Of course, why didn't I think of that? Geothermal must be the answer since it's clearly the most beautifully paradoxical solution to global warming. Heat from the planet helps us reduce CO2 emissions and cool the planet.
A study released this past week says that while geothermal is not the least expensive clean technology for electricity production right now (that'd be wind), it's got the steepest R&D curve and should/will be the cheapest with appropriate investment. The fact that so little investment has been poured into it to date is criminal.
The idea of a geothermal system is very elegant: drill down to a geothermal hot spot. Create two routes, one in and one out. Drop water down, steam rises through the vent and turns a turbine. Water falls and steam rises. It's a perpetual motion machine (except it doesn't violate any laws of thermodynamics since energy is being put into the system in the form of the earth's heat). OK, so maybe it's a bit more complicated than that (how do you make sure the pipes don't melt?etc), but it's surely one of the answers we need in solving our energy crunch.
The downside has always been that these plants are large and expensive to build, and that they're often located far from the cities which need their electricity. So knowing this, let's get the government involved and create a public works program. The benefits would arguably be greater than building a bunch of bridges. I'm generally against government involvement, except when it comes to issues such as these where an externality needs to be addressed. The environment and global warming are just such an externality.
PS, I've been gone for a while working pretty intensely on a consulting project and have let the blog slip a bit, but believe me this subject has not been forgotten. I hope to have more time in the near future to share my thoughts/analysis on the coming Energy Crunch.
