Can enhanced geothermal systems scale without creating new equity problems?

What are the stakes? Can EGS really scale up?

The potential scale is enormous. A 2024 study estimated that under business-as-usual conditions, EGS could provide over 82,000 gigawatts of supply capacity across the contiguous US at a lower cost than conventional geothermal—that's roughly 80 times current global electricity generation capacity [3]. If EGS is operated flexibly (by throttling wells or bypassing the power plant), that potential more than doubles to 184,000 GW [3]. These numbers show that EGS isn't a niche technology; it could become a major clean energy source.

Cost is dropping fast. By adapting oilfield drilling techniques—like using polycrystalline diamond compact bits and horizontal drilling—drilling times have been cut by 50–70% [2]. As a result, the levelized cost of electricity from EGS is expected to reach about $80 per megawatt-hour by 2027, competitive with market electricity prices [2]. That means EGS could be affordable at scale, not just for wealthy regions.

The main equity risk: induced earthquakes and who gets hurt

The biggest equity problem EGS could create is induced seismicity—earthquakes triggered by injecting high-pressure fluids to fracture rock. These quakes have already caused real harm: ground shaking, building damage, and even injuries led to the early termination of projects in Basel, Switzerland, and Pohang, South Korea [5]. If EGS scales up without careful management, the communities living near projects—often rural or lower-income—could bear the brunt of the risk while others enjoy the clean electricity.

But the risk is manageable. The same review that documented failures also points to successes: projects at Soultz-sous-Forêts (France), Helsinki (Finland), Blue Mountain (Nevada), and Utah FORGE have kept seismic risk at acceptable levels [5]. The key is a modular, transparent approach: pre-screening seismic risk, using traffic-light protocols (green/yellow/red to guide operations), and communicating openly with the public [5]. These practices can prevent the worst outcomes and distribute risk more fairly.

Public trust: the hidden equity dimension

Even if the technical risks are managed, EGS can't scale without public acceptance. A 2025 study found that social endorsement cues—like the number of likes and shares on a blog post—significantly influenced how credible people found information about EGS [4]. And perceived credibility, in turn, affected support for regulating commercial EGS research [4]. This means that if developers control the narrative (e.g., by paying for positive social media), they could shape public opinion in ways that might not reflect the true risks or benefits for local communities.

The same study found that people who felt more familiar with EGS were more likely to support regulation of commercial research [4]. That suggests that education and transparent information can empower communities to demand fair terms. So the equity outcome depends on whether developers engage honestly or try to manipulate perceptions.

Technical fixes can help, but they won't solve everything

Innovations like optimized gas lift spargers—devices that use injected gas to lift hot water from deep wells—can make EGS more efficient and reduce the need for conventional pumps, which are prone to failure in harsh conditions [1]. In lab tests, the best sparger design boosted water flow by 24% and efficiency by 30% [1]. That could lower costs and make EGS viable in more places, potentially spreading benefits more widely.

However, technical fixes don't address the core equity question of who decides where projects go and who gets compensated for disruptions. The 2024 study on flexible operations showed that EGS could be dispatchable (i.e., turned up or down to match demand), which might allow it to replace fossil fuel peaker plants that often pollute low-income neighborhoods [3]. That's a potential equity win—but only if the new plants are sited fairly.

About These Sources

This answer is built on 5 peer-reviewed studies — published from 2024 to 2025, 5 from 2024 or later, collectively cited 161 times — selected as the most relevant from 5 studies that passed quality screening, drawn from 43 papers retrieved from a database of over 500 million.

Sources used in this answer

Related research questions