(Tongue in cheek) You kinda made my point for me. 
The whole point is that steam technology is simple, unless you're talking about making it from nuclear reactors, then it is more complex (compared to geothermal), more expensive per MW and more dangerous..
The only reason the steam plants from geothermal aren't producing the same as nuclear is that most geothermal plants are small, physically speaking, compared to nukes.
Let's say for argument sake that for some reason the same temperature steam coming from geothermal as nukes, for some reason couldn't be pressurized as well as nuclear (which is goofy, but bear with me for argument's sake). Let's say then that a comparable-sized (but in no way comparable cost-wise) geothermal plant only produced 1/3 the energy a nuke plant does.
Then we build 3 times as many geothermal plants. Duh!
In the Owen's Valley alone we could have the way way way less expensive geothermal plants sitting shoulder to shoulder for a hundred miles, three abreast if we needed...
Then we wouldn't be having this debate about which type produces more MW would we?
And we could do that quickly if we had to, because licensing and construction for geothermal plants is child's play compared to nukes, due to it's simplicity and benign nature...steam...already coming from the ground.. Just put a building around it and drill some pipe holes. Done.
No additional fossil fuels needed for transportation, no mining, no high worker death and injury rates, no terrorist threat...just simple easy steam technology without hardly any effort at all...
Thanks for pointing that out...
