Geothermal rising

Eagle Eyes

By Dean Tony La Viña

Of the renewable energy options available to the Philippines, geothermal energy ranks as the most familiar, established, and supported means of power generation. With a capacity of around 1,904 megawatts, we currently rank second in the world in terms of geothermal electricity production, behind the United States, according to the Geothermal Energy Association. Moreover, we are one of a few countries that generate more than 15 percent of their electrical output from geothermal sources―in our case, around 17 percent. Our government has plans to install enough capacity to overtake America’s current capacity.

Unlike solar or wind energy, geothermal is not intermittent―it can provide a reliable, steady supply of electricity, barring any misfortune. (If for that reason alone, critics of solar and wind power argue for focusing resources on geothermal instead.) Its environmental footprint is very low, as the plant does not take up much space, greenhouse gas emissions per kilowatt-hour are miniscule compared to coal or oil equivalents, and other noxious gases and fluids extracted from the earth can be controlled on-site and prevented from contaminating the environment. And even like solar and wind, geothermal energy can be scaled down for off-grid, end-user generation: a 1999 report from the Oregon-based Geo-Heat Center cited a 300kWe geothermal plant in Thailand that, circa 1998, provided power at 6-8 cents/kWh, compared to diesel generators at 22-25 cents/kWh.

Geography once again has blessed the Philippines: our volcanic and tectonic past has left us with six prime geothermal sites, in Luzon, Leyte (the home of our first geothermal plant), Negros, and Mindanao. Continuing to safely and cleanly exploit such resources in Mindanao, which is suffering from a crippling power shortage, will especially be a cornerstone in feeding the island’s socio-economic development, without breaking its environmental backbone or deepening its reliance on foreign fossil fuel supplies.

The real disadvantage is cost. Its capital outlay is significant, from the drilling technology needed to drill the boreholes into the Earth’s crust to tap the heat, and the technology needed to convert that heat to steam, and thence to electrical power. Geothermal energy is significantly capital-heavy compared to solar or wind energy, with low rates of return for investors, compared to potential windfalls from other options. Even small-scale, distributed generation plants would suffer these economic disadvantages, the above-cited GeoHeat Center report noted: it would be difficult to entice potential financiers to supply the money to construct such plants when solar, wind―even fossil fuels―offer better rates of return. Further, such capital outlay takes much time to construct, compared to solar’s and wind’s quick deployability.

Yet we shouldn’t see our renewable energy options as competitive foils to each other. A Forbes article about California’s geothermal industry laments the lack of attention towards geothermal’s recognizable advantages compared to the credits and premiums enjoyed by solar, despite its intermittency. Still, they are not competitors, but complements, each with its own virtues. Another article sees that California will be relying on geothermal energy to supplant nuclear power as the latter’s plants expire and are shut down. The same can be true of the Philippines, in that older fossil fuel power plants can be substituted by utility-scale geothermal plants and wind farms. Solar may be the highlight of the RE strategy advocated in this series, but geothermal and its steady-supply virtues will provide an important bedrock to the strategy.

The Department of Energy (DoE)’s 2009-2030 plan aims to almost double current geothermal power production capacity, for a projected total of 3,447MW. The challenge is to offer enough incentives for investors to commit to geothermal’s relatively lower, longer-scheduled rate of return, balancing against solar and wind’s more lucrative prospects. We are a world leader in geothermal energy, and we ought to remain one (or even the Number One) for both our energy security and national pride. However, as the experience of developing Mt. Apo’s geothermal resources showed, it is important to consult with communities that live on or near the prospective plant site, and assure them and environmentalists of a commitment to safe and clean operations.

But there can be no turning back on geothermal, not with our long experience and rich history, the available potential locked within the earth, and our pressing energy needs. Balancing what an American industry official called the steady “turtle” of geothermal energy with the plug-and-play “hares” of wind and solar will give Philippine renewable energy a solid leg to stand on. In the past I have opposed the development of geothermal energy for environmental reasons; I have changed my mind and now believe that the environmental concerns can be addressed. With geothermal rising, the country’s interest will be well served.