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...
Comments
https://www.roadandtrack.com/new-cars/future-cars/a33415643/electric-chevy-truck-with-400-miles-of-range-confirmed/
China is not the problem, Russia is.
I am all for green energy particularly if can be done cheaper than fossil fuels, but most of this work about making American green is going to be worth very little to global warming with China, India and Africa coming online. The issue is that we simply will not be able to compete if we use green energy that is many times more expensive than fossil fuels. Also once we go green it will probably will not make much of dent in the overall carbon footprint if China keeps increasing its industrial output. You will also see in increasing push for more and more industry that needs lots of energy to these other places since the cost of doing business will become so much higher in the US once we are green. Now with that said if you can get green energy to be as cheap as fossil fuels than that could change the game. The other issue is just how green are we talking about, there is a bid difference between wind versus burning coal for electric cars.
Another issue is how realistically can DOE compete with industry when it comes to green energy. The last part I have my doubts on. Overall the Hill article seemed rather naive about what the DOE is, what it does and even the energy issues the US faces. For example the issues in California are due to local infrastructure and not really to anything the DOE can do about.