(12-13-2016 04:03 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: I do think having someone who has been thoroughly involved with the research experience would be beneficial to running a Department that is very involved with research funding.
I don't. Seriously. I think it is very likely to lead to focusing on the trees instead of the forest.
And that's kind of my problem with Solyndra and a lot of other DOE stuff. The big problem is not that Solyndra failed, or others, it's more that Solyndra wasn't going to be a game-changer, even if it had worked. We need to be thinking bigger rather than smaller in this area.
Look at the track record:
In 1976, Brazil and the US both committed to become self-sufficient in energy. 40 years later, they are, we aren't. They did it with alternatives and they did it with drilling. 44% of their on-the-highway fuel is biofuels--sugar cane ethanol or biodiesel. We are still farting around with corn, because Iowa is the first primary.
As far as solar, China focused more on big-ticket stuff, and they have left us pawing at the dirt. Even if Solyndra had repaid its debt, it wasn't going to put us up with China.
The biggest single part of DOE is nuclear, which was the primary reason it was established. France gets 80% of its electricity from nuclear. We don't. France addresses the waste problem by reprocessing. Thanks to Jimmy Carter, we don't. Speaking of thanks to Jimmy Carter, he is the reason why we burn more coal and less natural gas in generating electricity. Nuclear is not without risks. Guess what, neither is anything else. If we want to make a major impact on greenhouse gases with current technology, nuclear is about it. Why don't we have a program of developing cookie-cutter nuke plants like France does, and put them around the country to make up supply? I was in Paris years ago, and heard a TV interview with their energy minister, who was a Green Party member as part of a coalition government. He was asked why a Green would support so much nuclear. He responded, "Look around, do you see any oil wells?"
Like it or not, we are dependent on oil for the immediate future. We're not getting off oil any time soon, because we don't have anything viable to get ON instead. So, on the one hand, we certainly should be pursuing alternatives with full vigor. But at the same time, it makes no sense to be getting that oil in anything but the most efficient and least environmentally risky way possible. And like it or not, that means pipelines. So why not XL and why no Dakota? Simple, the alternative is rail or truck, and George Soros owns a bunch of rail cars. Never mind that the environmental risks are much higher, gotta make money for our cronies.
Norway has much stricter standards for deepwater offshore drilling than we do. In 40 years in the North Sea, they've never had a BP incident. And if they had one, they have the tools to take care of it in short order. But you can get a drilling permit in two months in Norway, whereas they can take 18 months here. There's no reason for that.
So those are some of the places where I think our energy department has its head wedged firmly up its ass. If all those PhD's had been worth a damn, we'd have nuclear where France does and solar where China does and biofuels where Brazil does, and our offshore oil and gas production could be where Norway's is, only on a larger scale. But we focus instead on stupid stuff that does little to solve the problem, but makes somebody feel good.
