A post by Maynard
Oliver North’s editorial, “The Price of Appeasement”, addresses Western impotence in dealing with the rogue nation of Iran. Why is the Iranian military allowed to cross into an adjacent nation and take hostages and face no consequences other than a few sullen words?
We know there are real factors, both practical and political, that make a tough response difficult. These details are endlessly debated, and I’ve got nothing to add to that discussion right now. But North’s editorial ends with these words, and he makes a crucial point:
Between 1942 and 1945, the U.S. launched the Manhattan Project to build a bomb that would end World War II. At the time, it was the largest, most expensive scientific and engineering project ever undertaken — costing about $2 billion — roughly $20 billion in today’s dollars. To stop hostage taking as an instrument of Iranian state policy requires freeing the world from bondage to oil. A “Manhattan Project” to develop an alternative energy source would make appeasing radical Islamic hostage holders unnecessary.
We’re wrestling with numerous symptoms of the same fundamental problem: The world runs on oil, and the bulk of the oil reserves are in the hands of people that range from unreliable to satanic. This is a formula for an endless series of global crises.
I wish I could point to a simple solution, but there isn’t one. I’m not quite sure what specific goal a new “Manhattan Project” would pursue. Certainly something unconventional. Drilling in Alaska isn’t enough. Some possibilities:
- Solar energy from the desert or from satellites
- Ethanol, not from corn (which is a huge boondoggle!) but rather from sugar or cellulose
- Geothermal technology, extracting heat from deep below the surface of the planet
- Breeder reactors
- Fusion reactors
- Cold fusion
I won’t try to give an answer, but that’s the question we should be asking: How do we move to replace oil with an alternative source of abundant energy? If we establish that roadmap, then we’ve got the key to rise above this evil. Otherwise we’re stuck on a path of continuing appeasement.
“Appeasement is nothing more than surrender on the installment plan”. William Wilberforce
Brava Tammy!!
He’s right and you’re right! This should be done in secret like the Manhattan Project so the people that control the oil reserves don’t have time to position themselves to profit from the New Manhattan Project technology.
There have been projects aimed at using municipal household garbage as a fuel. I can’t point at any resounding successes, but it would be mighty nice if an economical way can be found to simultaneously reduce landfills and provide energy.
The easiest, quickest fix would be to cut down on energy use, while working on the new technologies. That would have the immediate effect of significantly decreasing the U.S. reliance on foreign oil, although the rest of the world would still need it. Unfortunately, Americans (as a group) haven’t shown the willingness to make sacrifices for this cause. It would obviously help if the political leadership would promote this; however, anything the Republicans would suggest in this area (if they were actually willing to do so) would be fought tooth-and-nail by the Democrats, lest the Republicans get any credit.
I agree that there should be some Manhattan project for energy. Of the projects that you suggest, I would say that only two show much short term promise – Ethanol & Breeder Reactors. Solar and wind power will always be a niche energy source as they would require an extensive amount of land use to generate the amount of energy required to replace oil. Geothermal is not ready for prime time yet due primarily to operational obstacles and feasible locations for geothermal plants. The US has been working on fusion power since the 1960s with little success (still get less power out than power put into the fusion reactors). I’m not holding my breath on this potential energy source.
Our goal should be to stop the use of burning hydrocarbons for power. All stationary power sources (houses, buildings, facilities, etc) should ultimately use reactors for this power. For mobile sources (automobiles, motorcycles, boats, etc) we should move towards ethanol. This won’t make the anthropogenic global warming scaremongers happy but it is a better choice than oil products in that it is renewable.
And another component of this project should be the upgrading of the national power grid – it is archaic and results in a lot of energy loss (waste). We should be conserving more.
The German’s had a method of converting coal to gasoline, and mobil had a method of converting coal to gasoline back during the last gasoline crisis in the 1970’s. They claimed $1.50 at the pump back then.
Back when I worked at Texas A&M they had a contract to review all the German data for conversion of coal to gasoline. The Mobil Oil method involved converting coal to alcohol then to gasoline. Mobil and Exxon merged, so what happened to that technology? (we wonder, don’t we). This would be the most likely to pay off in the short term. Then some battery research, and ways to generate electricity that doesn’t mess up the environment so much. That is were I would focus on this problem first.
Bill Clinton put vast amounts of coal off limits back in the 1990’s by designating some area as a national park or preserve. Don’t remember.
The oil companies are screwing us for sure (and I still own 600 shares of Exxon-Mobil).
If we begin to develop some of the technology for coal conversion it would take the pressure off the oil price, and give the Middle Eastern oil producers less money to fund terror.
Even Newt recognizes the problem of oil dependency and carbon burning. In a debate with John Kerry, Newt said:
“We should be moving to develop all kinds of new green technology…â€
“The Greening of Gingrich”
http://www.humanevents.com/rightangle/index.php?p=21960
Maynard, drilling in Alaska isn’t enough. Agreed but it would be a start. ANAWR is the NE corner of Alaska next to Canada. It is about the size of Southern California (Stinking huge) and i believe the original drilling site was to be 5000 acres? Congress should take a fact finding tour there next January and check out the pristine conditions in an area that gets no sun 4 months a year. Who better in the world to extract oil cleanly from the earth than us?
Also France has hundreds of mid-sized nuclear plants, why can’t we? The technology is here now.
i worked on a couple of jobsites that 1) collect methane from landfills and run a generating plant and 2) collect methane from wastewater plants and generate electricity. Another good idea.
There’s lots that can be done now.
Thanks for you continued good posts
I think peeble bed reactors would be a better choice than fast breeder reactors due to inherent safety of the peeble bed reactors. And, I agree with the need to develop fusion, but I don’t have much hope for cold fusion.
I have to agree with James – Pebble Bed Nuclear Reactors are the answer in more ways than one. A Pebble Bed Reactor would provide clean energy and allow us, via splitting steam, to create a fuel source for Hydrogen Fuel cell cars like the GM Hywire concept. These two items, clean nuke energy and fuel cell vehicles, would drastically reduce our reliance on oil. Sure we’d still need oil but we’d not longer be bent over the barrels we buy.
Please re-examine Col. North’s assumption that oil-dependence demands appeasement of Iran’s state policy of hostage-taking. I will continue to purchase oil at market prices and I will not have to appease hostage-takers. Raise prices all you want, you cannot repeal market forces. Shale oil will become economic (see Royal Dutch Shell patent story on the web today). I will have oil and I will not change my state policy of war against terrorists and the those that harbor them.
There are things we can do to make our cars and trucks more efficient. Reshaping the combustion chamber (by a guy in his garage in India) has promise. Hydrogen injection to enable gasoline to burn more completely is another way, and has shown 30 to 40 percent milage increase in some fairly well controled tests. More rigorous test methods are needed to prove these inovations out.
Guys in their garages across the coutry will come up with the answers, not GM.