Robert Alvarez

7/30/2019 Robert Alvarez

1/19

The

U.S. Department ofEnergysFiscal Year 2012

u ge eques

Robert Alvarez

Institute for Policy StudiesFebruary 2011

B-61 nuclear warheads

Radioactive waste container

Solar Panels


2/19

U.S. Department FY 2012 Budget Request

ATOMICScience

Energy Activi ties Include:

Energy Efficiency andRenewable Ener : $3.2 Billion

DEFENSEACTIVITIES

.

(18.3%)

Ener

Fossil Energy: $520 Million

Nuclear Energy (fission):$754 Billion,

Non-Proliferation,Naval Reactors, and

Nuclear Site Cleanup

Supply, R&D$5.78 Billion

(19.5%)

Electric Transmission: $123 Million

Energy InformationAdministration: $123 Million

$18.04 Billion

(61%)Power Marketing Administrations: $85 Million

Energy Loan Guarantees (subsidy costs):

Administration$299 Million

DOETOTALREQUEST=$29.5Billion

DOE spends 10 times more on military nuclear activities

than for energy conservation.


3/19

Science Energy

Management$299 M

Proportional Spending in the DOEbudget for FY 2012 is similar to

.

(18.3%)$5.78 B

(19.5%)a o eorge . us an

several presidents before him.

Nuclear Weapons, Naval Reactors,Nuclear Site Cleanup, and

Non-Proliferation

DepartmentFY2012Budget Request

$18.2 bil lion

(61%)Science

$4.7 B

Energy

$4.3 B

Management$670 M

Nuclear Weapons, Naval Reactors,Nuclear Site Cleanup,

Nuclear Site Cleanup andNon-Proliferation

Bush AdministrationEnergy Department

FY2009 Bud et Re uest.

(61%)


4/19

More Money for Nuclear Weapons

About 46 percent of the Energydepartments budget is for military

Even though the DOE has not

20 years, its weapons complex is

spending at a rate comparable tothat at the height of the nucleararms race in the late1950s.

Military nuclear spending hasincreased by more than $1 billion

.


5/19

Overthenext20years,theDOEplansfor

theU.S.to

spend

about

$167

billion

to

NUCEAR

WEAPONS

MODERNIZATIONmaintaintheU.S.nuclearweapons

stockpileandrefurbishtheweapons

researchandproductioncomplex.

Althoughthe

U.S.

nuclear

arsenal

has

beencutinhalf sincetheendoftheCold

ar,an newweaponspro uc on

stopped20years ago,spendingon

nuclearwarheads

has

increased

by

more

.

2018,NNSAspendingisplannedto

increaseby50percentaboveColdWar

levels.

Thisdoesnotincludeanadditional$100

billionprojectedbytheDefenseB61warheads

departmentformissile,bombers and

submarinesto

deploy

nuclear

weapons.


6/19

TheU.S.NuclearArsenal

6000 3,500

. .

stockpilehas400times

thedestructivepowerof

explosivesusedbyall

40005000

,

Tacticaland

StrategicWarheads

et re

Warheads

combatantsinWorld

WarII.

About 70 ercent of the

1000

2000

2,500

NonDeployed

Warheads

U.S.nucleararsenalis

notdeployed.

0

Deployed ExcessWeapons

ou percen as

beendiscardedbythe

U.S.military.

Source:FederationofAmericanScientists

Theprimary

targets

are

mostlythoseselected

duringtheColdWar,

ago.


7/19

Elimination of nuclear weapons

2500

as a ow pr or y

There is a 15-20 year

1500

2000

3,500 retired nuclearwarheads awaitingdismantlement.

50

1000

thousands

Yet, funding for

dismantlement

0

FY 10 FY11 FY 12 FY 13 FY 14 FY 15

percent over the nextfive years.

Weapons stockpile service and life extension

Dismantlement


8/19

Costs

for

Nuclear

Warhead

Life

Extension(thousandsofdollars)

2,000.00BetweenFY2003and

1 200.00

1,400.001,600.00

, .2016,about$15billion

willbe

spent

on

nuclear

warheadslifeextension

600.00

800.00

1,000.00

0.00

200.00

400.00

extensioncost

fortheB61andW76

warheadsarebetween

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2014

2016

$11and

$12

million.

,

FederationofAmericanScientistsU.S.NuclearArsenal2009


9/19

Becauseofthe20yearvoluntarymoratorium

onnuclearweaponstestingbytheUnited

States,thedesignlabshaveclaimedthatlong

termstockpilereliabilitycannotbeguaranteed

withoutnewdesignnuclearweapons.

ThisclaimhasbeenrepudiatedbytheJason

group,ahighlyregardedgroupofspecial

expertswithalonghistoryof credibleadvice

totheU.S.nuclearweaponsprogram.The

JasonGroupconcluded:

Lifetimesoftoday'snuclearwarheadscould

beextendedfordecades,withnoanticipated

lossinconfidence,byusingapproachessimilar

tothoseemployedinlifeextensionprograms

(LEPs)to

date.

Thiswasnoevidencethataccumulationof

changesincurredfromagingandLEPshave

increasedrisktocertificationoftodays

deployednuclearwarheads.


10/19

HighRiskProjects TheU.S.GovernmentAccountabilityOffice(GAO)

identifiedtheDOEnuclearweaponsprogramtobeoneofthegovernmentstophigh risk programsvulnerable towaste,fraud,and

abuse.Forinstance:

TheChemical

and

Metallurgy

Research

and

Replacement

(CMMR)

facilityattheLosAlamosNationalLaboratoryinNewMexico. The

plutoniumpitstoasmanyas80peryearby2022. Itsestimatedcosts

increasedfrom$666millionin2004to$5.8billionin2010.

TheUraniumProcessingFacility(UPF)attheY12weaponsplantin

OakRidge,TN.Thisfacilityisexpectedtoreplaceanagedplantbuilt

inthe1950s.Theestimatedcostforthisprojecthasincreasedfrom

$600million

to

$6.5

billion.

TheNNSAsLifeExtensionProgramcostsfornuclearwarheadtypes

haveincreasedby400percent.


11/19

Nuclear

Proliferation

Uraniumenrichment

20or

30

Stateshave

the

capacity

to

developnuclearweaponsinavery

shortspanoftime.DirectorGeneralDr.MohamedElBaradei,International

Reprocessing

AtomicEnergyAgency,October16,2006


12/19

Less

for

Non

roliferation

Energyisseeking

137.6mi ion esst an

requestedinFY2011.


13/19

Nuclear weapons production has resulted in the most

ex ensive environmental cleanu ro ram in theUnited States.

EPA

DOENuclear SiteEnvironmental

SuperfundProgram

$1.3

Cleanup

Defense Department

Environmental $1Cleanup

$6.1billion


14/19

140Hanford, WA

ORP/RL

DOE Site Cleanup Costs*

120

$135 B

Paducah, KY$15B

Portsmouth,OH$11.2B

Rock Flats CO

Oak Ridge, TN$8 B Uranium Mines & Mills

$5 B

100SRS, SC

$53 B

$10B

WIPP, NM$6.9 B

West Valley, NY

$5 B

LANL, NM Fernald, OH

60

$33B

.

NTS,NV

$2.6B SNL,NM

40

BNL, NY$541M

ETEC,CA

$236M

Pantex, TX$200M

20 Mound, OH$116 M

0Total Cost = $283 BillionSources. DOE 2008, GAO 2005, EIA 2006*Does not include NNSA pro jects


15/19

Energy R&D Spending for FY 2011 and 2012(thousands of dollars)

1,400

1,600

1,800

1,000

1,200

400

600FY2012

FY2011

0

200

*IncludesfissionandfusionR&D


16/19

Loans and Loan Guarantees

DOE is proposing to provide $166Billion in federal loans and loan

guarantees to aid the ailing autoindustry, and help finance nuclear,$78.5 bill ion inloan guarantees

for,

and to restructure and modernize

the nations electric grid system.

renewa eand electric

transmission

$25 billion for

Nuclear loans totaling $56.5 billionare likel to come from the U.S.56.5 bil lion

autoIndustry loans

Treasury. With a greater than 50-50 chance of default, Wall Street

in loan guarantees fornuclear projects

$8 bill ion in

.for coal

projects


17/19

DOEsOfficeofScience

About45percentof

EnergysScience

budgetreflectsits

historicalemphasison

nuclearrelatedand

h sics research.


18/19

Created in 1977 in response tooil disruptions, the U.S.

SUMMARY

little since to stem the country'sburgeoning energy problems.

With about 5.5 percent of theworld's population, the UnitedStates consumes more oil thanany other nation, three-fourths ofwhich comes from foreign

sources.

As U.S. energy dependence hasworsened, its greenhouse gas

emissions have grown worse aswell:Increasing by 17 percent since

Accelerating potentially disastrousclimate disruptions


19/19

Pantex

Plant

SUMMARY(cont)

e ma n reason o e sineffectiveness is that it's not structuredto usher in the country's energy future.

For most of its existence, about two-thirds of the DOEs annual spendinghas gone to maintaining the U.S.

up its environmental legacy.

Now, a large funding increase is beingsought as a down payment for nuclearweapons research and productionmodernization estimated to cost about

.

Actual energy functions continue to takea back seat with less than 20%of DOEs FY 2012 budget request.

Documents

Robert Alvarez