GRK (ASX) grk more expensive than nuclear

Originally posted by jsol2664 ↑

These rough figures, used for discussion only, seem to be balanced and fair. The exponential increase in output associated with an increase in temperature can be applied across the industry, as a constant whilst other variables may change. You can pick any figure X, which is the cost per MWh at 270°C, and apply a target of 2X as the cost at 220°C. From here, price is adjusted according to flow rates, reservoir volume, efficiency of heat exchange and proximity to grid.

We only have rough figures to work with, so may as well make the most of them.

It is not blind faith that makes me quote GDY's price target. I have spoken with management on several occasions, and feel their analysis of cost to be fair and conservative.

Before you get excited, Dexterbland, nobody is proposing a magical transmission solution. Pricing the costs of infrastructure and transmission losses gives a figure of $8/MWh over a 50yr operational life. This crude figure will have to do until we see just how much funding this industry can attract.

To address ohmygod's post, I believe a comparative examination of GRK and GDY is feasable. GDY have proven very high flow rates, with the world's largest reservoir. From here, a cost estimate has been made. Comparing GRK to GDY is a conservative excercise because the figures I used assume GRK encounters geology as world-class as GDY's. My $90 figure allows GRK the benefit of the doubt with regards to flow rate, reservoir size, mine life, and heat extraction.

Sulu accidently signed into my account earlier, and posted that she thinks BHP will never buy into GRK. I disagree. If higher temperature targets are outlined, and geology is favorable, it would be unlikely that BHP will not want to secure supply for future expansion at Olympic Dam.

There are reasons why GRK has a very small market capitalisation compared to GDY. GRK has no proven thermal gradient, no demonstrated flow at target depth, and the market has valued the proposed targets as less economically attractive.

Does anyone have any figures that contrast mine? I am not saying mine are right. They are just the most accurate I can propose until more details are established.