Comments on: Apollo Is Calling

By: SFC B

SFC B — Sun, 10 Aug 2008 14:32:16 +0000

I never said that developing a post-fossil fuel energy source can’t be done. I also never said it shouldn’t be tried. What I said was that the current slate of alternative energy sources are not capable of meeting the requirements. The only currently available alternative which can meet our current requirements is nuclear power. And that has a lifespan similar to oil in that there is only so much uranium oxide which is useful for power generation.

Mr. Willis’ analogy to relying on the oil companies to develop the next energy source being similar to Horse and Buggy Inc developing the car is also fundamentally flawed. It wasn’t a massive government program which developed the auto mobile. A whole slew of talented individuals working independently and driven by the profit motive developed what we now know as the automobile. There was no requirement to have the government fund such development.

And EL, as far as a Republican platform of “It can’t be done so why try?”, is that at all similar to the apparent Democratic platform of “We can do it, but it won’t make an immediate impact so why try?” as regards to increasing our supply of oil or our ability to refine what we do have? I know I’m stealing from Leno when I say it, but we sure could use that oil it would have taken 10 years to get on the market if Clinton had authorized drilling in ANWR back in 1995.

By: Enlightened Liberal

Enlightened Liberal — Sun, 10 Aug 2008 08:40:08 +0000

sfc, that’s a losing, un-American philosophy. On the other hand, it IS the Republic party platform- “It can’t be done so why try?” Imagine if Thomas Edison or Henry Ford had your attitude.

By: SFC B

SFC B — Sun, 10 Aug 2008 01:41:31 +0000

Conspiracy Theories aside, there has been hard work on post-oil technologies for at least three decades, with billions upon billions spent. The simple fact is that fossil fuels are too good of an energy source, and thus are difficult to replace. It’s not a lack of money or motivation which has kept non-fossil fuel alternatives off the market. It’s the fact they simply aren’t as good at delivering energy as oil, coal, and natural gas. No amount of hope and prayer changes the fact that solar cells don’t convert sunlight efficiently. No amount of government money makes wind blow off the California coast during the times people need it. No amount of tax subsidies for alternative energy development will make geothermal energy useful outside of Hawaii and Yellowstone.

By: Duros62

Duros62 — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 16:08:35 +0000

and we never really had a good answer to “after the Moon, what?”

Drilling!

By: Parthenon

Parthenon — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 15:57:52 +0000

People will be much more willing to invest if they know that investment will pay off … huge.

Lord knows I’d be willing to invest if I knew my payoff would be huge. But since when do investors know beyond doubt that they’ve got a big payoff coming? Especially in a new (or newly important) industry?

Do we really need to promise that the lucky winners will become Henry Ford billionares before investors will be involved? I don’t think so.

I imagine some combination of private/public activity is going to be required.

Like both the internet and space program. People have made money in both, though for the latter it has been primarily universities.

By: I'm a Hick

I'm a Hick — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 14:01:59 +0000

We have to provide incentives for “oil” companines to become “energy” companies in fact as well as in name, and, as Farris notes, to encourage new private initiatives. I imagine some combination of private/public activity is going to be required.

We also need to be willing to make a long-term committment and have as solid a vision as we can develop. Apollo was a huge success, but interest waned after the initial landings (at least as reflected by Congressional funding), and we never really had a good answer to “after the Moon, what?”

By: Oliver Willis

Oliver Willis — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 11:52:20 +0000

If that’s true, where’s the beef? No doubt there’s money in them thar hills, but it requires some capital and risk.

By: SaveFarris

SaveFarris — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 11:47:38 +0000

At the same time, we need for that source of fuel to not have the side effects of leaving us beholden and in debt to despots and robber barons

And here’s where you lost me. Profit is one of the greatest motivators known to mankind. People are working on it precisely because they think they are going to get filthy, stinking rich. If potential inventors know they are going to be demonized and taxed into oblivion, they’re going to be much less willing to work on the project. And that helps no one. Platitudes about “saving the Earth” are great and all, but this is reality, not a Rodenberryian utopia. People will be much more willing to invest if they know that investment will pay off … huge.