Would you support a project similar to the Manhattan Project, but for alternative energy?

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
M

Martin

Lifer
Jan 15, 2000
29,178
1
81
If the government decided to spend around $350 Billion* to develop viable solar and fuel cell technologies, as well as build some of the infrastructure (like subsidize hydrogen stations and such), would support the move or not?





*How I got this number. I saw (here that the MP cost 20B in 1945. Also, I saw that in 1948 a typical car cost 1500 and today it is 25000. 2500/1500*20B = 333B.

 
C

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak
If the government decided to spend around $350 Billion* to develop viable solar and fuel cell technologies, as well as build some of the infrastructure (like subsidize hydrogen stations and such), would support the move or not?





*How I got this number. I saw (here that the MP cost 20B in 1945. Also, I saw that in 1948 a typical car cost 1500 and today it is 25000. 2500/1500*20B = 333B.
Click to expand...

I am not sure such a project is needed. There is already enough technology for us to be largely energy independant. Do I support the further development of cleaner energy sources, yes.
 
S

SuperTool

Lifer
Jan 25, 2000
14,000
2
0
No, I would not.
Fuel cells are just a way to transport energy, not create it. To make the hydrogen, energy would need to be generated elsewhere.
Solar cells are a good supplement in sunny areas, but they won't solve all the energy problems, and are unsightly and expensive.
Bottom line, solar and fuel cells are not a revolution in energy the same way nukes were a revolution in weaponry, and I don't believe they justify a 400B invesment.
Also, I believe the commercial R&D level in these technologies is sufficient without govt involvement.
If there was a technology that had sound science behind it, and promised to revolutionize energy within a short time, then I might support that level of govt funding.
 
CADsortaGUY

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Clarification: Yes I would support it, if people are really want to get serious about "alternative energy" sources and cleaner/renewable. If people really were serious about it then they would be all for spending the $ neccesary to do so.

As was pointed out to me by a certain forum member - Nuclear is about at clean as it gets but we have waste issues, but show me a reliable/constant one that doesn't and I'll point at them and call them the "soon to be richest man in the world".

Oh well, until we are serious about it, it'll just be a political issue thrown around every 4 years or so.

CkG
 
MovingTarget

MovingTarget

Diamond Member
Jun 22, 2003
8,999
109
106
yes, nuclear is a clean source of power, except for the waste problem. but our current nuclear technology is limited to fission reactions. What about developing/researching fusion to that degree?
 
F

fell8

Senior member
Nov 12, 2001
533
0
0
I would only be willing to spend that kind of jing on The Philadelphia Experiment.
 
H

HombrePequeno

Diamond Member
Mar 7, 2001
4,657
0
0
I'd like to see more spent on fusion technology. Sure solar is nice but it's not going to give you near the amount of power a fusion plant would.
 
M

Martin

Lifer
Jan 15, 2000
29,178
1
81
Sorry, I was hurrying to get to bed last night, so I didn't include everything that I should have. Of course no major alternative energy program would be complete without a huge investment in Fusion technology. I've read that current estimates say that fusion reactors would break even in 2015-2020, then several more decades until they become commercially viable.



 
T

Tripleshot

Elite Member
Jan 29, 2000
7,218
1
0
There is absolutely no need for that kind of govt spending for energy alternatives. Technology exists now. R&D has been done. It is oil companies that have blocked the technology that threatens their power and control over energy. I do not understand why that is so difficult for people to see. You have been at the mercy of energy suppliers controled by oil barons for so many years, you are numb to it. The one lesson you should have learned in this S@D market is that the one who controls the supply, sets the market price. When that profit is attacked, supply is withdrawn, until the sheep fall in line and start paying up. People are so damned blinded by this, they refuse to buck the system. So we are going to suck it up and pay 'till we bleed, unless leadership starts taking action and the system is held to accountability.

But hey, you see who is in control. You see the stonewall Cheney put up when quized about who he met with when deciding energy policy. What do you expect?

If anyone wants a change to the system that is raping the public every freekin' day, then vote this administration out and start with---NO-----DEMAND acountability from whoever you deem is a replacement that is honest and responsible to the people who make up this country, the middle class.
 
S

Syringer

Lifer
Aug 2, 2001
19,333
2
71
Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak
If the government decided to spend around $350 Billion* to develop viable solar and fuel cell technologies, as well as build some of the infrastructure (like subsidize hydrogen stations and such), would support the move or not?





*How I got this number. I saw (here that the MP cost 20B in 1945. Also, I saw that in 1948 a typical car cost 1500 and today it is 25000. 2500/1500*20B = 333B.
Click to expand...

You mean 25000/1500..
 
zephyrprime

zephyrprime

Diamond Member
Feb 18, 2001
7,512
2
81
R&D has been done. It is oil companies that have blocked the technology that threatens their power and control over energy
Click to expand...
And can you tell me precisely what this technology is and how much it costs?
 
M

MonkeyK

Golden Member
May 27, 2001
1,396
8
81
Tell me what we expect to get for that $350 Billion first. I would support such an initiative if the goal was cheap, renewable, clean energy from diverse sources.

Someone would have to help me define those terms though, since I only have a vague idea of their meaning:
How cheap is relative to current sources. I don't have a strong notion of how much current sources cost.
How renewable?
How clean is clean? People say that nuclear power is clean, but there are still issues of Uranium production and waste storage. Maybe there are similar imacts to solar if it were to become very popular.
How different do the sources need to be to make them diverse. I am of the opinion that differing the sources of energy production, lessens any one type of environmental impact of using that source, but I do not know how different the sources need to be.

I do not unconditionally support fuel cells or solar just because they exist. What is the impact of creating solar cells, what is the effect of sucking up that energy before it hits the ground? Fuel cells are just a futuristic word for battery. The implementations vary considerably.

 
Hayabusa Rider

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,265
126
I'd go for it, but not for any particular plan right now. I personally think hydrogen generated by wave power could work. I would want to see more research on that and other ideas. I would also want to see peer review and publication, much as we see for pure scientific research. Once we have a good idea of what can be done, then we need to fund infrastructure. If we are doing fuel cells, then hydrogen needs to be made and delivered. The money we are spending in Iraq would have made a tremendous difference, but we would rather go to war then do something constructive. Such is mankind.
 
CaptnKirk

CaptnKirk

Lifer
Jul 25, 2002
10,053
0
71
There are 2 big problems concenring Hydrogen as a fuel source:

1) Most hydrogen today is taken from cryogenic distilitation of natural gas,
which uses the source we are trying to save as the supplier of the commodity we want.
We convert the natural gas resource into the hydrogen, but it takes power to run the equipment

2) Alternate source of hydrogen could be derived by electrolysis of water, but
we are right back to where we are using energy to provide the power to run
the generators to provide electriciry for powering the process.

Solar power or Wind power may provide some of the energy to power these conversions,
but it is cost prohibitive to use one source to make another more costly product to replace it.
 
Hayabusa Rider

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,265
126
Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
There are 2 big problems concenring Hydrogen as a fuel source:

1) Most hydrogen today is taken from cryogenic distilitation of natural gas,
which uses the source we are trying to save as the supplier of the commodity we want.
We convert the natural gas resource into the hydrogen, but it takes power to run the equipment

2) Alternate source of hydrogen could be derived by electrolysis of water, but
we are right back to where we are using energy to provide the power to run
the generators to provide electriciry for powering the process.

Solar power or Wind power may provide some of the energy to power these conversions,
but it is cost prohibitive to use one source to make another more costly product to replace it.
Click to expand...


This is why we would need to find a non fossil source of hydrogen. There is significant energy in waves, and the technology exists in a commercially viable form. Literally all the US energy needs could be met this way. Now the problem is that AZ doesnt have much in the way of ocean. So, how do you get power there? Make hydrogen with the electricity from wave plants, and pump it in. No superconducting wires needed, just pipeline in hydrogen as is done with oil and gas. Power production could be done locally, inland. Although I this is not my area of expertise, I have yet to have someone show me it could not be done.
 
Jadow

Jadow

Diamond Member
Feb 12, 2003
5,962
2
0
350 B I L L I O N? HELL NO. After spendign about the first 50 billion, the rest of the money would just be wasted.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom