Skip to main content

Another Chu scandal

Image
By scooby
Another Chu scandal He was such a disappointment as Secretary. In addition to all the bad investments he made in businesses, he managed to leave NNSA in a worse position than where he inherited it. What a downward slide for the Labs! http://www.businessinsider.com/how-electric-automaker-fisker-imploded-2013-3?op=1

Comments

Anonymous said…
I disagree. He is one of the best of DOE secretaries we have ever had.
4/24/2013 4:37 PM
Anonymous said…
Hey, he's leaving, so sucking up won't help your funding.
4/24/2013 8:22 PM
Anonymous said…
Choosing companies to invest in is hard. As we know from our own financials, you win some and you lose some.

So, setting aside, for the time being, the question about whether our government SHOULD be trying to foster the growth of companies that may eventually benefit the country....did Chu actually "win a few"? I guess I haven't heard of any. Have you?
4/25/2013 12:25 PM
Anonymous said…
I disagree. He is one of the best of DOE secretaries we have ever had.

April 24, 2013 at 4:37 PM

Sad but true, but look at who we are comparing him against, Bill "Wen Ho" Richardson, Witch Hazel, Jara Pena, Tiger Team Watkins, ....
4/25/2013 6:21 PM
Anonymous said…
Just goes to show that governments waste lots of money. It should be relatively painless to implement a 5-10% sequester for a few years in a row.
4/26/2013 11:05 AM
Anonymous said…
The book-ish Dr. Chu seemed to detest the weapons research side of his DOE empire, even though it makes up the majority of DOE's budget.

He came to Los Alamos only once, looked around for less than about two hours and then appeared as if he couldn't wait to flee the place.

Let's hope we get a DOE chief who at least fully understands that atomic weapons are the main area of funding in the DOE and acts like it.
4/28/2013 1:01 PM
Anonymous said…
Jeez, who really cares about Chu anymore? Get a life.
4/28/2013 9:33 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Plutonium Shots on NIF.

By scooby
Tri-Valley Cares needs to be on this if they aren't already. We need to make sure that NNSA and LLNL does not make good on promises to pursue such stupid ideas as doing Plutonium experiments on NIF. The stupidity arises from the fact that a huge population is placed at risk in the short and long term. Why do this kind of experiment in a heavily populated area? Only a moron would push that kind of imbecile area. Do it somewhere else in the god forsaken hills of Los Alamos. Why should the communities in the Bay Area be subjected to such increased risk just because the lab's NIF has failed twice and is trying the Hail Mary pass of doing an SNM experiment just to justify their existence? Those Laser EoS techniques and the people analyzing the raw data are all just BAD anyways. You know what comes next after they do the experiment. They'll figure out that they need larger samples. More risk for the local population. Stop this imbecilic pursuit. They wan...
155 comments
Read more

Trump is to gut the labs.

By scooby
The budget has a 20% decrease to DOE office of science, 20% cut to NIH. NASA also gets a cut. This will  have a huge negative effect on the lab. Crazy, juts crazy. He also wants to cut NEA and PBS, this may not seem like  a big deal but they get very little money and do great things.
124 comments
Read more

tcp1 looking good

By scooby
I just received my annual TCP-1 letter from LLNS and a summary of the LLNS Pension Plan. Looked in pretty good shape in 2013. About 35% overfunded (funding target attainment percentage = 134.92%). This was a decrease from 2012 where it was 51% overfunded (funding target attainment percentage = 151.59%). They did note that the 2012 change in the law on how liabilities are calculated using interest rates improved the plan's position. Without the change the funding target attainment percentages would have been 118% (2012) and 105% (2013). 2013 assets = $2,057,866,902 2013 liabilities = $1,525,162,784 vs 2012 assets = $1,844,924,947 2012 liabilities = $1,217,043,150 It was also noted that a slightly different calculation method ("fair market value") designed to show a clearer picture of the plan' status as December 31, 2013 had; Assets = $2,403,098,433 Liabilities = $2,068,984,256 Funding ratio = 116.15% Its a closed plan with 3,781 participants. Of that number, 3,151 wer...
105 comments
Read more