Closed-loop geothermal system is a potential source of low-carbon renewable energy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Decarbonizing the energy sector requires renewable sources that are economic and responsive to demand. Intermittency and seasonal variability, therefore, limit the potential of wind and solar. Geothermal energy can potentially provide low-carbon renewable power that is dispatchable and responsive to demand. However, conventional geothermal methods require high permeability in high-temperature subsurface zones, which restricts their application. Here, we assess the global potential of the closed-loop geothermal system (CLGS), an emerging technology that does not require high permeability. Using thermodynamic, process, and technoeconomic modeling, we analyze the potential for CLGS in 12,000 candidate regions to estimate global viability. With the base case of water as the working fluid in a Rankine cycle, we estimate the global potential to be 9 TWe, equivalent to 70% of current electricity production. We assess using phase change working fluids to broaden applicability and improve efficiency, and evaluate the remaining technological barriers to closed-loop geothermal energy production. Closed-loop geothermal system can provide the global energy potential of 9 TWe, if fully tapped, equivalent to 70% of current global electricity production, according to an analysis of 12,000 closed-loop geothermal systems with water as working fluid in a Rankine cycle.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".