You (and, if I recall the same study, the EU) seem to focus on the economic angle, and that 3-to-5-times market price I wrote about is not at all rosy - in free-market terms. Medium-term expectations of price decreases as the technology enters series-production stage are still way above market prices, too.
However, as I gave ample indications at EuroTrib that I am not at all a free-market enthusiast, in this case too I would favor choosing an expensive solution - for the environmental benefit. I take global warming that seriously. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
There are 3 kinds of geothermal energy:
The world leaders are the USA, Italy and the Philippines, where enough cost effective sites (typically 3-6cEUR/kWh cost for electricity generation) were found. I don't really know about the availability of more expensive sites, but if there are massive "reserves" available at 3-5 times current costs (presumably 10-20cEUR/kWh), that would make it a serious contender for reasonably cheap electricity if we go into crisis mode. (Wind costs 4-7cEUR/kWh.
DoDo- a small correction. I seriously doubt that Germany's base load is only 35 GW. France's is more like 50 or 60. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
I translated "Grundlast" to 'baseload', a literal translation, tough AFAIK the latter is used to mean pre-planned power generation rougly following an expected consumption curve, while the former (again AFAIK) is used to mean a steady flat power that supplies the minimal electricity need.
The total generating capacity in Germany is above 100 GW, and total annual generation is just above 600 TWh - i.e. an average power of 70 GW.
BTW, thanks for your additions on geothermal! As it looks, these new, now also electricity generating plants in Germany are in your second category. (Some of them are actually conversions of older, heating-only plants.) *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
The real reason why all this stuff works is that the steps done are all slightly more expensive than alternative, i.e. tolerable level. A good example of break through is wind, where technology made it possible for it to work in tolerably higher costs than coal (the difference is now almost nothing). So yes, it all starts and ends with economic factors (which is why I admire EU's very rational strategies with alternative energy sources).
Ofcourse, the economic factors can also be thrown out of window when it is absolutely necessary to national survival. For example Third Reich and South Africa created fuel (oil) out of coal because they had no choice no matter the cost. Same technology is still available for use in case of emergencies. For example China is right now building similar oil factories (obviously to ensure minimum necessary oil production) while EU has not done such a move. EU's current choice of strategy has been diversification of suppliers.
There is a weakness in EU's energy strategy in sense that while it has been realistic it has also been somewhat uncapable of following breakthrough in some renewable energy technologies. For example if you look at size of wind power vis a vis projections it is obvious that wind allready has fullfilled what was "realisticly" expected for entire renewable energy sector by 2030. Time for a new EU energy strategy anyone?
