The Great Gadfly

The next moon shot--we need it now

The Next Moon Shot
We need it now

By Peter Kenney

Where is the next moon shot when we need it? A nation swelled with pride, some might say disbelief, when a new president declared that the United States would land a man on the moon and return him home safely by the end of a decade. He perceived that all we needed to accomplish this stunning task were resources, energy and determination. We had an abundance of all and he committed them to the effort.

Kennedy’s challenge was made in a speech before Congress on May 25, 1961. He had just proven that the United States could successfully fail in an invasion of Cuba. Through poor intelligence, poor planning and because of political incompetence one of the world’s reigning superpowers saw its surrogate invasion force defeated and humiliated. America needed a distraction, a plan, a call to arms. The moon shot was that call.

A giant leap

Eight years later, Richard Nixon held the presidency as astronaut Neil Armstrong took that historic “giant leap” for mankind on July 21, 1969. All it took to accomplish this amazing feat was commitment and a broader vision than just one little project at a time. This nation completely re-ordered not only its priorities, but also its goals and methods. We poured human, financial and technical resources into the effort to send a man to the moon because we had changed our attitude from one step at a time to let's grab the whole game.

The wind debate

The argument about Cape Wind is really, and only, about location. Not so with today’s energy problems, a crisis some would say. Here on Cape Cod we are coming to the final stages of a long and divisive argument -- whether or not to build a privately owned wind farm on twenty-five square miles of public domain, the Horseshoe Shoals section of Nantucket Sound. Wind power is playing an increasingly productive role in overall global energy production. The argument about Cape Wind is really, and only, about location. My position stands -- I oppose this use of Nantucket Sound, but wind power is going to be and should be a major contributor to the solutions we need.

However, why does our government not develop, on its own and without prodding from private developers, a standard method of subsidizing wind development? There are outright subsidies to many industries and the Byzantine tax regulations used by energy companies (oil, gas, coal, power plant and transmission operators) can only be seen as subsidies. Where is the moon shot?

A quaint and crazy quilt

Once again we see that quaint American fabric, the crazy quilt. A little support for innovation here, a government research grant there, maybe a couple of things stuck into this year’s State of the Union address...even, perhaps, some legislation addressing conservation. It all looks great hanging on the rack, but when we have no more fossil fuels and the temperature heads south of freezing it will take more than a quilt to sustain us. Where is the moon shot?

Global competition

Seventy-five percent of our energy consumption is attributable to transportation. Wind farms offer no help there. Heating our homes and other buildings, running industry, plastics and pharmaceuticals -- all these use most of our energy. So, in simple terms, we are in deep trouble unless we develop alternate sources of energy. China is bringing one coal-fired power plant online every month or less as their economy marches forward. India, Europe, much of Asia and even large parts of Africa are now actively competing with us and each other for oil and coal and natural gas. One look at our gasoline prices tells what that is doing to us. Where is the moon shot?

We could be leaders…

The federal government itself sets a poor example in practice. Why is there not an innovative and fuel-efficient national fleet of delivery vehicles for the U. S. Postal service? The largest transfer of U.S. wealth to other countries ever in history is underway right now. We pay ever-higher prices for oil to foreign countries but see energy-saving light bulbs and the occasional electric car as a solution to our problem. (Perhaps we should let foreigners buy even more of our debt and then simply default, refuse to repay.) Wealthy Saudis, fat with our cash, pay black mail money to Bin Laden...our money. Still, we bicker over tighter regulations for better mileage standards of private automobiles. If American (only American) automobile manufacturers cannot carry the costs of developing more fuel-efficient cars on their own, we should provide subsidies with strict enforcement and compliance standards. Chrysler is no longer an American company. And, both Ford and General Motors own foreign automobile companies. We could be global leaders in energy common sense.

Where’s the government?

The federal government itself sets a poor example in practice. Why is there not an innovative and fuel-efficient national fleet of delivery vehicles for the U. S. Postal service? For that matter, every U. S. government vehicle should be more fuel efficient than at present by -- pick a number -- twenty-five percent? Within -- five years? Where is the moon shot? Standards incorporated into building codes for energy efficient lighting and heating are progressing, but could be made much better much faster. Where is the moon shot?

Two-part problem

Without question, the root of our problem is in two parts. First, we still think that energy conservation equals cheaper energy. That will never be true; it never has been. Energy will cost what it costs. Europeans have paid up to $5 per gallon of gasoline for decades. Our most pressing problem is being assured that we have adequate supplies of energy at any cost.
Second, continued growth in other economies, fueled both by our appetite to buy their cheap goods and by the buying frenzy among their own growing middle classes, will exhaust known reserves of all fossil fuels. Leaving out for the moment the effects on the earth of the incredible pollution now coming from Asia and Africa, the effects of this resource exploitation will be shortages and eventually total resource depletion. There is not enough wind in the world to counter these facts, although well-planned use of wind power will help somewhat.

Alternative technologies

While we have the smartest bombs in history we may also have some of the dumbest leaders. This brings us to alternative technologies. Long before energy is actually produced through the use of these technologies -- whatever they may be -- there will be periods of seeming inactivity. These will be expensive times when vast sums of money and huge commitments of human resources will be needed. Unfortunately, many of today's so-called energy companies are in reality simply mining or drilling ventures. A true energy company named, say Exxon, would be a giant in chemical, electronic, hydraulic, thermal, solar and nuclear research. It would be a privately owned and fanatical moon shot. To hell with competing to see whose CEO is paid more or whose dividend is higher...who is going to command our energy future? Think of the research and development that could be accomplished with just half of Exxon's $40 billion profit for one year in 2006. That would be a moon shot.

Smart bombs, dumb leaders

While we have the smartest bombs in history we may also have some of the dumbest leaders. The man who occupies the Oval Office now thinks ethanol is a gift from God. (Remember, Bush and God speak on a regular basis, according to Bush.) This is curious, because in fact it costs a gallon or so of oil to grow the crops, then harvest and process them into a gallon of ethanol. Add to this strange arithmetic the idea that farmers are now competing with themselves for livestock feed and the picture becomes even grimmer. This is leadership? Large-scale ethanol production will require huge, reliable water sources, such as deep-well irrigation, and this could further endanger our already dwindling water table in many areas of the west and mid-west.

What about nuclear?

France uses modern and, so far, safe nuclear technology to produce more than half of its total electricity. The nuclear power plant on a U.S. naval vessel, surface or submarine, is capable of powering a good-size town and in an area less than the size of a ship or submarine. Fuel cells, hydrogen, which is available as a by-product of nuclear energy production, high-yield solar, wind, geothermal and as-yet unknown technologies are all real or potential major players in this race to develop renewable energy.

Needed: A firm national commitment

But, without a firm national commitment to the research, development and implementation of new technologies, we are left shivering in the dark under that ragged quilt. While many of our leaders travel by private jet and armored SUV and live in hugely inefficient houses, they avoid making hard decisions as they brag to us about their concerns for the world’s energy future, a future that is creeping up on us. We may not see its actual arrival because we will be in the dark, buried under that quilt.

Where is the moon shot?