The Case for Optimism on Global Warming

There's recently been lots of depressing news about Global Warming.  The northern ice cap is melting faster than scientists predicted, emissions are growing faster than anyone expected, American policy may take a huge step backwards.  Hundreds of millions may die and half of all species may vanish.

But this diary makes the case for optimism about Global Warming.

I don’t dispute anything mentioned above, and this diary is not snark.  I'm not a Denier, and I won’t tell you about the benefits of reducing hypothermia deaths or the Greening of the Sahara.

Rather, I'm going to argue that Global Warming is a solvable problem.  Then I’ll tell you how we might solve it.

The nightmarish visions of a warmed world are just that-- visions.  They may never be.  We can still prevent them-- if we adopt an attitude of pragmatic, can-do optimism, and embrace the willingness to experiment and solve problems for which Americans were once known round the world-- and may yet be again.

3 1/2 ways to get all the carbon-free electricity we need
Electricity is key.  Much of our emissions come directly from dirty ways of generating it ("Coal is the enemy of the human race.")  Electricity can also be used to for heating; its not as energy-efficient as burning gas or oil in your house, but it can be zero-emission if you have lots of zero-carbon electricity.  Likewise, we're one breakthrough in batteries or ultra-capacitors (and a few years engineering) away from plug-in hybrids or electric cars, which would allow us to drastically reduce the use of oil in transportation.

I'm going to tell you about four ways to get all the electricity we need, essentially carbon-free.  I'm convinced the first three will work, and could be scaled up nationwide within five or ten years for a cost of approximately what we pay now for our electricity.  I have high hopes for the fourth, although I am not convinced.

Obviously, I don't have a crystal ball, and I might be wrong about some or even all four.  And even if they can work, that doesn't mean they will be built.  A lot of people here (including me) think that America could provide health insurance for all citizens within the next few years for less than we currently spend on health care-- but that doesn't mean we think this is guaranteed to happen, and it certainly does not mean we advocate sitting back and waiting for the market to bring this outcome about.

Rather, the knowledge that a better way is possible-- but not certain-- encourages us to work towards that goal.  I hope this diary has the same effect.

And now, let's dive in.

Geothermal
100% of Iceland's electricity comes from renewable sources.  100%.  About a quarter of that is hydropower, and the rest is geothermal.  The geothermal power is generated in large plants, like the Nesjavellir plant (shown below).

The idea behind geothermal power is simple.  You can use a temperature difference between two objects to generate power.  The bigger the temperature difference, the more power you can generate.  (Refrigerators and air conditioners reverse this process, using power to create a temperature difference.)  Iceland is blessed with really hot rocks and springs quite near the surface, so its easy to take advantage of these to generate power.  Not only does Iceland generate all the power it needs from geothermal, but it is thinking of exporting electricity.

In the rest of the world, its a bit harder, because the hot rocks are buried deeply.  But this is not a deal breaker; oil companies have long known how to dig really deep holes.

In fact, the largest geothermal plant in the world is located in Northern California; it powers 800,000 homes and is planning to expand.

Geothermal was recently reviewed at The Oil Drum, which noted that the western states, with current technology, have the resources to supply 13,000 MW-- about enough to power 13 million homes (there are about 100 million homes nationwide).

A January, 2007 MIT study (interview with authors here) was much, much more optimistic.  It found that the total amount of geothermal energy that could be harvested (in an ideal world) is 250,000 times more than we would need to generate all the electricity we use worldwide.  That's not a typo-- there is far, far more geothermal energy theoretically available that a civilization like ours could possibly use.  The study's author is very optimistic that technology can be developed that will allow us to economically harvest this energy.

To economically harvest this energy, we'll have to solve a lot of problems related to drilling deep holes and finding deep (hot) fluid.  Do those problems sound familiar?  They are the ones faced by the oil industry, which is basically liquidating itself because its main target is running out.  The expertise is there, its just a question of refocusing it.

It should be noted that geothermal is always on, 24/7, and has few environmental problems.

Concentrated Solar Power

Concentrated Solar Power was diaried by A Siegel six months ago.  The idea is simple: you put up a big tower in the middle of the desert, and surround it with mirrors that focus the desert sun onto the tower.  The tower gets really, really hot.  The tower contains a fluid which boils off, turning turbines and generating electricity.

In fact, that tower gets so hot that when the sun goes down it is still hot enough to generate steam, turn turbines and produce power.  And on the week all year that you get a couple of days of clouds (in the middle of the desert!), you can burn some natural gas to keep it hot.

There are currently some medium-scale plants in operation (an 11-MW plant in Spain), mostly a few megawatts.  But the potential is enormous because, well, we have plenty of desert.  And 90% of the world lives within 3000 miles of a hot desert.

In fact, covering a very small part of the Sahara with CSP plants could supply all of Europe's (or even the whole world's) needs-- as this map shows.  

Doing this would require a new electric grid, using DC power (not AC like the current grid) that links the energy-exporting Sahara to electricity-hungry Europe.  A similar grid would be necessary in the US.

Indeed, just last week, one energy expert proposed constructing a Europe-wide super-grid.  (He pointed out this would allow Europe to get 100% of its power from renewables in just a few years-- by relying on wind and solar, without much additional CSP.  He projected that the cost of power would be 4.6 Euro cents-- the American average retail price is about 9 cents.)

Flying Electric Generators
These are my favorite, and I wrote a previous diary with more detail than I will give here.

Most of the wind is in the sky, so why not locate ind turbines in the sky?

A Flying Electric Generator is basically a cross between a kite and a helicopter.  It has four rotors, each of which is turned by the wind and generates power the same way as a terrestrial wind turbine.  They also act like the surface of a kite, keeping the whole contraption aloft.  When the wind is strong enough (most of the time), power is sent down to earth through the tether.  When it weakens, power can be sent up to the FEG to power the rotors, causing the whole craft to levitate like a helicopter.  The four-rotor design cuts down on maintenance.

One proponent estimates that he will be able to produce power for 2 cents / kilowatt-hour, which is cheaper than coal.  And it could be here soon:  Professor Roberts "demonstrated a FEG in Australia at an altitude of sixty feet over a decade ago... We expect to make a demonstration in the U.S. less than three years from now at high altitude in normal high altitude winds. In four years I would expect this sort of technology to be in active use."

But you don't put up FEGs one at a time-- you build huge armadas (preferably in the middle of nowhere, far from airline routes).  There position can be precisely controlled, so they won't bump into each other.  In fact,

    Forty-three such FEG "arrays" -- each comprising 600 FEGs -- would, he estimates, generate sufficient electricity to power the whole of the U.S.

   "Our calculations show that by reserving less than one four-hundredth of U.S. air space, located at relatively remote locations not on airway routes, all of America's electrical energy needs could be met," he says.

   "That is considerably less airspace than is already restricted for other purposes, primarily military."

FEGs are my personal favorite.  Perhaps its because the image of a vast fleet of robotic flying machines harvesting the wind seems straight out of science fiction-- a worthy testament to the power of humanity to use technology to live in a sustainable manner.

Or maybe it reflects how my spirituality has grown as I have aged.  The mental picture of a tethered FEG, blades whirling in the wind while transferring power to run civilization gives me spiritual chills-- perhaps because it invokes, deep within my heart, the ineffablely beautiful image of Him giving man the Power of Life, and reminds me that we have all been Touched by the Sauce of Peace.

Thin Film Solar

OK, this is one technology which I am not so sure about-- it may have the ability to scale up to power the world, it may not.

The solar panels that Jimmy Carter put on the White House cost about $100 for every watt of power they generated.  

Today, they'd cost $3 to $5 per watt.  That's a huge step in the right direction, but its not good enough.  Solar power still costs a lot more than coal power.  One reason is that most photovoltaic panels require a special kind of crystalline silicon that is in very short supply.

Thin Film solar uses little silicon, and some variations require none.  A thin coating of other elements can be placed on a surface (like glass, or even a flexible, material) and turned into a solar panel.

I don't have enough of a background in materials science or chemistry to anticipate what problems would arise if Thin Film were produced on a large scale.  That's why I'm only counting this as "a half" here.  But I will note that the market is very excited about thin film.  In fact, I've included this on the list largely because of the success of one thin film company, First Solar.  First Solar is churning out large amounts of solar panels.  By the end of this year, they expect to be capable of building 200 MW per year; this figure will nearly triple in two years.  They have signed long-term contracts to sell billions (with a b) of panels to other companies, at a cost of under a dollar per watt.  There are a few other companies (like Nanosolar and Miasole) with similar ambitions and technologies.

So overall, thin film solar panels can be produced on a reasonably large scale.  Their cost continues to fall, even as fossil fuel costs rise at about 10% per year.  Once thin film becomes cheaper than coal, why would anyone ever build another coal plant?

I'm not an expert, but I've never seen any suggestion of why thin film technology can't be scaled up to a size where it makes a difference.  

(Note: First Solar is a public company whose stock has skyrocketed since going public, but I definitely don't want to recommend either investing or not investing in it.  It may still be undervalued, or it may be greatly overvalued.  Do your own homework :) )

Energy sources not discussed here

I'm not going to talk much about terrestrial or offshore wind.  I strongly support both, but Jerome has that covered.

I'm also not going to talk much about ocean-based power.  That's fascinating-- waves alone could power civilization-- and A Siegel has written about it

I'm also not going to discuss nuclear power here, because that's a whole 'nother kettle of fish.  I will say that I would far rather spend money on any of the above technologies (which are proven and decentralized) than nuclear.  I think this recent interview with Amory Lovins gives an excellent overview of nuclear.

Speaking of Lovins, don't forget that the cheapest source of power is Negawatts-- energy conservation.  I've discussed this in the past, and may revisit this soon.

Al Gore's new approach

I think its in this light that we can understand Gore's apparent decision not to run for President, and to instead become a venture capitalist.

Balancing those factors is Gore's challenge as well. Toward the end of the meeting at Kleiner's offices with Ausra, the solar thermal company, one of the executives starts to boast that the plants Ausra is building will thrash nuclear, geothermal, clean coal, and photovoltaic solar solutions. Gore cuts in, a mildly alarmed look on his face. "You know, all of these technologies are going to play a role," he says. "I hate to see you assassinate the competition as a key messaging point."

It's a reminder of what Gore and his partners are trying to do. After all, making money has always been paramount in Silicon Valley. But these guys have a planet to save as well.

Gore is working on funding promising technologies directly.  (Yes, in a rational world he would do so through the political process.. but as we all know our political system is broken.)  Gore is obviously doing many things with his time, but note that he is devoting a lot of time to identifying and funding promising energy technologies.  He's an optimist.

The case for optimism
A Global Warming optimist is not someone who believes Global Warming isn't a big deal, will have mostly beneficial effects, or will somehow disappear if we continue business-as-usual.  Such people are delusional.

Rather, a Global Warming Optimist is someone who believes our problems can be solved-- and that our civilization is capable of solving them.  Nearly all of my global warming heroes (e.g., Al Gore and James Hansan) are in this camp.

Make no mistake, we have to solve this problem.  The world is currently headed towards disaster.  We face the possibility of mega-droughts, mass starvation, loss of half of species on earth, and tens or hundreds of millions of deaths.  Once every few months, it seems, we find out that reality is worse than the worst case scenarios of the scientists.

Our politics are also disastrous.  Many powerful politicians and business leaders are essentially denying reality.  Public understanding is abysmal.  Our elected leaders refuse to take even modest steps to addressing the problem.

Remember, we are a nation that provides food security to only 90% of its population, and can not adequately care for its sick.  Despite all our satellites, we allowed a 500 mile wide hurricane to sneak up on the Hurricane Coast at the height of the hurricane season and achieve strategic surprise (to paraphrase Stirling Newberry).  

How can we expect such a nation to get its act together enough to build fleets of FEGs?

Because we are also a nation that put chickens in hundreds of millions of pots and cars in a tens of millions of garages.  The machines we built can carry people around the world in a day, and broadcast real-time pictures from the South Pole.  We routinely split atoms, sequence DNA at an exponentially rising rate, and search the sky for evidence of extraterrestrial intelligence.  I think such a nation could easily cover the desert with CSP towers, or draw energy from the earth itself-- particularly since these things have already been done on a small scale.

Any (or all) of the technologies we've discussed could turn out to be a silver bullet that allows us to generate all the electricity we need.  Or they could just turn out to be silver BBs.  Or perhaps they could fail completely.  Or maybe there are still better ones out there.

I'm pretty sure we won't succeed if we preemptively declare that the best we can do is power down to become an agricultural nation or all move to Canada.  (Especially since not all of us can emigrate.. I don't know what would happen to those Left Behind.)

The case for optimism on Global Warming is basically the case for action-- immediate action.  So, fellow Kossacks, please hold on to your can-do American optimism, your willingness to experiment, to explore, to debate.  Do what you can to educate your friends and neighbors about the perils and the potential.  The lives of my kids-- and yours-- hang in the balance.

End Notes:  (Please check out Energy Smart and Energize America)

•  Tips? Here's one for you

  If you want advance notice about environmental diaries, join Daily Kos Environmentalists.

  If you want more people to read your environmental diaries, please send a note to this group whenever you post one.  That's what it's there for.

  by chapter1 on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 05:04:28 AM PDT

  •  Excellent discussion ...

    As the chair of Royal Dutch Shell wrote

    More than half the energy we generate every day is wasted.

    What's the point of producing even more energy if we continue to waste most of it? Instead, we should aim to become twice as efficient in our use of energy by the middle of the next century. That is entirely feasible, provided that the will is there.

    And, the same is true for moving toward better energy sources.

    We need the will to take action, to make the change, to Energize America.

    Now, I move between Pessimistic Optimist and Optimistic Pessimist.  There are paths to create a better future. We just need to choose (as individuals, communities, businesses, societies) to take them.

    by A Siegel on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 05:29:10 AM PDT

    •  Royal Dutch Shell is conning us.

      "twice as efficient in our use of energy by the middle of the next century."

      But if we're using coal, or gas from oil sands, we'll be pumping twice as much carbon.  We need to do far better than that, and in a far shorter time.

      by Bob Love on Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 12:21:30 AM PDT

      •  Agree ... basically ...

        actually

        1.  His argument was that the globe needs to double its energy "use" by mid-century.  He was asserting that this could be done via energy efficiency rather than new energy sources.

        2.  What is valuable, for me, is having an oil executive who is saying that efficiency is there, to be had, at affordable/profitable rates for exploitation.  Now, he doesn't speak of renewables, of changed usage patterns, of 'conservation', but ... I still find this a very useful quote to have in the pocket.

        by A Siegel on Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 03:41:23 AM PDT

  •  Thin Film Solar

    While I agree with most of this diary, I think that many of the thin film 'flexable' photovoltatics are a bad choice. This is because of the materials used in them.

    The most common types of TFPV use cadmium telluride, selenide, and/or sulfide.  Cadmium and its compounds are considered a human carcinogens, and are rather toxic in other ways including causing damage to the kidneys, lungs, and bones. ( http://www.osha.gov/... )

    Stick those TFPV on a lot of buildings, and every time there is a fire in one there'll be a plume of cadmium compounds drifting over that neighborhood. Damage cells must be recovered and properly disposed of or carefully recycled.  And if you think nuclear waste is bad, cadmium never stops being toxic.

    There are TFPV systems that don't use cadmium, but most of those are based on organic compounds that have their own toxicity and carcinogen issues.

    by wondering if on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 10:09:50 PM PDT

    •  Thanks for this info

      I wasn't aware of this.  Very good to know.

      Is there any way of "fire-proofing" panels?  (e.g., enclosing them in high-melting temp, clear plastic or something?)

      by chapter1 on Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 05:47:37 AM PDT

      •  problems with that

        plastic would burn, they're already made on a plastic film base.

        Any high temperature substrate would add to the cost, pushing it closer to conventional silicon PV.  And the containment has to be such that having the roof burn out from under it doesn't result in mass breakage.

        Using them in massive 'farms' off in the desert or other wastelands would get around much of the problem.  Metal supporting framework, a deep layer of stones and gravel underneath to prevent buildup of plants.  And with a large concentration, handling of damaged, deteriorated,  and non-functional panels would be cheaper - all in one location, simple access to them (no climbing up on top of buildings), short trip to centralized storage for reclaiming or at least processing into a form easier to safely transport for reclamation or disposal elsewhere (pure organic cells may not be reclaimable, and would be incinerated or something similar)

        by wondering if on Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 09:41:42 AM PDT

•  Wrong title for diary.

  Last time I checked, the Global Warming tipping point has already happened and there is no turning back the clock without huge amounts of carbon sequestration.

  I'm all for getting off the oil standard, but that is a separate issue from Global Warming and Global Climate Change.

  by Fabian on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 05:09:12 AM PDT

  •  I stand by my title

    This diary is mostly concerned with electricity use, which is more relevant to GW than the oil standard.

    As for tipping points, this RealClimate essay has interesting thoughts.  Right now, we do not know whether runaway climate change is inevitable.  Its more important than ever to be optimistic that we can solve the problem.

    by chapter1 on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 05:14:26 AM PDT

    •  I'll all for optimism.

      Right now I'm all for saving our national economy and avoiding the worst of climate change effects.  I'm not at all confident that we have the economic strength to move to renewable energy quickly or effectively.

      Besides this quote just slayed me

      And 90% of the world lives within 3000 miles of a hot desert.

      3000 miles?  I don't think there is a single electric power network that delivers electricity to a destination 3,000 miles distant.  In fact, I'm wondering what the average generator/destination distance is.  Hundreds of miles would be my guess.  It's not because of convenience, it's because of physics.  The farther the current travels, the more is wasted.  The cost of very long distance transmission is cost prohibitive.  There's a reason that residence based electricity generation is ideal - no transmission cost.  

      So, desert-based energy production would be great for Las Vegas and other desert dwelling cities.  But to pretend that Buffalo could directly benefit from it is absurd.  

      by Fabian on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 05:39:35 AM PDT

      •  DC Vs AC

        Don't forget that DC is a lot more efficient than AC (which we use now) over long distances.  That's why DC networks have been proposed.

        Note that 3000 miles is only roughly double the length of the currently existing Pacific DC Intertie which sends power from the NW to LA.

        Another quick web search yields a study suggesting a 7% loss over a 1500 miles HVDC current.  I think it goes linearly.. so 3000 miles would still be an acceptable loss.  Not great, but acceptable.

        But for Buffalo, I'd rely on the FEGs.

        by chapter1 on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 05:56:30 AM PDT

        •  Buffalo

          already has Niagara Falls and Quebec Hydro.

          by badger on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 11:44:35 PM PDT

    •  You've got to be kidding.

      "we do not know whether runaway climate change is inevitable"?

      Even Al Gore, an optimist, is now saying we can only avoid the most catastrophic effects of global warming.  

      by Bob Love on Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 12:24:13 AM PDT

  •  Agreed

    While this is one of the best overall discussions of how we can move toward sustainable, emissions free power (thank you for that!!), which is certainly the only hope we have of ceasing to fuel the problem, but Global Warming as a process has already begun, and even if everyone of the planet were to disappear tomorrow, the scientific consensus is that the global climate will continue to heat up, leading to increasingly grave consequences for life here on earth.

    Not meaning to burst your bubble.....your optimism is appreciated, and I absolutely believe that we should proceed as if perhaps the damage can be mitigated, and we may be able to make the change in the nick of time...as you said, pragmatic, can-do-optimism, is the way to go.

    But I do think the title of the diary is misleading.

    by DeepLooker on Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 03:58:02 AM PDT

•  Interesting diary! But...

  ...won't those flying turbines act like big fans, causing a horrible global cooling effect? ;-)

  by signals on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 05:14:13 AM PDT

  •  I hope

    ...you clicked on the link at the end of the FEGs section.  ;)

    by chapter1 on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 05:16:00 AM PDT

  •  Yes, and by slowing down the wind

    won't they also slow the rotation of the earth?

    (yes, I'm being a bit silly, but that seems to be in acccordance with this diary - which is equally silly to assume that global warming is a technical rather than a political problem . . . )

    by Roadbed Guy on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 05:17:39 AM PDT

    •  Political problems can have technical solutions

      A few centuries ago, the Powers That Be decided that the priestly class-- and only the priestly class-- would interpret the Divine Word.  Only they had Bibles, and they used this to completely consolidate political and economic power.

      That's a serious political problem.

      It was solved by the printing press, which gave the masses access to the bible and, ultimately, better information.

      by chapter1 on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 05:24:02 AM PDT

    •  It is a political problem

      but technology offers part of the solution path ... we just have to choose to take those paths.  

      by A Siegel on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 05:30:11 AM PDT

      •  That's my point!

        i.e., we must choose (collectively!) to take the appropriate path.

        That's political . . . .

        by Roadbed Guy on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 06:14:03 AM PDT

•  OPEC to US: Not so fast, pal

  I was listening to Marketplace on NPR last night (I've searched, can't find a cite yet) and a reporter said that OPEC is sending warnings to the US about conservation and alternative energy. The threat is that if we make significant moves to wean ourselves off oil, that they'll consider it a hostile act and respond in kind.

  Interesting, eh?

  by The Raven on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 05:20:39 AM PDT

  •  "The Stone Age did not end for lack of Stone...

    ...the oil age will not end for lack of oil."

    That oft-cited quote comes from Sheik Ahmed Zaki Yamani, who was the Saudi Oil minister in the 1970s. This was the time of the oil embargoes, when it seemed like Saudi Arabia/OPEC could raise the price of oil as high as they wanted.

    But there were limits. One of Yamani’s big worries was that raising the price too high would cause the West to invest in conservation/alternatives, which would ultimately hurt demand for Saudi oil.

    One of Yamani’s major goals was to prevent these investments from being made.

    All of which is a roundabout way of saying that OPEC has been trying its best to prevent conservation and alt-energy for a LONG time.

    by chapter1 on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 05:27:08 AM PDT

  •  oh fer gawd's sake...

    environmentalism...a hostile act?

    what would be the appropriate response to such a hostile act?  dumping oil in the desert?

    that is un-F-ing-believable!

    by Pandoras Box on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 05:42:26 AM PDT

    •  From an economic perspective...

      Kind of like the US shutting off oil and steel shipments to Japan was deemed cause for war by Japan in 1941.

      Response? Torpedo the dollar, perhaps. Or shut down cooperation with the US on matters in the Mid East.  Perhaps an oil embargo.  If you're going to wean, go cold turkey (now, when you're not ready to, and winter's coming on in the Northern hemisphere...).  Or... who knows.  Someone with more time and knowledge could come up with a range of things.

      by ogre on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 10:06:39 PM PDT

  •  Let them go right ahead!

    It might not be a bluff, but if they did put us on a petrol diet, then they would both hurt our political alliance and give us even more incentive to find alternatives.

    by Fabian on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 05:43:06 AM PDT

    •  That's the issue at hand

      Given that any conceivable switch from an oil-based to a renewable-energy-based economy would take years (10? 15?), it would take a great deal of energy - oil - to accomplish.

      In discussions of Peak Oil, I've seen suggestions that by the time we realize we need solar, there won't be enough oil left to fuel the industries that make and distribute and install the solar arrays.

      So the short analysis is that we can make the conversion, but we'll need billions of barrels of oil to do it. Usually, we talk about this under the assumption that OPEC will continue to supply us with what we need along the way. I found the indication that this assumption is incorrect to be noteworthy.

      by The Raven on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 08:35:01 AM PDT

  •  Well, separately

    there is a whole class of eco-martyrs who will tell you that the cost and environmental burden of building solar panels isn't worth it.

    There a battle on both sides--the evil-oil side and the enviro-martyr side--and everyone is threatening each other.

    by mem from somerville on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 05:48:33 AM PDT

  •  marketplace quote:

    marketplace - opec stuff

    "

       STEPHEN LEEB: I think it's frankly frightening.

    Stephen Leeb, the author of "The Oil Factor" sees more sinister motives.

       LEEB: They're saying this is sort of a shot across the bow to the developed world, that if you do try to go full steam ahead in developing alternative energies we're not going to make it easy for you. If we employ a carbon tax, OPEC's going to cut back on production, and oil prices are going to go even higher and it's going to be a very serious situation for the whole world's economy."

    by jlms qkw on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 09:32:09 PM PDT

    •  Two years ago the WSJ ran an

      article on how over the years OPEC stopped US energy independence plans. I wish I would have saved the article. But basically, there were 7 year plans out there. And OPEC did say they would make the US's life miserable if any of the plans went ahead.

      by kkjohnson on Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 06:48:01 AM PDT

•  great diary. Recommended.

  We need solutions-oriented thinking and action.

  Please keep up your good work.

  by NeuvoLiberal on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 05:21:07 AM PDT

•  We have the options available,

  and we, as a nation, have the know-how and creativity. The questions is do we have, or can we find, the collective will to get it done.

  Gore and Hansen notwithstanding, the lack of leadership on dealing with climate crisis (among other things) must be apparent to the youth of the world. I believe future generations will find a way. I think they know, already, that they can't expect much help from this generation of leaders. I think they know, already, that any progress made will be up to them.

  by scoff0165 on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 05:22:33 AM PDT

•  Where there's a will there's a way...

  "Our"(sic) government lacks the will.

  by Rayk on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 05:44:26 AM PDT

•  the main cause of optimism about climate change

  would be capitalism's imminent collapse.  

  The world burns 85 million barrels of crude oil per day so Nike can profit from Vietnam's cheap labor, not so poor Filipino children can live off of the glass shards they find in Manila's city dump.  Only from a narrow, consumerist point of view is human electricity consumption natural.  It's time to question why we do what we do.  A real effort at conservation would reduce energy needs by more than enough to make the future tolerable -- but we'd have to end the profits system first.

  As for "alternative energy," it will merely supplement the existing fossil-fuel burning habit (with a 2% yearly uptick) until the world can agree to keep the fossil fuels in the ground.  And the profit motive keeps the oil pumping.  Fill all the diaries you want with alternative energy speculation; that's the bottom line.

  by Cassiodorus on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 06:20:49 AM PDT

•  When its cheaper to use alt energy than to

  use oil, then the change to alt energy will start to occur.   Not one minute sooner.  That's why, sometimes, I am not so sure that raising the gas tax is not a bad idea.  The added benefit of switching to alt energy is that it would deprive the Irans and Saudi Arabias of the world of their economic strangle hold on our respective moral consciences.  I, too, am hopeful that we will start making the change.  The simple fact that Big Oil and Big Agro are starting to team up on ethanol and bio-diesel joint ventures tells me that we will.  

  by SpamNunn on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 07:43:09 AM PDT

•  Thanks for this very informative diary,

  especially the geothermal possibilities.

  by ybruti on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 09:51:05 PM PDT

•  Solar power costs more than Coal Power

  because the companies who sell us electricity from coal do not have to pay the cost of:

  1.  Damaging our health from noxious gas and particulate pollution;

  2.  Damaging the environment permanently through mercury poisoning (mercury is a by-product of burning coal - it travels through the air, enters the food chain, especially in waterways, and poisons everything);

  3.  Destroying the environment outright - leveling entire mountainsides, 1000s of acres at a time, spreading heavy metal pollution into waterways, wiping out ecosystems, destroying - literally! - the geography of an area for strip mining;

  4.  Providing adequate safety equipment and rescue crews for underground miners;

  5.  The contribution to global warming from the pollution they create;

  among many others.

  So, big coal gets a free ride on all this and comes out "cheaper" than solar.

  Maybe they should start paying the FULL Cost of their coal powered electric generation and then we can see whether solar or coal is cheaper.

  Finally, the very nature of solar is threatening to electric companies because it would be generated in a decentralized manner - each household could provide for its own power generation. How would they control the marketplace then?

  There are many solutions to providing our power, including the one with the biggest, most immediate impact: Conservation.  Retrofitting insulation and other improvements to conservation would make a huge difference.

  But, here's why it is hard to be "optimistic" about Climate Change:  Much of the damage is already done. Even if we could snap our fingers and stop generating excessive greenhouse gasses tomorrow, there are all those millions of years worth of CO2 back out of the atmosphere.  We are going to feel the impact. And all available reports show the effects are already much greater than models ever previously predicted.  So, sign me "Gloomy," but I think we're going to have a very tough time of it in the next 20-30 years.

  Our kids are really going to suffer.

  by YucatanMan on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 10:20:39 PM PDT

•  I'm glad this was rescued

  Great diary, full of information

  by machiado on Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 07:12:59 AM PDT

•  Geothermal

  Thank you very much for your diary.

  Sometimes I am not sure whether the worthies at MIT did more of a service or disservice to geothermal power.  

  While hot dry rock technology can theoretically produce an astonishing amount of power, the problems to be solved are not child's play.  The most advanced project in Australia's Outback in a shallow resource now hopes to have its first full-scale power production in 2013 with an earlier 1MW plant operating in 2010.  These schedules have a way of slipping.  It is ironic that loss of water seems to be a major problem in an artificially created aquifer in one of the driest places on the planet.

  Oddly even the link provided has misinformation that is so commonplace in a little understood and less appreciated technology:

  The use of conventional geothermal energy has been around since the 1970's

  In fact the Larderello dry steam field in Italy has been producing power continuously for a century far away from the Ring of Fire around the Pacific where most attention is focused.

  A European conference suggested that while 98% of electricity comes from high enthalpy source, by far the greatest production can come from medium to low heat sources. This is one paper on the subject but even the lowest estimate has been exceeded at Chena Hot Springs utilizing the venerable organic rankine cycle for binary power plants.  

  Even that may be bested by the kalina binary cycle that was utilized in a 2MW power plant in Husavik, Iceland, that added a garbage-burning facility for additional heating of the geothermal waters.  Development of a very hot geothermal resource in Nicaragua may add as much as 40% to power production with the kalina cycle using left-over heat.

  A surprising source of geothermal power may become feasible with this longer range project that takes a giant step towards the hot dry rock technology so dear to the heart of the MIT professors.

  Mother Earth has a very warm heart.  The center of the earth is hotter than the surface of the sun.  She can bestow her bountiful blessings on her children or turn into a mass killer like no other on the planet depending on how she is treated.

  Environmentalists have a bad habit of scoffing at her.  Such folly tempts the wrath of a lady who is not to be tampered with lightly.

  A recent rating by a global warming group of all the candidates for president had Mike Gravel's proposals somewhere in the class of those of the like of George Romney. ("Winter is bad, end it.")

  Mike Gravel was the only one to propose a key element in making alternative energy sources, especially wind and geothermal, more available: an upgrade to an obsolescent power grid.

  Mike Gravel has as much chance of being the next president of the U.S. as Hugo Chavez.

  Way politics is.

  Best,  Terry

  by terryhallinan on Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 11:00:18 PM PDT