In its comments on the proposed budget, the administration highlighted a $550 million increase in the request for programs aimed at preventing nuclear proliferation, including "full funding" of programs to secure nuclear material; develop technology that targets nuclear testing and smuggling; and support international treaties, controls and regulations for nonproliferation.
The request includes $8.1 billion to improve the safety, security and effectiveness of the nuclear weapons stockpile, a $750 million boost over 2010 appropriations, DOE said.
When broken out by program, NNSA's nonproliferation activities would see a 22 percent increase in funding under the proposed budget, going from nearly $2.2 billion appropriated in fiscal 2010 to $2.687 billion.
The Global Threat Reduction Initiative would see the biggest increase, going from $224 million in 2010 appropriations to $559 million for a 67 percent boost. That program seeks to secure vulnerable nuclear and radiological materials at civilian sites around the world and addressing nuclear material and research reactors.
Programs for nonproliferation and verification R&D and international nuclear materials protection would also see increases, while a program for nonproliferation and international security would get slightly less funding and a program for the elimination of weapons-grade plutonium production, scheduled to complete its work in 2010, would be zeroed out from the $83 million appropriated in fiscal 2010.
A program for surplus fissile materials disposition would increase by 31 percent to $917 million under the proposal. In last year's budget, that program included funding for mixed-oxide fuel fabrication, though this year's document does not specify what that includes.
NNSA funding for the environmental cleanup of defense sites would be slightly below 2010 appropriated figures under the proposed budget, with a proposed $5.58 billion, or a 2.5 percent decrease. Non-defense environmental cleanup is cut under the proposed budget to $238 million, after Congress provided $245 million for 2010.
Reprinted from Greenwire with permission from Environment & Energy Publishing, LLC. www.eenews.net, 202-628-6500
See what we're tweeting about
22 Comments
Add CommentGive President Obama a little time and he just might be able to pull us out of the Bush disaster.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI m just waiting for the greenies to jump in here and start complaining that "nuclear is not the way to go" and we should all be using solar power and riding bicycles blah blah blah.....
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI would like to see the Thorium LFTR type technology pursued. I was under the impression that, aside from the corrosive salts and plumbing issues, the tech was fairly well tested and feasible.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs the President is advocating an increase in nuclear generated power, he might have waited until after an alternative waste repository had been selected before terminating the current effort.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisChryses: If the President wants the new technology used in the nuclear reactors, they will use spent nuclear waste from the old reactors and emmit hardly no spent waste.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHe may be advocating an increase in nuclear power by his words, but he doesn't actually want an increase in nuclear power. It's just a bone to the right to coax them to go along with his mostly ill conceived energy ideas., like government investment in money losing technologies.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJamesDavis,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA big 'if'.
Soccerdad,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou can, of course, sunstantiate your claim?
DOE has a terrible track record at picking research projects that become economical technologies. Better to just cut taxes on energy companies and let them use the money for R&D.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe only thing holding up nuclear energy is the defacto 'no risk' regulations enforced by the NRC. Since it is impossible to produce electricity without risk, they won't permit any new plants. The only reason you need loan guarantees is to cover the risk of the government changing the rules during construction, which NRC almost always does.
The TMI event and full scale core melt experiments DOE did in the '80's proved that the huge offsite consequences previously assumed are impossible. NRC's authority to make hugely expensive regulations needs to be repealed in favor of an insurance system covering the consequences that are actually possible. Then loan guarantees aren't needed.
Obama is the most anti-science president since William Henry Harrison. While SciAm was screeching and gnashing teeth over W's science policy, you headlined this story "Obama Budget Increases Funding for Energy Research and Nuclear Power" to mask that this president is chopping away at science with a broad ax. Maybe someday SciAm will return to the fold of Science instead of political posturing.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this�Way to go? If numbers in the article are OK, then the total budget is 54 BIllon. Nuclear alone gets 26 Billon, almost 50% and all other technologies will have to share the leftovers. Last year wind alone added 10GW to the system, menwhile nuclear has not added a sigle MW in more than 25 years. �Where is that money going?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLoan guarantees are paid for by the industry at rate set by the GAO based on cost. Their value is a few hundred million, sort of like your uncle signing on your loan. After Shoreham where a Greenpeace sponsored village selectman ten miles from the plant was able to cancel the license for a just built nuke plant, no investor will trust the Nuclear Rejection Commission.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHello Tom O H... seems your part of the problem... Green is not the way to go according to your expertise? What is wrong with being able to someday end the need for nuclear power. The huge wasted dollars could easily be used to get rid of this home based threat. $36 billion towards solar and wind technology per year would out do nuclear.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisObama, the USA has been about it's economy for some time... giving breaks and hand outs to the wealthy. Any buisnessman, investor or real estate agency knows that when the econemy is down that is when to buy, build or invest. What a nation should be doing is looking ahead... is the existing infrastructures up to par... is the existing road/rail system and the countless vehicles adequately engineered to it's optimum... where are the high speed trains in this equation ( they are better suited to mass transportation than airlines if done right )? Nuclear < Green...
Where are your people who can puzzle together how things are done now, what is being researched or already achieved globaly today, pulling ideas and people from varios walks of life together using a common sence approach for better long term planning...
It is possible to respect the USA for such activity in search of breaches of clean energy. We can give such technological help and be the participants of such breach. It we already worked out and can offer technology of receipt of clean energy and small reconstruction small resources.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAcademician G.Z.
>6=> C2060BL !( 70 B0:CN 0:B82=>ABL 2 ?>8A:0E ?@>@K2>2 G8AB>9 M=5@388. K <>65< 40BL B0:CN B5E=>;>38G5A:CN ?><>IL 8 1KBL CG0AB=8:0<8 B0:>3> ?@>@K20. -B> <K C65 @07@01>B0;8 8 <>65< ?@54;>68BL B5E=>;>38N ?>;CG5=8O G8AB>9 M=5@388 =51>;LH8<8 @5AC@A0<8 8 <0;>9 @5:>=AB@C:F88.
:045<8: G.Z.
Chrysis,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOne cannot substantiate a claim about another's true intent until after the fact. We can examine Obama's record of honesty in past claims to predict the likelihood of making good on present claims.
He said he was going to accept public funding for his presidential campaing.
He later declined public funding so he was free to spend more.
He derided Hillary for proposing an individual insurance mandate and ran attack ads claiming that he would not support such a thing.
He supported an individual mandate in both the House and Senate bills.
He cut a deal with big pharma and insurance companies to partially protect them if they did not oppose his healthcare takeover.
He later reneged on the deals and heaped more taxes on these industries than promised.
He promised to broadcast healthcare negotiations on CSpan
He declined to push for the broadcast of the White House / congress negotiations. These were held in private despite a request from CSpan to be admitted.
He promised a new tone in Washington and pledged to work with the other party to get things done.
He has not spoken to the House Minority Leader in over a year.
These are just a few examples of promises made which he did not even try to honor. They were simply words to get what he wanted. I think nuclear will be the same. He'll use it to pick off a few republicans, then will find an excuse later to continue blocking nuclear.
Soccerdad:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"He may be advocating an increase in nuclear power by his words, but he doesn't actually want an increase in nuclear power."
-------------------------
Chryses:
"Soccerdad, you can, of course, sunstantiate your claim?"
-------------------------
Yep...just more partisan politics and propaganda without any substance -- still making unsubstantiated claims!
A nuclear power plant design invented at Argonne National Lab 24 years ago has none of the drawbacks of conventional nuclear plants
One of our country's leading experts on global warming, Jim Hansen, recently re-discovered the IFR. Those who have been briefed on the IFR believe it is an essential technology we must develop to combat climate change and should be restarted immediately. This led to Hansen including restarting 4th generation nuclear power as one of his 5 top priorities for President Obama (see the bottom of page 7 in Hansen's Tell Barack Obama the Truth -- The Whole Truth).
Energy Secretary Chu, the President of MIT, and the renewable experts at the most recent Aspen Institute Energy Forum all agree that it is not responsible to believe that you can solve the climate crisis without nuclear.
http://skirsch.com/politics/globalwarming/ifr.htm
Nice article Kate,Katherine,Jenny and Mike...Its nice to see someone(s) do a good summarization of a pile of papers;-)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn Canada it is more difficult to get funding. The Government makes money on selling oil from the tar sands.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo, the discovery of tapping power out of the aether, like Tesla did for his Pierce Arrow Car in 1931 ( and what the Flying Saucers do), has not got a chance in hell to be developed here even though the patents have been granted. The system could also have been used for real spacecraft.
A mister Obama sees the prospect of energy correctly. We have также- warm a reactor on a cluster fuel is consonant with atomic technology. Without extrass in an atmosphere and radiation contamination. It economic advantageously and ecologically clean energy. It is jointly possible quickly to realize such projects small resources.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA mister Obama sees the prospect of energy correctly. We have также- warm a reactor on a cluster fuel is consonant with atomic technology. Without extrass in an atmosphere and radiation contamination. It economic advantageously and ecologically clean energy. It is jointly possible quickly to realize such projects small resources.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHello wamcconnell,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow can you deprive George Bush of that well deserved title.
Mr. Obama seems to live in the real world and not in some strange theological parallel universe.
ps . I do not live in the USA,so I am not politically motivated.
What about the economics of this decision.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf the reactor uses safe technology it won't be economical.