This year’s major United Nations climate talks, COP30, fell short of many expectations.
Despite being held in Belém, Brazil, known as the “gateway to the Amazon,” issues such as stopping deforestation and transforming global food systems received relatively little attention. While some bright spots emerged, overall progress was minimal.
Replacing fossil-fuel-powered irrigation pumps with electric pumps powered by the grid can reduce emissions in most regions of the world. Electric irrigation pumps, which can also be powered by on-site clean energy, are more efficient than fossil fuel pumps. They are already cost-competitive and widely used, and adoption is increasing. Their emissions benefits will continue to grow as irrigation expands and the emissions intensity of the electrical grid falls. However, based on current grid emissions intensity, the climate impact of using electric pumps for agricultural irrigation is not globally meaningful (<0.1 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr ). Despite its modest climate impact, our assessment finds that deploying electric irrigation pumps is "Worthwhile".
Based on our analysis, deploying electric irrigation pumps will reduce emissions but will not provide a globally significant climate impact (>0.1 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr ), even under high adoption scenarios, until electrical grid emissions decline further. Therefore, this potential climate solution is “Worthwhile.”
| Plausible | Could it work? | Yes |
|---|---|---|
| Ready | Is it ready? | Yes |
| Evidence | Are there data to evaluate it? | Yes |
| Effective | Does it consistently work? | Yes |
| Impact | Is it big enough to matter? | No |
| Risk | Is it risky or harmful? | No |
| Cost | Is it cheap? | Yes |
This solution reduces emissions from irrigation by replacing pumps powered by natural gas, diesel, propane, or gasoline with electric pumps. Irrigation is the practice of adding water to croplands or pastures to reduce crop water stress and increase productivity. Pumps are used on some irrigated croplands to extract groundwater, transport surface water, and pressurize water for application through sprinklers or drip irrigation systems. Electric pumps have much higher motor efficiency (~88%) than fossil fuel pumps (~21–31%), so pump switching reduces the energy required to pump the same amount of water. The extent to which emissions are reduced depends on the emissions intensity of the electrical grid mix. Electric pumps reduce emissions when the emissions intensity of the grid is below ~0.75 kg CO₂‑eq /kWh, or when they are powered by on-site solar or wind energy.
The efficiency and emissions benefits of electric pumps over fossil fuel pumps are well established. On-farm pumping emissions, currently estimated at approximately 0.2 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr, could feasibly be eliminated if all fossil fuel pumps are replaced with electric pumps and electrical grid emissions reach net-zero, or if they are powered by on-farm solar or wind energy. However, the climate impact of electric pump adoption today would be much lower, as electricity generation still produces substantial emissions. Under current conditions, replacing a diesel pump with an electric pump will reduce emissions in most, but not all, places around the world.
Electric pumps can reliably reduce emissions, are already cost-competitive and widely used, and adoption is increasing. Irrigation is a major energy user, and its energy use is increasing as irrigated areas expand. These trends are expected to continue in the coming decades as climate change exacerbates heat and water stress and agricultural production intensifies in low- and middle-income countries. Coupled with ongoing reductions in electrical grid emissions intensity, the potential climate benefits of this solution are growing.
Electric pump adoption can also be geographically targeted, as just five countries (China, India, the United States, Pakistan, and Iran) account for almost 70% of irrigation energy use. Areas with high groundwater reliance can also be targeted, as groundwater pumping accounts for 89% of irrigation energy use.
Pump switching also provides additional benefits, such as lowering long-term energy costs for farmers and reducing air pollution from on-farm fossil fuel use. Access to the electrical grid is the primary technical barrier to electric pump adoption, but small-scale solar installations can be used where grid connectivity is limited. Powering pumps with on-site solar also eliminates operational emissions, reduces the load on the electrical grid, and insulates farmers from variability in energy costs.
The climate impacts of pump switching are highly dependent on the emissions factor of the electrical grid. A large share of the potential reduction in fossil fuel pumping is located in India and China, which currently have relatively high electrical grid emissions intensities. Under the current grid mix, we estimate that pump switching in these countries will result in only modest benefits or a small increase in emissions.
Anand, S. K., Rosa, L., Mohanty, B. P., Rajan, N., & Calabrese, S. (2025). Balancing productivity and climate impact: A framework to assess climate-smart irrigation. Earth’s Future, 13(11), Article e2025EF006116. https://doi.org/10.1029/2025EF006116
Driscoll, A. W., Conant, R. T., Marston, L. T., Choi, E., & Mueller, N. D. (2024). Greenhouse gas emissions from US irrigation pumping and implications for climate-smart irrigation policy. Nature Communications, 15(1), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-024-44920-0
Hrozencik, R. A. & Aillery, Marcel. (2021). Trends in U.S. irrigated agriculture: Increasing resilience under water supply scarcity. United States Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service, Report No. EIB-229. https://www.ssrn.com/abstract=3996325
Kebede, E. A., Oluoch, K. O., Siebert, S., Mehta, P., Hartman, S., Jägermeyr, J., Ray, D., Ali, T., Brauman, K. A., Deng, Q., Xie, W., & Davis, K. F. (2025). A global open-source dataset of monthly irrigated and rainfed cropped areas (MIRCA-OS) for the 21st century. Scientific Data, 12(1), Article 208. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-024-04313-w
McCarthy, B., Anex, R., Wang, Y., Kendall, A. D., Anctil, A., Haacker, E. M. K., & Hyndman, D. W. (2020). Trends in water use, energy consumption, and carbon emissions from irrigation: Role of shifting technologies and energy sources. Environmental Science & Technology, 54(23), 15329–15337. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.0c02897
McDermid, S., Mahmood, R., Hayes, M. J., Bell, J. E., & Lieberman, Z. (2021). Minimizing trade-offs for sustainable irrigation. Nature Geoscience, 14(10), 706–709. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-021-00830-0
McDermid, S., Nocco, M., Lawston-Parker, P., Keune, J., Pokhrel, Y., Jain, M., Jägermeyr, J., Brocca, L., Massari, C., Jones, A. D., Vahmani, P., Thiery, W., Yao, Y., Bell, A., Chen, L., Dorigo, W., Hanasaki, N., Jasechko, S., Lo, M.-H., … Yokohata, T. (2023). Irrigation in the Earth system. Nature Reviews Earth & Environment, 4, 435–453. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43017-023-00438-5
McGill, B. M., Hamilton, S. K., Millar, N., & Robertson, G. P. (2018). The greenhouse gas cost of agricultural intensification with groundwater irrigation in a Midwest U.S. row cropping system. Global Change Biology, 24(12), 5948–5960. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14472
Qin, J., Duan, W., Zou, S., Chen, Y., Huang, W., & Rosa, L. (2024). Global energy use and carbon emissions from irrigated agriculture. Nature Communications, 15(1), Article 3084. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-024-47383-5
Ren, C., & Rosa, L. (2025). Global energy and emissions of irrigation and fertilizers management for closing crop yield gaps. Environmental Research Letters. 20(10), Article 104026. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/adfbfd
Rollason, E., Sinha, P., & Bracken, L. J. (2022). Interbasin water transfer in a changing world: A new conceptual model. Progress in Physical Geography: Earth and Environment, 46(3), 371–397. https://doi.org/10.1177/03091333211065004
Rosa, L., Chiarelli, D. D., Sangiorgio, M., Beltran-Peña, A. A., Rulli, M. C., D’Odorico, P., & Fung, I. (2020). Potential for sustainable irrigation expansion in a 3 °C warmer climate. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(47), 29526–29534. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2017796117
Rosa, L., Rulli, M. C., Ali, S., Chiarelli, D. D., Dell’Angelo, J., Mueller, N. D., Scheidel, A., Siciliano, G., & D’Odorico, P. (2021). Energy implications of the 21st century agrarian transition. Nature Communications, 12(1), Article 2319. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-22581-7
Sanders, K. T., & Webber, M. E. (2012). Evaluating the energy consumed for water use in the United States. Environmental Research Letters, 7(3), Article 034034. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/7/3/034034
Schmitt, R. J. P., Rosa, L., & Daily, G. C. (2022). Global expansion of sustainable irrigation limited by water storage. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 119(47), Article e2214291119. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2214291119
Siddik, M. A. B., Dickson, K. E., Rising, J., Ruddell, B. L., & Marston, L. T. (2023). Interbasin water transfers in the United States and Canada. Scientific Data, 10(1), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-023-01935-4
Sowby, R. B., & Dicataldo, E. (2022). The energy footprint of U.S. irrigation: A first estimate from open data. Energy Nexus, 6, Article 100066. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nexus.2022.100066
Yang, Y., Jin, Z., Mueller, N. D., Driscoll, A. W., Hernandez, R. R., Grodsky, S. M., Sloat, L. L., Chester, M. V., Zhu, Y.-G., & Lobell, D. B. (2023). Sustainable irrigation and climate feedbacks. Nature Food, 4(8), Article 8. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-023-00821-x
Avery Driscoll, Ph.D.
Christina Swanson, Ph.D.
Heather McDiarmid, Ph.D.
James Gerber, Ph.D.
Every potential climate solution on the Drawdown Explorer begins as a hypothesis.
This sounds geeky, but we’re scientists – we can’t help it. It’s the way we think. Our hypothesis looks something like this: “If we do [name of climate solution], it will [reduce emissions or remove carbon dioxide] by [how it works]”.
Enhanced geothermal energy is an emerging clean energy technology that harnesses the Earth’s subsurface heat to generate emissions-free baseload and dispatchable electricity. Unlike traditional geothermal systems that tap naturally occurring hot water or steam reservoirs, enhanced geothermal systems (EGS) use geological drilling and hydraulic fracturing to create artificial geothermal reservoirs through which they circulate water or other fluids. Accessible geothermal resources suitable for EGS occur across the globe and, if technology improvements continue, advanced geothermal, including EGS, could supply around 15% of the world’s electricity by 2050. However, to progress from pilot stage to commercialization, the industry needs more demonstration projects to address high upfront costs, technical challenges, and environmental and safety concerns, and to generate greater policy support to facilitate deployment. Based on our assessment, enhanced geothermal energy is a potentially high-impact climate solution that we will “Keep Watching."
Enhanced geothermal systems (EGS) are emerging as one of the most promising technologies for reliable, utility-scale, zero-carbon energy that can complement wind and solar and strengthen grid resilience. The technology, which is built on an existing base of technical and industrial expertise and capacity, is advancing rapidly through major R&D efforts and early commercial pilots. While large-scale deployment is still in its early stages and challenges remain around cost, execution, and social acceptance, we expect meaningful progress by the 2030s. For now, we will “Keep Watching” this solution.
| Plausible | Could it work? | Yes |
|---|---|---|
| Ready | Is it ready? | No |
| Evidence | Are there data to evaluate it? | Limited |
| Effective | Does it consistently work? | Yes |
| Impact | Is it big enough to matter? | Yes |
| Risk | Is it risky or harmful? | No |
| Cost | Is it cheap? | No |
Enhanced geothermal systems (EGS) are a renewable energy technology that extracts heat from deep within the Earth’s crust to generate electricity. Unlike traditional geothermal systems that tap naturally occurring hot water or steam reservoirs, such as geysers or volcanic areas, EGS create artificial geothermal reservoirs by drilling into the earth, injecting and circulating water (or other fluids) through hot, dry rock formations, and then recovering the heated fluid or steam to generate electricity before reinjecting it back into the reservoir. Circulation of the water through the artificial reservoir can be in an open loop system, where the subsurface rocks are hydraulically fractured, or “fracked,” to increase permeability and allow water to flow between the injection well and the production well, or a closed loop system, where the water or other fluid is contained within pipes throughout the heat exchange circulation cycle. In addition to electricity, EGS can provide high-temperature heat for industrial processes or district heating, and enable geothermal energy storage by storing heat underground.
Electricity production by an enhanced geothermal power plant emits virtually no greenhouse gases. Analysis by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory showed that the median life cycle emissions from enhanced geothermal power plants was 32 g CO₂‑eq /kWh, just 6% of the median life cycle emissions from a natural gas power plant, with most of the emissions generated during construction rather than operation. Geothermal energy has been used for more than a century, but EGS that use the horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing techniques developed by the oil and gas industry to access previously inaccessible underground heat resources are relatively new. To date, several small-scale and experimental EGS projects have successfully produced electricity, but no EGS plant has yet achieved full commercial operation at scale.
Enhanced geothermal energy systems are a potentially transformative climate solution for several reasons. First, they could massively expand clean energy availability. EGS can be deployed in almost any region with hot subsurface rocks. Experts estimate the Earth’s accessible geothermal resources are staggeringly large, and that tapping just 0.1% of the heat under our feet could meet global energy needs for millennia. If technology improvements continue, advanced geothermal, including EGS, could supply around 15% of the world’s electricity by 2050. Second, unlike solar and wind energy, enhanced geothermal power plants produce steady baseload power, dispatchable power, and even energy storage. Currently, coal and gas power plants are commonly used to provide stability and backup power to electricity grids around the world. EGS can provide the same energy benefits, complementing wind and solar energy by providing firm capacity and grid stability services to a renewable-heavy electricity grid, without the harmful climate impacts. Third, EGS plants have a relatively small land footprint and can potentially be sited near demand centers (including repurposing old fossil plant sites), improving energy security for regions with limited solar or wind resources.
Recent technological breakthroughs have improved the prospects for EGS. The application of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing techniques has produced higher fluid flow rates and extended reservoir life. This has dramatically increased the heat extraction per well, overcoming previous limitations and boosting the energy output and economics of EGS. Industry reports show drilling rates in hot rock have increased by 300–500% in the last few years, slashing upfront costs. A recent U.S. Department of Energy report projects that the cost of next-generation geothermal projects, including EGS, will fall below that of other baseload power sources such as nuclear and natural gas with carbon capture and storage (CCS) by 2035. Other projections suggest that geothermal electricity could drop to around US$50/MWh by the 2030s, competitive with other renewables and nuclear. Finally, EGS leverage a skilled workforce and supply chain from the oil and gas sector. The necessary drilling rigs, subsurface imaging, and engineering expertise already exist, which could help scale up EGS faster than entirely new industries.
Despite its promise, EGS face several challenges that temper its near-term prospects. To bridge the gap from pilot stage to commercialization, the industry needs more demonstration projects, case studies of success, and greater public trust. This is challenging because enhanced geothermal projects today have high upfront capital costs, primarily due to deep drilling and reservoir stimulation expenses, as well as high operational costs. Current EGS electricity is also far more expensive than conventional renewables, often hundreds of dollars per MWh. Until these costs decline, the industry may struggle to attract the investment financing needed to scale up. Moreover, the geological uncertainty in any given project is high because limited geophysical data in many regions makes it hard to pinpoint the best spots to drill. Developers must invest in exploration with no guarantee of finding an adequate resource, so early projects carry a significant risk of cost overruns.
Safety and environmental concerns also pose challenges. Currently, many EGS use hydraulic fracturing to create the heat exchange reservoirs and circulate fluid underground. In some types of geologies, this can trigger small earthquakes. Some EGS have been halted after local earthquakes caused alarm and minor damage. Because they use water and circulate hot brines, EGS could pose risks for groundwater contamination or water consumption in arid regions, although EGS designs that use closed-loop systems or non-potable water can avoid these problems. Finally, geothermal projects often face regulatory and logistical hurdles and lengthy permitting processes. In many countries, regulatory regimes and incentives have focused on solar, wind, and even nuclear, while geothermal energy (and especially EGS) has received comparatively little support. This means EGS developers may struggle with financing and grid access due to policy gaps or obstacles.
Aghahosseini, A., & Breyer, C. (2020). From hot rock to useful energy: A global estimate of enhanced geothermal systems potential. Applied Energy, 279, Article 115769. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/J.APENERGY.2020.115769
Blankenship, D., Gertler, C., Kamaludeen, M., O’Connor, M., & Porse, S. (2024). Pathways to Commercial Liftoff: Next-Generation Geothermal Power. U.S. Department of Energy. Link to source: https://cdn.catf.us/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/09154348/doe-liftoff-nextgen-geothermal.pdf
Boretti, A. (2025). Enhanced geothermal systems: Potential, challenges, and a realistic path to integration in a sustainable energy future. Next Energy, 8, Article 100332. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/J.NXENER.2025.100332
Eberle, A., Heath, G. A., Carpenter Petri, A. C., & Nicholson, S. R. (2017). Systematic review of life cycle greenhouse gas emissions from geothermal electricity. (Technical Report No. NREL/TP-6A20-68474). National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Link to source: https://docs.nrel.gov/docs/fy17osti/68474.pdf
Heath, G., O'Donoughue, P., & Whitaker, M. (2012). Life cycle GHG emissions from conventional natural gas power generation: Systematic review and harmonization (Presentation No. NREL/PR-6A20-57229). National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Link to source: https://docs.nrel.gov/docs/fy13osti/57229.pdf
Horne, R., Genter, A., McClure, M., Ellsworth, W., Norbeck, J., & Schill, E. (2025). Enhanced geothermal systems for clean firm energy generation. Nature Reviews Clean Technology, 1(2), 148–160. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/S44359-024-00019-9
International Energy Agency. (2024). The future of geothermal energy. Link to source: https://www.iea.org/reports/the-future-of-geothermal-energy
Kah, M. & Kleinberg, R. (2025, April 7). The potential contribution of enhanced geothermal systems to future power supply: Roundtable summary. Center on Global Energy Policy at Columbia Columbia University SIPA. Link to source: https://www.energypolicy.columbia.edu/publications/the-potential-contribution-of-enhanced-geothermal-systems-to-future-power-supply-roundtable-summary/
Lipton, J. & Seligman. A. (2025). Powering the future: What 50 years of enhanced geothermal teaches us today. Clean Air Task Force. Link to source: https://www.catf.us/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/CATF-EGS-Trend-Analysis-Report.pdf
Kassem, M. A., & Moscariello, A. (2025). Geothermal energy: A sustainable and cost-effective alternative for clean energy production and climate change mitigation. Sustainable Futures, 10, Article 101247. Link to source: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666188825008081
McKasy, M., Yeo, S. K., Zhang, J. S., Cacciatore, M. A., Allen, H. W., & Su, L. Y. F. (2025). Support for regulation of enhanced geothermal systems research: examining the role of familiarity, credibility, and social endorsement. Geothermal Energy, 13(1), 1–21. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1186/S40517-025-00346-5
Nath, F., Mahmood, M. N., Ofosu, E., & Khanal, A. (2024). Enhanced geothermal systems: A critical review of recent advancements and future potential for clean energy production. Geoenergy Science and Engineering, 243, Article 213370. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/J.GEOEN.2024.213370
Ricks, W., & Jenkins, J. D. (2025). Pathways to national-scale adoption of enhanced geothermal power through experience-driven cost reductions. Joule, 9(7), Article 101971. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JOULE.2025.101971
U.S. Department of Energy. (n.d.). Enhanced Geothermal Systems. Retrieved October 20, 2025, from Link to source: https://www.energy.gov/eere/geothermal/enhanced-geothermal-systems
Zastrow, M. (2019, March 22). South Korea accepts geothermal plant probably caused destructive quake. Nature. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/D41586-019-00959-4
Tropical deforestation is a leading driver of climate change and biodiversity loss.
Join the 85,000+ subscribers discovering how to drive meaningful climate action around the world! Every other week, you'll get expert insights, cutting-edge research, and inspiring stories.
