> It should also be noted that the economics of geothermal installs also are the same ones as drilling for oil and gas -- so the cheaper drilling gets, the cheaper access to competitive resources.

The economics of enhanced geothermal are vastly different in that geothermal has a learning curve where by merely drilling more wells, we make future geothermal cheaper by innovating technology. Nuclear reactors do not have a positive learning curve, and in fact are getting more expensive due to the ever increasing cost of construction labor (see Baumol's cost disease).

> insipid argument of Geothermal vs Nuclear.

First, expressing a preference for the future of one technology direction over the other is fundamental to discussing technology. It makes a huge difference in terms of getting better understanding of them, and is a core facet of any sort of planning. Sure, we should produce both, but we should also make predictions of what we think will happen in the future so that we can learn from the outcomes, and also do proper allocation of relative amounts of funding.

Nuclear has proven time and again to under deliver on all promises, results, and even ability to construct projects that have full regulatory approval. Geothermal is exactly the opposite. It has made realistic promises, overdelivered, and been fully transparent so far.

To not take into account these histories would itself be absolutely "insipid" and poor planning. That's not to say that nuclear should be fully excluded, but let's take into account the huge amount of risk with funding anything nuclear due to the inability of the industry to meet goals.

Any investment decision is a "vs." argument and must absolutely be looked at very very closely. And when we do that, every technology must be given a completely fair and honest assessment, we shouldn't put our thumb on the scale for nuclear just because we thought it wasn't given a fair shot in the past. We must look at it fully honestly without rose colored glasses, and I have yet to find somebody bullish on nuclear that doesn't wear extremely dark rose-colored glasses.

1. No it shouldn't be - it should be a look at Natural Gas/Coal generating facilities vs other technology.

2. How can you say Nuclear has underdelivered? Have you ever looked at the amount of nuclear deployment globally - does geothermal even get up to 0.1%? The cost of new Nuclear is a large function of the regulatory burdens especially in North America.

Don't read me wrong -- I'm all for geothermal but it certainly hasn't delivered on its promises and has only really worked out in uniquely favorable conditions (i.e. Iceland).