European Geothermal Congress 2019 Den Haag, The Netherlands, 11-14 June 2019

Geothermal Energy Use, Country Update for

Branislav Fričovský1, Radovan Černák1, Daniel Marcin1, Veronika Blanárová2, Katarína Benková1, Ondrej Pelech3, Marián Fendek4 1 Dept. of Hydrogeology and Geothermal Energy, Dionýz Štúr State institute of Geology, Mlynská dolina 1, 817 04 Bratislava, Slovakia 2 Directorate of Geology and Natural Resources, Ministry of Environment of the Slovak Republic, Bukurešťská 4, 811 04 Bratislava, Slovakia 3 Dept. of Geology of older geological units, Dionýz Štúr State institute of Geology, Mlynská dolina 1, 817 04 Bratislava, Slovakia 4 Hydrofen s.r.o., Jasovská 7, 851 07 Bratislava, Slovakia [email protected]

Keywords: geothermal energy, direct use, resources and reserves, legislation, Slovakia. 1. INTRODUCTION ABSTRACT Although plans, strategies and legislative actions were Slovakia is a part of the Western Carpathians realm, an adopted, the Slovak Republic is still the fossil-fuels orogeny controlling geothermic activity of the territory oriented economy with roughly 19 % share of RES on through geological development, geodynamics and a primary . A proportion of geothermal deep geological structure. Because of any recent energy on heat production reaches app. 2 % only. volcanic activities, the entire territory of the country is of a moderate geothermic activity, with mean A systematic research and utilization of geothermal geothermal gradient of app. 30 °C.km-1 and 82.1 resources has been launched in 70’s, responding to mW.m-2. Low to moderate enthalpy (up to 150 °C) global concerns in fuels economics. However, a single-phase, geothermal waters have been successfully tradition in use of geothermal energy dates far beyond sampled of low, to moderate-low thermodynamic Medievals, owing to dozens thermal springs. quality. Recently, geothermal waters have been identified in This explains exclusively direct use of geothermal 204 wells across the Slovakia, associated amongst 27 resources in Slovakia. Since a systematic research, geothermal water bodies (GWBs) or prospective areas prospection and development in geothermal energy has (GPAs)- as reported in previous updates. Transition been launched, in total 6,233 MWt have been assessed towards GWBs meets calls of the Water Framework as probable and 406 MWt as proven wells 227 wells, Directive No. 2000/60/EC of the EU Parliament and the including those producing geothermal waters for Council. Still, the coverage counts app. 30 % of the curative purposes in dedicated spas. territory of the Slovak Republic. According to carried regional hydrogeothermal assessments, the reserves Recently, the reporting database is under a complete may count 6,233 MWt as probable, with another up to reconstruction. Summarizing data provided a total 406 MWt proven already. No regional / national scale number of 115 active wells at 76 localities. A nameplate booking has been conducted yet. Following global capacity of online wells is 228 MWt. Data collected trends, heat pump installations and use of shallow from private operators’ reports to the Water Research geothermal energy potential grow rapidly in the Institute yield a yearly production of 1,628 TJ and 452 country, with real capacity data inaccessible. GWh,t in 2017. This does not include energy and installed capacity of large-scale heat pumps and small 2. GEOLOGY AND REGIONAL GEOTHERMICS GSHP and BHHE, because of missing relative data. 2.1 Review on regional geology Recreation prevails in utilization of geothermal energy Slovakia is part of the Western Carpathians; the thrust- in Slovakia, with 60 wells serving 37 localities. Four belt formed through the Variscan – Alpine orogeny district heating systems operate now. Since 2016, two (Jurewicz, 2005) in the northern branch of the European more geothermal wells in Poľný Kesov and Veľký Alpine mountain chain (Schmid et al., 2008, Plašienka, Meder have been commissioned. No official projects 2018), comprising north-vergent crystalline thick- are in process of licensing, considering geothermal skinned and sedimentary thin-skinned nappe superunits power production in the country. (Prokešová et al., 2012). In the present picture, the Western Carpathians are divided into the Internal and 1 Fričovský et al.

External (Mišík, 1997). The Internal Western  structures at footslopes of Neogene volcanic Carpathians (IWC) representing complex thick-skinned mountains: open to semi-open type; petrogenic basement and cover nappes formed during the Jurassic type of chemistry; natural recharge at slopes of and Cretaceous collision. The External Western volcanic systems; reservoirs in Neogene Carpathians (EWC) consisting of thin-skinned nappes volcanoclastics and sedimentary formations, were deformed during the Neogene. The prevailing primary reservoirs most probably in Mesozoic volume of the EWC is formed by the Carpathian Flysch carbonates; fault-plane and lateral-leakage Belt, composed largely of syn-orogenic mass transport systems; (e.g. Central Slovakian Neovolcanites) deposits, and the Pieniny Klippen Belt a complex shear zone and the dividing line between the EWC and IWC.  structures associated with Neogene sedimentary The IWC south of the Pieniny Klippen Belt are basins: open to close, petrogenic to mixed characterized by the Miocene basin and range structure chemistry; natural leakage (if any) at regional of the Core mountains Belt, related to the evolution of peripheries; stratified-reservoirs and basin- the Pannonian basin. On the south-east, the Vepor and constriction types; reservoirs in Neogene Gemer Belts represent remnants of the Variscan (early siliciclastics or Mesozoic carbonates; e.g. (CDDP, Paleozoic) crystalline basement overridden by Meliata- Rimava Basin, Lúčenec Basin) Hallstatt ocean derived Mesozoic nappes (Meliaticum and Silicicum), often characterized by thick Triassic Outline of geothermic activity in the Western carbonate sequences. Other characteristic feature of the Carpathians follows: add 1: different structure and Western Carpathians is the Central Carpathian depths of neotectonic block with a manifest in overall Paleogene Basin transgressively overlying IWC nappes crustal thickness; add 2: non-uniform mantle in the central and eastern Slovakia (e.g. Podtatranská propagation; add 3: spatial distribution of Neogene – kotlina basin). The Miocene–Quaternary sediments of Quaternary volcanism; add 4: local and regional the Pannonian basin system reach particularly high hydrogeological conditions; add 5: course and depth- thickness in the Vienna, Danube and East Slovak seating of major crustal fault systems (Fendek et al., basins. The Miocene extension was accompanied by 1999; Franko – Melioris, 1999). substantial volcanism (Neovolcanites) mostly of The surface heat flow density varies 50-120 mW.m-2 (, Miocene–Pliocene age found in central and eastern with a mean of 82.1 ± 20 mW.m-2 (Bodiš et al., 2017). Slovakia. Highest geothermic activity is repeatedly documented within Eastern Slovakian Neogene Basin (90-130 2.2 Regional hydrogeothermics, origin and mW.m-2) and Central depression of the Danube Basin chemistry of geothermal waters (> 90 mW.m-2), decreasing slightly within tertiary Owing to geodynamic evolution and deep geological intramountain depressions (40-70 mW.m-2), whilst structure, geothermal resources associate with regional minima (30-50 mW.m-2) are recorded from the conduction-dominated orogenic belt / foreland basin Outer Flysch zone (Marcin et al., 2014; Majcin et al., play types (Moeck, 2014). The Beša-Čičarovce 2017). structure appears an exception, assuming the magmatic intrusion type (Moeck – Beardsmore, 2014). However, 2.3 Geothermal waters, origin and quality this system has not been subjected to a regional Single-phase, low to moderate-low exergetic quality hydrogeothermal evaluation yet. (SExI = 0.05-0.145) geothermal waters were Apparently, several sub-types or concepts may be successfully proven in wells (Fričovský et al. 2018a,b), recognized for hydrogeothermal structures, not yet with temperatures through screened reservoir depths officially catalogued: (tens to 3,600 m) of 20-150 °C (Černák et al., 2014). Geothermal models (regional or local) do, however,  structures associated with intramountain assume extending of a reservoir dry-rock temperatures depressions: usually hydrogeologically open, with at 4,000-6,000 m up to 180-240 °C (Fričovský et al., petrogenic type of chemistry; natural recharge at 2019; Majcin et al., 2017). hydrogeological massifs at periphery; reservoirs in Mid Triassic; basin-constriction, fault-plane, The geothermal waters are principially of marinogenic lateral-leakage and bedrock-high systems (e.g. (originally seawater, or degraded), petrogenic Liptov Basin, Levoča Basin –S,W part) (originally meteoric with various degree of vertical circulation) and mixed origin with complex chemistry  structures associated with embayments of Neogene (Bodiš et al., 2018). Thus, the TDS extends widely, sedimentary basins: typically open to closed; between 0.4-90 g.l-1 (Marcin et al., 2014). petrogenic to mixed type of chemistry; natural recharge at hydrogeological massifs at periphery or 3. LEGISLATION CONTROLS ON GEOTHER- through lateral inflow; reservoirs in Mid Triassic MAL ENERGY RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, carbonates, Paleogene detritic carboates and USE AND PROMOTION IN SLOVAKIA conglomerates, Neogene sands and sandstones; A situation and status of RES share on PEM takes stratified-reservoirs, lateral-leakage, and bedrock- attention through the last decade. Any research and high systems; (e.g. Piešťany Embayment) prospection of geothermal resources follows the Act No. 569/2007 Coll. (Act on geology) as amended by the 2 Fričovský et al.

Act No. 311/2013 Coll., applying a provision on  2016: Fendek, M., Fendeková, M., Fričovský, B. licensing withdrawals of geothermal waters in category and Blanárová, V.: Geothermal Energy Use, B, and setting objection on approval by Ministry of the Country Update for Slovak Republic, Proceedings Environment as based on long-term pumping tests on European Geothermal Congress 2016, Strasbourg, wells, and estimation of hydraulic properties, and France, 1-11 physical-chemical properties of water, including monitoring of qualitative and quantitative monitoring 4.2 Actual changes in passporting geothermal (Fendek et al., 2016). The objection on geothermal potential and utilization data on national scale water withdrawals and payment for those is regulated A transition towards targets set by the WFD defines a by Act No. 364/2004 Coll. (Act on water) with later need to modify national-scale reports on qualitative and amendments, i.e. 306/2012 Coll. (Fendek et al., 2015). quantitative parameters of GWBs and geothermal Promotion of RES (and geothermal resources) into energy utilization. Because of several changes in national PEM is legislatively regulated through methodology, and consequent reconstruction of the amendments of Act No. 309/2009 Coll. (Act on support database, including sources of information (still in a of renewable energy sources and highly efficient progress), quantities provided below may differ when combined production (latest 377/2018 Coll.) that compared to previous CUs, mostly because: follows goals as set by the Directive 2009/28/EC of the  total number of wells in statistics includes those European Parliament and the Council on the promotion already dismantled after proving geothermal of the use of energy from renewable sources, i.e. 20 % reserves (i.e. presents an absolute number of data of RES share by 2020. available); in case disposed well influenced one or Relevant national strategies and plans useful in more of existing, it is not included in proven regulation and setting targets and roads to follow are: reserves calculations

 2014 Energy Policy  wells with missing data on wellhead temperature and withdrawals are now neglected  2010 National Renewable Energy Action Plan  the dataset includes wells producing curative  2017 National Energy Efficiency Action Plan thermal waters with wellhead temperature above 20 °C for medical treatment (under authority of  2018 Integrated National Energy and Climate Plan Spa and Thermal-springs Inspectorate by Ministry of Health of the Slovak Republic), formerly 4. GEOTHERMAL ENERGY USE IN eliminated in country updates, SLOVAKIA: REPORTING  actual yearly production refers to 2017 statistics 4.1 List of previous country updates reported to the Water Research Institute (acc. to Since a year of 1993 when the republic Slovakia has Act. No. 306/2012), as most actual data from 2018 been established through peaceful break-up of the are not yet accessible or summarized former Czechoslovakia, several country updates are available to track developments in the country: 4.3 State-of-art in probable and proven reserves assessment  1995: Remšík, A. and Fendek, M.: Geothermal According to previous CUs, 27 GWBs were identified Country Update for Slovakia, Proceedings World in Slovakia (Fig. 1), reaching 34 % land coverage. Geothermal Congress 1995, Florence, Italy, 1-5 Recently, three new geothermal water bodies (the  2000: Fendek, M. and Franko, J.: Country Update Zvolen Basin, Levice-Turá block, and the Podbeskydy for the Slovak Republic, Proceedings World block) come into consideration, not delineated yet. Geothermal Congress 2000, Kyushu-Tohoku, Probable reserves in Slovakia are assessed for 6,233 Japan, 1-7 MWt. A caution must, however, be paid. The balance period differs across hydrogeothermal assessments  2005: Fendek, M. and Fendeková, M.: Country between 30-40 years. Moreover, discrepancies arise Update of the Slovak Republic, Proceedings World between evaluation techniques, applying the heat flux Geothermal Congress 2005, Antalya, Turkey, 1-9 balance method (Fendek et al., 2005) for open, and  2010: Fendek, M. and Fendeková, M.: Country USGS volume method (Garg – Combs, 2015) for closed Update of the Slovak Republic, Proceedings World structures, with recoverable heat in place defined Geothermal Congress 2010, Bali, Indonesia, 1-10 through various recovery factor (R0 = 0.075-0.1) constants. Such approach lacks, however, any general  2015: Fendek, M. and Fendeková, M.: Country rationale (Fričovský et al., 2019). Update of the Slovak Republic, Proceedings World Geothermal Congress 2015, Melbourne, Australia, Together 227 wells verified 406 MWt associated with 1-8 GWBs, classified as proven reserves, according to globally accepted concepts (Williams et al., 2011). Apparently, this is a 6 % contribution to a total reserves

3 Fričovský et al. base assessed. To comment, there is, however, no After previous results, recreation (37 sites, 60 wells) unified reference temperature the proven reserves are prevails amongst other purposes in all considered referred to. aspects except the mean load factor. The total assigned installed capacity counts roughly 91 MWt, with 45 % 5. GEOTHERMAL ENERGY USE IN share on a total. A net heat production for recreation SLOVAKIA: QUANTITATIVE UPDATE reaches thus 754 TJ.yr-1, depending on a number of operation days. This explains why recreational sites 5.1 Recent use of geothermal energy – geothermal suffer relatively low mean load factor, as the days may water bodies differ for those heating indoor pools (e.g. Patince, Out of 30 GWBs considered (see Table 1), geothermal Poprad, Rajecké Teplice) and those designed as waters are produced at 22 of these, with number of outdoor (e.g. Vinica, Kurinec, Chalmová), where wells varying 1 (e.g. Trnava Embayment, Skorušiná opening hours is fairly dependent on local climate Basin) to 28 (Central depression of the Danube Basin). conditions. Obviously, the load factor copies also a It means 51 % of wells ever drilled are producing by production demand, depending on a size of a site, i.e. March 2019. number of pools or objects for heating. At 3 sites (Oravice, Štúrovo, Vrbov) the installed thermal output Considering only active wells, the total thermal output is above 10 MWt, however, for those operating at a is approximately 228 MWt, representing 56 % of single well, the highest output has been nominated for reserves already proven. A mean yearly thermal output, resorts of Oravice, Poprad and Dunajská Streda. A load however, drops to 58 MWt according to various factor over 0.5 has been calculated for resorts in demand on yield rates. It is, thus, only 26 % of the Kaluža, Vrbov, Virt, Poľný Kesov, Bešeňová and online output available, barely reaching 14.5 % of Diakovce (Horné Saliby). proven reserves. Agriculture is primarily used at 16 sites (16 wells) with The reservoir media in conditions of the Western 21 % share on total installed capacity (45 MWt). Most Carpathians is a geothermal water, associated mostly of sites are located within the CDDB (e.g. Čiližská with Mesozoic – Mid Triassic carbonates (e.g. Liptov Radvaň, Topoľníky, Čalovo), with few distributed in Basin, Žilina Basin, Piešťany Embayment) or Neogene GWBs elsewhere (e.g. Bruty, Chalmová, Kóš – sands, sandstones or conglomerates (e.g. CDDB). Only Laskár). The leas load factor is consequent to many several wells hit thermal waters in Neogene installations utilizing geothermal energy seasonally, volcanosedimentary complexes (see Figure 1 sketching e.g. Štúrovo, Šurany, Vlčany, however, 50 % of sites major reservoir host rocks). reports a year-long production, e.g. Zemné or At such conditions, geothermal wells documented 2808 Tvrdošovce. -1 l.s available according to pumping and free-flow tests, Together 23 wells produce thermal waters at 8 sites although at various degree of certainty. The cumulative -1 dedicated for curative purposes. These are Dudince, sum of yearly mean yields counts 530 l.s , as based on Lúčky, Kovášová, Sliač, Piešťany, Trenšianske what has been reported to the Water Research Institute Teplice, Turčianske Teplice and Vyšné Ružbachy. under a regulation of 306/2012 Coll. It represents Although of the lowest nameplate output (16.5 MWt) roughly 19 %. In CDDB, Levoča Basin (west and and only 7 % share on the total installed capacity in the south), Liptov Basin and the Komárno High Block, the -1 country, the sector expresses highest and stabilized load mean yearly production rates exceed or reach 50 l.s . factors due to a all-year operation in a major. Although The yearly energy production at GWBs is 3.3-502 the second largest number of wells per sector, the least TJ.yr-1, counting 1,600 TJ.yr-1 together, with a mean of cumulative thermal capacity scores the least installed 77 TJ.yr-1. Obviously, it increases with number of capacity per well (0.72 MWt). This is because of wells, so that the largest amount of energy produced per relatively low wellhead temperature of geothermal year is with the CDDB (501 TJ.yr-1). In energy per unit water produced when compared to deep geothermal well ratio, boreholes in the Levoča Basin - S and W part resources, and, thus, a low nominal gradient between (54.5 TJ.yr-1) and Liptov Basin (32.6 TJ.yr-1) prevail, wellhead and reference conditions. Yet low yield rates both in a northern part of Slovakia. under a precise regulation of the Ministry of Health and its commissions plays a considerable role as well.

5.2 Utilization of geothermal energy Four DHS plants exist in Slovakia – the Sereď, Šaľa, According to a database under reconstruction, we Veľký Meder and Galanta. These are, however, hybrid identified 76 localities utilizing geothermal waters. systems, with geothermal waters supporting natural gas This also includes spas dedicated for currative and boilers. The installed output is only 21.9 MWt (rouhly medical purposes, not distinguished from recreation in 10 % share on a total), however, the DHS wells give previous CUs. However, several sites, such as highest nameplate output per well amongst the all Topoľníky, Podhájská or Bešeňová use geothermal purposes of use. Description of DHS systems is waters for cascade and multiple purposes. For that case, available in reports by Halás et al. (2015) and Takács – the locality has been assigned to a category consuming Grell (2005). In fact, Fendek et al. (2015) pointed out the most of thermal potential available (see Table D2, systems in Sereď and Šaľa being overdesigned. Figures 2 to 4).

4 Fričovský et al.

At 11 sites (11 wells), geothermal waters are primarily a database, still under a process of a complete used for heating buildings (Diakovce, Dunajská Streda, reconstruction. A number of wells, sites, has not Bešeňová, Komárno, Kremnica, Liptovský Trnovec, reported yield rates to the Water Research Institute yet, Podhájská, Senec, Veľká Lomnica, Handlová, Poľný due to different reasons, either those objective – not Kesov). Other sites, such as Oravice, Veľký Meder, reaching 0.5 l.s-1 as yearly average, a limit given Vyšné Ružbachy, Topoľníky, use cascades, not serving legislatively. Thus, several numbers are assessed the heating primarily. The share of individual space according to an analogy concept, local conditions and heating on a gross geothermal energy utilization is size of the site controlling demand. We also accent a almost 22 % (48.4 MWt). The net nameplate output per fact that the reference temperature to set a nameplate well is comparable to the DHS. capacity differs from site to site, so that comparativeness of results may be challenged. Obviously, agriculture prevails to the south (i.e. the CDDB), where most of greenhouse installations Apparently presented numbers differ from those concentrate due to favorizing climate conditions. reported in 2015 and 2016. This is because reported Recreation is quite dispersed. The same is for mean yield rates may change significantly in time, individual space heating. Location of curative spas reflecting overall demand. copies historical commissioning, bound to occurrence of healing springs. For that reason, we also recommend a reader to a paper by Fričovský et al. (2020a,b) prepared for the 5.3 Shallow geothermal resources and ground WGC2020 in Reykjavik to update and compare, as new source heat pumps reports will be available and more of database will be completed. Reflecting the global acceleration of shallow geothermal energy resources, the growth of the sector 7. CONCLUSIONS is rapid in Slovakia. Dozens of small-scale installations (ground-source heat pumps, heat exchangers) are The geothermal energy in Slovakia is used exclusively installed yearly, however, official numbers are not for direct applications. A total thermal potential or available. probable reserves is assessed for 6,233 MWt. Through decades, geothermal wells proved 406 MWt. By 2017- Large-scale installations are reported from Podhájská, 2018, the total installed capacity for wells producing Bojnice, Vyšné Ružbachy, Gbelany, Rajecké Teplice, geothermal waters is 228 MWt, however, a cumulative Piešťany, Senec, Čilistov and Rabča (Fendek et al., real output drops to app. 59 MWt, that corresponds to a 2015), with heat rating capacity of 1.6 MWt. In mean yearly production of 530 l.s-1. addition, Fendek et al. (2016) assume the net heat rating capacity of all heat pumps of 78.1 MWt, expecting it to According to reported 2017 data, 115 wells served grow continuously. If so, the segment of shallow direct geothermal applications at 76 localities, geothermal energy resources would instantly become including curative spas previously neglected from the second largest amongst geothermal energy use in calculations. With analogy to previous country reports, the country. recreation purposes (recreation resorts, wellness etc.) prevail among the others in both, installed capacity, real A pilot project on assessment of shallow geothermal production and share on a total energy production. A energy potential, the GeoPLASMA-CE is recently segment of ground source heat pumps and heat processed, focusing to a Bratislava – Hainburg area. A exchangers grows rapidly, however, official data are reader is here referenced to a paper of Černák et al. not accessible. (2020) to be presented at WGC 2020 in Reykjavik. New installations were commissioned in the Veľký 5.4 New installations Meder and Poľný Kesov between 2016-2018, both for a direct use. Under the EU WFD, update and Officially, two new wells have been assigned on the reconstruction of database on use of geothermal energy online list. The Veľký Meder (VM-1) serves to support in the country is nowadays in a process. a hybrid district heating system in the town, operated on a natural gas boilers in previous. The DHS is connected to pools forming a cascaded system.

A new well in Poľný Kesov was licensed for withdrawals by Groundwater resources amounts approval commission at Ministry of Enviroment of the Slovak Republic. The final report from the project is not accessible for review. Given by local situation, it is assumed the new well will serve individual space heating of a hotel and pool resort at a site.

6. REMARKS Presented analysis of current status in geothermal energy use and utilization is based on a recent state of 5 Fričovský et al.

Figure 1: Prospective geothermal areas in Slovakia with major (primary) reservoir rocks delineation and heat flow density. Note that according to the WFD 2000/60/EC, geothermal water bodies are not delineated yet.

Table 1: Prospective geothermal areas / geothermal water bodies: summary of geothermal energy use of 2017 Mean Cumulative Online Yearly Number of Number of yearly Proven Real mean Geothermal Water installed installed energy Geothermal Water Body wellss online wells installed yield rates yield rates Body Identificator capacity capacity production capacity - - MWt MWt MWt l/s l/s TJ/yr SK300030FK Vienna Basin 2 9.5 0 37 0 SK300010FK Komárno High Block 11 7 18.42 16.25 2.92 271 49.96 58.98 SK300100FK Horná Nitra Basin 17 11 13.2 11.7 3.73 120.9 41 103.94 SK300110FK Turiec Basin 16 7 8.75 1.19 0.6 96.9 10.76 19.4095 SK300120FK Skoručiná Basin 2 1 18.3 17.2 0.53 135 4.8 16.65 SK300130FK Liptov Basin 11 6 22.1 24.08 6.92 212.3 65.04 195.64 SK300140FK Levoča Basin - W, S part 12 5 34.2 24.4 8.63 266.37 86.8 272.24 SK300150FK Levoča Basin - NE part 4 4.14 0 23.5 0 SK300160FK Humenné Ridge 2 1 0.66 0.41 0.18 8 2.86 5.77 SK300l70FK Košice Basin 7 78.9 0 207.4 0 SK300180FK Dubník depression 4 1 3.7 2.4 1.91 36 10 60.23 SK300l90FK Central Slovakian neovolcanites - NW part 14 11 10.41 5.03 2.27 90.98 17.86 70.35 SK300020FK Komárno Marginal block 5 3.13 0 20.4 0 SK300200FK Centra Slovakian neovolcanites - SE part 10 4 5.04 2.5 0.43 100.65 15.33 5.2 SK300210FK Levice block 2 1 20.7 14.4 1.47 81 8.91 46.45 SK300220FK Rimava Basin 3 1 1.76 1 0.34 58.8 6.1 4.45 SK300240PF Central depression of the Danube Basin 48 28 105.9 81.95 20.41 514.6 129 501.8 SK300250PF Komjatice depression 1 2.5 0 0 12 0 SK300260FK Horné Strháre - Trenč grabben 5 2 1.75 0.59 0.209 29.8 7.1 3.25 SK300220FK Lúčenec Basin (Rapovce structure) 1 1 1.04 1.04 0.34 11.2 4 10.66 SK300040FK Trnava embayment 1 1 0.55 0.55 0.133 14.5 4 4.19 SK300050FK Piešťany embayment 12 6 15.81 12.28 4.52 122 16.67 142.51 SK300060FK Trenčín embayment 9 6 1.66 1.39 1.25 25.8 17.9 39.42 SK300070FK Ilava Basin 1 0.18 0 6 0 SK300080FK Žilina Basin 13 9 5.23 2.68 0.79 99.2 15.82 23.12 SK300090FK Bánovce embayment 7 6 5.26 3.04 0.54 62.8 7.6 17.04 SK300130FP Beša - Čičarovce structure 0 0 SK300zzzQQ Zvolen Basin 6 2 12.8 3.97 0.79 143.7 8.21 26.9

6 Fričovský et al.

Figure 2: Number of online (operated) wells per Figure 3: Total installed capacity (MWt) per energy energy segment (up); number of sites per segment – w/o GSHP (up); segment share (%) energy segment (centre); share of sites per on installed capacity – w/o GSHP (centre); energy segment (down) segment share (%) on installed capacity – with GSHP (down)

7 Fričovský et al.

REFERENCES Bodiš, D., Remšík, A., Černák, R., Marcin, D., Ženišová, Z. and Fľaková, R.: Geothermal and hydrogeological conditions, geochemical properties and uses of geothermal waters in Slovakia. In: Bundschuh J. – Tomaszewska B. (EDs.), Geothermal Water Management, , 41-69, Taylor & Francis, (2018). Černák, R., Remšík A. and Nador A.: Geothermal energy research in Slovakia and cooperation on geothermal transboundarz project Transenergy, Slovak Geological Magazine, 14 (2), (2014), 5-16. Černák, R., Švasta, R., Goetzl, G., Rupprecht, D., Fuchsluger, D., Porpaczy, C., Fričovský, B., Bahnová, N.: Shallow geothermal energy potential in transboundary region- results from the GeoPLASMA-CE project, Proceedings World Geothermal Congress 2020, Reykjavik, Iceland, (2020), submitted Fendek, M., Remšík, A. and Král, M.: The nature of geothermal resources in Slovak Republic, Slovak Geological Magazine, 5 (1-2), (1999), 121-130. Fendek, M., Remšík, A. and Fendeková, M.: Metodika vyhľadávania, hodnotenia a bilancovania množstva geotermálnej vody a geotermálnej energie. Mineralia Slovaca, 37 (2), (2005), 117- 121, in Slovak, English summary. Fendek, M. and Fendeková, M.: Country Update of the Slovak Republic, Proceedings World Geothermal Congress 2015, Melbourne, Australia, (2015), 1-8. Fendek, M., Fendeková, M., Fričovský, B. and Blanárová, V.: Geothermal Energy Use, Country Update for Slovak Republic, Proceedings European Geothermal Congress 2016, Strasbourg, France, (2016) 1-11. Franko, O. and Melioris, L.: Condition for formation and extension of mineral and thermal waters in the Western Carpathians, Slovak Geological Magazine, 5 (1-2), (1999), 93-107. Fričovský, B., Černák, R., Marcin, D. and Benková, K.: A first contribution on thermodynamic analysis and classification of geothermal resources of the Western Carpathians (an enginnering approach), Slovak Geological Magazine, 16 (1), (2016a), 94- 118. Fričovský, B., Černák, R., Marcin, D., Benková, K., Remšík, A. and Fendek, M.: Engineering approach in classification of geothermal resources of the Slovak Republic, Proceedings 41st Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering, Stanford University, CA, USA, (2016b), 1-10.

Figure 4: Yearly heat production (TJ.yr-1) by Fričovský, B., Vizi, L., Fordinál, K., Surový, M. and segment – w/o GSHP (up); segment yearly Marcin, D.: A reviewed hydrogeothermal energy (GWht) production (centre); segment evaluation of the Ďurkov depression share on yearly energy production (down) hydrogeothermal structure: insights from probabilistic assessment and sustainable production optimization, Proceedings 44th

8 Fričovský et al.

Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering, Schmid, S. M., Bernoulli, D., Fügenschuh, B., Stanford University, CA, USA, (2019), 1-14. Matenco, L., Schefer, S., Schuster, R., Tischler, M. and Ustaszewski, K.: The Alpine-Carpathian- Fričovský, B., Černák, R., Marcin, D., Benková, K., Dinaridic orogenic system: correlation and Blanárová, V., Pelech, O., Fordinál, K. and evolution of tectonic units. Swiss Journal of Fendek, M.: Geothermal energy use – country Geosciences, 101 (1), (2008), 139-183. update for Slovakia (2015-2018), Proceedings World Geothermal Congress 2020, Reykjavik, Takacs, J. and Grell, S.: Use of geothermal water for (2020a), submitted. district heating in Galanta, Mineralia Slovaca, 37 (2005), 152-156. Fričovský, B., Černák, R., Marcin, D., Benková, K., Bodiš, D. and Blanárová, V.: Geothermal energy Williams, C.F., Reed, M.J. and Anderson, A.F.: utilization in Slovakia – first insights from Updating the classification of geothermal sustainability prospective, Proceedings World resources, Proceedings, 36th Workshop on Geothermal Congress 2020, Reykjavik, (2020a), Geothermal Reservoir Engineering, Stanford submitted. University, Stanford, California, (2011), 1-10. Garg, S.K. and Combs, J.: A reformulation of USGS volumetric „heat in place“ resource estimation method. Geothermics, 55, (2015), 150-158. Halás, O.: Geothermal district heating systems in Slovakia – current status and plans, Proceedings World Geothermal Congress 2015, Melbourne, Ausralia, (2015), 1-5. Jurewycz, E.: Geodynamic evolution of the Tatra Mts. and the Pieniny Klippen Belt (Western Carpathians): problems and comments, Acta Geologica Polonica, 55 (3), (2005), 295-338. Majcin, D., Král, M., Bilčík, D., Šujan, M. and Vranovská, A.: Deep geothermal sources for electricity production in Slovakia: thermal conditions, Contributions to Geophysics and Geodesy, 47 (1), (2017), 1-22. Marcin, D., Remšík, A. and Benková, K.: Geothermal water utilization in Slovakia, Slovak Geological Magazine, 14 (2), (2014), 69-79. Mišík, M.: Slovakia. in: Encyclopedia of European and Asian Regional Geology, Moores, E. M. and Fairbridge, R. W., (Ed.), 656-664, Springer Publishers, Dodrecht (1996). Moeck, I.S.: Catalog of geothermal play types based on geologic controls, Geothermics, 37, (2014), 867- 882. Moeck, I.S. and Beardsmore, G.: A new “Geothermal Play Type” catalog: streamlining exploration decision making, Proceedins 39th Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering, Stanford University, CA, USA, (2014), 1-10. Plašienka, D.: Continuity and episodicity in the early Alpine tectonic evolution of the Western Carpathians: How large-scale processes are expressed by the orogenic architecture and rock record data, Tectonics, 37 (1), (2018), 1-51. Prokešová, R., Plašienka, D. and Milovský R.: Structural pattern and emplacement mechanisms of the Krížna cover nappe (Central Western Carpathians), Geologica Carpathica, 63 (1), (2012), 13-32.

9 Fričovský et al.

Tables A-G

Table A: Present and planned geothermal power plants, total numbers

Total Electric Power Share of geothermal in total Geothermal Power Plants in the country electric power generation

Capacity Production Capacity Production Capacity Production (MWe) (GWhe/yr) (MWe) (GWhe/yr) (%) (%)

In operation - - 8,074 25,669 - - end of 2018

Under construction - - 547 4,099 - - end of 2018

Total projected - - 12,089 38,431 - - by 2020

Total expected ------by 2025

Under development In case information on geothermal licenses is available in your country, please specify here the number of licenses in force in 2018 (indicate exploration/exploitation if applicable): Under investigation

Table C: Present and planned deep geothermal district heating (DH) plants and other uses for heating and cooling, total numbers – data from 2017 available according to mean yearly flow rates per site

Geothermal heat in Geothermal heat for Geothermal heat in Geothermal DH plants agriculture and industry buildings balneology and other

Capacity Production Capacity Production Capacity Production Capacity Production

(MWth) (GWhth/yr) (MWth) (GWhth/yr) (MWth) (GWhth/yr) (MWth) (GWhth/yr)

In operation 21.9* 41* 45.3* 74.9* 49* 69.2* 107.7* 301* end of 2018 *

Under constru------ction end 2018

Total projected ------by 2020

Total expected ------by 2025

* If 2017 numbers need to be used, please identify such numbers using an asterisk

10 Fričovský et al.

Table D1: Existing geothermal district heating (DH) plants, individual sites by 2017

Geoth. Total 2018 Geoth. Year capacity capacity produc- share in Locality Plant Name commis- CHP Cooling installed installed tion total prod. sioned (MWth) (MWth) (GWth/y) (%)

Galanta Galantaterm Ltd. 1996 N N 10.9 13.1 390.5 94.5

Šaľa MeT Šaľa Ltd. 2011 N N 3.4 20.7 260.7 27.6

Veľký Meder Veľký Meder 2017 N N 3.28 15 161 22

Energetika Sereď Sereď 2012 N N 1.9 8.7 81.9 37.7 Ltd.

total 19.5 57.5 893.2 -

Table D2: Existing geothermal large systems for heating and cooling uses other than DH, individual sites, data available of 2017

Total yearly Year Total installed Average load Locality Cooling energy production commisioned capacity MWt factor GWh,t

Virt 1973-1976 1.28 No 6.11 0.53 Štúrovo 1975-1988 12.19 No 16.38 0.46 Patince 1972 2.26 No 1.84 0.11 Štúrovo 1979 0.35 No 0.31 0.1 Bojnice 1962-1990 3.37 No 12.89 0.35 Kóš / Laskár 1980 4.08 No 4.73 0.17 Púšť 2016 2.7 No 10.86 0.48 Chalmová 1983 0.5 No 0.26 0.09 Chalmová 1992 1.01 No 0.12 0.02 Turčianske Teplice 1970-1990 0.96 No 5.27 0.47 Mošovce-Drienok 1976 0.05 No 0.03 0.07 Turčianske Teplice 1988 0.18 No 0.1 0.13 Oravice 1991 17.2 No 4.63 0.04 Lúčky n/a 1.07 No 1.42 0.14 Liptovsky Trnovec 1992 5.18 No 10.28 0.26 Bešeňová 1987 5.3 No 27.59 0.77 Bešeňová 2011 6.83 No 12.53 0.27 Liptovský Ján n/a 0.66 No 2.52 0.43 Veľká Lomnica 2006 6.88 No 1.28 0.03 Vrbov 1982-1989 10.94 No 51.76 0.71 Poprad 1994 6.6 No 21.58 0.39 Vyšné Ružbachy 1933 0.39 No 1 0.3 Kaluža 2005/2013 0.41 No 1.6 0.64 Bruty 1990 2.4 No 16.73 0.64 Sklene Teplice do 1990 4.09 No 8.52 0.27 Sklene Teplice 2011 0.27 No 0.59 0.25 Vyhne n/a 0.76 No 0.2 0.05 Vyhne 2012 0.15 No 0.67 0.53 Kremnica 1976 3.1 No 9.5 0.47 Sielnica 2004 0.23 No 0.08 0.06 Kalinčiakovo 1968 1.51 No 0.49 0.04 Santovka 1998 0.71 No 0.31 0.06 Dudince n/a 0.28 No 0.65 0.12 11 Fričovský et al.

Table D2: Existing geothermal large systems for heating and cooling uses other than DH, individual sites, data available of 2017 (continued)

Total yearly Total installed Average load Locality Year commisioned Cooling energy production capacity MWt factor GWh,t

Podhajska 1973 14.42 No 12.9 0.13 Kurinec 2003 1.01 No 1.24 0.2 Čiližská Radvaň 1986 3.3 No 3.93 0.29 Čiližská Radvaň 1990 2.93 No 6.19 0.31 Diakovce (Horné Saliby) 1962 0.39 No 9.69 0.53 Diakovce (Horné Saliby) 1982 2.66 No 0.08 0.04 Diakovce 1983 0.25 No 0.39 0.17 Dunajská Streda 1985 3.85 No 2.86 0.11 Dunajská Streda 1971 5.82 No 3.35 0.1 Galanta 1983-1984 13.29 No 23.19 0.25 Galanta 1975 2.13 No 6.26 0.43 Horná Potôň 1978 4.43 No 4.8 0.16 Horná Potôň 1987 4.94 No 5.82 0.19 Komárno 1971 0.51 No 1.27 0.04 Ňárad (Topoľovec) 1988 3.6 No 3.92 0.13 Nové Zámky 1983 0.83 No 1.4 0.25 Poľný Kesov 1981 0.6 No 3.25 0.88 Poľný Kesov 2015 0.15 No 0.1 0.52 Senec 1981 1.71 No 4.39 0.39 Sereď 2011 1.94 No 1.78 0.14 Šaľa 2010 3.39 No 13.05 0.56 Šurany 1989 0.5 No 0.13 0.03 Topoľníky 1975 5.68 No 4.97 0.12 Tvrdošovce 1978 4.6 No 0.62 0.02 Veľký Meder 2016 3.28 No 2.56 0.11 Veľký Meder (Čalovo) 1983 3.2 No 12.91 0.6 Veľký Meder (Čalovo) 1972 2.59 No 9.72 0.52 Vlčany 1982 2.22 No 6 0.39 Zemné 2009 1.91 No 4.19 0.25 Zlatná na Ostrove 1990 1.25 No 2.57 0.35 Dolná Strehová 1985 0.34 No 0.68 0.35 Vinica n/a 0.25 No 0.22 0.11 Rapovce 2007 1.04 No 2.96 0.36 Sliač 1936 0.83 No 1.46 0.23 Kováčová 1986 3.14 No 6.01 0.23 Koplotovce 1976 0.55 No 1.17 0.1 Piestany 1929-2014 8.42 No 39.58 0.5 Trenčianske Teplice n/a 1.39 No 10.96 0.81 Rajecke Teplice 1927-1996 2.14 No 4.68 0.28 Stráňavy 1990 0.84 No 1.75 0.61 Malé Bielice 1974 0.89 No 0.69 0.13 Bánovce nad Bebravou 1984 1.78 No 4.02 0.37 Partizánske 2000 0.37 No 0.02 0.01 Total 406 - 452 -

Table E: Shallow geothermal energy, ground source heat pumps (GSHP)

Realistic data not available

12 Fričovský et al.

Table F: Investment and Employment in geothermal energy

Realistic data not available

Table G: Incentives, Information, Education

Geothermal electricity Deep Geothermal for Shallow geothermal heating and cooling

Financial Incentives Realistic data not available Realistic data not available Realistic data not available – R&D

Financial Incentives Realistic data not available Realistic data not available Realistic data not available – Investment

Financial Incentives Realistic data not available Realistic data not available Realistic data not available – Operation/Production

Information activities Yes, several presentations Yes, several presentations Yes, several presentations – promotion for the public provided by individuals or provided by individuals or provided by individuals or in cope with professional in cope with professional in cope with professional organizations, such as organizations, such as organizations, such as Slovak Association of Slovak Association of Slovak Association of hydrogeologists, Slovak hydrogeologists, Slovak hydrogeologists, Slovak Geological Society, Slovak Geological Society, Slovak Geological Society, Slovak environmental technologies environmental technologies environmental technologies society etc. society etc. society etc.

Information activities Web service of Dionýz Web service of Dionýz Web service of Dionýz – geological information Štúr state institute of Štúr state institute of Štúr state institute of Geology Geology Geology

Education/Training Courses on hydrogeology Courses on hydrogeology Courses on hydrogeology – Academic and geothermal energy, and geothermal energy, and geothermal energy, renewable energy sources, renewable energy sources, renewable energy sources, alternative energy sources alternative energy sources alternative energy sources at technical universities in at technical universities in at technical universities in Košice, Žilina and Košice, Žilina and Košice, Žilina and Bratislava, and Faculty of Bratislava, and Faculty of Bratislava, and Faculty of Natural Sciences, Natural Sciences, Natural Sciences, Commenius University in Commenius University in Commenius University in Bratislava Bratislava Bratislava

- no study programme on - no study programme on - no study programme on geothermal electricity geothermal heat production shallow geothermal energy production or reservoir engineering use

Education/Training Domestic and international Domestic and international Domestic and international – Vocational conferences held in conferences held in conferences held in Slovakia, e.g. Renewable Slovakia, e.g. Renewable Slovakia, e.g. Renewable Energy Sources, Energy Sources, Energy Sources, Hydrogeology, Hydrogeology, Hydrogeology, Geochemistry, Heating Geochemistry, Heating Geochemistry, Heating

Key for financial incentives:

DIS Direct investment support FIT Feed-in tariff -A Add to FIT or FIP on case the amount is determined LIL Low-interest loans FIP Feed-in premium by auctioning RC Risk coverage REQ Renewable Energy Quota O Other (please explain)

13