US Energy Secretary Resigns

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Posted by Soulskill on Friday February 1, 2013 @10:45AM from the so-long-and-thanks-for-all-the-energy dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Today Steven Chu, U.S. Secretary of Energy, released a letter indicating he won't continue to hold the job for President Obama's second term. He'll continue until the ARPA-E Summit at the end of February, and then perhaps a bit longer until a replacement is found. MIT's Technology Review sums up his contributions thus: 'Under his leadership, the U.S. Department of Energy has changed the way it does energy research and development. He leaves behind new research organizations that are intently focused on solving specific energy problems, particularly the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Energy as well as several Innovation Hubs. The latter were modeled closely on Chu's experience working at the legendary Bell labs, where researchers solving basic problems rubbed shoulders with engineers who knew how to build things. At one Innovation Hub, for example, researchers who are inventing new materials that can absorb sunlight or split water are working together with engineers who are building prototypes that could use those materials to generate fuel from sunlight. Chu also brought an intense focus on addressing climate change through technical innovation, speaking clearly and optimistically about the potential for breakthroughs to change what's possible.'"

141 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

And So by sunderland56 · 2013-02-01 10:48 · Score: 4, Funny

The President got Chu'd out.
1. Re:And So by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-01 12:28 · Score: 0
  
  YEEEEAAAAAAAAHHHHH!!!!!
And thus... by ackthpt · 2013-02-01 10:49 · Score: 1

At one Innovation Hub, for example, researchers who are inventing new materials that can absorb sunlight or split water are working together with engineers who are building prototypes that could use those materials to generate fuel from sunlight.
And thus became the driving force for ridiculing the current administrations energy policy as it doesn't revolve around "Drill, baby, drill!"
Plants do it, why can't we devise mechanisms and processes to use sunlight to create fuel from water, rather than keep pulling that problematic gunk out of the ground.

--

A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
1. Re:And thus... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-01 10:58 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Because plants don't do it very efficiently. If they did, we could just generate all our power from burning wood, and the forests would be able to regenerate faster than we could burn them up. Something like this won't be useful (in the sense of being able to replace most of the fossil fuels we use) unless it can be a lot more efficient than chlorophyll. And doing better than a billion years of evolution isn't that easy. People have been researching this stuff for at least 20 years (that I can remember, probably longer) and nothing practical has come of it yet. Don't expect it in the near future.
2. Re:And thus... by gestalt_n_pepper · 2013-02-01 11:14 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, even plants don't do it efficiently enough to replace the stored energy in oil, gas and coal. At least, they couldn't replace it without horrendous ecological consequences. We can't "grow, baby, grow" our way out of our energy trap any more than we can "drill, baby, drill." We either go nuclear and hope for at least adequate battery technology, or we forget about industrial scale civilization and starve and die on a massive scale come 2100 or thereabouts.
  Cheers!
  
  --
  Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
3. Re:And thus... by Warhawke · 2013-02-01 12:03 · Score: 1
  
  Plants can photosynthesize because they sit there and don't move. Photosynthesis, even as a form of solar energy, is not terribly efficient. Solar cells aren't terribly efficient either. Here's a good discussion on it.
  The problem with that "problematic gunk" is that it's just so freakin' energy rich. It's kind of like telling a starving politician, "You can either eat this big, juicy burger that will probably give you a heart attack one day in the future, or you can shell these sustainable Macadamia nuts that are so much healthier for y-- Hey! Put down the burger!"
4. Re:And thus... by dgatwood · 2013-02-01 12:16 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Nonsense. Plants don't do it efficiently because they occupy only a small area and must chemically store energy for an extended period of time, because they might not get much sunlight for six months out of the year.
  Most of our power needs as a society don't require such long-term storage. The power that lights up a city is largely transient. It does not need to be stored except to provide a temporary reserve for when energy production is not available, and even then, only to the extent that we don't have enough of a superconducting power grid to bring in power from other areas that are capable of producing power. Similarly, our production capacity need not be self-contained within a single small area; we are capable of moving energy from place to place with relative ease.
  We should have no difficulty powering the future with solar power. We just have to spend the money to build superconducting grids, solar towers, and other similar systems. The only reason we're not doing it on a large scale is that the folks designing the hardware haven't gotten the cost down to a point where it is cheaper than burning quarter-billion-year-old dead plants and animals yet.
  Better battery technology would be useful for certain things, such as laptops, cars, etc., but it isn't essential. Given a superconducting power grid and ultracapacitors, it would not be catastrophic if you had to stop your car and plug in for ten seconds to recharge every couple of hours of driving. And that's possible with the power storage technology we have today, although the cost is still prohibitive.
  The only thing we're really missing is infrastructure and capacity. There is no huge gaping hole in our energy tech picture. There is only a lack of resources to build what needs to be built.
  
  --
  Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
5. Re:And thus... by rgmoore · 2013-02-01 13:26 · Score: 1
  
  The point isn't to have things that need energy harvest it as they go, which is what XKCD's photosynthesizing cows are doing. Instead, it's to devote large areas to collecting sunlight, use the energy to synthesize energetic chemicals, and then use those energy-dense chemicals as a source of energy in other places.
  This is essentially what people are talking about with biofuels. It's just that with biofuels we're depending on plants to do the energy storage for us rather than directly storing it ourselves. Biofuels have the advantage that growing plants is cheap- the plants build themselves- and the disadvantage that photosynthesis is inefficient and a lot of the energy the plants collect goes into maintenance rather than energy storage. Using solar energy to generate fuels directly may be more efficient but has much higher capital costs.
  
  --
  There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.
6. Re:And thus... by steelyeyedmissileman · 2013-02-01 13:39 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Methinks there's far more to it than you imply... Reaching the tech to do what you're describing here takes more than just resources; it takes some significant changes in our understanding of Physics.
  Let's look at your idea: you want something that can charge an electric car's battery in 10 seconds. Ok; a typical Prius battery is rated at about 4 kWh. That's roughly 15 million Joules of energy. To deliver that much energy in 10 s, you need a power supply that provides 1.5 million watts of power. At the battery voltage (~275 V), that's a current of over 5000 A, or only an order of magnitude less than a typical lightning strike.
  Even assuming it's technically feasible to have a superconducting grid (unlikely without high, as in ambient, temperature superconductors), the cable from your power supply to the car battery probably won't be made of the same stuff if it's necessary for a person to manipulate it (eg. connect it to the car that is parked anywhere within a few 10s of centimeters from the supply). If copper wire is used, there is no standard size of wire made that can handle 5 kA for a period of 10 s, and even if you made one it would no longer qualify as "possible for a person to manipulate it".
  So: building your superconducting grid itself requires new physics that we don't have yet, not just adequate resources. Even with said grid, charging a battery in the amount of time you suggest deals with extremely high currents that are likely unsafe to use.
  I'm not saying your idea is impossible, just pointing out that there is much more to this problem than just a lack of resources.
7. Re:And thus... by dgatwood · 2013-02-01 19:22 · Score: 1
  
  We already have superconducting power grid segments. They are underground, so temperature is mostly a non-issue. I wasn't suggesting using superconductive power grids for the last few feet to charge a car. I was suggesting using them around the world so that sunlight in parts of North America, Australia, and Asia could power Europe at night and vice versa.
  You're right that the power storage demands for cars are problematic. It might be possible to run power into the car at a much higher voltage and provide each capacitor with a DC-DC converter with a very short duty cycle... ostensibly... but I'm not sure if it is possible in practice. You'd still need some way to smooth that kind of current....
  Either way, the storage problem is only a problem for a very small number of applications (automobiles being the main one), and even those applications could be eliminated by removing the need for storage. For example, if you built charge coils into the road, you could cut the storage requirements to almost nothing. Or build cars that connect to overhead power lines (though I'll warrant that's harder to do with rubber tires than with trains). Or just build out a viable national network of light rails and high-speed electric trains and stuff so that nobody would need to drive a car in the first place.
  
  --
  Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
8. Re:And thus... by ShakaUVM · 2013-02-01 20:46 · Score: 1
  
  > We just have to spend the money to build superconducting grids, solar towers, and other similar systems. The only reason we're not doing it on a large scale is that the folks designing the hardware haven't gotten the cost down to a point where it is cheaper than burning quarter-billion-year-old dead plants and animals yet.
  Right. *Other than technology that doesn't exist yet*, there's no reason we shouldn't be on a solar-based power grid. :p
  Gas has 40x the energy density of lithium-ion batteries, and "charges" (from a pump) much, much faster.
  There's a reason we still burn dead plants and animals, and it's not because we want to destroy the environment. It's because green technology can't compete with dead plants. (Yet.)
9. Re:And thus... by MrKaos · 2013-02-02 00:55 · Score: 1
  
  We either go nuclear and hope
  What you neatly summarise in two words would require renewable energy supplies to be in place and take 100 years to engineer properly because the current nuclear industry and fossil fuel industry are simply no longer viable, especially in the next 100 years.
  It's for that reason I actually support the development of a reactor that addresses the issue of 70,000 tons of Pu-239 (and much more U-238) currently stored in reactor sites around America, simply because it's irresponsible for our generation to foist these issue onto later generations, the way a carbon legacy was forced on our generation.
  One of the core reasons I support the development of such a reactor because it is capable of utilising weapons grade plutonium as fuel creating an impetus for disarmament and, hopefully, slowly defusing the asymmetrical weapons threat.
  Unfortunately, because there is no geologically sound Nuclear waste dump in operation it's totally inappropriate to discuss building a new reactor facility until a proper containment facility is available. Yucca mountain is not a suitable site because it is made of pumice and geologically active evidenced by recent aftershocks of 5.6 within ten miles of a repository that is supposed to be geologically stable for at least 500000 years. The DOE's own 1982 Nuclear Waste policy Act reported that Yucca Mountain's geology is inappropriate to contain nuclear waste, and long term corrosion data on C22 (the material to contain the Pu-239 and mitigate the ingress of water - yet another Yucca problem) is just not available.
  We need something made of granite. The only human made structure with the potential to last 10000 years is Mt Rushmore, so it has to be an engineering project of that scale, because the logistical problems of transferring the 70000 odd tons of Pu239 to the spent fuel containment facility are so involved that you want to get it right the first time and only do it once.
  Even doing that will probably take 30 years to complete, but there is more to it than that.
  I was a big fan of the Integral Fast Reactor as a potential solution and in a way I still am. But the reality is 3rd and 4th generation reactors are a pipe dream because our material science is not advanced enough yet to produce a reactor design that will last the thousands of years it will take to use that fuel. If you are going to build reactors then do it properly and build a Terra-watt scale nuclear reactor facility the belly of a massive granite mountain with an attached waste facility and chomp up all your remaining plutonium or end all commercial nuclear activity altogether.
  Why? Because Nuclear power is energy intensive *after* the energy has been produced simply because said technology (material sciences) are not adequate to produce a Nuclear reactor that has a life span that matches the geological time frames of the fuel. This exposes the facility to all the issues associated with de-commissioning reactor sites every 4 decades or so. A reactor design that lasts at least 1000 years and is a closed loop, i.e. the plutonium goes in and nothing comes out (except electricity and possibly hydrogen) and avoids all the energetic costs associated with mining, enrichment and de-commissioning/demolition of the reactor.
  As long we are producing plutonium and there is no where for it to go we will have a Nuclear Weapons threat and this is the price we pay for opening that pandora's box. I don't hide the fact that I don't like the constant failure of the Nuclear Industry. But I'm also being realistic. I realise that the only way out of this mess is a well thought out and designed project because we have no other choice due to the nature of the materials. It entails redesigning the entire industry, and it's a long term solution. A well designed and secured facility resistant to attacks even from orbit becau
  
  --
  My ism, it's full of beliefs.
10. Re:And thus... by gestalt_n_pepper · 2013-02-02 03:02 · Score: 1
  
  Most of our power needs as a society don't require such long-term storage.
  This is so wrong, it's actually impressive. Hydrocarbons and even nuclear supplies are limited. Transient energy is what we have *now* and that transience is the problem. If we could store it in significant quantities, we could even use things like solar and wind. These are trivial sources at this point because their output can't be stored.
  It's interesting to wave your hand and say, "Build superconducting grids." It's got that nifty science fiction sound to it, but it's not practical at this point. With current technology, it would *take* energy to maintain and in no small quantities. Engineering expertise too. It's an incredibly high maintenance solution, until and unless room temperature superconductor becomes available at a price that's affordable. That time is not yet.
  Have you ever looked at the energy it takes to keep civilization as we know it running? I suggest you start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubic_mile_of_oil
  
  --
  Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
11. Re:And thus... by gotan · 2013-02-02 05:22 · Score: 1
  
  It seems to be easier and faster to switch the battery, load it in sufficient time, and switch it into another car ...
  Of course there are some things that need to be adressed (who "owns" the battery, standardisation and safety issues), but if it's technically doable the finance folks and lawyers usually come up with a design to cover the rest.
  
  --
  "By the way if anyone here is in advertising or marketing... kill yourself." -- Bill Hicks
12. Re:And thus... by Mindcontrolled · 2013-02-02 05:26 · Score: 1
  
  True. And we cannot go on or else we have a major climate problem. Now what? That's the problem in a nutshell and we better solve it within the current decade.
  
  --
  Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
13. Re:And thus... by dkf · 2013-02-02 06:45 · Score: 1
  
  Let's look at your idea: you want something that can charge an electric car's battery in 10 seconds. Ok; a typical Prius battery is rated at about 4 kWh. That's roughly 15 million Joules of energy. To deliver that much energy in 10 s, you need a power supply that provides 1.5 million watts of power. At the battery voltage (~275 V), that's a current of over 5000 A, or only an order of magnitude less than a typical lightning strike.
  So... you're saying that we should work on powering our cars with lightning strikes?
  The mad scientist in me approves! Igor? Igor! Clear that lump of meat off the table and plug the Prius in: we've got science to do!
  
  --
  "Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
14. Re:And thus... by dgatwood · 2013-02-02 09:27 · Score: 1
  
  It's interesting to wave your hand and say, "Build superconducting grids." It's got that nifty science fiction sound to it, but it's not practical at this point. With current technology, it would *take* energy to maintain and in no small quantities. Engineering expertise too. It's an incredibly high maintenance solution, until and unless room temperature superconductor becomes available at a price that's affordable. That time is not yet.
  What are you talking about? We already have superconducting power transmission lines in active use in the United States, with several more scheduled to go live over the next few years. Yes, the cooling adds some cost, but it is considerably less than the cost of resistive loss when you're dealing with sufficiently high-capacity bulk power transmission.
  
  --
  Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
15. Re:And thus... by gestalt_n_pepper · 2013-02-02 11:12 · Score: 1
  
  We have built toy systems. Had they been economically viable, they'd be growing like topsy. They're not. A half a gigawatt is the largest extant system. Other systems are "proposed." Perhaps they will be built for specialized situations. Or not.
  Regardless, the point is this. Hydrocarbons, uranium, thorium, etc. represent substances with incredibly high energy densities. They are in effect, batteries - the best we have, but they are finite and not reusable. Eventually, finite resources end. Even if we had room temperature, super-conductive wire, solar, wind, hydro all together, aren't going to cut it unless we reduce our energy use quite a bit, as in "below that which is necessary to maintain a large scale industrial civilization."
  You really should review the "Cubic mile of oil" wikipedia entry. It's worth working through the numbers.
  
  --
  Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
16. Re:And thus... by ShakaUVM · 2013-02-02 19:52 · Score: 1
  
  I'd argue that we should do geoengineering until we can switch entirely to CO2-neutral tech (or close enough).
17. Re:And thus... by Mindcontrolled · 2013-02-02 20:12 · Score: 1
  
  We will probably have to, yes. I would prefer a technique with a short half-life, though, i.e. something that allows us to stop the cooling effect we geoengineer in quickly. I have that ugly scenario in mind that we drop the average temperature by, say, 2 degrees, and can't stop that cooling for, say, 5 years. Then WHAM! BAM! a major volcanic eruption barfs up a shitload of sulfur dioxide and particulates into the stratosphere and adds another -2ÂC for 2 years. Good bye, growing seasons...
  
  --
  Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
18. Re:And thus... by Mindcontrolled · 2013-02-02 20:14 · Score: 1
  
  Slashdot? Seriously? You cannot handle the "degree" symbol?? Hey, admins! Yea, you guys!! Hello!!!! Wake up and take your cheeto-stained fingers from your dicks and at least get this code to 1990s standards, would you, pretty please?
  
  --
  Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
19. Re:And thus... by ShakaUVM · 2013-02-02 20:23 · Score: 1
  
  To be fair, -2AC actually makes sense to me, both as a D&D nerd, and in the context of global warming.
20. Re:And thus... by Mindcontrolled · 2013-02-02 21:03 · Score: 1
  
  Hehe, you got a point there. Perhaps we just need some cleric to cast Magic Vestment for us....
  
  --
  Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
Friday as 'Take out the Trash' day by Bruce66423 · 2013-02-01 10:50 · Score: 4, Interesting

There's a West Wing episode called 'Take out the Trash' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Take_out_the_Trash_Day where it's laid down that Friday is the day to announce things because they get lost over the weekend, and by Monday there are other things to talk about. So this is a good demonstration; watch to see if the story does disappear over the weekend...
1. Re:Friday as 'Take out the Trash' day by Antipater · 2013-02-01 10:58 · Score: 1
  
  This time I think it's less about being Friday and more about there being a lot more crazy stuff to scream about. Contraception, a suicide bombing at a US embassy, hearings over the new SecDef, and a contracting economy are all better targets for the GOP to poke Obama with than an outgoing Energy Secretary they don't really like. There'll be a few op-eds about Solyndra and climate change, but then they'll turn back to the tastier morsels.
  
  --
  Everything is better with chainsaws.
2. Re:Friday as 'Take out the Trash' day by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-04 16:11 · Score: 0
  
  Yeah, merely just 'a good day to bury bad news'....
so long winded by X0563511 · 2013-02-01 10:52 · Score: 1

It's difficult to nail down a particular point.
Is he just resigning because he doesn't want to do it anymore? Or is there a statement buried in that "novel of resignation?"

--
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
1. Re:so long winded by gestalt_n_pepper · 2013-02-01 11:25 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  It looks like he's trying to put as good a face as possible on his tenure. The real issues such as declining energy return from the world's remaining oil, what to do about the nation's vulnerable, aging, and dangerous nuclear infrastructure, the global warming consequences of frakking natural gas and increased use of coal... He can't discuss any of this without severe political and possibly personal consequences. He's bowing out while he can, and given the magnitude of the problems, I don't blame him. He can't win. He can only escape.
  
  --
  Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
2. Re:so long winded by Mindcontrolled · 2013-02-02 05:31 · Score: 1
  
  If he would really address the energy problem, he would have to point out the elephant in the room: an idiotic economic paradigm that is based on continuous growth. That's what he can't address without severe political backlash. As you say, he can't win.
  
  --
  Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
Re:here comes more nuclear power by ackthpt · 2013-02-01 10:53 · Score: 4, Insightful

say goodbye to anything that was a renewable energy movement of any sort.
Nonsense - he got the project started, now it's time for new people to come in and make it succeed.
As Winston Churchill was the man for the PM job during WW II, he was not the man to lead the UK through peace at the end of the war.
I for one thank him for his efforts. If we can't stop our need for using energy, at least we can find better sources of it with don't mess with the environment or geopolitics.

--

A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Hardly knew ye... by Okian+Warrior · 2013-02-01 11:01 · Score: 1

Ah, Chu... we hardly knew ye.
1. Re:Hardly knew ye... by oodaloop · 2013-02-01 11:25 · Score: 2
  
  Ah, Chu...
  Gesundheit!
  
  --
  Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
Let's hope it begins a trend by dkleinsc · 2013-02-01 11:14 · Score: 5, Insightful

Stephen Chu was the first person to hold the title of Secretary of Energy who had the scientific background to understand how energy capture / extraction actually worked. It's kind of amazing when you think about it: his predecessors included Navy officers, politicians, lawyers, and a former Coca-Cola executive, but nobody who understood the nitty-gritty of what the Energy Department was supposed to be doing.
As far as why he resigned, I wouldn't read too much into it - the overall timing (shortly after re-election) is in line with wanting to get back in the lab rather than dealing with bureaucracy.

--
I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
1. Re:Let's hope it begins a trend by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-01 11:22 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  And he also blew $80 Billion on "green energy" that mostly went to companies that went bankrupt just after getting their federal funding. Even better A123 not only went bankrupt, but then sold what was left to China.
  I'd like to say he was probably one of the most corrupt cabinet members in history with how he stole $80 Billion in tax payer money to give to Obama supporters, but then I would have to ignore Geitner who did the same with nearly $1 Trillion.
2. Re:Let's hope it begins a trend by interkin3tic · 2013-02-01 11:38 · Score: 0
  
  Explain how he "stole" $80 billion and gave it to Obama's supporters please, Mr. AC. I'm listening.
3. Re:Let's hope it begins a trend by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-01 12:31 · Score: 0
  
  Exactly what he said. He gave the money to "business" that never planned to deliver a product. The number that went bankrupt is too high to be coincidental. All of them were in on the scam. In order to be in on it, you have to support Obama. See, this is how politics works. You know that, so why are you making an exception for this guy? Because he's a nerd?
4. Re:Let's hope it begins a trend by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-01 12:37 · Score: 1
  
  So how do you define "mostly"? The DoE has funding over a thousand companies in the last couple years, and less than 1% of them went bankrupt. Even the worst specific programs under that had half a dozen companies go bankrupt giving a failure rate of 8% for the specific programs. Additionally, it was expected that some of the funded start up companies would fail, as it would be crazy to assume start ups would have 100% success rate, especially in areas trying to build up new development. So a portion of DoE's budgets for such programs account for a portion of the money to be lost due to failed businesses. Last I heard, the money they lost to failed businesses was still about half of what they expected to lose and planned for...
5. Re:Let's hope it begins a trend by jbengt · 2013-02-01 12:47 · Score: 1
  
  So far, everyone seems to be ignoring the most important work the energy department has been doing - securing nuke material throughout the world that could easily otherwise land on the black market. The energy dept has been very proactive on that lately, and it doesn't get much press. That even gets ignored by some of the "conservatives" who want to disband the dept of energy (and especially by those who forget which dept it was they want to get rid of)
6. Re:Let's hope it begins a trend by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-01 12:52 · Score: 0
  
  The number that went bankrupt is too high to be coincidental.
  How about some actual numbers? Like, say maybe five companies: A123, Abound Solar, Beacon Power, Ener1 and Solyndra to be exact, out of a program that funded 63 companies. Is that what you count as too high to be coincidental?
7. Re:Let's hope it begins a trend by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-01 13:19 · Score: 1
  
  Not only that, but A123 was actually a damn fine lithium ion battery producer that had decent products. The electric car thing killed it, but China subsidizing its competitors more than we were subsidizing A123 didn't help one bit.
  So out of 63 companies, 4 dead ones were vaporware. That's 6.3%.
  Meanwhile Up to $3 of every $10 as much as $3 of every $10 that U.S. taxpayers spent on wartime contracting over the last decade went up in smoke. That's 30%.
  tl;dr: There's always fraud when it comes to the government. The Republicans are just whining that the Democrats aren't very good at it.
8. Re:Let's hope it begins a trend by beckett · 2013-02-01 13:21 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Solendra, look it up. Just because you are lazy or stupid doesn't mean it didn't happen.
  ok, lets look it up: Solyndra recieved $535M in a federal subsidy, and in response, China put up $35 Billion to subsidize their own solar research and industry.
  
  It appears that both an agressive foreign entity and a softening PV market played roles in Solyndra's demise.
  
  what do you mean by 'look it up', exactly? i don't read publications that exist exclusively inside your political 'bubble'.
9. Re:Let's hope it begins a trend by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-01 15:45 · Score: 1
  
  Exactly this... Stephen Chu is a brilliant man (see Nobel prize) who is likely hungry to get back into fundamental science and his home, family and friends. /L
  In his tenure, Chu did an *incredible* amount of good for the Department of Energy and hence the US and the planet... I don't think anyone can understand just how much amazing stuff Chu actually did in 4 years until you actually work a stint in the government and realize the machinery that has to be pushed and operated to make things happen (I work in a scientific branch of the federal government). I applaud Chu's work, and I applaud all of the unsung heros behind the scene and elected officials who helped Chu "get stuff done"... because it isn't easy. I wish Chu would've stuck around a little longer but I respect completely his decision. Hopefully Obama and future presidents continue on the 'good idea' of tapping the shoulders of brilliant scientists and engineers, with some business/political acumen, to head DOE in the future. /* a raise of my glass to Stephen Chu
10. Re:Let's hope it begins a trend by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-01 15:53 · Score: 0
  
  Why has the gov't taken over all of the nuclear research and materials and access?
  Because it hasn't. There is still a lot of private nuclear technology related research and access to materials. I know, because I am a researcher at such a company. Additionally, a large chunk of DoE's research is via private companies (not ours at the moment).
  
  Well, you can be assured that the no-competition bid will be won by the most politically connected people
  I don't know how it works with other agencies, but DoE's research based grants and contracts are definitely not no-competition, and in some cases can be quite difficult and competitive to get. At least with some of the nuclear material related research. If anything, they take the other extreme, in that the effort it takes to justify and and defend research work is quite time and effort demanding compared to when I've worked for private funded operations.
11. Re:Let's hope it begins a trend by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-01 17:27 · Score: 0
  
  Energy department created in the 70s to remove our dependence on foreign oil. Thats its one and only reason it got created. Forty years later and a Trillion dollars spent and we haven't made one step in that direction from ANYTHING from the DOE.
  You might call it total failure, but total failure wouldn't cost as much or take as long to notice. It is staggering how much PAST total failure the DOE has managed to get.
12. Re:Let's hope it begins a trend by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-01 17:29 · Score: 0
  
  You are full of bullshit.
  Charles Duncan Jr. had actually extracted oil as a roustabout and was a chemical engineer.
  Samuel Bodman has a PhD in chemical engineering.
  Both are far, far more qualified than Chu, whose expertise was in removing extremely tiny amounts of energy from a very few helium atoms.
13. Re:Let's hope it begins a trend by Sarius64 · 2013-02-01 18:25 · Score: 1
  
  So are you implying that we can squander any amount of money up to $35 billion and it's okay with you?
  Evergreen Solar ($25 million)
  SpectraWatt ($500,000)
  Solyndra ($535 million)
  Beacon Power ($43 million)
  Nevada Geothermal ($98.5 million)
  SunPower ($1.2 billion)
  First Solar ($1.46 billion)
  Babcock and Brown ($178 million)
  EnerDel’s subsidiary Ener1 ($118.5 million)
  Amonix ($5.9 million)
  Fisker Automotive ($529 million)
  Abound Solar ($400 million)
  A123 Systems ($279 million)
14. Re:Let's hope it begins a trend by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-01 18:28 · Score: 0
  
  Chu followed in the footsteps of Obama. Took credit for the computing cycles already generated under Bush 43 and blamed Bush for everything he couldn't bully to get done. Not much science in those cycles.
15. Re:Let's hope it begins a trend by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-01 19:14 · Score: 0
  
  You know, if we only spent $500m and got China to spend $35,000 million towards the same goal, I'd say we got a good return. As long as the end result is the same (much cheaper solar panels), I'd say we got exactly what we wanted.
16. Re:Let's hope it begins a trend by khallow · 2013-02-01 20:50 · Score: 1
  
  I sure would. That's a remarkably bad failure rate (happening over only a couple of years since the loan guarantees were made), especially given the sums of money involved. Among other things, I think a number of companies are still burning through their loans. We'll see more bankruptcies.
  
  I think it'll be instructive to look back on this program at the ten year mark and see what actually happened or didn't happen as the case may be. I think by that time, the failure rate will be so pronounced, it'll be highly embarrassing for defenders.
17. Re:Let's hope it begins a trend by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-02 01:33 · Score: 0
  
  ha ha ha ha ha ha. You are sooooo naive.
18. Re:Let's hope it begins a trend by MrKaos · 2013-02-02 01:37 · Score: 1
  
  So are you implying that we can squander any amount of money up to $35 billion and it's okay with you?
  Evergreen Solar ($25 million) SpectraWatt ($500,000) Solyndra ($535 million) Beacon Power ($43 million) Nevada Geothermal ($98.5 million) SunPower ($1.2 billion) First Solar ($1.46 billion) Babcock and Brown ($178 million) EnerDel’s subsidiary Ener1 ($118.5 million) Amonix ($5.9 million) Fisker Automotive ($529 million) Abound Solar ($400 million) A123 Systems ($279 million)
  oh please, this is chicken feed compared to the money that has been wasted on the existing energy industries. What do you expect an entirely new energy production method, entering a market worth trillions for dollars is not going to burn start-ups and attract people trying to get rich?
  
  --
  My ism, it's full of beliefs.
19. Re:Let's hope it begins a trend by MrKaos · 2013-02-02 01:56 · Score: 1
  
  I think it'll be instructive to look back on this program at the ten year mark and see what actually happened or didn't happen as the case may be. I think by that time, the failure rate will be so pronounced, it'll be highly embarrassing for defenders.
  I've been entertained by how wrong your predictions were in the past. It's a remarkably vague comment for which you are sure to be right. If this is the specificity of your professional predictions then you have a quality control issue.
  
  --
  My ism, it's full of beliefs.
20. Re:Let's hope it begins a trend by WindBourne · 2013-02-02 01:59 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, Solyndra got a LOAN, not a subsidy. And China put up 35 B to subsidize and dump on foreign markets, esp. Americas. There is a bit of a difference there. And Solyndra is suing multiple Chinese companies. Hopefully, some of the other companies will join in as well.
  
  --
  I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
21. Re:Let's hope it begins a trend by WindBourne · 2013-02-02 02:01 · Score: 2
  
  First off, you are listing companies that are SUCCEEDING with companies that failed? Hate to tell, but Chu did a better job picking winners than did bankers and investors here.
  
  --
  I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
22. Re:Let's hope it begins a trend by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-02 04:26 · Score: 0
  
  Well, it is a lower failure rate than they expected and got a budget approved for. One of the laws that some of the loans were issued under had a 30% failure rate budgeted for by the law from Congress. In other words, Congress told them to guarantee $25 billion in loans, and to have budget prepared for $7.5 billion of them to fail.
  If what they were investing in had 100% success rates predicted, then there would be no need for the government to give loan guarantees, other investors would do that. Instead, the point of the program was to develop business and infrastructure that the market would not provide for initial development but would support after economy of scales kicked in, especially in areas that other governments are trying to develop in other countries. It is on par with research they fund, which because that involves developing new things, does not always succeed.
23. Re:Let's hope it begins a trend by brianerst · 2013-02-02 05:03 · Score: 1
  
  What exactly was the "waste" on existing energy industries? That energy industry is currently powering your entire civilization.
  The ROI on our existing energy infrastructure is the difference between the agrarian 1860s and now. And the existing energy industry is far cleaner and cheaper than the pre-existing industries (cutting down entire forests for fuel in the 1600s or the 80% coal power of the late 1800s). Our primary problem right now is one of scale - we switched to an infrastructure that was so (relatively) clean and efficient that we now can use so much of it that even the (relatively) small amount of pollution per unit of power is overwhelming the environment.
  It'll be a fantastic day when the alt-energy sector can replace even the incremental growth of our energy use. We seem to have done a poor job of being a VC for the sector - maybe we should concentrate on basic and applied research.
  (All that said, Cool Planet Fuels looks pretty cool.)
24. Re:Let's hope it begins a trend by harvey+the+nerd · 2013-02-02 05:47 · Score: 1
  
  Initially after college, Duncan actually even worked for Exxon, then as Humble Oil.
25. Re:Let's hope it begins a trend by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-02 06:44 · Score: 0
  
  and how did that "loan" work out for the taxpayers you fucking idiot
26. Re:Let's hope it begins a trend by khallow · 2013-02-02 06:50 · Score: 1
  
  I've been entertained by how wrong your predictions were in the past.
  Please give an example. I'll note in my Fukushima predictions that I was correct way back at the end of March, 2011, that the worst of the disaster was over (and yet you still tried to contest it). In the thread to that second link, I also predicted that eventual human exposure would be at least two orders of magnitude less than it was for Chernobyl. Given that 20-50 times less radiation was actually released onto land than was the case for Chernobyl (combination of 4-10 times less overall radiation released and 80% of that radiation ending up in the sea) and the population around Fukushima was evacuated at least a day earlier than was the case for people living around Chernobyl, I think that prediction will succeed easily.
  
  I also predicted that there would be witch hunts for TEPCO executives. There is a criminal investigation underway. We'll see if there is any actual criminal negligence out there with respect to the Fukushima accident or if my prediction there gets borne out.
  
  I will note that there has been at least a couple local government actions that have been shifty (for example, a local government study that claimed hundreds of deaths due to the stress of evacuation for the Fukushima accident and subsequent months long displacement from home and business).
  
  So sure, I've made a bunch of predictions, but my record there looks pretty good.
27. Re:Let's hope it begins a trend by khallow · 2013-02-02 07:00 · Score: 1
  
  One of the laws that some of the loans were issued under had a 30% failure rate budgeted for by the law from Congress.
  Ugh, reading that reminds me why the US government should stay out of the investment business.
  
  If what they were investing in had 100% success rates predicted, then there would be no need for the government to give loan guarantees, other investors would do that.
  
  I guess then we need grown ups to evaluate these programs, not people who can only distinguish between perfect and not perfect. Everything is "not perfect". But some things, such as this program are a lot further from perfect than others.
  
  Instead, the point of the program was to develop business and infrastructure that the market would not provide for initial development but would support after economy of scales kicked in
  This has been tried before many times. The problem isn't economies of scale, but just that renewable power, electric cars, etc tends to be costly for what it delivers.
28. Re:Let's hope it begins a trend by MrKaos · 2013-02-02 13:07 · Score: 1
  
  So sure, I've made a bunch of predictions, but my record there looks pretty good.
  So does your capacity for self delusion as anyone actually reading those threads will discover your arguments comprehensively destroyed with facts referenced from The World Nuclear Association and the American Society of Mechanical Engineers. It says a lot that you now say you are correct when back then you admitted:
  Turns out I was wrong. - khallow September 24 2011
  Your consistently fumbling, clumsy arguments really reveal that you have always been way out of your depth on this issue, You were wrong about when the reactor would be controlled, wrong about the seawall, ignorant of the operational parameters of the GE Mk1 reactor's basis design issues, wrong about the spent fuel pools, made up arguments that were refuted with *facts* from those organisations. Now you demonstrate your predictability as it is not the first time you have attempted to convert a memory of failure into one of success based on retrospective observations. Now you attempt to smear the work of those organisations in an attempt to restore your ego. Pathetic.
  Still, I predict we will see many more vague nondescript statements from Dr Khallow that lack any specifics and are utterly banal. Specifically, I predict that Dr Khallow will be unable to be specific about the prediction he has made in this thread.
  
  --
  My ism, it's full of beliefs.
29. Re:Let's hope it begins a trend by t0rkm3 · 2013-02-02 14:55 · Score: 1
  
  As a local to one of the crony capitalists that benefited from the Solyndra deal. Kaiser knew what he was doing when he dumped a several wads of cash into the O-B ticket coffers. He was buying access to free money. Solyndra died and Kaiser was paid back before the govt debts were satisfied, which is supposed to be against the law.
30. Re:Let's hope it begins a trend by khallow · 2013-02-02 17:08 · Score: 1
  
  You were wrong about when the reactor would be controlled, wrong about the seawall, ignorant of the operational parameters of the GE Mk1 reactor's basis design issues, wrong about the spent fuel pools, made up arguments that were refuted with *facts* from those organisations.
  A reasonable person would have granted that my prediction was right and moved on. I have long given up on getting from you any sort of fair or rational discussion on the Fukushima accident. As I noted in that very post, I was correct about when the reactors would be controlled. They have all moved on to the "cold shut down" state since that post. I find it remarkable that here is this accurate prediction from only a couple weeks into the Fukushima accident. Yet it is still being contested. You long ago lost this fight.
  
  Specifically, I predict that Dr Khallow will be unable to be specific about the prediction he has made in this thread.
  What is there to be specific about? We already have linked the relevant posts from the past almost two years. One merely needs to read those to get both the exact details of my prediction and the depth of the perfidy and delusion to which you stooped in response. As far as I'm concerned, this is over.
31. Re:Let's hope it begins a trend by MrKaos · 2013-02-02 21:43 · Score: 1
  
  A reasonable person would have granted that my prediction was right and moved on. Yet it is still being contested. You long ago lost this fight.
  So says you, who has have already admitted you were wrong.
  That you see this as win/lose demonstrates the priority for you in these discussions has always been your ego. It's the facts you've been arguing against, not me. The thread shows you present no fact, no information, demonstrate no understanding of the facts and, therefore, the ramifications. More so that the thread wasn't about your "prediction" it was showing how;
  Fukushima shows that the Nuclear Industry FAILED to apply itself to learning the lessons of safety from Chernobyl.
  Launching your ad-hominem attacks in the beginning of the thread demonstrated you had no argument. Even now you try to claim your vaguely made statements as "accurate prediction" which has taken almost two years to clarify exactly what you meant by them. Your position, there and here, remains rhetoric.
  
  What is there to be specific about? We already have linked the relevant posts from the past almost two years. One merely needs to read those to get both the exact details of my prediction and the depth of the perfidy and delusion to which you stooped in response.
  On March 31 2001, you said "Wait a month and you'll see that we turned the corner about a week ago", whilst control of the reactor wasn't achieved until 16 December 2011 according to the Japanese Prime Minister. Yet, somehow, I'm the delusional one.
  This was my experience of the "quality" of your predictions, you were the one who brought up the past argument. Any person with a shred of humility would have let it go. Evidently our previous encounters have affected you greatly.
  
  As far as I'm concerned, this is over.
  Well it certainly looks that way for the Nuclear Industry in Japan and many other places.
  
  Specifically, I predict that Dr khallow will be unable to be specific about the prediction he has made in this thread.
  As you've demonstrated, your response was entirely predictable.
  
  --
  My ism, it's full of beliefs.
32. Re:Let's hope it begins a trend by khallow · 2013-02-03 02:59 · Score: 1
  
  On March 31 2001, you said "Wait a month and you'll see that we turned the corner about a week ago", whilst control of the reactor wasn't achieved until 16 December 2011 according to the Japanese Prime Minister. Yet, somehow, I'm the delusional one.
  Yes, you are the delusional one. Did I say that Fukushima had achieved cold shut down way back in March, 2011? Of course not. The reactor was not out of control the day before the Prime Minister's alleged statement, but showed steady improvement for many months, all the way from the very point I noted. Hence, why my statement was correct.
  
  As you've demonstrated, your response was entirely predictable.
  So what? The point of this debate isn't to surprise you, but to enlighten you.
33. Re:Let's hope it begins a trend by interkin3tic · 2013-02-03 07:19 · Score: 1
  
  So then not "stealing" but "making a poor investment."
34. Re:Let's hope it begins a trend by MrKaos · 2013-02-04 12:29 · Score: 1
  
  On March 31 2001, you said "Wait a month and you'll see that we turned the corner about a week ago", whilst control of the reactor wasn't achieved until 16 December 2011 according to the Japanese Prime Minister. Yet, somehow, I'm the delusional one.
  Did I say that Fukushima had achieved cold shut down way back in March, 2011? Of course not. The reactor was not out of control the day before the Prime Minister's alleged statement, but showed steady improvement for many months, all the way from the very point I noted. Hence, why my statement was correct.
  You said nothing. You applied vague statements to maximum effect. When you said "Wait a month and you'll see that we turned the corner about a week ago" it meant nothing then and now. Like all of your purposely banal statements you attempt to mould them later saying "this is what I really meant" and then claim you were right all along. When you were asked to clarify what your statement meant, you never defined them. Attempting to claim your statement as correct highlights you are unable to accept that the onus for the failure to communicate your message is on you for failing to provide any specificity. You may as well say you were correct about, something?
  As I said, this was my experience of the "quality" of your predictions, specifically lacking in any accuracy or precision.
  
  As you've demonstrated, your response was entirely predictable.
  So what? The point of this debate isn't to surprise you, but to enlighten you.
  For it to be a true debate their has to be equivalence, where you counter the fact I present with fact - you never have been able to do that. Debating you is remarkably like debating a two year old, where you are the two year old and I am the adult you are attempting to manipulate. Entertaining for a while, but ultimately, tedious. On the upside it is excellent practise for the patience required to deal with the suborn dogma of those with an inept argument.
  Yet again you demonstrate the exact behaviour when you were asked to define what you meant by "Wait a month and you'll see that we turned the corner about a week ago" and were wrong about. You were wrong about your statement on March 31 2001 and are still wrong. Your attempts to back pedal and present your failure as something else has, again, failed. However, you are an exceptionally talented bullshitter and observing your expertise at bullshitting is enlightening.
  But so you are unable to claim you are confused about which of your, low quality, predictions I am talking about, here it is;
  
  I think it'll be instructive to look back on this program at the ten year mark and see what actually happened or didn't happen as the case may be. I think by that time, the failure rate will be so pronounced, it'll be highly embarrassing for defenders.
  Specifically, I predict that Dr khallow will be unable to be specific about the prediction he has made in this thread.
  As you've demonstrated, your response was entirely predictable.
  
  --
  My ism, it's full of beliefs.
35. Re:Let's hope it begins a trend by khallow · 2013-02-04 17:48 · Score: 1
  
  When you said "Wait a month and you'll see that we turned the corner about a week ago" it meant nothing then and now. Like all of your purposely banal statements you attempt to mould them later saying "this is what I really meant" and then claim you were right all along.
  
  I think the burden of proof is on you. As I see it, if I had really been wrong about my prediction, you would have had evidence by now. The only thing you brought up this time was:
  
  On March 31 2001, you said "Wait a month and you'll see that we turned the corner about a week ago", whilst control of the reactor wasn't achieved until 16 December 2011 according to the Japanese Prime Minister. Yet, somehow, I'm the delusional one.
  I find it incredible that you can't figure out why the two facts, my prediction and the subsequent announcement by the Japanese Prime Minister are consistent. We'd expect, if we had "turned the corner" to eventually get an announcement of this sort. And we did. Further, we'd expect such an announcement to be rather long in coming merely because it takes a while for a reactor to cool down due to the presence of isotopes with half lives longer than a few hours. In other words, the correctness of my position can't be determined merely on this basis - and you should know that.
  
  And in that same post is this gem:
  
  Fukushima shows that the Nuclear Industry FAILED to apply itself to learning the lessons of safety from Chernobyl.
  Nonsense. As I see it, the primary two lessons of Chernobyl are a) don't do crazy shit to a nuclear reactor, and b) evacuate people when you know a meltdown is possible. Fukushima respected both lessons.
  
  I also find it a bit odd to claim that my prediction could mean anything when previously you claimed that it's clearly wrong. Those two are mutually exclusive. You can't have a clearly wrong claim when there's wiggle room to interpret it as right.
  
  As I see it, both stories are in error, but the fact that you can't settle on one such story indicates to me deeper problems with your reasoning than merely generating flawed arguments.
  
  You know who else has problems keeping their stories straight? Liars. You also grotesquely misrepresent my previous defense on this matter ("Turns out I was wrong. - khallow September 24 2011"). I had already corrected your interpretation of that at the time (any would be readers can just scan that thread to see my defense of the time). Also during that discussion, you brought up six points which I helpfully demolished for you. Some of these were also misrepresentations of news articles. So you have a history of twisting the truth.
  
  I really think you ought to spend more time cleaning up your act and less time wasting my time.
36. Re:Let's hope it begins a trend by MrKaos · 2013-02-05 08:59 · Score: 1
  
  p>On March 31 2001, you said "Wait a month and you'll see that we turned the corner about a week ago", whilst control of the reactor wasn't achieved until 16 December 2011 according to the Japanese Prime Minister. This is the history of your failure
  As I said, this was my experience of the "quality" of your predictions, specifically lacking in any accuracy or precision.
  
  Did I say that Fukushima had achieved cold shut down way back in March, 2011? Of course not. The reactor was not out of control the day before the Prime Minister's alleged statement, but showed steady improvement for many months, all the way from the very point I noted. Hence, why my statement was correct.
  You said nothing all your claims revolve around rhetoric. You applied vague statements to maximum effect. When you said "Wait a month and you'll see that we turned the corner about a week ago" it meant nothing then and remained undefined. as demonstrated here;
  
  I find it incredible that you can't figure out why the two facts, my prediction and the subsequent announcement by the Japanese Prime Minister are consistent. We'd expect, if we had "turned the corner" to eventually get an announcement of this sort. And we did.
  Like all of your purposely banal statements you attempt to mould them later saying "this is what I really meant" and then claim you were right all along. When you were asked to clarify what your statement meant, you never defined them. Attempting to claim your statement as correct highlights you are unable to accept that the onus for the failure to communicate your message is on you for failing to provide any specificity. You may as well say you were correct about, something?
  
  Further, we'd expect such an announcement to be rather long in coming merely because it takes a while for a reactor to cool down due to the presence of isotopes with half lives longer than a few hours. In other words, the correctness of my position can't be determined merely on this basis - and you should know that.
  I do, and that it is utterly ridiculous to claim that in 14 days it "turned a corner" - and I repeat - whatever that means.
  
  As you've demonstrated, your response was entirely predictable.
  So what? The point of this debate isn't to surprise you, but to enlighten you.
  For it to be a true debate their has to be equivalence, where you counter the fact I present with fact - you never have been able to do that. Debating you is remarkably like debating a two year old, where you are the two year old and I am the adult you are attempting to manipulate. Entertaining for a while, but ultimately, tedious. On the upside it is excellent practise for the patience required to deal with the suborn dogma of those with an inept argument.
  
  You know who else has problems keeping their stories straight? Liars. Also during that discussion, you brought up six points which I helpfully demolished [slashdot.org] for you. Some of these were also misrepresentations of news articles. So you have a history of twisting the truth.
  As evidenced, you're doing fine, any new facts presented to you would simply be a waste of my time because you would simply do what you do, as you have again demonstrated. So why would I even waste my time dignifying you who cannot accept facts placed before them. Two years later and you still can't define what "turned a corner" means yet I'm supposed to find facts to counter an amorphous argument that you change to suit your mood. Your tactics are obvious.
  Yet again you demonstrate the exact behaviour when you were asked to define what you meant by "Wait a month and you'll see that we turned the corner about a week ago" and were wrong about. You were wrong about your statement on March 31 2001 and are still wrong. Your attempts to back pedal and present your failure as something else has, again, failed. However, you a
  
  --
  My ism, it's full of beliefs.
37. Re:Let's hope it begins a trend by khallow · 2013-02-05 20:09 · Score: 1
  
  I do, and that it is utterly ridiculous to claim that in 14 days it "turned a corner" - and I repeat - whatever that means.
  How about you stop being an idiot and actually figure out the meaning of phrases first? Here's what turn the corner means:
  
  to pass a critical point in a process
  The dictionary above gives an example of its use.
  
  The patient turned the corner last night. She should begin to show improvement now.
  It doesn't meant the process is finished, merely that it has passed a significant threshold or milestone.
  
  Here, the process is bringing four nuclear reactors eventually to a stable point, "cold shut down". If one looks at the first two weeks, there was a lot of crazy stuff going on, including three meltdowns, at least one fire in a fuel rod pool, two evacuations of all personnel from the site and a number of substantial releases of radioactivity into the air.
  
  Since, the worst problem to the outside world has been the slow leaking of contaminated water from the site and steady progress towards that final stage, "cold shut down" was made to the point that all of the reactors achieved cold shut down by early last year. The critical point was passing the stage of emergency and great danger.
  
  If your position had any integrity you would not have engaged me.
  Defending myself from accusation is now proof that I don't have integrity? I think I'll link this gem in the future in case I should have to deal with your bullshit.
  
  I think it'll be instructive to look back on this program at the ten year mark and see what actually happened or didn't happen as the case may be. I think by that time, the failure rate will be so pronounced, it'll be highly embarrassing for defenders.
  Specifically, I predict that Dr khallow will be unable to be specific about the prediction he has made in this thread.
  Since there is the possibility that this could be highly instructive for you, I'll elaborate on what I mean by "failure". I think failure will be such things as bankruptcy, absence of any meaningful infrastructure built or technology acquired as a result of the loans, or creation of a continuing money sink which can pay its guaranteed loans, but only by consuming considerable public funding.
  
  And glancing through the list of outstanding loans as of mid-2012, they're pretty big for the projects they're covering.
  
  For example, there's a $1.6 billion loan guarantee for a NRG Energy/Brightsource solar plant that generates 392 MW. That's about $4 per watt of generating capability. From what I understand, $1 per watt for solar is considered barely competitive with natural gas or other current peaking load power generation. Now maybe that particular loan will buy other things than just the plant, but as it stands, it seems around a factor of four too costly for what is obtained.
  
  And Abengoa SA, which has received about $1.5 billion in loan guarantees looks to me like a WorldCom style failure waiting to happen. It's high debt, low cash flow, and probably using whatever assets it purchases as collateral for future loans. But it'll probably keep building up debt until the US and EU cuts back on renewable energy subsidies.
38. Re:Let's hope it begins a trend by MrKaos · 2013-02-13 01:58 · Score: 1
  
  I do, and that it is utterly ridiculous to claim that in 14 days it "turned a corner" - and I repeat - whatever that means.
  
  How about you stop being an idiot and actually figure out the meaning of phrases first? Here's what turn the corner means:
  tsk tsk, now, now
  
  If your position had any integrity you would not have engaged me.
  
  Defending myself from accusation is now proof that I don't have integrity?
  What accusation? I reflected on my experiences of the quality of your past predictions. I see I've been "instructive" in encouraging the improvements below and I commend your effort, would you like me to score them?
  
  I think I'll link this gem in the future in case I should have to deal with your bullshit.
  By all means do. It shows what's required to get through your condescending sense of self importance, arrogance and pride. I don't have a problem with arrogance, per se, but when it comes without any information it's just an annoying "because you say so". In other words it's your tactics and you've had a taste of ones own medicine. So stop being an asshole, old chap.
  
  to pass a critical point in a process
  
  The dictionary above gives an example of its use.
  
  The patient turned the corner last night. She should begin to show improvement now.
  
  It doesn't meant the process is finished, merely that it has passed a significant threshold or milestone.
  Yes, I know what it means, you were unclear with what you meant by it.
  
  Here, the process is bringing four nuclear reactors eventually to a stable point, "cold shut down". If one looks at the first two weeks, there was a lot of crazy stuff going on, including three meltdowns, at least one fire in a fuel rod pool, two evacuations of all personnel from the site and a number of substantial releases of radioactivity into the air. Since, the worst problem to the outside world has been the slow leaking of contaminated water from the site and steady progress towards that final stage, "cold shut down" was made to the point that all of the reactors achieved cold shut down by early last year. The critical point was passing the stage of emergency and great danger.
  Finally an answer of sorts, even if it's two years late. Two weeks is a bit optimistic to gain control of the reactor and spent pools, considering that a normal controlled shutdown takes roughly four weeks to thermally cool, but not unreasonable to get some control over the "crazy stuff" of the disaster like fires, cooling and water flow. I'll accept your _retrospective_ explanation of this point is that two weeks to control the initial disaster is what you meant.
  How the legitimate, inevitable pursuit of justice through the courts of the criminal negligence of TEPCO pans out, we will just have to wait and see how that pans out.
  
  I think it'll be instructive to look back on this program at the ten year mark and see what actually happened or didn't happen as the case may be. I think by that time, the failure rate will be so pronounced, it'll be highly embarrassing for defenders.
  
  Specifically, I predict that Dr khallow will be unable to be specific about the prediction he has made in this thread.
  Since there is the possibility that this could be highly instructive for you, I'll elaborate on what I mean by "failure". I think failure will be such things as bankruptcy, absence of any meaningful infrastructure built or technology acquired a
  
  --
  My ism, it's full of beliefs.
Steven Chu, Physics, and Politics. by beckett · 2013-02-01 11:16 · Score: 5, Interesting

Dr. Steven Chu brought authority and evidence-based science to the US Cabinet. Former professor of physics at Stanford, he shared a Nobel prize for physics in 1997 for cooling and trapping atoms with laser light. he continued to publish science while serving as Secretary of Energy.

His very expertise and lifelong, professional interest were very lamely attacked by the right wing machine, typically accusing him of avocating raising oil prices and gas prices.

Having Dr. Chu there did more to forward the cause of science in the US Government in generations. How many administrations could walk down a hallway and access a scientist at the top of his game? He should be held and paraded around on slashdot's shoulders for his hard work.
1. Re:Steven Chu, Physics, and Politics. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-01 12:42 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Chu DID advocate for higher oil prices:
  "Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe."
  - Chu, September 2008
  http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/mar/14/newt-gingrich/gingrich-said-energy-secretary-advocated-raising-g/
  Then he became Secretary of Energy and it became inconvenient and he retracted it.
2. Re:Steven Chu, Physics, and Politics. by beckett · 2013-02-01 13:12 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Then he became Secretary of Energy and it became inconvenient and he retracted it.
  thanks for confirming my point.
  
  Some of the other ideas Chu proposed were a glucose economy as part of a progressive, diverse, alternate energy plan, and was decried for practical ideas such as smart grids and painting house roofs and pavements white to reduce heating and cooling costs.
3. Re:Steven Chu, Physics, and Politics. by ShakaUVM · 2013-02-01 20:41 · Score: 2
  
  Though I do agree we need more scientists in cabinet positions, his banner solution to global warming was painting rooftops white.
  Good riddance to him.
4. Re:Steven Chu, Physics, and Politics. by Rogerborg · 2013-02-02 00:09 · Score: 1
  
  Right, because that one thing that press and commentards chose to fasten on to like pit bulls was his only idea.
  Painting buildings and vehicles white is such a no-brainer in a hot climate that it's barely worth commenting on before implementing, let alone sardonic eye rolling.
  
  --
  If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
More Ph.D. in governemnt! by darth_borehd · 2013-02-01 11:52 · Score: 1

I am sad to hear he is going.
I want all high ranking officials in my government to have doctorates.
1. Re:More Ph.D. in governemnt! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-01 12:44 · Score: 0
  
  Given Ph.D can also stand for "piled higher and deeper" I'd say the Washington crowd has it covered particularly well.
2. Re:More Ph.D. in governemnt! by beckett · 2013-02-01 13:24 · Score: 1
  
  what anti-intellectual trolling.
3. Re:More Ph.D. in governemnt! by godrik · 2013-02-01 16:50 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe not, we want some actual work to get done! :)
4. Re:More Ph.D. in governemnt! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-02 01:36 · Score: 0
  
  You have obviously never worked with faculty in a research university. I have and found that level of education is not highly correlated with intelligence, and inversely related to any shred of knowledge about how to do ANYTHING efficiently.
5. Re:More Ph.D. in governemnt! by WindBourne · 2013-02-02 01:38 · Score: 1
  
  and certainly for positions over technical arenas.
  
  --
  I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Need more information by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-01 12:06 · Score: 0

Nobody can tell whether Chu went along with Obama on all the corruption or not but Obama and Chu. We know he headed up nuclear power research for the USA before he was chosen. With Chu at the head of energy this administration has bankrolled the first two nuclear power plants in 30 years. No insurance company or anybody else would touch nuclear power because it produces so much radioactive contaminants only a government can take "responsibility". Chu also was responsible for making sure drilling for natural gas went ahead as fast as it possibly could. Anything "green" did not get funded unless the companies donated lots of money to Obama's election. So all-in-all I'm not surprised nothing concrete is said about Chu and why he is leaving. I guess his legacy will have to be vague like "inventing new materials that can absorb sunlight or split water". Something that has been done by numerous people already in numerous ways.
1. Re:Need more information by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-01 18:24 · Score: 0
  
  No insurance company or anybody else would touch nuclear power because it produces so much radioactive contaminants only a government can take "responsibility"
  The problem wasn't getting insurance to cover spills and accidents, as the clean up funds are not that large of a portion of the cost of constructing a new plant. The problem is simple return on investment and predicting future costs of electricity. It is a large chunk of money to put in one basket, and investors didn't want to invest that much money with the risk of the cost of power not growing fast enough to catch up to what they wanted to pay back the investment. Nuclear is not as cheap as some people make it out to be.
Legendary by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-01 12:55 · Score: 0

Oh yes, trying to solve problems and working with those who know how to solve said problems....absolutely brilliant. Are there any Nobel Peace prizes left over?
1. Re:Legendary by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-02 04:06 · Score: 0
  
  Given the level of effort required for that peace prize, the committee has definitely been on a downward spiral.
Good, maybe they'll fire his son by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-01 13:30 · Score: 1

he's managed to wreck two projects at NASA AMES
Fossil fuel by tlambert · 2013-02-01 13:43 · Score: 3, Informative

Actually, even plants don't do it efficiently enough to replace the stored energy in oil, gas and coal. At least, they couldn't replace it without horrendous ecological consequences. We can't "grow, baby, grow" our way out of our energy trap any more than we can "drill, baby, drill." We either go nuclear and hope for at least adequate battery technology, or we forget about industrial scale civilization and starve and die on a massive scale come 2100 or thereabouts.
Uranium: The other fossil fuel
Plutonium: The other renewable energy
Breeder reactors: The other recycling program
Central United States: The other location safe from tsunami
He's tired. by boddhisatva · 2013-02-01 14:02 · Score: 3, Funny

No energy left.
Re:here comes more nuclear power by icebike · 2013-02-01 14:03 · Score: 1

Hmmm, not buying the Churchill comparison. Winston was on the outside before the war, and was more or less guaranteed the election by Hitler's castration of Chamberlain. After the war, his pre-existing problems came back to haunt him. Read Winston's War.
Chu had no prior problems, and isn't being banished for accumulated past transgressions.
His work is far from done. He doesn't have to stand for re-election. Only one vote counts, Obama's.
He's probably the person with the best science background in the whole administration.
He, like 4 or 5 other department heads is "choosing" to leave with his work half done. Why is that?
Has he been pressured into staying just long enough to get Obama elected?
Its not unusual to lose a couple cabinet members upon a second term election, especially when those
cabinet heads were more or less forced on you in your first term to garner support. Every administration
has a couple of those. More so at the end of the second term than the beginning.
But 5 is pretty big number, and the cabinet is getting whiter and male-er.
If this was a Republican administration the press would be wringing its hands at all these replacements.
But Obama is too big to fail for the liberal press, so they will just push this rush to the exit back onto page 5.

--
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
BECAUSE: Epic Fail by N8F8 · 2013-02-01 15:14 · Score: 3, Informative

First the billions of taxpayer money spent on BS renewable energy companies then a failure to move nuclear power forward. Better to have hired a Finance expert.
http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/2013/0130/Georgia-nuclear-power-plant-could-be-Solyndra-redux-report-says

--
"God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
Contribution from a geek ... by Taco+Cowboy · 2013-02-01 16:26 · Score: 1

Unfortunately, geeks will remain as geeks, and geeks, to the critters on Congressional Hill, are like disposable diapers, and Dr. Chu is no exception.
No matter how much geeks have contributed to the society, the politicians will end up getting all the glory

--
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
1. Re:Contribution from a geek ... by slick7 · 2013-02-02 15:36 · Score: 1
  
  Unfortunately, geeks will remain as geeks, and geeks, to the critters on Congressional Hill, are like disposable diapers, and Dr. Chu is no exception.
  No matter how much geeks have contributed to the society, the politicians will end up getting all the glory
  The issues to look at are bankster accounts and regulation interpretation by the out going regulator. Is he leaving before anyone finds out just what he did in office or is he leaving for a corporate job with all kinds of federal loopholes in his back pocket? Either way, the American taxpayer will end up paying for it in the years to come.
  
  --
  The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
Re:here comes more nuclear power by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-01 17:23 · Score: 0

I can imagine Chu saying I've had enough of this Washington D.C. political BS and I want to go back to doing what I do best.
God damn that guy was good for America. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-01 18:20 · Score: 0

We should all thankful for him. Without him citizens would have been left to the wolves.
Epic Genious by bussdriver · 2013-02-01 18:35 · Score: 1

I hope they pick another genius Scientist to help save the world. People don't realize how these positions work-- politics is about eating shit for a living and being pleasant while doing it. He wasn't a politician so he didn't have to enjoy it but he had to eat plenty of shit regardless because that is how it works. The man did a great deal of good while facing a huge system bent on our destruction and more powerful than even a president... or for that matters the majority of the public has no real power when it comes to our big problems we as a nation and the global problems the world faces today. Most energy secretaries don't know jack about energy and are connected to the wrong industries as business men -- who are not suited to government which is NOT a business except for the parts involving dodging blame and taking credit for successes from underlings.
Solyndra was a small loan that banks wouldn't back because they'd lose if it went bankrupt that is how that program functioned and it had a better loan record than most investors do. (If you don't realize it was a small loan then you need to lower your IQ by 10 points.) What I find funny about it is how little the donation amounts were to Obama and how massive they were to Bush and Republicans who started the Solyndra loan process under Bush. The company wasn't a massive fraud it was attempting to take a superior solar technology and make it CHEAPLY when China was dumping billions into subsidizing their cheap solar to put everybody else out of business. We didn't subsidize our solar or tariff theirs this was just a small loan to something with a HUGE potential payoff.
As for the nuclear plants-- those are always stupid; unless you can manage them properly which the USA can't privately or publicly... well, except the military that public org handles it's nuclear power just fine. Next gen nuke power never happens and I dismiss all talk of that because it hasn't been done its not that we won't build it it is because nobody is building something that isn't there yet. Meanwhile solar tech is cheaper than nuclear power without our subsidies (china lowered price remember) and nuke power is always heavily subsidized.

--
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
1. Re:Epic Genious by WindBourne · 2013-02-02 01:36 · Score: 1
  
  First off, Solyndra was not just a small loan, but had China not been illegal in their actions, then Solyndra, and others, would still be alive. It was the illegal actions of China that killed these companies.
  
  Secondly, why do you claim that nukes are not well managed here? We have not done a good job of promoting it anymore, which is a horrible mistake, but I do not see failures going. And solar remains MUCH more expensive than nukes. In fact, At this time. I think that Thorium will actually be as cheap or cheaper than NG.
  And what is more important, is that the last thing that we want is to even think that we can base our economy on just solar/wind. Both would be easy to kill by simple weather changes. So, any nations whose military is working hard on weather control would have an effective weapon. In addition, a super volcano erupting, say Yellowstone, would have a real detrimental impact on our output right when we need it most.
  
  --
  I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
2. Re:Epic Genious by Sarius64 · 2013-02-02 04:08 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, I was just commenting the other day that we need to make more solar-powered carriers to maintain seapower into the century.
3. Re:Epic Genious by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-02 08:43 · Score: 0
  
  how about placing solar panels on our nuclear reactors, so they can operate off the grid?
4. Re:Epic Genious by bussdriver · 2013-02-03 05:36 · Score: 1
  
  The military has been using a lot of alt power for strategic reasons for quite a while now - the navy has been funding biofuel research. The US military is the largest oil user in the nation - oil has always been strategic problem.
  You must be joking; FYI: Carriers are nuclear and take more power than a city and they have a city worth of people living on them. Extremely expensive to operate a carrier; I've said for years we need to sink half our carriers.
  homework:
  1) how many carriers are there in the world?
  2) how many does the USA have?
  3) how many cruise missiles to sink a carrier?
  4) how cheap and widespread are these missiles?
  
  --
  Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
5. Re:Epic Genious by bussdriver · 2013-02-03 06:37 · Score: 1
  
  Nuclear problems; prevented by LUCK and coverups.
  When something is wrong and a good person spots and fixes it-- if they make any noise they are shutup / fired etc. Our regulators are industry people and that doesn't help matters; furthermore, the IAEA is not just the worlds "regulator" but they are also the industry lobby group. We've had leaks and "minor" events which didn't turn into some big disaster, not that it didn't raise cancer rates etc - it is extremely difficult to prove causation for nuclear problems. Even in Japan, the generations of problems they will have from that radiation will be impossible to legally connect to the disaster itself - only the general statistics for the nation will go up a bit. Remember, Japan's gov tried to lower regulatory the bar on danger to make things look better! With that kind of corruption just after a disaster what hope would later things have?? Oh, and I thought that the company building those new nuke plants was the same corp that did Japans mess? or did that change after all?
  I personally knew somebody who worked in the local plant on the robotics - he was mentally Homer Simpson. How he ever managed to program a robot I would love to know! I'd also like to know how he cheated his way into an Electrical Engineering degree...(he needed help doing simple electrical wiring of his house, I kid you not! that place would have burned down...) I'll never feel safe about a place who takes YEARS to fire somebody like him. (BTW, he generally gets promoted instead of fired - the company or division goes down and he starts again helping destroy another business.) Real life Homer knows how to work HR people.
  I'm not anti-nuclear, just practical:
  1) solar is now cheaper than nuclear.
  2) wind should get there too.
  3) Practical thorium reactors do not exist. Neither does fusion; both are only 5 years away...
  4) Nuclear fuel ran out. the USA had the most in the world; it is all gone (except weapons - remember in the 90s when we started to source fuel from weapons?) the USA now has to import fuel. Sure it is high density but it is not abundant (and newer tech could make our use of it smarter, but we waste it. gov has to subsidize ANY move completely or it doesn't happen.)
  5) Nuclear is heavily subsidized and always was--solar gets relative nothing; nukes are also insured by gov.
  6) Nuclear NEVER MADE A PROFIT (unless you ignore the tax payer) but like all power in the USA, we give a regulated monopoly control and then they take their unduly gained profits and bribe our officials. Free market my ass. some things can't become legit markets.
  7) "Base power" is smaller the better grid you have. I have no prob with a few gov-owned nukes for base power; although, I'd rather we created a marketplace for power storage. Where Germany is going. high tech batteries may be their next big market (solar is as a result of their last energy policy.) a high voltage DC power grid is what we need; we waste too much from AC parasitic losses and conversion and regulation of AC making a distributed grid extremely costly. Many of those pie in the Thorium sky reactors are mini distributed power...
  SERIOUSLY? yellowstone erupting? WTF? I wasted time reading your post only to find out in the end you don't know jack? there is no USA if yellowstone blows. weather control? you watch too much psyfi (tv.) do you have any idea the power involved in the weather? Sure harry potter can change it with a wand, but in the world of physics energy can't be created or destroyed. Hell, most sunlight is IR and passes thru the clouds. Unless you pull a Mr. Burns... (and in that case the severe cooling in the shadow would cause really strong thermal currents from the warmer areas producing... wind.)
  
  --
  Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
The Chu Legacy - by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-01 19:36 · Score: 0

Several dead electric car start-ups strangled by the DOE loan program and its moving goalposts, solar power ripoffs on the taxpayer's dime funneled into Democratic congressional districts, the meek and empty words of a typical academic, and little to no actual progress toward improved energy technology and infrastructure. The man was worse than useless, he tarnished the DOE's name even worse than it already had been, and just because he has a PhD after his name doesn't mean he was fit for the job. Good riddance, back to the ivory tower with him.
The Drone Ranger by CuteSteveJobs · 2013-02-01 23:27 · Score: 3, Funny

Steven Chu was a Nobel Prize Winner. Clearly Obama has gone power-mad and demanded that Chu build him an Army of Super Drones powered by the Arc Reactor in Iron Man. Chu refused, and when Obama threatened him Chu resigned in protest. Truth is Chu didn't do it on principal. He did it because the Arc Reactor is impossible and Iron Man is just a movie, but how could he explain that to a lawyer? Now as Steven Chu drives back takes the long and lonely drive back to St. Louis, if he looked in his rear vision mirror, he might see a star. A star closer than it should be, following him. The Drone Lord does not take "No" for an answer. TO BE CONTINUED...

PS. This is a joke.

So is this: "Obama Begins Inauguration Festivities With Ceremonial Drone Flyover" http://www.theonion.com/articles/obama-begins-inauguration-festivities-with-ceremon,30974/
So are these: "Obama’s CIA pick calls drone attacks ‘ethical and just’" http://www2.macleans.ca/2013/02/01/czar-of-the-drones/ http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jan/07/john-brennan-cia-drones-obama
Too bad. I had high hopes for him by WindBourne · 2013-02-02 01:18 · Score: 1

Chu was actually one of the brighter energy secretary that we have had. As such, I was hoping that he was going to push Obama to start a fund for thorium reactors. We have effectively shut down our storage of 'nuclear waste', so this is sitting at sites that are looking to shut down their reactors. If we create multiple companies with thorium reactors that can use this 'waste' as well, we can simply add these new reactors on-site and then burn up 95% of this 'waste'. Note that these current sites already have cooling, transmissions, land, etc. IOW, they are already well situation to handle nuclear power. So, it is ideal for a company to add these reactors, and then while making profits on them, tear down the old reactors.

--
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Re:BECAUSE: Epic Fail by WindBourne · 2013-02-02 01:30 · Score: 1

So, 1 company that is devoted to Alternative energy, and another one that is opposed to Nuclear Energy (though not against fossil fuel) are saying that this is being done wrong. Yeah, totally makes sense to me.

--
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Actually, it DID just raise by WindBourne · 2013-02-02 01:57 · Score: 1

Does not matter, we WILL have to raise taxes. Cars are getting more and more efficient. So, our tax base for road infrastructure is going down. Worse, we have not raised it in nearly 2 decades.
As such, we NEED an increase, or to better formulate it. The best thing that we can do is to raise it every 6-12 months on a % basis, with a minimum amount. In particular, the feds should be raising the tax on diesel, since that is mostly used by semi-trucks, which make heavy use of interstates. Likewise, states have indicated that they want to play games with gas, so, the feds should raise that as well, but send the majority of it to the states to use on their regular roads. With this approach, it encourages movement away from imported oil, while allowing real improvements to our infrastrucutres, esp. bridges, dam, roads, etc.

--
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Re:here comes more nuclear power by WindBourne · 2013-02-02 02:13 · Score: 1

Actually, for second terms, it is far more usual to shake up the entire cabinet. reagan, clinton, and W had nearly full turn-overs. In fact, here is the list.
You will notice that NONE of the repeat presidents had the same sec for the second term.

This is not a bad thing. This is a GOOD thing. What is needed is somebody who is as good as Chu, but will spend money in places like Nukes.

--
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Re:here comes more nuclear power by WindBourne · 2013-02-02 02:23 · Score: 1

BTW, the big problem is that one of the candidates to replace him is Ritter. I can not imagine a WORST candidate than ritter, except a pure oil/gas guy. He will actually fuck things up.

--
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Let's hope it DOES NOT begins a trend by Lawrence_Bird · 2013-02-02 02:32 · Score: 1

Chu was for all intents a failure at DOE with no major accomplishments other than tarnishing the image of the agency. Contrary to your belief, scientists, particularly nobel winners, do not make good administrators and DOE is about as large and diverse an entity as they come. That is not to say that having a general background in math and physics would not help but that does not translate to leader must be a "scientist". Further, whomever is appointed must realize this is his/her day AND night job and that moonlighting to cointinue their previous work is unacceptable.
1. Re:Let's hope it DOES NOT begins a trend by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-02 04:14 · Score: 0
  
  Further, whomever is appointed must realize this is his/her day AND night job and that moonlighting to cointinue their previous work is unacceptable.
  Why? Because we don't want to draw more attention and awareness to the agency and what it is doing? Because we don't want the leaders to keep their science backgrounds fresh and up to date? Because it is a 24/7 job with no allowances for any other activities in the person's life?
  
  Contrary to your belief, scientists, particularly nobel winners, do not make good administrators and DOE is about as large and diverse an entity as they come
  Based on what experiences? A large number of scientists move on to leader ship and administration roles all over the place, including at universities (e.g. from dean to president), national labs, and within the DOE where many of the administrators have been and are scientists. Yes, some scientists suck as administrators, as is true of most people in general. But I've definitely seen previous barriers within the DOE and communications problems before when trying to to bridge a gap between an administrator that has a science back ground and when their next level superior does not, or even problems when some administrators were once scientists but have been out of the field too long.
2. Re:Let's hope it DOES NOT begins a trend by Lawrence_Bird · 2013-02-03 05:04 · Score: 1
  
  (1) Because it is a government job with 24/7/365 demands. It is a cabinet position. If the head of DoD/Transportation/CIA was doing this you would be just as ok? "Well there's this war going on, but yeah I got some time to moonlight on stuff I used to do.... "
  (2) Take a look at those scientists. I think you will find in man cases those in administrative roles are generally not the "elite" researchers/theorirsts. As I said, a background, either through schooling or work, may be helpful but should not be looked upon as making the person qualified to lead a large organization. And the scale of DOE and other top level agencies is enourmous. Of course, there are exceptions, one example might be Leon Lederman who managed research groups of increasing size up to heading Fermilab with good success, though even he failed to save the SSC which was a political victim to the ISS and "small" science.
  The size and scope of many of the federal agencies, DOE included, make finding any competent adminstrator difficult. But the evaluation of scientific merits (if applicable) should occur long before anything crosses the desk of the secretary, who needs to make decisions based on resource constraints (money, time, staff, materials, etc) and politics (not in my district!).
Too bad he got ground down by Sporkinum · 2013-02-02 05:18 · Score: 1

Illegitimi non carborundum

--
"He's lost in a 'floyd hole"
Re:Abominable Chue Recedes by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-02 05:24 · Score: 0

But, but, but, but, China and Bush and some Republican is a dumbass commenting on rape. We had to squander that money!
Great idea: White rooftops by Futurepower(R) · 2013-02-02 14:00 · Score: 1

Painting the roof tops white is a very, very good idea.

There is excellent paint available, for exactly that purpose.
1. Re:Great idea: White rooftops by ShakaUVM · 2013-02-02 19:51 · Score: 1
  
  I've run the cost comparison on it. It's horrendously expensive for very little benefit.
2. Re:Great idea: White rooftops by khayman80 · 2013-02-03 11:12 · Score: 2
  
  Though I do agree we need more scientists in cabinet positions, his banner solution to global warming was painting rooftops white. Good riddance to him.
  I've already already addressed this:
  To be precise, he suggested that any roof which needs to be replaced anyway be replaced with a white roof, and that roofs on new buildings be white. The costs of this strategy are negligible. The benefits include lower air conditioning bills for homeowners, lower CO2 emissions because of the reduced electricity demand, and reflecting sunlight back into space which helps cool the planet. Roofs in Siberia should remain black, but white roofs are optimal even away from the tropics because snow covers them during much bitterly cold weather anyway. Also, black roofs aren’t efficient heaters because heat rises, and there’s less sunlight in the winter. Plus, black roofs radiate heat away better than white roofs.
  
  I've run the cost comparison on it. It's horrendously expensive for very little benefit.
  Nonsense. Making a new roof white rather than black has negligible costs, and many benefits.
  Your recent lull in attacks on scientists prompted me to ignore your accusation that I'm quite simply lying, and your attacks on other scientists. However, your renewed misinformation campaign makes it clear that this was a mistake. I'll add your other baseless accusations back to my list of contrarian arguments to debunk. Stay tuned.
3. Re:Great idea: White rooftops by ShakaUVM · 2013-02-03 19:14 · Score: 1
  
  Hey, my stalker is back!
  Awesome.
  >Nonsense. Making a new roof white rather than black has negligible costs, and many benefits.
  Yes. I thought I mentioned this in a post on here, but it appears that comment got eaten.
4. Re:Great idea: White rooftops by ShakaUVM · 2013-02-03 19:18 · Score: 1
  
  >Your recent lull in attacks on scientists prompted me to ignore your accusation that I'm quite simply lying
  That's... hilarious, because 1) that hyperlink doesn't have me accuse you of "quite simply lying" anywhere in it (in fact, you are nowhere in the thread), which 2) makes that a lie.
  Anyone who cares to see which of us are telling the truth (which is most likely nobody), can go ahead and click on that link and see what I wrote myself.
5. Re:Great idea: White rooftops by khayman80 · 2013-02-03 19:22 · Score: 1
  
  Stop digging.
6. Re:Great idea: White rooftops by ShakaUVM · 2013-02-03 20:05 · Score: 1
  
  I won't read a wall of text. But you don't need to look far for me catching you in a lie. You just did, above.
7. Re:Great idea: White rooftops by khayman80 · 2013-02-03 20:07 · Score: 1
  
  Slashdot's appetite for similar comments is insatiable.
8. Re:Great idea: White rooftops by ShakaUVM · 2013-02-03 20:20 · Score: 1
  
  So, wait.
  You're linking a post from another Slashdotter that you cyberstalk... to demonstrate that you can't follow posts correctly on Slashdot anymore?
  Was that the point?
9. Re:Great idea: White rooftops by khayman80 · 2013-02-03 20:24 · Score: 1
  
  I won't read a wall of text. But you don't need to look far for me catching you in a lie. You just did, above. [ShakaUVM, 2013-02-04]
  
  There's no need for you to read it, because you obviously read it (without comprehension) the first time around:
  ... I don't have time to link everything now, but here's the story: Phil Jones used to fulfill FOIA requests regularly. Then crackpots started flooding his office with too many requests to handle, in a type of harassment that reminds me of the Lenski affair. ... You can't mean McIntyre, who deliberately flooded his office with over 50 requests in a single week. ... Notice that even if all those anti-AGW M's only filed one request a month, that would still be 18 total requests per month, or 324 person-hours per month, which is two full-time jobs spent handling frivolous requests. Then imagine what would happen if there were some anti-AGW people with names that don't start with "M" ... [Dumb Scientist to ShakaUVM, 2011-01-27]
  Defenders of Jones like to pretend he was being spamflooded by FOIA requests, but this is quite simply a lie from people unwilling to admit that "their team" could ever be in the ethical wrong. [ShakaUVM, 2011-10-30]
  When you find yourself in a hole, it's better to stop digging than to keep baselessly accusing scientists of lying.
10. Re:Great idea: White rooftops by khayman80 · 2013-02-03 20:36 · Score: 1
  
  My point was that the previously mentioned similarity deepens.
11. Re:Great idea: White rooftops by ShakaUVM · 2013-02-03 22:11 · Score: 1
  
  > Defenders of Jones like to pretend he was being spamflooded by FOIA requests, but this is quite simply a lie from people unwilling to admit that "their team" could ever be in the ethical wrong. [ShakaUVM, 2011-10-30]
  Which was not written in response to you.
  If you think that everything on the internet is about you, you have much bigger problems than I have been giving you credit for.
12. Re:Great idea: White rooftops by ShakaUVM · 2013-02-03 22:18 · Score: 1
  
  >My point was that the previously mentioned similarity deepens.
  You still haven't learned to hyperlink properly.
  Wall of text
  Wall of text
  Wall of text
  ctrl-f "Shaka"...
  Oh. You're accusing me of being some other person you're cyberstalking. Because both of us have accused you of cyberstalking?
  Hint: maybe it is not because some paranoid fancy of yours is true, but because you make a habit of cyberstalking people.
  I'm not Jane Q. Public. I'm only aware of her because you keep mislinking comments to me about her.
13. Re:Great idea: White rooftops by khayman80 · 2013-02-03 22:29 · Score: 1
  
  Heh. Okay, in that case I'm defending the anonymous defenders you're accusing of quite simply lying when they echo my words.
14. Re:Great idea: White rooftops by ShakaUVM · 2013-02-03 22:34 · Score: 1
  
  Yep. If I think you're not telling the truth, you can trust me to say it to your face. =)
15. Re:Great idea: White rooftops by khayman80 · 2013-02-03 22:51 · Score: 1
  
  I only trust the similarity between my words and those you claim are quite simply a lie.
16. Re:Great idea: White rooftops by ShakaUVM · 2013-02-03 23:17 · Score: 1
  
  Did you look at the quotes on Slashdot, instead of your blog that aggregate everything together? Your name appears nowhere in the thread you linked to, and all my conversations were with another individual.
17. Re:Great idea: White rooftops by ShakaUVM · 2013-02-03 23:23 · Score: 1
  
  ^aggregates