Someone in the Bush administration apparently woke up on the right side of the bed yesterday, feeling good despite the environmental hangover any netrual observer would have expected. Not only has the decision been made that the EPA is A-OK and thus all funding for it can take a major slash with little worry about environmental damage, but apparently geothermal and hydroelectric energy are ready to take over all major US power generation, and so we can merrily cut funding for their further development because they're ready to go.

It's true that research has been ongoing for developing these sorts of technologies for decades, and they have come a long way in that time - though still only represent a minor fraction of the total US generating capacity when compared with polluters like coal, natural gas and nuclear power (until someone comes up with a safe and reliable way to dispose of nuclear waste I'm going to continue classifying it as polluting despite its lack of carbon emissions.) Both geothermal and hydroelectric power have significant factors that make them more attractive to Americans: they're environmentally sounder (though some recent critics have begun to complain about the impact of widespread dams on marine ecosystems) with minimal emissions, and they do not rely on the import of petroleum based products, many of which come from countries hostile to US interests.

The real problem with leaving them in the hands of the free market is that the market really only relies on a single factor to determine efficacy: cost. According to the the DOE's own analysis a modern geothermal power plant is going to bottom out at about five cents per kilowatt-hour. Which, while a good bit below average costs paid by the consumer, is still more than twice what petroleum or nuclear based power generation costs, and four to five times hydroelectric power. Of course, it's unclear whether those estimates include the costs of periodically invading and rebuilding foreign countries in order to ensure a constant supply of petroleum. So while there may be a market niche for geothermal power generation, given the choice between that and cheaper forms, the market will likely stick with the greater profit margin, since national security and environmental impact can only become tangible market forces through government intervention or consumer choice, and even with the limited deregulation of many local power markets consumers are still often limited in what types of power they may choose to pay for.

So it becomes a question of economics. Is it better for the US to continue subsidizing research to develop geothermal energy (hydroelectric seems to be on better footing - though the initial investment of setting up water based generating plants may constitute an insurmountable barrier to investors) or leave it up to the market, which could potentially abandon it in favor of cheaper alternatives with more long term issues. With the current administration it's a no-brainer, environment and national security be damned, if it involves cutting off a government service that some conservatives will inevitably label as a "handout" then it will get done.

There's nothing wrong with developing a technology to the point where it can become viable in the open market and then cutting it loose. Hydroelectric power generation may actually be at this point. But geothermal, while making strides, still has a long way to go, and abandoning this potentially promising technology by letting businesspeople make decisions with repercussions that affect the whole country seems like a bad idea.