Subject: Comments to Draft Specifications for Application of UNFC-2009 to Geothermal Energy Resources: from Roy Mink
4 August 2016
A review of the document was performed by the Geothermal Resources Council (GRC) Technical Standards Committee and comments were submitted by individuals on that Committee. The following are comments I would like to submit as a member of the GRC Committee which are my own observations and not an official response from the Committee.
The title “Specifications for Application of the United Nations Framework Classification for Fossil Energy and Mineral Reserves and Resources 2009” is somewhat misleading by not mentioning geothermal. It would be easy to look over the geothermal focus on a search for the document. With a focus on fossil and mineral resources and deposits, the document title does not adequately reflect the unique nature of a geothermal resource. In addition, it would be easier to understand the flow of the document if the geothermal section were inclusive and did not rely on components of the other fort documents dividing standards for other energy resources.
The evaluator qualifications seem quite rigid with 5 years of experience in the type of resource and 4 years of formal course work. I would recommend the 5 years of experience or 2 years of experience with 4 years of formal course work in geoscience or engineering would be sufficient. In project evaluation, experience is often more valuable than extensive formal course work.
I recommend the inclusion of megawatts (MW) for energy along with joules (J). Much of industry reports worldwide use megawatts as an energy value while scientific studies use joules. Including a table of conversion would also be helpful. In evaluation of the geothermal resource, joules (J) and megawatts thermal (MWt) would be required. Then evaluating the power output of a project, megawatt hours (MWh) would allow for energy conversion efficiency of a power plant.
In the example, a ‘Reference Point’ definition would be helpful. This would set the evaluation base line for projects which are not mature. A mature project has an established reference point for the evaluation. The conceptual nature of the term is confusing. The examples could add more explanation such as naming and describing the models and computer programs used in the evaluation and including references, better explanation of acronyms and abbreviations, establish or reference dates of the technology used to better understand the state of technology between older data and evaluation techniques versus newer data with up-to-date technology. The mixing of old technology/techniques with the new could be misleading without adequate explanation.
Thank you for your work in establishing a set of standards for geothermal evaluation. A set of guidelines for the worldwide geothermal community to use will be most helpful.
Comments from Roy Mink to Draft Specifications for Application of UNFC-2009 to Geothermal Energy Resources.
4 August 2016
A review of the document was performed by the Geothermal Resources Council (GRC) Technical Standards Committee and comments were submitted by individuals on that Committee. The following are comments I would like to submit as a member of the GRC Committee which are my own observations and not an official response from the Committee.
The title “Specifications for Application of the United Nations Framework Classification for Fossil Energy and Mineral Reserves and Resources 2009” is somewhat misleading by not mentioning geothermal. It would be easy to look over the geothermal focus on a search for the document. With a focus on fossil and mineral resources and deposits, the document title does not adequately reflect the unique nature of a geothermal resource. In addition, it would be easier to understand the flow of the document if the geothermal section were inclusive and did not rely on components of the other fort documents dividing standards for other energy resources.
The evaluator qualifications seem quite rigid with 5 years of experience in the type of resource and 4 years of formal course work. I would recommend the 5 years of experience or 2 years of experience with 4 years of formal course work in geoscience or engineering would be sufficient. In project evaluation, experience is often more valuable than extensive formal course work.
I recommend the inclusion of megawatts (MW) for energy along with joules (J). Much of industry reports worldwide use megawatts as an energy value while scientific studies use joules. Including a table of conversion would also be helpful. In evaluation of the geothermal resource, joules (J) and megawatts thermal (MWt) would be required. Then evaluating the power output of a project, megawatt hours (MWh) would allow for energy conversion efficiency of a power plant.
In the example, a ‘Reference Point’ definition would be helpful. This would set the evaluation base line for projects which are not mature. A mature project has an established reference point for the evaluation. The conceptual nature of the term is confusing. The examples could add more explanation such as naming and describing the models and computer programs used in the evaluation and including references, better explanation of acronyms and abbreviations, establish or reference dates of the technology used to better understand the state of technology between older data and evaluation techniques versus newer data with up-to-date technology. The mixing of old technology/techniques with the new could be misleading without adequate explanation.
Thank you for your work in establishing a set of standards for geothermal evaluation. A set of guidelines for the worldwide geothermal community to use will be most helpful.
Comments from Roy Mink to Draft Specifications for Application of UNFC-2009 to Geothermal Energy Resources.