Comments on: Forbes presents New Manhattan Project on CNN

By: For Virginia congressional delegation is the energy discussion about politics | Bearing Drift :: Virginia Politics and Podcasts

Thu, 24 Jul 2008 10:41:52 +0000

[...] Forbes (R-VA04) proposed a bold new initiative to reshape the energy discussion with his “New Manhattan Project.” The visionary plan seeks to incentivize innovation when it comes to increasing our energy [...]

By: Roberto DePaschoal

Roberto DePaschoal — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 20:01:32 +0000

I have been working on a project of concept electric vehicles ranging from highway-legal scooters to large trucks and buses for the last 13 years. The project had the input of many engineers and was considered technically feasible by a panel of DOE’s FreedomCAR and Advanced Vehicles Technologies back in 2002. These concepts were designed to exchange their battery packs in seconds at recharging stations making them as independent as conventional vehicles. There are many other novel features on them as well as novel modular transit ideas, vehicle to grid compatibilities, etc., etc. I hope this message gets to Mr. Fofbes’ desk, as I believe it could help to fulfill most the goals of the New Manhattan Project.
Roberto DePaschoal
info@ev-motion.com

By: alan scouten

alan scouten — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 16:35:27 +0000

Rep. Forbes instincts are great but his plan flawed and horribly named. More mountaintop removal for coal extraction, and more poisoning of the earth with nuclear waste is not the answer.
Solar, in any form…wind, tides, collectors….surely the right direction. In Europe cars already get seventy miles to the gallon. Done. Of all the experts he mentions for his team, architects are left out. Too bad, because they are the Inventors who know how to add to the mix of technology, the sociology of conservation and sustainable land and resource utilization: The ONLY road to relief from Oil Addiction.

By: Randy Forbes Adopts McCain’s Prize Earmarks « THE OATH

Randy Forbes Adopts McCain’s Prize Earmarks « THE OATH — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 02:13:27 +0000

[...] Bearing Drift already posted on this article and included a video with the Forbes “New Manhattan Project”. As I [...]

By: The Oath

The Oath — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 02:08:21 +0000

What Forbes proposes is nothing more than giving away taxpayer funed prize money for coming up with ideas. It’s an earmark.

The New Manhattan Project is a good in road into central planning akin to the ethanol stupidity. Worse, we’re using an analogy of war—something government is good at—to describe a spur to the private sector. If there is demand, the private sector will not only direct but produce the solutions.

By the way, the analogy of the Manhattan Project is sorely misplaced. Government is good at making war but it is not good at planning the needs of the economy.

By: The Great Oil Debate of 08 - Page 2

The Great Oil Debate of 08 - Page 2 — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 15:02:46 +0000

[...] watched this guy on C-SPAN this morning and I think he has some great ideas… check out this link Forbes presents New Manhattan Project on CNN | Bearing Drift __________________ "The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who [...]

By: Ron

Ron — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 14:16:12 +0000

It’s one thing to allow greater production of energy or to promote incentives for more efficient energy use. It is quite another to create mandates that end up being quite counterproductive. In the case of this proposal by Forbes et al. I am not sure what will happen. Needless to say, I am not optimistic.

By: Chase

Chase — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 13:01:52 +0000

J.R. –

I was agreeing with you, but did it in a clumsy, sarcastic manner. Sorry about that.

By: Brian Kirwin

Brian Kirwin — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 01:33:45 +0000

Seriously, if something is in demand, let’s produce it! What can be more American that that?

By: J.R.

J.R. — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 01:12:20 +0000

I said, “may”, Chase. I wasn’t being disparaging. I hope someone can make cold fusion work, and maybe with the right incentives, it will.

As for energy independence as a concept, DJ, can you hardly blame anyone for trying?

Although, the markets in India and China will STILL have a lot to say about the prices of all goods and services…especially given they will be primary consumers of fossil fuels, should we change our usage. Ergo, if the demand for oil remains high, the price of oil will stay high, and our CPI still goes up.

By: D.J. McGuire

D.J. McGuire — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 20:37:10 +0000

Sorry, but there is no mention of nuclear fission, the only nuclear power that actually works.

Then again, energy “independence” is ridiculously overrated. We import more oil from Canada than Saudi Arabia.

By: Chase

Chase — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 14:52:57 +0000

Right. And one day man will walk on the Moon. Sure, J.R.

By: J.R.

J.R. — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 14:09:33 +0000

I’ll admit that the concept of “fusion” in the next twenty years is a pretty steep mountain to climb that may actually be physically impossible. We are, after all, talking about harnessing the power of the sun here. But the great thing about this initiative is its “pie in the sky” approach. That’s what visionaries do.

By: Jeremy Hinton

Jeremy Hinton — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 13:58:58 +0000

I agree. Personally i think we should explore nuclear power options. I was just correcting a mistaken fact in your post, not arguing the validity of your point. Most folks have never even heard of SL-1, which is a shame as its actully a fascinating bit of history IMHO, and we learned a lot from it.

By: Chase

Chase — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 13:33:46 +0000

I stand corrected. I should have said “since” someone died in Ted Kennedy’s car.

I don’t, though, think it’s fair to view the safety of nuclear energy based on the one-and-only fatal accident in the United States 47 years ago. I supsect that technology has advanced a bit since then.