Well, that's a pleasant interpretation of the ideal anyways. I've been watching NASA's budget too long to mistake the ideal for what actually happens.
We need an energy miracle
- Thread starter begreen
- Start date
-
Active since 1995, Hearth.com is THE place on the internet for free information and advice about wood stoves, pellet stoves and other energy saving equipment.
We strive to provide opinions, articles, discussions and history related to Hearth Products and in a more general sense, energy issues.
We promote the EFFICIENT, RESPONSIBLE, CLEAN and SAFE use of all fuels, whether renewable or fossil. -
Super Cedar firestarters 30% discount Use code Hearth2024 Click here
- Status
Have you ever sat on one of these review panels at an agency? Reviewed any proposals for funding? Written a proposal for agency funding? Talked to a program managers about how they get their funding from congress (how they justify their funding to congressional staffers)?
Or are you just making cynical assumptions about how it must work?
My own experience with such processes is that they are far from perfect or ideal...but the idea that the POTUS (or congress) could stuff an agency with lackeys who who shovel money to their cronies....just kooky.
As for defense (and NASA) contracts...I am probably at least as cynical as you are.
Or are you just making cynical assumptions about how it must work?
My own experience with such processes is that they are far from perfect or ideal...but the idea that the POTUS (or congress) could stuff an agency with lackeys who who shovel money to their cronies....just kooky.
As for defense (and NASA) contracts...I am probably at least as cynical as you are.
sportbikerider78
Minister of Fire
No one is doubting that the house has the pursestrings of the govt. Fact is, they never reign back spending...and bills many times don't even get read..let alone vetted to see if there is corruption or conflict of interest.
Corruption and theft.
Corruption and theft.
I can attest to this having done both the proposing and the reviewing to/for the DOE.
Last edited:
I've talked to a few people involved in grant requests. I've also read a few hearing transcripts.. I'm sure I haven't been as closely involved as you, although I have been involved with other big bureaucracies on the private side that have their own internal policy struggles, and watched them make bad decisions based on satisfying the not necessarily well-informed whims of people higher up. Yes, I'm sure the defense side is more prone to political interference, and I do believe that most decisions in other departments get made with minimal interference. However, I do not for a second believe that other departments are entirely free from interference.
Yes, the president appoints lackeys. Replacing the cabinet is one of the first things every president does, and the organizational changes propagate downstream to a non-trivial degree. Sometime they replace their own lackeys with new lackeys. Dr. Chu, for instance, appeared to be a liability because he did not approve of President Obama's negligence in dealing with existing nuclear waste. As carefully as he did tread on the matter (sticking only to promoting alternatives to leaving it in temporary storage containers in numerous parking lots around the country, with no plan for ever moving on to a longer term solution), his combined technical and management expertise were not enough to keep him in favor.
Steven Chu is not a lackey. He is a Stanford professor who accepted the call to serve his country. He is really smart guy, and we need really smart people in government, not paid-for-lobbyists ready to go back to K street. Sure he spoke candidly and got himself in hot water, but his focus on new energy alternatives for the DOE to fund was positive.
(broken link removed)
As for the nuclear waste issue, the Supreme Court ruled that nuclear waste sites have to last 1,000,000 years
!! Good luck meeting that requirement. And good luck getting any state to accept the waste (NIMBY).
http://k1project.org/interviews-ste...-and-nuclear-waste-securing-nuclear-materials
(broken link removed)
As for the nuclear waste issue, the Supreme Court ruled that nuclear waste sites have to last 1,000,000 years
!! Good luck meeting that requirement. And good luck getting any state to accept the waste (NIMBY).http://k1project.org/interviews-ste...-and-nuclear-waste-securing-nuclear-materials
That was not intended as a substantive part of the discussion, and I only used the term because woodgeek did, not because I'd really call Dr. Chu a lackey. My point was that each new president always replaces the outgoing president's cabinet with one that he expects to support his policies. Actually, of all president Obama's cabinet picks, Dr. Chu was probably the one I was most satisfied with. But even he is subject to pressure to make the decisions Obama wants made, not necessarily the best decisions from a technical or economic standpoint:
(broken link removed)
As for the nuclear waste issue, the Supreme Court ruled that nuclear waste sites have to last 1,000,000 years
That was way back in 2008. The NRC then extended their analysis based on that ruling for the 10,000 to 1 million year period and found that the facility met the requirements. That analysis held up to scrutiny, because although the risk of a failure to contain the waste cumulatively increases over time, the radioactivity of the waste declines. The total risk (factoring together likelihood of exposure and degree of exposure) actually peaks around 200,000-300,000 years (if I'm remembering correctly), and is within the requirement to limit exposure to less than 1/3 the level of natural background radiation, regardless of whether it's through air, drinking water, surface exposure, etc.
Talking about single elements of a multi-layered protection scheme like the titanium tunnel liner failing after 5,000 years is misguided. It's not like that liner failing means people start dying. It was known it would fail. Then the next layer of protection, the waste storage casks, becomes critical. Eventually they fail. Eventually some of the waste then leaches out of vitrified glass. Eventually it then percolates down to the ground water. Eventually it then migrates laterally to a drinking water well. The long term question is what the levels of contamination look like out to 1 million years, and is there a definite risk to it?
The closure of the project was a dangerous move, trading a 1 million year strategy for a 60 year one (design life of the dry casks used for temporary storage). For that matter, even if we actually did only get 10,000 years out of Yucca Mountain, we end up way ahead. Remember, this waste exists today, and dealing with it doesn't get any easier (or cheaper) the longer you put it off. We already made that mistake once with the military nuclear waste at Hanford, and we're spending a fortune to deal with it.
The state's rights matter is not a current issue. It's well-established precedence for the federal government's authority to supersede individual states' authority when there is compelling cause. They already apply such authority on matters ranging from where military bases are located, to how close a stream you can cut down a tree, to how states manage basic health care funding, to whether an individual who owns a cow can sell milk to a friend. There's not even a prayer a state's rights challenge to resolving the nuclear waste issue would hold up in court.
Not exactly comforting considering the govt. site at Hanford with 53 million gallons of highly radioactive liquid and 25 million cu ft of highly radioactive solid waste on site that is only 70 yrs old and is leaking and contaminating soils and leaching into the Columbia River.
Thank you for the great reply. What I meant to say with the NIMBY portion of the issue are any chosen state's congressional delegation (regardless of party affiliation). Mostly they will stand in the way of becoming the perceived dumping ground for the rest of the country's nuclear waste. Nevada being the great case in point. Harry Reid was the Senate majority leader and stopped the project for cooperation on other issues. I can't say I blame him, he was leveraging his power for the interests of his constituents. And they have a point. Why should one state be the dumping ground for the nuclear waste of other states? Especially when this waste will be around for thousands of years and may kill you if something goes wrong.
This article feels like it has major flaws in its arguments because it stretches to make conclusions from bits and pieces of incomplete information.
What I think happened was the government wanted to help establish a US solar panel company even if it was at high risk and cost (just to put people to work and on the chance it might work). Well, the Chinese kicked their manufacturing butts like they do in most everything else that involves manufacturing. Was it the right choice to make? I don't know because I don't know if there was a more deserving US solar start up that could have been helped with that funding. But I do like the fact that they tried kickstarting a US based business.
I just wish that the same crowd that calls for financial accountability for the $528 million loss of Solyndra, did the same for the billions spent for F-35 fighter or the Littoral combat ship, both of which have big questions regarding their efficacy in combat.
meanwhile back at the oasis? http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-solar-plant-fire-20160520-snap-story.html
Quite a science experiment they have there....I wonder how often PV farms have fires? I guess the inverters could fail...
running out of extended time to get things righted. another setback, probable they will get another extension of the july,31 deadline!Quite a science experiment they have there....I wonder how often PV farms have fires? I guess the inverters could fail...
![[Hearth.com] We need an energy miracle](https://www.hearth.com/talk/data/attachments/178/178899-a145a1338a1f40f629faa997071695ab.jpg?hash=s1UL6LlZCK "[Hearth.com] We need an energy miracle")
Last edited by a moderator:
All because of a mirror focusing error? Sounds like a scene from a Bond movie.
Impressive props even for a bond movie.
I love how Bond estimates a generated temp of 3500 F based only on watching the system operate.
An agricultural change to more sustainable practices may be more practical in the short term. No till, cover crop farming can sequester a lot of CO2. Reducing usage of fossil fuel based fertilizers and world consumption of beef will also help. No till, cover crop farming also reduces the loss of precious top soils, labor and fossil fuels for tilling.
https://www.geneticliteracyproject....benefits-so-why-do-organic-farmers-reject-it/
(broken link removed)
https://www.geneticliteracyproject....benefits-so-why-do-organic-farmers-reject-it/
(broken link removed)
the miracle has arrived! (broken link removed to http://finance.yahoo.com/news/china-moves-u-wind-sector-185115180.html;_ylt=AwrC1DH0sURXdg0AytqTmYlQ;_ylu=X3oDMTEyNWhqNHRhBGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMyBHZ0aWQDVklEMDZfMQRzZWMDc2M-)
- Status
Similar threads
