I stumbled across an interesting article in the NY Post. It is actually two weeks old but a former Department of Energy official is calling for a Manhattan Project for our energy supply.
I think its an interesting idea and wanted to bring the discussion to this board.
The most telling part of the story for me was this quote, again, from a former DOE official,
“Essentially, what we need is to find alternative sources of energy to replace, or enhance, our current fuel supplies.”
Isn’t this what folks have been saying for years? Why are voices like this one silenced?
What do you all think of a Manhattan or Apollo Project focused on breaking our dependence on foreign oil?
Please share widely!
I heard it but I do remember a Fusion expert being interviewed on the radio who had mentioned that a ‘manhattan project’ kind of effort might result in the technical problems being solved in something like 10 or 12 years rather than the 30 to 50 years otherwise.
<
p>
Wish I could remember the interviewer and interviewee.
for most of my lifetime, and I can’t say I have a lot of confidence in a fusion researcher’s assertion that he can solve our problems with only ten years and a gazillion dollars. I can think of other Manhattan-Project-sized ideas that have a lot better chance of making a real difference in ten years — redesigning all the cars a la Amory Lovins, making the cheap ethanol from weeds thing work, maybe doing something about the waste problem to make fission power more sustainable, putting solar panels on all the roofs, and like that.
It may be fifty years away. I am just wondering why a voice like this guy’s is stifled – I have never heard either side really push an idea like this. This former Administration official seems willing to put his neck out there and I wonder if thats why he is FORMER.
And perhaps the secret of cheap energy is in the safe at Exxon.
Instead, he chose to invade Iraq to help his family and friends in the oil business and defense industries. History will not be kind to W. I predict.
That article feels a bit scammy to me. I mean, he says “Apollo, Manhattan”, but the only thing he talks about in detail and in length is OIL DRILLING. Makes me wonder. On the other hand, his new firm was plaintiffs counsel in a recent anti-ID case in PA.
(1) Czars (crime, energy, etc.)
<
p>
(2) Wars (drugs, cancer, inflation, “terror,” etc.)
<
p>
(3) Manhattan projects
<
p>
We get this rhetoric in lieu of actions that might be painful or unpopular and would be effective and useful.
<
p>
Sorry if that sounds cranky.