howclose.to
Energy · Updated July 2026Momentum · accelerating

How close are we to geothermal power anywhere?Can we dig for clean power almost anywhere?

or, simply: Can we dig for clean power almost anywhere?or, precisely: How close are we to geothermal power anywhere?

The physics of engineered reservoirs is proven; the open question is whether they can be drilled cheaply, run for years, and financed at utility scale.Hot rock is everywhere underground. The race is to build the plumbing to reach it — cheaply, safely, and at the scale of a real power plant.

We are here

Cape commissioning becomes frontier — Cape Phase I's first 33 MW GeoBlock is mechanically complete and commissioning toward an announced Q4 2026 start. Next up — First Cape block targets operation (expected Q4 2026).

01 · Where we stand

Four tests between here and the goal

Each threshold is a falsifiable claim with a named next test. We move the meter only when a result is public.

Connected engineered reservoirMake hot rock flow✓ Achieved · Aug 2024
100%
Proven byFORGE sustained 420 gal/min injection for nearly a month with more than 90% recovery.
Repeatable fast drillingDrill many wells quicklyIn progress
75%
Next testCape Phase II must show its 21-day representative result across a fleet and disclose full completed-well cost.
Commercial 100 MW operationRun a utility-scale plantIn progress
70%
Next testCape GeoBlock 1 targets Q4 2026 and the full three-block Phase I targets Q1 2027.
Forty-five-dollar powerCompete on costEarly
48%
Next testAudited Cape construction cost and several years of net generation are required to calculate a comparable realized LCOE.
THRESHOLDS — Thresholds for Enhanced geothermal.
Scale
Estimated overnight capital cost of commercial EGS: log scaleEstimated overnight capital cost of commercial EGS over time, with measured values, projected values, and a goal at 3,700 2026 USD/kW.10,000Estimated overnight capital cost of commercial EGS · 2026 USD/kWYear2021202320302035GOAL 3,700 · Approximate capital cost associated with DOE's 2035 $45/MWh targetDOE early next-generation geothermal estimate: 27,800 2026 USD/kW (2021)DOE early next-generation geothermal estimateDOE revised estimate, approximately: 14,700 2026 USD/kW (2023)DOE revised estimate, approximatelyMidpoint of DOE $4,700-5,000/kW pathway range: 4,850 2026 USD/kW (2030)Midpoint of DOE $4,700-5,000/kW pathway rangeDOE target-associated capital cost, approximately: 3,700 2026 USD/kW (2035)DOE target-associated capital cost, approximately~11,000 2026 USD/kW to goal
NOTE — The candidate file recommends capital cost rather than mixing project LCOEs with different financing and capacity factors. Every point is a DOE model estimate or target, not an audited plant cost; 2030 is the midpoint of a published range. The 2035 capital value is the modeled level associated with the $45/MWh goal.
02 · How we got here

The record behind the verdict

Major events set large; context events set small but never hidden. Everything below the TODAY rule is a schedule, not a result.

190419691 event1 shown

Natural Steam Proves the Prize

Geothermal electricity is old — but only where the earth volunteers steam. Larderello proved the power; geology confined the map to a few lucky fields.

1904
Geothermal electricity first generatedExperiment
Piero Ginori Conti used steam at Larderello to light five bulbs, establishing the conventional geothermal precedent.
197020053 events2 shown

Engineers Fracture Hot Rock

Los Alamos asked the question that defines the field: if hot rock is everywhere, can we build the reservoir ourselves? Circulation proved possible — never cheap, never long.

1970
Hot-dry-rock concept takes shapeTheory
Los Alamos researchers proposed drilling and hydraulically connecting wells to extract heat from impermeable hot rock.
1977
Fenton Hill circulation achievedExperiment
The first Fenton Hill reservoir established circulation between drilled wells, proving engineered hot-dry-rock heat exchange.
1997
Soultz circulates deep reservoir
European researchers circulated water through a stimulated granite reservoir at Soultz, advancing multi-well EGS methods.
200620141 event1 shown

Earthquakes Reset the Risk

Basel’s quake ended a project and nearly the field. Induced seismicity became the constraint every later project designs around.

2006
Basel quake stops injectionSetback
A local-magnitude 3.4 earthquake followed injection; the project ended in 2009 after a risk review and CHF6 million in claims.
201520223 events2 shown

Field Labs Import Drilling Skill

The shale industry had spent two decades learning to drill fast and horizontal. FORGE existed to import that skill into hot granite — and drilling times collapsed.

2015
DOE launches FORGE selectionFunding
DOE began selecting a dedicated EGS field laboratory, describing more than 100 GW of potential US economic capacity.
2017
Pohang suffers magnitude-5.5 quakeSetback
A Mw5.5 earthquake beneath South Korea's EGS site became the largest known earthquake induced by an EGS project.
202320358 events3 shown

Pilots Approach Commercial Scale

Fervo proved the shale playbook works for heat. The question moved from physics to finance: can Cape Station drill it cheap, run for years, and sell the power?

2023
Project Red proves horizontal EGSExperiment
A 30-day test delivered 63 L/s at 191 C, equivalent to 3.5 MW, through a 3,250-foot horizontal well pair.
2024
FORGE connects deviated wells
A nine-hour test recovered about 70% of injected fluid, reached 139 C outflow and kept induced seismicity below magnitude 1.9.
2024
FORGE sustains month-long flowExperiment
A near-month circulation test injected 420 gal/min, recovered more than 90% of fluid and held temperature near 370 F.
2026
DOE funds wider field tests
DOE announced up to $171.5 million for next-generation geothermal field tests and resource-confirmation drilling.
2026
Cape commissioning becomes frontierDeploymentWe are here
Cape Phase I's first 33 MW GeoBlock is mechanically complete and commissioning toward an announced Q4 2026 start.
2026
First Cape block targets operationDeploymentTarget
Fervo targets commercial operation of Cape GeoBlock 1 in Q4 2026; this is a company schedule, not achieved output.
2027
Cape targets 100 MWDeploymentTarget
GeoBlocks 2 and 3 are scheduled for Q1 2027, bringing Phase I nameplate capacity to approximately 100 MW.
2028
Cape targets 500 MWDeploymentTarget
Fervo schedules the additional 400 MW Phase II for 2028, for 500 MW total nameplate capacity if all modules operate.
202220352 events1 shown

Events outside the declared eras

Events outside the declared eras moved the field from doe launches geothermal shot to doe targets competitive economics. The results narrowed the next question without closing it.

2022
DOE launches Geothermal ShotPolicy
DOE targeted a 90% EGS cost reduction to $45/MWh by 2035.
2035
DOE targets competitive economicsPolicyTarget
The Enhanced Geothermal Shot targets $45/MWh EGS power by 2035, associated with roughly $3,700/kW capital cost.
03 · The data behind the verdict

Why the meters read the way they do

The learning curves and comparisons that justify each threshold's percentage. Every series is measured, with the source event linked in the timeline above.

The learning curve

Hard rock, less time

7.3× fasterfirst well → last well
FORGE on-bottom drilling time to equivalent 6,000-foot depthA measured seven-fold reduction in rock-cutting time across four FORGE wells; it excludes tripping, casing, completion and surface-plant time. The first point divided by the last point is 7.3 times.101001,000FORGE on-bottom drilling time to equivalent 6,000-foot depth · hoursProject / well7.3× fasterfirst ÷ lastFORGE 1: 440 hours (2017)FORGE 12017FORGE 2: 180 hours (2021.01)FORGE 22021FORGE 3: 100 hours (2021.02)FORGE 32021FORGE 4: 60 hours (2021.07)FORGE 42021

log scale — a straight line = constant learning rate

NOTE — A measured seven-fold reduction in rock-cutting time across four FORGE wells; it excludes tripping, casing, completion and surface-plant time.
Company-reported drilling time fell while laterals lengthened from 3,250 to 7,500 feet; these are representative wells, not fleet averages.
Company-reported drilling time fell while laterals lengthened from 3,250 to 7,500 feet; these are representative wells, not fleet averages.010203040506070Fervo representative well spud-to-total-depth time · daysYear202320252026Fervo representative well spud-to-total-depth time: 70 days (2023)Fervo representative well spud-to-total-depth time: 21 days (2025)Fervo representative well spud-to-total-depth time: 21 days (2026)21 days
NOTE — Company-reported drilling time fell while laterals lengthened from 3,250 to 7,500 feet; these are representative wells, not fleet averages.
Longer horizontal contact is intended to raise heat and power per well, but only operating output can verify the design benefit.
Longer horizontal contact is intended to raise heat and power per well, but only operating output can verify the design benefit.01,0002,0003,0004,0005,0006,0007,000Fervo representative lateral length · feetYear202320252026Fervo representative lateral length: 3,250 feet (2023)Fervo representative lateral length: 5,000 feet (2025)Fervo representative lateral length: 7,500 feet (2026)7,500 feet
NOTE — Longer horizontal contact is intended to raise heat and power per well, but only operating output can verify the design benefit.
Reservoir tuning raised recovered fluid from about 70% in a nine-hour test to more than 90% in a near-month test; plotted values are rounded bounds.
Reservoir tuning raised recovered fluid from about 70% in a nine-hour test to more than 90% in a near-month test; plotted values are rounded bounds.020406080100Utah FORGE circulation fluid recovery · %Year20242025Utah FORGE circulation fluid recovery: 70 % (2024.33)Utah FORGE circulation fluid recovery: 90 % (2024.67)90 %
NOTE — Reservoir tuning raised recovered fluid from about 70% in a nine-hour test to more than 90% in a near-month test; plotted values are rounded bounds.
Only the 3.5 MW pilot test is demonstrated; 33, 100 and 500 MW are company nameplate schedules and must be shown as projected.
Only the 3.5 MW pilot test is demonstrated; 33, 100 and 500 MW are company nameplate schedules and must be shown as projected.10100Demonstrated or scheduled EGS project scale · MWYear2023202620272028Demonstrated or scheduled EGS project scale: 3.5 MW (2023)Demonstrated or scheduled EGS project scale: 33 MW (2026)Demonstrated or scheduled EGS project scale: 100 MW (2027)Demonstrated or scheduled EGS project scale: 500 MW (2028)500 MW
NOTE — Only the 3.5 MW pilot test is demonstrated; 33, 100 and 500 MW are company nameplate schedules and must be shown as projected.
  • 2017 well440 hours
  • July 2021 well60 hours
COMPARISON — FORGE cut equivalent-depth on-bottom drilling time by more than sevenfold.
  • Nine-hour test70 % recovered
  • Near-month test, more than90 % recovered
COMPARISON — FORGE's extended 2024 test improved fluid recovery by at least 20 percentage points over the short test.
  • First GeoBlock33 MW
  • Cape planned total500 MW
COMPARISON — Cape Station's planned build-out is more than fifteen times the size of its first commissioning GeoBlock.
  • Largest local magnitude3.4 ML
  • Recorded events at ML0.9+200 events, more than
COMPARISON — The Basel project produced a felt magnitude-3.4 event and more than 200 recorded events at magnitude 0.9 or above.
04 · What it unlocks

If the remaining tests pass

Downstream capabilities, drawn dashed because they depend on results not yet in.

Enhanced geothermalFirm clean power almost anywhereBring weather-independent renewable electricity to regions without natural hydrothermal reservoirs.Smaller clean-power footprintsSupply dense, continuously available generation with less land and transmission overbuild than many variable resources.Industrial heat and district energyUse engineered subsurface heat directly where electricity generation is not the highest-value application.Cheap firm power for electrolysisAlways-on clean geothermal electricity makes green hydrogen cheaper to produce.Low-cost heat and power for captureGeothermal heat and power can run direct-air-capture plants without adding emissions.
05 · Sources

Where every number comes from

  1. DOE Next-Generation Geothermal Commercial Liftoff reportenergy.gov
  2. DOE FORGE program and drilling resultsenergy.gov
  3. Utah FORGE initial stimulation and circulation testutahforge.com
  4. Utah FORGE extended circulation testutahforge.com
  5. Fervo Q1 2026 Cape Station updateir.fervoenergy.com
  6. Fervo Project Red 30-day testfervoenergy.com
  7. Fervo drilling-generation comparisonir.fervoenergy.com
  8. DOE Enhanced Geothermal Shotenergy.gov
  9. Swiss Seismological Service Basel project recordseismo.ethz.ch
  10. Science assessment of the Pohang induced earthquakepubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov