Deep Geothermal Heating Potential for the Communities of the Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We summarize the feasibility of using geothermal energy from the Western Canada Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) to support communities with populations >3000 people, including those in northeastern British Columbia, southwestern part of Northwest Territories (NWT), southern Saskatchewan, and southeastern Manitoba, along with previously studied communities in Alberta. The geothermal energy potential of the WCSB is largely determined by the basin’s geometry; the sediments start at 0 m thickness adjacent to the Canadian shield in the east and thicken to >6 km to the west, and over 3 km in the Williston sub-basin to the south. Direct heat use is most promising in the western and southern parts of the WCSB where sediment thickness exceeds 2–3 km. Geothermal potential is also dependent on the local geothermal gradient. Aquifers suitable for heating systems occur in western-northwestern Alberta, northeastern British Columbia, and southwestern Saskatchewan. Electrical power production is limited to the deepest parts of the WCSB, where aquifers >120 °C and fluid production rates >80 kg/s occur (southwestern Northwest Territories, northwestern Alberta, northeastern British Columbia, and southeastern Saskatchewan. For the western regions with the thickest sediments, the foreland basin east of the Rocky Mountains, estimates indicate that geothermal power up to 2 MWel. (electrical), and up to 10 times higher for heating in MWth. (thermal), are possible.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".