Manhattan Project In Congress

Ok, so I don't get much from my congressman and usually don't agree with him at all. But hey, our present problems call for bipartisanship, doesn't it? Check out this response from Congressman Randy Forbes from one of my recent letters on the Nat Gas Act. It sounds crazy - and it might never pass, but this might be the one time he's done something I suggested... Your thoughts are welcomed...

--------------------------

Thank you for contacting me to express your support for the increased use of natural gas as part of our nation's energy plan. I appreciate you taking the time to share your thoughts on this matter with me.

The New Alternative Transportation to Give Americans Solutions Act (NAT GAS Act) would expand the use of natural gas as an alternative to conventional transportation fuel, and extend alternative fuel tax incentives. H.R. 1835 would create a new tax credit for automakers which produce natural gas and bi-fueled vehicles. In addition, at least 50% of new vehicles placed into service by the federal government would be required to be capable of operating on natural gas by the end of 2014. Finally, the legislation would provide grants for light and heavy-duty gas vehicle and engine development.

Wow - is this agreement with half of the Pickens Plan?

Like you, I believe that we need to create a national energy plan to address our country's long-term energy needs. There are many options on the table that have broad support from many Americans - including my proposal, H.R.513, the New Manhattan Project - to expand American-made energy, encourage conservation, and decrease our dependency on foreign oil. To achieve these goals, the New Manhattan Project will bring together the scientists and researchers in the U.S. in a competitive format to reach one of seven energy goals. The project will award significant prizes to the first group, school, team, or company that reaches each goal as determined by a New Manhattan Project commission of scientists. Cash prizes to be awarded to the first person or entity to achieve each of the following goals:

Great. Another commission - Um, I wasn't asking for more government... maybe he means unpaid scientists

Double CAFE standards to 70 MPG while keeping vehicles affordable
Cut home and business energy usage in half
Make solar power work at the same cost as coal
Make the production of biofuels cost-competitive with gasoline
Safely and cheaply store carbon emissions from coal-powered plants
Safely store or neutralize nuclear waste
Produce usable electricity from a nuclear fusion reaction

Man, I hope the bill isn't so vague that the Supreme Court has to decide who wins.
Plus, there's no mention of my generators. I told you. I get no respect!

Natural gas remains an important and environmentally attractive energy source for the United States and supplied approximately 24% of total U.S. energy in 2008. Domestic natural gas production increased to 20.5 trillion cubic feet, the most since 1974. H.R. 1835 has been referred to the House Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, where it is currently being reviewed. Rest assured that I will continue to support efforts to increase America's energy independence, and will keep your thoughts in mind should H.R. 1835 come to the House floor for a vote.

I guess "environmentally attractive" is not 100% wrong, but even the PP aims to make this a temporary fix

As your Representative in Congress, I appreciate your input in this matter. As always, if I may be of assistance to you on this, or any other issue, please feel free to contact me in my Washington DC office at (202) 225-6365 or online at http://randyforbes.house.gov. With kind personal regards, I am

Yours truly,

J. RANDY FORBES
Member of Congress

Tags: congress, manhattan, project

Comment

You need to be a member of PickensPlan to add comments!

Join this Ning Network

Comment by Clynton on August 6, 2009 at 11:34am: Hey, Brent.

Thanks very much for the post and comments.

I'm happy to discuss my generator (StarGen) anytime. Right now, I'm all over Virginia - Northeast to Southwest, making contacts and showing the StarGen. At some point soon, I should also have StarGenCo.com updated with information (and a buy link :-)

Feel free to contact me offline, by checking out that website. I'm glad to share, but SEC and USPTO regulations prevent me from saying much in an open forum...

Clynton

Comment by Brent on August 6, 2009 at 11:06am: very interesting, english parliament set up a similar award for the first party that could solve the problem of accurately determining longitude for a vessel at sea in the 18th century. all kinds of crazy schemes were devised, but one guy finally won the prize - worth many millions of dollars in today's money - by designing a wind-up clock that could keep time accurately at sea - fascinating book "longitude"

clynton - how can i learn more about your generator design?

Comment by Luane Todd on July 17, 2009 at 7:04pm: The original Manhatten Project was a government funded project...period. Keeping the private, greed motivated sector out of it may have been why it worked so quickly. I think, but wouldn't want to say for sure, that there was no budget constraint on the project. Of course that was another era in the sense that the idea of personal reward..someone stealing the idea or the prize..was not the primary consideration if it occured at all. If they had been concerned that someone would 'steal the prize' and make money from their work they might not have done it.

Government funds most research done today, one way or another. Private companies help a bit but most of the heavy lifting is on the back of the universities or government labs. The difference now is that for the small consideration put in by the private companies they get full possession of the results and in many cases use of the government employees/researchers who did the work. One of the downsides to this approach is that if there are any negatives they are usually swept under the rug so only the good stuff is told to the public at large.

Which higher being do you have in mind to judge the actual winner?

I expect that a commission of this sort could be formed from existing government 'experts'...sort of like the various committees in Congress. Your Rep or Senator serves on more than one committee for the same money so why couldn't other government scientists and engineers come into this project.

In actuality, from my point of view, the way to staff the committee is to bring in truly qualified 'experts' and put them on the government payroll with a no-compete clause in the contract---if it is discovered that the 'judge' in any way benefited financially from the work they went directly to jail...no ifs, ands or buts...for a period of say 10 years. But I'm not very forgiving of white collar theft. You also make the competition self limiting. There would be a time frame, defined, for each competition and the need for additional competitions would be discussed as one expired or was soon to expire. If there is no competition, the 'board or commission' would not be like today's corporations...living forever.

Comment by Clynton on July 17, 2009 at 3:30pm: Oh no, Luane. I love the idea. I love competitions, but just could never get in! That's another story. I also love the idea of a Manhattan Project - we're spending it anyways, why not bring a bunch of scientists and engineers together, spend whatever amount and solve this once and for all? It happened in WWII as a last resort and may happen that way again - once we've practically lost everything in this war for energy independence.

My point was that if the goals are written into law as vague as they are then anyone can steal the prize - or that it would take a higher being to judge the actual winner. The other problem is the notion that we need another commission and my hope that it's not government funded. That's how we get BIG government - and I'm not even a conservative (: yet :) - Sure use government money to fund the competition, but not another board with infinite life and more bureaucrats collecting a paycheck out of my taxes.

I could be wrong on those points, but that's my view.

Comment by Luane Todd on July 17, 2009 at 2:42pm: At least you got a more or less positive response for your efforts. Good on, as the Aussies say.

Thought you liked the idea of competition...looks like that is the idea of the HR513 bill. Would you rather pay a prize to someone like yourself maybe who comes up with a workable, provable idea or would you rather try to bribe the auto makers (which we own and could define the parameters of what they now do) to do what they should do anyway.

If you don't want a commission to judge the competition, who will decide the winner of the prize money? Will the participants just flip coins to decide who gets paid for their efforts?

Prize competitions have been used successfully in other arenas and would seem to me to be a pretty good way to speed up the process of innovation and verification of viability.

Think on it and give an alternative approach if still don't like the proposed solution.