> We'll except the fact that deep geothermal plants are completely theoretic as a means of production

Not theoretical at all:

https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/geothermal/americas-fir...

Not only does it already exist, it's cheap enough that Kenya has some and wants more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_power_in_Kenya

Judging by the price tag of 9.1 Ksh/kWh listed on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Kenya (and looking up historical exchange rates because of the date of the link and their persistent inflation), that's about 0.085-0.090 USD/kWh.

iirc it works well in Kenya because the thermal gradient is really steep and the heat is right near the surface. I don't think that's common around the world. Local expenses (labor, etc...) are also cheaper than in many parts of the world.

Geothermal is however one of the electricity sources with the fewest negative externalities so definitely should be pursued where possible.

Touring the geothermal at Hell's Gate Park in Kenya is wild. If you've seen The Lion King, it's the inspiration for "the shadowy place over there" where the hyenas live.

Extract enough heat from Earth and Earth loses its magnetic field and then its atmosphere and oceans (from the effects of the solar wind) which sounds like a negative externality to me.

We'll (and humanity itself) be long dead by then

If you haven't done a calculation incorporating an estimate of the heat content of the Earth's interior, then you cannot know whether humanity will be dead by then.

Assuming just the inner core, using the lower bound for its temperature, specific heat capacity of iron, 20 TW being extracted, ignoring the extra power inputs in the form of radioisotope decay, crystallisation, tidal heating, I get 800 million years, which is close to when photosynthesis stops because of geological processes locking all the carbon away (trees stop working at about 600 million years, not sure about plants in general).

While it's true we would die first, I bet we'd transition to other power sources even earlier. If we ever get fusion working reliably, that will probably be more convenient than geothermal, and at that point the geothermal plants will start slowly going defunct with no replacements.

Extracting enough energy to do that, would probably meltdown the earth crust.

In theory the cost of the whole thing blowing up should offset this investment costs but Don't Look Up (2021) convincing the folk about potential natural disasters.

California is 50c/kwh…

According to https://www.eia.gov/electricity/state/archive/2021/ the average retail price for California was 20..

sounds great but anyone living downtown is paying over $0.50/kWh

Solar must be damn attractive

Hm? I live in SF and it's considerably below that on average? https://www.bls.gov/regions/west/news-release/averageenergyp... says the area averages ~0.35$

Downtown where?

LADWP switched to time of use scheduling, so my rates are anywhere from 0.16/kwh to 0.21/kwh ( https://www.ladwp.com/ladwp/faces/ladwp/residential/r-custom... )

SCE is a little more expensive with their tiered plans ranging from 0.32/kwh to 0.42/kwh

For context, downtown LA should be all on LADWP

Downtown San Jose is around $0.75/kWh if you use power to heat/cool your 2BR unit.

"Anything over around 20 cents a kWh makes it uncompetitive"

Cries in European

Don't mistake price of production and selling price. When it takes times to construct additional production, you can sell the electricity at very high cost but have a low production cost.

This is more like insurance. If you move to the mountains, you have to pay for special fire insurance because mountains have forest fires.

The U.S. is an extremely productive economy with at least one enormous cyclical natural catastrophe attached to it. If this natural catastrophe is preventable, and the costs of prevention are outweighed by the costs of losing the US economy, then it's probably worth doing.

I just assumed that it was one of those things that isn't economically or technically feasible.