Trump to Cut Energy Department Funding for Fossil Fuel Energy and Nuclear Energy

[InTheLight]

The Trump administration wants to cut the Energy Department's offices for nuclear power and fossil-fuel energy by 31% and 54%, respectively, according to a draft administration budget document viewed by Axios.

Why it matters: Top Trump administration officials have repeatedly said they back nuclear power and fossil fuels, in particular coal burned more cleanly with technology that captures and stores carbon underground instead of emitting it. These cuts show mismatch between the rhetoric and what they're willing to allocate.

What we're hearing: Some conservative groups say cutting funding for policies like cleaner-burning coal technologies would undercut Trump's promise to save the coal industry.

"It would be very difficult, especially on the carbon capture front, to keep some of the promises that the administration made to the coal community if it's not going very deep on innovation in this space," said Rich Powell, executive director of ClearPath Foundation, a conservative organization pushing cleaner energy technologies within the GOP.

Scoop: Trump's plan to cut fossil-fuel, nuclear funding

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

The Trump administration wants to cut the Energy Department's offices for nuclear power and fossil-fuel energy by 31% and 54%, respectively, according to a draft administration budget document viewed by Axios.

Why it matters: Top Trump administration officials have repeatedly said they back nuclear power and fossil fuels, in particular coal burned more cleanly with technology that captures and stores carbon underground instead of emitting it. These cuts show mismatch between the rhetoric and what they're willing to allocate.

What we're hearing: Some conservative groups say cutting funding for policies like cleaner-burning coal technologies would undercut Trump's promise to save the coal industry.

"It would be very difficult, especially on the carbon capture front, to keep some of the promises that the administration made to the coal community if it's not going very deep on innovation in this space," said Rich Powell, executive director of ClearPath Foundation, a conservative organization pushing cleaner energy technologies within the GOP.

Scoop: Trump's plan to cut fossil-fuel, nuclear funding

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

IE.....the creep lied again! There goes the miners chances to keep their industry from being shuttered. Then to cut the whole program to starve off fracking & nuclear?!?

 

[Van]

Folks, pay no attention to the Trump haters. I am old enough to remember before the DOE was created. All the vital things, whatever they may be, that the DOE now does, was being done in other Federal agencies, before it was created.

The DOE was created for the sole purpose of ending America's dependence on foreign oi. The last administration pretty much blocked energy development, the exact opposite of the purpose of the DOE.

One of the actions we should take, IMO, is to nurture the transition from internal combustion engines to electric vehicles. We can generate electricity with. domestic energy, such as natural gas, shale oil, The recent meltdown in Japan indicates we need the capacity to airlift power generators, water, and hoses/piping such that we can cool the reactor and spent fuel pool, even if something wipes out all our onsite emergency equipment such as diesels.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

They certainly work in concert with the EPA. Trump has done good things to those guys. I think coal country still loves them some PDT.

 

[Happy]

The WHOLE of government has become a Giant tangled web of corruption.

Where in any portion of the US Constitution was the government authorized to provide funding for ANY business, not operating as a Constitutional official arm of the Government?

Coal companies, Oil companies, Resale shops, etc.... are not Government "companies".

 

[Happy]

The Trump administration wants to cut the Energy Department's offices for nuclear power and fossil-fuel energy by 31% and 54%, respectively, according to a draft administration budget document viewed by Axios.

Good.

Why it matters: Top Trump administration officials have repeatedly said they back nuclear power and fossil fuels, in particular coal burned more cleanly with technology that captures and stores carbon underground instead of emitting it.

Good.

To stop doling out funds to a company is one thing.
To agree and like what a particular company is doing is another thing.

These cuts show mismatch between the rhetoric and what they're willing to allocate.

Problem is; The government SHOULD NOT be doling out FUNDS to ANY PRIVATE COMPANY, but that does not mean a government official can not have an opinion that a particular private company is favorable to them.

What we're hearing: Some conservative groups say cutting funding for policies like cleaner-burning coal technologies would undercut Trump's promise to save the coal industry.

What you are hearing is "OPINIONS", of where some think, IF the government IS going to fund an energy effort, which EFFORT, "THEY" would favor the funding to be given. So what? That is not exclusive to Republicans or Democrats to speak their opinions.

"It would be very difficult, especially on the carbon capture front, to keep some of the promises that the administration made to the coal community if it's not going very deep on innovation in this space," said Rich Powell, executive director of ClearPath Foundation, a conservative organization pushing cleaner energy technologies within the GOP.

What exactly WERE the "promises" given the coal community, via Trump?

Because as I recall, the coal community, was virtually shut down, under the former administration...and
Trump spoke of doing what he could do to reverse that. Or do you have something more entailing to add?

 

[Happy]

Folks, pay no attention to the Trump haters. I am old enough to remember before the DOE was created. All the vital things, whatever they may be, that the DOE now does, was being done in other Federal agencies, before it was created.

The DOE was created for the sole purpose of ending America's dependence on foreign oi. The last administration pretty much blocked energy development, the exact opposite of the purpose of the DOE.

IF one has the inclination to review the contention of the founding fathers -
the purpose for the US to rely on "foreign" imported "goods", had several "reasons", and "benefits", BUT did not provide for blocking individuals in the US from making or producing the same "goods" in the US, with their funds, efforts, risks and consequences to fail or succeed, to whit they would suffer the failure or benefit from its success. That is the picture of liberty. The government dictating who can and can not produce, buy or sell particular goods, is a sham.

FYI - the government ALWAYS benefits on imported and exported goods. So, when imported or exported goods are the mode of operation for anything particular, it is the governments advantage.
When the government BLOCKS a company from domestic production, buying, selling....it is effected under Color of Law, not Rule of Law as limiting restraints, pursuant to the Constitution.

 

[Lewis]

"The Department of Energy’s science budget has ballooned since 1977 from $1.4 billion (inflation-adjusted) to $5.2 billion in 2014. It has grown to include programs for nearly every energy technology imaginable—biofuels, coal carbon capture and sequestration, renewables, small nuclear, batteries, and so on.

Downsizing the Department of Energy will not solve America’s massive budget problem, but it is an important piece of the overall picture. Hard cuts are necessary to scale back programs that are not proper functions of the federal government." LINK

 

[Happy]

"The Department of Energy’s science budget has ballooned since 1977 from $1.4 billion (inflation-adjusted) to $5.2 billion in 2014. It has grown to include programs for nearly every energy technology imaginable—biofuels, coal carbon capture and sequestration, renewables, small nuclear, batteries, and so on.

Downsizing the Department of Energy will not solve America’s massive budget problem, but it is an important piece of the overall picture. Hard cuts are necessary to scale back programs that are not proper functions of the federal government." LINK

Hard cuts are necessary to scale back programs that are not proper functions of the federal government."

Think a couple of these could easily be Kaput?

A | A-Z Index of U.S. Government Departments and Agencies | USAGov

This just includes "A", there are whole lists following.

 

[Reynolds]

The Trump administration wants to cut the Energy Department's offices for nuclear power and fossil-fuel energy by 31% and 54%, respectively, according to a draft administration budget document viewed by Axios.

Why it matters: Top Trump administration officials have repeatedly said they back nuclear power and fossil fuels, in particular coal burned more cleanly with technology that captures and stores carbon underground instead of emitting it. These cuts show mismatch between the rhetoric and what they're willing to allocate.

What we're hearing: Some conservative groups say cutting funding for policies like cleaner-burning coal technologies would undercut Trump's promise to save the coal industry.

"It would be very difficult, especially on the carbon capture front, to keep some of the promises that the administration made to the coal community if it's not going very deep on innovation in this space," said Rich Powell, executive director of ClearPath Foundation, a conservative organization pushing cleaner energy technologies within the GOP.

Scoop: Trump's plan to cut fossil-fuel, nuclear funding

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

The fossil fuel companies need no government help. They simply need the government to leave them alone. Coal is clean enough, probably too clean, now.

 

[Happy]

The fossil fuel companies need no government help. They simply need the government to leave them alone. Coal is clean enough, probably too clean, now.

Agree.

 

[Van]

People who believe in "clean coal" also believed filtered cigarettes improved the health prospects of smokers. We need diversity, coal, oil, gas, hydro, wind and solar, but our priority should include least cost and least pollution. If we had an actual program for dealing with high level nuclear waste (includes spent fuel) nuclear could be added to the list.

 

[Lewis]

Think a couple of these could easily be Kaput?

A | A-Z Index of U.S. Government Departments and Agencies | USAGov

This just includes "A", there are whole lists following.

They can get cracking.

 

[Reynolds]

People who believe in "clean coal" also believed filtered cigarettes improved the health prospects of smokers. We need diversity, coal, oil, gas, hydro, wind and solar, but our priority should include least cost and least pollution. If we had an actual program for dealing with high level nuclear waste (includes spent fuel) nuclear could be added to the list.

I believe coal is clean enough. The ash is the real problem and no amount of research is going to miracle it away. In my opinion any government agency cuts are good ones. (Military excluded)

 

[Lewis]

People who believe in "clean coal" also believed filtered cigarettes improved the health prospects of smokers. We need diversity, coal, oil, gas, hydro, wind and solar, but our priority should include least cost and least pollution. If we had an actual program for dealing with high level nuclear waste (includes spent fuel) nuclear could be added to the list.

Well, coal is pre-washed to reduce impurities. Smokestack scrubbers reduce sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides. Electrostatic precipitators remove particulates. Syngas technology (gasification) avoids burning coal altogether. Coal is much cleaner than in the past. C02 doesn't count...lol. But I agree with the rest of your post.

 

[Happy]

They can get cracking.

Agree!!

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

They certainly work in concert with the EPA. Trump has done good things to those guys. I think coal country still loves them some PDT.

we will see!

 

[Happy]

People who believe in "clean coal" also believed filtered cigarettes improved the health prospects of smokers. We need diversity, coal, oil, gas, hydro, wind and solar, but our priority should include least cost and least pollution. If we had an actual program for dealing with high level nuclear waste (includes spent fuel) nuclear could be added to the list.

We need diversity, coal, oil, gas, hydro, wind and solar, but our priority should include least cost and least pollution.

Agree. God provides. Men discover. Government attempts to control and thieve away what men attempt to provide for themselves and as a product /service to offer others.