Department of Energy Ends Advisory Board

Discuss life, the universe, and everything with other members of this site. Get to know your fellow polywell enthusiasts.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

Post Reply
MSimon
Posts: 14331
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Department of Energy Ends Advisory Board

Post by MSimon »

This is old news (2006)

http://www.seab.energy.gov/

I wonder why it was disbanded?

Here is a list (I don't know from what time frame) of board members involved with fusion.

http://www.seab.energy.gov/sub/fus_bios.html

Looks like a reputable group to me.

Here is a bit on the politics:

http://pubs.acs.org/cen/news/84/i16/8416doeboard.html

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/04/10/bod ... nce-board/

The last comment on the thread is particularly apt:
don’t kid yourself into thinking that Republican politicians are much different than Democratic politicians in their methods of maintaining power.

zbarlici
Posts: 247
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 2:23 am
Location: winnipeg, canada

Post by zbarlici »

ffrom one of the links you provided

quote:
"Edwin Lyman, senior staff scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists, says the decision to disband the advisory panel is "a symptom of an Administration that doesn't like to hear any kind of contrary view, that simply likes to talk to itself.
...my thoughts are that Edwin should be more concerned with why there has been no funding for alternative energy projects other than ITER! The Advisory panel is the one that made suggestions to the DOE about what projects they should fund etc.

Edwin here doesn`t seem to like that the white house is bent on breaking the US dependency on oil...
The new science and technology programs seek to slash foreign oil dependence through science funding and increased use of alternative and renewable energy technologies.
..but this is all too baffling. We all know Mr George W Bush pisses oil.

zbarlici
Posts: 247
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 2:23 am
Location: winnipeg, canada

Post by zbarlici »

i wonder what they meant by "drastic restructuring"
Nature has another theory on why Bodman may have dismantled the board — disagreement with the federal government’s priorities:

The panel’s most recent report, in July 2005, recommended drastic restructuring of the nation’s nuclear-weapons labs. The study riled some in Congress, but [department spokesman Craig Stevens] denies that this had any influence on the decision to dissolve the board.

And what the heck! Is a former BigOil chairman doing on an advisory panel such as this! NEUTRALITY! ...otherwise your guidance is worth shit!

MSimon
Posts: 14331
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

You have to have people with a working knowledge of an industry on advisory committees. It makes sense.

However, it also leads to rent seeking.

The way to avoid this is self-governing bodies.

i.e. generally when the government gets involved it doesn't help. The Interstate Commerce Commission was a prime example.

==

We are very fortunate that the Navy recognized the value of Dr. B's work.

Post Reply