Apollo Energy Program

[alvarezadams]

Our invasion of Iraq has thus far cost more than the entire Apollo Program in today's dollar terms. Obviating the pretexts, the ideologues have made it patently clear that an objective of our invasion was to strategically "control" such an important energy source such as Iraq.

Why is it that the DNC hasn't made a pitch for an "Apollo Program" with the objective of finding exploitable, renewable, clean and cheap alternative energy sources? I know that a candidate or two have mentioned it - but shouldn't this be a major platform concept for the party?

Just curious. All the talk of efficiency, hybrids, gasahols, biomass... all tend towards maintaining the status quo. Other "initiatives" are based on commodity-based solutions that play right into the hands of the current players and at most provide short- to medium-term alleviation but not real solutions.

We should take the bull by the horns and go for broke. Call for a Manhattan Project for solar (or some other sort of unilimited) energy - certainly the stakes are worth the expenditure.

[bananas]

1. MIT's Energy "Manhattan Project" (Wired magazine)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x63566

[ERF]

2. Because both parties are the pockets of the polluters

who have the most to lose.

You are absoloutely correct that an investment in renewable energy infrastructure would have been far cheaper than the war and probably had better results for US energy security, but it would have made Exxon and Co. poorer. Don't forget the Dems in Michigan. And the Unions are convinced that renewable energy will cost jobs.

That is why you need to stop worrying and learn to love killing Arabs.

[bananas]

3. Yep - it's all about power and control

and not "power" in terms of "watts".

[bananas]

4. The DNC is held hostage by the DLC

[alvarezadams]

5. No shit

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/alvarezadams/19 http://journals.democraticunderground.com/alvarezadams/17

[bananas]

7. LOL

Lieberman cost Gore the 2000 election.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2769106

[bananas]

6. Kerry endorsed Apollo energy project in July 2004

http://www.apolloalliance.org/apollo_in_the_news/archived_news_articles/2004/08_29_04_sandiegotri.cfm

[alvarezadams]

8. I noted

that SOME Dems have called for this.

My problem is that it isn't a central platform for the party. It would be immensely popular, create jobs, weaken the "weak on security" arguments below the belt, and actually be the "right" as opposed to the "expedient" thing to do.

Kerry should have screamed this at every opportunity. Talk about Iraq? Answer with Apollo. Talk about security? Answer with Apollo. Talk about economics? Answer with Apollo.

It seems that the GOP has accurately gauged our electorate. It can only hold an idea or two, and for short periods. So when confronted with such a panorama, answer with an idea or two that submarine the opposition.

Even the most rabid redstate con isn't happy with corporate influence. This would give them something to chew on.

[bananas]

9. Apollo was faked

The moon landings were faked.
Humans can't survive the radiation outside the Van Allen Belts.
Didn't you know that?
Evolution is only a theory.

Right now the culture is so anti-science, it's hopeless.
Calling for an Apollo energy project would LOSE votes.

Bleah.
Sorry for the rant.

[Cobalt-60]

10. We can start with what we have, today.

When a standard coal fired plant is shut down, its steam and electrical generators can be relocated to a solar collection facility.
Using nothing more complicated than a field of mirrors this plant can operate during clear weather and daylight hours indefinitely.
It's not a complete solution, but consider how it might offset the air conditioning load.
Assuming the collector is in the same general region as the air conditioners, the same infernal heat that drives the demand turns the generators.
The same can be accomplished with photo voltaic cells. I recommend that these be
Ovshinky cells for a number of good reasons discussed at this link.
http://www.ovonic.com/eb_so_thin_film_pv_technology.cfm
You could use old school cells if you wished, however.
In any case the PV installation is more reliable but less efficient.
The DC put out by a PV array needs to be put through inverter to be of practical use on the grid.
This is good science and good business.
Once these plants are built, they rake in cash like a conventional plant, but without energy expenses.
Keep up the gear, pay the staff and then it's all profit, baby.

[radfringe]

11. couple of other suggestions

- businesses that do not rely on foot-traffic, phone orders or involved in care-taking could switch over to a 4-day/10hr work week, this cuts down on gas usage for commuting

- businesses within the same area could get together and arrange for park/ride stops for their employees