The Sea Change in Washington: A Boost for Green Energy?

November 5, 2006 – Vol. 11 No. 33

THE SEA CHANGE IN WASHINGTON: A BOOST FOR GREEN ENERGY?

President Bush had been touting democracy as a way to put a lid on terrorism. But, unless Bush has a very good sense of humor, there’s one thing you might never hear him say, “See, democracy can also effectively remove unpopular leaders from power.” (One hopes that people in undemocratic nations around the world pick up on this themselves.)

The November 7 vote could likely give a boost to clean, efficient and renewable energy.

Already energy - renewable and otherwise - is on (likely) Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi’s agenda. The possibilities include a national renewable portfolio standard and extended tax incentives for renewables and energy-efficient technologies.

In the States green energy did reasonably well. California voters said no to Proposition 87 (the measure that would have used new taxes on oil produced in the state to fund alternative-fuel development,) but Governor Schwarzenegger kept his job in part because of efforts to mitigate global warming and his support for energy alternatives.

In Massachusetts governor-elect Deval Patrick has already said he wants to build a renewable energy industry in the state. (Massachusetts already has a good base for solar energy with a number of companies that produce solar cell production equipment.) Patrick is also a supporter of Cape Wind, the 420-megawatt offshore wind project still in the approvals stage. More than likely, under Patrick’s leadership the state will also rejoin the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) which Gov. Mitt Romney pulled the state out of.

If there is a greenish tide beginning to come in, will Bush jump in in his last two years in office? Bush, at least in statements, has been supportive of green energy as a technological way to combat global warming and to lessen the nation’s dependence on imported oil.

Bush, too, must also be thinking of his legacy. (Right now his legacy is a failed war.) While he could change his course of the last six years and suddenly support Kyoto, he could also do something he is more comfortable with: push for yet another new technology that will help combat climate change significantly. He should embrace and find funding for the Silent Aircraft Initiative being promoted by a collaboration of Cambridge University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Why should he do this?

--- The tailless, birdlike, bat wing aircraft as envisioned in the SAX-40 would have a passenger-mile-per-gallon fuel economy far better than any aircraft built today. The Cambridge-MIT team expects passenger fuel economy to be equivalent to that of a Prius occupied by a driver and passenger. High passenger fuel economy translates into dramatically lower greenhouse gas emissions: A way to combat global warming with better technology.

--- Building the SAX-40 would create a new or expanded industry and products for export. Already passenger aircraft are one of the stronger US exports, often having an impact on the nation’s balance of trade.

--- Building the SAX-40 would also spur new technologies well beyond the aircraft itself.

(The aircraft, like Boeing’s 787 now in development, would likely be built of carbon fiber to keep it strong and light. The advanced composite, carbon fiber industry is still in relative infancy and the technology is still advancing. For instance NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center announced this week that a better process for manufacturing carbon nanotubes that it had developed has been successfully commercialized by Idaho Space Materials (ISM) of Boise, Idaho, the licensee. Ultra-light, but strong, carbon nanotube materials could feasibly be used in the SAX-40 airframe as well as a wide range of other products such as medical products, fuel cells, video displays and solar cells.)

--- The Silent Aircraft Initiative, if supported by Bush, could be much like the Apollo program. The big difference between Apollo and the Silent Aircraft Initiative is that we actually need the cleaner and quieter passenger aircraft; the space race was mostly international politics. (To some extent the Bush Moon-Mars initiative is international politics as well: keep China, or others from doing it first.)

--- Technologically the SAX-40 aircraft is buildable today. It isn’t being built because airframe manufacturers don’t have the financial incentive to do so, or simply don’t want to make the huge investment needed. Bush, with backing from Congress, could change that.

Bush must certainly be thinking that he needs a better legacy than he is looking forward too. (It seems unlikely that the war will be over by the time he leaves office.) John Kennedy is remembered, in part, for his push to put a man on the Moon, not for sending 25,000 “advisors” to Vietnam. Bush, if he wanted to, could be known for launching a new green breed of passenger aircraft that made a major contribution to cutting greenhouse gases. Visit the Silent Aircraft Initiative at http://silentaircraft.org/ and Idaho Space Materials at http://www.idahospace.com/