Right, because all of those liberal academic Energy Secretaries have done such a 'great' job!
After years of mismanagement under their 'leadership,' we have virtually no energy policy in this country other than "oil and coal are bad, solar and wind are good." That's not a policy.
I'll give the governor of the Texas that has a proven track record of using natural resources to bring success to his state (i.e. real world experience) a try over all those failed utty professors.
Do you know what the main job of the Dept. of Energy is?
It's making sure the US nuclear energy assets and weapons are kept secure and safe. Something like 60% of the energy dept. resources are spent making sure we don't have a nuclear disaster. That's why scientists have been chosen.
You don't need professors or scientists for that. The Navy has a better track record than the DoE ... probably some A&M grads too.
Current Director of Naval Reactors is a Mech E with a MS in Operations Research.
The DOE and the Navy work together on the navy nuclear assets, it's not a navy only job. And I'm not sure what you mean by a better track record.
Please explain.
1. Ok, and? They each still have their own responsibilities. Naval Reactors just has another cabinet secretary to answer to.
2. Better safety record - Nuclear Reactors is essentially the model for all safety programs (including NASA).
3. The idea that being a professor or scientist is somehow a requirement for a cabinet-level bureaucrat is ridiculous.
Right, because all of those liberal academic Energy Secretaries have done such a 'great' job!
After years of mismanagement under their 'leadership,' we have virtually no energy policy in this country other than "oil and coal are bad, solar and wind are good." That's not a policy.
I'll give the governor of the Texas that has a proven track record of using natural resources to bring success to his state (i.e. real world experience) a try over all those failed utty professors.
Do you know what the main job of the Dept. of Energy is?
It's making sure the US nuclear energy assets and weapons are kept secure and safe. Something like 60% of the energy dept. resources are spent making sure we don't have a nuclear disaster. That's why scientists have been chosen.
You don't need professors or scientists for that. The Navy has a better track record than the DoE ... probably some A&M grads too.
Current Director of Naval Reactors is a Mech E with a MS in Operations Research.
The DOE and the Navy work together on the navy nuclear assets, it's not a navy only job. And I'm not sure what you mean by a better track record.
Please explain.
1. Ok, and? They each still have their own responsibilities. Naval Reactors just has another cabinet secretary to answer to.
2. Better safety record - Nuclear Reactors is essentially the model for all safety programs (including NASA).
3. The idea that being a professor or scientist is somehow a requirement for a cabinet-level bureaucrat is ridiculous.
On #1, the point is that the Navy operates under an umbrella wrt nukes.
On #2, that's your opinion. Both have very good records, and the Navy record was generally kept secret until the 1990s when the safety was brought into question. As for "all safety programs", not really. Commercial reactors have a much different configuration and cooling structure than naval reactors. Apples and oranges.
On #3, I didn't say it was, I said that's a main reason those choices were made. Perry doesn't check any of the boxes related to energy. Caldwell is 100x better qualified than Perry.
What do you think qualifies Perry at all, for that job???
HokieFanDC wrote:
Do you know what the main job of the Dept. of Energy is?
It's making sure the US nuclear energy assets and weapons are kept secure and safe. Something like 60% of the energy dept. resources are spent making sure we don't have a nuclear disaster. That's why scientists have been chosen.
You don't need professors or scientists for that. The Navy has a better track record than the DoE ... probably some A&M grads too.
Current Director of Naval Reactors is a Mech E with a MS in Operations Research.
The DOE and the Navy work together on the navy nuclear assets, it's not a navy only job. And I'm not sure what you mean by a better track record.
Please explain.
1. Ok, and? They each still have their own responsibilities. Naval Reactors just has another cabinet secretary to answer to.
2. Better safety record - Nuclear Reactors is essentially the model for all safety programs (including NASA).
3. The idea that being a professor or scientist is somehow a requirement for a cabinet-level bureaucrat is ridiculous.
On #1, the point is that the Navy operates under an umbrella wrt nukes.
On #2, that's your opinion. Both have very good records, and the Navy record was generally kept secret until the 1990s when the safety was brought into question. As for "all safety programs", not really. Commercial reactors have a much different configuration and cooling structure than naval reactors. Apples and oranges.
On #3, I didn't say it was, I said that's a main reason those choices were made. Perry doesn't check any of the boxes related to energy. Caldwell is 100x better qualified than Perry.
What do you think qualifies Perry at all, for that job???
1. That's a worthless statement.
2. No shirt, commercial reactors are different? If only someone had told me this when I was applying to nuke power school....
3. We're just going to have to disagree here I guess. As a governor for a large energy-producing state, I think he's plenty qualified to manage a cabinet-level position and surround himself with the most qualified people.
HokieFanDC wrote:
Do you know what the main job of the Dept. of Energy is?
It's making sure the US nuclear energy assets and weapons are kept secure and safe. Something like 60% of the energy dept. resources are spent making sure we don't have a nuclear disaster. That's why scientists have been chosen.
You don't need professors or scientists for that. The Navy has a better track record than the DoE ... probably some A&M grads too.
Current Director of Naval Reactors is a Mech E with a MS in Operations Research.
The DOE and the Navy work together on the navy nuclear assets, it's not a navy only job. And I'm not sure what you mean by a better track record.
Please explain.
1. Ok, and? They each still have their own responsibilities. Naval Reactors just has another cabinet secretary to answer to.
2. Better safety record - Nuclear Reactors is essentially the model for all safety programs (including NASA).
3. The idea that being a professor or scientist is somehow a requirement for a cabinet-level bureaucrat is ridiculous.
On #1, the point is that the Navy operates under an umbrella wrt nukes.
On #2, that's your opinion. Both have very good records, and the Navy record was generally kept secret until the 1990s when the safety was brought into question. As for "all safety programs", not really. Commercial reactors have a much different configuration and cooling structure than naval reactors. Apples and oranges.
On #3, I didn't say it was, I said that's a main reason those choices were made. Perry doesn't check any of the boxes related to energy. Caldwell is 100x better qualified than Perry.
What do you think qualifies Perry at all, for that job???
1. That's a worthless statement.
2. No shirt, commercial reactors are different? If only someone had told me this when I was applying to nuke power school....
3. We're just going to have to disagree here I guess. As a governor for a large energy-producing state, I think he's plenty qualified to manage a cabinet-level position and surround himself with the most qualified people.
Obviously on Perry's first day of the job, first he's going to need to be reminded of the name of the department and where to find it. And then he'll reverse the polarity of a reactor, ending humanity as we know it. If only they installed polarized plugs in the reactor so it's not plugged in backwards! We should all be very afraid, he may leave a core in the hood of his jacket Homer Simpson style each day as he clocks out. We should be very afraid.
You may not want to believe everything you see on the internet.
Perry has been a gov. and a business person, he understands simple economics
Rick Perry is not book smart. Let's just all agree on this. Many people that aren't book smart can be successful in the world. he may have been a Texas A&M yell leader and get laid a lot, but the guy got a D in "Meats."
Perry believed he was speaking with the Ukrainian prime minister, but was actually talking to Alexei Stolyarov and Vladimir Kuznetsov, or the “Jerky Boys of Russia.”
Donald Trump is a stupid man's idea of a smart man, a poor man's idea of a rich man, and a weak man's idea of a strong man.
Perry believed he was speaking with the Ukrainian prime minister, but was actually talking to Alexei Stolyarov and Vladimir Kuznetsov, or the “Jerky Boys of Russia.”
