Alberta greenhouse operators know how to manage heat. They also know that natural gas is familiar, available and inexpensive today. Any proposal to replace it must begin with that reality.
So geothermal heat should not be sold as a cheaper option to today’s gas price. The stronger case is risk management: a potential way to make a major operating cost more predictable over time.
In this title, “insulation” means a buffer against fuel-price volatility. It is not a claim about greenhouse-envelope performance or a reason to revisit efficiency measures operators already understand.
For a greenhouse, heating supports crop quality and timing. For cold storage, it can protect product integrity. Neither operation can simply stop heating when prices rise. The question is whether a long-term heat hedge could strengthen the business enough to justify its cost.
The case is a hedge, not a discount
Alberta’s inexpensive gas sets a high bar for alternatives. A sound business case must look beyond a comparison with this month’s fuel bill.
Instead, an operator could ask: Would paying a measured premium for predictable heat over a 30–40-year asset life improve the operation’s resilience, investment profile or value at sale?
That is a site-specific question, not a promise of savings. The answer depends on the heat resource, project cost, facility demand, financing and the operator’s exposure to price risk. And 30–40 years is an evaluation horizon, not a guarantee about equipment life or performance.
A major gas-price spike could quickly compress margins when heat accounts for a significant operating input. Moreover, North American gas demand may face upward pressure from data centres, LNG exports and other large users. The timing and scale remain uncertain. However, uncertainty is a reason to model exposure, not assume it away.
Geothermal could complement gas, not eliminate it
Algar Geothermal’s proposition is heat-only: recover subsurface heat from suitable out-of-service oil and gas wells for direct use. The aim is to serve the majority of a facility’s heat load, not necessarily to remove its gas connection.
That distinction matters in greenhouses. Accelerated-growth operations may need elevated CO₂ concentrations. Alberta’s ambient atmosphere does not provide those concentrations, so some growers use natural gas to produce CO₂ or use treated flue gas for enrichment.
As a result, a geothermal system could work alongside existing boilers. A grower may retain gas for CO₂ enrichment, backup or peak demand. The right mix would depend on the facility’s crop, operating profile and heating system.
This is not a claim that geothermal heat for sustainable agriculture will work at every operation. Rather, it is a case for testing whether a dependable heat source could complement existing systems and reduce exposure to fuel-price swings.
Predictable heat could support expansion
The value of a heat system includes more than the energy it supplies. If a producer can contract for a predictable, long-life heat cost, that certainty may help with major investment decisions.
For example, a grower considering expansion could assess whether a steadier heat input would make financing easier to plan. A lender, in turn, may be better able to underwrite a project when a major operating cost has a clearer long-term profile.
That does not guarantee a loan, a profitable expansion or a lower total cost. Instead, it gives the operator and lender another factor to assess: how much is predictability worth to this business?
A hybrid system could also support local economic diversification. Repurposing inactive wells may bring Alberta’s drilling, completions, engineering and oilfield-service expertise into new heat projects. That work could create practical opportunities for experienced crews, while giving well owners and heat users a shared reason to cooperate.
Local food supply adds a resilience case
Energy risk is one part of the decision. Reliable heat could also help make local greenhouse expansion more feasible, which may support a stronger regional food supply.
UBC’s Canada Food Flows project estimates that about half of the fresh vegetables Canadians eat, excluding potatoes, and roughly three-quarters of their fresh fruit are imported. In its 2022 example for British Columbia, 81% of spinach, 70% of lettuce and 75% of onions came from the United States. These are national and B.C.-specific figures, not Alberta import shares.
Algar’s working analysis of Statistics Canada’s Canadian International Merchandise Trade data offers a separate Alberta illustration. Its selected 2025 international produce basket totals $1,195.21 million and 471,552 tonnes.
For the fresh-vegetable portion of that basket, replacing 5% would represent about $25.0 million and 9,336 tonnes. A 10% share would represent about $49.9 million and 18,673 tonnes. This is arithmetic to illustrate scale, not a demand forecast, production target or claim that those imports could be replaced easily.
The basket’s U.S. share by value fell from 57.6% in 2021 to 50.4% in 2025, while Mexico and Guatemala gained share. That shift does not identify a problem with any trading partner. It does show that supply patterns change. Recent North American tariff discussions have also drawn attention to how trade policy can affect retailer and consumer choices.
These figures come with important limits. The basket is a customs-code proxy, and Alberta refers to the province of customs clearance, not necessarily where the food was consumed. Trade within Canada is excluded, and the basket does not measure Alberta’s total food supply. Any local-production opportunity would still need crop-specific market and facility analysis.
The Dutch example is about cooperation
Dutch greenhouse growers offer a useful lesson in how to organize shared heat projects. The lesson is not that Alberta can copy Dutch economics or geology.
In 2022, Growers United reported that financing had been signed for the HVC Aardwarmte Maasdijk and Warmte Netwerk Westland project. The project was planned to deliver about 45–60 MW of thermal heat to roughly 80 growers, including 13 Growers United cultivation sites. The report described a heat cooperative and risk-sharing among five banks and insurance companies.
The example shows how growers can pool demand, investment and risk around a shared heat requirement. It does not establish that the project’s economics would work in Alberta. Dutch geology, regulation, market structure and greenhouse economics differ from ours.
For Alberta, the useful question is institutional: could two or more nearby heat users work together to test a shared resource and network? Cooperation may help create the demand base a project needs. It still cannot replace technical and financial diligence.
Alberta needs evidence before scale
Our province has substantial subsurface, drilling, completions and oilfield-service capability. It also has a large inventory of out-of-service wells. Together, those assets may make Alberta a practical place to test heat-only geothermal systems that repurpose existing infrastructure.
However, a well’s location does not prove it can provide useful heat. Site conditions, well integrity, regulatory requirements, surface equipment and the facility’s heat demand all matter. Algar’s work remains pre-commercial. No active Algar geothermal heat projects are operating, and its southern Alberta pilot is planned for 2026 with government or industry support needed to generate field data.
The Alberta greenhouse pilot proposal describes one possible route to that evidence. The next step is not to assume every site works. It is to find willing operators and test specific sites.
A practical test for interested operators
A credible assessment needs two connected models: one for the facility’s heat load and another for the subsurface resource and heat system. Operators can help make that work grounded in real operating conditions.
A first assessment could include:
- Facility dimensions, construction and operating schedule.
- A full year of energy bills and available heat-use data.
- The operation’s needs for base, peak and backup heat.
- Greenhouse-specific needs, including any gas use for CO₂ enrichment.
- Site data required to assess the well resource, integrity and regulatory path.
The result should compare the status quo with a potential geothermal-and-gas system, including capital, financing, residual gas needs and price-shock scenarios. It should also identify what the analysis cannot yet establish.
That is the purpose of an Implementation Highway: staged assessment, funding and industry partnership that could reduce risk before larger investment. Algar is working with the Alberta Greenhouse Growers Association to share the concept and identify interested operators.
We invite two or three greenhouse or other facility operators to explore whether the risk-reduction value could matter at their sites. The starting point is a conversation and data, not a commitment to build.
Could predictable heat help your operation make its next investment with greater confidence? For more context, see our farmers’ guide to geothermal heating in southern Alberta and our comparison of geothermal heat and natural gas for Alberta greenhouses.