Frack to the future? Geothermal energy pitched as datacenter savior
- Reference: 1741867153
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2025/03/13/geothermal_datacenters/
- Source link:
But there's a catch. It focuses on techniques that employ hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, to avoid being restricted to areas with naturally available geothermal energy, and depends on operators being prepared to pay a "green premium."
The Rhodium Group says in a [1]report that electricity generated from geothermal energy could "economically meet" up to 64 percent of the expected growth in datacenter loads coming by the early 2030s.
[2]
It points out that electricity use by the world's bit barns has grown rapidly – from a relatively small base – at a rate of 20-25 percent annually so far this decade. This means that the amount of electricity consumed by datacenters in the US has increased from around 2 percent in 2020 to around 4.5 percent in 2024.
[3]
[4]
Future projections for the growth of US bit barn energy requirements through 2030 range from a relatively modest 5 percent annually to upward of 35 percent, it claims.
There are a number of possible solutions to meet the potentially significant surge in power demand from datacenters, each with associated advantages and challenges. The Rhodium Group puts forward geothermal energy because of its renewable nature, low or zero greenhouse gas emissions, and high availability.
[5]
Specifically, the report highlights enhanced geothermal systems (EGS), "a type of next-generation geothermal, in which hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling techniques are used to create fractures through which fluid can be injected to be warmed by the Earth's heated rock formations."
In other words, fracking, but to extract heat rather than oil or gas deposits.
This technique is favored because it does not require a "naturally permeable hydrothermal reservoir" as conventional geothermal systems do, and is able to "tap into heat across broader swathes of the globe."
[6]
However fracking itself is controversial and has met with stiff opposition in many places, particularly in the UK where fracking to extract oil and gas was halted in 2019 because of [7]earthquakes that were blamed on the process.
Even in the US, where fracking is widely used, 53 percent of Americans oppose expanding hydraulic fracturing for oil and gas, according to a recent [8]Pew Research Center survey.
The Rhodium Group makes a couple of assumptions. The first is that most of the future growth in bit barn electricity demand will come from AI training and inference at hyperscale facilities. Its second is that geothermal installations are subject to the same delays in interconnecting to the grid that bedevil other energy projects.
Because of the latter, it advocates bypassing the grid and plugging directly into datacenter campuses, claiming that geothermal is uniquely well-positioned for such "behind-the-meter" applications, citing its clean energy profile and minimal surface infrastructure footprint.
[9]Amazon, Meta, Google sign pledge to triple nuclear power capacity by 2050
[10]Energy trio wants to pipe gas from coal mines to keep datacenter lights on
[11]Our world faces 'unprecedented' spike in electricity demand
[12]London has 400 GW of grid requests holding up datacenter builds
The report estimates that the total electricity load for data facilities will hit 80 GW by 2030, representing 22 percent annual growth over 2022 levels, and that roughly 27 GW of this comes from hyperscalers.
It claims that geothermal energy will be able to meet all of the anticipated demand growth from datacenters in 13 of the 15 largest US markets – where most global datacenters are concentrated – and at least 15 percent of demand in 20 out of 28 markets nationwide.
"Much of the opportunity we find is in the West, but geothermal can provide power for some or all growth, even in growth markets in the central and eastern US including the Washington, DC/Northern Virginia cluster, Chicago, Columbus, OH, and Memphis," the report states.
Among major growth markets, only Atlanta and New York City don't show "meaningful promise" for behind-the-meter geothermal, it claims.
There is, however, another caveat. The report says the extent to which geothermal can meet the expanded energy demand depends on assumptions about green premiums that operators are willing to pay for clean energy.
The baseline scenario assumes operators will pay a 20 percent premium over the regional retail electricity rate. Without this, the economics "no longer make sense" in several key markets, it admits, including Phoenix and the Washington DC/Northern Virginia region, leading to 38-55 percent lower geothermal deployment.
And it gets worse. The report states that "continued federal support for deployment of these technologies will also be critical," as geothermal facilities qualify for tax credits that play an important role in making early projects viable.
"If Congress or the Treasury were to restrict access to these credits, or repeal them altogether, early projects may struggle to secure financing and price output competitively," it says. Recent events suggest that tax credits for green energy projects may be repealed, if they haven't been already. ®
Get our [13]Tech Resources
[1] https://rhg.com/research/geothermal-data-center-electricity-demand/
[2] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/front&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=2&c=2Z9MPMh54Ytz0ztFCF7USqgAAABU&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D2%26raptor%3Dcondor%26pos%3Dtop%26test%3D0
[3] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/front&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44Z9MPMh54Ytz0ztFCF7USqgAAABU&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[4] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/front&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33Z9MPMh54Ytz0ztFCF7USqgAAABU&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[5] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/front&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44Z9MPMh54Ytz0ztFCF7USqgAAABU&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[6] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/front&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33Z9MPMh54Ytz0ztFCF7USqgAAABU&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[7] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-49471321
[8] https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/10/10/how-americans-feel-about-hydraulic-fracturing-for-oil-and-gas/
[9] https://www.theregister.com/2025/03/12/push_for_nuclear/
[10] https://www.theregister.com/2025/03/11/datacenter_coal_mine_methane/
[11] https://www.theregister.com/2025/02/14/iea_global_electricity_demand/
[12] https://www.theregister.com/2025/02/10/london_has_400_gw_of/
[13] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
Re: Opposed to fracking for oil/gas exploration
@John Robson
"That's not the same as opposed to fracking"
It is fracking. In both cases its fracking.
"and doesn't necessarily mean that people will be opposed to fracking for geothermal."
People suffering some sort of delusion may not oppose fracking for one but only for the other but that would show the hypocrisy of their opinion.
Re: Opposed to fracking for oil/gas exploration
Oh dear here we go again.
People might be opposed to the extraction of fossil fuels, or object to the risk of contamination that said fracking involves. Neither of which are an issue here.
You don't have to spend all your day chasing my comments to downvote them.
Re: Opposed to fracking for oil/gas exploration
@John Robson
"People might be opposed to the extraction of fossil fuels"
Yes, but the opposition was to fracking. If you happen to be against fracking because its dangerous, earthquakes and all the other excuses then it should apply to both. If you oppose it because fossil fuel then thats your problem and unaware of how most of the things in your life exist.
"or object to the risk of contamination that said fracking involves. Neither of which are an issue here."
Eh? How is that not the issue here? As in the article fracking was opposed because fracking is bad (that was the excuse). Remove that excuse for this purpose and we can lift the excuse for other uses too.
So absolutely the issue here.
"You don't have to spend all your day chasing my comments to downvote them."
Interesting article to which your comment was there first spouting nonsense. As we discuss here.
*Also not only have I not downvoted your comment (I replied with reason) your comment doesnt have any votes at this point. So you seem to have overplayed the victim idiot
Re: Opposed to fracking for oil/gas exploration
This is not the same as fracking for oil and gas extraction. This fracking, which happens more than a mile below the surface, circulates water through the cracks, between pairs of boreholes. The water gets heated up because the rock at that depth is very hot. It generates steam for a turbine and circulates back down. This is much less likely to cause earthquakes than removing liquid or gas from the ground. It's about as clean as you can get, energy-wise. Estimates are that a given boring can operates for around 30 years before the rock loses too much heat.It's not even likely to be that expensive, and it works on a small scale, so it can be done at or near the data center, at least if the rights to the land underneath (the fracking spreads horizontally once it gets down deep enough) can be obtained.
Re: Opposed to fracking for oil/gas exploration
@isdnip
"This is not the same as fracking for oil and gas extraction."
My understanding of fracking is it uses chemicals mixed with water to fracture the rock. I dont see how the earthquake risk is gone nor the contamination worries.
I am a fan of geothermal by the way and have no issue with it, I just also dont have an issue fracking for gas or oil.
Re: Opposed to fracking for oil/gas exploration
"My understanding of fracking is it uses chemicals mixed with water to fracture the rock."
The process can also break barriers that keep aquifers from being polluted. Not only is there objectionable chemicals being used in fracking fluid that are often called "trade secrets" and not divulged, there's a danger of an aquifer's water dissolving bad things into the water that nature had buffered against over time. Companies will use and pollute millions of gallons of fresh water in a fracking operation. For those that think fracking for geothermal energy doesn't induce Earthquakes, I invite them to look at Geysers, CA. Yes, it's a volcanic area, but it's a big geothermal energy location that has scores of Earthquakes all of the time.
Re: Opposed to fracking for oil/gas exploration
"This is much less likely to cause earthquakes".
Not sure that this statement holds true. It might be that the process causes fewer earth tremors than fracking for oil and gas, but it is still near-enough guaranteed to cause some tremors.
Also, I'm perplexed at you reference to 'this fracking' happening more than a mile below the surface, since that also applies for oil/gas; I think the Eden project geothermal is about 4.5km deep; the newly discovered gas field in Lincolnshire is about 2km down, so well depths are comparable.
A few years back, the Eden project geothermal trial had to cease operations for some period (I forget how long) because of the tremors it caused.
And you may have noted how I'm (quite deliberately) referring to 'earth tremors' not 'earthquakes'. The assorted protest groups, plus the mass media, like to talk about 'earthquakes', because people tend to think death and destruction when an earthquake happens. The tremors resulting from fracking (whether for oil/gas or geothermal) are generally very small, and often less than occur naturally - and here I am referring to the UK, which is not exactly noted as an earthquake hot spot.
The British Geological Survey publish a continuously updated list of recent seismic events in the UK:
https://www.earthquakes.bgs.ac.uk/earthquakes/recent_uk_events.html
From a quick look at that at the moment, it's ranged from magnitude 0.2 to 3.5 since 13 January.
So now compare that to the limit imposed for fracking:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/08/27/ed-davey-proud-have-stopped-fracking-despite-energy-crisis/?msockid=16ba3b85500860640f4e28c3519561d5
(Yes, It's an article from the telegraph - it was the first link that my search engine found, that's all).
Particularly relevant:
"In 2012, he [Ed Davey] introduced a strict regulation that means companies have to halt work if they trigger tremors over 0.5 magnitude.
Shale gas firms have said commercial fracking cannot take place under the rule. Appearing on Channel 4 in 2019, Sir Ed said the rule had “actually meant that the fracking industry has not developed in this country at all”.
“I’m very proud that you’re looking at the person who basically stopped the fracking industry in this country,” he added."
Of the 42 earth tremors to affect the UK since 13 January, 36 of them equalled or exceeded the value at which work has to stop.
The deliberate mis-representation of the risk of earthquakes, to generate fear, has been used to block fracking for oil and gas extraction, and means that, at least in the UK, the regulatory environment now makes fracking for any purpose, including geothermal, excessively challenging.
Re: risk of contamination that said fracking involves. Neither of which are an issue here
How exactly does this geothermal fracking not cause contamination problems, while that complaint is often raised for oil/gas fracking? The act is the same, just the extraction goal is different.
I suppose it depends on what the contamination is . If it's oil/gas seeping into ground water, that's one thing. But if it's the fracking fluid itself seeping into ground water, then that will be a problem for all uses of fracking, not just the ones you disagree with.
Easy...
All Data Centres to move to Iceland. Copious geothermal energy being renewed below, plenty of cold air to keep the NVIDIA deep fat fryers temperate and expanding land area for a good 100 million years or so. Maybe even some privacy.
What could possibly go wrong?
[1]UNIT is providing security cover at an experimental drilling project at Eastchester, designed to penetrate the Earth's crust and release a previously untapped source of energy ...
[1] https://tardis.fandom.com/wiki/Inferno_(TV_story)
Re: What could possibly go wrong?
Meanwhile in the real world, a much less interesting problem already happens:
[1]Staufen, Germany
[1] https://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/infrastructure/a13812969/a-drilling-mistake-is-literally-tearing-this-german-town-apart/
Much less interesting?
Tsk!
You've got chemistry, hydrogeology, engineering geology and process engineering issues all in one spot... Ground investigation then conceptual modelling then design - then repeat when things start going awry to find out what went wrong / who screwed up (and who gets the bill to fix it).
This is all incredibly interesting!
(I may be professionally biased).
Opposed to fracking for oil/gas exploration
That's not the same as opposed to fracking... and doesn't necessarily mean that people will be opposed to fracking for geothermal.