Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Review Article
  • Published:

Opportunities, benefits and impacts of shallow geothermal energy

Nature Reviews Earth & Environment volume 6, pages 808–823 (2025)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Heat pumps, which transfer heat from one environment to another to provide heating and cooling, are considered a key technology for decarbonizing the building sector. However, geothermal heat pumps have been adopted slowly, owing to high investment costs and public distrust. In this Review, we discuss opportunities for sustainable and risk-conscious application of shallow geothermal energy (SGE) and identify suitable areas and outline the benefits and impacts of different SGE technologies. Globally, many regions have wide areas suitable for SGE, yet uptake rates remain low. For example, a third of Germany is hydrogeologically suitable for aquifer thermal energy storage systems, but only two systems were in operation in 2021. The environmental benefits of SGE are substantial, as greenhouse gas emissions can be reduced by up to 88% in European Union countries compared with conventional thermal energy systems. Environmental impacts on groundwater quality and ecosystem functions are minor as SGE-induced temperature increases are typically in the range of 5–10 K. However, owing to the limited number of assessments, benefits and impacts of subsurface cooling remain largely unknown. Widespread and sustainable operation of SGE will require subsurface management with particular focus on infrastructure, drinking water quality and thermal alterations.

Key points

  • There are suitable conditions for shallow geothermal applications across wide areas of Europe and Asia. However, direct geothermal use for residential heating and cooling is still a niche technology.

  • Ground-source heat pumps have greater environmental advantages over air-source heat pumps, with 25% lower electricity consumption, 13–43% lower greenhouse gas emissions and reduced strain on the electricity grid.

  • Shallow geothermal energy systems — with seasonal storage of heat — offer even greater environmental benefits, reducing greenhouse gas emissions and energy consumption by up to 74% and 70%, respectively, compared with conventional thermal energy systems, with payback times as low as 2 years.

  • Shallow geothermal energy offers various site-specific, secondary benefits, such as reduced deforestation and noise levels, and improved air quality and economic growth; however, these benefits have been overlooked.

  • Although the potential environmental impacts of shallow geothermal energy are generally minor, effects on locally specific groundwater fauna and corresponding ecosystem services might vary and deserve more attention in future research.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on SpringerLink
  • Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Worldwide application of shallow geothermal energy.
Fig. 2: Global suitability of shallow geothermal energy.
Fig. 3: Existing shallow geothermal energy potential assessments.
Fig. 4: Greenhouse gas savings of shallow geothermal energy systems from 2000 to 2030.
Fig. 5: Potential geotechnical risks and environmental impacts of shallow geothermal energy systems.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. REN21. Renewables 2024 global status report — renewables in energy demand (2024).

  2. Esen, H., Inalli, M. & Esen, M. A techno-economic comparison of ground-coupled and air-coupled heat pump system for space cooling. Build. Environ. 42, 1955–1965 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Wu, R. Energy efficiency technologies — air source heat pump vs. ground source heat pump. J. Sustain. Dev. 2, 14–23 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Violante, A. C., Donato, F., Guidi, G. & Proposito, M. Comparative life cycle assessment of the ground source heat pump vs air source heat pump. Renew. Energy 188, 1029–1037 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Lu, Q., Narsilio, G. A., Aditya, G. R. & Johnston, I. W. Economic analysis of vertical ground source heat pump systems in Melbourne. Energy 125, 107–117 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Christodoulides, P., Aresti, L. & Florides, G. Air-conditioning of a typical house in moderate climates with ground source heat pumps and cost comparison with air source heat pumps. Appl. Therm. Eng. 158, 113772 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Fleuchaus, P., Godschalk, B., Stober, I. & Blum, P. Worldwide application of aquifer thermal energy storage — a review. Renew. Sust. Energy Rev. 94, 861–876 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Hakkaki-Fard, A., Eslami-Nejad, P., Aidoun, Z. & Ouzzane, M. A techno-economic comparison of a direct expansion ground-source and an air-source heat pump system in Canadian cold climates. Energy 87, 49–59 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. The Future of Heat Pumps (International Energy Agency, 2022).

  10. IEA. Heat Pump Sales by Country or Region, 2019–2023. https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/heat-pump-sales-by-country-or-region-2019-2023 (2024).

  11. Roka, R. B., Figueiredo, A. J. P. D., Vieira, A. M. C. P. & Cardoso, J. C. D. P. A systematic review on shallow geothermal energy system: a light into six major barriers. Soils Rocks 46, e2023007622 (2023).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Tsagarakis, K. P. Shallow geothermal energy under the microscope: social, economic, and institutional aspects. Renew. Energy 147, 2801–2808 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Renewables 2022 global status report. REN 21 (2022).

  14. Lund, J. W. & Toth, A. N. Direct utilization of geothermal energy 2020 worldwide review. Geothermics 90, 101915 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. García-Gil, A., Schneider, E. A. G., Moreno, M. M. & Cerezal, J. C. S. Shallow Geothermal Energy: Theory and Application (Springer Nature, 2022).

  16. Bertermann, D., Klug, H., Morper-Busch, L. & Bialas, C. Modelling vSGPs (very shallow geothermal potentials) in selected CSAs (case study areas). Energy 71, 226–244 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Bordignon, S. et al. A solar-assisted low-temperature district heating and cooling network coupled with a ground-source heat pump. Energy Convers. Manage. 267, 115838 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Meibodi, S. S. & Loveridge, F. The future role of energy geostructures in fifth generation district heating and cooling networks. Energy 240, 122481 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Figueira, J. S. et al. Shallow geothermal energy systems for district heating and cooling networks: review and technological progression through case studies. Renew. Energy 236, 121436 (2024).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Bayer, P., Attard, G., Blum, P. & Menberg, K. The geothermal potential of cities. Renew. Sust. Energy Rev. 106, 17–30 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Shah, M., Prajapati, M., Yadav, K. & Sircar, A. A comprehensive review of geothermal energy storage: methods and applications. J. Energy Storage 98, 113019 (2024).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Halilovic, S., Böttcher, F., Zosseder, K. & Hamacher, T. Optimization approaches for the design and operation of open-loop shallow geothermal systems. Adv. Geosci. 62, 57–66 (2023).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Walch, A. et al. Shallow geothermal energy potential for heating and cooling of buildings with regeneration under climate change scenarios. Energy 244, 123086 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Bloemendal, M., Olsthoorn, T. & van de Ven, F. Combining climatic and geo-hydrological preconditions as a method to determine world potential for aquifer thermal energy storage. Sci. Total Environ. 538, 621–633 (2015).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Lu, H., Tian, P., Guan, Y. & Yu, S. Integrated suitability, vulnerability and sustainability indicators for assessing the global potential of aquifer thermal energy storage. Appl. Energy 239, 747–756 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Richts, A., Struckmeier, W. F. & Zaepke, M. in Sustaining Groundwater Resources: A Critical Element in the Global Water Crisis (ed. Jones, J. A. A.) 159–173 (Springer, 2011).

  27. Fan, Y., Li, H. & Miguez-Macho, G. Global patterns of groundwater table depth. Science 339, 940–943 (2013).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Huscroft, J., Gleeson, T., Hartmann, J. & Börker, J. Compiling and mapping global permeability of the unconsolidated and consolidated Earth: GLobal HYdrogeology MaPS 2.0 (GLHYMPS 2.0). Geophys. Res. Lett. 45, 1897–1904 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Mistry, M. N. Supplement to: Mistry, MN (2019): Historical Global Gridded Degree-Days: A High-Spatial Resolution Database of CDD and HDD. https://doi.org/10.1002/gdj3.83 (PANGAEA, 2019).

  30. Chen, S. et al. Long-term thermal imbalance in large borehole heat exchangers array — a numerical study based on the Leicester project. Energy Build. 231, 110518 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Ingenieure, V. D. in VDI-Richtlinie 4640 Blatt 1 (ed. VDI) (2010).

  32. Hartmann, J. & Moosdorf, N. The new Global Lithological Map database GLiM: a representation of rock properties at the earth surface. Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst. 13, Q12004 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Muñoz, M. et al. Estimating low-enthalpy geothermal energy potential for district heating in Santiago Basin–Chile (33.5 °S). Renew. Energy 76, 186–195 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Stemmle, R., Hammer, V., Blum, P. & Menberg, K. Potential of low-temperature aquifer thermal energy storage (LT-ATES) in Germany. Geotherm. Energy 10, 24 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Gleeson, T. et al. Mapping permeability over the surface of the Earth. Geophys. Res. Lett. 38, L02401 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Galgaro, A. et al. European and municipal scale drillability maps: a tool to identify the most suitable techniques to install borehole heat exchangers (BHE) probes. Renew. Energy 192, 188–199 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Ryżyński, G., Żeruń, M., Kocyła, J. & Kłonowski, M. R. Estimation of potential low-temperature geothermal energy extraction from the closed loop systems based on analysis, interpretation and reclassification of geological borehole data in Poland. In Proceedings of World Geothermal Congress 2020+1 (IEA, 2021).

  38. Bertermann, D., Klug, H. & Morper-Busch, L. A pan-European planning basis for estimating the very shallow geothermal energy potentials. Renew. Energy 75, 335–347 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Ramos-Escudero, A., García-Cascales, M. S., Cuevas, J. M., Sanner, B. & Urchueguía, J. F. Spatial analysis of indicators affecting the exploitation of shallow geothermal energy at European scale. Renew. Energy 167, 266–281 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Majorowicz, J., Grasby, S. E. & Skinner, W. R. Estimation of shallow geothermal energy resource in Canada: heat gain and heat sink. Nat. Resour. Res. 18, 95–108 (2009).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Xu, Y.-S., Wang, X.-W., Shen, S.-L. & Zhou, A. Distribution characteristics and utilization of shallow geothermal energy in China. Energy Build. 229, 110479 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Liu, X., Hughes, P., McCabe, K., Spitler, J. & Southard, L. GeoVision Analysis Supporting Task Force Report: Thermal Applications — Geothermal Heat Pumps (Oak Ridge National Lab. (ORNL), 2019).

  43. Hamada, Y. et al. Study on underground thermal characteristics by using digital national land information, and its application for energy utilization. Appl. Energy 72, 659–675 (2002).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Goodman, R., Jones, G., Kelly, J., Slowey, E. & O’Neill, N. Sustainable Energy Ireland (SEI) (Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland, 2004).

  45. Abesser, C., Lewis, M. A., Marchant, A. P. & Hulbert, A. G. Mapping suitability for open-loop ground source heat pump systems: a screening tool for England and Wales, UK. Q. J. Eng. Geol. Hydrogeol. 47, 373–380 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Ramos-Escudero, A. & Bloemendal, M. Assessment of potential for aquifer thermal energy storage systems for Spain. Sustain. Cities Soc. 81, 103849 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Assouline, D., Mohajeri, N., Gudmundsson, A. & Scartezzini, J.-L. A machine learning approach for mapping the very shallow theoretical geothermal potential. Geotherm. Energy 7, 19 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Tester, J. W., Beckers, K., Hawkins, A. J. & Lukawski, M. Z. The evolving role of geothermal energy for decarbonizing the United States. Energy Environ. Sci. 14, 6211–6241 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Beckers, K. F., Lukawski, M. Z., Anderson, B. J., Moore, M. C. & Tester, J. W. Levelized costs of electricity and direct-use heat from enhanced geothermal systems. J. Renew. Sustain. Energy 6, 013141 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. European Commission. Mapping and analyses of the current and future (2020–2030) heating/cooling fuel deployment (fossil/renewables) (2016).

  51. Benz, S. A., Menberg, K., Bayer, P. & Kurylyk, B. L. Shallow subsurface heat recycling is a sustainable global space heating alternative. Nat. Commun. 13, 3962 (2022).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. Arola, T. et al. Creating shallow geothermal potential maps for Finland. In Proceedings of the European Geothermal Congress 11–14 (European Geothermal Congress, 2019).

  53. Arola, T., Eskola, L., Hellen, J. & Korkka-Niemi, K. Mapping the low enthalpy geothermal potential of shallow quaternary aquifers in Finland. Geotherm. Energy 2, 9 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Vrijlandt, M. et al. ThermoGIS update: a renewed view on geothermal potential in the Netherlands. In Proceedings of the European Geothermal Congress (European Geothermal Congress, 2019).

  55. Wang, Y. & He, W. Temporospatial techno-economic analysis of heat pumps for decarbonising heating in Great Britain. Energy Build. 250, 111198 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Bourhis, P., Cousin, B., Rotta Loria, A. F. & Laloui, L. Machine learning enhancement of thermal response tests for geothermal potential evaluations at site and regional scales. Geothermics 95, 102132 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Dong, J., Li, X., Han, B., Tian, R. & Yu, H. A regional study of in-situ thermal conductivity of soil based on artificial neural network model. Energy Build. 257, 111785 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Walch, A., Castello, R., Mohajeri, N., Gudmundsson, A. & Scartezzini, J.-L. Journal of Physics: Conf. Series 012010 (IOP Publishing, 2021).

  59. Aggarwal, V. et al. Potential and future prospects of geothermal energy in space conditioning of buildings: India and worldwide review. Sustainability 12, 8428 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Amoatey, P., Chen, M., Al-Maktoumi, A., Izady, A. & Baawain, M. S. A review of geothermal energy status and potentials in Middle-East countries. Arab. J. Geosci. 14, 245 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Ouzzane, M., Naqash, M. & Harireche, O. Assessment of the potential use of shallow geothermal energy source for air heating and cooling in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Nat. Environ. Pollut. Technol. 20, 1923–1934 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  62. Hu, Z. et al. Suitability zoning of buried pipe ground source heat pump and shallow geothermal resource evaluation of Linqu County, Shandong Province, China. Renew. Energy 198, 1430–1439 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Previati, A. & Crosta, G. B. Regional-scale assessment of the thermal potential in a shallow alluvial aquifer system in the Po plain (northern Italy). Geothermics 90, 101999 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Walch, A., Mohajeri, N., Gudmundsson, A. & Scartezzini, J.-L. Quantifying the technical geothermal potential from shallow borehole heat exchangers at regional scale. Renew. Energy 165, 369–380 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Miocic, J. M. & Krecher, M. Estimation of shallow geothermal potential to meet building heating demand on a regional scale. Renew. Energy 185, 629–640 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Perego, R., Pera, S. & Galgaro, A. Techno-economic mapping for the improvement of shallow geothermal management in southern Switzerland. Energies 12, 279 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Tissen, C., Menberg, K., Bayer, P. & Blum, P. Meeting the demand: geothermal heat supply rates for an urban quarter in Germany. Geotherm. Energy 7, 9 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Nam, Y. & Ooka, R. Development of potential map for ground and groundwater heat pump systems and the application to Tokyo. Energy Build. 43, 677–685 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Bidarmaghz, A., Choudhary, R., Narsilio, G. & Soga, K. Impacts of underground climate change on urban geothermal potential: lessons learnt from a case study in London. Sci. Total Environ. 778, 146196 (2021).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  70. Previati, A., Epting, J. & Crosta, G. B. The subsurface urban heat island in Milan (Italy) — a modeling approach covering present and future thermal effects on groundwater regimes. Sci. Total Environ. 810, 152119 (2022).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  71. Menberg, K., Bayer, P., Zosseder, K., Rumohr, S. & Blum, P. Subsurface urban heat islands in German cities. Sci. Total Environ. 442, 123–133 (2013).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  72. Chu, Z. & Rotta Loria, A. F. Modeling underground climate change across a city based on data about a building block. Sustain. Cities Soc. 114, 105775 (2024).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Barla, M., Insana, A. & Alvi, M. R. Assessing the interaction of an energy tunnel with the underground thermal conditions in an urban area. Geothermics 130, 103350 (2025).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Tissen, C. et al. Identifying key locations for shallow geothermal use in Vienna. Renew. Energy 167, 1–19 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Kreitmair, M. J. et al. Finding common ground: a methodology for city-scale subsurface thermal modelling. Urban Clim. 49, 101513 (2023).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Makasis, N. et al. Impact of simplifications on numerical modelling of the shallow subsurface at city-scale and implications for shallow geothermal potential. Sci. Total Environ. 791, 148236 (2021).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  77. Wunsch, A., Liesch, T. & Broda, S. Deep learning shows declining groundwater levels in Germany until 2100 due to climate change. Nat. Commun. 13, 1221 (2022).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  78. Epting, J. et al. City-scale solutions for the energy use of shallow urban subsurface resources — bridging the gap between theoretical and technical potentials. Renew. Energy 147, 751–763 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. García-Gil, A. et al. Governance of shallow geothermal energy resources. Energy Policy 138, 111283 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Hemmerle, H., Ferguson, G., Blum, P. & Bayer, P. The evolution of the geothermal potential of a subsurface urban heat island. Environ. Res. Lett. 17, 084018 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Saner, D. et al. Is it only CO2 that matters? A life cycle perspective on shallow geothermal systems. Renew. Sust. Energy Rev. 14, 1798–1813 (2010).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  82. Aresti, L., Christodoulides, P. & Florides, G. A. An investigation on the environmental impact of various ground heat exchangers configurations. Renew. Energy 171, 592–605 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. Zhai, Y. et al. Environmental impact assessment of ground source heat pump system for heating and cooling: a case study in China. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 27, 395–408 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. Milousi, M. et al. Evaluating the technical and environmental capabilities of geothermal systems through life cycle assessment. Energies 15, 5673 (2022).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  85. Stemmle, R. et al. Environmental impacts of aquifer thermal energy storage (ATES). Renew. Sust. Energy Rev. 151, 111560 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. Xia, Z. et al. Analysis of economy, thermal efficiency and environmental impact of geothermal heating system based on life cycle assessments. Appl. Energy 303, 117671 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  87. Aresti, L., Florides, G. A., Skaliontas, A. & Christodoulides, P. Environmental impact of ground source heat pump systems: a comparative investigation from South to North Europe. Front. Built Environ. 8, 914227 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  88. Tomasetta, C., Van Ree, C. & Griffioen, J. Engineering Geology for Society and Territory Vol. 5, 1213–1217 (Springer, 2015).

  89. Bayer, P., Saner, D., Bolay, S., Rybach, L. & Blum, P. Greenhouse gas emission savings of ground source heat pump systems in Europe: a review. Renew. Sust. Energy Rev. 16, 1256–1267 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  90. Blum, P., Campillo, G., Münch, W. & Kölbel, T. CO2 savings of ground source heat pump systems — a regional analysis. Renew. Energy 35, 122–127 (2010).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  91. Lo Russo, S., Boffa, C. & Civita, M. V. Low-enthalpy geothermal energy: an opportunity to meet increasing energy needs and reduce CO2 and atmospheric pollutant emissions in Piemonte, Italy. Geothermics 38, 254–262 (2009).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  92. Kana, J. D. et al. GIS based exploring of low-enthalpy geo-energy potentials in the Subsaharan area in Central Africa. Geomech. Geophys. Geo-Energy Geo-Resour. 7, 94 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  93. Bahlawan, H., Poganietz, W.-R., Spina, P. R. & Venturini, M. Cradle-to-gate life cycle assessment of energy systems for residential applications by accounting for scaling effects. Appl. Therm. Eng. 171, 115062 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  94. Jackson, M. D., Regnier, G. & Staffell, I. Aquifer thermal energy storage for low carbon heating and cooling in the United Kingdom: current status and future prospects. Appl. Energy 376, 124096 (2024).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  95. Behzadi, A. & Sadrizadeh, S. Advanced smart HVAC system utilizing borehole thermal energy storage: detailed analysis of a Uppsala case study focused on the deep green cooling innovation. J. Energy Storage 99, 113470 (2024).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  96. Carvalho, A. D., Mendrinos, D. & De Almeida, A. T. Ground source heat pump carbon emissions and primary energy reduction potential for heating in buildings in Europe — results of a case study in Portugal. Renew. Sust. Energy Rev. 45, 755–768 (2015).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  97. Liu, X. et al. Grid Cost and Total Emissions Reductions Through Mass Deployment of Geothermal Heat Pumps for Building Heating and Cooling Electrification in the United States (Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), 2023).

  98. Fridleifsson, I. B. et al. In IPCC Scoping Meeting on Renewable Energy Sources, Proceedings (eds Hohmeyer, O. & Trittin, T.) 59–80 (Citeseer, 2008).

  99. Ember Energy Institute. Carbon Intensity of Electricity Generation. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/carbon-intensity-electricity (2024).

  100. Ritchie, H., Rosado, P. & Roser, M. CO₂ Greenhouse Gas Emissions. https://ourworldindata.org/co2-and-greenhouse-gas-emissions (2024).

  101. Lund, J. W. & Freeston, D. H. World-wide direct uses of geothermal energy 2000. Geothermics 30, 29–68 (2001).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  102. Lund, J. W., Freeston, D. H. & Boyd, T. L. Direct application of geothermal energy: 2005 worldwide review. Geothermics 34, 691–727 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  103. Lund, J. W., Freeston, D. H. & Boyd, T. L. Direct utilization of geothermal energy 2010 worldwide review. Geothermics 40, 159–180 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  104. Lund, J. W. & Boyd, T. L. Direct utilization of geothermal energy 2015 worldwide review. Geothermics 60, 66–93 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  105. Bonamente, E. & Aquino, A. Life-cycle assessment of an innovative ground-source heat pump system with upstream thermal storage. Energies 10, 1854 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  106. Ren, C., Deng, Y. & Cao, S.-J. Evaluation of polyethylene and steel heat exchangers of ground source heat pump systems based on seasonal performance comparison and life cycle assessment. Energy Build. 162, 54–64 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  107. Aquino, A., Scrucca, F. & Bonamente, E. Sustainability of shallow geothermal energy for building air-conditioning. Energies 14, 7058 (2021).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  108. Beernink, S., Bloemendal, M., Kleinlugtenbelt, R. & Hartog, N. Maximizing the use of aquifer thermal energy storage systems in urban areas: effects on individual system primary energy use and overall GHG emissions. Appl. Energy 311, 118587 (2022).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  109. Russo, S. L. & Civita, M. V. Open-loop groundwater heat pumps development for large buildings: a case study. Geothermics 38, 335–345 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  110. Jocić, N., Müller, J., Požar, T. & Bertermann, D. Renewable energy sources in a post-socialist transitional environment: the influence of social geographic factors on potential utilization of very shallow geothermal energy within heating systems in small Serbian town of Ub. Appl. Sci. 10, 2739 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  111. Vargas-Payera, S., Ibarra, C. & Hurtado, N. Social and cultural aspects in the adoption of geothermal heat pump systems to replace wood-burning heaters in educational spaces: the Chilean Patagonian case. J. S. Am. Earth. Sci. 128, 104426 (2023).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  112. Gaur, A. S., Fitiwi, D. Z. & Curtis, J. Heat pumps and our low-carbon future: a comprehensive review. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 71, 101764 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  113. Kaur, G., Krol, M. & Brar, S. K. Geothermal heating: is it a boon or a bane for bioremediation? Environ. Pollut. 287, 117609 (2021).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  114. Sommer, W. Modelling and monitoring of aquifer thermal energy storage: impacts of soil heterogeneity, thermal interference and bioremediation. PhD thesis, Wageningen Univ. (2015).

  115. Ni, Z., van Gaans, P., Smit, M., Rijnaarts, H. & Grotenhuis, T. Biodegradation of cis-1,2-dichloroethene in simulated underground thermal energy storage systems. Environ. Sci. Technol. 49, 13519–13527 (2015).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  116. Ni, Z. et al. Comparative life-cycle assessment of aquifer thermal energy storage integrated with in situ bioremediation of chlorinated volatile organic compounds. Environ. Sci. Technol. 54, 3039–3049 (2020).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  117. Zuurbier, K. G., Hartog, N., Valstar, J., Post, V. E. A. & van Breukelen, B. M. The impact of low-temperature seasonal aquifer thermal energy storage (SATES) systems on chlorinated solvent contaminated groundwater: modeling of spreading and degradation. J. Contam. Hydrol. 147, 1–13 (2013).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  118. Wang, Q. et al. Thermally enhanced bioremediation: a review of the fundamentals and applications in soil and groundwater remediation. J. Hazard. Mater. 433, 128749 (2022).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  119. Pujades, E. et al. Potential of low-enthalpy geothermal energy to degrade organic contaminants of emerging concern in urban groundwater. Sci. Rep. 13, 2642 (2023).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  120. Hähnlein, S., Bayer, P., Ferguson, G. & Blum, P. Sustainability and policy for the thermal use of shallow geothermal energy. Energy Policy 59, 914–925 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  121. Majorowicz, J. A. & Minea, V. Shallow and deep geothermal energy potential in low heat flow/cold climate environment: northern Québec, Canada, case study. Environ. Earth Sci. 74, 5233–5244 (2015).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  122. Cousse, J., Trutnevyte, E. & Hahnel, U. J. J. Tell me how you feel about geothermal energy: affect as a revealing factor of the role of seismic risk on public acceptance. Energy Policy 158, 112547 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  123. Spampatti, T., Hahnel, U. J. J., Trutnevyte, E. & Brosch, T. Short and long-term dominance of negative information in shaping public energy perceptions: the case of shallow geothermal systems. Energy Policy 167, 113070 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  124. Fu, Y., Zhang, C. Y. & Zhang, B. Benefits analysis and utilization strategy for development of shallow geothermal energy: a case study of Tianjin. Adv. Mater. Res. 616, 1640–1646 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  125. Spijkerboer, R. C. et al. Out of steam? A social science and humanities research agenda for geothermal energy. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 92, 102801 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  126. Armeanu, D. Ş, Vintilă, G. & Gherghina, ŞC. Does renewable energy drive sustainable economic growth? Multivariate panel data evidence for EU-28 countries. Energies 10, 381 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  127. Bleicher, A. & Gross, M. Geothermal heat pumps and the vagaries of subterranean geology: energy independence at a household level as a real world experiment. Renew. Sust. Energy Rev. 64, 279–288 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  128. Schüppler, S., Fleuchaus, P. & Blum, P. Techno-economic and environmental analysis of an aquifer thermal energy storage (ATES) in Germany. Geotherm. Energy 7, 11 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  129. Loveridge, F., McCartney, J. S., Narsilio, G. A. & Sanchez, M. Energy geostructures: a review of analysis approaches, in situ testing and model scale experiments. Geomech. Energy Environ. 22, 100173 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  130. Fleuchaus, P. & Blum, P. Damage event analysis of vertical ground source heat pump systems in Germany. Geotherm. Energy 5, 10 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  131. Hashemi, A., Sutman, M. & Medero, G. M. A review on the thermo-hydro-mechanical response of soil–structure interface for energy geostructures applications. Geomech. Energy Environ. 33, 100439 (2023).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  132. Kumar, A., Bidarmaghz, A., Khoshghalb, A. & Soga, K. Coupled heat and moisture migration in unsaturated soils subjected to thermal gradients. Comp. Geotech. 177, 106893 (2025).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  133. Brandl, H. Energy foundations and other thermo-active ground structures. Géotechnique 56, 81–122 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  134. Georgiadis, K., Skordas, D., Kamas, I. & Comodromos, E. Heating and cooling induced stresses and displacements in heat exchanger piles in sand. Renew. Energy 147, 2599–2617 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  135. Bourne-Webb, P. et al. Energy pile test at Lambeth College, London: geotechnical and thermodynamic aspects of pile response to heat cycles. Géotechnique 59, 237–248 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  136. Pasten, C. & Santamarina, J. C. Thermally induced long-term displacement of thermoactive piles. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 140, 06014003 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  137. Faizal, M., Bouazza, A., Haberfield, C. & McCartney, J. S. Axial and radial thermal responses of a field-scale energy pile under monotonic and cyclic temperature changes. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 144, 04018072 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  138. Mimouni, T. & Laloui, L. Behaviour of a group of energy piles. Can. Geotech. J. 52, 1913–1929 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  139. Moradshahi, A., Faizal, M., Bouazza, A. & McCartney, J. S. Effect of nearby piles and soil properties on thermal behaviour of a field-scale energy pile. Can. Geotech. J. 58, 1351–1364 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  140. Saggu, R. & Chakraborty, T. Cyclic thermo-mechanical analysis of energy piles in sand. Geotech. Geol. Eng. 33, 321–342 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  141. Wang, D. Investigating the thermal and thermo-mechanical performances of geothermal heat exchanger with spiral-tubes. PhD thesis, Hong Kong Polytechnic Univ. (2016).

  142. Amatya, B., Soga, K., Bourne-Webb, P., Amis, T. & Laloui, L. Thermo-mechanical behaviour of energy piles. Géotechnique 62, 503–519 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  143. Barla, M. & Di Donna, A. Energy tunnels: concept and design aspects. Undergr. Space 3, 268–276 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  144. Dai, X., Bidarmaghz, A. & Narsilio, G. A. Energy tunnels: a review of the state of the art and knowledge gaps to harness renewable energy from underground infrastructure. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 142, 105431 (2023).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  145. Adam, D. & Markiewicz, R. Energy from earth-coupled structures, foundations, tunnels and sewers. Géotechnique 59, 229–236 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  146. Insana, A. & Barla, M. Experimental and numerical investigations on the energy performance of a thermo-active tunnel. Renew. Energy 152, 781–792 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  147. Buhmann, P., Moormann, C., Westrich, B., Pralle, N. & Friedemann, W. Tunnel geothermics — a German experience with renewable energy concepts in tunnel projects. Geomech. Energy Environ. 8, 1–7 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  148. Ma, C., Di Donna, A. & Dias, D. Numerical study on the thermo-hydro-mechanical behaviour of an energy tunnel in a coarse soil. Computers Geotech. 151, 105003 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  149. Liu, J. & Zhou, C. Thermo-hydro-mechanical behaviour of geothermal energy tunnel in different ground conditions. Computers Geotech. 151, 104954 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  150. Gawecka, K. A. et al. Predictive modelling of thermo-active tunnels in London clay. Géotechnique 71, 735–748 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  151. Liu, J., Zhou, C. & Tang, A. M. Thermo-hydro-mechanical behaviour of energy tunnel in unsaturated soils. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 153, 106012 (2024).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  152. Brandl, H. Deep Foundations on Bored and Auger Piles-BAP III 37–60 (CRC Press, 2020).

  153. Delerablée, Y. et al. Integration of thermoactive metro stations in a smart energy system: feedbacks from the Grand Paris project. Infrastructures 3, 56 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  154. Soga, K., Rui, Y. & Nicholson, D. Behaviour of a thermal wall installed in the Tottenham Court Road station box. In Proc. Crossrail Conference, Crossrail Ltd and Federation of Piling Specialists 112–119 (Crossrail Learning Legacy, 2015).

  155. Xia, C., Sun, M., Zhang, G., Xiao, S. & Zou, Y. Experimental study on geothermal heat exchangers buried in diaphragm walls. Energy Build. 52, 50–55 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  156. Sterpi, D., Coletto, A. & Mauri, L. Investigation on the behaviour of a thermo-active diaphragm wall by thermo-mechanical analyses. Geomech. Energy Environ. 9, 1–20 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  157. Dong, S. et al. Thermo-mechanical behavior of energy diaphragm wall: physical and numerical modelling. Appl. Therm. Eng. 146, 243–251 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  158. Sailer, E., Taborda, D. M., Zdravković, L. & Potts, D. M. Fundamentals of the coupled thermo-hydro-mechanical behaviour of thermo-active retaining walls. Computers Geotech. 109, 189–203 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  159. Rui, Y. & Yin, M. Thermo-hydro-mechanical coupling analysis of a thermo-active diaphragm wall. Can. Geotech. J. 55, 720–735 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  160. Gu, X. et al. Geothermal pavements: field observations, numerical modelling and long-term performance. Géotechnique 72, 832–846 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  161. Al-Atroush, M. E. et al. Structural performance assessment of geothermal asphalt pavements: a comparative experimental study. Sustainability 14, 12855 (2022).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  162. Jaiswal, P., Anupam, B., Chandrappa, A. K. & Sahoo, U. C. Harvesting heat energy using geothermal and hydronic pavements for sustainable cities: a comprehensive review of an emerging idea. Sustain. Cities Soc. 93, 104539 (2023).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  163. Casasso, A. & Sethi, R. Assessment and minimization of potential environmental impacts of ground source heat pump (GSHP) systems. Water 11, 1573 (2019).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  164. Van Alphen, T. Toronto Star (Toronto, 2012).

  165. Tumkur, M. & Beatty, B. GEOEXCHANGE (The Geothermal Exchange Organisation Springfield, 2012).

  166. Majuri, P. Technologies and environmental impacts of ground heat exchangers in Finland. Geothermics 73, 124–132 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  167. Zymnis, D. M. & Whittle, A. J. Geotechnical considerations in the design of borehole heat exchangers. Can. Geotech. J. 58, 1247–1262 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  168. Erol, S. & François, B. Freeze damage of grouting materials for borehole heat exchanger: experimental and analytical evaluations. Geomech. Energy Environ. 5, 29–41 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  169. Schmidt, K. R. et al. Biodegradability and ecotoxicity of commercially available geothermal heat transfer fluids. Grundwasser 21, 59–67 (2016).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  170. Klotzbücher, T., Kappler, A., Straub, K. L. & Haderlein, S. B. Biodegradability and groundwater pollutant potential of organic anti-freeze liquids used in borehole heat exchangers. Geothermics 36, 348–361 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  171. SIKB. S. I. K. B. Vol. BRL SIKB 11000 (Gouda, 2018).

  172. Jesußek, A., Grandel, S. & Dahmke, A. Impacts of subsurface heat storage on aquifer hydrogeochemistry. Environ. Earth Sci. 69, 1999–2012 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  173. Bonte, M. et al. Impacts of shallow geothermal energy production on redox processes and microbial communities. Environ. Sci. Technol. 47, 14476–14484 (2013).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  174. Lüders, K., Dahmke, A., Fiedler, M. & Köber, R. Temperature influence on mobilisation and (re)fixation of trace elements and heavy metals in column tests with aquifer sediments from 10 to 70 °C. Water Res. 169, 115266 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  175. Beyer, C., Popp, S. & Bauer, S. Simulation of temperature effects on groundwater flow, contaminant dissolution, transport and biodegradation due to shallow geothermal use. Environ. Earth Sci. 75, 1244 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  176. Bin Hudari, M. S., Vogt, C. & Richnow, H. H. Sulfidic acetate mineralization at 45° C by an aquifer microbial community: key players and effects of heat changes on activity and community structure. Environ. Microbiol. 24, 370–389 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  177. Metze, D. et al. Temperature management potentially affects carbon mineralization capacity and microbial community composition of a shallow aquifer. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 97, fiaa261 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  178. Stumpp, C., Kellermann, C. & Griebler, C. Transport von viren im grundwasser — experimentelle untersuchungen und mathematische modellierung. Österreichische Wasser Abfallwirtsch. 71, 454–458 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  179. García-Gil, A. et al. Decreased waterborne pathogenic bacteria in an urban aquifer related to intense shallow geothermal exploitation. Sci. Total Environ. 633, 765–775 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  180. Brielmann, H., Griebler, C., Schmidt, S. I., Michel, R. & Lueders, T. Effects of thermal energy discharge on shallow groundwater ecosystems. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 68, 242–254 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  181. Becher, J., Englisch, C., Griebler, C. & Bayer, P. Groundwater fauna downtown — drivers, impacts and implications for subsurface ecosystems in urban areas. J. Contam. Hydrol. 248, 104021 (2022).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  182. Possemiers, M., Huysmans, M. & Batelaan, O. Influence of aquifer thermal energy storage on groundwater quality: a review illustrated by seven case studies from Belgium. J. Hydrol. Regional Stud. 2, 20–34 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  183. Bonte, M., Stuyfzand, P. J., Van Den Berg, G. A. & Hijnen, W. A. M. Effects of aquifer thermal energy storage on groundwater quality and the consequences for drinking water production: a case study from the Netherlands. Water Sci. Technol. 63, 1922–1931 (2011).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  184. García-Gil, A. et al. A city scale study on the effects of intensive groundwater heat pump systems on heavy metal contents in groundwater. Sci. Total Environ. 572, 1047–1058 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  185. Blum, P. et al. Is thermal use of groundwater a pollution? J. Contam. Hydrol. 239, 103791 (2021).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  186. Benz, S. A. et al. Global groundwater warming due to climate change. Nat. Geosci. 17, 545–551 (2024).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  187. Tissen, C., Benz, S. A., Menberg, K., Bayer, P. & Blum, P. Groundwater temperature anomalies in central Europe. Environ. Res. Lett. 14, 104012 (2019).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  188. Griebler, C. et al. Potential impacts of geothermal energy use and storage of heat on groundwater quality, biodiversity, and ecosystem processes. Environ. Earth Sci. 75, 1391 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  189. Hähnlein, S., Bayer, P. & Blum, P. International legal status of the use of shallow geothermal energy. Renew. Sust. Energy Rev. 14, 2611–2625 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  190. Fleuchaus, P., Schüppler, S., Stemmle, R., Menberg, K. & Blum, P. Aquiferspeicher in Deutschland. Grundwasser 26, 123–134 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  191. Stemmle, R. et al. Policies for aquifer thermal energy storage: international comparison, barriers and recommendations. Clean Technol. Environ. Policy 27, 1455–1478 (2024).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  192. Fleuchaus, P. et al. Risk analysis of high-temperature aquifer thermal energy storage (HT-ATES). Renew. Sust. Energy Rev. 133, 110153 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  193. Soltan Mohammadi, H., Ringel, L. M., Bott, C., Erol, S. & Bayer, P. Bayesian uncertainty quantification in temperature simulation of borehole heat exchanger fields for geothermal energy supply. Appl. Therm. Eng. 265, 125210 (2024).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  194. Zhang, L. et al. Identification of the formation temperature field by explainable artificial intelligence: a case study of Songyuan city, China. Energy 319, 135172 (2025).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  195. Barth, F., Schüppler, S., Menberg, K. & Blum, P. Estimating cooling capacities from aerial images using convolutional neural networks. Appl. Energy 349, 121561 (2023).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  196. Pfenninger, S., Hawkes, A. & Keirstead, J. Energy systems modeling for twenty-first century energy challenges. Renew. Sust. Energy Rev. 33, 74–86 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  197. Sulzer, M., Wetter, M., Mutschler, R. & Sangiovanni-Vincentelli, A. Platform-based design for energy systems. Appl. Energy 352, 121955 (2023).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  198. Yazdani, H., Blum, P. & Menberg, K. Co-simulation of building energy and geothermal systems: A review, Energy & Buildings, 116550, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2025.116550 (2025).

  199. Lund, J. W. & Toth, A. N. Direct utilization of geothermal energy 2020 worldwide review. In World Geothermal Congress 2020+1 (IEA, 2021).

  200. Obu, J., Westermann, S., Kääb, A. & Bartsch, A. Ground temperature map, 2000–2016, Northern Hemisphere permafrost. PANGAEA https://doi.org/10.1594/PANGAEA.888600 (2018).

  201. Mahon, H., O’Connor, D., Friedrich, D. & Hughes, B. A review of thermal energy storage technologies for seasonal loops. Energy 239, 122207 (2022).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the Ministry for Science and Art (MWK) Baden-Württemberg for the financial support for K.M. via the Margarete von Wrangell programme. Further financial support for K.M. and H.H. was provided by the German Federal Ministry for Education and Research (BMBF) through the project CHARMANT (FZK: 02WGW1666A, 02WGW1666D).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Applied Geosciences (AGW), Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), Karlsruhe, Germany

    Kathrin Menberg & Philipp Blum

  2. Department of Applied Geology, Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg (MLU), Halle, Germany

    Hannes Hemmerle, Peter Bayer & Christoph Bott

  3. School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of New South Wales (UNSW), Sydney, New South Wales, Australia

    Asal Bidarmaghz

  4. School of Environment and Sustainability, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada

    Grant Ferguson

  5. TNO Dutch Geological Survey, Utrecht, The Netherlands

    Martin Bloemendal

  6. Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands

    Martin Bloemendal

Authors
  1. Kathrin Menberg
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hannes Hemmerle
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Peter Bayer
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Christoph Bott
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Asal Bidarmaghz
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Grant Ferguson
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Martin Bloemendal
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Philipp Blum
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

K.M. and P. Blum developed the concept and structure of the manuscript. K.M., C.B. and H.H. collected and analysed the data. All authors contributed to the scientific input, writing and editing of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kathrin Menberg.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information

Nature Reviews Earth & Environment thanks Jatin Nathwani, Hamidreza M. Nick and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Glossary

Axial thermal stresses

Stresses that develop along the longitudinal (axial) direction of a structural element owing to temperature changes, when thermal expansion or contraction is restrained.

CO2-eq.

Standard unit used to express the impact of different greenhouse gases in terms of the amount of carbon dioxide (CO₂) that would have the same global warming potential over a specific time period.

Degree days

Measure of how much and for how long the outside air temperature deviates from a given base temperature, typically used to estimate heating or cooling energy requirements.

Energy geostructures

Geotechnical structural elements, for example, piles, retaining walls, slabs, tunnel linings or shallow foundations, that are thermally activated to function as ground-coupled heat exchangers.

Energy piles

Foundation elements, typically concrete piles, that are thermally activated by embedding absorber pipes or heat exchangers to function as geothermal heat exchangers.

Energy tunnels

Underground infrastructure tunnels, for example, used for transportation, that are thermally activated to harness geothermal or aerothermal energy for heating, cooling and other energy applications.

Geographic information system (GIS)

Computer-based tool used to capture, store, analyse, manage and visualize spatial or geographic data.

Ground settlement

Downward movement of the ground surface owing to changes in the underlying soil structure.

Grouting

Process of filling the space between the heat exchanger pipes and the borehole wall with a specially formulated material, called grout, to ensure thermal contact, structural stability and environmental protection.

Heat-in-place

Volumetric estimate of the thermal energy stored in a geothermal reservoir, based on the physical properties of the rock and fluid, reservoir volume and temperature difference relative to a reference.

Lethal temperature values (LT50)

Specific temperature threshold at which 50% of the test population of organisms dies.

Radial strains

Deformation of a material (for example, soil or rock) in the radial direction, that is perpendicular to the axis of loading or symmetry.

Relative payback times

A comparative metric expressing the difference in payback durations between two technologies, indicating how much faster or slower one technology recovers its initial cost compared with another.

Shaft-bearing piles

Deep foundation elements that transfer structural loads to the surrounding soil or rock primarily through skin friction along the surface of the pile shaft.

Traffic-light approaches

Decision-making frameworks that use the colours of a traffic light (green, yellow, and red) to indicate different levels of geothermal potential on a qualitative or semi-quantitative scale.

Thermal displacements

Physical movement or deformation of a structural element, for example, an energy pile, wall or tunnel lining, caused by temperature changes owing to heat exchange with the ground.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Menberg, K., Hemmerle, H., Bayer, P. et al. Opportunities, benefits and impacts of shallow geothermal energy. Nat Rev Earth Environ 6, 808–823 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1038/s43017-025-00736-0

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Version of record:

  • Issue date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s43017-025-00736-0

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing Anthropocene

Sign up for the Nature Briefing: Anthropocene newsletter — what matters in anthropocene research, free to your inbox weekly.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing: Anthropocene