Thanks for the info. I did some research on geothermal a couple of years ago, when we were preparing our investment strategy in renewable energies, ans here are some tidbits:

There are 3 kinds of geothermal energy:

• heat pumps (below 100°C)- for heat only. Warm water is found in some rock formations 1000-2500m deep, and can be used directly, or thorugh a heat exchanger. This is a really cheap form of energy when available (costs less than 1cEUR/kWh, i.e. a third of what the cheapest electricity currently costs)

• medium temperatures (100-250°C) - Warm water found in specific rock formations again, either below 1000m deep or in the 2000-4000m range. Can be used for heat in collective systems

• high temperatures - 1500 to 3000°C steam reservoirs (with or without water) usually found in volcanic areas or at the border of tectonic plaques. Used for heat or electricity generation. Dry steam can be used directly tyo generate electricity.

Geothermal is very reliable (permanent availability), but can be technically tricky (managing the very high temperature and pressure makes for tough drilling conditions). Its impact on the environment is negligible and emissions are very low.

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

Cold reality in heat business is that you can and should always carry out R&D all the time. But it is also reality that if it costs considerably more than chaper dirty alternative, it is all for nothing as it cannot be effectively utilized.

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?