267 SS DOE Spending Tradeoff

8/14/2019 267 SS DOE Spending Tradeoff

1/60

DOE SPENDING TRADEOFFDDI 2008 SSTAYLOR

Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS...........................................................................................................................................................................1

STRATEGY SHEET..................................................................................................................................................................................3

DOE TRADE OFF 1NC............................................................................................................................................................................4

DOE TRADE OFF 1NC............................................................................................................................................................................5

DOE TRADE OFF 1NC............................................................................................................................................................................6

DOE TRADE OFF 1NC............................................................................................................................................................................7

ITER FUNDED NOW...............................................................................................................................................................................8

ITER FUNDED NOW...............................................................................................................................................................................9

ITER BRINK/WILL GET CUT.............................................................................................................................................................10







DOE BUDGET WILL GET CUT...........................................................................................................................................................17

NOW KEY................................................................................................................................................................................................18

LINK - RENEWABLE ENERGY..........................................................................................................................................................19




LINK RENEWABLE ENERGY..........................................................................................................................................................23

LINK CLIMATE POLICIES..............................................................................................................................................................24

LINK - NATIVES....................................................................................................................................................................................26

LINK - NUCLEAR..................................................................................................................................................................................27

LINK REGULATIONS........................................................................................................................................................................28

LINK - REGULATIONS.........................................................................................................................................................................29

LINK RPS..............................................................................................................................................................................................30

LINK CAP AND TRADE.....................................................................................................................................................................31

LINK REBATES...................................................................................................................................................................................32

LINK TAX INCENTIVES...................................................................................................................................................................33

EVERY DOLLAR KEY..........................................................................................................................................................................34

IMPACT - US-INDIAN RELATIONS...................................................................................................................................................35



God sanctifies nothingness and declares the will to nothingness to be holy 1


2/60



IMPACT- US-INDIAN RELATIONS....................................................................................................................................................39

IMPACT US-FRENCH RELATIONS................................................................................................................................................40

IMPACT US-FRENCH RELATIONS................................................................................................................................................41IMPACT US-FRENCH RELATIONS................................................................................................................................................41

IMPACT - HEGEMONY........................................................................................................................................................................43

IMPACT SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION..............................................................................................................................................44

IMPACT SCIENTIFIC LEADERSHIP.............................................................................................................................................45

IMPACT SCIENTIFIC COOPERATION.........................................................................................................................................46

IMPACT ENERGY...............................................................................................................................................................................47

IMPACT ENERGY...............................................................................................................................................................................48

IMPACT FUSION.................................................................................................................................................................................49

AT: ITER NOT SAFE..............................................................................................................................................................................50

AT: FUSION NOT SAFE........................................................................................................................................................................51

AT: NUKE POWER BAD.......................................................................................................................................................................52

NON-UNIQUE NOT FUNDED...........................................................................................................................................................53

NO LINK RPS.......................................................................................................................................................................................54

NO TRADE OFF......................................................................................................................................................................................55

GAS/OIL WOULD TRADE OFF...........................................................................................................................................................56

NO IMPACT FUSION..........................................................................................................................................................................57

IMPACT TURN - ITER CONSUMES ENERGY................................................................................................................................58

IMPACT TURN - ITER LEADS TO PROLIF.....................................................................................................................................59

IMPACT TURN - ITER LEADS TO PROLIF.....................................................................................................................................60



3/60


STRATEGY SHEET

First, thank you to the generic for providing the beginnings of this file.On that same note, I wish that whoever cut this had paid attention in the lecture on how to cite because I had to

recite/recut many cards in this file to get it in to the DDI format.

Nevertheless, it was a good start.

The Tradeoff scenario is about ITER, or what was formerly known as International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor(the name was changed just to ITER because of political reservations to the term thermonuclear).ITERs purpose is to "demonstrate the scientific and technological feasibility of fusion energy for peaceful purposes". Itworks internationally to develop fusion.

It is low on funding now. For Fiscal Year 2007 it was cut originally after Bush proposed it, and in 2008 it was still on thechopping block. It squeaks by with funding but congress usually supports short term policies like funding renewableenergy (or spin it that way).

ITER is sick because not only does it cause a lot of PhDs to work on shit in the United States rather than leave and go toother countries, but it develops a lot of tech leadership and shit. The heg links are probably true if we dont develop thisshit other countries will and then we lose heg, insert Khalilzad.

You can also spin the nuclear fusion shit as the only solution to energy/environmental problems, which is another way thatit can turn cases that claim climate advantages and shit.

For more information, readhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER.

Thanks,Taylor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITERhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITERhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER


4/60


DOE TRADE OFF 1NC

ITER is funded now but on the chopping block.

David Pace (Masters at University of California, Los Angeles, California, USA Department of Physics and Astronomy, DoctorateCandidate in Experimental Plasma Physics, M.Sc., Physics, 2003, University of the Pacific, Stockton, California, USA Department ofPhysics, B.S., magna cum laude Physics, 2002, Honorary Teaching Award, UCLA Department of Physics and Astronomy, 2006-2007,Research Mentorship Fellowship, UCLA, 2004-2005, Outstanding Teaching Assistant Award, UCLA Department of Physics andAstronomy, 2004, Cota Robles Fellowship, UCLA, 2002-2003, Most Outstanding Senior, U. Pacific Department of Physics, 2002,

DOE Energy Research Undergraduate Laboratory Research Fellowship, 2001, Deans Honor Roll, U. Pacific, 1998-2001) ,1/5/08http://www.davidpace.com/physics/graduate-school/us-leave-iter.htm

Finding and understanding the actual congressional material regarding this cut is difficult. It is easy to find media coverage ofthe results but they will not say much about the ITER issue. A collection of the House Amendments to the bill provides the bestoverview. With respect to ITER, the Joint Explanatory Statement says (emphasis added),Funding under this heading in the amended bill includes $289,180,000 for Fusion Energy Sciences. Within Fusion EnergySciences, $162,910,000 is provided for Science, $93,504,000 for U.S. Facility Operations, an increase of $6,000,000 to be used

to increase facility operations at the three U.S. user facilities (i.e., the DIII-D, Alcator C-Mod, and National Spherical TorusExperiment) $22,042,000 for Enabling R&D, an increase of $1,225,000 for materials research, $0 for the U.S. contribution toITER, and $10,724,000 for Enabling R&D for ITER. Funding under this heading in the amended bill includes $12,281,000 forHigh Energy Density Physics. Funding may not be reprogrammed from other activities within Fusion Energy Sciences torestore the U.S. contribution to ITER.The removal of funds for our ITER contribution might normally be considered a temporary technicality if not for the final linestating that money may not be transferred from other funds to pay the contribution. This suggests that the bill's intent is tocompletely reacquire the $160 million originally reserved for ITER. I have not determined what is included as EnablingR&D though I suspect that this money will allow those already being paid through U.S. ITER support to continue receivingtheir wage.



5/60


DOE TRADE OFF 1NC

Energy solutions like the plan trade off with ITER funding. This kills leadership and ourability to solve future problems in the environment and energy, turning case.

Space Ref, 1/31/08 http://www.iterfan.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=358&Itemid=2

Energy Under Secretary Orbach: "We Are Now at a Perilous Moment in the History of Funding for Science in the UnitedStates"In remarks delivered yesterday to the Universities Research Association, Energy Under Secretary for Science Raymond L. Orbach was clear: "Though youhave heard this phrase before, we are now at a perilous moment in the history of funding for science in the United States."

Orbach's comments made it clear that legislative actions have real-world consequences: failure to enact the President's FY 2008request for the Office of Science will be felt keenly in the research programs that the Office of Science supports. Reducedbudgets will result in the elimination of funding for more than 4,300 Ph.D.'s, graduate students, and others from what wasenvisioned in the FY 2008 request.Selections from Orbach's presentation follow; his entire speech may be read athttp://www.er.doe.gov/News_Information/speeches/speeches/08/SC08.htm Note that his presentation on this site includes two figures: the first, "Office ofScience; FY 2008 Appropriation", the other, with new information, entitled "Office of Science; FY 2006 - FY 2008;Impact on Scientific Employment"Headings have been added to the below excerpts:

FY 2008 OUTCOME:"Though you have heard this phrase before, we are now at a perilous moment in the history of funding for science in the UnitedStates. I speak from the perspective of the Director of the Department of Energy Office of Science, and as Under Secretary forScience, but I believe I also represent the views of other leaders of the federal agencies that support science."I refer you to the consequences for the funding for science of the Fiscal Year (FY) 2008 Omnibus Bill, and the preceding year-long FY 2007 Continuing Resolution. Both failed to provide adequate funding for the physical sciences in the United Statesand for many other fields of science. The President's Budget Request for FY 2009, in the context of the American CompetitiveInitiative, or ACI, will again be a vote of confidence for the three federal agencies that are the primary supporters of thephysical sciences: the Office of Science within the Department of Energy, the National Science Foundation, and the coreresearch component of the National Institute of Standards and Technology. The President's commitment to support of long-termbasic research continues to be evident in this budget request, as it has been in previous requests. Indeed, in his State of theUnion Address on Monday, the President devoted some of his precious time to state:"'To keep America competitive into the future, we must trust in the skill of our scientists and engineers and empower them to pursue the breakthroughs oftomorrow. Last year, Congress passed legislation supporting the American Competitiveness Initiative, but never followed through with the funding. This

funding is essential to keeping our scientific edge. So I ask Congress to double federal support for critical basic research in the physical sciences and ensureAmerica remains the most dynamic nation on Earth.'"I have never heard before such support for the physical sciences from a President of the United States. But if the FY 09 enacted budget proves similar to FY07 and FY 08, a "three-peat," the future of the physical sciences will be in jeopardy. Opportunities will be lost forever: for science, and our country."[At this point, Orbach quoted an op-ed by Intel Chairman Craig Barrett]"I needn't remind this group what happened in the FY 2008 Omnibus Bill . . . . The President's request for the ACI, a trajectory that would have led to adoubling of the budgets of the NSF, the DOE Office of Science, and NIST, was, with a few exceptions, at best ignored. For the Office of Science, the budgetwithout earmarks was reduced by $500 million from the President's request, and is only 2.6% above FY 07, which itself was down by $300 million from thePresident's FY 07 request. The loss of more than three quarters of a billion dollars for the physical sciences for the Office of Science will never be recovered.Worse, specific areas of science within the physical sciences were marked for major reductions from the President's request. I speak of High Energy Physicsfor which the enacted FY 08 budget was $63.5 million less than enacted in FY 07, and by $94 million from the President's request for FY 08. Fusion EnergySciences was reduced by $32.4 million from FY 07, and by $141 million from the President's request for FY 08, zeroing our Nation's contribution to ITERconstruction. Nuclear Physics was slightly increased by $10 million from FY 07, but cut by $38.6 million from the President's request for FY 08. Finally, the

budget for Basic Energy Sciences was increased by $19.7 million from FY 07, but cut by $229 million from the President's request, eliminating funding forbasic research energy initiatives such as solar and electrical energy storage. To be fair, the budgets for Biological and Environmental Research and AdvancedScientific Computing Research were augmented above the President's request.

"Nevertheless, the consequences of the FY 2008 Omnibus Bill for the U.S. scientific workforce are substantial. . . . Office ofScience funding for Ph.D.'s, graduate students, and others was decreased from the President's Request by over 4,300. This at atime when other nations around the world are increasing their scientific workforce."The budget decisions that led to these consequences were carefully drawn. They were not the result of hasty last-minuteactions. They represent the will of the people, as expressed through their elected representatives."FY 2009 BUDGET REQUEST:


6/60


7/60


DOE TRADE OFF 1NC

LOSS OF SCIENTIFIC LEADERSHIP DESTROYS US HEGEMONY

(Adam Segal, November/December 2004, Is America Losing its edge? Foreign Affairs)

The United States' global primacy depends in large part on its ability to develop new technologies and industries faster thananyone else. For the last five decades, U.S. scientific innovation and technological entrepreneurship have ensured the country's

economic prosperity and military power. It was Americans who invented and commercialized the semiconductor, the personalcomputer, and the Internet; other countries merely followed the U.S. lead. Today, however, this technological edge-so long taken forgranted-may be slipping, and the most serious challenge is coming from Asia. Through competitive tax policies, increased investmentin research and development (R&D), and preferential policies for science and technology (S&T) personnel, Asian governments areimproving the quality of their science and ensuring the exploitation of future innovations. The percentage of patents issued to andscience journal articles published by scientists in China, Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan is rising. Indian companies are quicklybecoming the second-largest producers of application services in the world, developing, supplying, and managing database and othertypes of software for clients around the world. South Korea has rapidly eaten away at the U.S. advantage in the manufacture ofcomputer chips and telecommunications software. And even China has made impressive gains in advanced technologies such aslasers, biotechnology, and advanced materials used in semiconductors, aerospace, and many other types of manufacturing. Althoughthe United States' technical dominance remains solid, the globalization of research and development is exerting considerable

pressures on the American system. Indeed, as the United States is learning, globalization cuts both ways: it is both a potent catalystof U.S. technological innovation and a significant threat to it. The United States will never be able to prevent rivals fromdeveloping new technologies; it can remain dominant only by continuing to innovate faster than everyone else. But this won't beeasy; to keep its privileged position in the world, the United States must get better at fostering technological entrepreneurship at home

Nuclear War

(Zalmay Khalilzad, US Ambassador to Afghanistan and Former Defense Analyst at RAND 1995, Losing the Moment? The UnitedStates and the World After the Cold War, Washington Quarterly, Spring, LN)

Under the third option, the United States would seek to retain global leadership and to preclude the rise of a global rival or a return tomultipolarity for the indefinite future. On balance, this is the best long-term guiding principle and vision. Such a vision is desirable notas an end in itself, but because a world in which the United States exercises leadership would have tremendous advantages. First, theglobal environment would be more open and more receptive to American values -- democracy, free markets, and the rule of law.Second, such a world would have a better chance of dealing cooperatively with the world's major problems, such as nuclearproliferation, threats of regional hegemony by renegade states, and low-level conflicts. Finally, U.S. leadership would help precludethe rise of another hostile global rival, enabling the United States and the world to avoid another global cold or hot war and all theattendant dangers, including a global nuclear exchange. U.S. leadership would therefore be more conducive to global stability than abipolar or a multipolar balance of power system.



8/60


ITER funded now

ITER WILL BE FUNDED NOW

(PeterGwynne, A science writer based in Boston, MA, and US correspondent for Physics World, Jul 1, 2008, Lay-offs at Fermilabset to be reversed,http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/34821)

Six months of lobbying brought some success for the American physics community yesterday when President George W Bush

signed a $186bn supplemental spending bill. The bill, which continues funding for military campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan,also includes $338m for government agencies that support science research. The extra funds become available immediately andwill go part of the way to compensating for severe cuts in funding for US physics that were announced last December. Inparticular, the new money could allow the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory near Chicago to reverse a decision to lay off 140staff. However, physicists think that serious problems with the US science budget remain. The new legislation provides $62.5mapiece for the National Science Foundation, the Office of Science of the Department of Energy (DOE), and NASA. Although the DOEhas yet to decide how it will spend the fresh funds, it is expected to give the bulk to the Fermilab and the Stanford Linear AcceleratorLaboratory (SLAC) in California. Since the funds apply to the current financial year, which ends on 30 September, they can permit theinstitutions to cancel or reverse layoffs planned as a result of last Decembers budget. Fermilabs director Pier Oddone, who was in

process of sacking 140 employees, has called a meeting of all his staff for tomorrow. I expect to announce an end of involuntarylayoffs at the laboratory, he said. SLAC, which laid off 125 people in April, is less certain of its course. At this stage we dontreally know what will happen, said spokesman Lee Lyon. Were not anticipating that we would do a large rehiring at this point. Butas critical positions open up going forward, we would anticipate that people would be interested in reapplying. Analysts expect thatany funds remaining after those efforts will support DOEs fusion programmes. That should help the American contribution to theITER project, support for which was cut to zero in the 2008 budget signed last December.

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/34821http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/34821http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/34821


9/60


ITER funded now

ITER IS CURRENTLY FUNDED

(DOE, February 4, 2008, President Bush Requests $25 Billion for U.S. Department of Energys FY 2009 Budget,http://www.doe.gov/news/5920.htm)

WASHINGTON, DC U.S. Secretary of Energy Samuel W. Bodman today announced President Bushs $25 billion Fiscal Year(FY) 2009 budget request for the Department of Energy (DOE), an increase of $1.073 billion over the FY 2008 appropriation. Thisrequest will continue investments to meet growing energy demand with clean, safe, affordable, reliable and diverse supplies of energy;support the development of climate change technologies; advance environmental cleanup; and ensure the reliability of our nuclearweapons stockpile. The Presidents budget for DOE directly supports the development of cutting-edge carbon capture and storagetechnologies (CCS); begins to transform the weapons complex to address 21st century challenges; and accelerates technologicalbreakthroughs to further the Presidents Advanced Energy Initiative (AEI), and scientific leadership through the AmericanCompetitiveness Initiative (ACI). This budget furthers President Bushs comprehensive strategy to increase energy, economic, andnational security by focusing on accelerating technological breakthroughs, expanding traditional and renewable sources of energy, andincreasing investment in scientific discovery and development, Secretary Bodman said. From transforming the weapons complex tomaintain the utmost safety and reliability of our nuclear weapons stockpile, to issuing solicitations for loan guarantees to spur

innovation in advanced energy technologies, this budget enables the Department to continue to lay the foundation for a clean, safe,secure and reliable energy future for all Americans. Among the Presidents priorities funded in the FY 2009 budget request includes$1.4 billion to promote the expansion of safe, emissions free nuclear power. DOE continues to actively work with industry partners topromote the near-term licensing and deployment of Americas first new nuclear plants in more than 30 years. This budget alsorequests $648 million, the largest budget request in over 25 years, for increased research in clean coal technology and demonstrationof carbon capture and storage for coal-fired power plants, an important component of the Administrations Climate ChangeTechnology Program. Another key priority in the Departments budget includes support of its Loan Guarantee program, whichrequests $19.9 million for administrative expenses, and would be offset by collections in the same amount as authorized under theEnergy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct). In addition, DOE requests an extension of its authorization to issue loan guarantees through FY2010 and FY 2011, enabling commitments to guarantee loans under Title XVII of EPAct to total more than $38 billion from FY 2008through FY 2011. These efforts, combined with plans to further expand the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to an ultimate capacity of 1.5billion barrels by 2029, will help achieve a more secure and reliable energy future for the nation. The budget also continues tosignificantly invest in the Presidents Advanced Energy Initiative (AEI) and the American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI), both

unveiled in President Bushs 2006 State of the Union Address. Advancing the American Competitiveness Initiative ($4.7 billion) TheDepartments FY 2009 budget request of $4.7 billion for the Presidents ACI, approximately $748.8 million above the FY 2008appropriation, will increase basic research in the physical sciences that will have broad impacts on future energy technologies andenvironmental solutions. ACI funding will also continue to support the construction and operation of world-class scientific facilitiesand will support thousands of scientists and students, which are essential for the U.S. to maintain its world class, scientific leadershipand global competitiveness. Accelerating the Advanced Energy Initiative ($3.2 billion) At a request of $3.2 billion, $623 millionabove the FY 2008 enacted appropriation of $2.5 billion, the Presidents AEI will continue to improve the nations energy security andaims to reduce our dependence on foreign sources of energy. AEI supports a diverse energy portfolio designed to meet the energychallenges of the 21st century by promoting the licensing of new nuclear power plants and conducting research on an advancednuclear fuel cycle; furthering a robust vehicle technology program by developing lithium-ion batteries, plug-in hybrids, and drive-trainelectrification; and investing to make solar power cost-competitive with conventional sources of electricity by 2015. Office of Science($4.7 billion) The Office of Science is the single largest federal supporter of basic research in the physical sciences in the nation, andits $4.7 billion request will help ensure U.S. leadership across a broad range of scientific disciplines. DOEs Office of Science

budget request, an increase of almost 20 percent over the enacted FY 2008 appropriation, includes $100 million for the EnergyFrontiers Research Initiative, a new initiative to leverage intellectual strength across the country by awarding several smallcompetitive grants annually to universities, labs, and leading non-profit organizations to advance energy research projects. Thisbudget request also supports the work of DOEs world class national science laboratories in High Energy Physics ($805 million);Fusion Energy Sciences ($493 million), including $214.5 million for the ITER project; and Basic Energy Science ($1.6 billion),which supports research and operates facilities to provide the foundation for new and improved energy technologies.



10/60


ITER Brink/Will Get Cut

ITER is on the Brink now, any trade-off will cut its fundingPeterFairley, Contributing Editor Peter Fairley has reported for IEEE Spectrum from Bolivia, Beijing, and Paris., 2/14/08

http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/feb08/5980

The 2004 report Burning Plasma: Bringing a Star to Earth, from the U.S. National Research Council, sold Washington on theInternational Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER), a massive R&D project that proponents predict will be the breakthroughproject for fusion energy. In its fiscal 2008 budget, however, Congress drove the United States role in ITER right into the ground,slashing US $160 million promised for this year to $10.7 million. U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) officials are expected to providean update on how the United States plans to work around the budget shortfall at a meeting of the agencys Fusion Energy SciencesAdvisory Committee next Tuesday. But the United States paltry participation has some wondering if fusion research, considered sincethe 1960s one of the great long shots for a sustainable and relatively clean energy supply, has run out of time. ITER, set to beginconstruction in Cadarache, near Marseilles in southern France, aspires to produce the first self-sustaining fusion reaction. Like mostfusion experiments to date, ITER will use formidable electric currents and magnetic fields to induce fusion in isotopes of hydrogen(deuterium and tritium) and to contain the resulting burning plasmaakin to a tiny star and exceeding 100 million C. But whereexisting fusion reactors have produced heat equivalent to just a few megawatts of power for fractions of a second, ITER should put ou

500 megawatts10 times as much as the external power deliveredfor several minutes. Getting there requires a scale of investmentthat only international consortia can support. The 27-meter-high magnetic confinement chamber required will take a decade to buildand cost an estimated $2.76 billion. Including design, administration, and 20 years of operation, the projects total expenses will benearly $15 billion. The European Union has agreed to cover half that cost, with the other half shared by the United States, China,India, Japan, Russia, and the Republic of Korea. U.S. support has waxed and waned before. In 1998, Congress pulled the UnitedStates out of ITER, judging the design too pricey. ITER got Congress back on board in 2005 with a redesign that cut the cost in half,only to see the United States trim the cap on its contribution for ITER the next year from $1.4 billion to $1.1 billion. This yearsbudget cut will prevent the DOE from lining up contractors for the design and assembly of the hardware that it committed to supply,which includes conductors for the magnets, a pellet injector to deliver solid deuterium fuel, and an exhaust system for tritium gas. The$10.7 million provided by Congress will cover only U.S. personnel posted to ITER in France and a skeleton staff in the States. ITERsupporters say the setback is temporary. They note that congressional committees fully funded ITER in draft legislation last fall, onlyto see the funds shed in the course of a larger budget battle between President Bush and Congress. At the last minute, Congressslashed $22 billion to avoid a threatened veto, and ITER was an obvious target as a new and nondomestic project. Its just one ofthose things that happen because of this financial mess were in, says Stephen Dean, president of Fusion Power Associates, anonprofit research and educational outfit based in Gaithersburg, Md. Dean says that slowdowns at ITER, as officials grapple withmore than 200 proposed design changes, will blunt the effect of U.S. delays. The impact is going to be relatively small, provided thatit doesnt happen again next year, says Dean. But some observers say it could happen again if the financial mess endures, becauseITERthe core of the U.S. fusion programappears to be low on Congresss list of priorities. James Decker, a principal withAlexandria, Va., lobbying firm Decker Garman Sullivan and former director of the DOEs Office of Science, notes that Congressinstead provided extra funding for shorter-term energy solutions. For example, Congress gave a 23 percent raise to the DOEs energyR&D programs, covering such areas as carbon sequestration and solar energy. If the United States does drop out of ITER, that couldweaken support among other ITER players. Britain pulled its funding for another international R&D megaproject, the $6.7 billionInternational Linear Collider, after Congress effectively froze U.S. participation in the project. The International Linear Collider is thesuccessor to the CERN (European Organization for Nuclear Research) Large Hadron Collider, which is to begin operations this year.Proponents of renewable energy would shed no tears if ITER came apart. Ed Lyman, a senior scientist at the Union of ConcernedScientists, says governments today must determine if energy technologiesincluding fusionare going to be realistic large-scaleenergy sources on a timeframe needed to mitigate global warming. Lyman says fusion, which even supporters agree is still several

decades from fruition, flunks that test and has no place in tight budgets: R&D resources just arent there to support projects that areso expensive and have shown so little potential for promise in the near term.



11/60


12/60



ITER is on the brink of getting funding, prominent scientists are pushing for it,but a spending trade off could drain funds. Its key to fusion.

Richard M. Jones (Media and Government Relations Division) 1/17/08http://www.iterfan.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=352&Itemid=2)

An unexpected outcome in the FY 2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act was the appropriators' decision to provide no money for the U.S.

contribution to ITER. In addition, the Explanatory Statement directed that "Funding may not be reprogrammed from other

activities within Fusion Energy Sciences to restore the U.S. contribution to ITER." The Administration requested $160.0million. As reported in FYI #2, appropriators provided "$10,724,000 for Enabling R&D for ITER."

Twenty leaders in the U.S. fusion community have sent a letter to OSTP Director John Marburger, Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman,Senate Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman Byron Dorgan (D-ND), and House Energy and WaterDevelopment Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman Peter Visclosky (D-IN). (Visclosky and Dorgan have jurisdiction over funding for the

Office of Science.) "We most respectfully urge that funding be provided for continued U.S. participation in ITER," the letterstates, continuing, "We also ask that funding be restored to the other areas of the Department of Energy's Office of Science."The Administration sends its FY 2009 budget to Congress on February 4. Senior Department of Energy officials will describe their request

that day, and may comment on the FY 2008 outcome.Copies of this letter were also sent to Energy Under Secretary for Science Raymond Orbach, and the leadership and members of relevantHouse and Senate appropriations and authorization committees. The full text of the January 4 letter follows:"Dear Dr. Marburger, Secretary Bodman, Chairman Dorgan and Chairman Visclosky:"Despite being fully funded in the Presidents and in the House and Senate Appropriations measures, the Fiscal Year 2008 omnibus funding

measure contains $0 for the U.S. contribution to the ITER Project. ITER is the key breakthrough project for magnetic fusion

energy. The purpose of the ITER Project is to 'demonstrate the scientific and technological feasibility of fusion energy

for peaceful purposes.' If the United States cannot participate in ITER, the U.S. will lose a centerpiece of its own fusion

program, a key scientific tool for understanding a fundamental process in the universe (burning plasmas like those in

the sun and stars) and the pathway to the future of fusion energy."ITER is a joint project of the China, the European Union, India, Japan, Korea, Russia and the United States. Congress authorized U.S.

participation in this project in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and the President committed the United States to its approximately 10% share of

the ITER construction just a few months ago. Failure by the United States to sustain its international commitments to ITER

seems certain to establish the United States as an unreliable partner not only in the ITER project, but in many other

areas of science. This comes at a time when the expense and scope of many critically important scientific activities

suggest international partnership and cooperation.

"Therefore, for the sake of the international and domestic fusion effort and for the sake of the U.S. reputation in the

international scientific community, we most respectfully urge that funding be provided for continued U.S. participation

in ITER."Finally, as scientists concerned about the whole U.S. scientific enterprise, we also ask that funding be restored to the other areas of theDepartment of Energys Office of Science. There is no doubt that scientific progress on a broad variety of fronts is essential for our nationsfuture. These areas of science also represent essential fronts in our understanding of the universe and the basic functioning of the worldaround us. We therefore urge that these budgets also be made whole."Thank you in advance for your attention to this important matter."

http://www.iterfan.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=352&Itemid=2http://www.iterfan.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=352&Itemid=2


13/60



ITER currently has funding requested, but it could be cutAlan Boyle (winner of the AAAS Science Journalism Award, the NASW Science-in-Society Award and other honors; a contributor

to "A Field Guide for Science Writers"; and a member of the board of the Council for the Advancement of Science Writing.)2/4/08http://www.iterfan.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=361&Itemid=2%3C/span%3E)

President Bushs final budget proposal puts Americas biggest science projects back on track, as expected, but the bigquestion is whether Congress will gut those projects like it did last year.

For the scientific community, one of the biggest disappointments in the budget compromise rushed through Congress late lastyear was the $400 million reduction in support for projects on the cutting edge of physics through the Energy Department'sOffice of Science. Hundreds of physicists are facing layoffs, and America's promised contribution of $160 million forinternational nuclear fusion research was cut to zero.

All this led the Energy Department's under secretary for science, Ray Orbach, to remark over the weekend that "we are now ata perilous moment in the history of funding for science in the United States."

The Energy Department's newly proposed $4.7 billion science budget for the 2009 fiscal year, beginning in October, is in someways a case of "back to the future." The request represents an 18.8 percent increase over the current year's appropriation.

Support for the fusion project known as ITER is set at $214.5 million, with officials ruefully noting that last year's budgetreversal "will impact the schedule and increase the U.S. costs." Funding is restored as well for Fermilab's NOvA detector andpreparations for the International Linear Collider - two projects that went into limbo due to last year's congressional cuts.

Kei Koizumi, who analyzes science policy issues for the American Association for the Advancement of Science, said the broadstrokes appeared to follow through on Bush's State of the Union pledge to beef up support for the physical sciences. Hecautioned, however, that Fermilab and the Energy Department's other national laboratories will still have to weather sometough months ahead..

"If those labs can get through this year, and appropriations follow the requests, then starting next year, those labs and thosephysical programs will be in much better shape," Koizumi told me.

That's a big if. Over the past seven years, Bush has repeatedly faced criticism for his approach to scientific issues such asglobal warming and stem cells - but on this issue, he's the one who looks like the champion of science, while members ofCongress come off looking like Neanderthals.

Big science could still lose out to congressional tinkering, driven by the desire to make up for cuts elsewhere . Forexample, this Reuters story notes that while proposed spending on high-energy physics, nuclear physics and basic energysciences rose 19 percent to $1.57 billion, the budget for low-income energy assistance (through Health and Human Services)was reduced 22 percent to $2 billion.



14/60



Although ITER funding was cut last year, this year they have gained funding,but the program will shut down if the funds are not received

American Institute of Physics, 2/11/08 http://www.aip.org/fyi/2008/019.html

In an attempt to get the Department of Energy's Office of Science budget back on track, the Administration has requested an 18.8percent increase for the fiscal year starting November 1. Under this request, funding for the Office of Science would increase by$748.8 million, from $3,973.1 million to $4,722.0 million. The Office of Science is one of the three components of the AmericanCompetitiveness Initiative.

The Department of Energy's budget would see the largest increase in five years under this proposal. Departmental funding wouldincrease by $1.13 billion to $25.0 billion. Funding for all of the department's primary functions - science, energy, defense,environment, and management - would increase. Of note is the final exhibit in a department-wide overview of the budget whichincluded the statement, "Budget Proposal is Focused on Our Priorities." Above other priorities, such as "expanding nuclear power" andthe transformation of the nuclear weapons complex was "Investing in American Competitiveness in the 21st century by continuing to

focus on the physical sciences."

Components of the FY 2009 request for the Office of Science follow, with additional comments from a briefing by Under Secretaryfor Science Raymond Orbach. For detailed information on the request for each program seehttp://www.science.doe.gov/obp/FY_09_Budget/FY_09_Budget.htm

BASIC ENERGY SCIENCES: Up 23.5 percent, or $298.3 million, from the FY 2008 appropriation of $1,269.9 million to the FY2009 request of $1,568.2 million. In commenting on this program, Orbach said "we listen to Congress," announcing a $100 millionrequest for a new program, "Energy Frontier Research Centers." The request fully funds the department's light sources.

FUSION ENERGY SCIENCES: Up 72.1% or $206.5 million, from $286.6 million to $493.1 million. Orbach commented on the"bitter blow" to the program when ITER funding for this year was zeroed, adding that program officials were "doing our best to stayalive." The request does not make-up for the loss of ITER funding this year, Orbach saying "the money is lost."

HIGH ENERGY PHYSICS: Up 16.8 percent or $115.6 million, from $689.3 million to $805.0 million. Orbach spoke of this being a"very difficult year" for the program with "significant layoffs" because of funding reductions. The proposed budget, he said, "gets usback on track."



15/60



ITER is on the chopping block, elections and the current economic situationmake it likely to get cut

David Pace (Masters at University of California, Los Angeles, California, USA Department of Physics and Astronomy) ,1/5/08http://www.davidpace.com/physics/graduate-school/us-leave-iter.htm

Instead of honoring our international promises we have decided, through congressional action, to leave our partners millions ofdollars short. If we truly leave ITER completely, then we will keep over one billion dollars from the project. It should be notedthat Boehlert was not talking about earmarks and pork-barrel projects in his speech, he actually suggested that ITER might bethe unnecessary project. Still, even though not all earmarks have to be wasteful just a small percentage of the $10 billion setaside for these projects could have fulfilled our role in something to which we have already agreed. In fact, in an era where theU.S. does not always engender a favorable image in the international community we could have taken a slightly larger portionof this pot and over-contributed to the project as a sign of our desire to participate in cooperative endeavors. This is an electionyear, however, so no one should expect a politician to willingly divert funds away from their local districts.The combined effects of a downward moving economy, incredible financial burden of multiple military exercises, and the

coming election leaves it incredibly unlikely that ITER will be funded. Congress is ending our involvement in the project asthey did previously.Who Wants the U.S. to Support ITER?In 2003 the Secretary of Energy was encouraged to bring the U.S. back to ITER. Representative Zach Wamp also encouragedparticipation, along with most of Tennessee which stands to benefit through the involvement of Oak Ridge National Laboratoryand its Fusion Energy Development program. Other endorsements remain enthusiastic but cautious. President Bush includesfusion research, and ITER specifically, as part of the response to climate change and the quest for energy independence. Hisadministration expected this year's commitment to ITER to proceed as planned. The cooperation even extended to India as theirparticipation in ITER has been considered part of a welcome partnership between the U.S. and India with regard to energyaffairs.An argument can be made that the Bush Administration is not entirely supportive of a true fusion research program. TheirAdvanced Energy Initiative calls for the fusion research budget to be nearly equivalent to the amount spent on coal research(pdf). The differences between a world powered entirely by coal and one powered entirely by fusion are dramatic. Coal,

however abundant, is still analogous to collecting a big pile of firewood for our national energy needs. Burning coal is never azero emissions process. Using coal for energy always produces carbon products, the claimed lack of emission comes fromcapturing and storing these compounds. The method involves burying carbon products underground. Zero emissions coalfactories are simply underground garbage dumps. People of the late 21st century will surely come to view this type of plan withthe same disdain we presently exhibit towards the ignorant environmental practices of the early 20th century.



16/60



The U.S. will probably desert ITER

David Pace (Masters at University of California, Los Angeles, California, USA Department of Physics and Astronomy, DoctorateCandidate in Experimental Plasma Physics, M.Sc., Physics, 2003, University of the Pacific, Stockton, California, USA Department ofPhysics, B.S., magna cum laude Physics, 2002, Honorary Teaching Award, UCLA Department of Physics and Astronomy, 2006-2007,Research Mentorship Fellowship, UCLA, 2004-2005, Outstanding Teaching Assistant Award, UCLA Department of Physics andAstronomy, 2004, Cota Robles Fellowship, UCLA, 2002-2003, Most Outstanding Senior, U. Pacific Department of Physics, 2002,

DOE Energy Research Undergraduate Laboratory Research Fellowship, 2001, Deans Honor Roll, U. Pacific, 1998-2001) ,1/5/08http://www.davidpace.com/physics/graduate-school/us-leave-iter.htm

Finding and understanding the actual congressional material regarding this cut is difficult. It is easy to find media coverage ofthe results but they will not say much about the ITER issue. A collection of the House Amendments to the bill provides the bestoverview. With respect to ITER, the Joint Explanatory Statement says (emphasis added),Funding under this heading in the amended bill includes $289,180,000 for Fusion Energy Sciences. Within Fusion EnergySciences, $162,910,000 is provided for Science, $93,504,000 for U.S. Facility Operations, an increase of $6,000,000 to be usedto increase facility operations at the three U.S. user facilities (i.e., the DIII-D, Alcator C-Mod, and National Spherical TorusExperiment) $22,042,000 for Enabling R&D, an increase of $1,225,000 for materials research, $0 for the U.S. contribution toITER, and $10,724,000 for Enabling R&D for ITER . Funding under this heading in the amended bill includes $12,281,000 forHigh Energy Density Physics. Funding may not be reprogrammed from other activities within Fusion Energy Sciences torestore the U.S. contribution to ITER.The removal of funds for our ITER contribution might normally be considered a temporary technicality if not for the final linestating that money may not be transferred from other funds to pay the contribution. This suggests that the bill's intent is tocompletely reacquire the $160 million originally reserved for ITER. I have not determined what is included as EnablingR&D though I suspect that this money will allow those already being paid through U.S. ITER support to continue receivingtheir wage.



17/60


DOE Budget Will Get Cut

NEW ENERGY SPENDING IS ZERO-SUM WITHIN THE DOE ENSURING SCIENCE PROGRAMS GET CUT

(Kei Koizumi , The American Association for the Advancement of Science, April 10th, 2008, Department of Energy R&D in the FY2009 Budget, http://www.aaas.org/spp/rd/09pch8.htm)

As always, congressional appropriators will tinker with the DOE request and will rearrange the mix of priorities, especially inthe energy area where DOE proposals to eliminate several programs are likely to run into resistance, but the overall outcome willhinge on whether Congress will be any more successful than in the past two years in securing more money overall for domestic

appropriations. If not, then as in past years, Congress will most likely raid the large Science increase to shore up funding for

domestic programs proposed for steep cuts or elimination.

BUSH IS GOING TO KEEP DOE SPENDING FLAT- ANY NEW INITIATIVE ENSURES CUTS

(RickKlein, Boston Globe Staff, February 8, 2006, Energy gaps seen in Bush's budget,

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/02/08/energy_gaps_seen_in_bushs_budget/?page=2)

Craig Stevens, a Department of Energy spokesman, said the White House's emphasis on new energy sources over conservationreflects the department's current priorities. When federal resources are scarce, Stevens said, the president believes that

supporting research into new clean-burning technologies will pay the largest long-term dividends. ''There are competing

priorities right now," he said. ''We can impact and help more people by introducing more renewable technologies to market."Senator Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico, the ranking Democrat on the Senate energy committee, said Bush's desire to hold totalDepartment of Energy spending flat next year could be the reason for the cuts. ''This budget is taking us backwards inimportant programs in energy efficiency, clean coal, oil and gas, electricity reliability, and distributed energy,just to name afew," he said.

SCIENCE PROGRAMS HAVE COME AT THE EXPENSE OF OTHER PROGRAMS WITHIN THE DOE

(DAVID L. HOBSON (R-OH), U.S. REPRESENTATIVE (R-OH), March 29, 2006, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE DAVID HOBSON(R-OH) HOLDS A HEARING ON APPROPRIATIONS FOR SCIENCE RESEARCH FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY,Lexis)

In general, I'm a strong supporter of basic research and I give Secretary Bodman and Dr. Orbach credit for bringing about thishealthy increase in the science budget.The secretary deserves recognition for making some hard choices within an overallbudget for the Department of Energy that remains essentially flat for '07. I know that others may not be happy with the otherprograms that the secretary chose to cut in order to provide for the Office of Science increase, but I respect the secretary's

willingness to make such tradeoffs with a constrained budget.



18/60


Now Key

ITER funding now is key or U.S. participation can disappearFrank Munger, 7/3/08

http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2008/jul/03/175m-to-support-or-based-work/

About $15.5 million of a special midyear appropriations package for science will go to support Oak Ridge-based work on an international fusion project, and another $2 million will supplement the funding at theSpallation Neutron Source.Jeff Sherwood, a Department of Energy spokesman in Washington, confirmed the numbers Wednesday and saidthe money is part of the $62.5 million approved by Congress to ease a funding crunch in DOE's Office ofScience. "The intent is to eliminate the need for furloughs," Sherwood said.Oak Ridge is home to the U.S. effort on the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor, a huge projectthat's being built in France. Besides the United States, the partners include Europe, China, Japan, Russia, Koreaand India.The fiscal 2008 budget approved earlier by Congress slashed the spending for ITER - allotting only $10.7million, instead of the proposed $160 million - and endangered U.S. participation in the project. U.S. Sen.Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., called the budget cuts an "embarrassing mistake" by Congress.Oak Ridge National Laboratory Director Thom Mason said Wednesday the supplemental funding will be usedto keep the U.S. team together and sustain operations until the 2009 budget is approved. More than $200 millionis being sought for the ITER project in 2009.Additional funds for this year were particularly important because the government may operate under acontinuing budget resolution for the first six months of fiscal 2009 and freeze spending levels or impose otherrestrictions.The money for the SNS will support operations at the Oak Ridge science facility, which also had a funding shortfall in this year'sbudget.



19/60


Link - Renewable Energy

Increasing Alternative Energy incentives trades-offJohn Stephen, Republican candidate for Congress, Union Leader, 7/18/08, John Stephen: On energy costs, Washington offers no

real answers,http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=John+Stephen%3A+On+energy+costs%2C+Washington+offers+no+real+answers&articleId=58250a2c-89b0-4696-925a-977411675a71

Actually, they wouldn't. The House of Representatives is prepared to let tax credits for these renewable energy sourcesexpire. These tax credits give businesses like Foss Manufacturing in Hampton the incentive to look for opportunities touse wind power for 60 percent of their electricity. Foss has high energy needs as it transforms recycled water bottles intohigh-end fabrics. Without these incentives, companies like Foss have a more difficult time making the transition tocleaner energy. You would think that with the rising price of energy, the House would at least extend these tax credits to

give the appearance that it cares about doing something to increase supply. However, these credits are doomed by amore powerful force than the need to cut energy costs: Washington's insatiable appetite for spending. You see,extending the tax credits would mean that individuals and businesses would keep $19 billion more of their money,

instead of sending it to Washington. Under the House rules, that money "loss" would have to be offset by new taxes or

spending cuts. Now, no Congress in its right mind would hike taxes in an election year, so that means that to keep theseincentives for renewable energy in place, Washington would have to do what the rest of America is doing to meet the

rising costs of energy prices -- roll up its sleeves and make the tough decisions on spending.

http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=John+Stephen%3A+On+energy+costs%2C+Washington+offers+no+real+answers&articleId=58250a2c-89b0-4696-925a-977411675a71http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=John+Stephen%3A+On+energy+costs%2C+Washington+offers+no+real+answers&articleId=58250a2c-89b0-4696-925a-977411675a71http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=John+Stephen%3A+On+energy+costs%2C+Washington+offers+no+real+answers&articleId=58250a2c-89b0-4696-925a-977411675a71http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=John+Stephen%3A+On+energy+costs%2C+Washington+offers+no+real+answers&articleId=58250a2c-89b0-4696-925a-977411675a71


20/60


Link - Renewable Energy

Funding for renewable energy will be traded off with because they are alreadylosing funding to other areas

Green Car Congress, 2/4/08http://www.greencarcongress.com/2008/02/proposed-depart.htmlThe proposed budget for the US Department of Energy (DOE) in the Presidents 2009 Budget outlines discretionary programspending of about $26 billion, up 3.2% from the estimated spending for FY 2008.The proposed budget significantly boosts spending on coal and nuclear technologies and the DOE Science program, with asmaller increase for biomass and biorefinery R&D. However, funding within the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy(EERE) program is cut by 28%, down to $1.256 billion, with the reductions coming mainly from funding for hydrogentechnology, solar energy, vehicle technologies, facilities and infrastructure, and the weatherization program.Coal and carbon capture. Overall, the Fossil Energy Research and Development programs funding jumps 25% to $997million, the bulk of that coming from the Presidents coal research initiative, which increases is funding by 41% to $818million.The budget allocates $400 million to research and $241 million to demonstrate technologies for cost-effective carbon captureand storage for coal-fired power plants through a restructured carbon capture and storage program. This is the restructured

lower-cost FutureGen program. (Earlier post.)Nuclear. The budget promotes licensing of new nuclear plants and researches an advanced nuclear fuel cycle. $242 million isallocated for Nuclear Power 2010, an industry cost-shared effort to bring new nuclear plant technologies to market anddemonstrate streamlined regulatory processes. $302 million focuses the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative on innovativetransmutation and separations research and development.Science. The overall Science budget increases 18% to $4.7 billion, with increases in all major program activities. TheBiological and Environmental Research (BER) program within the Science budget funding increases 13.6% to $568 million.BER funds research in global climate change; environmental remediation; molecular, cellular, and systemic studies on thebiological effects of radiation; structural biology; radiochemisty and instrumentation; and DNA sequencing. The program alsosupports science related to carbon sequestration.The program works in conjunction with the advanced scientific computing research program to accelerate progress in coupledgeneral circulation model development through use of enhanced computer simulation and modeling.This program also includes the Genomics: GTL activity that is developing the science, technology, and knowledge base to

harness microbial and plant systems for cost-effective renewable energy production, carbon sequestration, and environmentalremediation. The request includes $75 million for Genomics: GTL Bioenergy Research Centers. Research at the Centers willfocus on developing the science underpinning biofuel production.Biomass and Biorefinery Systems R&D. Funding for this program which is part of the EERE activities, increases 8% to $225million. This program funds research, development, and technology validation on advanced technologies that could enablefuture biorefineries to sustainably and economically convert cellulosic biomass to fuels, chemical, heat, and power. Theprograms goal is to help make cellulosic ethanol cost competitive by 2012 using a wide array of regionally available biomasssources.Hydrogen technology. Funding for the EERE hydrogen technology program drops 31% in the 09 Budget to $146 million. Thehydrogen technology program is tasked with developing hydrogen production, storage, and delivery and fuel cell technologies.Current research aims to enable industry to commercialize a hydrogen infrastructure and fuel cell vehicles by 2020.Solar. Funding for the Solar America Initiative via EERE is cut 7.1% to $156 million in the 09 Budget.Vehicle Technologies. Funding for the EERE Vehicle Technologies program is cut a slight 0.9% to $221 million. The Vehicle

Technologies program supports the FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership and the 21st Century Truck Partnership with industry.Program activities encompass a suite of technologies needed for hybrid, plug-in hybrid, and fuel cell vehicles, includinglightweight materials, electronic power control and electric drive motors, and advanced energy storage devices.This program also supports research to improve the efficiency of advanced combustion engines, using fuels with formulationsdeveloped for such engines, and incorporating non-petroleum based components.The program also includes community-based outreach via Clean Cities coalitions, competitive awards, and other activities tofacilitate the market adoption of alternative fuels and highly efficient automotive technologies.



21/60


Link - Renewable energy

Renewable energies will trade off with ITERSpace Ref, 1/31/08

http://www.iterfan.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=358&Itemid=2

Energy Under Secretary Orbach: "We Are Now at a Perilous Moment in the History of Funding for Science in the UnitedStates"In remarks delivered yesterday to the Universities Research Association, Energy Under Secretary for Science Raymond L.Orbach was clear: "Though you have heard this phrase before, we are now at a perilous moment in the history of funding forscience in the United States."rbach's comments made it clear that legislative actions have real-world consequences: failure to enact the President's FY 2008request for the Office of Science will be felt keenly in the research programs that the Office of Science supports. Reducedbudgets will result in the elimination of funding for more than 4,300 Ph.D.'s, graduate students, and others from what wasenvisioned in the FY 2008 request.Selections from Orbach's presentation follow; his entire speech may be read athttp://www.er.doe.gov/News_Information/speeches/speeches/08/SC08.htm Note that his presentation on this site includes twofigures: the first, "Office of Science; FY 2008 Appropriation", the other, with new information, entitled "Office of Science; FY2006 - FY 2008;Impact on Scientific Employment" Headings have been added to the below excerpts:FY 2008 OUTCOME:

"Though you have heard this phrase before, we are now at a perilous moment in the history of funding for science in the UnitedStates. I speak from the perspective of the Director of the Department of Energy Office of Science, and as Under Secretary forScience, but I believe I also represent the views of other leaders of the federal agencies that support science."I refer you to the consequences for the funding for science of the Fiscal Year (FY) 2008 Omnibus Bill, and the preceding year-long FY 2007 Continuing Resolution. Both failed to provide adequate funding for the physical sciences in the United Statesand for many other fields of science. The President's Budget Request for FY 2009, in the context of the American CompetitiveInitiative, or ACI, will again be a vote of confidence for the three federal agencies that are the primary supporters of thephysical sciences: the Office of Science within the Department of Energy, the National Science Foundation, and the coreresearch component of the National Institute of Standards and Technology. The President's commitment to support of long-termbasic research continues to be evident in this budget request, as it has been in previous requests. Indeed, in his State of theUnion Address on Monday, the President devoted some of his precious time to state:

"'To keep America competitive into the future, we must trust in the skill of our scientists and engineers and empower them topursue the breakthroughs of tomorrow. Last year, Congress passed legislation supporting the American CompetitivenessInitiative, but never followed through with the funding. This funding is essential to keeping our scientific edge. So I askCongress to double federal support for critical basic research in the physical sciences and ensure America remains the mostdynamic nation on Earth.'"I have never heard before such support for the physical sciences from a President of the United States. But if the FY 09enacted budget proves similar to FY 07 and FY 08, a "three-peat," the future of the physical sciences will be in jeopardy.Opportunities will be lost forever: for science, and our country."[At this point, Orbach quoted an op-ed by Intel Chairman Craig Barrett]"I needn't remind this group what happened in the FY 2008 Omnibus Bill . . . . The President's request for the ACI, a trajectorythat would have led to a doubling of the budgets of the NSF, the DOE Office of Science, and NIST, was, with a few exceptions,at best ignored. For the Office of Science, the budget without earmarks was reduced by $500 million from the President'srequest, and is only 2.6% above FY 07, which itself was down by $300 million from the President's FY 07 request. The loss of

more than three quarters of a billion dollars for the physical sciences for the Office of Science will never be recovered. Worse,specific areas of science within the physical sciences were marked for major reductions from the President's request. I speak ofHigh Energy Physics for which the enacted FY 08 budget was $63.5 million less than enacted in FY 07, and by $94 millionfrom the President's request for FY 08. Fusion Energy Sciences was reduced by $32.4 million from FY 07, and by $141 millionfrom the President's request for FY 08, zeroing our Nation's contribution to ITER construction. Nuclear Physics was slightlyincreased by $10 million from FY 07, but cut by $38.6 million from the President's request for FY 08. Finally, the budget forBasic Energy



22/60


Link - Renewable energy

Space Ref, 1/31/08

http://www.iterfan.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=358&Itemid=2

Sciences was increased by $19.7 million from FY 07, but cut by $229 million from the President's request, eliminating fundingfor basic research energy initiatives such as solar and electrical energy storage. To be fair, the budgets for Biological andEnvironmental Research and Advanced Scientific Computing Research were augmented above the President's request."Nevertheless, the consequences of the FY 2008 Omnibus Bill for the U.S. scientific workforce are substantial. . . . Office ofScience funding for Ph.D.'s, graduate students, and others was decreased from the President's Request by over 4,300. This at atime when other nations around the world are increasing their scientific workforce."The budget decisions that led to these consequences were carefully drawn. They were not the result of hasty last-minuteactions. They represent the will of the people, as expressed through their elected representatives."

FY 2009 BUDGET REQUEST:

"But enough of the past. What's done is done, and we need to move on. The President's request for FY 09 will be wonderful,again, for the physical sciences. While I can't go into details here, I can say that it will continue the funding request consistentwith the American Competitiveness Initiative and the America COMPETES Act. The problem for all of us is that, faced withessentially flat funding for the physical sciences in FY 08, the President's Request for FY 09 will appear as a very largepercentage increase for the three ACI agencies. The danger is that basic research in the physical sciences will again be 'donors'to other programs.FAILED ATTITUDE:

"Compounding this danger is that we scientists tend to regard the proposed increases for the physical sciences under theAmerican Competitiveness Initiative and the America COMPETES Act as an entitlement. That attitude has failed us. Ourlawmakers have clearly signaled where they want to put taxpayer dollars. If we are to avoid a repeat in FY 09 of whathappened in FY 08, we need to actively make the case for the support of long-term basic research across those fields that havehistorically represented U.S. world leadership. Our fellow citizens must understand that these investments in basic researchhave held the key to America's prosperity and strength in modern times. As Vannevar Bush wrote to President Truman morethan half a century ago: '.without scientific progress no amount of achievement in other directions can insure our health,prosperity, and security as a nation in the modern world.'FURTHER DETAILS ON THE FY 2009 REQUEST:

"The President's FY 09 request for the Office of Science will continue to support the full spectrum of physical science basicresearch. It will restore the ACI funding trajectory for High Energy Physics, for Nuclear Physics, for Basic Energy Sciences,and for Fusion Energy Sciences, including major support for ITER construction.NEW APPROACH NEEDED THIS YEAR:

"But the President's vote of confidence in us will go for naught if we regard his Budget Request as 'a done deal' The finalcongressional action on the FY 09 budget will not be a free ride. Our community must make clear to Congress why it is criticalfor the Nation's future that the physical sciences be supported at least at the level of the President's request. Failure to do so willyield more of the same we experienced in FY 07 and FY 08, and the 'three-peat' will have the potential of continuing the flat-to-declining trajectory into the indefinite future."The message of this year's appropriation is unmistakable. The American public, through its duly elected Congress, has madeits priorities clear: short-term applied research wins over the full spectrum of long-term basic research. It is our job to makeclear to the American people that our country will 'run out of gas' if the latter is not supported. In the absence of breakthroughsin fundamental science, current technologies will simply not be able to meet the energy and environmental challenges that

loom ahead for our Nation. Progress in basic science is essential to America's continued prosperity and strength in the twenty-first century.



23/60


Link Renewable Energy

Energy Incentives Involve Massive Administration Costs

UNEP 2 [Reforming Energy Subsidies, http://www.uneptie.org/energy/publications/pdfs/En-SubsidiesReform.pdf]

Practical considerations may mean that a subsidy that looks good on paper is, in fact, a bad idea. There are two aspects to this.One, the country may simply not be able to afford the subsidy if it involves large financial transfers from the national treasury.Two, it may not be feasible to administer the subsidy in a way that does not involve large administration costs including theresources required to monitor, prevent and deal with abuse. Subsidy programmes involving cash payments to producers orconsumers are notoriously expensive to administer, since the authorities need to verify that each recipient is entitled to themoney. Cheating can be commonplace. For example, subsidized kerosene and LPG have been diverted to transport uses inseveral countries, including Ecuador and India, depriving the poor of the fuel and causing safety problems.



24/60


Link Climate Policies

SCIENCE RESEARCH TRADES OFF WITH CLIMATE CHANGE

(PETER J. VISCLOSKY, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE (D-IN), March 29, 2006, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE DAVID HOBSON (R-OH)HOLDS A HEARING ON APPROPRIATIONS FOR SCIENCE RESEARCH FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, Lexis)

I'll be one of those voices that is very concerned about where your money came from. I also am very pleased with the increase in yourbudget's funding. It is long overdue. But I would point out that the increase in funding for physical science R&D essentially comesat the expense of other programs. The R&D spending essentially is level across the government when one takes into account

inflation and the physical science increases, reductions that have taken place at the Department of Health and Human Services andacross the government in the climate change science program.



25/60




26/60


Link - Natives

Funding for native Americans cuts into DOE funding

DOE, 9/14/07 http://www.doe.gov/news/5493.htm

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Secretary Samuel W. Bodman today announced the appointment of Steven J. Morello to beDirector of DOEs newly formed Office of Indian Energy Policy and Programs. As Director of this office, Mr. Morello willwork to implement and manage energy planning, education and efficiency for American Indian tribes.Also today, the Secretary announced that DOEs Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy would make available atotal of up to $2 million for 15 Native American tribes and Alaskan villages that have been selected for negotiation of awardsthat support the advancement of renewable energy technologies on tribal lands and rural Alaskan villages.The creation of the Office of Indian Energy Policy and Programs will further assist the Department in reaching all Americansin promoting clean, reliable and affordable energy, Secretary Bodman said. I look forward to working with Steve to advanceand promote clean energy, changing the way we power this nation.The Indian Energy Policy and Program Office will reside within DOEs Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairswhere Mr. Morello will also continue to serve as Deputy Assistant Secretary for Intergovernmental and External Affairs. Most

recently, Mr. Morello founded Native Insurance Agency LLC (NIA), a Small Business Association-certified, minority-ownedsmall disadvantaged business, where he served as its Managing Member. Prior to NIA, Mr. Morello worked in his own lawfirm, Native Law Group PC, representing his tribe, the Sault Saint Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, among others.In 2001, Mr. Morello was nominated by President George W. Bush, and later confirmed by the Senate, to be the GeneralCounsel of the U.S. Department of the Army. In that position, he served as the legal advisor to the Secretary of the Army andthe Armys Chief Legal Officer. A Georgetown University graduate, Mr. Morello received his law degree from the Universityof Detroit Law School, and earned a Master of Science in Business Administration degree from Boston University. Mr.Morello also earned a Master of Arts in Pastoral Studies from Sacred Heart Major Seminary in Detroit, Michigan.As part of DOEs ongoing commitment to work with Native American tribes and Alaskan villages, the $2 million SecretaryBodman announced today will be invested, subject to negotiations, in renewable energy and energy efficiency projects on triballands that support President Bushs Advanced Energy Initiative, which challenges Americans to change the way we power ourhomes, offices, and vehicles.The Department of Energy is committed to encouraging and helping groups develop and deploy clean energy sources,

Secretary Bodman said. Providing support for Native Americans to explore and employ clean, renewable energy technologieswill help increase efficiency and provide for a cleaner environment.Of the 15 Native American tribes and villages whose projects have been selected for negotiation, six will study the feasibilityof utilizing renewable energy technologies on tribal lands; and nine projects will take initial steps toward implementingrenewable energy and energy efficiency projects on tribal lands. The selected projects will receive both financial and technicalassistance from DOE. Since 2001, DOE has provided $12.4 million for 76 tribal energy projects, with tribes contributing anadditional $3.6 million. Read more on DOE's Tribal Energy Program.



27/60


Link - Nuclear

TRADEOFFS EMPIRICALLY PROVEN- THE DOE BUDGET FOR ALL NUCLEAR R&D HAS COME AT THE

EXPENSE OF OTHER PROGRAMS

(Kei Koizumi , The American Association for the Advancement of Science, April 10th, 2008, Department of Energy R&D in the FY2009 Budget, http://www.aaas.org/spp/rd/09pch8.htm)

Also proposed for a big increase is nuclear energy R&D, a renewable energy technology funded in a separate account, up astunning 43 percent to $630 million in 2009, partially from the inward transfer of programs from other DOE accounts andpartially from a dramatic proposed increase in advanced fuel cycle R&D because of its key role in the Administration's signatureGlobal Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) to promote spent nuclear fuel recycling



28/60


Link Regulations

REGULATION FOR NEW ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS COST BILLIONS

(Robert H. Nelson, senior economist in the Office of Program Analysis in the Department of the Interior, March 24, 1992. DoesEnvironmental Regulation Equal Environmental Protection? How Current Environmental Policy is Failinghttp://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/HL376.cfm)

Congress and bureaucrats running around trying to do something, starting new programs with huge costs, and then it turns out thatthere was a big misunder- standing in the first place. In an editorial in Sciewe magazine in September 1990, the deputy editor forengineering and applied sciences wrote: Stringent regulations and attendant frightening publicity have led to public anxiety andchemophobia. If current ill-based regulatory levels continue to be imposed, the cost of cleaning up phantom hazards will be in thehundreds of billions of dollars with minimal benefit to human health. Panicky Public. One of these kinds of situations involvedasbestos. A panicky public started tearing up schools and all kinds of other buildings all across the United Statesto remove asbestos.By some estimates we have been spending $3 billion a year on asbestos abatement, a lot of it on removals. It turns out, however, thatasbestos in place typically involves little risk. In fact, tearing it out creates a lot more risk, both for the workers and in terms ofparticles that remain in the air. So in 1990, after at least tacitly encouraging billions in asbestos overreaction, the government issued anew manual explaining: "Removal [of asbestos] is often not a building owner's best course of ac- tionto reduce asbestos exposure. Infact, an improper removal can create a dangerous situation where none previously existed." Or take another example, the responseto

the Exxon Valdez off spill in Alaska. Right after the spill happened, one judge in the case said it was the worst thing to happen in theworld since Hi- roshima. Exxon reacted to these kinds of hysterical public pressures by going in and literally tying to clean the oil offthe rocks and beaches with steam and other crude methods. They did at least pump a couple of billion dollars into the Alaska economyBut a year later, after the panic subsided, the verdict was that it was probably all a big mistake environmentally. After a visitto Alaska,Democratic Representative Wayne Owens of Utah wrote, "I concluded that the value of the massive spill-cleanup effort lies primarilyin public relations, not just for Exxon but also for Alaskan and federal officials an

267 SS DOE Spending Tradeoff

Documents

Transcript of 267 SS DOE Spending Tradeoff