Wed 8 Oct 2008
The Manhattan Project and Silicon Valley
Posted by Greg Molyneux under Current Events, Energy, Environment, History, Science, Society, Technology
For my money, the highlight of last night’s debate came at the approximate halfway point of an otherwise total snooze-fest. Until that moment roughly 45 minutes of underwhelming and over-rehearsed talking points dulled my senses into submission. I was worn to the point where an outstanding question posed by moderator Tom Brokaw almost slipped by as completely innocuous.
The Question:
Should we fund a Manhattan-like project that develops a nuclear bomb to deal with global energy and alternative energy or should we fund 100,000 garages across America, the kind of industry and innovation that developed Silicon Valley?
Immediately my interest was piqued and my attention was completely diverted from the mindless drivel of campaign speak. My mind was running; this was a great question.
Tom Brokaw married together two seminal moments in United States history that represent everything that is Holy about our Nation. The nuance of the question captured everything that sets America apart as one thousand points of light unto our global brethren. It reflects the power of our innovation, cultivated in an environment that promotes focus, diligence, creativity, ingenuity and an virtuous ability to rally around a common cause.
The Purpose:
During World War II elite scientists, understanding the nefarious machinations of a strengthening Nazi regime, lead by the pen of Albert Einstein, beseeched Franklin D. Roosevelt to begin constructing an atomic bomb in an immediate and clandestine call to scientific arms. Under a veil of government secrecy, an unrivaled team of physicists made the tough choice to keep massive weapons of destruction solely in the hands of the just. Sometimes morality calls upon the worthy to make the toughest of choices.
After the fall out of World War II subsided and the boon of American prosperity and ingenuity spread, our country flourished; even weathering the storm of a divisive and controversial Vietnam conflict. Communication had stagnated and a need was inherently realized by a new generation of inspired techno-wizards. Young geniuses like Steve Jobs, Steve Wozniak, and Bill Gates uniquely executed the American dream from their own covert operation of sorts, hunkered down in their own garage. Like The Manhattan Project before it, enormous leaps in scientific and technological understanding were taking place while the rest of the country unknowingly went about its business.
The Meaning:
In the 1940s the world was saved. In the 1980s the world would come together to talk about it. The chord Tom Brokaw so saliently struck in my mind’s eye was that we, Americans, possess exactly what is needed to conquer the universal crises of both energy and environment. Let the Manhattan Project and the grassroots explosion of Silicon Valley remind us where the real power, strength and honor of this great Nation are forever granted safe harbor; in the will of its people. Only a decade removed from our Revolution, Thomas Jefferson lamented over where the spirit of 1776 had gone. Both these initiatives demonstrated it simply went to rest in the hearts of its people until such needs arise.
Isoroku Yamamoto was both prophetic and wise when he foretold of the Sleeping Giant.
About the Author
October 8th, 2008 at 10:24 pm
Well said sir. Well said.
October 8th, 2008 at 10:44 pm
For the sake of discussion…
If nuclear energy is the way out of the oil crisis, of what need would an “alternative energy” manhattan project be?
Wouldn’t that be a waste of money on unnecessary research? Shouldn’t we spend that money on building nuclear facilities?
October 8th, 2008 at 10:53 pm
Andrew,
The nuclear facilities would not ‘cost’ the government anything because the money is LOANED and hence paid back.
This is because nuclear is profitable whereas most alternative fuels require immense government HANDOUTS in order to compete.
October 8th, 2008 at 11:52 pm
Also, I disagree that nuclear is the answer to the foreign oil dependence. It may be a piece of the answer to the energy conundrum, but as Jack has pointed out in the past, a very small percentage of the energy contributed to the grid comes from petroleum. Two related, but different, issues.
October 9th, 2008 at 12:47 am
I agree with that Jay. Nuclear is more of an answer to electricity in homes as 50% of them are now powered by coal which is downright nasty. I wrote a piece on this.
Foreign oil relates more with automotive fuel, plastics, and lubrication.
The way it all comes together is when we are charging our electric cars from our home electric outlets I suppose (with nuclear delivering the electricity of course).
October 9th, 2008 at 10:36 am
Great answers, but I have two more questions…
1)What about the Pickens Plan?
2)GM already created a fully functioning electric car in the late 1990’s that was actually sold on the market for a short time. If this technology already exists, what is the need for an Energy Manhattan Project?
October 9th, 2008 at 11:00 am
The Pickens Plan is a great temporary solution to reduce our dependency on foreign oil while technologies like solar, nuclear, and wind take 10-20 years to materialize.
The Pickens Plan emphasizes natural gas for automotive fuel. As it stands, 70% of the oil we use is imported at a cost of $700 Billion per year (almost the price of the bail-out in a single year).
Studies from major universities have shown that the great plains in America are “the Saudi Arabia of Wind Power.” Wind power is the other part of the Pickens Plan.
Since technologies like nuclear are long term solutions, the Pickens Plan is a bridge solution.
As for the fully functional electric car in the late 1990’s, the technology wasn’t where it had to be. Lithium Ion car batteries will change that soon.
October 9th, 2008 at 11:14 am
Electric cars aren’t the answer until an alternative to coal electricity is produced. So, NO, the electric car is not even close to nullifying the need for a new Manhattan like project or garage-based revolution because they would be the enabler for the electric car to actually have the desired effect that all of you uninformed tree-huggers think it will.
October 9th, 2008 at 11:59 am
Coal electricity is downright nasty. It destroys the land where it is mined from and leaves the biggest carbon footprint of all electricity-generating methods. Until nuclear replaces coal for electricity, coal will be powering electric cars.
October 9th, 2008 at 12:03 pm
Jay, it was already stated that nuclear could be employed to reduce the use of coal, so I’m still not seeing why we need a new Manhattan project. I do see how it can be used as a talking point to entice voters though.
Also, if the technology for the electric car is already being refined, all that would really require major major funding would be the infrastructure of charging stations on highways and in cities.
October 9th, 2008 at 12:24 pm
Eventually you need to replace coal, not reduce it. Since our energy demands are so high, and only continue to grow as we modernize and our population grows, we are in a constant race to simply meet demand, let alone replace current methods. The number of nuclear plants required would be so astronomical making it unfeasible to again rely on one source for electricity. One power producing method is not wise. I really can’t help you grasp why it is necessary to increase our clean energy output if you don’t understand fundamental supply/demand, plus the replacement factor of migrating away from coal. There would be a nuke plant on every corner. Also not acceptable.
October 9th, 2008 at 12:45 pm
I express myself poorly, no doubt. But an integral piece I forgot to put in there is that the energy demand will skyrocket if electric cars are introduced because you are now providing power for vehicles that are currently using a different fuel source. To the tune of about 100 million vehicles now needing to be hooked up to the grid to draw power. Think about that for a minute…
October 9th, 2008 at 1:12 pm
Miscommunication is far too easy without face to face dialogue. For the record I’ve never stated that we should rely exclusively on one energy source.
Diversifying the sources acts like a safety net just in case there are set backs in any one source. I was just using nuclear as an example of one source that is already being used that we could currently begin expanding upon.
Also, that’s a great point about the increase in energy demand if there is a universal switch to electric cars. That really would force the world to take advantage of ALL types of alternative energy available.
October 9th, 2008 at 1:23 pm
And Andrew, the Manhattan Project connection I made in this post is more symbolic in nature. The point being, America needs to stand at the forefront of the energy crises and its solution; just as America stood at the forefront of Nuclear proliferation during the second World War. For us to sit idly by would be unwise and seal our fate as global leaders.
Ours is a legacy of initiative, it is our responsibility to continue that trend.
October 9th, 2008 at 1:34 pm
Its an excellent post and message.
I just wanted to explore the concrete side of it. I was just curious what people’s opinions were on Brokaw’s proposal.
October 9th, 2008 at 11:08 pm
I know I’m a little late to the party, but Greg I wanted to say that the spirit and ingenuity of America was an awesome topic to discuss. Brokaws question was certainly a diamond in the rough. America needs to start building a bigger and better infrastructure Not only will that stimulate the economy and create jobs, but it would give citizens a sense of pride. Public Works Represent!
Since the question is really only a two parter, I would opt to fund 100,000 garages across the country for the simple fact that it wouldn’t be compromised by corruption in business or politics as usual. People with degrees and brilliant ideas wouldn’t be held back by money or power. And if nothing else, it would certainly create competition.