Search USGS⌕ Search

USGS · 70276365

Geothermal district energy systems coupled with seasonal underground thermal energy storage: A U.S. techno-economic screening by climate and geology

Abstract

In the United States, cooling-dominated commercial building loads can cause geothermal heat pump-based district energy systems to accumulate a long-term subsurface thermal imbalance, motivating the incorporation of seasonal underground thermal energy storage. We developed a transferable workflow to evaluate geothermal district systems that pair ground heat exchangers with seasonal underground thermal energy storage. Using standardized hourly loads for seven commercial buildings and a uniform cost framework, we simulated ten U.S. cities with a physics-based ground heat exchanger model, subsurface storage simulations, and economic assessment to isolate the roles of climate and hydrogeology. In cooling-dominated cities, underground thermal energy storage supplied the majority of annual cooling, cutting electricity use and summer peaks substantially while achieving levelized costs comparable to or below conventional chiller-boiler plants. In cooler climates, the storage share shrunk, required borefield size and costs rose, and levelized cost of energy increased nearly linearly with declining underground thermal energy storage fraction, indicating storage fraction as the primary economic lever. Sensitivity analysis showed capital risk dominated by borefield drilling and surface heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning and piping, with underground thermal energy storage costs secondary. This workflow provides a transparent foundation for site-specific design and screening of next-generation geothermal district energy systems.

Explore related subjects

90° N90° S · 180° W ← longitude → 180° E
Source-reported bounding extent: 32.204991589542985° to 45.73136717646881° latitude; -122.91036733672632° to -76.4437439112682° longitude. This indicates report coverage, not an exact sampling location. View area on OpenStreetMap.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Scott Mello, Hyunjun Oh, Whitney J. Trainor-Guitton, Ryan Cain Cahalan, Jeffrey D. Pepin, Erick R. Burns. 2026-05-30. Geothermal district energy systems coupled with seasonal underground thermal energy storage: A U.S. techno-economic screening by climate and geology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2026.125540

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

Discover connections

Connections use source metadata and explicit phrase matches, not verified experimental comparisons.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

Predicting coastal impacts by wave farms: A comparison of wave-averaged and wave-resolving models

Wave energy converters (WECs) will have to be arranged into arrays of many devices to extract commercially viable amounts of energy. To understand the potential coastal impacts of WEC arrays, most research to date has relied on wave-averaged models given their computational efficiency. However, it is unknown how accurate wave-averaged model predictions are given a lack of validation data and their inherent simplifications of various hydrodynamic processes (e.g., diffraction). This paper compares the predictions of coastal wave farm impacts from a coupled wave-averaged and flow model (Delft3D-SNL-SWAN), to a wave-resolving wave-flow model (SWASH) that intrinsically accounts for more of the relevant physics. Model predictions were compared using an idealized coastal bathymetry over a range of wave conditions and wave farm geometries. Both models predicted the largest impacts (changes to the nearshore hydrodynamics) for large and dense wave farms located close to the shore (1 km) and the smallest impacts for the small and widely spaced farm at a greater offshore distance (3 km). However, the wave-resolving model generally predicted somewhat larger impacts (i.e., changes to the nearshore wave heights, mean velocities and mean water levels). We also found that coupling the wave-averaged model to a flow model resulted in more realistic downstream predictions than the stand-alone wave-averaged model.

Renewable Energy↗