Comments on: DOE Chief on Why We Don't Have a Manhattan Project for Energy http://gigaom.com/cleantech/doe-chief-on-why-we-dont-have-a-manhattan-project-for-energy/ Sat, 11 Feb 2012 02:47:52 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.com/ By: China's forex reserves weather impact of financial crisis – CCTV … | Watch Forex Videos - Biggest online collection of forex related videos. http://gigaom.com/cleantech/doe-chief-on-why-we-dont-have-a-manhattan-project-for-energy/#comment-31639 Wed, 10 Mar 2010 10:55:13 +0000 http://earth2tech.com/?p=52838#comment-31639 [...] DOE Chief on Why We Don’t Have a Manhattan Project for Energy [...]

]]> By: g.r.r. http://gigaom.com/cleantech/doe-chief-on-why-we-dont-have-a-manhattan-project-for-energy/#comment-31638 Wed, 10 Mar 2010 00:55:12 +0000 http://earth2tech.com/?p=52838#comment-31638 Yes and no. We NEED to increase our nuke as a percentage of our energy matrix. Ideally, I would like to see it rise to 33%. However, the reason why America is in the hurt that it is, is because we became dependant on just fossil fuel; Coal, Oil, and Natural Gas. We import Oil and Natural Gas (yes, we import natural gas). Just 3 years ago, Coal accounted for 49% of our electrical matrix and Natural gas was 17. Not Coal is around 44% with Natural Gas (part of which import) accounts for 24%. What is needed is to increase Nukes AND AE. Easy solution on all this: change the subsidies, and quit picking the clean tech.
If we do that, then items like geo-thermal amd Solar Thermal as well as Nukes would rise. Geo-thermal with minimal investment could account for 33% of our electricity matrix within 15-20 years. Likewise, Solar Thermal could be added quickly to Coal and Natural Gas plants and cut their burning of fossil fuel up to 15% over the next 5 years. That is huge.
And nukes NEED to rise. More importantly, if we will re-start the IFR, then we can burn the ‘waste’ nuclear power and leave very little waste. In fact, all of our current ‘waste’ could provide that power for 100′s of years and then store nicely in the current WIPP.

]]> By: Jim http://gigaom.com/cleantech/doe-chief-on-why-we-dont-have-a-manhattan-project-for-energy/#comment-31637 Tue, 09 Mar 2010 17:37:05 +0000 http://earth2tech.com/?p=52838#comment-31637 A bit more money would “be there” if Chu hadn’t wimped out and caved to the hydrogen economy advocates back in May, 2009. Just as a re-cap, these are the same folks that scuttled the zero-emissions policy by CARB, which resulted in the suspension (and crushing) of the GM EV1s. Their antics set back electrification of the vehicle fleet by a good 10 years.

]]> By: Andrew http://gigaom.com/cleantech/doe-chief-on-why-we-dont-have-a-manhattan-project-for-energy/#comment-31636 Tue, 09 Mar 2010 00:59:22 +0000 http://earth2tech.com/?p=52838#comment-31636 Nuclear Power is the way to go.

Proven technology, creates domestic jobs, reduces dependence on oil with minimal Greenhouse gas emissions.

]]>