Commodore, what did Perry do to get the energy business booming in Texas? Seriously, our governors don't really have much power, right? He got out of the way, I guess, and hopefully he can repeat that performance. I think putting him in DOE is a total Bannon pick, as in tear stuff down. Put a guy who doesn't believe in Environmental Protection into the EPA. Put a guy who once wanted to delete the DOE in charge of the DOE. DOE funds a lot of important research programs (mainly for physicists and physical chemists), and that's why Bush and Obama had nerds who understand how research grants work in those positions. I'm not saying it's necessary, but that's one of the main ideas of the entire department. There's tons of good and applicable science coming out of the nation's DOE-funded labs; it's not an overly regulatory agency, as I understand it at least.
The last nerd pick pissed off the XL pipe hittin Congressmen. This is will definitely be in concert with any Environmental Regulation regarding fossil fuels and its transport.
Interesting... appointing less or unqualified people to his cabinet is spun as "a developers mentality". "egghead professors". Surely wouldn't want well-educated people to hold cabinet positions of importance. The right wing fear or distrust of intelligence...
With all due respect, Commodore, do you actually believe this stuff? If so, I hope you're sending your kids to good schools, if you have any. They clearly aren't getting a good education at home, unless you are married to someone a lot smarter than you are, which is not impossible at all.
I'm not convinced he did anything more than not interfere (which is what you want). I'm saying that's the case he made to Trump. The DOE largely exists to inhibit energy production or to waste money on stuff that isn't financially viable without subsidy. If you can't get rid of it, next best thing is to try and limit the damage it causes. I doubt Trump/Perry will go after lab funding (which is largely defense related).
I'm an engineer, I work with labs and university types. They are smart people, but they are divorced from the bottom line and things like cost, schedule, quality, manufacturability. Ernest Moniz has no experience getting energy to market, or how government inhibits that. He hasn't shown any interest in it. Perry is going to streamline the permitting process, he will remove barriers to nuclear power plant construction, he knows all about these sorts of things. Ernest Moniz couldn't care less. He just wants to spend your money funding open-ended research.
I think this is a defensible position. Probably you need some eggheads in the second tier who understand the science and research, but the top position needs foremost to be good at running organizations. It'd be good if that leader had some respect for the work the department does, which Perry seems to lack. But, we can at least say he's had some experience as a political executive. But this isn't true at all. Here's a database the DOE keeps of their accomplishments: http://www.osti.gov/accomplishments/. While you're browsing, also do a search for hydraulic fracturing.
Good grief... this is exactly the kind of thing that too much government does. Why in the world would the DOE need an R&D department much less one that has an Office of Health and Environmental Research that is sequencing the human genome unless they are planning to use humans as an energy source ala the matrix? We seriously need to clean house.
It isn't that they do too much... I'm sure they don't accomplish much if you consider things like cost vs benefit but that is beside the point. The problem is that there is absolutely no reason there should be a group in the DOE researching the human genome wasting tax dollars. Who knows how many different people are researching the human genome in the multitude of government "departments". Freakin ridiculous
Sorry to hear you stopped at the banner and didn't explore all the wonderful innovations the DOE enabled with its research and grants. However, regarding the human genome project, if you click the More Information button you learn this: So, considering the majority of DOE's work is oriented toward maintaining our nuclear capabilities (for energy and for warfare), and considering that we have found that exposure to radiation from nuclear material causes genetic mutation, it actually makes sense that the DOE is involved in researching genetics and how our nuclear capabilities might create risks to our species' genetic stock. On the other objection -- that it's a waste of money: there is a lot of science that can be done that isn't easily monetized. There are discoveries that lead to discoveries that lead to other discoveries that might go into a failed invention that is later co-opted for a successful invention and the guy at the end of the line makes a billion dollars. It's good for our society and our economy to do the research and make the discoveries that are not economic because they open optionality for things that are economic later. The market isn't going to reward that behavior though. That makes government agencies' and nonprofits' work here important because they provide capital where the market will not. Also, I'll point out the DOE under DeLisi organized this Santa Fe Workshop so that the "many different people researching the human genome in the multitude of government "departments"" would get together and collaborate. I don't know why you assume all these guys just work in a vacuum and the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing.
Would just add that genetic therapies are offering some of the most humane and effective potential treatments of many diseases. If you've ever had a family member go through chemo/radiation/surgery to treat cancer, you definitely would like to see lower-impact, more dignified alternatives. You can say we shouldn't spend money on it, if you want, but to say "they don't accomplish much" and "wasting tax dollars" is not super well-informed, TBH.
If you want to get technical about it, the quoted post was responding to Commodore's parenthetical assertion that DOE had nothing to do with fracking, not the part where he said Obama's DOE has done nothing at all in energy innovation. Here's a document from the DOE about their contributions to E&P, including fracking: http://www.osti.gov/accomplishments/documents/fullText/ACC0003.pdf. I'll preface by saying they are a bit light on the fracking, but then this is also a 1997 document.
Where does the funding for research supporting the Democrat left's near hysterical AGW alarmism hypothesis? Very largely from the DOE, no? One article I saw estimated that funding as being over $10 billion per year from the DOE alone. Suffice it to say, it is time to make this information public in the name of transparency, before rationalizing these handouts down 'biggly' and also soon.
Are you kidding me? DOE is a government agency, so they are transparent, especially on budget. Here's their 6-volume justification of their 2016 budget (don't worry, they have an overview document that's only 76 pages in there): https://energy.gov/cfo/downloads/fy-2016-budget-justification. If you want to know how much they spend on AGW alarmism, look it up.
I am not currently interested in or asking about the DOE's budget. I am asking about how much funding our government and more specifically the DOE spends funding "research" that goes towards helping to promote the extremist left's radical AGW alarmism agenda. You don't have to get yourself worked up trying to reply. Rick Perry is on the job and will surely be coordinating the release of the sort of information that will be useful in the substantial downsizing of these partisan gifts soon. Talk about draining the swamp. This is a great way for Rick Perry to make a large and very important contribution towards that objective.
We tried to build stuff under obama but the GOP was worried about teh debt. Why no worries now? Aside from renewable energy which is making up the majority of installed electricity capapcity in 2015 and 2016. Rick Perry invented fracking and caused high oil prices to make it viable?
Because energy is very capital intensive? Why doesn't Exxon research fusion power? Or NRG? Somethings require lots of money and is better left to the public sector.
Yawn.... children need to use hyperbole to make a point... Try again. Renewable energy has been the majority of installed capacity in America for the last two years.... where's all the scary electric rate hikes? We've broken production records for oil and natural gas 2 years ago.... spare me your ignorance.
