Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Government United States Your Rights Online

US Energy Secretary Resigns 141

Posted by Soulskill
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.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

US Energy Secretary Resigns

Comments Filter:
  • And So (Score:5, Funny)

    by sunderland56 (621843) on Friday February 01, 2013 @05:48PM (#42766411)

    The President got Chu'd out.

    • 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

      • by slick7 (1703596)

        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.

  • 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 pull

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      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,

      • 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!

        • Re:And thus... (Score:4, Interesting)

          by dgatwood (11270) on Friday February 01, 2013 @07:16PM (#42767327) Journal

          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.

          • Re:And thus... (Score:5, Informative)

            by steelyeyedmissileman (1657583) on Friday February 01, 2013 @08:39PM (#42768015)

            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 [wikipedia.org] 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 [wikipedia.org].

            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 [wikipedia.org] 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.

            • by dgatwood (11270)

              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 prov

            • by gotan (60103)

              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 dkf (304284)

              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 [wikipedia.org] 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 [wikipedia.org].

              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!

          • by ShakaUVM (157947)

            > 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 "c

            • 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.
              • by ShakaUVM (157947)

                I'd argue that we should do geoengineering until we can switch entirely to CO2-neutral tech (or close enough).

                • 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...
                  • 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?
          • 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

            • by dgatwood (11270)

              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 [wikipedia.org] superconducting power tr

              • 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 ro

        • Fossil fuel (Score:4, Informative)

          by tlambert (566799) on Friday February 01, 2013 @08:43PM (#42768045)

          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

        • by MrKaos (858439)

          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

    • by Warhawke (1312723)

      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. [xkcd.com]

      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 nu

  • by Bruce66423 (1678196) on Friday February 01, 2013 @05:50PM (#42766427)
    There's a West Wing episode called 'Take out the Trash' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Take_out_the_Trash_Day [wikipedia.org] 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...
    • 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.
  • 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?"

    • Re:so long winded (Score:5, Interesting)

      by gestalt_n_pepper (991155) on Friday February 01, 2013 @06:25PM (#42766821)

      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.

      • 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.
  • Ah, Chu... we hardly knew ye.

  • by dkleinsc (563838) on Friday February 01, 2013 @06:14PM (#42766703) Homepage

    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.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      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.

      • Explain how he "stole" $80 billion and gave it to Obama's supporters please, Mr. AC. I'm listening.
      • by Anonymous Coward
        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
    • 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

  • by beckett (27524) on Friday February 01, 2013 @06:16PM (#42766733) Homepage Journal
    Dr. Steven Chu brought authority and evidence-based science to the US Cabinet. Former professor of physics at Stanford [stanford.edu], he shared a Nobel prize for physics in 1997 [nobelprize.org] for cooling and trapping atoms with laser light. he continued to publish [nature.com] science [nature.com] 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 [mediamatters.org] and gas prices [heritage.org].

    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.
    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      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.

      • by beckett (27524) on Friday February 01, 2013 @08:12PM (#42767805) Homepage Journal

        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 [aspenideas.org] as part of a progressive, diverse, alternate energy plan, and was decried for practical ideas such as smart grids [time.com] and painting house roofs and pavements white [wsj.com] to reduce heating and cooling costs.

      • 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 h
    • by ShakaUVM (157947)

      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.

      • by Rogerborg (306625)

        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.

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

        There is excellent paint available, for exactly that purpose.
        • by ShakaUVM (157947)

          I've run the cost comparison on it. It's horrendously expensive for very little benefit.

          • by khayman80 (824400) *

            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 [dumbscientist.com] 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, an

            • by ShakaUVM (157947)

              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.

              • by khayman80 (824400) *
                Slashdot's appetite for similar comments [dumbscientist.com] is insatiable [slashdot.org].
                • by ShakaUVM (157947)

                  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?

                  • by khayman80 (824400) *
                    My point was that the previously mentioned [dumbscientist.com] similarity deepens.
                    • by ShakaUVM (157947)

                      >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.

            • by ShakaUVM (157947)

              >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.

              • by khayman80 (824400) *
                Stop digging. [dumbscientist.com]
                • by ShakaUVM (157947)

                  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.

                  • by khayman80 (824400) *

                    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] [slashdot.org]

                    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.

                    • by ShakaUVM (157947)

                      > 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.

                    • by khayman80 (824400) *
                      Heh. Okay, in that case I'm defending the anonymous defenders you're accusing of quite simply lying when they echo my words.
                    • by ShakaUVM (157947)

                      Yep. If I think you're not telling the truth, you can trust me to say it to your face. =)

                    • by khayman80 (824400) *
                      I only trust the similarity between my words and those you claim are quite simply a lie.
                    • by ShakaUVM (157947)

                      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.

                    • by ShakaUVM (157947)

                      ^aggregates

  • I am sad to hear he is going.

    I want all high ranking officials in my government to have doctorates.

  • He's tired. (Score:3, Funny)

    by boddhisatva (774894) on Friday February 01, 2013 @09:02PM (#42768157)
    No energy left.
  • BECAUSE: Epic Fail (Score:4, Informative)

    by N8F8 (4562) on Friday February 01, 2013 @10:14PM (#42768593)

    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 [csmonitor.com]

    • 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 powe

      • 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
        • 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 p

    • 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.
  • by CuteSteveJobs (1343851) on Saturday February 02, 2013 @06:27AM (#42770321)
    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/ [theonion.com]
    So are these: "Obama’s CIA pick calls drone attacks ‘ethical and just’" http://www2.macleans.ca/2013/02/01/czar-of-the-drones/ [macleans.ca] http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jan/07/john-brennan-cia-drones-obama [guardian.co.uk]
  • 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 h
  • Illegitimi non carborundum

Forty two.

Working...