Talk:United States Department of Energy
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|A news item involving United States Department of Energy was included in the news section of the Energy Portal on 3 February 2011. Please consider updating the portal news with any major developments on this topic.|
- 1 Budget
- 2 National Lab template?
- 3 Hanford and Savannah River
- 4 history
- 5 Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability
- 6 Budget
- 7 Why do Republican candidates want to eliminate it?
- 8 Lopsided statement
- 9 Budget--links to update information
- 10 Organization section inaccuracies
- 11 Science Bowl
- 12 "Office of Nuclear Energy" in navbox
- 13 Under Secretary for Science
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Department_%28US_government%29 lists DOE as having over 20 billion dollars in the 2004 budget, but this page says that the budget is 1.1 billion in 2007. It seems like either one of these numbers is a mistake, or that the twenty fold drop in budget in a few years seems noteworthy. I haven't taken the time to suss out which. Forkazoo 00:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
National Lab template?
Not sure if anybody cares much, but I thought about doing a US National Lab template, something like the following:
|U.S. Department of Energy
National Laboratory System
I've left off any of their facilities which I didn't think were officially "National Laboratories" but I might be wrong on that. (Actually, I confirmed which ones were national labs, from here) Any thoughts? A few of them don't have pages yet but I'll eventually get to them (quick stubs could be easily put up in the meantime). --Fastfission 17:25, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Hanford and Savannah River
The article should also mention the occasional efforts to shut the organization down and how DOE has managed to keep reinventing itself to try to stay relevant after its original purpose was rendered moot by the collapse of OPEC. Specifically, it should address this sort of thing: http://www.heritage.org/research/energyandenvironment/bg1061.cfm --Blogjack (talk) 14:16, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability
According to the Infobox: $24.1 billion (2009)
According to the 3rd sentence in the 1st paragraph: "DOE also sponsors more basic and applied scientific research than any other US federal agency..." This is not substantiated, and I question that claim AS IT IS STATED.
Further: HHS The 2010 United States federal budget establishes a reserve fund of more than $630 billion over 10 years to finance fundamental reform of the health care system. http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/assets/fy2010_new_era/A_New_Era_of_Responsibility2.pdf That is $63 billion budgeted per year, greater than $24.1 budgeted for the US DOE.
It would be GREAT if the DOE sponsored more research into clean energy than the NIH budget, or the entire HHS budget for extramural and in-house research, but I don't see data to substantiate this claim.
Why do Republican candidates want to eliminate it?
- Most of the stimulus spending was in the form of grants and contracts. Yet, according to Robert Alvarez, "Even with additional stimulus money, spending for bombs and cleanup will still exceed those for actual energy-related functions. Spending for the weapons complex is currently comparable to that during the height of the nuclear arms race in the 1950s. The big difference now — half of that money is spent dealing with the Cold War's environmental legacy. "
The statement's language is extremely charged, and it references the site http://www.ips-dc.org/, which is an opinion-publishing site with heavy bias (not to mention, the cited opinion column does not itself cite a single source). Alternate perspectives need to be added, and more objective sources cited. Charlesreid1 (talk) 04:43, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
The budget section here is a bit dated as well as misleading. The dated part is that it is based on the FY 2012 request to Congress, when the FY 2013 request is the latest. The misleading part is that the numbers cited are from the FY 2011 column of the FY 2012 request, and at the time the FY 2012 request was submitted, FY 2011 appropriations had not yet been enacted, and the FY 2011 numbers used are from a projection of the appropriation. The budget request documents generally focus on 3 years--the most recently completed year (for the FY 2013 request to Congress, this was FY 2011), the year currently underway (FY 2012 in the FY 2013 request) and the year for which funds are requested (FY 2013 for the FY 2013 request). Especially considering the recent history of delayed appropriations (from FY 1998 to 2012, "temporary appropriations" known as continuing resolutions that typically hold activities to the prior year's appropriated level pending normal appropriations, have averaged 127 days, or about 4 months) as a general rule of thumb it is probably best to ignore the middle column in the budget requests unless it is clear that it reflects an actual appropriation. Even if it does reflect an actual appropriation, since it is mid-year, it is possible that subsequent supplemental appropriations, rescissions, and appropriation transfers could further change the total. The funding amounts ought to be clear whether they are referring to a budget request (so the FY 2013 column from the FY 2013 request, and so forth) or the appropriated budget (to be sure you have a final number, you'd go back 2 years, so the FY 2011 column of the FY 2013 request). Each year's budget is released on the first Monday of February (sometimes a bit delayed after elections), and for DOE is published at http://www.cfo.doe.gov/crorg/cf30.htm (scroll down the page to the Budget Justifications and Supporting Documents heading, pick the latest fiscal year, and under Summary Tables, select the table by organization for the easiest table to see the appropriate numbers to update the table currently on the page--for the FY 2013 request, this is at http://www.cfo.doe.gov/budget/13budget/Content/Orgsum.pdf, and when the FY 2014 budget comes out, it will likely be published at http://www.cfo.doe.gov/budget/14budget/Content/Orgsum.pdf). Anyhow, I'd update it myself, but as a DOE employee, that is probably discouraged, so I'm leaving the pointers here if someone else wants to tackle it. --Rusty 188.8.131.52 (talk) 12:54, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the comments Rusty... I also face this issue on a couple of my articles ...it raises the question of what role Wikipedia plays in these matters... we can't keep these articles current for agencies such as your agency or my old one DOT... too much happening and not really Wikipedia's area to focus on .... I will be working on some Agency templates, distilling what others have said in this matter and coming back to this page... Thanks for your comments... Risk Engineer (talk) 23:56, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Organization section inaccuracies
The organization section is wrong. The DOE must have changed its organization because it is totally different now. Correct Orginizational chart is here. I will try to fix it soon but I'm going to leave it marked as inaccurate until then. Kdkd131313 (talk) 22:19, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
The U.S. Department of Energy sponsors the National Science Bowl every year since its inception in 1991 to promote students to pursue their careers in math and science fields. Now, it has grown into one of the nation's largest science competitions, with around 14,000 students participating annually and and more than 250,000 have participated in its 25-year history. I feel this has been a significant part of the Department of Energy and should be included in this article.
Under Secretary for Science
In the "Structure and positions" section of the article, there is a red link to a "Under Secretary for Science and Energy" position. Is this mention actually referring to the Under Secretary of Energy for Science position? --1990'sguy (talk) 03:14, 8 November 2017 (UTC)