So you want to get rid of the Department of Energy?

[The Rabbi]

Many people do not know that is the DOE that transport nuclear weapons in the US. Nuclear weapon on a truck on a US highway is under DOE control.

So what did they do before 1977? We didnt have nuclear weapons?

 

[The Rabbi]

Altogether, 80% to 85% of the DOE's functions would be considered critical by most voters

so that maybe gives you 15-20% to play with cutting wise, depending on what is in this percentage.

Even if you cut 5% its something, its a start, and you are not being stupid and cutting the whole DOE like some morons want.

That means that maybe 15% is really essential. The rest of it is either worthless or is probably already being duplicated somewhere else in the Suck.
Speaking of Suck, glad to see you back, Scumball.

 

[zzzz]

Many people do not know that is the DOE that transport nuclear weapons in the US. Nuclear weapon on a truck on a US highway is under DOE control.

So what did they do before 1977? We didnt have nuclear weapons?

United States Atomic Energy Commission
Nuclear Regulatory Commission - 1975 to 1977

 

[Ernie S.]

There is a whole bunch of stuff in here I didn't know.

Few people understand the Department of Energy, including some presidential candidates who want to get rid of it. But before it is completely abolished, the candidates might want to take a closer look and understand what's under the DOE's hood.

They may be surprised to find that the nation's nuclear weapons and naval reactors are owned by the DOE, not the Department of Defense. So abolishing the DOE means candidates want to terminate the National Nuclear Safety Administration, the office that manages the nation's nuclear weapons and naval reactors. It seems odd that some candidates want to dismantle the nation's nuclear defense systems while promising to keep America strong.

One candidate suggests that he would abolish most DOE programs and transfer critical ones to other agencies. Let's start with NNSA. Which federal agency should own the nation's nuclear weapons programs? Don't suggest DOD -- since the 1940s it's been the will of the nation to keep nuclear weapons in civilian hands.

NNSA is a big program. President Obama's proposed budget for DOE's fiscal year 2012 is $29.6 billion. Within that budget, NNSA and related defense activities represent $18.1 billion, or approximately 60% of the DOE's budget.

DOE's other big-ticket item is energy programs. These programs amount to approximately $12.1 billion, or 40% of the budget. Energy programs are civilian offices that manage government responsibilities to decontaminate and decommission nuclear facilities and dispose of nuclear waste from hospitals, universities and non-defense facilities (taxpayers do not pay to dispose of nuclear waste from commercial power plants). Energy programs also include funding the Energy Information Administration, the strategic petroleum reserve, the naval petroleum reserve, home heating oil reserves, electricity delivery and energy reliability, energy efficiency and renewable energy (EERE), and science.

Science alone represents $5.4 billion, 45% of the energy program's budget and 18% of the DOE's overall budget. In DOE-speak, science means national defense laboratories, including the Sandia, Lawrence Livermore, Los Alamos, Argonne, Jefferson, Fermi, Oak Ridge, Savannah River, and Brookhaven facilities.

Altogether, 80% to 85% of the DOE's functions would be considered critical by most voters -- and some would say all of it is essential. Candidates should explain to voters why they believe a majority of DOE functions are non-essential and what they would do with the nation's nuclear bombs, naval reactors, research facilities, petroleum reserves, EIA and so on.

We know some candidates will not transfer DOE's functions to the Departments of Commerce, Transportation, Interior or Education because candidates want to eliminate some of those agencies as well. The question remains: Where would they transfer 85% to 90% of DOE?

They don't know. They have no idea what DOE does. They incorrectly assume DOE is filled with flower children focused on crazy projects and ignoring traditional energy sources. They are wrong. DOE is technologically agnostic. For the several decades, DOE has managed each energy source independently; each fuel has its own office. This includes the offices of fossil fuels, nuclear, electricity and EERE.

Don't Unplug the Energy Department

Prior to the DOE, we had the Atomic Energy Commission and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission which were non cabinet level commissions controlled by Congress and not the Executive Branch.
All functions of the DOE could be handled well by commissions and stripped of their ability to impose regulations without Congressional approval and oversight.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Part of what DOE does is track down nuclear material worldwide to keep it out of the hands of terrorists.

But the main reason the Republicans want to get rid of DOE is that DOE is sponsoring research that may replace oil and coal.

Rut roh!

Yeah, how'd all those "Green" energy loans turn out? Fuck the DOE....

You guys are retarded.

 

[Inthemiddle]

America is drowning in debt but the only answer is to raise taxes? Gov't can't get cut at all huh?

You know, the geniuses in DC are all for keeping taxation at the same level and decreasing benefits for us, but any talk of cutting or eliminating ANY gov't agency is always met with the same kind of panicked "we can't do without this" stories planted in newspapers and broadcast TV.

Don't fall for it. Gov't CAN and SHOULD do with less. Everyone else is!

Okay, so what of the discussed functions of the DOE would you do away with?

 

[Inthemiddle]

Typical lib arguments: Cut out Energy Department and we'll have no energy. Cut out Education Dept and we'll have no education.
Hey, genius, what did we do before those departments existed? The Energy Dept didnt exist before Jimmy Carter signed it into law. What did we do all those years prior to Carter?
Take any necessary function and transfer it to an appropriate department, like Interior. And gut the rest.

Okay, what of the DOE is "not necessary"? And how much will it cost to move the necessary stuff to other departments?

 

[Inthemiddle]

[he rest of it is either worthless or is probably already being duplicated somewhere else in the Suck.

Like???

 

[Inthemiddle]

All functions of the DOE could be handled well by commissions and stripped of their ability to impose regulations without Congressional approval and oversight.

Why?

 

[Flopper]

Most of the work of the DOE is absolutely essential to the country. Management of the nation's nuclear weapons and naval reactors, decontaminate and decommission nuclear facilities and disposal of nuclear waste, and the strategic petroleum reserve are not going away. Neither is the research the into alternative energy sources. Every president for 50 years has seen a need for a national energy policy and that’s not going to change.

The desire to abolish the DOE has little to do with budget or the work they do. The DOE budget is .7% of federal budget; one of smallest of all departments and their work is essential. The real reason is to alter policy, which makes no sense at all because energy policy is under control of the president.

 

[Flopper]

There is a whole bunch of stuff in here I didn't know.

Few people understand the Department of Energy, including some presidential candidates who want to get rid of it. But before it is completely abolished, the candidates might want to take a closer look and understand what's under the DOE's hood.

They may be surprised to find that the nation's nuclear weapons and naval reactors are owned by the DOE, not the Department of Defense. So abolishing the DOE means candidates want to terminate the National Nuclear Safety Administration, the office that manages the nation's nuclear weapons and naval reactors. It seems odd that some candidates want to dismantle the nation's nuclear defense systems while promising to keep America strong.

One candidate suggests that he would abolish most DOE programs and transfer critical ones to other agencies. Let's start with NNSA. Which federal agency should own the nation's nuclear weapons programs? Don't suggest DOD -- since the 1940s it's been the will of the nation to keep nuclear weapons in civilian hands.

NNSA is a big program. President Obama's proposed budget for DOE's fiscal year 2012 is $29.6 billion. Within that budget, NNSA and related defense activities represent $18.1 billion, or approximately 60% of the DOE's budget.

DOE's other big-ticket item is energy programs. These programs amount to approximately $12.1 billion, or 40% of the budget. Energy programs are civilian offices that manage government responsibilities to decontaminate and decommission nuclear facilities and dispose of nuclear waste from hospitals, universities and non-defense facilities (taxpayers do not pay to dispose of nuclear waste from commercial power plants). Energy programs also include funding the Energy Information Administration, the strategic petroleum reserve, the naval petroleum reserve, home heating oil reserves, electricity delivery and energy reliability, energy efficiency and renewable energy (EERE), and science.

Science alone represents $5.4 billion, 45% of the energy program's budget and 18% of the DOE's overall budget. In DOE-speak, science means national defense laboratories, including the Sandia, Lawrence Livermore, Los Alamos, Argonne, Jefferson, Fermi, Oak Ridge, Savannah River, and Brookhaven facilities.

Altogether, 80% to 85% of the DOE's functions would be considered critical by most voters -- and some would say all of it is essential. Candidates should explain to voters why they believe a majority of DOE functions are non-essential and what they would do with the nation's nuclear bombs, naval reactors, research facilities, petroleum reserves, EIA and so on.

We know some candidates will not transfer DOE's functions to the Departments of Commerce, Transportation, Interior or Education because candidates want to eliminate some of those agencies as well. The question remains: Where would they transfer 85% to 90% of DOE?

They don't know. They have no idea what DOE does. They incorrectly assume DOE is filled with flower children focused on crazy projects and ignoring traditional energy sources. They are wrong. DOE is technologically agnostic. For the several decades, DOE has managed each energy source independently; each fuel has its own office. This includes the offices of fossil fuels, nuclear, electricity and EERE.

Don't Unplug the Energy Department

Prior to the DOE, we had the Atomic Energy Commission and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission which were non cabinet level commissions controlled by Congress and not the Executive Branch.
All functions of the DOE could be handled well by commissions and stripped of their ability to impose regulations without Congressional approval and oversight.

That's really dumb. Congress, who can agree on absolutely nothing is going to provide oversight and regulations of the nations nuclear weapons and reactors. This would put the responsibility for the safety America's atomic energy resources in the hands of hack politicians and lobbyists.