SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
On Friday morning, Bloomberg reported that it had seen a copy of a questionnaire sent by the Trump transition team to the Department of Energy (DOE). The questionnaire includes 75 questions directed at the DOE and the Energy Information Agency (EIA), as well as any labs underneath the DOE's purview. The New York Times then obtained and published a copy of the document.
Although the questions are broad in nature, they seem to set the department up for budget and staffing cuts. They also appear to favor nuclear power and fossil fuel.
Questions that address cuts to the DOE's mission include: "Which Assistant Secretary positions are rooted in statute and which exist at the discretion and delegation of the Secretary?", as well as "If the DOE's topline budget in accounts other than the 050 account were required to be reduced 10% over the next four fiscal years (from the FY17 request and starting in FY18), does the Department have any recommendations as to where those reductions should be made?" A 050 account indicates national defense spending.
With respect to renewables and research, the questionnaire asks the DOE to provide a complete list of the projects shouldered by the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E), which funds early-stage energy technology that would otherwise not be funded on the private market. ARPA-E opened its doors in 2009 under President Obama and works on battery research, biofuel production, and wind turbine projects.
Efforts to modernize the US' aging and inefficient grids also seemed to get a critical eye. "What is the goal of the grid modernization effort?" the questionnaire asks. "Is there some terminal point to this effort? Is its genesis statutory or something else?"
[Continues...]
[...] While divining the motivations behind the questions is difficult, some of them have potentially nefarious undertones. One of the questions asks for a list of all employees or contractors who attended meetings about the social cost of carbon, as well as a list of materials distributed at those meetings. Another asks "Can you provide a list of Department employees who attended any of the Conference of the Parties (under the UNFCCC) in the last five years?" According to the Washington Post , one unnamed Energy Department official expressed concern that "the Trump transition team was trying to figure out how to target the people, including civil servants, who have helped implement policies under Obama." Scientists have asked the administration to "refrain from singling out individual researchers whose work might conflict with the new administration's policy goals."
[...] The questionnaire also has pointed questions for the EIA, an independent agency under the DOE umbrella that provides energy market analysis. The questionnaire seemingly accuses the EIA of overlooking the costs of renewable energy when comparing it to fossil fuels. "Renewable and solar technologies are expected to need additional transmission costs above what fossil technologies need," the questionnaire states. "How has EIA represented this in the AEO [Annual Energy Outlook] forecasts? What is the magnitude of those transmission costs?"
Thomas Pyle, the head of the pro-fossil fuel American Energy Alliance, is leading Trump's Department of Energy Transition team, and he likely had a hand in assembling these questions. According to the Washington Post, Pyle recently wrote a fundraising pitch decrying "the Obama administration's divisive energy and environmental policies" and promising that "the Trump administration will adopt pro-energy and pro-market policies."
(Score: 5, Insightful) by jtgd on Sunday December 11 2016, @05:37AM
I guess "draining the swamp" includes purging the government of anyone who believes in science.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 11 2016, @05:47AM
Why is this modded insightful? Where does it say that in the memo? Nice hyperbole.... if nothing else if they had these ARPA-E people working for 7 years, we should have something to show for it. What do we have? For all you know he wants to make sure we are getting our money's worth.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Sulla on Sunday December 11 2016, @06:41AM
I consider nuclear research to be more sciency than wind and solar. I am concerned with the direction this will go, but also interested in the prospects. If Trump directs more money toward nuclear (fusion, fission) I think we would be far better off than wind and solar as far as immediate results. We seem on the cusp of figuring out fusion.
If fusion is a bygone conclusion and only a matter of time I would love it if we could "drill baby drill" and then sell these resources to pay down the debt, then in a decade when fusion becomes viable start building largescale fusion and switch over to a 100% renewable nuclear based economy.
If along the way we get a new more secure grid that can handle renewable energy it would be great.
So pipe dream is less debt, fusion, and updated grid.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 11 2016, @09:33AM
Sounds like the plan is pray for Jesus to give us the secret fusion recipe. No plan B. It's fusion real soon now or bust.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by maxwell demon on Sunday December 11 2016, @10:53AM
More research money into fusion would certainly be useful. I just fear that in his stance to "make America great again" he wouldn't put it where it would most likely bring fruit, namely in the international efforts, but invest it into national projects that would bring much less progress for the same money.
Money into fission research would likely be wasted money. Because fission is a well-researched topic. Well, maybe if he supported research in thorium reactors. But uranium reactors don't need extra research; that one is a solved problem. Building an uranium fission reactor is an engineering problem, not a research problem.
And to bridge the mean time, more renewable energy is certainly a better alternative than more oil. Because if we continue burning oil like crazy, by the time fusion is ready we won't have any use for it, because the economy crashed so hard that we don't have the resources needed to build and operate a fusion reactor.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 11 2016, @01:22PM
> I consider nuclear research to be more sciency than wind and solar.
What a truly bizarre thing to say.