 |
There are currently, 131 guest(s) and 0 member(s) that are online.
You are Anonymous user. You can register for free by clicking here
| |
| |
MIT's Energy 'Manhattan Project'
Posted on Saturday, August 12, 2006 @ 10:43:32 UTC by vlad
|
|
By Mark Anderson / Wired News
Solar cells made from spinach. Algae-based biofuel fattened on
greenhouse gas. Plasma-powered turbo engines. These are just some of
the technologies being developed by a Manhattan Project-style research
effort for new energy technologies at MIT.
Scientists at MIT are undertaking a big, ambitious, university-wide
program to develop innovative energy tech under the auspices of the
school's Energy Research Council.
"The urgent challenge of our time (is) clean, affordable energy to power the world," said MIT President Susan Hockfield.
Inaugurated last year, the project is likened by Hockfield to MIT's contribution to radar -- a key technology that helped win World War II.
"As the example of radar suggests, when MIT arrays its capabilities
against an important problem ... we can make an important
contribution," said Hockfield in an e-mail.
David Jhirad, a former deputy assistant secretary of energy and current VP for science and research at the World Resources Institute,
said no other institution or government anywhere has taken on such an
intensive, creative, broad-based, and wide-ranging energy research
initiative.
"MIT is stepping into a vacuum, because there is no policy, vision
or leadership at the top of our nation," he said. "It's uniquely
matched. MIT has tremendous strengths across the board -- from science
and engineering to management to architecture to the humanities. From
that point of view, it's hugely significant."
Below are some examples of the MIT research projects the Energy Research Council will be sponsoring and developing:
Read the rest of the story here: http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,71574-0.html?tw=wn_culture_2
|
| |
|
Don't have an account yet? You can create one. As a registered user you have some advantages like theme manager, comments configuration and post comments with your name.
| |
Average Score: 4
Votes: 2
| |
|
|
No Comments Allowed for Anonymous, please register |
|
MIT announces new energy initiative (Score: 1)
by vlad on Wednesday, September 20, 2006 @ 22:06:33 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message) http://www.zpenergy.com | CAMBRIDGE, MA, United States (UPI) -- U.S. scientists at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology are starting a project to better understand how to best tackle the world`s looming energy crisis.
MIT President Susan Hockfield said the establishment of the MIT Energy Initiative will allow the school, 'with its unique talents and capabilities,' to address what she called one of the most urgent challenges of our time.
Hockfield says the project will address 'the science, technology, policy, and systems design required to meet the global energy challenge.' She said the program will progressively build focused research programs, coordinated educational offerings and the necessary campus infrastructure, leading to the establishment of a new interdepartmental laboratory or center that will involve researchers from all five MIT schools.
'When MIT focuses on large issues of great public importance, we are able to get things done,' she said.
The initiative will be led by MIT Physics Professor Ernest Moniz and Chemical Engineering Professor Robert Armstrong.
Copyright 2006 by United Press International
Source: http://science.monstersandcritics.com/news/article_1203431.php/MIT_announces_new_energy_initiative
|
|
|
Why a 'Manhattan Project' for energy won't work (Score: 1)
by vlad on Saturday, August 12, 2006 @ 10:48:06 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message) http://www.zpenergy.com | BY MAX SCHULZ
An idea gaining currency these days is that the United States needs a new Manhattan Project to solve our nation's energy problems. U.S. Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., is just the latest to propose a massive federal government effort to develop alternatives to petroleum and cut U.S. dependence on fossil fuels. He suggested it pursue these goals with the urgency of the World War II era project that rushed to develop the atomic bomb.
A number of other prominent voices claim the Manhattan Project provides a good template for dealing with our energy problems. The New York Times' Thomas Friedman routinely cites the need for a Manhattan Project on energy. So have political strategist Dick Morris and Frank Gaffney of the Set America Free coalition. Various editorial pages around the country have made similar calls for a concerted federal effort to deliver energy independence.
They might as well be calling for a new federal Department of Alchemy to turn lead into gold. The idea of a Manhattan Project for energy is a bad one and provides the wrong way of looking at our energy supply challenges and their attendant geopolitical concerns.
This modern Manhattan Project mind-set says that if only we were to get serious and devote enough resources, we could invent an alternative to oil and solve the 21st-century energy problems our country faces. By "we," proponents actually mean the federal government. And by "resources," they mean your tax dollars.
It won't work. The chief reason is that the type of challenges we face today are so wholly different from the type faced during World War II. The original Manhattan Project brought together the Free World's most brilliant minds to invent the atomic bomb. They were in a race against time; the Nazis were working toward the same goal. Money was no object. With the fate of civilization at stake, the cost to develop the Bomb was of minimal concern. Simply, the Manhattan Project's challenge was technological, not economic.
Read the rest of the story: http://www.twincities.com/mld/twincities/news/editorial/15191684.htm |
Re: Why a 'Manhattan Project' for energy won't work (Score: 1)
by modernsteam on Saturday, August 12, 2006 @ 11:19:18 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message) | Re: It won't work. The chief reason
is that the type of challenges we face today are so wholly different
from the type faced during World War II.
.... brought together the Free World's most brilliant minds to invent
........................... They were in a race against time. .... With the fate of
civilization at stake .... Simply, the Manhattan Project's challenge was technological,
not economic."
Are we not in "in a race against time"?
Should we not try to "[bring] together the ... World's most brilliant minds to invent" Free Energy devices"?
Is "the fate of
civilization [not] at stake"?
On "the Manhattan Project's challenge was technological", is the current Free Energy challenge not technological?
Of course, it's also economic. Fewer and fewer people will be able to
afford very costly non-renewable energy, mostly oil and gas, let
alone the pollution cost to human health.
Go for the "Manhattan"-type project ... but also manage the costs!
Hal Ade
|
]
Re: Why a 'Manhattan Project' for energy won't work (Score: 1)
by Cold_Steel on Saturday, August 12, 2006 @ 14:12:23 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message) | "It won't work. The chief reason
is that the type of challenges we face today are so wholly different
from the type faced during World War II. The original Manhattan Project
brought together the Free World's most brilliant minds to invent the
atomic bomb. They were in a race against time; the Nazis were working
toward the same goal. Money was no object. With the fate of
civilization at stake, the cost to develop the Bomb was of minimal
concern. Simply, the Manhattan Project's challenge was technological,
not economic."
Uh, I also fail to see how this is really so different from the Manhattan project. It's a massive technological challenge that requires the worlds greatest minds. We are in a race against time, and when push comes to shove, money is no object.
|
]
Re: Why a 'Manhattan Project' for energy won't work (Score: 1)
by Rastahal on Saturday, August 12, 2006 @ 21:06:14 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message) http://truthbells.com | Here's my take...we don't have an energy problem...we have a political problem. If folks had supported Tesla and others with that kind of knowledge, we would not be having this discussion now. We would all be enjoying the benefits of free energy.
When I listen to folks in the media talk about energy, I feel very sad and frustrated...as they debate the relative worth of trying to drill our way out of this problem, or the discussion of "exotic" fuels like hydrogen. As long as our nation is discussing fuel-based energy, we will continue to miss the energy boat.
Since Tesla, there has been no shortage of devices or ideas that would have lead this nation (and the world) to true energy freedom, but the people in power won't have it. If you can't hang a meter on it, politicians and companies can't make a PROFIT. And the profit motive is king...these days more than ever. Still, I remain hopeful that someday, someone will be able to break through and be able to ignite the world's imagination and quest for free energy.
If we just had one device proving the concept of free energy that folks could see and understand, they would quickly get the VISION of just what "free energy" would mean to themselves and to the world. Then the people would DEMAND this technology and they would not be able to be stopped.
But very few people understand the promise of a clean, inexhaustable energy source such as energy from the vaccum. And, until folks understand and grasp the vision, they will continue to put faith in new "fuel" technologies that are just repeating the same worn out energy mantra.
For this reason, I think the best stop-gap techology to invest in is solar until the real deal arrives. If we can improve the efficiency and reduce cost of solar tech we could begin removing ourselves from the electric (and political) grid. Decentralized power - in any form - is the future. If we could go to Home Depot and pay 2K for solar panels that would last 20 years and supply all the power for our home and charge our electric cars at night, that would be a big step in the right direction!
|
]
|
|
Re: MIT's Energy 'Manhattan Project' (Score: 1)
by Koen on Sunday, August 13, 2006 @ 01:38:04 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message) http://no.nl/tesla | MIT can succeed instantaneously: they only have to dig up Philo Farnsworth's fusor device, that was hidden by MIT in their basement somewhere, half a century ago. Farnsworth's fusor patent describes the fusor can operate in a SELF-SUSTAINED mode (meaning it is a working fusion- and energy-generating device). I believe Farnsworth (inventor of television) with respect to this claim, since he was one of the most gifted technicians ever. I read the patent myself, focussing on the claims, and there it was: self-sustaining operation for at least several minutes, the holy grail of fusion research.
Could somebody remind MIT they already have a working device in their basement, that can convert energy ecomically and fully competitive with the fossile fuel based "economy"? Don't be surprised if some MIT PhD reveals a tabletop nuclear fusion device, out of the b(asement)lue.
So, are the MIT heros really serious with their Manhatton project (they must have an ultra bad conscience over Farnsworth fusor device on the background of very serious climate/ecology changes), or are they still fooling us?
|
|
|
We need a Brooklyn Project, not a Manhattan Project! (Score: 1)
by Overtone on Sunday, August 13, 2006 @ 10:24:42 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message) http://www.magneticpowerinc.com | See Bridgewalk, at the top of this site, for an approach to a workable way to reverse the use of fossil and uranium fuels.
Their use can be wound down much faster than might be imagined.
Mark Goldes
Magnetic Power Inc.
|
|
|
Re: MIT's Energy 'Manhattan Project' (Score: 1)
by Sigma on Sunday, August 20, 2006 @ 05:24:45 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message) | However, unlike ZPE, this technology is more rooted in tradition science and therefore may have a shot at mitigating the ecological disaster that we as a species has created. Every day I grow more and more critical of the whole free energy scene... there has yet to be one technology brought to the market, despite numorous claims through the years. I believe that improved efficiency, better materials, smarter devices, and co-generation are probably the best bet as we go into the future. I do believe that nanotech itself offers not only the potential of sustainable energy, but also "free" energy.
Perhaps as we delve deeper into the atomic structure we may, as ElectroDynaCat would hint at, find a way to harness the ZPE field. I guess we will see what happens with this Steorn company, but I have this feeling it won't be much. |
Re: Re: MIT's Energy 'Manhattan Project' (Score: 1)
by Sigma on Sunday, August 20, 2006 @ 05:30:50 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message) | BTW, the amount of "conventional" technologies in development is probably enough to solve the global warming crisis.
Here are a few:
Powerchips
Coolchips
Thermoacoustic engines
Carbon nanotube UltraCaps
30% efficient thin film IR photovoltaics
Carbon nanotube composite car shells
OLEDS
High efficiency hydroelectric and wind generators
Smart materials
High efficiency Ballistic Computers
etc.
....
|
]
|
|
|
|
