More to Chu on

[Trakar]

New DOE Chief: “We want to build on what was done by Secretary Chu,”
While I was disappointed to see Dr. Chu leave the Dept. of Energy, I am just as equally excited about the return of Dr. Moniz (a physicist by profession who served as undersecretary with the Dept. of Energy back in the 1990s):

…"Let me make it very clear that there is no ambiguity in terms of the scientific basis calling for a prudent response on climate change," he told a crowd of Energy Department employees May 21 following his swearing-in ceremony at DOE headquarters.

"I am not interested in debating what is not debatable," he added, echoing a recent survey published in the journal Environmental Research Letters (Study: 97% of scientists agree on climate change | MNN - Mother Nature Network) that found 97 percent of climate scientists agree about manmade global warming. "There is plenty to debate as we try to move forward on our climate agenda."
Moniz called clean energy and climate change his top policy priorities, citing them as "the real driver of my coming back" to the DOE, where he served as undersecretary in the 1990s. "We want to build on what was done by Secretary (Steven) Chu, who really changed the face of energy technology innovation at the Department of Energy," he said…

Read more here: New DOE chief insists climate change 'not debatable' | McClatchy Tribune News Service | The Bellingham Herald
​

More than just expanding upon what Dr. Chu accomplished, Dr. Moniz has actually been a part of shaping DoE climate change policy for several decades, and he feels that he has been given a much freer hand to shape US energy policy and practice:

…Moniz reiterated a line from Obama's February State of the Union address, calling for a doubling of U.S. energy productivity by 2030, and said he'll focus on doing so at the state and regional levels. He also pledged to introduce new efficiency standards for appliances and electronic equipment, and said he wants to "pick up the pace" on improving the energy performance of federal buildings, boosting vehicle fuel economy and working with manufacturers on novel efficiency initiatives…

Read more here: New DOE chief insists climate change 'not debatable' | McClatchy Tribune News Service | The Bellingham Herald
​

It is going to take some strong positive action to prime the pump and provide production expansion funding. Implementing a mandate to apply high energy-efficiency and 70% onsite, energy independence standards in all federal buildings/offices/facilities would help the commercial industry and consumer. Likewise, where practical, a mandate to require all US GOV. vehicles to be high efficiency/mpg vehicles, would help the manufacturers to re-tool and expand capacity, allowing them to amortize these expenses to the government contract, and produce civilian variants of these fleets at higher volumes and lower costs, again benefitting both commercial industry and the consumer. Adding a federal building code guideline, and offer the states matching federal funds if they upgrade all state offices and fleets in a similar program that also brings state and local building codes into line with federal building code guidelines. This is the type of demand that generates the capacity to dominate foreign competition and create a globally marketable alternative to the fossil carbon fuel that must become a much smaller volume of our import and export moving into the future.

 

[ScienceRocks]

All forms of energy should be the goal
Nuclear
coal
Natural gas
Wind
Solar
wave
etc

 

[ScienceRocks]

I'd go
40% nuclear
20% coal
20% Natural gas
15% wind
5% Solar and wave

You'd cut the co2 emissions while being economic.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I'd balance the budget first.

 

[Trakar]

All forms of energy should be the goal
Nuclear
coal
Natural gas
Wind
Solar
wave
etc

All are not equal in terms of the carbon burden/kW produced, with the externalities taken care of I have no problem allowing the various energy production technologies to compete in an open market. I believe the new DoE Secretary has in the past expressed a positive appreciation of advanced nuclear power and I suspect that natural gas will serve as both a cheaper and much less carbon intensive alternative to help us transition away from coal over the next couple of decades and will probably always have a surge/spot-need role to fill. I agree that a strongly diversified energy infrastructure shaped according to local opportunity and choice, as well as a national, networked, smart-grid would increase efficiency and reliability of the nation's energy production and distribution.

 

[Darkwind]

I'd balance the budget first.

By cutting it in half and then trashing the tax code in favor of a common sense one.

 

[Trakar]

I'd balance the budget first.

I am of the opinion that we can balance the budget as a side effect of good national energy policy and proper investment in implementing that policy.