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)