Energy From Thorium Discussion Forum

It is currently Jul 16, 2018 5:14 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 106 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 8  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Trump Energy Secretary
PostPosted: Nov 19, 2016 10:22 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Nov 30, 2006 3:30 pm
Posts: 3669
Location: Alabama
Oil Mogul Hamm Tops Trump List for U.S. Energy Secretary

Quote:
Continental Resources Chief Executive Harold Hamm is at the top of President-elect Donald Trump’s list to serve as energy secretary, according to U.S. Representative Kevin Cramer of North Dakota, a Trump energy adviser who confirmed he is also under consideration for the job. “In my view, Harold Hamm has the right of first refusal,” Cramer told Reuters in a telephone interview. “In my view, he’s likely to be asked. And, because he’s a patriot and an American, he’s likely to say yes.” Hamm, 70, became one of America’s wealthiest men during the U.S. oil and gas drilling boom over the past decade, tapping into controversial hydraulic fracturing drilling technology to access vast deposits in North Dakota’s shale fields.


Is Rick Perry on a short list for Donald Trump’s energy secretary?

Quote:
But, as the Journal noted, the Energy Department is one of three that Rick Perry, during his first ill-fated run for the White House, wanted to eliminate. And it was Perry’s inability to remember that, that led to the most humiliating moment of his political career, and one of the most famous campaign gaffes in American political history. It was at a Republican presidential debate in November 2011, that Perry, then a formidable candidate for his party’s nomination, said, “It’s three agencies of government when I get there that are gone: commerce, education, and the uh … what’s the third one, there? Let’s see. The third one. I can’t … Oops.”


Perry May Lead Energy Agency He Once Forgot Existed, Then Wanted to Scrap

Quote:
Back in 2011 then-Gov. Rick Perry saw his presidential aspirations become a national joke when, in the midst of a Republican presidential primary debate, he tried to name the three federal agencies he would eliminate, and drew a blank on that key third one, the Department of Energy. Perry was discussing his jobs plan and his flat tax plan when he said: "And I will tell you, it is three agencies of government when I get there that are gone. Commerce, Education, and the... what's the third one there? Let's see." Finally, Perry gave up. "I can't. The third one, I can't. Sorry. Oops." It was the "oops" heard round the world. But, in a development proving irony is alive and well, Perry, most recently a reality TV star on Dancing With the Stars, now might become the head of the Department of Energy.


Each of these candidates seem to be very open to the proposition that the Department of Energy should be abolished altogether.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Nov 21, 2016 3:38 pm 
Offline

Joined: Nov 14, 2016 5:01 pm
Posts: 18
While my usual inclination is that disbanding entire departments of government is probably a bad idea given the split focus for the DOE between weapons and power generation it certainly seems like a department that could at the very least use a pretty thorough re-organization. Hopefully one that would put all power generation under the primary authority of the same department when it's all said and done.

That said if improperly managed and prepared even a move towards a more helpful DOE or lack of DOE could hurt the nuclear industry in creating more uncertainty in an industry that's pretty well strangled due to various bits of regulatory and governmental uncertainty, which is a risk worth considering.

What gives me hope in all this is ironically O'Reilly who made comments supporting the Paris Agreement on Climate Change. If the Trump administration actually chooses to go along with that it could result in a pretty huge step forward for the nuclear industry. Committed to make some effort to address climate change but unlikely to want to follow in the footsteps of the Democratic administration in using sacred tax money to help renewables and with an axe to grind against regulation a Trump administration could end up being very pro-nuclear.

Of course the risk in all this is that if the Trump administration chooses to ignore O'Reilly's call there's little chance of anything but coal and gas being pushed for new generation.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Nov 23, 2016 11:20 am 
Offline

Joined: May 18, 2011 9:19 pm
Posts: 66
Another possibility http://www.forbes.com/sites/rodadams/2016/11/10/will-donald-hoffman-be-president-trumps-secretary-of-energy/#416aa4533115


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Nov 23, 2016 6:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Nov 30, 2006 3:30 pm
Posts: 3669
Location: Alabama
Why would Trump want Hamm at Energy?

Quote:
The rumor mill has consistently churned out oil billionaire Harold Hamm's name as a potential Energy secretary in a Donald Trump administration. But if Trump's plan is to free oil, gas and coal from federal regulations, experts say putting Hamm atop the Energy Department is not the way to do it. "It's a misnomer that the secretary of Energy has authority over oil and gas," said Bill Richardson, who served as Energy secretary under President Clinton. "He may be extremely frustrated with his inability to unleash fossil energy." If that's what Trump wants, "then he should appoint him Interior secretary," said Paul Bledsoe, an energy consultant and a former climate aide in the Clinton White House. "That's who decides public lands development and oil and gas leases, not the Energy secretary."


I wondered the same thing. All of this comes about because the DOE was intentionally misnamed under the Carter administration. We should just go ahead and call it the "Department of Nuclear Weapons and Nuclear Cleanup" and then the media and public would clearly know what was going on and what the money gets spent on.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Nov 24, 2016 3:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: Feb 28, 2011 10:10 am
Posts: 355
I am still surprised that the Obama Administration did not follow the British example and not take the opportunity to rename the DOE to the 'Department of Energy and Climate Change' (DECC), in order to be in tune with the Green hype.

The development, maintenance and safeguarding of nuclear weapons is delegated to the AWE (Atomic Weapons Establishment) in the UK. That is not a bad name and also pretty much describes what the DOE is mainly involved in. The AWE is completely separate from the DECC and is part of the Ministry of Defence in the UK.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Nov 24, 2016 4:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Nov 30, 2006 3:30 pm
Posts: 3669
Location: Alabama
We sorta have that in the US, the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) lives in some in-between between DOE and the DOD.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Nov 24, 2016 9:38 pm 
Offline

Joined: Jun 19, 2013 11:49 am
Posts: 1525
AWE has held that name since the beginning of the programme in something like 1950 [Ironically under the Labour Government which committed the UK to atomic weapons].
It was actually under the UKAEA at that time - although the AEA was under the Ministry of Supply and then under a variety of ministries in the continuous reorganisations - it was never under the Department of Energy.
In 1971 it was transferred to the MoD and has been there ever since.
UKAEA was laterly under "Department of Business, Information and Skills" - which is one of the random grab bag departments for stuff that doesn't really fit into any of the traditional categories.
Although it should be remembered that since most of the Magnox fleet was effectively (if not nominally) dual use, much of the weapons programme decommissioning expenditures are still in the 'Energy' category.

DECC is now gone with the rise of Theresa May and has been reorganised.
We now have a DEPARTMENT FOR BUSINESS, ENERGY AND INDUSTRIAL STRATEGY - which has also absorbed the UKAEA.

Its a giant mess.
Its enough to make you wish for a return to the days of a 'Ministry of Power' - at least you knew what it did.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Nov 25, 2016 1:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Nov 30, 2006 3:30 pm
Posts: 3669
Location: Alabama
Trump's energy team overhauled


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Nov 27, 2016 5:20 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Nov 30, 2006 3:30 pm
Posts: 3669
Location: Alabama
Christie in contention for energy, homeland security secretary posts, source says


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Nov 30, 2016 6:10 pm 
Offline

Joined: Nov 14, 2013 7:47 pm
Posts: 568
Location: Iowa, USA
Sarah Palin?
Sarah Palin Under Consideration for VA Secretary

Quote:
The former Alaska governor has also been talked about for energy secretary and secretary of the interior positions. Earlier this month, she posted on Facebook about her “Drill, baby, drill” energy philosophy.


Even though Palin has been portrayed as a ditzy beauty queen by the liberal press she does seem to have her supporters in the GOP. She was a successful governor in Alaska and appears to be very supportive of a true "all the above" energy policy. I wouldn't have a problem with Sarah Palin as Energy Secretary. I don't know where she stands on nuclear energy but I doubt she'd be hostile to it.

_________________
Disclaimer: I am an engineer but not a nuclear engineer, mechanical engineer, chemical engineer, or industrial engineer. My education included electrical, computer, and software engineering.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Dec 01, 2016 7:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Nov 30, 2006 3:30 pm
Posts: 3669
Location: Alabama
Trump should pick Rep Kevin Cramer as Energy secretary over me, Harold Hamm says
Quote:
Cramer has said Hamm should have the right of first refusal for Energy secretary, but Hamm told CNBC that Cramer is the man for the job. "Kevin's a great guy, and he would be a perfect candidate, as well. I've put his name forward," Hamm said on "Squawk on the Street." "He'd sort of do a better job in that post than me."


I'll bet someone told Hamm he'd have to divest himself of all his investments...

This is why politicians get tapped to do political jobs:

Joe Manchin may be Trump's energy secretary

Trump considering Senator Heitkamp of North Dakota for Cabinet: source

These are all over the map. But they all seem to have one thing in common. These potential energy secretaries aren't going to be wetting the bed every night over global warming.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Dec 07, 2016 7:26 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Nov 30, 2006 3:30 pm
Posts: 3669
Location: Alabama
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trum ... secretary/


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Dec 08, 2016 11:59 am 
Offline

Joined: Jun 19, 2013 11:49 am
Posts: 1525
Kirk Sorensen wrote:
These are all over the map. But they all seem to have one thing in common. These potential energy secretaries aren't going to be wetting the bed every night over global warming.


If that is the case then I think we are done.
No way nuclear has any real chance of matching an H-class CCGT with shale-priced gas.
Especially if the SCO2 bottoming cycles really work as well as they say


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Dec 08, 2016 5:31 pm 
Offline

Joined: Nov 14, 2013 7:47 pm
Posts: 568
Location: Iowa, USA
E Ireland wrote:
Kirk Sorensen wrote:
These are all over the map. But they all seem to have one thing in common. These potential energy secretaries aren't going to be wetting the bed every night over global warming.


If that is the case then I think we are done.
No way nuclear has any real chance of matching an H-class CCGT with shale-priced gas.
Especially if the SCO2 bottoming cycles really work as well as they say

I disagree with that assessment. Just because a reduction in fossil fuel regulations causes a reduction in their price does not necessarily price nuclear power out of the market.

There's two things put together that make me think this way. First is some commentary I heard from several places on how Trump wants to do away with a lot of business killing regulations. The thinking was that it was taxes that was killing business in the USA but that is not necessarily the case. Taxes are high in the USA, really high, but that alone is not enough to drive business out of the country. It seems that Trump is now seeing that it is the crushing levels of regulation that is killing business. Even if the taxes were brought in line with other nations the regulations would still keep businesses away. Obama has been creating new regulations at an unprecedented rate during his administration. What one president creates unilaterally another can destroy unilaterally.

The second is some videos from our friend Mr. Gordon McDowell where there were several prominent figures in the nuclear energy sector that will point out that the costs of materials and engineering for a modern nuclear power plant is the same as that of a modern coal plant. The only reason that nuclear power costs so much more than coal is because of the regulations. If Trump can unilaterally reduce much of this regulation, and it would seem he can, and has even a lukewarm support for nuclear power, and it appears he does, then we might be able to see a big change in how nuclear reactors are licensed and therefore the costs of licensing be reduced considerably.

There is another point that many here are no doubt aware of but I'll put it plainly for those that haven't already connected the dots. Energy is energy. It takes energy to make things and move things, if the price of energy goes down then everything gets cheaper. Competition between these energy sources drives prices down in all energy if one source gets cheaper. This isn't a one-to-one relationship because we can't burn coal in cars, and wood fired airplanes aren't a thing, but for the most part if natural gas gets cheap then so does coal, oil, wood, and even nuclear.

If natural gas gets cheap because the Trump administration backs off on EPA regulations, and issues fracking contracts on federal land more freely, then the cost of steel, concrete, aluminum, etc. all go down, driving down the costs of building a nuclear reactor too.

Obviously this is a lot of speculation. Nobody but "The Donald" knows what is going on in his head. Trump has made some comments on where he might take things, but those are just words so far. There is little doubt that the future looks bright for domestic energy production in the USA. From what I've seen I've become very optimistic about the growth of the nuclear energy sector in the USA.

_________________
Disclaimer: I am an engineer but not a nuclear engineer, mechanical engineer, chemical engineer, or industrial engineer. My education included electrical, computer, and software engineering.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Dec 08, 2016 8:56 pm 
Offline

Joined: Feb 25, 2011 1:55 am
Posts: 106
There's a world of difference between less regulation and making government less of an obstacle for business. NRC regs are not that crazy mostly, but internal systems and manpower is crippled. Modern groupware with document versioning and online portals, coupled with upping the license reviewers, would be far more effective.

Alas, removing regulation is cheap talk and cheap action. Though considering Trump's snap tweets versus overall actions, the actual policy of reducing business obstructions and increasing speed might happen.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 106 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 8  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group