We need a Manhattan Project for energy

[angryfirelord]

We all know that oil is going to run out soon. Sure, we might be able to get some more from oil shale and offshore drilling, but that's only going to be a temporary relief. Even if one doesn't believe in global warming, pollutants are a problem and every time we run our cars or continue operations of coal plants, we're putting up particles that will last for at least 50 years.

Now, while I'm not a big fan of government handouts to corporations (I still consider myself a liberal capitalist), the time has come to take action...now! We need to gather the best and brightest minds from around the US and find a series of solutions in order to help wean ourselves off of oil. Personally, I'd say a 4 to 5 year timeline is sufficient enough for something to be developed and another 5-10 years to build the infrastructure. I'm not a climatologist or an engineer, so I can't say for sure what the requirements would be. The way I look at it, the solution needs to be like a tree. A tree doesn't use one giant leaf to get its energy. It uses lots of little leaves that all contribute back to the source. We need to do the same here: invest in big areas like wind farms, solar plants, and nuclear power, but we also need to get people off-the grid as well with their own mini wind turbines and solar collectors.

For the Republicans and Libertarians who may be reading this, I can understand your skepticism, especially through funding projects via government subsidies. But there are two ways of doing this: the government can simply sit by and do nothing while the situation worsens or the government can take an active role in helping get ourselves off of foreign oil faster. To put it in today's inflationary numbers, the Manhattan Project cost around $20 billion and the Apollo project cost around $100 billion. Obama's plan isn't that much higher, with a committment to providing $150 billion over a 10 year period. Unlike the bailouts, this money is also going to yield a return over time, so the progam could pay for itself.

What's it to ya? :)

[Jackpine Radical]

1. The Manhattan Project

was a Manhattan Project for energy. Just not the slow-release kind you're thinking about. ;)

[madrchsod]

2. we gave 700 billion to the banks who produce nothing

100 billion would be more than enough to do what needs to be done

[jpak]

3. We don't need a Manhattan Project to produce new sustainable energy technologies

They already exist.

What's needed is a well funded, coherent and sustained energy policy to implement and deploy mass/public transit, energy efficiency and renewable energy.

[MadMaddie]

4. With all of that you need Government and Public will....

There has to be enthusiasm and motivation.

[jpak]

5. That's the key to a sustained policy

and right now Obama has the opportunity to make it happen...

[Juche]

6. Look up the Apollo Alliance

http://apolloalliance.org/

http://apolloalliance.org/apollo-14/the-full-report/

That is what they propose. I guess Manhattan project has a negative connotation, so they used the Apollo Program.

They want $50 billion a year for 10 years. More than worth it because by the end US consumers will save hundreds of billions in lower energy costs and more reliable energy. In a very real way the program pays for itself. In between the tax revenue from the new jobs created and the energy savings from lower cost, more reliable energy we would gain money from pursuing an Apollo program.

[Citizen Number 9]

7. We sure do need one, but what would it cost?

Let's say we want to make 20% of the new passenger vehicles sold each year alternative energy vehicles.

That's about 1.6 million units per year that will be needed.

Cost to build/retool 20 factories = $50 billion

There are about 120,000 existing service stations, give or take, so let's say we need to get a minimum of 20,000 stations for the new fuel out there;

Cost to retrofit or build 20,000 locations = $40 billion

Incentive cost subsidy per vehicle = $8,000 for a total of $12.6 billion

So, about $100 billion in cost the first year and quite a bit less for successive years.

Average fuel economy is what, about 25 mpg? With an average of 15,000 miles per year, that's about 600 gallons of gasoline saved per vehicle per year for a total of 960 million gallons saved the first year.

Unfortunately, we burn 140 billion gal of gas each year, so this initiative would only reduce gasoline consumption by about 0.7% the first year.

Yowie. It is a big problem.

[rwenos]

8. Manhattan Project is RIGHT!

I have never been able to figure out why this has not been pitched to the electorate as a NATIONAL SECURITY issue, just as pressing -- hell, MORE pressing! -- than the Sisyphian struggle in Iraq. We take control of our oil consumption, and reduce it, we take the gun out of the hands of terrorists who hate our guts.

The points made on this thread about the urgency of this are right on the mark. And even the RW'ers should be on board -- why wouldn't they be, unless they work for Big Oil.

This is a real opportunity for the center-left among us to change the world and help America at the same time. An intoxicating combination, that.

[MadMaddie]

9. You are right it is a NATIONAL SECURITY issue,

It's an issue that the current administration does not take seriously.

January 20th can't get here soon enough....