the rise and fall of geodynamics, page-3

The entry costs for coal, gas and nuclear power plants are far higher, as are ongoing fuel costs. Coal, gas and nuclear power stations all use fuels which are either scarce or which are costly to produce. Geothermal, as proposed by Geodynamics, uses a fuel which is neither. There are a lot of hot rocks out there and the cost of accessing them is relatively low. Geoscience Australia and the Australian National University have surveyed the presence of hot-rocks in Australia and there are extensive resources located throughout Australia, but especially in south-west Queensland in the Eromanga Basin. The total energy available far exceeds current Australian needs. Go to the library if you doubt this.

I am saying that once Geodynamics has demonstrated that HDR works, the perceived risk will diminish. Couple this with the lack of barriers to entry and the cost of the ‘fuel’ and there will be a massive incentive for others to pile in where GDY pioneered. It will lose out to competition, including from those with existing electricity distribution and sale facilities, and better access to finance.

Clearly you do not need a monopoly to be profitable or viable (although it would be easier). In a competitive environment you need to have an advantage. Geodynamics has few genuine advantages over its competitors. Being first is not an advantage. Access to capital is an advantage and I concede that Geodynamics does have some such access, but not sufficient by any means. Control of intellectual property, ownership of significant plant, and secured fuel supply at a lower cost… these would help. Overall though, GDY simply does not have sufficient competitive advantages to persuade me that it will succeed in competition with others.

Amateur? Yes. Down-ramper? No. I would like to see Geodynamics succeed and I would like to see geothermal succeed.