Comments gabraham44 has made

wind vs. enhanced geothermal power

But amazngdrx:

You said it yourself: a closed loop water system does not deplete water supplies. Then it's only a matter of policy, a decision to devote sufficient resources, and according to the MIT study it won't take anything like a century. Meanwhile substantial efficiencies can be achieved to buy time--like your 36% GHG reduction from conventional geothermal. Your other solution -- wind -- is really no solution: wind runs on no better than 20% capacity factor (so divide megawatts generated as asserted by the industry by 5) and produces least during summer days when need most, and produces most (winter nights) when needed least. Its intermittent nature means it provides no baseload power whatsoever. That's why a generation of experience with wind in Europe has yet to displace a single conventional power plant. And there, more densely populated than the U.S., policy is increasingly moving toward off-shore siting to avoid nuisance noise impacts on people. A 60-turbine wind farm slices through 10,000 acres on average, compared to 10 acres or so for an enhanced geothermal steam plant (or a conventional power plant). And the biggest red flag: corporations investing in wind have written the laws providing subsidies for wind all out of proportion to what it can produce, and seduced us into feeling good about electricity generation rates the industry will never achieve.On On the energy potential of geothermal power posted 2 years, 2 months ago 25 Responses