Energy Secretary Steven Chu Not to Serve a Second Term

[Astronuc]

What was Chu's role in this - unsuccessful advocacy of Yucca as a repository, neutral, or against?

He facilitated it. If it had been me, I would have resigned rather than facilitate an improper action.

 

[russ_watters]

He kind of addressed that in his letter.

bolding mine

You misunderstand my objection: It has nothing to do with bankruptcy, it is about getting value for money spent. I work on energy projects where companies see the need for a 5 year payback of an investment before considering a project to be economically viable. Rarely, it may be as high as 8 years. Rooftop solar panels pay back in about 20 years*, but if the government provides a 60% subsidy, it pays back in 8 years. So we pretend solar is viable, when the reality is that the government is just forcing us to pay for projects that have no economic benefit for anyone but the people who built them. That's a waste of government (our) money.

*And oops -- the SREC market dried-up so that payback ends up being much longer.

Not too bright America. You should have never let this happen.

Why not? Why waste our money on a project/company that isn't economically viable? I'm all for letting China do it!

Wow. I really like this guy. Why do people not like him, I wonder.

Because he's lying. His DOE is a pure political entity. Decisions are made based on politics, not science -- or, rather, decisions were handed to him by Obama rather than him helping Obama make good decisions. The Yucca Mountain repository was closed because Obama's favorite senator is from Nevada. The working group commissioned to study the problem that created was explicitly forbidden from investigating whether that was a good idea. And then when they released their findings, the report was buried/ignored.

 

[russ_watters]

He facilitated it. If it had been me, I would have resigned rather than facilitate an improper action.

That's why I don't like him. By credentials, he should have been a good energy secretary. But what really happened is that his credentials tricked people like OmCheeto into thinking that he was making good, scientific decisions when the reality was he was just executing Obama's policies, regardless of if they made any scientific (or economic) sense. He's sabotaged his own reputation/legacy by doing this.

 

[OmCheeto]

But China has been making advances under Chu's watch. Putting a stop to Yucca mountain has harmed the nuclear industry as utilities have backed away from new projects because the absence of a final solution is a major liability for the utilities.

China can afford to make huge subsidies as the have a huge trade surplus.

The Obama administration has had some problems with their subsidies of 'green companies'. Of course, part of the problem is that China undercut those companies by offering lower cost products.

China has a near monopoly on heavy rare Earth's. That's a geographic issue and beyond the control of the US government.

Given that you've been in the industry longer than I've been out of it, let me be the first fool to rush in and argue on Chu's side.

Of course, everything I know about Chu, I learned yesterday. And Everything I know about Yucca, I learned 30 minutes ago reading the wiki article.

Yucca study started in 1978. Chu announced its cancelation in 2009. So it was in the works for 31 years.

Cancellation of project

May 2009
Yucca Mountain as a repository is off the table. What we're going to be doing is saying, let's step back. We realize that we know a lot more today than we did 25 or 30 years ago. The NRC is saying that the dry cask storage at current sites would be safe for many decades, so that gives us time to figure out what we should do for a long-term strategy. We will be assembling a blue-ribbon panel to look at the issue. We're looking at reactors that have a high-energy neutron spectrum that can actually allow you to burn down the long-lived actinide waste. These are fast-neutron reactors. There's others: a resurgence of hybrid solutions of fusion fission where the fusion would impart not only energy, but again creates high-energy neutrons that can burn down the long-lived actinides. ...

Sounds ok to me.

Background

Following the 2006 mid-term Congressional elections, Democratic Nevada Senator Harry Reid, a longtime opponent of the repository, became the Senate Majority Leader, putting him in a position to greatly affect the future of the project. Reid has said that he would continue to work to block completion of the project, and is quoted as having said:

Yucca Mountain is dead. It'll never happen.

Harry Reid on Yucca, ca 2012

Most importantly, this report makes abundantly clear that no state, tribe, or community should be forced to store spent nuclear fuel or high-level waste without its consent. Yucca was originally selected because of a flawed, non-scientific and political process, and it failed because Nevadans, with good reason, overwhelmingly opposed it.

So it appears to me that Chu was up against a lot. Law suits, the Senate Majority Leader, a more than 30 year old feasibility study, etc. I'd have shut down the project also.

And what's this?

Feb 9, 2012
First new nuclear reactors OK'd in over 30 years

Did we really stop building nuclear reactors for 30 years because Yucca Mountain was in limbo?

Can't argue the China stuff, except for the rare Earth monopoly.

The Mountain Pass rare Earth mine is an open-pit mine of rare Earth elements (REEs) on the south flank of the Clark Mountain Range, just north of the unincorporated community of Mountain Pass, California, United States. The mine, owned by Molycorp Inc., once supplied most of the world's rare Earth elements.

Except for, um, I'm currently wrong:

Except that:

Known remaining reserves were estimated to exceed 20 million tons of ore as of 2008, using a 5% cutoff grade, and averaging 8.9% rare Earth oxides.

and

Current activity

The mine, once the world's dominant producer of rare Earth elements, was closed in large part due to competition from REEs imported from China, which in 2009 supplied more than 96% of the world's REEs.

What I think I'm trying to say here is that it needn't be so.

Go MolyCorp*!

-----------------------------
*I do not have any money invested in said company. I simply like rare Earth magnets.

 

[Astronuc]

Spent fuel at reactor site is a significant liability for a utility, because they have to maintain security, assuming the US DOE doesn't step in a buy the facility (and assume all liability) once it stops generating power.

Ideally there would be a DOE facility, a central interim storage site, somewhere where spent fuel could be shipped (away from the NPP sites) and stored while awaiting final disposition. There was an idea for a MRS (monitored retrieval storage) facility, but that was nixed in the Clinton years, IIRC.

I've heard, but not verified, that Reid supported Yucca mountain when he though he could personally financially benefit from it, but when he could not, he became decidedly opposed to it. Reid is a dubious character in my book.

There are alternative sources of REE to China, e.g., Lynas in Australia. There are significant environmental issues, e.g., the presence of thorium and other decay products from actinide elements, that must be properly disposed, as opposed to dumping in tailings ponds or piles.

http://finance.ninemsn.com.au/newscolumnists/greg/8578388/lynas-again-halted-as-china-gets-desperate-on-rare-Earth's

And of course, the Chinese industry is attempting to manipulate the market, and the US has little leverage.

 

[OmCheeto]

That's why I don't like him. By credentials, he should have been a good energy secretary. But what really happened is that his credentials tricked people like OmCheeto into thinking that he was making good, scientific decisions when the reality was he was just executing Obama's policies, regardless of if they made any scientific (or economic) sense. He's sabotaged his own reputation/legacy by doing this.

As I said earlier, I haven't followed Chu at all, until yesterday.

You may see him as a political puppet, and a liar, but I still see him as a Nobel laureate, stuck in Washington, with a congress, heels firmly planted in the stone age.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Lpj74dA5Rk

I wouldn't apologize for Solyndra either.

Why not? Why waste our money on a project/company that isn't economically viable? I'm all for letting China do it!

I'm still not sure how a bankrupt company(A123), with a final day on NASDAQ market cap of $12.3 million, can be worth $250 million to the Chinese. I know I wasted $4000 for every $1 in taxes that went to A123. hmm... Maybe I'm just stupid.

 

[mheslep]

...The test for America’s policy makers will be whether they are willing to accept a few failures in exchange for many successes...

Failures are important the a market economy because they disrupt and instruct. Yes the free market had a Pets.com, but there was not Pets.com2, 3, 4 and so on. When government programs fail the response is often try-it-again, try-harder platitudes like the above. A change in power via elections can make some changes, but the larger the government the more immune it is to substantive change even via elections.

 

[aquitaine]

So it appears to me that Chu was up against a lot. Law suits, the Senate Majority Leader, a more than 30 year old feasibility study, etc. I'd have shut down the project also.

A 30 year old feasibility study? How come the Government Accountability Office stated pretty clearly that it was a result of politics and there were no safety or technical concerns.

I'm still not sure how a bankrupt company(A123), with a final day on NASDAQ market cap of $12.3 million, can be worth $250 million to the Chinese.

It is because their technology is better and actually did have real applications in consumer electronics. They were very successful in cordless power tools, and had they chosen to focus on real markets like portable electronics (cell phones, laptops, etc), the story of A123 would have ended very differently. Instead they drank the renewable energy kool-aid and with substantial government support ended up essentially handing over an otherwise excellent technology to the Chinese.

Rooftop solar panels pay back in about 20 years*,

If Trimet's experience is any indication it will take around 100 years to break even, 3 times as long as the panels expected lifetime.

 

[russ_watters]

If Trimet's experience is any indication it will take around 100 years to break even, 3 times as long as the panels expected lifetime.

Oy. That's a sculpture, not a solar plant. There is a lot of that out there, though. It's a symptom of the biggest problem with solar: It's often a feel-good fad that people do more so they can say "Look at me! I built a solar plant!" than for economic reasons. People regularly make the decision to buy a (for example) 100kW solar plant when for less money they could put in 100kW of energy conservation technology.

A buddy of mine used to work here:
http://www.buildinggreen.com/articleimages/1805/Adventure.jpg

http://www.avinc.com/resources/pres...watt_system_technology_demonstrator_installed
http://www.buildinggreen.com/auth/article.cfm/2009/4/29/The-Folly-of-Building-Integrated-Wind

P.S. There's only one "PSU" and it isn't in Oregon.

 

[russ_watters]

...more than 30 year old feasibility study...

It was built. Ready to open. Not a "feasibility study."

Law suits

As far as I know, there were no active lawsuits against the project. There are active lawsuits against the cancellation though.

...the Senate Majority Leader...

Had no real power here. Only a political alliance with Obama.

Did we really stop building nuclear reactors for 30 years because Yucca Mountain was in limbo?

TMI was a lot of it in the beginning, but Yucca probably has more to do with it today.

 

[OmCheeto]

Oy. That's a sculpture

That was my first impression.

P.S. There's only one "PSU" and it isn't in Oregon.

Hey! I'm an alumni of that notaPSU in Oregon...

 

[OmCheeto]

So why do all these big companies invest ~1/2 billion dollars in plants to build solar panels, if it's such a stupid idea?

The site is currently under reconstruction, with an investment of over $400 million.

Do the Germans, Chinese, and Mr. Chu, see things, in terms, not limited to 5-8 years?

I invested in A123, not expecting to see a return for 10 or 20 years. I suppose that was stupid, given the environment.

 

[russ_watters]

So why do all these big companies invest ~1/2 billion dollars in plants to build solar panels, if it's such a stupid idea?

In a lot of cases, they've gotten stupid voters (all of us) to pay for a lot of it. In many, they have stupid architects or marketters who want to spend money on sculptures or props for marketing photos. The picture I posted was of the Camden Aquarium. The wind turbines are right above the entrance, so people can see just how "green" they are. They aren't there to generate electricity, they are there to generate business.

Do the Germans, Chinese, and Mr. Chu, see things, in terms, not limited to 5-8 years?

No doubt. Power plant scale facilities take longer to pay back because that's the only business they are in and they have a longer term outlook*.

But if you are a company with a specific energy efficiency goal, spending money on a 20 year payback project and ignoring a 9 year payback project runs counter to that goal.

I invested in A123, not expecting to see a return for 10 or 20 years. I suppose that was stupid, given the environment.

Er, no you didn't, unless you expected it to go down after you bought it, before going back up to where you bought it 10 to 20 years later. I don't think you would buy it with such expectations!

*Picking the first utility grade plant off a google I could find: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blythe_Solar_Power_Project
Not certain what the current form is, but originally it was 550 MW, budgeted at $6 billion. That's pretty awful ($11/watt). It's twice the per watt budget price of nuclear, with at best 1/5 the capacity factor, for an effective 1/12th the output. Generously, I'd calculate it will generate $96 million a year in electricity (1/5 capacity factor, $.1/kWh), for a payback of 62 years, which is twice the expected lifespan of such a plant. Not including maintenance costs!

Next one was better: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_Energy_Generating_Systems
A piece of it:

As an example of cost, in 2002, one of the 30 MW Kramer Junction sites required $90 million to construct, and its operation and maintenance cost was about $3 million per year (4.6 cents per kilowatt hour).[3] With a considered lifetime of 20 years, the operation, maintenance and investments interest and depreciation triples the price, to approximately 14 cents per kilowatt hour.

$3/watt is very good for a solar plant. 20 years to break even at $.14 /kWh is a tall order though -- they'd better hope the performance doesn't degrade much in that time.

These are both in California. California has pledged to be 33% renewable by 2020 and they don't care what it costs, despite their already crippling debt.

 

[rootX]

So why do all these big companies invest ~1/2 billion dollars in plants to build solar panels, if it's such a stupid idea?

I would say to abuse the government subsidies. It's a profitable business under a solar friendly government. But, solar prices are generally too high (+18.8 cents/kWh pg 28 http://www.map.ren21.net/GSR/GSR2012_low.pdf )

 

[aquitaine]

So why do all these big companies invest ~1/2 billion dollars in plants to build solar panels, if it's such a stupid idea?

Throw enough tax money at something and they'll pile in.

Do the Germans, Chinese, and Mr. Chu, see things, in terms, not limited to 5-8 years?

Yes, they do see things in 5-8 years...because RE is what is popular now. In reality this is nothing more than a resurrected 1970's feel good fad, although because of the extensive infiltration into our education system it is likely go on for longer than it did the last time.

Speaking of Germany I'm glad you brought that up. Let's see how that massive RE investment has done:

Our first stop is at the solar subsidy sinkhole.

The Baedeker travel guide is now available in an environmentally-friendly version. The 200-page book, entitled "Germany - Discover Renewable Energy," lists the sights of the solar age: the solar café in Kirchzarten, the solar golf course in Bad Saulgau, the light tower in Solingen and the "Alster Sun" in Hamburg, possibly the largest solar boat in the world.

The only thing that's missing at the moment is sunshine. For weeks now, the 1.1 million solar power systems in Germany have generated almost no electricity. The days are short, the weather is bad and the sky is overcast.

As is so often the case in winter, all solar panels more or less stopped generating electricity at the same time. To avert power shortages, Germany currently has to import large amounts of electricity generated at nuclear power plants in France and the Czech Republic. To offset the temporary loss of solar power, grid operator Tennet resorted to an emergency backup plan, powering up an old oil-fired plant in the Austrian city of Graz.

Solar energy has gone from being the great white hope, to an impediment, to a reliable energy supply. Solar farm operators and homeowners with solar panels on their roofs collected more than €8 billion ($10.2 billion) in subsidies in 2011, but the electricity they generated made up only about 3 percent of the total power supply, and that at unpredictable times.

Next is skyrocketing electricity prices that hurt the poor.

And then finally grid instabilities that are likely to cost job.

As you can see, ordinary people have had to pay a high price for the funneling of their tax money to certain corporate special interests, such is the folly of central planning.

I invested in A123, not expecting to see a return for 10 or 20 years. I suppose that was stupid, given the environment.

And now your return has been vanquished by a fatally flawed business model. In reality you've got it backward, the RE proponents are the ones thinking in the short term to get that feel good fix. You do realize those wind turbines will only last for 30 years, right?

 

[OmCheeto]

I would say to abuse the government subsidies. It's a profitable business under a solar friendly government. But, solar prices are generally too high (+18.8 cents/kWh pg 28 http://www.map.ren21.net/GSR/GSR2012_low.pdf )

Prices are too high? Good.

Watch the video again.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Lpj74dA5Rk

...the price of solar decreases by 70% in 2.5 years...

As a solar advocate, Chu's quote, is music to my ears.

----------------------------
ps. Sorry I can't respond to everyone's comments, but I'm late for work.
Yes. I know.
Voices; "You've been up for 3 1/2 hours. What were you doing with all that time, Om?"
Om; "I was watching some guy named Kai describe how he hatcheted an evil person. I actually watched the video twice. Then I posted a comment on Facebook about it. I got 4 thumbs up!"

 

[jim hardy]

Utilities are forced by state legislatures to buy the power at higher rates. So we all subsidize it in our electric bills.

There are large tax incentives for renewable, so big money invests to shelter other income. Much of it is foreign corporations.

Follow the money .

I too like solar, but on a smaller scale like residential water heating.
Each solar BTU collected saves a fossil fuel BTU . Whatever you collect you don't have to buy from electric company.


Here's a plant built by an outfit in Florida. It preheats water for a steam power plant.
There's some uncomfortable chemistry involved and as the NYT article below mentions it's really not good economics.
But , every solar BTU they collect is one they don't have to buy from the natural gas company.


photo courtesy FPL http://www.fpl.com/environment/solar/martin.shtml
http://www.fpl.com/environment/solar/images/martin.JPG


http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/05/business/05solar.html?_r=2&

The plant also serves as a real-life test on how to reduce the cost of solar power, which remains much more expensive than most other forms of electrical generation. FPL Group, the parent company of Florida Power and Light, expects to cut costs by about 20 percent compared with a stand-alone solar facility, since it does not have to build a new steam turbine or new high-power transmission lines.

“We’d love to tell you that solar power is as economic as fossil fuels, but the reality is that it is not,” Lewis Hay III, FPL’s chairman and chief executive, said on a recent tour of the plant.

But it makes the requisite corporate fashion statement.

that's my opinion - old jim

 

[atyy]

You may see him as a political puppet, and a liar, but I still see him as a Nobel laureate, stuck in Washington, with a congress, heels firmly planted in the stone age.

Even Nobel laureates can be wrong.

Here's one paper by a Nobel Laureate (Cohen-Tannoudji) saying a paper by Chu is wrong. http://arxiv.org/abs/1009.0602 I don't know who's right, but at least one must be wrong.I guess the main concern is that renewables while nice to have, are not sufficient. An example of a calculation and discussion for the UK is David McKay's http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/c18/page_103.shtml .

"I am worried that we won’t actually get off fossil fuels when we need to. Instead, we’ll settle for half-measures: slightly-more-efficient fossil-fuel power stations, cars, and home heating systems; a fig-leaf of a carbon trading system; a sprinkling of wind turbines; an inadequate number of nuclear power stations.

We need to choose a plan that adds up. It is possible to make a plan that adds up, but it’s not going to be easy.

We need to stop saying no and start saying yes. We need to stop the Punch and Judy show and get building."

 

[Locrian]

Each solar BTU collected saves a fossil fuel BTU .

I think it saves less than one fossil fuel BTU, as the energy used to produce the solar cell likely came from fossil fuel. Or is that such a small amount it is effectively zero? I'd be surprised if that was so.

 

[jim hardy]

I think it saves less than one fossil fuel BTU, as the energy used to produce the solar cell likely came from fossil fuel. Or is that such a small amount it is effectively zero? I'd be surprised if that was so.

Thanks Locrian - i see the ambiguity now.

What i had in mind was solar water heating , not solar electricity.

Solar electric panels are maybe 20% (more likely ~10%) so it doesn't make sense to heat water with solar generated electricity. Use that precious electricity for worthwhile stuff like refrigerating your food and playing classical music on your stereo, and enjoying PF...

That FPL plant in the picture uses solar to preheat water that is on its way to a fossil boiler.
It isn't a photoelectric plant. The boiler feeds steam to a turbogenerator.
The mirrors heat a thermal oil to around 400 degrees, and that hot oil preheats the feedwater that's headed for the boiler.
So, in that plant every BTU from solar is a BTU that doesn't have to be made in the boiler by burning gas or oil.

Same would be true of a rooftop solar water heater.
Every BTU you collect is one BTU that didn't come in through your KWH meter.
In fact a residential heater probably does better than 1::1, big picture.
Since a typical fossil plant is ~40% efficient, every BTU collected on a rooftop water heater is 2.5 BTU's that don't have to be made in electric company's boiler. So your rooftop heater saves 2.5 BTU of fossil fuel for every BTU it collects.

In my opinion that's what we should be doing.

Sorry for the lack of clarity.
Thanks for the observation.

I wonder whether Mr Chu is enough of a home handyman to appreciate this.
I would like to see some practical engineering talent in the cabinet.
We need politicians who change their own motor oil.

old jim

 

[russ_watters]

I too like solar, but on a smaller scale like residential water heating.
Each solar BTU collected saves a fossil fuel BTU . Whatever you collect you don't have to buy from electric company.


Here's a plant built by an outfit in Florida. It preheats water for a steam power plant.
There's some uncomfortable chemistry involved and as the NYT article below mentions it's really not good economics.
But , every solar BTU they collect is one they don't have to buy from the natural gas company.

The problem is that a BTU of natural gas currently costs about 1/5 what a BTU of electricity costs (depending on the efficiency of the gas water heater). That's down from about 1/3 a few years ago. So replacing an electric water heater with a solar one pays back 5x sooner than replacing a natural gas water heater with a solar one.

 

[rootX]

I wonder whether Mr Chu is enough of a home handyman to appreciate this.
I would like to see some practical engineering talent in the cabinet.
We need politicians who change their own motor oil.

old jim

Exactly! It's better to have practical people than Noble prize winners.

 

[OmCheeto]

Exactly! It's better to have practical people than Noble prize winners.

I read an article in Nature today: "Scientific genius is extinct", by Dean Keith Simonton

I was quite offended.

I am not dead... I just haven't gotten started yet...

----------------------------------
ps. The ability to change your own oil simply means:
A: You are poor
B: You are cheap
C: You have lots of spare time
D: You are still trying to figure out what 3/4 of a turn from seated means (<-- true scientist)

 

[mheslep]

...

I guess the main concern is that renewables while nice to have, are not sufficient. An example of a calculation and discussion for the UK is David McKay's http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/c18/page_103.shtml .

"I am worried that we won’t actually get off fossil fuels when we need to. Instead, we’ll settle for half-measures: slightly-more-efficient fossil-fuel power stations, cars, and home heating systems; a fig-leaf of a carbon trading system; a sprinkling of wind turbines; an inadequate number of nuclear power stations.
...

Which is *not* to say that renewables "are not sufficient", period. McKay's diagram shows that a great deal of energy production from renewables would just shy of consumption, as it is. The point is that a great deal of renewables are required, and possible, if expensive, and there is a great deal of room for improvement in efficiency, also expensive.

 

[AlephZero]

And too much "long term strategic planning" works like this:

 

[OmCheeto]

Thanks Locrian - i see the ambiguity now.

What i had in mind was solar water heating , not solar electricity.

Bingo!

Solar electric panels are maybe 20% (more likely ~10%) so it doesn't make sense to heat water with solar generated electricity. Use that precious electricity for worthwhile stuff like refrigerating your food and playing classical music on your stereo, and enjoying PF...

Bingo!

That FPL plant in the picture uses solar to preheat water that is on its way to a fossil boiler.
It isn't a photoelectric plant. The boiler feeds steam to a turbogenerator.
The mirrors heat a thermal oil to around 400 degrees, and that hot oil preheats the feedwater that's headed for the boiler.
So, in that plant every BTU from solar is a BTU that doesn't have to be made in the boiler by burning gas or oil.

Same would be true of a rooftop solar water heater.
Every BTU you collect is one BTU that didn't come in through your KWH meter.
In fact a residential heater probably does better than 1::1, big picture.
Since a typical fossil plant is ~40% efficient, every BTU collected on a rooftop water heater is 2.5 BTU's that don't have to be made in electric company's boiler. So your rooftop heater saves 2.5 BTU of fossil fuel for every BTU it collects.

In my opinion that's what we should be doing.

Bingo!

Sorry for the lack of clarity.
Thanks for the observation.

I was with you all the way. What lack of clarity are you talking about?

I wonder whether Mr Chu is enough of a home handyman to appreciate this.

He was handed many many billions of dollars, to do with as he pleased. he experimented.

I would like to see some practical engineering talent in the cabinet.
We need politicians who change their own motor oil.

Doh! I missed that the first time. Chu is not a politician. He is a scientist. Totally different beast.

old jim

I like you old jim. You are not stupid.

old gair

ps. I'm subscribed to the list-serv for the Oregon Electric Vehicle Association. I haven't sought out Chu, via Google, but keep seeing his name associated with projects, which are posted by OEVA members:Texas switches on the world's biggest battery

U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu recently said that "without technological breakthroughs in efficient, large-scale energy storage, it will be difficult to rely on intermittent renewables for much more than 20 to 30 per cent of our electricity." I guess what surprises me is that it's a bunch of former Texas oilmen who are leading the way.

Largest Battery in the largest state? Makes sense.
Oilmen involved? Pops Om's bubble.

-------------------------
pps. My apologies to anyone who may have seen, and been offended by, my dropping of the FT-bomb on Facebook regarding this thread. But everything I've read of Chu, indicates that he is my kindred spirit. A twin thinker. If you insult him, you insult me. End of apology.

ok to delete.

 

[OmCheeto]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QweNsLesMrM​

We are like tenant farmers chopping down the fence around our house for fuel when we should be using Nature's inexhaustible sources of energy — sun, wind and tide. ... I'd put my money on the sun and solar energy. What a source of power! I hope we don't have to wait until oil and coal run out before we tackle that.

People should listen to oldsters, once in awhile...

Hey! He died two years after my father was born. That's like mega-old.

And as an oldster, "chopping down the fence around our house for fuel" brings memories flooding back:

I told myself it was beneath my dignity to arrest a man for pilfering firewood. But nothing ordered by the party is beneath the dignity of any man, and the party was right: One man desperate for a bit of fuel is pathetic. Five million people desperate for fuel will destroy a city. That was the first time I ever saw my brother. But I knew him. And I knew that I would disobey the party. Perhaps it was the tie of blood between us, but I doubt it. We were only half tied anyway, and bothers will betray a brother. Indeed, as a policeman, I would say, get hold of a man's brother and you're halfway home. Nor was it admiration for a better man than me. I did admire him, but I didn't think he was a better man. Besides, I've executed better men than me with a small pistol

^---- aka, Obi-Wan Kenobi, for you youngsters out there. ​

--------------------
ps. I am not invested in Tesla.
ok to delete anyways...

 

[OmCheeto]

This morning I was listening to Coast to Coast on the radio, and some brilliant person was speaking. Brilliant, because everything he said, I agreed with. He talked about space exploration, the rolls of government and private industry, and a bunch of other stuff. I couldn't identify the speaker, as my clock radio is at least 40 years old, and the guests usually call in from cell phones. The host only referred to him as "Neal". I thought it might be Neal Armstrong, as the show focused mainly on space exploration. Eventually though, I discovered that it was none other than Neil deGrasse Tyson.

I sent a message to President Obama two days ago, requesting the he offer Tyson, Chu's job.

I thought it was a weird coincidence, as I've never sent the president a message before, nor heard Tyson on Coast to Coast.


--------------------
ps. I also told him; "Please have Michelle paint your house, it's been white for way too long".

 

[Astronuc]

This morning I was listening to Coast to Coast on the radio, and some brilliant person was speaking. Brilliant, because everything he said, I agreed with. He talked about space exploration, the rolls of government and private industry, and a bunch of other stuff. I couldn't identify the speaker, as my clock radio is at least 40 years old, and the guests usually call in from cell phones. The host only referred to him as "Neal". I thought it might be Neal Armstrong, as the show focused mainly on space exploration. Eventually though, I discovered that it was none other than Neil deGrasse Tyson.

I sent a message to President Obama two days ago, requesting the he offer Tyson, Chu's job.

I thought it was a weird coincidence, as I've never sent the president a message before, nor heard Tyson on Coast to Coast.


--------------------
ps. I also told him; "Please have Michelle paint your house, it's been white for way too long".

Ernest Moniz has been offered the job.

http://esd.mit.edu/Faculty_Pages/moniz/moniz.htm
http://web.mit.edu/physics/people/faculty/moniz_ernest.html

http://www.nationaljournal.com/energy/who-is-ernest-moniz-obama-s-choice-for-energy-secretary-20130304

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2013/mar/05/ernest-moniz-nominated-as-us-energy-secretary

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NP_Moniz_is_Obamas_new_man_for_energy_0503131.html

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/...-initiative-renewable-energy-energy-secretary

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/04/us-usa-cabinet-idUSBRE9230P320130304

 

[Mute]

This morning I was listening to Coast to Coast on the radio, and some brilliant person was speaking. Brilliant, because everything he said, I agreed with. He talked about space exploration, the rolls of government and private industry, and a bunch of other stuff. I couldn't identify the speaker, as my clock radio is at least 40 years old, and the guests usually call in from cell phones. The host only referred to him as "Neal". I thought it might be Neal Armstrong, as the show focused mainly on space exploration. Eventually though, I discovered that it was none other than Neil deGrasse Tyson.

I sent a message to President Obama two days ago, requesting the he offer Tyson, Chu's job.

I thought it was a weird coincidence, as I've never sent the president a message before, nor heard Tyson on Coast to Coast.


--------------------
ps. I also told him; "Please have Michelle paint your house, it's been white for way too long".

Was it an old episode of the radio show, or were they airing an old interview? If not, then I have some bad news about Neil Armstrong which you may not have heard yet...