What Would An Energy 'Moon Shot' Look Like?

What it would take for a president to pursue meaningful climate and energy policy in a multitasked world? One approach, hinted at by President Elect Barack Obama off and on, is an Apollo-scale investment in advanced energy technology. The chances of a quick push of this sort are poor given the state of the economy, but what would a "Moon shot" for energy look like?

One way to consider the question is to look back at the gush of federal research and development dollars that underpinned the actual space race (and led to a string of innovations that NASA says have produced far greater economic benefits than the research cost).
Read the full story here.

-OR-

Obama: "We Can't Solve Global Warming Because I F---ing Changed Light Bulbs In My House"
Did The Environment Win?

Comments

[research]

It would like like the plan in my profile.

10 years, 1t$ to wind and solar.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/users/profile/research?action=profile

[KillTheMessenger]

Do you get paid for this? Or are you just a misguided idealist?

[research]

I was wondering the same about you.

[BioLiberty]

Will Obama have what it takes to tell the press that by bring the war to a close, aggressively addressing the crimes that have been committed and by rebuilding America from the ground up, with solar, geothermal and alternative fuels, we are creating a peaceful, just culture with a sustainable economy that our veterans can find work in?

He made a promise I hope he lives up to. That is, rebuilding the gulf coast post Hurricane Katrina. Getting the people back into their communities three years after a storm should be his top priority. The stock brokers and bankers can wait. The Auto industry can wait, the homeowners can wait in their homes. The people in the lower ninth ward have been waiting for over three years to have a home to move back to. Many are dying to go home, Literally!

America is worth defending, then, it is worth rebuilding. If we respect the service our military provides us, they deserve to have homes and jobs to come back to. If democracy is worth spreading, then isn't our economy worth growing sustainably?

Put the veterans to work rebuilding homes on the Gulf Coast. Let them learn how to install geothermal heating and cooling units, Solar power systems, and build homes that can withstand hurricane force winds. Build them with material that won't rot if they get flooded again, or get eaten by termites, Then you will begin to see America shine with a sustainable glow.

[ChangeRequired]

I have to agree with KillTheMessenger that "You can turn trucks into electric freight trains." An Apollo scale program to put high speed electric trains along all our interstate highways (with EXISTING technology) will give us the food and human transport we need.

Combine this with a hub and spoke Wal-Mart type local distribution system and a way to easily dock freight and passenger vehicles to the rail system, make it electric, build a battery storage system along the rails and solar panels to charge the batteries. Think of the jobs in R&D, development engineering, software (for controls and scheduling), manufacturing, construction, management.

Think of the efficiency, the removal of dependence on oil, easy travel. I see no negatives to this except the effect on existing infrastructure such as trucking companies, airlines, oil companies, auto companies

[ohmercy]

EXACTLY!
For years some of us have been saying that if we could set a goal of ten years rto go to the moon and actually do it in less why the hell are we making projections of 20 years to barely scratch the surface of our energy, pollution and global warming problems.
It is ridiculous.
Even half of the 10 billion a month spent in Iraq could go a long way to creating not just energy independence but halting some of the deleterious effects we as a nation have on the environment.
Added to that the jobs created would help the economy and the technology can be exported around the world, further helping the economy and pushing back on global warming.
Also it can improve the educational system by promoting different sciences and the arts that will promote creativity in thinking outside the box, getting kids excited about improving life, getting in on the green revolution- much as it did with the computer and internet age. Creativity in thinking creates innovation in action and damn, do we need it right now.
.We better get on it and fast --before China (or India) does. ;-)

[KillTheMessenger]

What "different" sciences do you want to "promote" in school? Science is science, without physics, chemistry and biology none of what you are dreaming of will happen. Well, actually, it will. In Europe, China, India, where they still know how to teach students ordinary long multiplication and the students don't mind learning it.

[instarx]

Stop trying to trash other peple's ideas. This isn't slashdot.

[intopolitics]

Sorry to be corny but... Yes we can.
It would be so great to solve this problem!

- Obama can inspire the nation to do this.
- Review all laws that mention energy efficiency (eg for cars, SUVs!, houses, industrial stuff) and do a phased in increase (over 5 years).
- See if new efficiency laws are necessary
- All govt enterprises have double the efficiency requirements.
- Phase in a gas tax increase (sorry car people its necessary)
- Fund short (solar racks, etc), medium (new kinds of solar cells) and long term (fusion) development
- Funding for homeowners to convert to solar
- Help the states do it
- etc

With a multipronged approach and good will its quite possible.

[Dystopic]

What we need to do first is move away from imported oil. Then away from Coal.

Tax Credits & Incentives
-Solar PV installs
-Solar water heating installs
-Gas/Elec hybrids - includes plug ins
-Full electric plug in vehicles
-LNG powered vehicles & hybrids - fleet vehicles, delivery trucks, etc
-Cash for old inefficient appliances (that old refrig in the garage...etc)

Technologies to Research & Develop
-High density battery systems - 10x the density of Li Ion - makes solar useful
-Light weight manufacturing - Carbon Fiber, etc - target 110% cost of traditional manufacturing -High volume manufacturing of Hydrogen PEM fuelcells - drop cost by an order of magnitude
-Inexpensive hydrogen production systems for homes.
-Carbon sequestration to facilitate "clean coal" for the short-med term


Infrastructure
-Smart grid from coast to coast - preferable buried - to protect from EM bombs, weather
-Large Solar Thermal installs
-New generation of safe smaller nuclear power plants
-LNG distribution system (short term solution)
-Hydrogen distribution system (medium term solution)

Not that this is complete.

Within 5 years we can cut out all the oil from OPEC by moving aggressively to LNG & hybrids

Within 15 years, all new vehicles will be electric - batteries are the issue here. clean coal sytems will be retrofitted to all coal power plants.

Within 25 years we will have a national smart grid system fed by solar, wind, geothermal, solar thermal, new gen nuclear, microgeneration (home), & dwindling natural gas & coal plants. Most people at this

[Dystopic]

Within 25 years we will have a national smart grid system fed by solar, wind, geothermal, solar thermal, new gen nuclear, microgeneration (home), & dwindling natural gas & coal plants.

Most people at this point will be net energy producers.

[Mike from NYC]

Fusion would be like a "moonshot".

[KillTheMessenger]

You will be glad to hear that once the ITER research fusion reactor is all up and running (in roughly 2025-2030), optimistic assumptions agree that it will take until about 2050 to transfer the technology into a commercial reactor designs. It will then take another 100 years to bread enough tritium to run a significant number of fusion reactors in parallel. So by roughly 2150 the world might get some 10% or so of its energy demand from fusion, at roughly five to ten times the cost of solar energy. The good news is that they US is not wasting more than $2 billion over the next ten years on this nonsense.

[Mike from NYC]

I guess it's more Manhattan project than Moonshot then?

[Dystopic]

Fusion power is always 50 years away, has been for about 50 years.

I would bet that fusion never factors in to the equation.

within 25 years we will have solar PVs at 50% efficiency, 2c per KWH, with the battery tech to back it up.

by 2150 I would hope we are working on matter-antimatter or zero point energy.

[ElBruce]

Hah, I read that headline as "What Would An Energy 'Money Shot' Look Like?" for just a second.

[deepfreezevideo]

The moon shot was the most incredible technological leap in the history of mankind and it is still paying off today. It is the shining example of the VERY BEST in liberal thinking.

[KillTheMessenger]

Not to bust your idealism... but very few technological leaps were made during the Apollo program and that was the main reason why it was successful. Was it a creative and grand scale use of technology available at the time? Absolutely. But it wasn't at all about inventing, it was all about making due with what you got before going out on a limb by designing and then deploying something previously untested (although they did that, too, and it led to the loss of Apollo 1). The NASA program that went out on a limb and tried to be inventive was the Space Shuttle. We all know how that ended: in years of delay, fourteen crew members lost and an order of magnitude cost increase over baseline estimates.

In any case, none of this matters. What matters is to tax gasoline at the 100% level, limit the size and mass of cars and give incentives to people to save energy (like tax rebates for triple pane windows etc.). None of this is rocket science. And all of it requires something most Americans don't have: a sense of how much is enough.

[Skylarstar]

All our other problems pale in comparison to the destruction of Gaia. Our technologies, our culture, our art , our political system may be forgotten. But what future generations will never forget is that we commited the greatest crime of all -- the explotation and destruction of our Mother, the Earth.

[Saidas]

I thnk the point is that all of our efforts will have to be marshalled to solve the energy crises imperative. The Wall St./economy meltdown has taken out attention away from it, not to mention delining oi/'gas prices. The declining prices are only temporary believe it and as they rise, so will the attention.

The biggest problem is liquid fuels. Peak Oil is a reality and if you don't know about it you must. Even if all of the vehichles in the US were magically turned into plug in hybrids today, you can't turn trucks, trains, ships, and planes into plug in hybrids. I'm all for solar and wind power, but you can't power these vehichles with them. Look at what happened to prices (especially food) when oil hit $149 a bbl. Now double that.

Energy is concern #1 and trumps everything else. It fundamentally and greatly affects our economy and national security.

[KillTheMessenger]

You can turn trucks into electric freight trains. That is the best thing to do and vastly superior to hybrid engine technology. And yes, you can power trains quite easily with solar and wind energy. One can power buses quite easily with electricity. These vehicles are called trolleys and they can be found in many cities all over the world. It's 120 year old technology.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolleybus

"Energy is concern #1 and trumps everything else."

Hardly. If you happen to be a human being, AIR is concern number one. Without it you die in a few minutes. Then comes WATER, without fresh water you die in a matter of days. Then comes FOOD because without that you die in a matter of weeks to months. Energy, especially the wasted energy in the US, is a very, very minor concern. We could cut out half of our energy consumption and would hardly notice any difference. We would have to reduce our energy consumption tenfold to fall back to the level of a developing nation.

[zoobiewa]

I thought the point was that we are so embedded inside the energy grid that if it failed it would cut off a lot of the water and food. A farmer or someone with food storage may not mind for a while if gas was cut off, but someone who shops at shops every day for their food and gets water from sewage treatment plants that depend on the grid are going to see water as important.

Oxygen is definitely important (but we exhale first; getting rid of carbon dioxide is even more important than gaining oxygen :)

[AlfredoENewman]

A moon shot for energy is no longer necessary thanks to the heroic efforts of a few good people. However, a "shot or several" may be necessary for implementation but hopefully not. A newly discovered fuel source is being used widely as we speak and its use will only continue to grow. When burned, it does not pollute or harm the planet in any way. I'm afraid the "jeanie is out of her bottle", "pandora is out of her box" or however you might want to phrase it but it is only a matter of time before all will concede and embrace her for what she is.

[griffintheuk]

You can turn trucks into hydrogen vehicles. And use nuclear / solar / wind / geothermal EGS to electrolyse the hydrogen. Aeroplanes are a different kettle of fish, of course.
But maybe we should cross oceans using Ekranoplans rather than 747s. A lot more fuel efficient.

[blastit]

I think they should go for an apollo scale push, I don't think we can aford not to do it and it woud be the most exciting them I could have ever imagined , besides Obama himself !!lol

[greenworker]

The Apollo space program analogy is a good one. But it would be a mistake to think that there would be one silver bullet energy approach that would do it all. There is no one moon shot that'll do it. It's going to take a broad sweep covering every angle of how we use energy in this country. Yes, it's the solar panels and windmills, but its also making homes more energy efficient; using alternative fuels like used vegetable oil; getting goods from local producers; investing in an infrastructure for reuse of building materials and other goods; and so many others. Some of these options may seem unrelated to energy but think about this - How much fuel is wasted trucking 50,000 tons of NYC trash each day to landfills in states as far away as Virginia? And how much energy is needed to cut down trees and mine ore; ship & truck them across continents; and transform them into doors and hinges in China or Mexico, and then ship them to your nearest Home Depot or Lowe's? How much energy would be saved just by buying a used door from a place like New York City's ReBuilders Source (www.rebuilderssource.coop) or any other reuse store for building materials?

[BlackbirdHighway]

Interesting that we spend more for military R&D than we do for energy, space, health, environment, and everything else combined.

It's important to have a strong military, but if you are dependent on other countries for dwindling supplies of energy resources, you can never have any real security no matter how much military strength you have.

[InternationalObserver]

But the theory (the militant theory) is that with a strong military you can just take the resources you need. Was the invasion of Iraq to remove evil dictator Saddam or take control of their oil supplies? Was the invasion of Panama to remove evil dictator Noriega or to take control of the canal?

(rhetorical only, these questions have been debated at length elsewhere)

[pmag88]

I agree. Many are starting to realize that that energy independence IS national security, therefore, it only makes sense to divert a reasonable portion of the massive military budget towards building a new, green economy.

[Clayton139]

I Agree !
I think we should back Obama on Real Pratical (ET) "Energy Technology", to acheieve Energy Independece !
Now is the time ! There is NO more Oil for the future !
Plus, Global Warming is a threat to the world ! It is happening according to all scientific facts !

[NowWhatFolks]

This was one of the main downfalls of Japan in WWII. Huge military power with no resources. It's a good point you make.

[philosopherkingtomas]

Fareed Zakaria needs to be in the Obama Cabinet

[InternationalObserver]

Actually, maybe now is a good time to re-assess the US Space Program. Hundreds of billions of dollars spent on what? Developing technologies that give us the microwave and ink pens that write upside down? I think we can do better. The Space Program is not about finding life on other planets, it's about finding mineral reserves on other planets. And who will benefit from this multi-billion dollar 'investment' in the Space Program? Some Global Conglomerate who 100 years from now will figure out some way to get those minerals from there to here.

It's madness.

[KillTheMessenger]

Neither the microwave oven nor ink pens were invented by or for the space program. The space program is also not about finding mineral reserves on other planets because nothing short of nuclear fuels can be transported from one gravity well to another at an economically acceptable cost. Thanks to the history of the solar system Earth is actually one of the best places to find a good mix of elements needed for a technological civilization. So we are already sitting on the mother load.

You are right, the space program is also not about finding life on other planets. That's only a by-product of a much, much broader scientific research agenda that has given us enormous insights in who we are and how we fit into the universe. But the details of those results bore most people to death, so they are being rarely discussed outside of the science community. That's a failure of the educational system, not one of space sciences.

Primarily the space program is an offshoot of the cold war that has transformed itself into a money machine for parts of the military industrial complex. And that's the only reason why is still exists: plenty of politicians need to bring plenty of money back to their states and NASA makes up for a ten plus billion dollar chunk of that tax distribution machinery.

[InternationalObserver]

Good points.

The microwave/upside down pen have been touted as by-products of the space program for many years, which is why I mentioned them. I don't argue that there have been many scientific discoveries as a result of the space program, but I lean more towards your latter comment that the program has become a cash cow for the military industries. And some science 'industries' too, I suspect.

I question whether this money could be better spent elsewhere. And others would argue not enough is being spent!