Numerical Simulation and Economic Evaluation of Wellbore Self-Circulation for Heat Extraction Using Cluster Horizontal Wells
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Mathematical Model
2.1. Model Assumptions
2.2. Governing Equations
2.2.1. Wellbore Continuity Equations
2.2.2. Wellbore Pressure Equations
2.2.3. Wellbore Heat Transfer Equations
2.3. Initial and Boundary Conditions
2.4. Solution and Validation
3. Numerical Simulation Model
3.1. Model Parameters
3.2. Simulation Scheme
4. Simulation Results and Analysis
4.1. Water Injection Rate
4.2. Thermal Conductivity of Formation
4.3. Well Spacing
4.4. Thermal Conductivity of Tubing
5. Economic Evaluation
5.1. Economic Evaluation Model
5.1.1. Levelized Cost of Energy (LCOE)
5.1.2. Well Construction Cost
- (1)
- Drilling cost
- (2)
- Heat insulation tubing cost
- (3)
- Other costs
5.1.3. Construction Cost of Ground Equipment
- (1)
- Ground power generation equipment
- (2)
- Ground heat exchange equipment
5.1.4. Operation and Maintenance Cost
5.1.5. Investment Payback Time
- (1)
- Geothermal heating
- (2)
- Geothermal power generation
5.2. Heat Extraction Cost of Cluster Well Group
5.3. Power Generation Cost of Cluster Well Group
6. Conclusions
- (1)
- The use of clustered horizontal well groups for geothermal production can enhance the heat extraction capacity of the self-circulating wellbore and reduce the drilling cost per well. A numerical simulation model of the self-circulation wellbore for heat extraction in hot dry rocks using cluster horizontal wells was established based on the mathematical model. The reliability of the model has been validated by fitting the published geothermal test data.
- (2)
- With the increase in water injection rate, the heat extraction rate of cluster wells will increase first and tend to be stable. The water injection rate is stable at 432 m3/d/well; the outlet temperature and the heat extraction rate per well after 10 years are 100.9 °C and 1.59 MW, respectively. When the thermal conductivity of formation increases from 2 to 3.5 W/(m·K), the heat extraction rate will increase 1.45 times. The thermal conductivity of tubing has important effects on the heat extraction rate. The installation of heat insulation tubing is necessary. The reasonable well spacing and well number should be determined according to the field conditions.
- (3)
- The use of a cluster well group can reduce the unit costs of heat extraction and power generation. Compared with a single well, the unit heat extraction cost can be reduced by 24.3% from 0.0303 USD/(kW·h) to 0.0229 USD/(kW·h), and the unit power generation cost can be reduced by 25.5% from 0.355 USD/(kW·h) to 0.265 USD/(kW·h).
- (4)
- If cluster horizontal wells are used for heat extraction on site, it is recommended to prioritize the location of areas with better formation thermal properties, and the inflection point of injection rate can be determined as the basis for the working system. In addition, the thermal conductivity of the tubing should be less than 0.035 W/(m·K) to reduce heat loss. In addition, the well spacing of cluster wells is recommended to be larger than 50 m to avoid thermal short-circuiting between wells. Geothermal power generation is feasible, but the cost of power generation can be further reduced by retrofitting existing wellbores and optimizing the heat-carrying fluids.
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Abbreviations
Nomenclature | |
q | mass flow, kg/s |
l | length of the well section, m |
r | radius, m |
ρ | density, kg/m3 |
v | flow rate, m/s |
g | acceleration of gravity, m/s2 |
f | hydraulic friction coefficient |
d | diameter, m |
t | time, s |
T | temperature, °C |
Q | heat flux, W |
c | specific heat capacity, J/(kg·K) |
h | convective heat transfer coefficient, W/(m2·K) |
λ | thermal conductivity, W/(m·K) |
G | geothermal gradient, °C/m |
z | vertical depth, m |
A | annualized cost, USD; |
E | energy supply, kW·h |
O | operation and maintenance cost, USD |
I | initial investment cost, USD |
i | annual interest rate of bank loans |
Qe | heat extraction rate under field conditions, kW |
η | efficiency, fraction |
y | drilling cost, USD |
x | well depth, km |
F(n) | the ratio of the construction cost of the nth well to the construction cost of the first well |
M | cost, USD |
A | heat exchange area, m2 |
W | power, kW |
k | total heat transfer coefficient, W/(m2·K) |
J | investment payback time, years |
Subscripts | |
h | heat-carrying fluid |
tu | tubing |
ca | casing |
ht | heat-carrying fluid in the tubing |
ha | heat-carrying fluid in the annulus |
tu1 | inner wall of the tubing |
tu2 | outer wall of the tubing |
ca1 | inner wall of the casing |
ca2 | outer wall of the casing |
F, tu | per unit length of the tubing |
F, an | per unit length of the annulus |
ca, ce | casing and cement sheath |
ce | cement sheath |
ce2 | outer wall of the cement sheath |
r | formation |
ce, r | cement sheath and formation |
s | surface |
b | boundary of formation |
const | constant |
a | annualized |
to | total |
ah | considering heating |
ap | considering power generation |
o | organic working fluid |
b, 1 | inlet of the turbine |
b, 2 | outlet of the turbine |
oi | internal of steam turbine |
me | mechanical |
pg | power generation |
pump | pump |
plant | all the ground power generation equipment |
evap | evaporator |
cond | condenser |
net | net |
he | heat exchanger |
n | the nth well |
atu | annualized heat insulation tubing |
ahe | annualized heat exchange equipment |
he | heat exchange equipment |
Superscripts | |
L | geothermal project duration |
Abbreviations | |
LCOE | levelized cost of energy |
References
- Lu, C.; Wang, G. Current status and prospect of hot dry rock research. Sci. Technol. Rev. 2015, 33, 13–21, (In Chinese with English Abstract). [Google Scholar]
- Wang, J.; Hu, S.; Pang, Z.; He, L.; Zhao, P.; Zhu, C.; Rao, S.; Tang, X.; Kong, Y.; Luo, L.; et al. Estimate of geothermal resources potential for hot dry rock in the continental area of China. Sci. Technol. Rev. 2012, 30, 25–31, (In Chinese with English Abstract). [Google Scholar]
- Zeng, Y. Technical Progress and Thinking for development of hot dry rock (HDR) geothermal resources. Pet. Drill. Tech. 2015, 43, 1–7, (In Chinese with English Abstract). [Google Scholar]
- Liao, Z.; Wan, T.; Zhang, Z. The enhanced geothermal system (EGS): Huge capacity and difficult exploitation. Earth Sci. Front. 2015, 22, 335–344, (In Chinese with English Abstract). [Google Scholar]
- Sanyal, S.K.; Butler, S.J. An analysis of power generation prospects from enhanced geothermal systems. Geotherm. Resour. Counc. 2005, 29, 131–138. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, X.; Wu, N.; Su, Z.; Zeng, Y. Progress of the enhanced geothermal systems (EGS) development technology. Prog. Geophys. 2012, 27, 355–362, (In Chinese with English Abstract). [Google Scholar]
- Lu, S. A global review of enhanced geothermal system (EGS). Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018, 82, 2902–2921. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brown, D.; Duteaux, R.; Kruger, P.; Swenson, D.; Yamaguchi, T. Fluid circulation and heat extraction from engineered geothermal reservoirs. Geothermics 1999, 28, 553–572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pruess, K. Enhanced geothermal systems (EGS) using CO2 as working fluid—A novel approach for generating renewable energy with simultaneous sequestration of carbon. Geothermics 2006, 35, 351–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Zhang, L.; Ezekiel, J.; Li, D.; Pei, J.; Ren, S. Potential assessment of CO2 injection for heat mining and geological storage in geothermal reservoirs of China. Appl. Energy 2014, 122, 237–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Spitler, J.D.; Javed, S.; Ramstad, R.K. Natural convection in groundwater-filled boreholes used as ground heat exchangers. Appl. Energy 2016, 164, 352–365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kujawa, T.; Władysław, N. Utilization of existing deep geological wells for acquisitions of geothermal energy. Energy 2006, 31, 650–664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wood, C.J.; Liu, H.; Saffa, B.R. Comparative performance of ‘U-tube’ and ‘coaxial’ loop designs for use with a ground source heat pump. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2012, 37, 190–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Beier, R.A.; Acuña, J.; Mogensen, P.; Palm, B. Borehole resistance and vertical temperature profiles in coaxial borehole heat exchangers. Appl. Energy 2013, 102, 665–675. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Holmberg, H.; Acuña, J.; Næss, E.; Sønju, O.S. Thermal evaluation of coaxial deep borehole heat exchangers. Renew. Energy 2016, 97, 65–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cui, G.; Ren, S.; Zhang, L.; Ezekiel, J.; Enechukwu, C.; Wang, Y.; Zhang, R. Geothermal exploitation from hot dry rocks via recycling heat transmission fluid in a horizontal well. Energy 2017, 128, 366–377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gordon, D.; Bolisetti, T.; Ting, D.S.; Reitsma, S. Experimental and analytical investigation on pipe sizes for a coaxial borehole heat exchanger. Renew. Energy 2018, 115, 946–953. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dai, C.; Li, J.; Shi, Y.; Zheng, L.; Lei, H. An experiment on heat extraction from a deep geothermal well using a downhole coaxial open loop design. Appl. Energy 2019, 252, 113–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yildirim, N.; Parmanto, S.; Akkurt, G.G. Thermodynamic assessment of downhole heat exchangers for geothermal power generation. Renew. Energy 2019, 141, 1080–1091. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, G.; Song, X.; Shi, Y.; Yang, R.; Yulong, F.; Zheng, R.; Li, J. Heat extraction analysis of a novel multilateral-well coaxial closed-loop geothermal system. Renew. Energy 2021, 163, 974–986. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pokhrel, S.; Sasmito, A.P.; Sainoki, A.; Tosha, T.; Tanaka, T.; Nagai, C.; Ghoreishi-Madiseh, S.A. Field-scale experimental and numerical analysis of a downhole coaxial heat exchanger for geothermal energy production. Renew. Energy 2022, 182, 521–535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alimonti, C.; Soldo, E. Study of geothermal power generation from a very deep oil well with a wellbore heat exchanger. Renew. Energy 2016, 86, 292–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, Y.; Zhang, L.; Cui, G.; Kang, J.; Ren, S. Geothermal development and power generation by circulating water and isobutane via a closed-loop horizontal well from hot dry rocks. Renew. Energy 2019, 136, 909–922. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kurnia, J.C.; Putra, Z.A.; Muraza, O.; Ghoreishi-Madiseh, S.A.; Sasmito, A.P. Numerical evaluation, process design and techno-economic analysis of geothermal energy extraction from abandoned oil wells in Malaysia. Renew. Energy 2021, 175, 868–879. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zeng, J. Research on Temperature and Pressure Field Model of Supercritical Carbon Dioxide Fracturing Wellbore. Master’s Thesis, Southwest Petroleum University, Chengdu, China, 2014. (In Chinese with English Abstract). [Google Scholar]
- Guo, J.; Zeng, J. A coupling model for wellbore transient temperature and pressure of fracturing with supercritical carbon dioxide. Acta Pet. Sin. 2015, 36, 203–209, (In Chinese with English Abstract). [Google Scholar]
- Cheng, W.; Li, T.; Nian, Y.; Xie, K. An analysis of insulation of abandoned oil wells reused for geothermal power generation. Energy Procedia 2014, 61, 607–610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Wang, Y. Geothermal Exploitation via Circulating Fluid within a Closed-Loop Horizontal Well from Hot Dry Rocks. Master’s Thesis, China University of Petroleum (East China), Qingdao, China, 2019. (In Chinese with English Abstract). [Google Scholar]
- Morita, K.; Bollmeier, W.S. Mizogami, H. Analysis of the results from the downhole coaxial heat exchanger (DCHE) experiment in Hawaii. Geotherm. Resour. Counc. Trans. 1992, 16, 17–23. [Google Scholar]
- Song, X.; Wang, G.; Shi, Y.; Li, R.; Xu, Z.; Zheng, R.; Wang, Y.; Li, J. Numerical analysis of heat extraction performance of a deep coaxial borehole heat exchanger geothermal system. Energy 2018, 164, 1298–1310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Han, L.; Xiang, X.; Yan, R.; Du, W.; Xiong, S.; Du, J. Low-cost batch drilling technology used to drill cluster wells. Drill. Prod. Technol. 2012, 35, 5–8, (In Chinese with English Abstract). [Google Scholar]
- Glassley, W.E. Geothermal Energy: Renewable Energy and the Environment; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Zou, Y. Drilling Cost Analysis of Oil Field Production Capacity Construction. Doctoral Dissertation, Southwest Petroleum University, Chengdu, China, 2013. (In Chinese with English Abstract). [Google Scholar]
- Fan, M.; Li, Z.; Feng, L. Cost forecast model study on oil and gas well operation. Nat. Gas Ind. 2007, 27, 134–136, (In Chinese with English Abstract). [Google Scholar]
- Li, J.; Wang, L.; Shi, S.; Li, J. Economic analysis of injection and production of vertical well with thermal insulation tubing in super heavy oil reservoir: A case study of Fengcheng Oilfield. Pet. Geol. Eng. 2014, 28, 137–140, (In Chinese with English Abstract). [Google Scholar]
- Strušnik, D.; Golob, M.; Avsec, J. Effect of non-condensable gas on heat transfer in steam turbine condenser and modelling of ejector pump system by controlling the gas extraction rate through extraction tubes. Energy Convers. Manag. 2016, 126, 228–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yao, S.; Zhang, Y.; Yu, X. Thermo-economic analysis of a novel power generation system integrating a natural gas expansion plant with a geothermal ORC in Tianjin, China. Energy 2018, 164, 602–614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, J.; Chang, H. Heat Transfer; Science Press: Beijing, China, 2015; (In Chinese with English Abstract). [Google Scholar]
- Joshi, S.D. Cost/Benefits of horizontal wells. In Proceedings of the SPE Western Regional/AAPG Pacific Section Joint Meeting, Long Beach, CA, USA, 19–24 May 2003. [Google Scholar]
Rock Type | Depth Range, m | Thermal Conductivity, W/(m·K) | Heat Capacity, J/m3/K |
---|---|---|---|
Mudstone | 0–1500 | 2.1 | 2.0 × 106 |
Granite | 1500–3700 | 3.2 | 2.1 × 106 |
Parameter | Value | Parameter | Value |
---|---|---|---|
Inner diameter of tubing, m | 0.076 | Heat capacity of casing, J/m3/K | 3.63 × 106 |
Outer diameter of tubing, m | 0.114 | Thermal conductivity of cement sheath, W/(m·K) | 1.366 |
Inner diameter of casing, m | 0.158 | Thermal conductivity of tubing, W/(m·K) | 0.035 |
Outer diameter of casing, m | 0.178 | Thermal conductivity of casing, W/(m·K) | 45.023 |
Thickness of cement sheath, m | 0.04 | Relative roughness of pipe inside surface | 0.001 |
Heat capacity of cement sheath, J/m3/K | 1.85 × 106 | Running time, year | 10 |
Heat capacity of tubing, J/m3/K | 3.63 × 106 |
No | Injection Rate, m3/d | Thermal Conductivity of Formation, W/(m·K) | Well Spacing, m | Thermal Conductivity of Tubing, W/(m·K) |
---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 43.2, 216, 432 *, 864, 1296 | 3.5 | 50 | 0.035 |
2 | 432 | 2, 2.5, 3, 3.5 * | 50 | 0.035 |
3 | 432 | 3.5 | 10, 20, 30, 50 *, 100 | 0.035 |
4 | 432 | 3.5 | 50 | 0.0035, 0.035 *, 0.35, 3.5 |
5 | 432 | 3.5 | 50 | 0.035 |
Component Efficiency | Value |
---|---|
Relative internal efficiency of steam turbine, ηoi | 0.85 |
Mechanical efficiency of steam turbine, ηme | 0.97 |
Efficiency of power generation, ηpg | 0.98 |
Efficiency of pump, ηpump | 0.8 |
Components | Equation of Capital Cost, USD |
---|---|
Evaporator | |
Condenser | |
Steam turbine | |
Booster pump |
Pattern of Wells | Well Spacing, m | 10 | 10 | 10 | 30 | 30 | 30 | 50 | 50 | 50 |
Well Number | 5 | 20 | 100 | 5 | 20 | 100 | 5 | 20 | 100 | |
Investment payback time, years | 5 | 0.0889 | 0.0790 | 0.0716 | 0.0810 | 0.0720 | 0.0653 | 0.0792 | 0.0705 | 0.0639 |
10 | 0.0530 | 0.0471 | 0.0427 | 0.0483 | 0.0429 | 0.0389 | 0.0472 | 0.0420 | 0.0381 | |
20 | 0.0356 | 0.0316 | 0.0286 | 0.0324 | 0.0288 | 0.0261 | 0.0317 | 0.0282 | 0.0255 | |
30 | 0.0302 | 0.0268 | 0.0243 | 0.0275 | 0.0244 | 0.0221 | 0.0269 | 0.0239 | 0.0217 |
Pattern of Wells | Well Spacing, m | 10 | 10 | 10 | 30 | 30 | 30 | 50 | 50 | 50 |
Well Number | 5 | 20 | 100 | 5 | 20 | 100 | 5 | 20 | 100 | |
Investment payback time, years | 5 | 1.0324 | 0.9167 | 0.8249 | 0.9393 | 0.8337 | 0.7496 | 0.9221 | 0.8184 | 0.7358 |
10 | 0.6150 | 0.5461 | 0.4914 | 0.5595 | 0.4966 | 0.4466 | 0.5493 | 0.4875 | 0.4383 | |
20 | 0.4123 | 0.3661 | 0.3295 | 0.3752 | 0.3330 | 0.2994 | 0.3683 | 0.3269 | 0.2939 | |
30 | 0.3498 | 0.3107 | 0.2796 | 0.3183 | 0.2825 | 0.2540 | 0.3125 | 0.2774 | 0.2494 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Zhao, Z.; Qin, G.; Chen, H.; Yang, L.; Geng, S.; Wen, R.; Zhang, L. Numerical Simulation and Economic Evaluation of Wellbore Self-Circulation for Heat Extraction Using Cluster Horizontal Wells. Energies 2022, 15, 3296. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15093296
Zhao Z, Qin G, Chen H, Yang L, Geng S, Wen R, Zhang L. Numerical Simulation and Economic Evaluation of Wellbore Self-Circulation for Heat Extraction Using Cluster Horizontal Wells. Energies. 2022; 15(9):3296. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15093296
Chicago/Turabian StyleZhao, Zhen, Guangxiong Qin, Huijuan Chen, Linchao Yang, Songhe Geng, Ronghua Wen, and Liang Zhang. 2022. "Numerical Simulation and Economic Evaluation of Wellbore Self-Circulation for Heat Extraction Using Cluster Horizontal Wells" Energies 15, no. 9: 3296. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15093296