this technology is not fully mature,
and the impacts of the physicochemical transformations of injected CO2
are not completely understood. The development of CO2-based geo-
thermal systems is also dependent on overcoming barriers related to
advances in CCS technologies, mainly the increase of social acceptance.
Besides the wide range of advantages of CO2-based systems, the de-
velopment and exploitation of this technology are far below the ex-
pectations, mainly due to the absence of strict policies to reduce the
carbon intensity of the energy sector in different countries.
Declaration of interest
None.
Acknowledgements
This work was financially supported by the Project UID/EQU/
00511/2019 - Laboratory for Process Engineering, Environment,
Biotechnology and Energy – LEPABE funded by national funds through
FCT/MCTES (PIDDAC). J.C.M. Pires acknowledges the FCT Investigator
2015 Programme (IF/01341/2015).
References
[1] NASA. Global. Climate Change - graphic: the relentless rise of carbon dioxide. 2018.
[2] Solomon S, Plattner G-K, Knutti R, Friedlingstein P. Irreversible climate change due
to carbon dioxide emissions. Proc Natl Acad Sci 2009;106:1704–9.
[3] Li M, Wang Q. Will technology advances alleviate climate change? Dual effects of
technology change on aggregate carbon dioxide emissions. Energy Sustain Dev
2017;41:61–8.
[4] Benhelal E, Zahedi G, Shamsaei E, Bahadori A. Global strategies and potentials to
curb CO2 emissions in cement industry. J Clean Prod 2013;51:142–61.
[5] Leung DY, Caramanna G, Maroto-Valer MM. An overview of current status of carbon
dioxide capture and storage technologies. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2014;39:426–43.
[6] Pan S-Y, Gao M, Shah KJ, Zheng J, Pei S-L, Chiang P-C. Establishment of enhanced
geothermal energy utilization plans: barriers and strategies. Renew Energy
2019;132:19–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2018.07.126.
[7] LUO Chao, Jun Z, Yulie G, Yongzhen W, Weibin MA. Energy efficiency comparison
between geothermal power systems. Therm Sci 2017;21:2633–42.
[8] Moya D, Aldás C, Kaparaju P. Geothermal energy: power plant technology and di-
rect heat applications. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2018;94:889–901.
[9] Muffler P, Cataldi R. Methods for regional assessment of geothermal resources.
Geothermics 1978;7:53–89.
[10] von Jouanne A, Brekken TK. Ocean and geothermal energy systems. Proc IEEE
2017;105:2147–65.
[11] Gallup DL. Production engineering in geothermal technology: a review.
Geothermics 2009;38:326–34.
[12] Bonalumi D, Bombarda PA, Invernizzi CM. Zero emission geothermal flash power
A.F. Esteves, et al.
plant. Energy Procedia 2017;126:698–705.
[13] Barbier E. Geothermal energy technology and current status: an overview. Renew
Sustain Energy Rev 2002;6:3–65.
[14] Pruess K. Enhanced geothermal systems (EGS) using CO2 as working fluid—a novel
approach for generating renewable energy with simultaneous sequestration of
carbon. Geothermics 2006;35:351–67.
[15] Pan C, Chávez O, Romero CE, Levy EK, Corona AA, Rubio-Maya C. Heat mining
assessment for geothermal reservoirs in Mexico using supercritical CO2 injection.
Energy 2016;102:148–60.
[16] Sun F, Yao Y, Li G, Li X. Performance of geothermal energy extraction in a hor-
izontal well by using CO2 as the working fluid. Energy Convers Manag
2018;171:1529–39.
[17] Xu C, Dowd P, Li Q. Carbon sequestration potential of the Habanero reservoir when
carbon dioxide is used as the heat exchange fluid. J Rock Mech Geotech Eng
2016;8:50–9.
[18] Brown DW. A hot dry rock geothermal energy concept utilizing supercritical CO2
instead of water. Proceedings of the twenty-fifth workshop on geothermal reservoir
engineering. Stanford University; 2000. p. 233–8.
[19] Department of Energy and Climate Change. CCS roadmap - supporting deployment
of carbon capture and storage in the UK. London, United Kingdom2012.
[20] Pires JC. COP21: the algae opportunity? Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2017;79:867–77.
[21] Hof A, Den Elzen M, Beltran AM. The EU 40% greenhouse gas emission reduction
target by 2030 in perspective. Int Environ Agreements Polit Law Econ
2016;16:375–92.
[22] Pan S-Y, Chiang P-C, Pan W, Kim H. Advances in state-of-art valorization technol-
ogies for captured CO2 toward sustainable carbon cycle. Crit Rev Environ Sci
Technol 2018:1–64.
[23] Fouillac C, Sanjuan B, Gentier S, Czernichowski-Lauriol I. Could sequestration of
CO2 be combined with the development of enhanced geothermal systems.
Alexandria, VA: Third Annual Conference on Carbon Capture and Sequestration;
2004.
[24] Pruess K. On production behavior of enhanced geothermal systems with CO2 as
working fluid. Energy Convers Manag 2008;49:1446–54.
[25] Randolph JB, Saar MO. Combining geothermal energy capture with geologic carbon
dioxide sequestration. Geophys Res Lett 2011;38.
[26] Gupta N, Vashistha M. Carbon dioxide plume geothermal (CPG) system-A new
approach for enhancing geothermal energy production and deployment of CCUS on
large scale in India. Energy Procedia 2016;90:492–502.
[27] Na J, Xu T, Yuan Y, Feng B, Tian H, Bao X. An integrated study of fluid–rock in-
teraction in a CO2-based enhanced geothermal system: a case study of Songliao
Basin, China. Appl Geochem 2015;59:166–77.
[28] Zhang L, Jiang P, Wang Z, Xu R. Convective heat transfer of supercritical CO2 in a
rock fracture for enhanced geothermal systems. Appl Therm Eng 2017;115:923–36.
[29] Jiang P, Zhang L, Xu R. Experimental study of convective heat transfer of carbon
dioxide at supercritical pressures in a horizontal rock fracture and its application to
enhanced geothermal systems. Appl Therm Eng 2017;117:39–49.
[30] Olasolo P, Juárez M, Morales M, Olasolo A, Agius M. Analysis of working fluids
applicable in Enhanced Geothermal Systems: nitrous oxide as an alternative
working fluid. Energy 2018;157:150–61.
[31] Biagi J, Agarwal R, Zhang Z. Simulation and optimization of enhanced geothermal
systems using CO2 as a working fluid. Energy 2015;86:627–37.
[32] Zhang F-Z, Xu R-N, Jiang P-X. Thermodynamic analysis of enhanced geothermal
systems using impure CO2 as the geofluid. Appl Therm Eng 2016;99:1277–85.
[33] Wang C-L, Cheng W-L, Nian Y-L, Yang L, Han B-B, Liu M-H. Simulation of heat
extraction from CO2-based enhanced geothermal systems considering CO2 seques-
tration. Energy 2018;142:157–67.
[34] Xu T, Feng G, Shi Y. On fluid–rock chemical interaction in CO2-based geothermal
systems. J Geochem Explor 2014;144:179–93.
[35] Jiang P-X, Zhang F-Z, Xu R-N. Thermodynamic analysis of a solar–enhanced geo-
thermal hybrid power plant using CO2 as working fluid. Appl Therm Eng
2017;116:463–72.
[36] Elidemir S, Güleç N. Geochemical characterization of geothermal systems in wes-
tern Anatolia (Turkey): implications for CO2 trapping mechanisms in prospective
CO2‐EGS sites. Greenh Gas: Sci Technol 2018;8:63–76.
[37] Sun F, Yao Y, Li G, Li X. Geothermal energy extraction in CO2 rich basin using
abandoned horizontal wells. Energy 2018;158:760–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
energy.2018.06.084.
[38] Adams BM, Kuehn TH, Bielicki JM, Randolph JB, Saar MO. On the importance of
the thermosiphon effect in CPG (CO2 plume geothermal) power systems. Energy
2014;69:409–18.
[39] Garapati N, Randolph JB, Valencia JL, Saar MO. CO2-plume geothermal (CPG) heat
extraction in multi-layered geologic reservoirs. Energy Procedia 2014;63:7631–43.
[40] Xu R, Zhang L, Zhang F, Jiang P. A review on heat transfer and energy conversion in
the enhanced geothermal systems with water/CO2 as working fluid. Int J Energy
Res 2015;39:1722–41.
[41] Olasolo P, Juárez M, Morales M, Liarte I. Enhanced geothermal systems (EGS): a
review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2016;56:133–44.
[42] Gerstenberger M, Nicol A, Bromley C, Carne R, Chardot L, Ellis S, et al. Induced
seismicity and its implications for CO2 storage risk. IEAGHG report 2013;9.
[43] Xu T, Feng G, Shi Y, Lei H. Use of CO2 as heat transmission fluid to extract geo-
thermal energy: advantages and disadvantages in comparison with water.
Proceedings world geothermal congress. Melbourne, Australia2015.
[44] Atrens AD, Gurgenci H, Rudolph V. CO2 thermosiphon for competitive geothermal
power generation. Energy Fuel 2008;23:553–7.
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 114 (2019) 109331
[45] Atrens AD, Gurgenci H, Rudolph V. Electricity generation using a carbon-dioxide
thermosiphon. Geothermics 2010;39:161–9.
[46] Xu T, Feng G, Hou Z, Tian H, Shi Y, Lei H. Wellbore–reservoir coupled simulation to
study thermal and fluid processes in a CO2-based geothermal system: identifying
favorable and unfavorable conditions in comparison with water. Environ Earth Sci
2015;73:6797–813.
[47] Zhang L, Li D, Ren B, Cui G, Zhuang Y, Ren S. Potential assessment of CO2 geolo-
gical storage in geothermal reservoirs associated with heat mining: case studies
from China. Energy Procedia 2014;63:7651–62.
[48] Cui G, Ren S, Rui Z, Ezekiel J, Zhang L, Wang H. The influence of complicated fluid-
rock interactions on the geothermal exploitation in the CO2 plume geothermal
system. Appl Energy 2018;227:49–63.
[49] Buscheck TA, Bielicki JM, Randolph JB. CO2 Earth storage: enhanced geothermal
energy and water recovery and energy storage. Energy Procedia 2017;114:6870–9.
[50] Randolph JB, Adams B, Kuehn TH, Saar MO. Wellbore heat transfer in CO2-based
geothermal systems. Geotherm Resour Counc Trans 2012;36:549–54.
[51] Phuoc TX, Massoudi M, Wang P, Oryshchyn D, McKoy ML. The exergy of geo-
thermal fluids: CO2 versus Water. Geother Res T 2017;41.
[52] Xu T, Pruess K, Apps J. Numerical studies of fluid-rock interactions in enhanced
geothermal systems (EGS) with CO2 as working fluid. 2008.
[53] Oldenburg C, Pan L, Muir M, Eastman A. Numerical simulation of critical factors
controlling heat extraction from geothermal systems using a closed-loop heat ex-
change method. 41st workshop on geothermal reservoir engineering. United States:
Proceedings: California; 2016.
[54] Vernooij R. Assessing the joint potential of CO2 enhanced oil recovery and CO2
plume geothermal energy extraction [Master thesis]. Utrecht, The Netherlands:
Utrecht University; 2015.
[55] Fleming MR, Adams BM, Kuehn TH, Bielicki JM, Saar MO. Benefits of using active
reservoir management during CO2-plume development for CO2-plume geothermal
(CPG) systems. 44th workshop on geothermal reservoir engineering. United States:
California; 2019.
[56] Fleming MR, Adams BM, Randolph JB, Ogland-Hand JD, Kuehn TH, Buscheck TA,
et al. High efficiency and large-scale subsurface energy storage with CO2. 43rd
Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering. 2018. California, United States:
Proceedings.
[57] Eastman AD, Muir MP, Energy G. CO2-EGS and the utilization of highly pressurized
CO2 for purposes other than power generation. Proceedings of the thirty-eighth
workshop on geothermal reservoir engineering. stanford university; 2013.
[58] Eberle A, Heath GA, Carpenter Petri AC, Nicholson SR. Systematic review of life
cycle greenhouse gas emissions from geothermal electricity. Golden, CO (United
States): National Renewable Energy Lab.(NREL); 2017.
[59] Menberg K, Blum P, Pfister S, Rybach L, Bayer P. Life cycle assessment of geo-
thermal power generation. Strasbourg, France: European Geothermal Congress;
2016. 2016.
[60] Frick S, Kaltschmitt M, Schröder G. Life cycle assessment of geothermal binary
power plants using enhanced low-temperature reservoirs. Energy
2010;35:2281–94.
[61] Lacirignola M, Blanc I. Environmental analysis of practical design options for en-
hanced geothermal systems (EGS) through life-cycle assessment. Renew Energy
2013;50:901–14.
[62] Pratiwi A, Ravier G, Genter A. Life-cycle climate-change impact assessment of en-
hanced geothermal system plants in the Upper Rhine Valley. Geothermics
2018;75:26–39.
[63] Lacirignola M, Meany BH, Padey P, Blanc I. A simplified model for the estimation of
life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions of enhanced geothermal systems. Geotherm
Energy 2014;2:8.
[64] IEA/NEA. Projected costs of generating electricity. Paris, France: International
Energy Agency (IEA) and Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA). 2015; 2015.
[65] GreenFire Energy. Research partners. 2018.
[66] GreenFire Energy. GreenFire energy demonstration project. California: Coso; 2017.
[67] GreenFire Energy. GreenFire energy inc. Completes construction of the first field-
scale demonstration of closed-loop geothermal power generation - testing of the
demonstration begins at the Coso, California, geothermal field. California:
Emeryville; 2019.
[68] Ringrose PS, Mathieson AS, Wright IW, Selama F, Hansen O, Bissell R, et al. The in
Salah CO2 storage project: lessons learned and knowledge transfer. Enrgy Proced
2013;37:6226–36.
[69] Mathieson A, Midgely J, Wright I, Saoula N, Ringrose P. In Salah CO2 storage JIP:
CO2 sequestration monitoring and verification technologies applied at Krechba,
Algeria. Enrgy Proced 2011;4:3596–603.
[70] Shi J-Q, Imrie C, Sinayuc C, Durucan S, Korre A, Eiken O. Snøhvit CO2 storage
project: assessment of CO2 injection performance through history matching of the
injection well pressure over a 32-months period. Enrgy Proced 2013;37:3267–74.
[71] Hansen O, Gilding D, Nazarian B, Osdal B, Ringrose P, Kristoffersen J-B, et al.
Snøhvit: the history of injecting and storing 1 Mt CO2 in the fluvial Tubåen Fm.
Enrgy Proced 2013;37:3565–73.
[72] Ueda A, Yamada T, Yajima T, Sugiyama K, Odashima Y, Ito H, et al. CO2 seques-
tration into hydrothermal system at Ogachi HDR site Japanese Magazine of
Mineralogical and. Petrological Sci 2009;38:220–31.
[73] Kaieda H, Ueda A, Kubota K, Wakahama H, Mito S, Sugiyama K, et al. Field ex-
periments for studying ON CO2 sequestration IN solid minerals at the ogachi HDR
geothermal site, Japan. Thirty-fourth workshop on geothermal reservoir en-
gineering. Stanford, California: Stanford University; 2009.
[74] Yanagisawa N. Ca and CO2 transport and scaling in the hijiori HDR system. Bali,
Indonesia: Japan. World Geothermal Congress 2010; 2010.