"Manhattan Project 2"

[NattyLight]

This topic has often been a topic of debate between my friends and me, and I was actually shocked that it came up as a topic in tonight's debate. I'm even more shocked that both candidates avoided the question like a SARS infected monkey.

Let's think about it. Oil companies are making billions in revenue off a non-renewable resource and intruding on foreign lands primarily to do so. The lands that are occupied by US infrastructure and process required for oil are directly causing spite against the US, which have resulted in war. Remember, Osama Bin Laden declared war on the US because of the occupation of "their".

A fat cat never wants to share his dinner plate...unless it will in turn provide him with a feast at a later date. The government should hand select a brain trust of physicists, chemical engineers, environmentalists, mathematicians, and business types and have oil companies fund a Manhattan Project 2; an exploration for a 100% renewable, clean energy source that is adaptable to all of Americans needs.

The oil companies, the only real private sector with enough hands-on capital to invest, would be on the ground floor of something truly revolutionary and would likely see unimaginable profits when properly harnessed and dictated producible. Furthermore, the American people through a tax investments could even see a handsome return on investment.

China, India, Europe, Russia would all dismiss antiquated oil and turn to the US for the technology and supply, thus inversing the stigma of the US being a consumer vice a producer. This, in my opinion, would be the perfect merger of free market capitalism and patriotism. Furthermore, it would appease the Middle East as our warplanes and servicemen would no longer have to occupy "holy lands" to protect our self-interest, uh, I mean "freedoms".

I for one would buy that for a dollar, what are your thoughts.

[PeterMP]

We don't need it. We need help w/ implementation and companies need assurances that oil companies won't drop prices like what happened in the 1970s and a little time:

http://www.pnas.org/content/105/2/464

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellulosic_ethanol#Cellulosic_ethanol_commercialization

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_hydrogen_production#Economics

http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2008/january9/nanowire-010908.html

[RabidFan]

I'm all for it if John Lithgow signs on.

[NattyLight]

We don't need it. We need help w/ implementation and companies need assurances that oil companies won't drop prices like what happened in the 1970s and a little time:

http://www.pnas.org/content/105/2/464

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellulosic_ethanol#Cellulosic_ethanol_commercialization

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_hydrogen_production#Economics

http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2008/january9/nanowire-010908.html

I guess my main point is if the oil companies were directly involved and offered incentives this situation wouldn't be a factor.

[DjTj]

A fat cat never wants to share his dinner plate...unless it will in turn provide him with a feast at a later date. The government should hand select a brain trust of physicists, chemical engineers, environmentalists, mathematicians, and business types and have oil companies fund a Manhattan Project 2; an exploration for a 100% renewable, clean energy source that is adaptable to all of Americans needs.

How would they decide what technology to pursue?

Biofuels? Solar? Batteries? Fusion?

During the Manhattan Project, the target was very focused - we knew that if it was possible, the answer was inside the atom, and there was only a small community of Physicists that could figure it out. We rightfully put all our eggs in one basket.

For alternative energy, we need many eggs in many baskets. We can provide incentives for oil companies to provide broad funding, but centralizing the efforts within the government would probably be less effective than allowing many different laboratories to pursue many different solutions and then letting the free market determine the best one.

[Raub]

Let's do SOMETHING

[NattyLight]

DjTj, you can use a tool that's already employed in our defense RDTE and acquisition process called trade space; it works. Every alternative comes with associated pros and cons with it. The analysis of these alternatives weighs each option with scientific and economic rigor. The only difference...the solution at hand would not have a finite ending like a weapon does. That's where I think the fear grows within the private financial / corporate folks...if there is no "death" to a certain solution, then there's no future business...right?

However comma. Energy is something that is around us. We, as a people, a global people need to capture it, and eventually (meaning centuries) should have energy available and have it transparent to consumers. Take information for example. The dude that came up with the WWW (as I remember it from the BigO and Dukes show) wanted the transfer of information to all people to be free...when you look at how much information is available versus the cost nowadays...it virtually (no pun intended) is.

The next step should be energy, period. Once that average cost of energy is minimized (after making huge, short-time recurring profits on it for America), financial focus can be geared toward other things that haven't even been conceived of yet. In short, America should have the capability to automate energy for next to nothing, just as information has been.

[PeterMP]

In short, America should have the capability to automate energy for next to nothing, just as information has been.

Well, that's not going to happen anytime soon. The fact of the matter is that no alternative energy is EXTREMELY cost effecient w/ respect to oil. If prices stay where they are, they can be cost competitive. We aren't really talking about lowering prices (at this time) just changing where the money is going.

[Raub]

Well, that's not going to happen anytime soon. The fact of the matter is that no alternative energy is EXTREMELY cost effecient w/ respect to oil. If prices stay where they are, they can be cost competitive. We aren't really talking about lowering prices (at this time) just changing where the money is going.

Emerging technologies are expensive. As those technologies mature, the prices fall. Compare the prices of PC products now with their prices 10 years ago. The difference is staggering. Can the same be done with alternative energies? I don't know, and we will never know if we don't make a concerted effort to introduce these products.

[NattyLight]

Well, that's not going to happen anytime soon. The fact of the matter is that no alternative energy is EXTREMELY cost effecient w/ respect to oil. If prices stay where they are, they can be cost competitive. We aren't really talking about lowering prices (at this time) just changing where the money is going.

Agreed, for the most part. But will you agree that an aggressive initiative needs to be commenced? For example, would you rather $700B (which is just the INITIAL investment) be pumped into a seemingly failed economic philosophy or be invested into actually bettering a flawed, dependent energy concept. Now, near term the answer could be intuitive to the former...but what happens 10years, 30years, 75years from now? Is our country really investing in anything other than smoke and mirrors with $700B, $1T, $3T commitments over the next 2 or 3 years to bums with a horrible business model!?!

An econ-political scholar I am not, admittedly, but what can we do? Sadly enough, I believe the answer will ultimately be "nothing" as all we seem to care about is "what have you done for me lately", near term, short sighted, catastrophic bull****. Our economy, currently, is based off of fabricated 1's and 0's, over valued property, and infinitely printed paper laden with water marks and falsehoods. Why not invest in something people want? Like real energy? Rather than what we have to offer to the world now, which is approximately nothing.

[Destino]

Why would we want another elitist project? I think it's time for Wasilla Project 1 and we should allow only small town average joe six pack americans to participate. That way the solution will be really american and in line with small town values.

[NattyLight]

Why would we want another elitist project? I think it's time for Wasilla Project 1 and we should allow only small town average joe six pack americans to participate. That way the solution will be really american and in line with small town values.

Get real, Joe Six Pack only has a voice on ExtremeSkins.com

[PeterMP]

Agreed, for the most part. But will you agree that an aggressive initiative needs to be commenced? For example, would you rather $700B (which is just the INITIAL investment) be pumped into a seemingly failed economic philosophy or be invested into actually bettering a flawed, dependent energy concept. Now, near term the answer could be intuitive to the former...but what happens 10years, 30years, 75years from now? Is our country really investing in anything other than smoke and mirrors with $700B, $1T, $3T commitments over the next 2 or 3 years to bums with a horrible business model!?!

An econ-political scholar I am not, admittedly, but what can we do? Sadly enough, I believe the answer will ultimately be "nothing" as all we seem to care about is "what have you done for me lately", near term, short sighted, catastrophic bull****. Our economy, currently, is based off of fabricated 1's and 0's, over valued property, and infinitely printed paper laden with water marks and falsehoods. Why not invest in something people want? Like real energy? Rather than what we have to offer to the world now, which is approximately nothing.

1. You have a model for what you want to do (i.e. information). That model doesn't include putting $700 billion in a short period of time.

2. What makes you think this CAN happen for energy? Yes, it happened for information, but it hasn't happened for EVERY process/industries (e.g. there are alot of costs still not associated directly with energy).

3. I'd rather the money (well we need to continue funding basic research, and we could use an infusion into implementation for alt energy, but not $700 billion) go to balancing the budget.

[bcl05]

I'd compare it more to the Apollo program, but fundamentally I think its a good and necessary idea. It would re-establish the USA as the forefront for scientific and technological innovation, would free us of our ties to oil, and would make other countries come to us for cheap and clean energy tech. The key would be getting current energy industry companies to buy in with incentives and to give them a big slice of the pie when the profits eventually start coming in.

[skinfan133]

wow, glad to see it was a question. there needs to be more national debate on this topic, its something i've been mulling about for some time.

for example: http://www.extremeskins.com/showthread.php?t=249736

[Corcaigh]

During the Manhattan Project, the target was very focused - we knew that if it was possible, the answer was inside the atom, and there was only a small community of Physicists that could figure it out. We rightfully put all our eggs in one basket.

But we didn't put all our eggs in one basket. The Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs were different designs with different fissile material. That material was produced by different enrichment processes.

In the Manhattan Project we made many bets.

As for where to put money ... I don't know. Fusion physics isn't lacking billions of investment. The next experiment ITER costs about $10B.

I can see two immediate areas with huge payoff, but I don't know if they are starved of funding.

(1) Breakthroughs in battery technology to increase capacity.

(2) Making production costs of solar cells lower so that they can be the roof or our buildings.

Both of these would produce immediate impact. Home electrolysis of water using solar energy combined with cars powered on hydrogen would make a big difference to energy independence.

[DCsportsfan53]

Been saying this for awhile now, I completely agree. With proper resource and manpower dedication it's a problem I believe can be solved much quicker than people think.

[DjTj]

But we didn't put all our eggs in one basket. The Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs were different designs with different fissile material. That material was produced by different enrichment processes.

In the Manhattan Project we made many bets.

Uranium and Plutonium aren't different baskets ... those are two different sides of the same basket. All of the important technical challenges were in one area: particle physics. It was not hard to identify the most important people to get involved, and to map out the problems that needed to be solved.

Alternative energy solutions are much more diverse, and I don't think building a bunch of government labs is really going to do that much better than providing funding to all of the existing projects already ongoing.

As for where to put money ... I don't know. Fusion physics isn't lacking billions of investment. The next experiment ITER costs about $10B.

I can see two immediate areas with huge payoff, but I don't know if they are starved of funding.

(1) Breakthroughs in battery technology to increase capacity.

(2) Making production costs of solar cells lower so that they can be the roof or our buildings.

Both of these would produce immediate impact. Home electrolysis of water using solar energy combined with cars powered on hydrogen would make a big difference to energy independence.

From a few press releases last year, it seems that the government is definitely trying to fund these things:

http://www.energy.gov/news/5523.htm

http://www.energy.gov/news/4855.htm

There are even fancy names like "Solar America Initiative" and the "United States Advanced Battery Consortium" - not really that far off from the Manhattan Project, although much less centralized.

[Corcaigh]

Uranium and Plutonium aren't different baskets ... those are two different sides of the same basket.

I hope you have a very, very big basket.

[zoony]

I sort of agree with DJ here. with the chase for the nuclear weapon, the bulk of the science and theory had already been worked out. It was just a matter of lining everything up in the physical world to match what was already on paper. In other words, the teams knew where it would lead, they just had to figure out how to get there.

It's entirely different when you have no idea where you might end up, or if what you're doing will ever bear fruit. Seems like most energy initiatives fall into this category.

Whatever happened to superconductors? They were all the rage for a while. And room temp fusion. Or maybe not even room temp- just fusion in general that is feasible.

[Rudechain]

the point is we are using a resource now that will run out. It's getting more expensive to extract and refine and the demand has skyrocketed. the use of fossil fuels is not going to get cheaper in the long run, even if we limit impact on the enviorment such as clean burning coal. These resources are finite and will eventually run out.

solar power has come a long way, nuclear energy is much safer now, wind power technology has improved as well as geothermal and biomass energy technologies.

We as a nation do need to investigate these energy alternatives. I would suggest starting with the most ready alternative which in my opinion is the nuclear option. Of course there comes the problem of disposing of the waste. But there are options such as Yucca mountain but eventually this too will not be an option. There are many great minds on this planet and this is something that needs to be looked at collectively.

Solar and wind are viable energy alternatives on a local and personal level. They should be continue to pursue these alternatives by providing incentives for homeowners and construction industries to utilize these. In the meantime, research of better turbine generators has to continue.

Biomass is a little tougher, but I think it's just another option that has to be considered. Perhaps this is more of an industrial technology to offset some energy costs, but none the less it should continue to be explored.

[Corcaigh]

I sort of agree with DJ here. with the chase for the nuclear weapon, the bulk of the science and theory had already been worked out. It was just a matter of lining everything up in the physical world to match what was already on paper. In other words, the teams knew where it would lead, they just had to figure out how to get there.

You have much greater confidence in the people involved, than they did themselves at the time.

The physics was understood, but they didn't know if they could engineer it and that's why very different approaches were taken.

Exactly the same situation exists with controlled thermonuclear fusion. The basic physics has been understood for five decades. But we can't do the engineering to make it viable.

If we could develop a manufacturing process for solar cells so that they were much cheaper we could make them ubiquitous and get much of our energy for nothing.