Trump vs. the Energy Dept. - Guess who's Going to Win

Posted by $ CBJ 5 years, 8 months ago to Politics
57 comments | Share | Flag

Energy Department officials are indignantly refusing a request by Trump's transition team for the names of employees working on "climate change." Trump will soon be their boss and control the department's budget. This might be a good time to eliminate the department altogether, and transfer its nuclear weapons work to the Department of Defense.
SOURCE URL: https://www.yahoo.com/news/u-energy-department-balks-trump-request-names-climate-160441559.html?ref=gs


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by $ jbrenner 5 years, 8 months ago
    Selection of Rick Perry to head DOE indicates Trump wants to at least decapitate the DOE.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ 5 years, 8 months ago
      The D.C. bureaucracy is top-heavy with liberal Democrats. It will be interesting to see what Trump does to offset this bias. Looks like he's off to a promising start.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • 10
        Posted by $ jbrenner 5 years, 8 months ago
        He is off to a promising start.
        The following is just a joke, so Objectivists, please don't rain down on me for this. Perhaps Trump will declare DC blighted, and use eminent domain to just start over. ;)
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ mminnick 5 years, 8 months ago
    If the DOE spent money to send employees to a Global Warming/Climate Change symposium or any other meeting, that information is a matter of public record and must be shared. At worst a FOIA request can and should be entered to obtain the information.
    I'm tired of government employees not complying with the rules and regulations that apply to all of the rest of us. I worked as a DoDmCivilian for 18 years and had to comply with some really dumb rules and regulations or get fired or serve time. Why doesn't the DoE have the same rules and regulations the DoD had/has? Because they are not enforced by the entrenched progressive climatologists stuck in a heat wave.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 5 years, 8 months ago
    Why do we even HAVE a DOE. Its none of the business of government to regulate the energy I use. The free market is a lot better at it than the government ever would be.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by KevinSchwinkendorf 5 years, 8 months ago
      In Bill Gertz's book, "The China Threat," he stated that the DOE was filled during the Clinton administration with "anti-nuclear activists." Having worked as a civilian contractor for DOE facilities for over 25 years, I can certainly support that statement. The problem is that George W Bush never cleaned house. I suppose that the Sept 11, 2001 attacks, which came only 8 months into his presidency, took first priority, but we are still saddled with those types of people. It used to be that DOE supported "Energy R&D," as it did evolve out of the old Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) (which was split into the Energy Research and Development Administration (ERDA) and Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) back in 1975 - ERDA was then made a full cabinet-level organization the next year, the DOE). DOE does some support for nuclear power R&D, but it biggest priority seems to be windmills and solar panels. And, of course, the Stockpile Stewardship Program, which is to continue to certify the safety/reliability of the remaining nuclear weapons stockpile. This program is administered through the country's network of National Labs (e.g., Los Alamos, Lawrence Livermore, Oak Ridge). Nuclear weapon maintenance is not something the military is set up to do. The military is the "end-user," but they are not staffed with nuclear engineers and scientists who are expert in the fields necessary to support these roles. That's where the labs come in.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by DrZarkov99 5 years, 8 months ago
    Looking at the complete list of questions Trump's transition team sent to the DOE, I got the distinct idea that he wants to fast track modern nuclear power technology. Ironically, whether or not you're a believer in human-caused climate change, that's definitely a way to make a significant reduction in greenhouse gas production. It would be nice to see a go-ahead for thorium reactors.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by dwlievert 5 years, 8 months ago
    It is as obvious as anything one might discern about the manner in which power is "separated" in the federal government, that the power of the purse rests with Ryan and the majority in the House.

    The current situation, at least for the present, is such that there has NEVER been a more opportune time to begin the disbanding of the bureaucracy throught the power of the purse!
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Joseph23006 5 years, 8 months ago
    Starting at the top when Mr. Perry or whomever assumes the duty as head of the department the firings should begin, consolidation of areas of expertise, and a streamlining of the accountability to the head. The first to go should be those who denied the request, those involved in the coal and oil sections should be sent for OJT at their various areas of 'expertise'. Those who can't be fired can laterally transferred to dead-end jobs without a chance for advancement, see who takes retirement early. Engage real scientists, not the Drs. of Alchemy, to tell the real truth about climate and energy and present the facts and not the frantic hallucinations that change from decade to decade while nothing actually happens.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by NealS 5 years, 8 months ago
    Seems like they are jumping to the conclusion that their jobs might be in jeopardy, when he may actually just be looking to interview them for a bigger position. Show me the facts. I love it, keep 'em guessing. The more defense of their jobs that is put up by government employees and contractors, the leaner these departments will get, if not totally abolished.

    I'd like him to do something similar with entitlements (welfare). Make the people collecting it prove the need every year, rather than the government having a bunch of paid personnel trying to disprove or catch them in the act of cheating the system.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 5 years, 8 months ago
    The DOE should be renamed as the DOPE. Department Of Phony Energy. Completely eliminate all of the climate projects and focus on nuclear capability only. Then we can rename it DORE. The Department Of Real Energy.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Temlakos 5 years, 8 months ago
    Of course Trump is going to win this. Do those slobs at DOE seriously think otherwise?

    I "get" that Secretaries come and go, but the "Civil Service" remains.

    Except they have a new Sheriff in town.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Susanne 5 years, 8 months ago
    So, we get rid of the department that's main purpose isn't the production or prohibition of oil, but the production and restriction of nuclear material and the way it is used...

    I would personally like to see it reformed - not in a short-sighted "drill baby drill" mantra, but in a long term revitalization of the power source which our Navy has used for decades in its fleet. Split, baby, split!
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by chad 5 years, 8 months ago
    Bureaucracies exist in tyrannical states to support and continue the tyranny. They have no other function although they may pretend that they are providing a service. If Trump chooses someone to lead the bureau then his action shows clearly that he intends to maintain the tyrannical rule. Even if you give an order to the bureau if they do not want to carry it out they won't. The only way to control it is to turn out the lights and send them home.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • -1
    Posted by CircuitGuy 5 years, 8 months ago
    I don't trust anything President elect Trump says. It gives the appearance he's pandering to people who don't even accept the science of climate change -- hardcore detachment from reality. But I don't believe anything he says. He might ignore the problem and push the costs onto future generations, or he might more aggressively to find a solution. Those of us who care about not trashing the world for future generations will be watching and taking action.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by freedomforall 5 years, 8 months ago
      I don't trust Trump either, but looting others at gunpoint against their will without scientific evidence is the action to avoid. That is the plan of action of Obama, Hitlery, and the Democratic Party. There is no scientific proof that human action is at fault nor will any looters' plan have any proven positive effect on climate.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Lucky 5 years, 8 months ago
        The so-called science behind climate alarmism is founded on fraud and supported by sheep motivated by false altruism and faked guilt.
        See- moral posturing / virtue signalling.

        No solutions are required to fix non-existent problems. Those who feel guilty about being affluent can mouth off their nonsense but should keep their hands out of the pockets of others.

        The most harmful emissions are not of carbon dioxide which is beneficial to life but from the mouths of the parasites and followers of this nonsensical alarmism.
        There is one extreme danger- they may find a way to take such a large amount of carbon dioxide out of the earth's atmosphere that all life on earth will disappear.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • -2
        Posted by CircuitGuy 5 years, 8 months ago
        "plan have any proven positive effect on climate."
        That's the problem I have. We have solid evidence of the problem, but we don't have a solid solution. It's not surprising billions of us living affluent lives is causing some problems. The current mass extinction began as behaviorally modern humans appeared and spread quickly around the earth. Even the hunter/gatherers knew about avoiding hunting; they knew their actions could affect the environment.

        Now there are more of us, and the problems are bigger. It seems we must find a way to capture the emissions or stop them cold. Slowing down the process of extraction and burning won't do. But it's all we have right now. It's a tough problem. I'm sure humanity will encounter more such problems, and some will try to use them as an excuse to push collectivism. To me the solution rests on the hope (a tenuous basis for a plan) that charging people the "collective" costs of burning stuff, which I wish didn't exist but I can't deny reality, will hasten invention of new energy sources. We will have to invent them eventually anyway. It would be could do it while those hydrocarbons are still buried deep in the ground. I actually think we won't and we should be working on ways to dick with (sorry, geo-engineer) the atmosphere. It's one of humankind's biggest problems. I guess I should understand why it makes people deny reality.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by freedomforall 5 years, 8 months ago
          NO, there is still no proven scientific link between any alleged "problem" and the actions of humans. There is a hypothesis that has not been proven. There are computer models of the hypothesis that have shown the existing hypothesis to be incorrect at predicting climate, which is the stated purpose of the models. Without any way to prove the hypothesis to be true, taking action on what has proven to be a false conclusion is utter foolishness and a waste of scarce resources.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ WilliamShipley 5 years, 8 months ago
      You speak of "the science of climate change" as if there were such a thing. There is a theory of global warming based on CO2 with a vast number of variations on what is going to happen based on assumptions and feedback loops. There is no one thing. Even the people who accept the theory project anything from mild warming to several degrees. And mild warming is a net positive.


      But we keep getting this religious test of "do you believe in climate change".
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by term2 5 years, 8 months ago
        I will be dead and buried before any of the threatened effects of climate change would ever be apparent. By then, I think the world will be using other forms of energy than burning fossil fuels anyway.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ blarman 5 years, 8 months ago
          I seriously doubt it. The problem is that fossil fuels are pound-for-pound some of the densest sources of energy period. And the ease of mining and use makes them prime for powering the engines of the world. They also don't suffer from the problems of variability both wind and solar encounter daily.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by term2 5 years, 8 months ago
            The problem is that fossil fuels will be exhausted by the lack of fossils, and become far more expensive. They arent very efficient either thermodynamically. I suspect nuclear options will take over before wind and solar.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by Madanthonywayne 5 years, 8 months ago
              Fossil fuels aren't going to,be exhausted for a very long time. Remember "peak oil"? Nobody is talking about that anymore.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by term2 5 years, 8 months ago
                But I suspect that the costs of obtaining those fossil fuels will increase as the low hanging fruit is used up. That will spur discovery of cheaper methods of getting energy. Who knows at this ponit what those will be.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by $ blarman 5 years, 8 months ago
                  You do know that is the story of fracking, right?

                  And I would point out that the biggest problem to getting oil in the US right now isn't technological at all - its governmental. Even though energy production went up during the last eight years, it was because the production was happening on private lands. Obama and co did everything they could to cut off exploration and exploitation on public lands - including denying oil leases in our sovereign waters. And because US companies can't drill, Chinese companies are coming in using horizontal drilling to steal the oil out from under us.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by $ blarman 5 years, 8 months ago
              Unless someone miraculously gets a real fusion reactor online, it's way simpler and cheaper to use fossil fuels than any other source of energy on the planet. Fissile material is very rare and requires extremely sophisticated refining and hazardous transport before it can even be used. That's not to say it isn't miles better than solar and wind, only a point on its viability. You also have the storage of all the waste which even with newer reactors is still a concern.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by term2 5 years, 8 months ago
                I agree that nuclear is far more dangerous and difficult. I live in las vegas, and the sun is very hot here and works well for hot water generation and swimming pool heating. government regulation, cronyism, and uncertain supply at night and when cloudy makes solar electric generation kind of impractical still. Tesla's home battery idea could get around some of these problems, but its kind of expensive and one needs LARGE batteries to live like we do today. Building for lower energy use can make solar more attractive here, although A/C is the biggest use of energy today.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by $ blarman 5 years, 8 months ago
                  To be honest, I think the next big thing in energy is going to be building homes with separate power grids. One track remains on 120 AC and is used for major appliances. You could even use 240 (depending on whether or not one uses and electric range). The other track uses 12 V and is used for lighting and minor appliances - including computers. Most current devices have built-in transformers to cut the voltage from 120 to 12 anyway - especially computers - and this would really cut out some of the costs of moving to LED lighting since right now they have to include the transformers and circuitry with every bulb. If you have a conditioned 12 V system for most of your home needs, you can dramatically cut power consumption simply by eliminating a lot of the inefficiency caused by voltage transformers.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by term2 5 years, 8 months ago
                    I manufacture led lighting for off road vehicles. LEDs require current limiting even on 12v (leds run on 3-4 volts dc), so it doesnt save much of anything to limit current from 120v or 12v down to what the LED uses. Transformer-less current limiting IC's are used for both. Low voltage DC transmission is also subject to higher losses due to wire resistance at higher current levels. Thats why it isnt used for power transmission and Edison lost his ass on promoting it. You might have 12vdc at your solar panels, but 9 v at the other end of the house and need to boost it electronically before it would work well with 12v appliances. I think 12v works well for emergency lighting however, and houses should be wired for at least one outlet in each room.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by CircuitGuy 5 years, 8 months ago
                      "Low voltage DC transmission is also subject to higher losses"
                      If USB-C follows the same path of regular USB, which was intended for 500mA max but is commonly used for 2A, someone will make a USB-C hairdryer. :)
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by CircuitGuy 5 years, 8 months ago
                      "LEDs require current limiting even on 12v (leds run on 3-4 volts dc), "
                      Yes. Even if you put them in series, you always need some current limiting because you cannot trust the I-V curves not to vary.

                      I remember when I was a kid things that required DC had wall-warts, which got warm even if they weren't powering things. If you take a modern USB charger, it doesn't get warm when not used, and it's only slightly warm if you pull 2A (hard to do unless you use good USB cables with 24AWG pwr wires) from all its ports.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by term2 5 years, 8 months ago
                    I manufacture led lighting for off road vehicles. LEDs require current limiting even on 12v (leds run on 3-4 volts dc), so it doesnt save much of anything to limit current from 120v or 12v down to what the LED uses. Transformer-less current limiting IC's are used for both. Low voltage DC transmission is also subject to higher losses due to wire resistance at higher current levels. Thats why it isnt used for power transmission and Edison lost his ass on promoting it. You might have 12vdc at your solar panels, but 9 v at the other end of the house and need to boost it electronically before it would work well with 12v appliances. I think 12v works well for emergency lighting however, and houses should be wired for at least one outlet in each room.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by $ blarman 5 years, 8 months ago
                      Yes, DC is best for inside the device, but you can still use 12V AC inside the house for point-to-point. Then all you need is a bridge rectifier to convert from 12 V AC to 12 V DC and you don't get the power loss issues - which as you point out are a valid concern.

                      Microsoft and Google are building entire server farms on 12V. They are eliminating the power supplies and saving themselves 30% on their energy usage. There's no reason homes couldn't be built the same way.

                      I also attended a presentation by a guy who runs his entire house (minus heating and cooking) on solar panels. Every appliance he gets is set up to run off 12V and in most cases the size of the device is smaller because they can omit the transformer. He runs on about 24 solar panels because his home is way off the beaten track and the power company wanted nearly $100K to run a line to his house. He did the math and went an entirely different direction.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by term2 5 years, 8 months ago
                        The higher the voltage, the lower the current required for the same power. The lower the current, the smaller the wires you need to carry it with reasonable voltage loss. So called "switching ppower supplies" can transform pretty much any voltage down to that required to run electronic equipment or LED lighting. In your computer are switching power supplies that transform 110vAC into the various DC voltges needed for the mother board in the computer.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by CircuitGuy 5 years, 8 months ago
                  "I agree that nuclear is far more dangerous and difficult."
                  It is now, but I hope for a breakthrough that makes it safe. Too many people are irrationally averse to the concept that nuclear power could be made safe. It's hard to calculate, but I suspect nuclear is cheaper if you calculate the present value of the stream of costs of storing nuclear waste and compare it to the PV of the future costs of pollution and global warming caused by burning fossil fuels.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by CircuitGuy 5 years, 8 months ago
        "this religious test of "do you believe in climate change"."
        Which is something I have never uttered about any scientific discovery. Personal incredulity does not matter to science.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ Dobrien 5 years, 8 months ago
      People don't accept the science of man made climate change because it is fraudulent science.
      Data is manipulated or left out if it doesn't fit the goal of proving the charade, temp monitoring stations moved to heat islands in the cities, ice pack growing around the planet , not shrinking. But certainly not reported.
      3 feet of snow in Hawaii early Dec. In mid March 2016 estimated 3million monarch butterflies freeze to death in southern Mexico .Same time it snows in the Carribean ,some islands have never had recorded snow. The sun regulates our climate and we are now in a solar minimum. The kind of bull crap the news does pick up is Obama traveling to Kaliphonyia during a severe drought as he explains that it is proof of man made global warming , even though scientists know these severe droughts have lasted for over 300 years in the past before the auto or power plants or the methane congress belches out trying to take control from the people.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo