Der Geothermie Congress, 16-19 November 2010 Karlshuhe - Germany

Abdurrahman SATMAN, E. Didem KORKMAZ BASEL, Umran SERPEN Istanbul Technical University, Petroleum & Natural Gas Engineering Department

Turkey’s Geothermal Energy Potential

OUTLINE

* Use of Geothermal Energy in Turkey

* Capacity of Geothermal Energy in Turkey

* Potential of Geothermal Energy in Turkey

* Potential of Geothermal Resource in Turkey

* Subsurface Temperature Distribution Maps

* Conclusions

Use of Geothermal Energy in Turkey

Year Installed Capacity, GWe

2010 (A total of 24 countries)

10.7

World Geothermal Power Generation

World Geothermal Direct Use

Year Installed Capacity, GWt

2010 (A total of 78 countries)

51.6

1. USA 2. Philippines 3. Indonesia 4. Mexico 5. Italy 6. Japan 7. New Zealand 8. Iceland 9. El Salvador 13. Turkey

1. USA 2. China 3. Sweden 4. Germany 5. Turkey

(WGC-2010, Bali)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

1984 1990 1995 2000 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Years

Inst

alled G

eoth

erm

al Power

Capacity,

MW

e

KızıldereKızıldere

Dora I

Kızıldere Dora I Bereket

Kızıldere Dora I Bereket Gürmat

Kızıldere Dora I Bereket Gürmat Tuzla Dora II

Kızıldere Dora I Bereket Gürmat Tuzla Dora II Hıdırbeyli

25 33

80

99

Growth of Installed Geothermal Power Capacity in Turkey

17.8

117

Kızıldere

Kızıldere Dora I

•Since 2005 the growth of the power capacity has been impressive (over 400%), •All plants are operated by private companies, •The biggest plant (Gürmat) has a 47 MW installed capacity, • 0.6 GWh of electricity is expected to be produced in 2010.

Application Total Installed Capacity, MWt

Installed Capacity Used, MWt

District Heating 792 395

Individual Space Heating 219 -

Bathing and Swimming- Health SPAs 552 250

Greenhouse Heating 483 207

Geothermal Heat Pumps 38 -

Total 20841 8522

Direct Use of Geothermal Energy in Turkey

1: (WGC-2010, Bali) 2: (Serpen, 2009).

Capacity of Geothermal Energy in Turkey

* All available field and well data were collected & analyzed. * Identified capacities of the known localities were calculated considering the maximum flow rates and average temperatures of the produced fluids.

Calculating the estimated identified capacity (SOURCES)

Inventory Data

• MTA 1996

• MTA 2005

Data available for the fields given in the literature

Data obtained by our department in various projects

+

+ +

Estimation of Identified Capacity

Geothermal Identified Capacity, MWt

279 Localities (including 113 fields having at least one drilled well)

(Tref: 15 oC) 5944

(Tref: 20 oC) 5550

(Tref: 40 oC) 4053

(Tref: 60 oC) 2966

(Tref: 100 oC) 1627

(Tref: 140 oC) 814

(Tref: 150 oC) 632

Capacity Interval, MWt

Locality Percentage ,%

0-5 74

5-10 7.9

10-20 4.3

20-30 4.3

30-40 1.4

40-50 1.1

50-60 0.7

60-80 1.8

80-100 0

100-200 2.9

200-300 0.7

300-400 0

400-500 0.4

500-1000 0

1000-2000 0.4

Capacity frequencies of Turkey’s 279 geothermal localities (Tref: 15

oC).

Frequency of capacity values of 71 geothermal localities with capacities greater than 5 MWt in Turkey.

Identified

Identified

208 localities

Potential of Geothermal Energy in Turkey

We have focused on A) Power potential of relatively high temperature (Tres > 100 oC)

geothermal resources. B) Thermal potential of other geothermal resources.

Estimation of the recoverable thermal potentials of the fields

Thermal & electrical potentials of the known fields are estimated individually and totally by using Monte Carlo type probabilistic method.

Number of Fields

Electric Generation 25 (Tres > 100 oC)

Direct Usage (District Heating) 19 (60 oC < Tres < 100 oC)

Direct Usage 81 (Tres < 60 oC)

Total 122

Volumetric Method

Htotal = (1-Ø) x cr x ρr x V x (Tres-Tref) + Ø x cfx ρfx V x (Tres-Tref) Hr + Hf

H: stored heat energy, kJ; Ø: porosity, %; c: specific heat, kJ/kgoC ρ: density, kg/m3; V: volume, m3 ; T: temperature, oC

Subscripts: r: rock; f: fluid; ref: reference; res: reservoir

Estimated Producible = Potential

Transmission yield (conversion efficiency), %

Htotal RF X Y

t LF

X

X

Stored heat energy, kJ

Recovery factor, %

Total project life, s

Heat load factor, %

Stored Heat Energy (in a Geothermal Reservoir) =

Monte Carlo Simulation Method

* It relies on a specified probability distribution of each of the input variables and generates an estimate of the overall uncertainty in the prediction due to all uncertainties in the variables.

The common distribution types: triangular, uniform

* Monte Carlo Simulation is a method in which dependent variable is calculated many (10 000) times with varying input variables.

* To reflect the uncertainties in the input variables, the variables are quantified by probability distributions.

Arbitrary Variable Arbitrary Variable

Rock Specific Heat Rock Density Fluid Density Treservoir Porosity Volume

Recovary Factor Transmission Yield

Load Factor Project Life

f (Treservoir) Stored Energy

Probability and Frequency Distributions of Estimated Producible Potential

Monte Carlo Simulation of Geothermal Resources

Distributions of Variables and Estimating the Producible Potential

P10: 10th percentile of the cumulative distribution function = represents minimum potential with 90% probability P50: 50th percentile of the cumulative distribution function = represents minimum potential with 50% probability P90: 90th percentile of the cumulative distribution function = represents maximum potential with 10% probability

Cum

ulative

Pro

bability o

f Given

Rese

rves

or L

ess

, %

Estimated Recoverable Power, MWe

Probabilistic Sum

Arithmetic Sum

Analysis of Cumulative Probability vs. Estimated Recoverable Power Chart: Statistical Markers to Assess Uncertainty

Recoverable Electric Power Potentials of Individual Fields

Tref: 100 oC

Tres> 100 oC

Electric Power Potentials, MWe (Tref: 100

oC )

2371

1428

840

Arithmetic Sum

P90

P50

P10

Probabilistic Sum

1269

1509

1839

%

of

Cum

ulative

Distr

ibut

ion

Fun

ction

Fields P10 P50 P90 Fields P10 P50 P90

1. Alaşehir-Sarıkız 3.3 6.8 12.8 14. Ortakçı 2.6 4.7 8.4

2. Atça 1.0 1.7 2.7 15. Pamukören 26.4 33.5 42.4

3. Balçova* 0.5 1.1 2.3 16. Salihli Kuzeydoğu 4.8 7.2 9.9

4. Caferbeyli 54.6 80.2 121.4 17. Salihli Doğu 12.6 23.1 39.4

5. Dikili* 4.6 13.0 33.1 18. Umurlu Güney 5.3 10.1 17.7

6. Germencik 48.9 82.1 128.4 19. Salavatlı 78.2 165.1 343.6

7. Gümüşköy 12.3 48.8 134.1 20. Seferihisar 13.8 19.9 28.5

8. Hıdırbeyli Kuzey 9.0 16.9 29.8 21. Simav* 34.7 59.6 94.9

9. Hıdırbeyli Güney 20.5 35.2 56.6 22. Tekkehamam 15.2 20.1 26.6

10. İmamköy-Yılmazköy 79.6 143.4 245.8 23. Tuzla 6.1 11.4 20.0

11. Kavaklıdere 264.3 446.4 695.6 24. Umurlu 22.8 41.6 69.2

12. Kızıldere 109.1 139.4 180.4 25. Erciş-Zilan 1.5 2.9 5.4

13. Nazilli 8.3 14.2 22.4

* These fields are considered for both usage: electric generation and direct use.

Estimated Total Recoverable Power Potentials of 25 Geothermal Fields, MWe

Total Thermal Potentials of 25 Geothermal Fields, GWt

(Tref: 15 oC )

Arithmetic Sum

Probabilistic Sum

P10 18.2 26.7

P50 29.6 30.9

P90 47.1 36.4

Estimated Recoverable Power, MWe

Cum

ulative

Pro

bability o

f Given

Rese

rves

or L

ess

, %

Probabilistic Sum

Arithmetic Sum

Average: 1055 MWe

The minimum average electric power potential is 1 055 MWe whereas the minimum average thermal potential is 22.5 GWt for 25 with Tres>100

oC!

9

Recoverable Thermal Potentials of 19 Fields Usable For District Heating

Fields P10 P50 P90

1. Ömer-Gecek, Afyon 153 232 321

2. Armutlu, Yalova 20 35 62

3. Balçova*, İzmir 32 62 122

4. Bergama, İzmir 32 64 120

5. Dikili*, İzmir 268 464 750

6. Diyadin, Ağrı 53 104 199

7. Edremit, Balıkesir 14 25 41

8. Gönen, Balıkesir 21 40 74

9. Güre, Balıkesir 14 27 49

10. Hisarköy, Balıkesir 5 17 44

11. Kırşehir 8 14 23

12. Kızılcahamam, Ankara 31 57 97

13. Kozaklı, Nevşehir 58 108 193

14. Kuzuluk, Sakarya 18 34 61

15. Salihli, Manisa 20 37 62

16. Sandıklı, Afyon 55 107 193

17. Simav*, Kütahya 645 1031 1542

18. Sorgun, Yozgat 24 43 71

19. Yerköy, Yozgat 8 15 26

Cum

ulative

Pro

bability o

f Given

Rese

rves

or L

ess

, %

Estimated Recoverable Thermal Potential, MWt

Probabilistic Sum

Arithmetic Sum

Average: 1822 MWt

Tref: 15 oC

60 oC<Tres<100 oC

Recoverable Thermal Potentials of 81 Fields With Tres<60

oC

P10 P50 P90 P10 P50 P90 P10 P50 P90

1. Aliağa 316 557 1711 15. Kula 57 103 174 29. Ziga 43 76 125

2. Şaphane 182 290 430 16. Urganlı 54 100 174 30. Ilıca 43 88 160

3. Kestanbol 137 294 580 17. Kızılinler 53 95 160 31. Çan-Etilii 43 74 116

4. Köşkünler 134 278 489 18. Emet (Kütahya) 52 94 162 32. Davutlar 40 69 109

5. Gediz 99 163 254 19. Efteni 52 115 226

33. Sıcakçermik-Sivas 39 68 113

6. Hisaralan 97 158 239 20. Köyceyiz 51 96 165 34. Akçaağıl 38 74 135

7. Atkaracalar-Çavundur 97 226 491 21. Çobanhamamı 50 110 218 35. Gazlıgöl 37 65 108

8. Çeşme 95 153 236 22. Banaz 50 86 143 36. Çan 36 67 119

9. Pasinler 88 185 344 23. Kükürtlü 49 82 129 37. Sulusaray 36 76 150

10. Köprübaşı-Saraycık 86 145 227 24. Özalp 47 83 138

38. Bölmekaya (Denizli) 35 72 130

11. Karahayıt-Pamukkale 69 125 216 25. Gölemezli 46 82 137 39. Dümbüldek 34 67 124

12. Hıdırlar 65 109 171 26. Mahmutlu 45 72 106 40. Melikşah 34 57 89

13. Kös (Bingöl) 59 109 196 27. Yıldız (Balıkesir) 45 79 132 Continuied

14. Hisarcık (Kütahya) 58 101 169 28. Pamukçu 44 80 137 81. Demirci 4 9 17

Tref: 15 oC

Tres< 60

oC

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 14.0 15.0 16.0

Estimated Producible Thermal Power, GWt

Cum

ulat

ive

Prob

ability

of G

iven

Res

erve

s or

Les

s, %

Log Distribution

Simple Sum

3.5

6.4

11.88.1

6.9

6.2

Average 4850 MWt

Probabilistic Sum

Arithmetic Sum

Recoverable Thermal Potentials of A Total of 122 Fields Investigated

Tref: 15 oC

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

11 14 17 20 23 26 29 32 35 38 41 44 47 50 53 56 59 62 65 68

Estimated Producible Thermal Power, GWt

Cum

ulat

ive

Prob

ability

of G

iven

Res

erve

s or

Les

s, %

Log Distribution

Simple Sum22.2

37

60.544.8

34.8

39.1

Average 28 500 MWt

Probabilistic Sum

Arithmetic Sum

Probabilities,%

10 50 90

Average Recoverable Thermal Potential for 122 Fields, GWt atTref: 15 oC

28.5 38.1 52.7

The Ratio of Identified Thermal Capacity (=5944 MWt, for 279 localities) to Average RecoverableThermal Potential (122 Fields, MWt at Tref: 15 oC )

21% 16% 11%

Potential of Geothermal Resource in Turkey

(Estimation of Stored Thermal Energy “Geothermal Resource” Down to 3 km Depth for Turkey)

Turkey, with 3.1x 1023 J geothermal resource base for the first 3 km depth, is 28th in the list of 106 countries studied. (EPRI, 1978).

Q=A x H x Cv x (T-15)

Q= resource base, J A= resource area, km2

H= resource depth, km Cv= volumetric specific heat, 2.55 x 1015 J/km3 oC T = average resource temperature, oC

Estimation of the geothermal resource down to the depth of 3 km from the surface

Temperature Gradient Map (Mihcakan et al., 2006).

1. Geothermal Gradient Ranges from 2 to 20 oC/100 m 2. Based on temperature measurements taken in 539 wells with at least 1000 m depth.

Estimation of the geothermal resource down to the depth of 3 km from the surface

Studies Class I

(T<100)

Class II

(100<T<150)

Class III

(150<T<250)

Class IV

(T>250) TOTAL, J

EPRI, 1978

First Study 1.9x1023

8.4x1022

2.3x1022

1.4x1021

3.1x1023

Serpen – Mihçakan, (1996) 7.1x1022

1.1x1023

1.5x1022

---- 2.0x1023

Satman, (2007) 1.8x1023 1.2x1023 6.3x1022 6.9x1020 3.7x1023

This Study

1.72x1023 1.3x1023 6.0x1022 3.0x1022 4.0x1023

Temperature Classes

2.0 x 1023 J – 4.0 x 1023 J = 3±1x1023 J

100<T<180 180<T<250

Geothermal Resource

Developing Subsurface Temperature

Distribution Maps

Data Set I with 420 points is constructed by processing Mihcakan et al. (2006) temperature gradient values and also using new and updated data on geothermal wells at least of a depth of 1 km. Data Set I is formed by interpolating the temperature gradient values to 500 and 1000 m depth. Data are distributed regionally especially on the northwestern and southeastern regions of Turkey.

Developing Subsurface Temperature Distribution Maps

DATA SET I

DATA SET II

Temperature gradients from the study of the heat flux map of Turkey by Ilkisik (2008) are used as input. A total of 555 data points were obtained

from relatively shallow wells (100-150 m), extrapolated to both 500 m and 1000 m depths and used as Data Set II. Relatively homogenous distribution of data points exists thru Turkey.

Two data sets are combined:

Temperature Interval, oC

Δ: Young Volcanics __: Faults

20.1 - 30 30 - 40 40 - 50 50 - 60 60 - 70 70 - 80 80 - 90 90 - 100 100 - 146.7

25.2-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 60-70 70-80 80-90 90-100 100-120 120-150 150-278.4

Depth:500 m

Depth:1000 m

SUBSURFACE TEMPERATURE DISTRIBUTION MAPS

Ordinary Kriging Data Set: Set 1+ Set 2 Number of Data: 844

Temperature Distribution Maps for Regions

500 m, Data Set I

Inverse Distance Weighting

Northwestern (Thrace) Region Southeastern Anatolia Region

26-29

29-31

31-32

33-34

61-95

32-33

38-45 34-38

45-61

Temperature Interval, oC

Temperature Interval, oC

19-24

24-27

27-28

28-29

29-30

30-31

31-32

32-35

35-40

40-47

Turkey’s geothermal resource potential shallower than 3 km depth is estimated to be 3 ± 1 x 1023 J.

The total geothermal capacity of identified localities based on a reference temperature of 15 oC is 5 944 MWt.

The electric power potentials for 25 fields in terms of P10, P50 and P90 are 1 055, 1 468 and 2 105 MWe, respectively.

The recoverable thermal potentials for 122 fields in terms of P10, P50 and P90 are 28.5, 38.1 and 52.7 GWt for a reference temperature of 15 oC, respectively.

The subsurface temperature distribution maps for Thrace Region, Southern Anatolia and Turkey were generated.

CONCLUSIONS

THANK YOU…

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Majority of the findings and results presented here is taken from the PhD thesis by E. Didem K. Basel.