the article, page-11

Tawnyport,

The wheel on this ocassion is CONVENTIONAL GEOTHERMAL TECHNOLOGY, not coal.

The Australian hot rock industry would be wise to content itself with pioneering the exploitation of a subsurface resource, and Australia has strong skills in applying the earthsciences. It would be extremely arrogant to before it has exploited the geological resource to get too concerned about leading the world with the surface expertise which it can buy off those much further up the learning curve. The rest of the world has developed this over decades, and probably hundreds of plants. Get your industry born first before training it for an Olympic medal.

If you look at the efficiency closer, you'd see that there is a trade off between CAPEX and efficiency. If the Kalina cycle had such an economic advantage companies in NZ and elsewhere would be installing them instead of ORMAT's ORC plant, but they are not!

Besides, most of the power is extracted from the primary cycle, hence any efficiency advantage of Kalina over ORC in the bottoming cycle is not too material overall. Kalina is not the only nonconventional technology attempting to improve the efficiency of geothermal plants. Advances such as bi-phase turbines perhaps offer more potential.

When Australia has a vibrant geothermal generating industry well established would seem the time to get involved in finesing efficiencies.

Imo PTR is on track, and doing all the things that I would approve if I were on their board.

I also like PTRs approach to the subsurface, using conventional drilling into easy targets, not trying to drill with expensive specialised rigs through overpressured solid granite at close to 1000 bar. I"d also hate to be buying the wellheads and surface equipment for their extremely high pressures.

PTR yes, GRK and GHT I don't know, GDY not my money.

EL