If it wasn't, enhanced geothermal would be everywhere, which it isn't. (Yet, this company would say.)
Op is really just describing a core breakeven metric on the energy source. In the same way you measure an oil well with half-life of useful output, this is basically saying "EGS can prove to be useful if they can make sure they extract more economically useful heat than the economic costs of constantly drilling new wells."
Since no one has really made EGS widespread yet, that suggests no one has yet cracked this nut.
It is a heuristic regarding the scaling of a business idea based on conventional industrial processes presented as a technological breakthrough.
It is premised on a belief that a significant number of smart motivated professionals have been trying to solve the same problem with substantially the same budgets and technologies for many years and that experience has led them to an informed belief that more practical solutions exist.
You might say it is a stronger belief in engineering practice and economic efficiency than in press releases.
[note: I agree it would not be “everywhere” because the practicality of drilling into bedrock varies significantly between locations. But that is not a point in favor of scaling the proposed technique]
If it wasn't, enhanced geothermal would be everywhere, which it isn't. (Yet, this company would say.)
Op is really just describing a core breakeven metric on the energy source. In the same way you measure an oil well with half-life of useful output, this is basically saying "EGS can prove to be useful if they can make sure they extract more economically useful heat than the economic costs of constantly drilling new wells."
Since no one has really made EGS widespread yet, that suggests no one has yet cracked this nut.
> If it wasn't, enhanced geothermal would be everywhere, which it isn't.
That seems like a fallacy.
It is a heuristic regarding the scaling of a business idea based on conventional industrial processes presented as a technological breakthrough.
It is premised on a belief that a significant number of smart motivated professionals have been trying to solve the same problem with substantially the same budgets and technologies for many years and that experience has led them to an informed belief that more practical solutions exist.
You might say it is a stronger belief in engineering practice and economic efficiency than in press releases.
[note: I agree it would not be “everywhere” because the practicality of drilling into bedrock varies significantly between locations. But that is not a point in favor of scaling the proposed technique]
It may be a deductive fallacy, but it's perfectly reasonable inductively.
2 replies →
It is not an uncommon problem with geothermal.