SciGuy: Should we scrap NASA to save the world?:


"I just finished a book called The Coming Economic Collapse, which makes the case that a barrel of oil will likely cost $200 by decade's end. Regardless if that's overly bullish on the price of oil, there are many scholars who agree that we're headed toward an energy crunch.
The point made in the book is that, as much as some scientists want to move toward alternative energy for environmental reasons, there are plenty of economic and political reasons to do so as well. Oil demand is rising. Production capacity is close to peaking, or it already has. Therefore, oil will demand an ever increasing premium.
The authors, Stephen Leeb and Glen Strathy, suggest the only course of action for this country is to rapidly develop alternative energies. They suggest wind power as the best course, which would require an incredible infusion cash for research and infrastructure: land, turbines, transmission, power storage, fuel cells and hydrogen stations. The idea is that wind powers homes, and also converts water into hydrogen for fuel-cell-powered cars.
It can be done, they argue, citing the work of Stanford scientist Mark Jacobson. The cost? About $1 trillion to complete the conversion by mid-century.
I started thinking, where could that come from? Aside from the National Institutes of Health, which isn't going anywhere, there's no federal science agency with that kind of budget. Well, except for NASA, which today awarded a $7.5 billion contract to build spaceships to return us to the Moon.
NASA's annual budget is $16 billion. Figuring in moderate increases, that's easily $1 trillion before the year 2050. By mid-century, then, there's the potential to become completely energy independent, with zero greenhouse gas emissions. All of the "