Super glad to be a part of this. Our MicroPulse Measurement While Drilling Systems have been used to drill numerous wells for Fervo. We also developed a first of its kind navigation system for the first full scale Eavor loop in Germany.
Interesting that the tech sales job is bilingual (haven't seen that too often).
Ken_At_EM · 41m ago
Thank you!
giggyhack · 4h ago
I have been following this company and several others (Quaise, Fervo, Sage) in the EGS Space for a little bit now, and I think we are on the cusp of a huge breakthrough in baseload renewable energy. This site in Utah is one of the largest test cases that expands the use of EGS to a much broader area than just a few geothermal hot spots. Prices are dropping dramatically, and these things are moving quickly beyond the R&D phase. There is a world where every major data center across the Western US has its own base load power supply that has essentially no pollution, no footprint, no hazardous waste, and no need for complicated permitting. EGS truly could be a game changer in the world's push to decarbonize. I'm super excited.
amarcheschi · 4h ago
At least in Tuscany - where there is a cluster of geothermal power plants creating 1/3 of the region electricity (it should reach 40% in a few years) - they had to invent special filters to lower the emission of mercury and hydrogen sulfide https://www.enelgreenpower.com/stories/articles/2024/10/geot...
I don't know if it's "no footprint" at all. For what I know, which is not much, but just what a person living here might know, there's a footprint that can be somehow managed. But I'm not an engineer
lostlogin · 20m ago
I wish New Zealand did more of this.
We have a whole fleet of geothermal plants (15ish), making about 20% of our power. However the largest plant is only 160MW.
The impact in comparison to our other renewables seems fairly minimal.
The plants mentioned in the article are closed systems. They aren’t releasing steam into the atmosphere like the plants you’re referencing.
skipants · 4h ago
> no pollution, no footprint, no hazardous waste
As a layman, I assume waste heat would still be an issue? Even so I would also assume it's still way less damaging to the environment than everything else.
aDyslecticCrow · 4h ago
I'm not quite sure about that. The earths core should generate the same amount of heat (through gravitational friction and radioactive decay) regardless if we tap it or not. If the heat didn't escape somehow already it would slowly get hotter.
Whaste heat from nuclear or fusion does contribute to earth heating, though insignificant compared to any source pf c02.
But my intuition tells me geothermal wouldn't...
Mm. Actually, water vapor is a potent greenhouse gas; and that's how to covert heat to energy. So mabie it would indeed be significant.
metadat · 3h ago
TFA states the Cape Station plant (created and operated by a company called Fervo) are closed systems - they capture the emissions so no water is wasted or spewed into the environment as steam.
They deserve big props for this innovation and effort, as historically Utah has frequently been been treated as an industrial dumping grounds. The long-term ecological damage and visual eyesores due to strip mining, chemical dumping and other pollution is significant.
skipants · 3h ago
Well, that's just neat!
ACCount37 · 1h ago
Waste heat is always "an issue", but rarely an issue worth caring much about.
Global warming isn't happening due to industrial waste heat - it's happening due to CO2 emissions being a massive leverage for messing with how the planet absorbs and emits heat.
thayne · 7m ago
Although, the more greenhouse gases there are, the worse waste heat is.
bell-cot · 3h ago
Oh, yes. Especially if you don't have a generous supply of fresh water, to use in your cooling towers. For example:
Complicated permitting as compared to what? I would assume it's much more complicated than solar, and less complicated than... is there anything else available at small scale?
loeg · 4h ago
Nuclear is the comparable power source -- both have high upfront costs, long build times, low operating costs and clean generation. If deep geothermal can come in cheaper than nuclear, there's basically no reason to do nuclear.
lazide · 4h ago
Shallower geothermal has a history of causing damaging earthquakes in some geologies.
aDyslecticCrow · 4h ago
Some versions of deep geothermal does also borrow from the fracking industry which has issues with groundwater pollution.
jandrewrogers · 3h ago
Not really an issue in the US at least. Their primary geothermal basins already have earthquakes far stronger than any that might be triggered by fluid injection. They also have earthquake swarms due to natural circulation of geothermal fluids in some of these areas.
It is mostly an issue in places like Europe that do not have a history of strong earthquakes and therefore lack seismic resistance civil engineering. There are a few places like that in the US (e.g. New England) where a minor M5 earthquake can cause damage but those don't overlap with areas with high geothermal potential.
loeg · 48m ago
The deep geothermal people seem to think it can be used ~anywhere, not just traditional geothermal basins.
gpm · 1h ago
There's some small wind generation (e.g. designed to go on top of buildings), though I don't think it's ever been a significant commercial success.
foobarian · 4h ago
coal or gas i would guess
loeg · 4h ago
Nah. Gas isn't comparable and no one in the US is building new coal generation.
actionfromafar · 2h ago
Aren’t we getting ”clean beautiful coal”?
lostlogin · 23m ago
The downvotes are presumable because you have misquoted him.
Most wells at Cape Station are between 8,000 and 9,000 feet deep, and the deepest one extends a mind-blowing 15,000 feet below the surface. That is about the depth you'd get to if you stacked 50 Statues of Liberty on top of each other!
For those who prefer a less American-centric metric: 8,000–9,000 feet is approximately 2.5 kilometers. 15,000 feet is about 4.5 kilometers — roughly the height of 14 Eiffel Towers stacked on top of each other!
ajkjk · 4h ago
It's so silly to use statues of liberty as a metric when nobody really knows how tall it is either (famously it's a lot smaller than people expect).
Tempest1981 · 3h ago
Helpful but pointless metrics:
1 Statue of Liberty (including foundation) is roughly 1 American football field (excluding end zones)
1 Eiffel Tower is around 3 Statues of Liberty (each with foundation)... which is almost 1600 bananas
It was the tallest freestanding structure in France from 1889 to 2004 (when it was surpassed by one of the pillars of the Millau Viaduct; it's still the second-tallest). Must have been absolutely mind blowing at ~312m when it was new - the record was around 150m for centuries before it.
lostlogin · 23m ago
Metric? That unit of measure must surely be imperial?
daedrdev · 4h ago
Football fields, despite being a meme, are very easy for Americans to visualize
rascul · 2h ago
Canadian football fields are bigger
_DeadFred_ · 1h ago
I'll have you know my Canadian friends have told me it's OK, American football fields are average sized (definitely not less than average).
defrost · 3h ago
Internationally ambiguous though, the world at large equates football with FIFA and Australians picture something much larger with more foot to ellipsoid than a tiny US handegg court.
checkyoursudo · 2h ago
One statue of liberty (Liberty Enlightening the World, Liberty Island, NYC) is approximately 4 times the size of one statue of liberty (Liberty Enlightening the World replica, Île aux Cygnes, Paris).
Easy peasy.
adrianmonk · 1h ago
It's probably done because Statues of Liberty is the ultimate "freedom unit".
rplnt · 4h ago
The idea is you assume it with the base while they only used the statue itself, making whatever they are measuring look more impressive.
thaumasiotes · 2h ago
I think the idea is that nobody has any sense, even a very rough one, of how tall the Statue of Liberty might be. It's not like you ever see it in person, and if you did most of it would be in perspective, which ruins your chances of determining its size.
Most people have enough trouble believing that their foot is the same length as their forearm. You never see your feet close up, either.
3eb7988a1663 · 2h ago
Whelp, I just had to put my foot onto my arm, so point made.
catlifeonmars · 4h ago
AU would have been the most universal measurement.
Animats · 4h ago
> 8,000–9,000 feet is approximately 2.5 kilometers.
The usual value for the geothermal gradient is 25 to 30 degrees C per kilometer. So at 2.5km, in most locations they might be able to get boiling water, but not superheated steam.
Most of the geothermal enthusiasts are talking about needing to go down 4 to 12 kilometers. Is there something special about the geology at this site?
jandrewrogers · 4h ago
The site is part of the largest high-quality geothermal basin in the world. It is larger than most countries, encompassing almost the entirety of Nevada and large parts of adjacent States. The geothermal potential of the region is enormous, even just using classic geothermal technology.
The US has long been the world's leading producer of geothermal power, mostly generated from this basin.
toomuchtodo · 3h ago
Any resources on total energy potential in the basin you recommend?
AnimalMuppet · 4h ago
I couldn't see anything that said, but... probably.
Beaver County, Utah, has at least one hot spring, and I suspect more than that. I'm pretty sure that the location for this project was not chosen at random.
Animats · 3h ago
Found a geothermal potential map of the US.[1] Utah is in a different basin, but Colorado has a nice big hot spot.
It's not a fully renewable resource. It's possible to pull out too much heat too and deplete the resource.
The entire geothermal heating of the planet is only 50 terawatts, which seems big, but it's spread over 500 million square kilometers. Or 100KW/km^2, which is not much. Solar is orders of magnitude larger.
likely it is hot, porous rock that is capped in such a way that injected water will heat to the super critical point for water , or water exists as a super critical fluid there already
realityfactchex · 2h ago
Actually, 3 miles means a lot more to Americans than 15,000 feet, much like your 2.5 kilometers.
And 50 football fields would mean a lot more, to less measurement-aware Americans.
divbzero · 4h ago
That’s close to the deepest geothermal wells which are about 5 km deep:
One interesting point made here is that the cost of turbines puts a floor price on any form.of generation which uses them, whether renewable or not, meaning in the long run solar has a big advantage: https://www.dwarkesh.com/p/casey-handmer. I don't know how accurate that is
loeg · 4h ago
Kinda. We have a lot of existing coal plants that we want to offline to decarbonize, and they've already got turbines.
If I recall they touched on how US oil drilling companies with lots of experience in horizontal drilling were being used by these companies & the financing that goes into them.
Today I discovered that geothermal energy is a thing, cool! An immediate question that comes to mind is how much "energy potential" does the earth store and "how is it generated"? I'd imagine something about gravity or magnetic waves that move the iron* core and stuff. Anyone know some resources I can read more about this?
giggyhack · 4h ago
Assuming we can drill deep enough and harness it, the thermal energy in the earth's crust is essentially infinite.
bbarnett · 4h ago
People said "the Earth is too big, human activity can't change the climate". Now look at where we are.
I wonder, if we draw enough heat out... would the core cool enough to shrink? And if so, would the crust collapse to the new size?
Pure speculation of course, but did the first guy burning coal know the outcome?
Anyhow, I love geothermal, think you're right, but just got tweaked on the word "infinite".
thehappypm · 4h ago
Just some rough physics..
Q = m c ΔT
m = mass of the crust (roughly 10^22 kg)
C = specific heat of crust (roughly 1000 J/kg·K)
ΔT = 1 K
Q = 10^25 joules would be needed to lower the earths crust by 1 degree K
About 10,000 years worth of today’s human energy consumption
toomuchtodo · 3h ago
Following on to this, enough sunlight hits the Earth in 30 minutes to power humanity for a year. So geothermal wouldn’t need to provide all of today’s human energy consumption, just that last bit that renewables, existing nuclear, transmission, storage, and demand response can’t provide for today.
(1GW of solar PV is deployed every 15 hours globally as of this comment)
conditionnumber · 4h ago
I wonder how much ΔT you need at the crust to meaningfully change Earth's magnetic field by altering convection patterns in the outer core. I don't know enough physics to attempt an answer.
aDyslecticCrow · 3h ago
Calculating or simulating how earths magnetic field behaves or is generated is quite a complex task. So im doubtful we can usefully estimate it to such precision. It would be interesting though.
hollerith · 3h ago
We know that if the convection in the outer core stops, the Earth's magnetic field stops, and removing enough heat from the core will stop the convection.
aDyslecticCrow · 3h ago
Yes but calculating the energy draw required for any measurable change in this effect is very different from knowing the rough process it operates on.
We know how weather works quite well, but knowing if it will rain in a week is an entirely different beast.
hollerith · 2h ago
I've seen a confident estimate in the form of a calculation. They know what kind of compounds (term?) are in the outer core and they know the minimum temperature those compounds need to be at to be free-flowing enough to sustain the field. And I'm pretty sure we know the current temperature of the outer core.
My memory is that the calculation found that if humanity switched to geothermal for all its energy needs, then in only about 1000 years, the core cools enough for the magnetic field to stop, but I am not sure.
(We should definitely deploy geothermal in the Yellowstone caldera though long enough to cool it down enough so that it will not erupt again.)
hexpeek · 2h ago
Whoa, this is a bit scary. As mentioned earlier, it should basically be used in a way where other energy sources are tapped first, and only the shortfall is covered.
lazide · 52m ago
That is definitely not true hahaha. The outer core is several thousand km down, and the crust is only 30km thick. And we have the entire mantle below us.
Humanity could max out geothermal for a million years and never make a dent.
lazide · 1h ago
The outer core is 2,890 KM (~ 1800 miles) below the earths crust, and has the mantle in the way. The crust itself is only 30KM thick. [https://phys.org/news/2017-02-journey-center-earth.html] The crust is basically a thin layer of slag on top of a giant ball of molten everything.
Even at million+ year timescales, I can’t see any way the temperature of the upper crust could matter to the core at all - even if the crust was at absolute zero.
Dirt insulates relatively well, and the amount of thermal mass present is mindboggling.
thehappypm · 25m ago
if you lived in the Earth’s core (~6000k) the surface (~300k) would be a rounding error above absolute zero anyway
rkomorn · 4h ago
Isn't the atmosphere we're affecting on the order of 1 millionth of Earth's mass?
It'd take multiple orders of magnitude more impact from humanity for us to actually affect the core, no?
stevage · 4h ago
There is also the issue that using geothermal energy can cause earthquakes.
aDyslecticCrow · 3h ago
I think thats actually disputed. I'm not entirely sure though and i dont have the time to look it up right now.
aDyslecticCrow · 3h ago
Alot of the heat comes from radioactive decay. Heavy radioactive elements under alot of pressure and heat. There's also friction from our moon (earth seems to have a more active core than many other planets) and simply being very well isolated. (Rock is a terrible heat conductor)
Also... Iceland. They're massive in aluminium production for a reason. They have basically infinate abundant energy boiling out from the ground. Here in sweden its used by alot of homes for heating; getting a well producing 60c water is pretty cheap. (A single home may have their own well)
The issue is using it for power really only becomes viable when you reach superheated steam temperatures. And at those depths; drills melt, so its use outside of volcanic regions has been real slow.
genghisjahn · 3h ago
I hear the voice of Stephan when I read this title.
swayvil · 1h ago
Pipes, steam, turbines...
We need better peltier devices.
tipidNasuada · 40m ago
I thought exactly the same thing. Peltier's themselves don't really have a pathway for becoming as efficient as steam turbines but there are other methods currently in research.
One promising idea is to use sodium vapor in a fuel cell style device:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2017.10.022
cyberax · 4h ago
What was the power plant's cost? I can't find it in Google/Kagi.
pcdoodle · 3h ago
See site is bill gates. Hard pass.
No comments yet
hexpeek · 2h ago
From a Bill Gates documentary, I saw research with partner companies aimed at improving nuclear power generation mechanisms to reduce waste and increase efficiency. Bill Gates’ endeavors always seem positive and fascinating.
ericfr11 · 4h ago
It's been very common in Europe for years. People even have individual heat pump at home. US is so much behind on new technologies
cman1444 · 53m ago
I'm not sure what you're saying. Heat pumps are a completely different thing than geothermal energy.
cowsandmilk · 1h ago
Where Europe is ahead of the US is really in neighborhood wide geothermal for heating and cooling. The US tends to only use networked multi building geothermal for corporate and university campuses while having little central planning for a neighborhood of individuals to migrate to geothermal.
Ozarkian · 4h ago
You didn't understand the article. A home heat pump isn't a power source.
foobarian · 4h ago
Nit: yes, home geothermal is a power source, technically. But yea not in the way an electrical generation plant is.
lajy · 4h ago
Heat pump != Geothermal energy generation, or any energy generation at that
Home geothermal /could/ be a power source, sure, but I do not believe that’s what OP intended to say when mentioning heat pumps. I’d be pretty surprised if it was becoming common in Europe to have home geothermal
A heat pump (which are more common in Europe, but they’re gaining popularity in the US) is essentially a reversible air conditioner that can take advantage of the latent energy in the air to move heat very efficiently. They’re a great invention, but they have nothing to do with producing energy
CobrastanJorji · 1h ago
They certainly don't produce electricity, but they do produce energy. You put in 1 kW of electricity, though, and you might get 5 kW of heat added to your house. So in a sense, it is producing energy.
Now, that energy is coming from somewhere else (in this case, the heat of the ground beneath the house or the air outside), but that's true of electrical generators as well.
CobrastanJorji · 1h ago
They certainly don't produce electricity. However, if you put in 1 kW of electricity, you might get 5 kW of heat added to your house. So in a sense, it is producing energy.
lazide · 4h ago
They didn’t say home geothermal, they said home heatpumps. In that setup, the earth is not an energy source, just a very massive source of thermal inertia. They are not the same thing.
‘home geothermal’ isn’t really a thing unless you’re already living on a hotspring, which is quite unusual. (delta-v is not sufficient)
At the point someone is drilling km+ boreholes and installing MW+ turbines, it’s safe to call it commercial.
foobarian · 3h ago
How is it not an energy source? The point of a heat pump is to move more heat energy around than was consumed running the device.
lazide · 3h ago
How does that make it an energy source? It makes it a pump. That still consumes energy to run. And none of the home heat pump setups I’ve seen are tapping into enough thermal inertia (or high grade heat) to do more than keep a house warm. They also, of course, PUT HEAT BACK there in the summer to help cool the house. They’re just moving heat around, and not with any particularly high quality either. If they used the atmosphere for thermal inertia (also common), would you say they were using the atmosphere as an energy source?
Geothermal turns turbines with steam that then produces massive quantities of electricity. That makes it an energy source. The water way down under the ground in these cases is superheated by the surrounding rock, and provides plenty of high quality heat. There are no heat pumps involved.
It’s like the difference between having a pool in your backyard, and damming a huge river and installing turbines.
foobarian · 3h ago
The point of a heat pump is to bring more Watts of heat into the home than the electricity consumed. Otherwise you could just use a resistive heater and heat the home with electricity directly. So ask yourself, if more energy came into your home than you put in from the electric socket, where exactly did the extra energy come from?
lazide · 3h ago
That is not what ‘power source’ means. You probably want to read up on some thermodynamics and definitions.
I’m guessing you think that if you connect the heat pumps output to it’s input, you’ll have infinite energy?
Heres a presentation we did on the system last year alongside Schlumberger. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kfOGKfEoPb0?t=7852s Potatoe quality but my part starts at 2:10:52.
It’s absolutely awesome deploying our super rugged, super high temp drilling technologies for GeoThermal.
If you’re interested in working on this kind of tech we’re hiring.
All jobs onsite in Houston: https://www.erdosmiller.com/jobs
Interesting that the tech sales job is bilingual (haven't seen that too often).
I don't know if it's "no footprint" at all. For what I know, which is not much, but just what a person living here might know, there's a footprint that can be somehow managed. But I'm not an engineer
We have a whole fleet of geothermal plants (15ish), making about 20% of our power. However the largest plant is only 160MW.
The impact in comparison to our other renewables seems fairly minimal.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_power_in_New_Zealan...
As a layman, I assume waste heat would still be an issue? Even so I would also assume it's still way less damaging to the environment than everything else.
Whaste heat from nuclear or fusion does contribute to earth heating, though insignificant compared to any source pf c02.
But my intuition tells me geothermal wouldn't...
Mm. Actually, water vapor is a potent greenhouse gas; and that's how to covert heat to energy. So mabie it would indeed be significant.
They deserve big props for this innovation and effort, as historically Utah has frequently been been treated as an industrial dumping grounds. The long-term ecological damage and visual eyesores due to strip mining, chemical dumping and other pollution is significant.
Global warming isn't happening due to industrial waste heat - it's happening due to CO2 emissions being a massive leverage for messing with how the planet absorbs and emits heat.
https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2014/02/f7/geotherma...
It is mostly an issue in places like Europe that do not have a history of strong earthquakes and therefore lack seismic resistance civil engineering. There are a few places like that in the US (e.g. New England) where a minor M5 earthquake can cause damage but those don't overlap with areas with high geothermal potential.
He said ‘BEAUTIFUL, CLEAN COAL’
https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/1141801993510...
For those who prefer a less American-centric metric: 8,000–9,000 feet is approximately 2.5 kilometers. 15,000 feet is about 4.5 kilometers — roughly the height of 14 Eiffel Towers stacked on top of each other!
1 Statue of Liberty (including foundation) is roughly 1 American football field (excluding end zones)
1 Eiffel Tower is around 3 Statues of Liberty (each with foundation)... which is almost 1600 bananas
https://www.size-explorer.com/en/compare/buildings/eiffel+to...
Easy peasy.
Most people have enough trouble believing that their foot is the same length as their forearm. You never see your feet close up, either.
The usual value for the geothermal gradient is 25 to 30 degrees C per kilometer. So at 2.5km, in most locations they might be able to get boiling water, but not superheated steam. Most of the geothermal enthusiasts are talking about needing to go down 4 to 12 kilometers. Is there something special about the geology at this site?
The US has long been the world's leading producer of geothermal power, mostly generated from this basin.
Beaver County, Utah, has at least one hot spring, and I suspect more than that. I'm pretty sure that the location for this project was not chosen at random.
It's not a fully renewable resource. It's possible to pull out too much heat too and deplete the resource. The entire geothermal heating of the planet is only 50 terawatts, which seems big, but it's spread over 500 million square kilometers. Or 100KW/km^2, which is not much. Solar is orders of magnitude larger.
[1] https://www.britannica.com/science/geothermal-energy
And 50 football fields would mean a lot more, to less measurement-aware Americans.
https://en.renovablesverdes.com/iceland-is-drilling-the-deep...
https://global.chinadaily.com.cn/a/202411/07/WS672c6803a310f...
Or about one Mont Blanc from sea level
And more: https://www.complexsystemspodcast.com/episodes/fracking-aust...
One interesting point made here is that the cost of turbines puts a floor price on any form.of generation which uses them, whether renewable or not, meaning in the long run solar has a big advantage: https://www.dwarkesh.com/p/casey-handmer. I don't know how accurate that is
If I recall they touched on how US oil drilling companies with lots of experience in horizontal drilling were being used by these companies & the financing that goes into them.
I wonder, if we draw enough heat out... would the core cool enough to shrink? And if so, would the crust collapse to the new size?
Pure speculation of course, but did the first guy burning coal know the outcome?
Anyhow, I love geothermal, think you're right, but just got tweaked on the word "infinite".
Q = m c ΔT
m = mass of the crust (roughly 10^22 kg)
C = specific heat of crust (roughly 1000 J/kg·K)
ΔT = 1 K
Q = 10^25 joules would be needed to lower the earths crust by 1 degree K
About 10,000 years worth of today’s human energy consumption
(1GW of solar PV is deployed every 15 hours globally as of this comment)
We know how weather works quite well, but knowing if it will rain in a week is an entirely different beast.
My memory is that the calculation found that if humanity switched to geothermal for all its energy needs, then in only about 1000 years, the core cools enough for the magnetic field to stop, but I am not sure.
(We should definitely deploy geothermal in the Yellowstone caldera though long enough to cool it down enough so that it will not erupt again.)
Humanity could max out geothermal for a million years and never make a dent.
Even at million+ year timescales, I can’t see any way the temperature of the upper crust could matter to the core at all - even if the crust was at absolute zero.
Dirt insulates relatively well, and the amount of thermal mass present is mindboggling.
It'd take multiple orders of magnitude more impact from humanity for us to actually affect the core, no?
Also... Iceland. They're massive in aluminium production for a reason. They have basically infinate abundant energy boiling out from the ground. Here in sweden its used by alot of homes for heating; getting a well producing 60c water is pretty cheap. (A single home may have their own well)
The issue is using it for power really only becomes viable when you reach superheated steam temperatures. And at those depths; drills melt, so its use outside of volcanic regions has been real slow.
We need better peltier devices.
No comments yet
Home geothermal /could/ be a power source, sure, but I do not believe that’s what OP intended to say when mentioning heat pumps. I’d be pretty surprised if it was becoming common in Europe to have home geothermal
A heat pump (which are more common in Europe, but they’re gaining popularity in the US) is essentially a reversible air conditioner that can take advantage of the latent energy in the air to move heat very efficiently. They’re a great invention, but they have nothing to do with producing energy
Now, that energy is coming from somewhere else (in this case, the heat of the ground beneath the house or the air outside), but that's true of electrical generators as well.
‘home geothermal’ isn’t really a thing unless you’re already living on a hotspring, which is quite unusual. (delta-v is not sufficient)
At the point someone is drilling km+ boreholes and installing MW+ turbines, it’s safe to call it commercial.
Geothermal turns turbines with steam that then produces massive quantities of electricity. That makes it an energy source. The water way down under the ground in these cases is superheated by the surrounding rock, and provides plenty of high quality heat. There are no heat pumps involved.
It’s like the difference between having a pool in your backyard, and damming a huge river and installing turbines.
I’m guessing you think that if you connect the heat pumps output to it’s input, you’ll have infinite energy?