a) The distances to Urban areas that I mentioned in my post above and
b) There are fossil fuel plants (I have named several) which are located at distances further away from urban areas then are the geothermal fields.
Who do you think is using the 230 MW (the size of an average fossil fuels plant) from the Geysers?
Who do you think is using the 200+ MW in the Imperial valley?
By using such power locally, it FREES up more energy to be used by plants already located in major urban areas.
For being a self proclaimed Phd, I should not have to explain such simple facts.
Now I suggest we end this conversation as it has become tedious.
So they're located at distances further away--I'd be willing to bet that those fossil fuel plants are closer than 700 miles, though. But as long as the plants are within economical transmission distance, that isn't the point. The point is that the amount of available geothermal energy is trivial compared to the need for energy. I suspect that any one of those "fossil fuel" plants is on the order of 1000MWe in size. The engineering talent wasted to design the plant(s) to harvest the dinky amounts of geothermal energy would be better invested in an energy source with more viability.
"Who do you think is using the 230 MW (the size of an average fossil fuels plant) from the Geysers? Who do you think is using the 200+ MW in the Imperial valley?"
Again with the dinky numbers. This is half the output on a single nuclear plant.
"By using such power locally, it FREES up more energy to be used by plants already located in major urban areas."
Why not simply build a nuclear plant, and free up a lot MORE energy??
"For being a self proclaimed Phd, I should not have to explain such simple facts."
I understand all those "simple facts". I simply deny that they are relevant to solving the energy problem. (Oh, and btw, I'm not a "self-proclaimed PhD"--that proclaiming was done by a university).
"Now I suggest we end this conversation as it has become tedious."
Feel free.