Bittersweet news in today’s edition, all: Enspired will be phased out of AAPG’s newsletter portfolio at the end of the month. I truly enjoyed bringing you weekly updates re: tech and innovation happenings, and encourage you to subscribe to the other newsletters from AAPG if you haven’t already. The next few editions will include pieces from those newsletters, so you can get a sense of other options available.
Last week, I promised a continuation of the DOE’s fusion roadmap, so let’s dig in!
Sarah Compton
Editor, Enspired
The DoE Does Fusion, Pt. 2
Daniela Illing/Shutterstock.com
Last week, we introduced the DoE’s Fusion Roadmap, and this week we are covering what they consider to be core challenge areas.
Cue the geoscience: First up, they include something that us geoscientists can certainly help with, which is structural materials science and technology.
The report highlights key materials research areas such as physical and mechanical properties that will guide the design, development, and qualification of materials, structures, and systems.
The goal here is for the materials to be able to withstand incredibly high temperatures and insane physical stresses that will likely occur in a fusion reactor.
Two types of materials: The category of structural materials is broken into two parts, because there are different physical characteristics depending on whether the materials are in direct contact with the plasma or are on the outside, helping to confine the reaction.
Materials directly contacting the plasma need to withstand high neutron flux, thermal loads, and environmental stresses. Examples might include solid and liquid metal walls and advanced composites.
The chamber and diverter design also requires advancement, as these elements of the reactor need to be able to handle “normal” challenges like erosion, fuel retention, and dust, in a brutal environment.
Fueling the reaction: Confining the reaction is one thing: fueling it is another can of worms. Fuel needs to be procured, processed, and stored before it’s even used! After use, the fuel needs to be removed from the reactor safely, moved, and stored properly, likely in perpetuity.
Blanket science and tech: No, this has nothing to do with blankets or Michael Jackson’s son 😉
Although the fusion process is the sexy part of fusion technology, the crux of the whole thing involves what’s called “blanket science and technology,” which connects those plasma physics to power production.
Blanket science and technology comprises three functions:
Converting neutron energy into heat for the power
Cycle breeding tritium to close the fuel loop
Shielding magnets and other sensitive components from radiation damage
Together, these three functions are essentially the plant’s energy engine and fuel supply.
Successfully developing these sets the tone for the overall practicality of operating fusion systems at scale. Of course, once we have the power running, we have to plug it into the system. Designing and integrating the entire plant system and bringing everything online puts this all together.
Key challenges: There’s a lot here, but a lot of these are challenges relevant in upstarting any new tech, such as remote maintenance—which is unproven at the pace with which these plants will need to operate—modular components and architecture to scale, plant-wide diagnostics to understand what’s going on, and updates to the fusion engine-BOP co-design and interface definition.
The bottom line: There are a lot of challenges ahead to bring fusion into reality, but where there are challenges, there are opportunities, and we geoscientists love a good challenge.
Sponsored
DIG Supports Your Geochemistry Needs
Geochemistry and Isotope Measurement Laboratory
Exploration, Development, Production and Environmental
We are sad to see Enspired phase out, but if you enjoy reading the latest in geoscience research, AAPG’s Core Elements newsletter is a good way to stay up to date! Written by Rasoul Sorkhabi, geoscientist, researcher, and professor at The University of Utah’s Energy & Geoscience Institute in Salt Lake City, Core Elements looks into recent discoveries and findings in geoscience research, as well as key resources for geoscience professionals and educators.
Here is a snippet of yesterday’s Core Elements on geothermal energy:
Utah Frontier Observatory for Research in Geothermal Energy (FORGE) is a field-scale EGS laboratory funded by the U.S. Department of Energy and managed by the University of Utah’s Energy & Geoscience Institute.
An article inLeading Edge reports on the latest developments at FORGE.
Geological setting:
FORGE is located west of the Mineral Mountains near Milford, central Utah.
Situated in the Basin and Range Province, the area is characterized by stretched thin crust, Miocene-Recent igneous activity, and high geothermal gradient of about 2.24 °F per 10 feet.
The target geothermal reservoir is Neoproterozoic granitic and gneiss complex covered with alluvial and volcaniclastic sediments.
Drilled wells:
From October 2020 to January 2021, FORGE drilled an injection well, 16A, with a vertical depth of 8,559 feet and a total measured depth of 10,897 feet.
Production Well 16B was drilled from May–July 2023 at a vertical depth of 8,357 feet and total measured depth of 19,947 feet.
Wells 16A and 16B both run parallel, with Well 16B located about 300 feet above Well 16A.
The build from the vertical to the lateral leg of the wells was at 65 degrees.
Bottom hole temperatures are at about 450 °F.
Hydraulic fracturing:
In April 2022, a three-stage stimulation without proppant was made at the toe of Well 16A to monitor the propagation of fractures.
This was followed by stimulation with proppant of the lateral section of the injection well at eight stages and of the production well at five stages.
Slickwater and crosslinked CHMHP were used as fluids for fracture stimulation.
Injection and production drills have collected open-hole quad-combo (gamma-ray, sonic, density, and porosity) logs as well as formation micro-resistivity image (FMI) and ultrasonic borehole imager (UBM) logs.
Well 16A was cored at depths of 1,668–1,760 meters and 3,339–3,349 meters.
Well 16B was cored at depths of 1,480–1,487 meters and 2,987–2,992 meters.
Micro-seismicity:
Five vertical wells drilled to depths of 994–91.150 feet were equipped with geophones or fiber optic cables to monitor induced seismicity.
During hydraulic fracturing, induced seismicity did not exceed a magnitude of 1.9.
Circulation tests:
In April 2024, a nine-hour water circulation test was conducted. Water was injected at a rate of 15 barrels per minute and the outflow from the production well was up to eight barrels per minute. The water communication between the two wells had a fluid recovery efficiency of 70 percent and produced temperatures of 282˚F.
An extended circulation test was conducted in August 2024. Nearly 64,000 cubic meters of water were circulated between the two wells at a rate of 1.59 cubic meters per second. The fluid circulation efficiency was nearly 90 percent and produced a temperature of 380˚F.
Go deeper: For a field trip guide to geothermal power plants in Utah’s Great Basin, see this GSA publication.
USGS Updates of the EGS Assessment in the Great Basin:
USGS’s 2008 report estimated how much electricity could be generated from EGS systems in the American West.
USGS 2025 estimates an upper limit of 174 terawatts-thermal of EGS power produced over 30 years from the upper seven kilometers of the crust, with one percent of these resources easily accessible.
💡Want more news like this in your inbox? Sign up for the Core Elements newsletter here.
Sponsored
Geothermal in Action on 13 Nov.
The final session of the AAPG Academy Geothermal Webinar Series brings together leading experts in geothermal development from Halliburton and Mazama to share practical insights and forward-looking strategies that are shaping the future of sustainable energy.
👍 If you enjoyed this edition of Enspired, consider supporting AAPG's brand of newsletters by forwarding to a friend or colleague and signing up for our other newsletters here.
➡️ Was this email forwarded to you? Sign up for Enspired here.
✉️ To get in touch with Sarah or suggest a topic for Enspired, send an email to editorial@aapg.org.
AAPG thanks our advertisers for their support. Sponsorship has no influence on editorial content. If you're interested in supporting AAPG digital products, reach out to Melissa Roberts.
.png?upscale=true&width=220&upscale=true&name=Sarah-Compton-Headshot-Signature%20(1).png)
-1.webp?upscale=true&width=520&upscale=true&name=DIG%20logo%20(002)-1.webp)
