Yellowstone National Park and the Future of Geothermal

Energy: Avoiding Catastrophe and Producing Clean Energy

Photo: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/10/science/yellowstone-volcano-eruption.html

Elizabeth Bigham

May 14, 2019

ECON 213

Prof. Jacobson

1
pages 2 - 4 omitted for brevity and clarity

National Laboratory, it is difficult to quantify geothermal capabilities because of limited access

to research of this nature in this area due to its National Park status. Several studies done by the

Idaho National Laboratory that analyze the effectiveness of EGS in different settings lack data

from Yellowstone 24, as the 1970 Geothermal Steam Act states that if the Secretary of the

Interior determines that research could “adversely affect any such significant geothermal

features” 25, they maintain the right to prohibit such action. Therefore, further research must be

permitted in order to determine if the geological features of Yellowstone National Park are

suitable for EGS.

In order to understand if constructing a Yellowstone geothermal powerplant would pass a

cost-benefit, analysis, one must consider extraction and externality costs, as well as the costs if

the proposed EGS system is implemented incorrectly. Currently, the system would cost around

$1/W 26 including the costs of infrastructure. The system would extract 20 GW of energy, and

3.46 GW of this could be converted into electrical energy 27. Altogether, the plant would cost

$3.46 billion, and although the report does not specify if 3.46 GW is produced annually, it would

be able to provide power at a price of $0.10/kWh 28. This is an incredibly competitive price

compared to other sources of energy. According to Forbes, the current market price for solar is

about the same as this geothermal at $0.10 kWh 29. Meanwhile, the Yellowstone plant price

could soon be cheaper than fossil fuels: although the price currently falls between $0.05 and

24
“The Future of Geothermal Energy – Impact of Enhanced Geothermal Systems (EGS) on the United States in the 21st Century,” Idaho National
Laboratory, (2006): 26. http://energy.mit.edu/wp-content/uploads/2006/11/MITEI-The-Future-of-Geothermal-Energy.pdf
25
U.S. Congress, House of Representatives, “Geothermal Steam Act of 1970,” August 8, 2005,
https://legcounsel.house.gov/Comps/Geothermal%20Steam%20Act%20Of%201970.pdf
26
Brian H. Wilcox, Karl L. Mitchell, Florian M. Schwandner, and Rosaly M. Lopes, “Defending Human Civilization from Supervolcanic
Eruptions,” Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, (2005): 15.
https://scienceandtechnology.jpl.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/documents/DefendingCivilizationFromSupervolcanos20151015.pdf
27
Ibid.
28
Ibid.
29
Dominic Dudley, “Renewable Energy Will Be Consistently Cheaper Than Fossil Fuels By 2020, Report Claims,” Forbes, (2018),
https://www.forbes.com/sites/dominicdudley/2018/01/13/renewable-energy-cost-effective-fossil-fuels-2020/#ba0d64d4ff2e

5
$0.17 kWh, this could soon rise, and by 2020, Forbes expects renewable energy technology to be

competitive with the fossil fuel market 30.

While the Yellowstone power plant would provide cheap, clean energy to nearby

communities, it is also important to consider the externalities of geothermal in the national park.

In 2017, visitors to Yellowstone spent $498.8 million in the park and in surrounding

communities 31. Over 4 million tourists created the need for 7354 jobs, generating $629.6 million

in local economic benefits 32. A mega-geothermal power plant could severely damage the

tourism profits that benefit local economies. Land use is also a significant consideration and

could impact tourism as well. The Yellowstone powerplant would require at least 7.45 km2 of

land 33 as shown in Equation 2, excluding pipe infrastructure. This low value is the best-case land

use scenario. With pipe infrastructure, however, there could be a worst-case land use scenario:

the NASA proposed that 160 injection pairs line the 250 km circumference of the caldera. If

everything inside this perimeter is inaccessible, 4972 km2 would be off-limits to visitors, or over

50% of the park 34 as seen in Equation 3.

In the best-case land use scenario, 7.45 km2 of infrastructure would be off-limits, and the

rest of the national park would be open to tourism and recreation, although it is likely that these

will be limited in some way. However, if planners decide to designate the entire center of the

caldera off limits, as in the worst-case land use scenario, they could completely suspend the

recreation industry and all tourism within the park, as many of the popular sites, like Old

Faithful, would fall within this zone, as Figure 1 shows. This would severely impact recreation

30
Ibid.
31
Morgan Warthin, “Tourism to Yellowstone creates $629.6 million in economic benefits,” Yellowstone, 2018.,
https://www.nps.gov/yell/learn/news/18019.htm
32
Ibid.
33
“The Future of Geothermal Energy – Impact of Enhanced Geothermal Systems (EGS) on the United States in the 21st Century,” Idaho National
Laboratory, (2006): 1-372, http://energy.mit.edu/wp-content/uploads/2006/11/MITEI-The-Future-of-Geothermal-Energy.pdf
34
National Park Service, “Park Facts,” Yellowstone, 2018, https://www.nps.gov/yell/planyourvisit/parkfacts.htm

6
and could lead to the collapse of the local tourism economy, which provides thousands of jobs

and millions of dollars each summer. Rick Hutchison, a Yellowstone National Park research

geologist estimates that Old Faithful, the park’s most visited geological feature, estimates that

this geyser alone produces millions of dollars in tourism annually 35. Hutchison also notes that

the geyser is particularly sensitive to earthquakes, and drilling in Yellowstone, regardless of land

use scenario, could severely impact the park’s most popular site. Other significant geological

concerns tied into how the land is used include concerns of recycled water. Boiling water that

has passed through rocks is likely to pick up gasses along the way, which will change the pH of

the fluid 36. The NASA report mentions recycling the water back into the wells, but there is

concern that this will damage geological features. However, the EGS system limits these

externalities, and it will likely not severely impact significant tourist spots within the park.

Many tourists, as well as non-users of Yellowstone National Park value the beauty of the

geysers and park. A massive power plant used to create electricity will degrade the aesthetic

value of Yellowstone National Park, and could impact activities such as wildlife-viewing,

photography, and overall visual pleasure 37. There may also be a number of other physical

externalities related to aesthetic. Infrastructure may impact the natural movements of animals

and may take up space where native plants grow, although the Idaho National Laboratory report

sites this as a minor concern 38. Despite these low-impact concerns, tourists may opt to visit

other, more “natural” places in leu of Yellowstone if infrastructure disturbs the natural aspects of

the park. Finally, certain externalities are felt specifically by indigenous peoples: several tribes

35
James Brooke. “Time Trouble for Geyser: It’s No Longer Old Faithful,” New York Times, (1996),
https://www.nytimes.com/1996/02/05/us/time-trouble-for-geyser-it-s-no-longer-old-faithful.html
36
“The Future of Geothermal Energy – Impact of Enhanced Geothermal Systems (EGS) on the United States in the 21st Century,” Idaho National
Laboratory, (2006): 166. http://energy.mit.edu/wp-content/uploads/2006/11/MITEI-The-Future-of-Geothermal-Energy.pdf
37
National Park Service, “Things To Do,” Yellowstone, 2018, https://www.nps.gov/yell/planyourvisit/things2do.htm
38
“The Future of Geothermal Energy – Impact of Enhanced Geothermal Systems (EGS) on the United States in the 21st Century,” Idaho National
Laboratory, (2006): 280. http://energy.mit.edu/wp-content/uploads/2006/11/MITEI-The-Future-of-Geothermal-Energy.pdf

7
have historically claimed and used the land that Yellowstone rests on 39, and the construction of a

geothermal plant could deny access to spiritual landmarks. Thermal waters were used

traditionally used for medicinal and religious purposes 40, and if a power plant were to be built,

special consideration for indigenous rights would have to be taken, and an understanding of how

other externalities could impact indigenous lands must be understood.

The operation of the geothermal plant would also create externalities that would impact

tourism, as well as the local community and surrounding wilderness. Geothermal fluids that have

passed through wells is often no longer pure water: it carries other dissolved gases and minerals

in it, making it a byproduct of production. If it cannot be recycled back into the EGS system,

then disposal via re-injection of this fluid is possible, but this can be costly, as there is a risk of

damaging fragile geothermal features with this method. In 1951, a geothermal powerplant in

Geyser Valley, Wairakei, New Zealand, began to extract geothermal fluids from the geological

features, and by the 1970s, the geyser could no longer power a plant, as the spring had turned

into steaming ground because the chemical composition of the geyser had changed from

reinjection 41. If water cannot be recycled, then a source of surface water will be needed to

operate an EGS system. Yellowstone Lake might have to be dammed or drawn from 42, which

can produce all sorts of additional costs. Drilling into the ground to either heat water as proposed

in the EGS system or to re-inject waste can increase local seismic activity 43, which as mentioned

before can disturb sensitive tourist sites like Old Faithful. Perhaps the more dangerous aspect of

39
National Park Service, “Associated Tribes,” Yellowstone, 2018, https://www.nps.gov/yell/learn/historyculture/associatedtribes.htm
40
National Park Service, “Historic Tribes,” Yellowstone, 2018, https://www.nps.gov/yell/learn/historyculture/historic-tribes.htm
41
Sophie Frances Milloy, Juliet Newson, and Fabian Sepulveda, “Geothermal Surface Features at Geyser Valley, Wairakei, New Zealand,”
Thirty-Eighth Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering, (2014): 1.
https://pangea.stanford.edu/ERE/pdf/IGAstandard/SGW/2014/Milloy.pdf
42
Brian H. Wilcox, Karl L. Mitchell, Florian M. Schwandner, and Rosaly M. Lopes, “Defending Human Civilization from Supervolcanic
Eruptions,” Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, (2005): 7.
https://scienceandtechnology.jpl.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/documents/DefendingCivilizationFromSupervolcanos20151015.pdf
43
“The Future of Geothermal Energy – Impact of Enhanced Geothermal Systems (EGS) on the United States in the 21st Century,” Idaho National
Laboratory, (2006): 168. http://energy.mit.edu/wp-content/uploads/2006/11/MITEI-The-Future-of-Geothermal-Energy.pdf

8
drilling is that developers run the risk that drilling could trigger an eruption 44, but with proper

understanding of drilling, this can be adverted. Finally, the physical construction of the

powerplant would require the use of fossil fuels, making the Yellowstone powerplant not

completely carbon-free. It is likely that the carbon cost would be significant, given the plant’s

size and the scope of the project.

There are also significant benefits that developing the NASA Yellowstone geothermal

plant would have. First, if the proposal is successful, then a devastating eruption would be

prevented. This would save countless lives in the long-term; although there are not as many

short-term benefits, preventing catastrophe is likely to have significant positive implications in

the future. In the short term, this power would cost at most $0.10/kWh. While $0.10/kWh is

higher than the U.S. Department of Energy estimates for an average plant 45, this price is still

lower than the estimates for fossil fuels in 2020 and equals current costs for solar energy. In

terms of land use, it is important to consider that a powerplant in the best-case land use scenario

would only take up less than 0.1% of the total area of Yellowstone as seen in Equation 4, so

much of the park would be still likely be accessible to recreation and would not inhibit wildlife

on a large scale. Geothermal plants also use significantly less land compared to other renewable

sources as seen in Figure 2 46. With proper care, geothermal fluids can be reused if the fragilities

of the geothermal features used are taken into careful consideration. This not only reduces

additional waste, but also decreases local water usage. Geothermal plants use nearly 70 times

44
Brian H. Wilcox, Karl L. Mitchell, Florian M. Schwandner, and Rosaly M. Lopes, “Defending Human Civilization from Supervolcanic
Eruptions,” Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, (2005): 19.
https://scienceandtechnology.jpl.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/documents/DefendingCivilizationFromSupervolcanos20151015.pdf
45
Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy, “Geothermal FAQs,” Geothermal, https://www.energy.gov/eere/geothermal/geothermal-
faqs
46
Judd Schechtman, Clinton Andrews, Lisa Dewey-Mattia, and Mathais Mayr, “Alternative Energy Sources and Land Use,” In Climate Change
Policies and Land Use, edited by Gregory K. Ingram and Yu-Hung Hong, 91-121. Cambridge: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, 2011,
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/278667691_Alternative_Energy_Sources_and_Land_Use

9
less water than coal powerplants as seen in Equation 5 47, making Yellowstone geothermal

beneficial in a region expected to have more frequent droughts with climate change. A closed-

loop EGS system which relies on no additional inputs and creates no waste product produces 0

kg/MWh CO2 48, making it a completely carbon-free energy source. Relying on more geothermal

will reduce our carbon emissions, which theoretically has enormous health benefits. Overall,

reducing carbon dioxide emissions slows the advance of climate change. As a result, there are

substantial benefits associated with a Yellowstone geothermal plant. However, because the plant

only produces 0.75% of the US’s energy, it is unclear what overall impact this plant will have on

climate change and carbon emissions reductions.

Beyond ordinary costs and benefits, there are also costs associated if the proposed

Yellowstone project goes wrong. Perhaps the biggest risk of the entire project is the chance that

drilling or development could trigger a super eruption, a high-risk low-probability event. This

tail risk would have enormous costs. From this, one must also consider the overall value of

Yellowstone National Park. Not only does the park provides millions of dollars to local

economies through jobs and tourism, but it is also irreplaceable: the park contains some of the

most unique geysers and springs in the world. Development in the park in any sense could

jeopardize this, and an infrastructure-triggered super eruption would destroy a true natural

wonder. However, with the advance of climate change, is it worth developing on this unique

piece of land? If society values geothermal energy, or renewables in general, as well as slowing

climate change, then there may be a case for building the geothermal plant. In the end, how

society choses to discount NASA’s project is significant: if society is willing to be patient, and

47
“Environmental Impacts,” The Geothermal City, 2009,
http://web.mit.edu/nature/archive/student_projects/2009/bjorn627/TheGeothermalCity/Environmental.html
48
“The Future of Geothermal Energy – Impact of Enhanced Geothermal Systems (EGS) on the United States in the 21st Century,” Idaho National
Laboratory, (2006): 276. http://energy.mit.edu/wp-content/uploads/2006/11/MITEI-The-Future-of-Geothermal-Energy.pdf

10
thus has a low discount rate, then the present value of the NASA project will be much higher and

could therefore pass a cost-benefit analysis. However, since scientists estimate that it may take

between 700 and 19,000 years to cool the chambers effectively 49, there is concern that these

decisions are beyond the current scope of current governance. Humanity is not likely to be this

patient: many of those who make decisions today to build the plant would not see the results of

this policy. Therefore, it is likely that the discount rate would be rather high, and therefore, it is

not likely that the plan would pass a cost-benefit analysis today.

49
Brian H. Wilcox, Karl L. Mitchell, Florian M. Schwandner, and Rosaly M. Lopes, “Defending Human Civilization from Supervolcanic
Eruptions,” Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, (2005): 11,
https://scienceandtechnology.jpl.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/documents/DefendingCivilizationFromSupervolcanos20151015.pdf

11
 Within caldera “worst-case land
use scenario” zone:
1. Old Faithful Geyser/Upper
Basin
2. Grand Canyon of Yosemite
3. Hayden Valley
5. Yellowstone Lake
9. Lower Geyser Basin
10. West Thumb Geyser Basin
Grand Prismatic Spring
Artists Paintpots

“Top 10 Attractions.” Introduction to Yellowstone.

https://yellowstone.net/intro/top-10/
“8 Best Yellowstone Geyser Basins and Map.”
MyYellowstonePark.com. 2018.
https://www.yellowstonepark.com/things-to-
do/yellowstone-geyser-basins-map

Figure 1. Map with outline of Yellowstone supervolcano caldera. In a worst-case land use
scenario, everything within the black line would be off-limits, thus denying access to some of
Yellowstone’s most popular tourist destinations.

12
Figure 2. Land use of each renewable energy source in percentage of earth’s total land area.
Taken from “Alternative Energy Sources and Land Use” Schechtman, et. al

3.46 &' ∗ 24 ℎ+,-. ∗ 365 012. = 30,306.9 &'ℎ

Equation 1. Conversion of GW to GWh to compare Yellowstone plant proposed production with

current U.S. energy consumption and production.

20 7' ∗ 0.25 ∗ 365 012. ∗ 24 ℎ+,-. = 43,800 7'9

&'9 170 <= =
><= =
43,800 7'9 ∗ 1 = 43.8 &'9 ∗ = 7446 < ∗ 1 < = 7.446 ><=
1000 7'9 1&'9 1000

Equation 2. Best case scenario land use, data taken from “The Future of Geothermal Energy”
Calculation is based on a 20MW geothermal binary plant (excluding well infrastructure)

250 >< = 2?-

250
= - = 39.78 ><
2?
@ = ?(39.78)= = 4,971.41 ><=
4971.41 ><=
= 0.5529 ∗ 100% = 55.29 %
8991 ><=

Equation 3. Total land use in km2 for the worst-case land use scenario, where the area within the
injection pipes would be off-limit to public access. Percentage of total area of Yellowstone
National Park that a worst-case land use scenario would take up.

13
 7.446 ><=
= 0.0008281 ∗ 100% = 0.08%
8991 ><=

Equation 4. Percentage of total area of Yellowstone National Park that a best-case land use
scenario would take up.

1370 D/>'ℎ
= 68.5
20 D/>'ℎ

Equation 5. comparing water use for coal-fired power plants to water use from geothermal plants
in kWh/L.

14
Bibliography:

“8 Best Yellowstone Geyser Basins and Map.” MyYellowstonePark.com. 2018.

https://www.yellowstonepark.com/things-to-do/yellowstone-geyser-basins-map

Brooke, James. “Time Trouble for Geyser: It’s No Longer Old Faithful.” New York Times,

(1996). https://www.nytimes.com/1996/02/05/us/time-trouble-for-geyser-it-s-no-longer-

old-faithful.html

Conca, James. “The Ten Biggest Power Plants in America – Not What You Think.” Forbes,

(2015). https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2015/04/20/the-ten-biggest-power-

plants-in-america-not-what-everyone-claims/#14ce0ffaa161

Dudley, Dominic. “Renewable Energy Will Be Consistently Cheaper Than Fossil Fuels By 2020,

Report Claims.” Forbes, (2018).

https://www.forbes.com/sites/dominicdudley/2018/01/13/renewable-energy-cost-

effective-fossil-fuels-2020/#ba0d64d4ff2e

“Environmental Impacts.” The Geothermal City. 2009.

http://web.mit.edu/nature/archive/student_projects/2009/bjorn627/TheGeothermalCity/En

vironmental.html

Hall, Shannon. “Yellowstone Supervolcano Could Be an Energy Source. But Should It?”

National Geographic, (2018).

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2018/08/news-yellowstone-supervolcano-

geothermal-energy-debate-iceland-hawaii/

Milloy, Sophie Frances, Newson, Juliet, and Sepulveda, Fabian. “Geothermal Surface Features at

Geyser Valley, Wairakei, New Zealand.” Thirty-Eighth Workshop on Geothermal

15
 Reservoir Engineering, (2014): 1-9.

https://pangea.stanford.edu/ERE/pdf/IGAstandard/SGW/2014/Milloy.pdf

National Park Service. “Associated Tribes.” Yellowstone. 2018.

https://www.nps.gov/yell/learn/historyculture/associatedtribes.htm

National Park Service. “Historic Tribes.” Yellowstone. 2018.

https://www.nps.gov/yell/learn/historyculture/historic-tribes.htm

National Park Service. “Park Facts.” Yellowstone. 2018.

https://www.nps.gov/yell/planyourvisit/parkfacts.htm

National Park Service. “Things To Do.” Yellowstone. 2018.

https://www.nps.gov/yell/planyourvisit/things2do.htm

Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy. “Geothermal FAQs.” Geothermal.

https://www.energy.gov/eere/geothermal/geothermal-faqs

Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy. “How a Geothermal Power Plant Works

(Simple).” Geothermal. https://www.energy.gov/eere/geothermal/how-geothermal-

power-plant-works-simple

Penn State John and Willie Leone Family Deparment of Energy and Mineral Engineering.

“Electricty Demand and Supply in the United States.” EME 801 Energy Markets, Policy

and Regulation. 2010. https://www.e-education.psu.edu/eme801/node/490

Plumer, Brad. “What would happen if the Yellowstone supervolcano actually erupted?” Vox

Media, (2014). https://www.vox.com/2014/9/5/6108169/yellowstone-supervolcano-

eruption

Schechtman, Judd, Andrews, Clinton, Dewey-Mattia, Lisa and Mayr, Mathais. “Alternative

Energy Sources and Land Use.” In Climate Change Policies and Land Use, edited by

16
 Gregory K. Ingram and Yu-Hung Hong. 91-121. Cambridge: Lincoln Institute of Land

Policy, 2011.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/278667691_Alternative_Energy_Sources_and_

Land_Use

“The Future of Geothermal Energy – Impact of Enhanced Geothermal Systems (EGS) on the

United States in the 21st Century.” Idaho National Laboratory, (2006): 1-372.

http://energy.mit.edu/wp-content/uploads/2006/11/MITEI-The-Future-of-Geothermal-

Energy.pdf

“Top 10 Attractions.” Introduction to Yellowstone. https://yellowstone.net/intro/top-10/

U.S. Congress. House of Representatives. “Geothermal Steam Act of 1970.” August 8, 2005.

https://legcounsel.house.gov/Comps/Geothermal%20Steam%20Act%20Of%201970.pdf

U.S. Energy Information Administration. “What is U.S. electricity generation by energy source?”

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS. 2018.

https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3

United States Environmental Protection Agency. “Effects of Acid Rain.” Related Topics: Acid

Rain. 2017. https://www.epa.gov/acidrain/effects-acid-rain

USGS. “Questions About Supervolcanoes.” Volcano Hazards Program. 2015.

https://volcanoes.usgs.gov/volcanoes/yellowstone/faqs_supervolcanoes.html

USGS. “Volcanoes can affect the Earth’s climate.” Volcano Hazards Program. 2018.

https://volcanoes.usgs.gov/vhp/gas_climate.html

Warthin, Morgan. “Tourism to Yellowstone creates $629.6 million in economic benefits.”

Yellowstone. 2018. https://www.nps.gov/yell/learn/news/18019.htm

17
Wilcox, Brian H., Mitchell, Karl L., Schwandner, Florian M., and Lopes, Rosaly M. “Defending

Human Civilization from Supervolcanic Eruptions.” Jet Propulsion Laboratory,

California Institute of Technology, (2005): 1-20.

https://scienceandtechnology.jpl.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/documents/DefendingCiviliz

ationFromSupervolcanos20151015.pdf

18