2008.06.30
A new Manhattan Project for energy - sort of
Virginia Rep. Randy Forbes, R-Hampton Roads, is on the right track with his call for a new Manhattan Project aimed at weaning the nation off foreign oil. But his notion of providing incentives (up to $24 billion in prize money) for scientists who develop technologies that get us toward that goal may not be the best way of going about it.
After all, it's not like the Manhattan Project offered up a reward to the first scientist to successfully detonate an atomic bomb.
Still, at least Forbes is talking about doing something - while naysayers complain that the plan does nothing to bring down high gas prices RIGHT NOW. Ironically, some of the critics support increasing off-shore drilling, which also does nothing to bring down gas prices immediately. It also does nothing to end our long-term dependence on a scarce energy source that will grow only scarcer.
We're writing about Forbes' proposal for an editorial that will run tomorrow.
RSS feed 
"Ironically, some of the critics support increasing off-shore drilling, which also does nothing to bring down gas prices immediately."
Repeat after me: "Oil prices rise and fall in the short term on future expectations."
We spent two whole days educating you last week, and you still don't get it. Why don't you just stop writing about this topic altogether? You're embarrassing yourselves.
Comment by Josh — June 30, 2008 @ 12:37 pm
It takes more than disagreeing with you to embarrass us, Josh, especially when the Bush administration's top expert on the subject agrees with us.
Guy Caruso, head of the federal Energy Information Administration, said, ""It would be a relatively small effect, because it would take such a long time to bring those supplies on. It doesn't affect prices that much."
Oh, and McCain's top economic adviser, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, also said that offshore drilling would have no immediate impact on oil supplies or prices.
Even proponents of offshore drilling disagree with you, Josh:
Dr. A.F. Alhaji, an associate professor of economics at Ohio Northern University and an international expert on oil markets:
Comment by Dan Radmacher — June 30, 2008 @ 1:01 pm
If the government must get involved, offering prize money is probably the only way they should do it. Predictably, the RT objects to the only sensible part of the plan.
Speaking of the Manhattan Project, why are liberal opposed to nuclear energy again?
Comment by Josh — June 30, 2008 @ 1:01 pm
I hope we all agree that we need both a long-term AND a short-term solution to gas prices.
Comment by Henry — June 30, 2008 @ 1:05 pm
Henry...
I agree with you whole heartedly. There is no short term solution to the problem. It took us 200 years to get to where we are now. Let's just hope it doesn't take another 200 years to finalize some plans to overcome it.
Comment by Will — June 30, 2008 @ 3:29 pm
It's very easy to find experts of the day taking "it takes too long" as an excuse for not drilling. I've seen comments 5, 7, 10 and 15 years old with that line. Of course, had we drilled during those days it would be in your tanks today boys and girls. Yes, it may not be enough...of course we really don't know what's down there until we go looking. So stop the talk and go look... but not for me, do it for the children!! Now, as someone who is moderately familiar with markets, oil futures have transended historical parimeters in thinking and performance. Everyone wants a piece of the action. Billions coming out of stocks and mutual funds are looking for a home. Right now, I feel like this is 2003 and we are talking housing market bubble. It's going to be a long ride and there are plenty of real problems to keep prices high, but this one might pop as well....but well into the future.
Comment by Al — June 30, 2008 @ 3:36 pm
While they are often cited, the Manhattan Project and the Apollo space program are poor parallels for the current situation with energy. First, Manhattan and Apollo addressed limited, well-defined engineering challenges. There will always be a very complex mix of energy sources based on many different factors. Second, Manhattan and Apollo addressed problems with which the private sector had no incentive or role in addressing. On the other hand, immense profit awaits those who can develop new energy sources. If anything, the rewards proposed by Rep. Forbes are superfluous. Rewards which would incentive the private sector to accelerate its efforts significantly would need to be much higher. If there were some well defined technology which would be too expensive for the private sector to develop, then an effort similar to Manhattan or Apollo would be justifiable. Nuclear fusion would be the obvious candidate, but there's extreme doubt that it can ever be developed. While it might be easy to say this in retrospect, there was not much doubt that Manhattan and Apollo could succeed given enough time and resources. The critical question was whether they could succeed before the efforts of our enemies.
Comment by VaGuy — June 30, 2008 @ 6:31 pm
Sigh. RT guys, it's always been about incentives. This is how you change people's behavior.
Comment by Jim — July 1, 2008 @ 8:36 am
Jim
That sounds like an advertisement for the government pushing morals on people. The liberals think it is wrong to drive a big SUV so they push their morals down out throats with laws.
Comment by Henry — July 1, 2008 @ 9:40 am
You
Comment by terry — July 1, 2008 @ 10:37 am
Henry...
How did driving an SUV become a morals issue?
Fact of the matter is that its just plain dumb. Why drive something that everyone that hasn't slept under a rock for the last 25 years knows is a gas hog and wastes energy.
The Hummer crowd is a good example. That vehicle has absolutely no practical value on the roads. It's purely a case of egos between the elites of the world..."My SUV is bigger than your SUV". PLEASE...get over the ego.
I've come to the conclusion that most SUV's are driven because the drivers behind their wheels are so inept, they believe they need something that big to protect them from their own bad driving skills.
Comment by Will — July 1, 2008 @ 11:05 am
Will
You see it as dumb. I do not. You are prejudiced against SUV's. That's fine as long as you don't demand restrictions on them because you don't like them. It is no different from wanting to put restrictions on strip clubs because you don't like them. It's legislating morality and that includes government-enforced CAFE standards.
Comment by Henry — July 1, 2008 @ 11:16 am
Terry
Liberals use the Bible too. Feed the poor, stewardship of the Earth, judge not.. etc.
Comment by Henry — July 1, 2008 @ 11:19 am
Just because it
Comment by terry — July 1, 2008 @ 1:13 pm
Dan,
You said drilling will "do nothing" to lower gas prices. Guy Caruso didn't say that. Nice try, though. All conservatives I know of say there will be an immediate effect ranging from a little to a lot.
As for McCain, I don't think really be called an energy hawk, seeing he's only been at the table for three weeks. He hasn't even come out for ANWR.
If you want to match sources with those prices will immediately fall, that isn't hard to do. The top two Republicans in Congress, Boehner and Blunt, Rush Limbaugh, George Will -- these are the ones I can think of off the top of my head.
But you people take it one further. You state with certainty that drilling will NOT lower prices, not now, not in the future. Incredibly, you cite the oil companies as a culprit with their "record-breaking profits", indictating further you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
Again, do us a favor and just stop talking.
Comment by Josh — July 1, 2008 @ 1:47 pm
Josh,
Guests who come to a home and repeatedly tell their hosts to be quiet are not likely to be invited back.
Comment by Dan Radmacher — July 1, 2008 @ 2:03 pm
Be damned!
How would one have ever guessed that Rush Limbaugh is now an energy expert. Damn, those conservatives airbags have become experts on just about everything.
I wish I could buy the Rush's and the Bill O's of the world for what they're worth and sell them for what they think they're worth. If they're all that, then why are they wasting their talents just being talking heads.
By the way Henry...
Buying an SUV is dumb. There's no way you can reason your way out of it whether you beat the morality or lack thereof issue. They're gas hogs, they're road hogs and the people that drive them, IMHO, are hogs. I would support eliminating any vehicle on the road that doesn't get at least 25 mpg. There would be exceptions; however, Mr. & Ms. Joe Blow really don't need them.
It's the same as wanting to drive 90 MPH versus 70. Driving 70 saves gas; driving 55 saves even more; driving 90 doesn't and besides 99% of the people on the roads barely know how to drive 10 mph, never mind 90.
Comment by Will — July 1, 2008 @ 2:08 pm
Dan,
Maybe you can just airbrush all the comments that disagree with yours, sort of like Stalin did with state photos.
Will,
You're talking about the number one journalist in America. You think he doesn't have access to the smartest people in every field?
Comment by Josh — July 1, 2008 @ 2:53 pm
Exactly, Will. You want to use the power of government to force your moral beliefs on everyone else. I think people should have the freedom to choose any vehicle they like.
I find it ironic that Al Gore rides around in an SUV.
Comment by Henry — July 1, 2008 @ 3:02 pm
Henry...
Lets see here...do you know how to separate beliefs from facts?
It is a fact that SUV's get worse gas milege than conventional automobiles. It's a fact that SUV's burn more gasoline as a result of their poor gas milege.
Not sure where you're getting this moral belief stuff from. Just so you'll know, I think its ridiculous that Al Gore drives an SUV. If I can get my body in a car, he can too (and it doesn't have to be a limo either).
Josh...
Would you mind finding some credible independent source that touts Rush as the number one journalist in America? Based on a quick Google search using just that phrase, the name that consistently came back was Tim Russert.
Rush might be a legend in yours and his own mind but calling him the number one journalist in America...not by a long shot.
Comment by Will — July 1, 2008 @ 4:36 pm
"It is a fact that SUV's get worse gas milege than conventional automobiles"
And you think that is wrong which is your belief. I don't think that is wrong. I think it is simply a fact. I don't think there is nothing wrong with getting worse gas mileage. The difference is that you want to force your belief into law.
If someone wants to drive a Hummer, that is their business.
Comment by Henry — July 1, 2008 @ 5:02 pm
Henry...
What you seem to be omitting in your thought process is that there is in fact a real and definable consequence for others if one chooses to drive a Hummer.
If we are to understand our punits, in order for the supply of crude to go up in order to bring the cost of the crude down, we need to consume less of it. The Hummer consumes more energy to run, consequently using more of the supply that needs to be increased in order to bring prices down.
Bottom line, the Hummer uses more energy which drives the cost for ALL energy up and therefore causes an increase in cost for those who don't even drive one of those useless vehicles in the first place.
Just because you have the money to pay for that gallon of gas doesn't mean there isn't a direct and definable consequence for others as a result of your purchasing it.
Comment by Will — July 1, 2008 @ 7:27 pm
I find it ironic that many secular progressives would denigrate those who drive SUV's because they are "harmful" to society. They would pass laws criminalizing or financially penalizing people for driving an SUV, yet they would legalize illicit drugs like methamphetamine and crack, which are also harmful to society. Hypocrisy anyone?
Comment by C Ramsey — July 1, 2008 @ 7:44 pm
I find it comical that the crowd promoting gas guzzling SUV's today, are the same ones that were in an uproar over a few cents per gallon increase in the gas tax last week.
Comment by Blue John — July 1, 2008 @ 9:15 pm
C Ramsey...
Where in any of the posts above did I say anything about legalizing meth or crack?
Me thinks you've perhaps been indulging in one or both of those substances if you can draw that conclusion from anything I've said.
The guzzling nature of the SUV is harmful to the environment and to anyone who has to pay to fill their tanks.
I guess though it is in the "its all about me" nature of the new conservative right not to give a tinkers damn about how their actions, greed and waste impact others.
Gosh..you're making my point without me having to try hard...THANKS!
Comment by Will — July 1, 2008 @ 9:52 pm
"Bottom line, the Hummer uses more energy which drives the cost for ALL energy up and therefore causes an increase in cost for those who don't even drive one of those useless vehicles in the first place."
Wouldn't that also apply to mass transit? I see all these buses driving around and they are almost empty. I'm sure they are using more gas than a Hummer? And why is the Roanoke Times using all that gas to deliver papers when we can read it online, not to mention running those printing presses?
Comment by Henry — July 1, 2008 @ 9:55 pm
Will,
If you ever drive 65 mph, you are guilty of unnecessarily driving the price of gasoline up, because you are burning more gasoline than if you went slower according to Mr. Trejbal.
I hope you aren't engaging in that behavior for ALL of our sakes.
Comment by Josh — July 1, 2008 @ 9:59 pm
Josh...
In the state of VA, I believe the posted speed limits on the interstates is 65. I do remember back in the 70's when the posted speed limit was 55.
I guess your point is to drive like hell, use as much energy as humanly possible and be damned anyone else.
Now there a real element of human concern if I ever saw one.
Comment by Will — July 2, 2008 @ 7:22 am
Will,
Like all liberals your argument becomes purposely obtuse when your hypocrisy is pointed out to you. Still though, I believe you get the point. These arguments, as sanctimonious as you would like to make them are hypocritical. The altruistic betterment of society is not really the goal here. The furtherance of a favored political agenda is. And whether you care to admit it or not, you are making moral value judgements about people who drive SUV's based on your own belief system. You may use some facts to support your argument, but it's still a moral judgement.
As for the reference to meth, as I said, you are either being purposely obtuse, or you can't actually see the principle behind the analogy. If the latter is the case, there is probably no point in continuing the argument.
BJ- I drive a four cylinder vehicle and do still oppose a tax increase. The choice here is about personal freedom. I choose to drive a 4-cyl because that's my right. If someone else wants to drive a Hummer or V-12 Viper, that's their right.
Strangely, the liberals would argue that it's wrong for the government to intrude upon personal freedom for the sake of something as important as homeland security but you think it's okay to for the government to intrude over something as inane as what cars people drive.
No wonder the country is so screwed up.
Comment by C Ramsey — July 2, 2008 @ 7:45 am
C Ramsey...
There is nothing obtuse about my perspective. There is no moral belief infiltrating the factual basis for my point of view.
You can take it to the bank that I don't always agree with liberals nor do I always disagree with conservatives. What I do stand stedfast in is my belief that we do have a responsiblity in citizenship.
Perhaps that was a subject that wasn't put forth in your educational process. It was mine. It started with simple things like holding a door for others, walking on the right side of stairs going up or down, saying yes sir/m'am or no sir/m'am. It continues with me pushing my baskcart at the grocery store back to the rack in the parking lot or perhaps taking one that was carelessly left by another inconsiderate shopper back to the rack.
These are the basic precepts under which I operate. The way that I run my business is exactly the same way.
Try them sometime...you might be surprised.
Comment by Will — July 2, 2008 @ 8:31 am
Is the sanctimony and condescension you show in your personal attack toward me evidence of your educational process? If so, it speaks volumes.
Oddly, you left hypocrisy out of those precepts under which you operate, but that seems to be par for the course. Those who claim to be the least judgemental are usually the very ones making the most judgements.
You have absolutely no idea about my views toward civic duty or responsibility, yet you think you do because I don't think the government should tell people what car to drive. But I forgot, you aren't making moral judgements.
Well for the record my friend, I've made a career out of my sense of social responsibility and civic duty. I've actually put myself in harm's way for strangers. I've stood honor guard beside the caskets of friends and coworkers killed serving their community. I've put aside the emotions associated with knowing a friend has just been killed in order to continue the search for his killer, who still posed a threat to the community. And I've run toward the most horrific carnage this community or this country has ever imagined.
Until you can say the same, don't presume to preach to me about civic responsibility.
Comment by C Ramsey — July 2, 2008 @ 8:20 pm
Will,
"Would you mind finding some credible independent source that touts Rush as the number one journalist in America? Based on a quick Google search using just that phrase, the name that consistently came back was Tim Russert."
Check out the RT blog for today for a link to see who's #1. $400 mil. Nobody else even close. LOL.
AND
"In the state of VA, I believe the posted speed limits on the interstates is 65"
That doesn't mean you have to go 65, amigo, especially when going 55 saves so much gas. You're so concerned about SUVs and all.
Comment by Josh — July 2, 2008 @ 9:51 pm