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

[KillTheMessenger]

I think we all remember how the moonshot ended: in a whimper. That is the very last model of how we want to invest our money, a singular achievement that gets canceled because of lack of interest by the public.

Not to mention that it's not research that is needed right now but regulation and implementation of what can be done today, without having to invent anything new. But that, of course, touches the more painful and less romantic side of the issue. And that is why Americans like to talk about the moon instead of hard, down to earth reality. We rather hear someone without expertise talk about how great it would be if somebody else with technical expertise just could invent the magic bullet. On the cheap, of course, because we don't want to have to pay too much, either.

[boophus]

We landed on the moon so I hardly would call that a whimper. Just because republicans cut the $1 per person cost down to $.10 does not mean it failed but that our will to grab the opportunity wilted under the stewardship of the 'nay' party who always seek to do things as they have always been done until we are totally and absolutely busted. Compared to social security and to our military budget it was peanuts. We will spend over a trillion this next year on military.

As for expertise, I am a Chemist and a Mathematician. I keep up on research in energy and there are some really exciting new ideas that are showing promise. Whether they fulfill that promise is unknown.
This one of my fav sayings : "if you keep on doing things the same way , you end up getting the same results".
While that may be comforting to the old who just want peace and stability until they die, it is not helpful to our grandchildren who will bear the escalating cost of doing so and the ignoring of potential for change that may leave them a better world. Maybe you have no children or grandchildren or any hostages to the future. Even so I would like the US to prosper when I am gone not consume every bite like a greedy pig today.

[KillTheMessenger]

I didn't say that the Apollo program failed (although, scientifically it did fall far short of its potential). But it petered out in a wave of media and public disinterest and NASA never really recovered from that.

The Apollo program, by the way, was a military program. It's primary purpose (Kennedy said so repeatedly himself) was to defeat the USSR politically without having to launch nuclear missiles. And it did that wonderfully. But after this main goal had been achieved (using mostly the results of military hardware development and derivatives thereof), the nation lost interest and so did the politicians. Since 1972 NASA has become a giant administrative monster that spends big bucks to keep some mostly Southern Congress men and Senators happy by converting tax payer dollars into overly expensive under-performing hardware. A tiny portion of its budget is actually used to advance aviation and space sciences (and at that it excels).

[KillTheMessenger]

"As for expertise, I am a Chemist and a Mathematic­ian."

I am sure you are aware that energy generation (with exception of chemical fuels) falls mostly into the expertise of physics and engineering. Number theory and topology are rather rarely employed in the design of solar cells and wind turbines.

Now, I would like to ask you, as a mathematician, to evaluate the logic of my argument. As you may have noticed, I am not criticizing the notion that we need to do something. I am merely saying that the American approach of romanticizing past history is not helpful in solving problems for which pretty well understood solutions are available. We could do way more today. All it takes are government regulations, increased taxation, slightly higher energy prices and state bond measures to get started. Instead we are dragging our heels over the idea that "someone, somewhere, please, invent a perpetual motion machine or at least a close cousin thereof so that we can get our energy fix for free". It's not a technical problem at this point but one of attitude. And the American attitude in these matters is incredibly shortsighted and anti-intellectual.

We indeed need to do something: grab our wallets and pull out some serious money. Everything else is just empty talk.

[rhetoricdog]

And I liked how he discussed his own children, should they to be 106. That's forward thinking.

[deepfreezevideo]

Some whimper...­THE MICROPROCESSOR.
You call that a whimper?

[KillTheMessenger]

The microprocessor wasn't invented by NASA. Neither were computers, Teflon or Velcro. Please get a grip on reality and read up on the history of technology.

[Drwho1300]

A 'moon shot' style energy initiative would need to go along the lines of a nationwide initiative as opposed to a singular project. A 50 state initiative to harness local renewable sources of energy. Run at the state and if needed the county level utilizing and competing for federal funding. Mandate the amount of power generated to recieve funding and that the project must be 30% completed within the first year. this is an initiative that pays for itself dozens of times over. Well worth an investment of $250B or more.

[Semaj51]

Good idea, but the time line is impractical. For projects requiring construction, it could take one to two years just for the planning and meeting the local zoneing and environmental requirements. Than add the lead time for the materials and such. A more realistic period would be five years.

[boophus]

So we do nothing right? Just keep going to war to wrest oil from other countries and keep destroying our environment to keep everything running until the last dregs are sucked up.

[Drwho1300]

there are plans and plans on the books, it has been the funding that is lacking. This is why Govenors would be running the show on these projects, these are projects that can be fast tracked like the manufacturing ramp ups during WWII. This is about getting a lot of people to work and tearing through the red tape to get things done. YES WE CAN!