Illogical. Comparisons are to show the difference and similarities. You posed one similarity. Now just list the differences, and it isn't meaningless.
No, it doesn't depend on the resources of the plant. It depends on the resource of heat under the plant.
Young stage? The USA leads the world in Geothermal power with 2,700 MegaWatts of installed power. The next largest is Philippines with only 890 MW, less than 1/3. We have more plants, the most advanced plants, and they are not young. Geothermal has been in service since 1960. The first US nuclear power plant was only 3 years old at the time.
There are 22 geothermal power plants in The Geyser of California alone. The problem isn't that they are under built, or "experimental" in any way. The problem is that as new power plants came online, production of steam from the wells dropped. There is not an "infinite" heat source down there. When multiple plants start pulling from the same heat bed, the amount that can be extracted reduces. This is why The Geysers has over 2,000 MW of installed potential, yet only produces about 725 MW between 19 of the plants.
A nice theory, but it doesn't translated into reality. You can make up any logic you want. This forum deals in reality. The fact is, in 1987 when the 22nd and final Geothermal plant went into operation in The Geysers California, the heat bed became nearly tapped out. As a result, every power plant suffered a loss of production, most by 50% and some by 75%. In the late 80s it was even thought that some of the electric companies may have to file bankruptcy due to the enormous loss of money on this one single project.
Not according to the Swiss. Most of the US isn't able to produce geothermal power without the use of a Hot Dry Rock system. This is the act of creating an artificial geothermal vent. Essentially, you drill a hole down to the naturally hot dry rock, and pump water down there, where it would not naturally be. Then an escape well to collect the newly heated water.
This is opposed to other natural geothermal systems that are wet to begin with and release steam naturally. In Switzerland, they attempted to use a Hot Dry Rock system to generate power. The result was a magnitude 3.4 earthquake, that damaged buildings and caused havoc. The epicenter being dead center, bottom of the well. A further aftershock also pinpointed to the bottom of the well. The water injection ended instantly, and was never restarted. The multimillion dollar power plant is effectively a paper weight. So much for it being safe and cost effective.
Radiation from the sun is dangerous, so is a Microwave, a florescent light, a TV set, and a million other sources. I'm not frightened of nuclear power. I won't be fearmongered into it either. If a push comes up for another nuclear power plant near me, I'm for it. We already have 3, and they all have served us very well for 30+ years providing cheap effective, clean energy. A 4th can only be better.
Right and the moment some company plans to tap it, a bunch of eco-nuts sue them. Beside, the information suggests you are just a bit over estimating how much is really out there.
