Though I don't use it in the piece, the system of earthquake early warning we profiled – developed by UC Berkeley's Richard Allen, among others – has a name:ElarmS. One of my favorite parts of the ElarmS website is the page where visitors are invited to submit their own ideas for how the system might be used.

I mention this because it illustrates an interesting fact about earthquake prediction, which is that it's not the technology technology (i.e., how to predict an earthquake) that's still up for debate, it's what to do with the warning, once we have it.

If Allen is right, three years from now ElarmS will be up and running, supplying some – if not a whole lot – of warning before quakes hit. But whether the rest of us receive that warning is largely out of ElarmS 's hands. Will someone develop an iPhone app that'll announce the countdown in a GPS-like voice: 10, 9, 8? Will BART rig its system to ElarmS so that every train in the network starts slowing down, as soon as countdown begins? Will fire stations allow their doors to be automatically opened every time an alarm goes off? To borrow the USGS's David Oppenheimer's cringe-inducing example, will surgeons hear an alarm and lift their scalpels?

And what happens when false alarms – and they are inevitable – cause people to turn off their iPhone quake-warning apps, or complain about BART slowdowns? At a conference for environmental journalists last night, I chatted with two Mexicans about how their country has invested in an early-warning system. They rolled their eyes. "If it only worked!" Unfortunately, the price for working sometimes might be not working other times.

Here is a nice depiction of P-waves and S-waves, if you want to learn more about how prediction (and earthquakes) work.

And here's a link to the California Integrated Seismic Network, which includes the vault I visited in the radio piece (and featured in the slde show below).

Listen to Predicting the Next Big One radio report online.

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.

So we know – or should know – the seismic risks of living in one of the most vibrant, diverse places in the U.S. Short of leaving the region, what can we do?

Well, one of the most illuminating things about working on this story for me was learning a bit about retrofitting one’s home to make it withstand the lateral and vertical forces that accompany a strong earthquake. In short, you need to build shear walls – made of reinforced plywood and shear transfer ties – and bolt them to the walls in the foundation of your house. Suprisingly, there are no official codes as to what constitutes a proper seismic retrofit of a residential unit in California, nor is there a dearth of licensed contractors who will offer quotes and purport to retrofit your home but without any standards in place, homeowners are often at a loss to evaluate the quality of the retrofit which can easily exceed ten thousand dollars, depending on the size of the home and its location. Still, homeowners can avail themselves of a few retrofit resources online, such as Plan Set A, a guideline for retrofitting one's home that has been approved by building departments of several Bay Area municipalities such as Oakland and Hayward. Also on the Association of Bay Area Government's web site is a set of schematics illustrating shear wall construction. If you are interested in retrofitting your home, you should get quotes from several contractors, consult your city's building department to inquire about permits and possibly consult a structural engineer to perform a building analysis on your home.

If you're like me, though, and don’t own a home but want to prepare for "the big one," it's imperative to get an earthquake survival kit. The sells earthquake survival kits but why not make your own, provided that it has water, first aid supplies, a flashlight, food rations and other essentials for you to survive 72 hours while waiting for emergency help. If you want to make your own kit, try the USGS, the city and county of San Francisco, or helpful suggestions from the San Francisco Chronicle and LA Times.

Living in earthquake country, it pays to be vigilant. I applaud the 1868 Hayward Earthquake Alliance, a consortium of agencies that are raising awareness of the risk posed by the Hayward fault with a series of events aimed at educating the public about the importance of preparedness, including a city-wide drill in San Francisco on October 21st, the 140th anniversary of the 1868 Hayward earthquake. We may not be able to predict when exactly the next earthquake on the Hayward fault may occur but we can start planning today to mitigate its effects.

For those who aren't familiar with the Hayward fault, check out our this link to the USGS Google Earth tour over the fault.