I think the point of the Iceland example was to illustrate the local viability of geothermal. But your reply seems to be emphasizing the relative value of geothermal in the U.S. vs Iceland which I don't think is a question that anything important hinges on. The upshot of U.S. geothermal production should be "awesome, so much the better for geothermal!" I find it bizarre and unnecessary to decide that the upshot is supposed to be "yeah, suck it Iceland!" It just has nothing to do with anything.