Fig. shows the reservoir impedance and electric power generation as a function of transmissivity for various assumptions about reservoir impedance and wellbore heat exchange. These results follow the approach in , except they include wellbore heat loss (from Sec. 2.2) and use the analytical solution for impedance (from Sec. 2.1) instead of the numerical solution. Fig. shows the electric power generation as a function of transmissivity for various impedance models. There is little difference in the electric power generation (<10%) between the four analytical impedance models because the differences in impedance among the analytical solutions are small (≤18%). However, the numerical impedance in our model is roughly half of the analytical impedance, resulting in up to twice the electric power generation. As was stated in Sec. 3.2, the numerical and analytical solutions represent a range of impedances, and it is unclear which is better. In some applications, the uncertainty in the reservoir transmissivity may be much larger than the uncertainty introduced by the reservoir impedance model. Therefore, to calculate electric power generation accurately, it is crucial to reduce uncertainty in the reservoir transmissivity. However, there will likely always be some uncertainty in the prediction of electric power generation because it is difficult to reduce the uncertainty introduced by the reservoir impedance model to zero. Fig. (b) compares the solution with wellbore heat loss (Sec. 2.2) to an adiabatic solution to investigate the influence of wellbore heat loss on electrical power generation. At high transmissivity (≥ 32,000 mD-m), the production temperature is almost the same with and without heat loss (i.e., Γ > 0.98 with heat loss and Γ = 1.0 without heat loss), which is in agreement with previous work . The high transmissivity allow high flow rate, which allow the temperature to stay high . Namely, heat is flowing through the well at a high rate, and the conductive heat losses are small enough that they cannot significantly reduce the fluid temperature. The small difference in temperature between the heat-loss and adiabatic cases coincides with a small difference in electric power generation, which is different by < 4% for transmissivity > 32,000 mD-m. The flow rate is small for low transmissivity , which results in power generation less than 0.2 MWe. At these low transmissivities (and flow rates), the production temperature is different between the adiabatic and heatloss cases, but the absolute difference that it causes in electric power generation is small. For intermediate transmissivity in the range of 3200 -32,000 mD-m, wellbore heat losses seem to be most relevant for power generation. The flow rate in this range of transmissivity is low enough that wellbore heat losses decrease the temperature while still large enough that a significant amount of electric power is generated. However, even in this "sensitive" range, the effect of heat loss on power production is somewhat modest. At 10,000 mD-m, the adiabatic approach predicts < 0.1 MWe more power production, which is a difference < 30% compared to the approach with heat loss.