Geothermal power production could significantly add to the electric power generating capacity in the United States.” That’s the attention-grabber at the top of a September 2008 press release from the U.S. Geological Survey announcing the release of their first geothermal resource assessment in 30 years.

When I first began researching this story for QUEST, I was surprised that I hadn’t heard more about geothermal power. It’s never lumped into that renewable energy laundry list that’s recited by politicians and journalists alike — you know, “…solar, wind, hydroelectric and biofuels”. But it turns out that geothermal energy has really great potential.

To start, it’s reliable. Geothermal is base load power, which means that the plants generate power at a constant rate around the clock. In fact, geothermal plants often have capacity factors of 86-95%, well above traditional base load generation such as coal.

It’s clean. Geothermal power plants give off little or no sulfur compared to fossil fuel-fired power plants and they emit no nitrogen oxides. Emissions of CO2 per megawatt-hour are extremely low or absent for the newer flash plants. A typical geothermal plant may produce 1 lbs. of CO2 per MW hour. This figure compares with 1030 lbs. per MW hour of CO2 for a natural-gas fired plant, 1600 lbs. per hour of CO2 for an oil-fired plant, and 1820 lbs. per MW hour for a low grade coal-fired plant.

And, if the USGS assessment is accurate, and it probably is, geothermal power is abundant. According to the study:

“the power generation potential from identified geothermal systems range from 3,675 MWe (95% probability) to 16,457 MWe (5% probability); the power generation potential from undiscovered geothermal systems range from 7,917 MWe (95% probability) to 73,286 MWe (5% probability); and the power generation potential from Enhanced Geothermal Systems range from 345,100 MWe (95% probability) to 727,900 MWe (5% probability).”

So, what’s wrong with it? As we touched on in the TV segment, there are several little drawbacks that no doubt should be considered. These include induced seismicity (little earthquakes that are triggered by geothermal developments), the initial expense of geothermal exploration and development, and the challenges of connecting the electricity generated by a geothermal plant to the grid at a point where there is sufficient available capacity to sell the electricity.

However, I was never really able to find a strong reason why geothermal energy should not be in everyone’s renewables laundry list. And considering Obama included geothermal energy in his list during his last debate against John McCain, I would imagine we will all be hearing more and more about geothermal energy development in the months to come and beyond.

Watch the Geothermal Heats Up television story report online. And don’t miss the steamy, behind-the-scenes photos for this story.

Credit: California High Speed Rail AuthorityUnless you’re one of the undecided voters, still dithering over your pick for the presidency, it’s time to think about some of the other stuff on the ballot: the measures and propositions related to science and the environment. This blog is a round-up of QUEST and KQED’s coverage of environmental election issues.

Starting with California’s state-wide propositions, we have Proposition 1A: Safe, Reliable High-Speed Passenger Train Bond Act. The proposed train would zip from San Francisco to LA in a mere two and a half hours, if voters approve a $10 billion bond. QUEST did a TV story on the science and politics of the high-speed rail last year, and updated it in a web-only video for this year’s election. Check out High-Speed Rail on the Ballot. And listen to QUEST’s radio story, Fast Trains.

Next, Proposition 2: Standards For Confining Farm Animals. If passed, this proposition would require bigger crates for certain farm animals. It is mostly about animal cruelty, but has implications for human health – and California’s egg industry. Listen to The California Report’s coverage of the pros and cons of Proposition 2.

Proposition 7: Renewable Energy Generation, would require utilities to get 50% of their power from renewable sources. It sounds straightforward, but actually this one is controversial. Things are explained in this QUEST radio story, Big Solar on the Ballot.

Then we have Proposition 10: Alternative Fuel Vehicles and Renewable Energy, which combines funding for solar and wind energy research with consumer incentives to encourage the use of clean fuels. There is controversy, because the proposition gives extra bonus points to some alternative fuels, but not others. Check out the coverage by the California Report.

There are three measures across the Bay Area concerning open space: Measure WW in Alameda and Contra Costa counties, Measure P in Napa county and Measure T in Solano county. Listen to a discussion of these measures with the executive director of The Greenbelt Alliance, in this KQED Radio News story.

And in San Francisco, Proposition H lets voters decide whether the electric utilities should be publicly owned. This would give the city flexibility in terms of obtaining power from renewable energy sources, but it’s hard to say how it would affect the price of electricity. Reporter Cy Musiker and Craig Miller, senior editor for KQED’s Climate Watch series, debate Prop H in this segment from KQED Radio News.

Figure out your opinions on these science and environment issues – and check KQED’s Election 2008 page, for additional election coverage. Then voice your opinions, with your vote, and your comments to this blog!

Each big storm with a high tide and an
onshore wind takes a big bite out of Sarichef.Photo By Shishmaref Erosion and Relocation Coalition

In an email this week from John Woodward, an Alaska builder and Home Energy author, he wrote, “I put together a working/management group to manage the relocation of the community of Shishmaref sustainabely. They live on Sarichef, a barrier island that global warming is wiping out.”

Shishmaref is home to a small community of Inupiat, a Native American tribe. John is working with the Inupiat Tribal Government, the City of Shishmaref, and the Shishmaref Erosion & Relocation Coalition, to salvage as much of the village as possible before it goes under water and move it, along with the island inhabitants, to a new plot of land in the interior of Alaska.

The Army Corp of Engineers gives the island about 5 or 10 more years of livability. But as the ocean and permafrost warm and the ocean rises, unpredictable storms take a heavy toll on the island. “Each big storm with a high tide and an on-shore wind takes a big bite out of Sarichef,” says Woodward.

The community is seeking funds for a comprehensive alternative energy plan, an anaerobic pump/methane generator, and the retrofit of all existing buildings, including more than 110 homes, community buildings and a school. The homes will be retrofit to use less than 5 Btu per square foot to heat. Heating load calculations can be pretty complicated, but in general, contractors recommend furnaces that can provide 30-50 Btu per square foot to heat homes in the Bay Area. To reach such a high level of energy efficiency, the Shishmaref homes will have the insulation installed on the outside of the structure, a technique that Woodward has successfully used in the past. The new village will have the look and functionality of the Inupiat culture as defined and designed through community planning.

“Our community planning process involves community charettes with the whole community gathered in the school gym,” say Woodward. “The goal of these meetings is the rough-out of a comprehensive community plan for sustainable relocation of the existing salvageable infrastructure and the development of the new village site.”

The Inupiat will build their new village to suit their needs and lifestyles, to be efficient, and to be in harmony with its surroundings-in other words, sustainabely. Let’s keep an eye on our northern neighbors, who may teach us some valuable lessons. How long before whole towns in California will have to relocate because of water shortages? We all witnessed what happened in New Orleans a few years ago. How long before towns and cities on the coast of California will have to move inland or be seriously reconfigured because of the rising Pacific Ocean?

You can e-mail John Woodward with questions, comments, ideas, and offers of help at panuktuk@yahoo.com.