Unfortunately NOT a joke...

Discussion in 'International Current News & Events' started by The_Blob, Feb 23, 2009.

  1. The_Blob

    The_Blob performing monkey

    4,230
    4
    Read this slowly.

    Absolutely the greatest "joke" ever played... on US! :mad:

    Let it sink in.

    Quietly we go like sheep to slaughter.

    Does anybody out there have any memory of the reason given for the establishment of the DoE (DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY) during the Carter Administration? I don't, I wasn't born yet.

    Anybody?

    Anything?

    No?

    Didn't think so!

    Bottom line... we've spent several hundred billion dollars in support of an agency... the reason for which not one person who reads this can remember.

    Ready?

    It was very simple... and at the time everybody thought it very appropriate...

    The Department of Energy was instituted on 8-04-1977...

    TO LESSEN OUR DEPENDENCE ON FOREIGN OIL ! :eek:

    Hey, pretty efficient, huh?

    AND NOW IT'S 2009, 32 YEARS LATER ... AND THE BUDGET FOR THIS NECESSARY DEPARTMENT IS AT $27.2 BILLION A YEAR... THEY HAVE 16,000 FEDERAL EMPLOYEES AND APPROXIMATELY 100,000 CONTRACT EMPLOYEES AND LOOK AT THE JOB THEY HAVE DONE!

    THIS IS WHERE YOU SLAP YOUR FOREHEAD AND SAY ' WHAT WAS I THINKING? ' :confused:

    Ah yes, good ol' bureaucracy. :rolleyes:

    And NOW we are going to turn the Banking System & the Auto Industries over to THEM?

    God Help Us !!!
     
  2. TechAdmin

    TechAdmin Administrator Staff Member

    2,244
    47
    Do they handle all our off shore reserves?

    I went to St. Lucia recently we have massive tanks there filled with fuel to use in an emergency.
     

  3. 10101

    10101 Guest

    66
    0
    Interesting...............
     
  4. Fn/Form

    Fn/Form Function over Form

    524
    1
    I visited their sites during a former employment. They've assumed a very diverse lot of responsibilities. Power line safety/standards, nuclear power, solar power, strategic petrol reserves, TONS of research, etc. It's frequently an uphill battle for funds and support... e.g., many people like what a nuke plant does, but no one wants one near them or wants to commit the funds to make it truly plausible with a minimum impact on the environment. Catch-22.
     
  5. Obsidian

    Obsidian Guest

    28
    0
    They actually do quite a few things, including such dependence on foreign oil reducing things like making speeches at commencement events.

    For a government-operation, I've seen worse.

    Department of Energy - Homepage
     
  6. Von Helman

    Von Helman A very simple man

    172
    1
    The government couldn’t properly run a one car parade
     
  7. NaeKid

    NaeKid YourAdministrator, eh?

    8,000
    10
    I just read a link from the site about advanced GeoThermal research: U.S. Department of Energy

    To me, it seems like they are doing what they should - advancing technology in such a way that there isn't a strong tie to other region's energy / power which can keep costs (transportation, transmission, etc) lower and more affordable.
     
  8. allen_idaho

    allen_idaho Well-Known Member

    348
    0
    Boise, Idaho has been using geothermal heat and power since around 1892. In fact, the state capital building is the only one in the country which is heated geothermally.
     
  9. set2survive

    set2survive Active Member

    35
    0
    Geothermal is good, but like wind and solar, it is not enough. We need to go with what is clean and can produce abundant power virtually forever and that is nuclear. It is the only solution that makes sense and it can be done safely with the technology we have here in the 21st century. The DoE has responsibility for nuclear power.

    The Japanese are working on small scale nuclear power generators and thinking outside the box and innovatively, as usual. Japanese firms to develop small nuclear reactors
     
  10. Jason

    Jason I am a little teapot

    2,696
    4
    I agre with set2survive. We all know NIMBY (not in my backyard) and none of us want to live downrange from a nuclear waste dump (much less a reactor facility) but the fact is, from what I've read, that there are so many fail-safes in place that current nuclear power plants almost cannot fail. Yes, there's that chance, but there's also the slim chance that my entire family may be run into a ditch and killed by a drunk driver. Does that keep us off the road? I really think nuclear power is the way to go.
     
  11. allen_idaho

    allen_idaho Well-Known Member

    348
    0
    The answer may be nuclear power BUT not the current system.

    The real answer is fusion plants instead of the currently operation fission reactors.

    So how can this be done? Simple. Mine the moon for Helium-3. By using H3 as fuel, you will have a much cleaner, safer, more powerful power output while producing zero toxic waste as a byproduct.

    How much would we need? Roughly 25 tons per year to power the entire United States. With the estimated amount available on the moon, we could power the US for around 450,000 years.

    Why the moon? Because Helium-3 is only produced by the decay of material found in nuclear weapons on Earth. It could be manufactured, but it would be far too costly and dangerous to be beneficial.
     
  12. Jason

    Jason I am a little teapot

    2,696
    4
    Ok, that's an interesting point. Hadn't given fusion much of a thought. Is H3 the only fuel you can use for fusion with any practicality? I understand that uranium has a really long half life (don't know how long) so it hangs around for a long time, and plutonium, on top of being radioactive, is extremely toxic. So your stereotypical rusty drums in a mountainside somewhere are a horrible thought when it comes to that stuff.

    I asked somebody who would know one time why they don't just load all the nuclear, hazardous, biological and other waste onto a big rocket and ship it to the sun. My logic is we'd be rid of the stuff, and it'd vaporize way before it polluted the sun, if that were possible. The answer surprised me. They lookid into it, but scrapped the idea for one reason. Say you have a huge rocket loaded with hundreds of tons of this stuff and it blows up on the launchpad or in the atmosphere? Or for that matter in space near Earth? I had to admit I hadn't thought of that.
     
  13. Riverdale

    Riverdale Well-Known Member

    158
    0
    I was born and raised less than ½hour from Big Rock Point nuke plant. I went there on field trips in elementary and middle school (in the early to mid 70's).

    I also believe that nuclear is the way we need to go, unless all the NIMBYs go back to living in caves and not using electricity.
     
  14. set2survive

    set2survive Active Member

    35
    0
    Fusion reactors and mining the moon for H3 are subjects of research and speculation. A workable fusion reactor that can produce sustainable power has yet to be built, even as a laboratory model. We need something we can start buiding now, otherwise we will not have affordable energy in the not too distant future.
     
  15. allen_idaho

    allen_idaho Well-Known Member

    348
    0
    Ah, see that is where you are wrong. A working lab model HAS been built by the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory. But the lack of fuel makes it very expensive to operate.

    The technology will work. But it will take several years.

    Now, if all those oil companies out there would plan for their survival and invest some of those ill-gotten billions of dollars they have accumulated over the years into a private space venture, we could probably have working fusion reactors within the next decade.
     
    Last edited: Nov 1, 2009
  16. Jason

    Jason I am a little teapot

    2,696
    4
    But why? We have enough coal and oil to last for centuries!!!
     
  17. edmondsonpr

    edmondsonpr Member

    15
    0
    Boy, just wait till the government runs our health care!

    Probably with the same result and cost (our money) as the DoE.
     
  18. set2survive

    set2survive Active Member

    35
    0
    Allen, can you give me a link to reference that?
     
  19. allen_idaho

    allen_idaho Well-Known Member

    348
    0
  20. set2survive

    set2survive Active Member

    35
    0
    It's all still in the experimental stage of development, by "working model" I mean something that can be deployed now in the field to produce electricity. They just aren't there yet and in the mean time we need to use conventional nuclear power to bridge the gap until we can use fusion power.

    From one of the links:
    "A "fast track" plan to a commercial fusion power plant has been sketched out.[9] This scenario, which assumes that ITER continues to demonstrate that the tokamak line of magnetic confinement is the most promising for power generation, anticipates a full-scale power plant coming on-line in 2050, potentially leading to a large-scale adoption of fusion power over the following thirty years."

    I guess we could burn coal and natural gas for the next 40 or 50 years, but that's not an attractive option.