The moonshot concept means much more money, and also more than money. It means infrastructural development, government procurement, patent pooling, and strong anti-trust enforcement to assure multiple sources for various energy components.
The energy moonshot would need to do many things that the Apollo moonshot did not. It would need to imagine multiple technology pathways, interact constantly with social demand, imagine future needs in an enriched sociocultural context, and be constructed bottom-up rather than top down. In these ways, it would need to be radically different from the Apollo mission.
A moonshot is the opposite of the incrementalism that is plaguing renewable energy research. We have long been getting small annual increases that neither accelerate research breakthroughs nor create interest among private investors. Energy R&D has also been plagued by political instability, as can be seen in this graphic from the Dooley DOE report linked above.
Oil price spikes in the 1970s lead to a spike in energy R&D, which then collapsed almost as quickly. Direct energy research has been a pitiful also-ran ever since.
And Bill Gates: "we're missing the basic innovation that would give us this whole new way of making energy."
Gates also stresses the need to draw in about ten times more bright minds into the research, which is "fun work."
In a similar vein, Andrew Revkin's Dot Earth blog recently had a particularly good post on the funding problem. It caught my attention because it linked energy breakthroughs back to quantum dots, a science domain dear to my heart. But Revkin carries on with a series of links and comments from various analysts on this theme:
One key to a sustained national energy quest, is greatly boosting direct federal support for basic research in relevant sciences. For decades, there’s been bipartisan disinterest in such a push. Current investment in this area is so modest that just a 2 cent rise in the federal gas tax would triple the activity.Many useful arguments follow on the dangers of instability and incrementalism alike.
It's good that these arguments for moonshot funding are increasingly visible. Real funding change is going to take an outside catalyst greater than even the BP Gulf oil disaster has been so far - some major triggering event. The history is clear on this: Apollo is the son of Sputnik. The Soviet's satellite success spawned NASA as an agency and then its moonshot out of a sense of a Cold War military urgency. Sputnik had a similarly dramatic effect on US education. What kind of 2x4 upside the head will focus our attention this time?
The top picture is of Buzz Aldrin setting up a Solar Wind Collector on the moon. It's time for the follow up.