Skip to main content

The proposed LLNL 2010 budget is down 7 million

Image
By
Anonymous said...

The proposed LLNL 2010 budget is down 7 million from last year. Not bad but will Congress approve it? Repubs are already whining that the cuts aren't deep enough.

May 7, 2009 5:55 PM

Comments

Anonymous said…
The budget over at LANL is going down by 7% (hundred of millions). In that context, a loss of only 7 million at LLNL doesn't look so bad.
5/09/2009 10:57 AM
Anonymous said…
Hardly surprising. Congress has been bleeding LLNL white for many years now. The party affiliation means nothing anymore. They get their jollies from hurting you. And like an abused spouse you keep letting them beat you up, and worse still you vote for them.

NOTHING is worth this kind of treatment. The world does not revolve around 7000 East Avenue. Leave now, you can find a new job a lot easier than you believe. Just take the steps, go out and build a new life.
5/09/2009 12:43 PM
Anonymous said…
Interestingly the overall NNSA portion of LLNL's budget is up from FY09.

Weapons is down
FY09 - 1,012,460,000
FY10 - 987,421,000

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation is up
FY09 - 83,033,000
FY10 - 117,683,000

Total NNSA is up
FY09 - 1,099,299,000
FY10 - 1,105,104,000

-----

Nuclear Energy (Fuel Cycle R&D) is down
FY09 - 2,940,000
FY10 - 0

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy is down a bit.
(No money for Hydrogen but new money for Fuel Cell and Solar R&D)
FY09 - 7,628,000
FY10 - 6,166,000

Science is down
(Bio & Envir cut by 10 million)
FY09 - 53,167,000
FY10 - 43,283,000

Health Safety and Security the same
FY09 - 3,214,000
FY10 - 3,214,000

Fossil Energy R&D (Carbon Sequestration) is down
FY09 - 1,258,000
FY10 - 1,019,000

Defense Envir Cleanup is up (Thanks to EPA for fining DOE)
FY09 - 0
FY10 - 910,000

Total LLNL is down
FY09 - 1,167,506,000
FY10 - 1,159,696,000
-----------------

Also remember that WFO and direct Dept of Homeland Security work does not show up in these numbers. Any Congressional "earmark" projects are also not in it.

And there's something new called Site Stewardship
FY09 - 0
FY10 - 35,000,000
This appears to be for Envir cleanup projects which dropped
FY09 - 21,446,00
FY10 - 0

---

Employment (Contractor) stayed the same
NNSA
FY09 - 4,240
FY10 - 4,240

Other
FY09 - 1,475
FY10 - 1,475

Total LLNL
FY09 - 5,715
FY10 - 5,715

From info at
http://www.energy.gov/about/budget.htm
5/09/2009 5:08 PM
Anonymous said…
May 9, 2009 12:43 PM You missed it too. This proposed budget is a big win for the lab. You need to re-read the post and try to calm down a little bit.
5/10/2009 4:06 PM
Anonymous said…
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
5/13/2009 6:33 PM
Anonymous said…
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
5/14/2009 6:50 AM
Anonymous said…
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
5/14/2009 5:19 PM
Anonymous said…
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
5/14/2009 8:23 PM
Anonymous said…
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
5/14/2009 8:29 PM
Obi-Wan said…
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
5/14/2009 9:09 PM
Anonymous said…
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
5/15/2009 12:34 PM
Neko said…
This is a Lab forum, not a place for DNC or RNC attack dogs. If that is all you can post, go elsewhere.
5/15/2009 4:50 PM
Obi-Wan said…
47 is a former employee and not an attack dog for any party: just calling a spade a spade.

If you would open this forum up to some critical discussions, the blog might turn out to be of some use!
5/15/2009 8:59 PM
Anonymous said…
Losing money from the weapons budget means LC and NIF lose. More job losses for the "jewels" of the lab. Can't see how that can be spun as good news.
5/16/2009 1:15 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Plutonium Shots on NIF.

By scooby
Tri-Valley Cares needs to be on this if they aren't already. We need to make sure that NNSA and LLNL does not make good on promises to pursue such stupid ideas as doing Plutonium experiments on NIF. The stupidity arises from the fact that a huge population is placed at risk in the short and long term. Why do this kind of experiment in a heavily populated area? Only a moron would push that kind of imbecile area. Do it somewhere else in the god forsaken hills of Los Alamos. Why should the communities in the Bay Area be subjected to such increased risk just because the lab's NIF has failed twice and is trying the Hail Mary pass of doing an SNM experiment just to justify their existence? Those Laser EoS techniques and the people analyzing the raw data are all just BAD anyways. You know what comes next after they do the experiment. They'll figure out that they need larger samples. More risk for the local population. Stop this imbecilic pursuit. They wan...
155 comments
Read more

Trump is to gut the labs.

By scooby
The budget has a 20% decrease to DOE office of science, 20% cut to NIH. NASA also gets a cut. This will  have a huge negative effect on the lab. Crazy, juts crazy. He also wants to cut NEA and PBS, this may not seem like  a big deal but they get very little money and do great things.
124 comments
Read more

LLNL un-diversity

By scooby
Actual post from Dec. 15 from one of the streams. This is a real topic. As far as promoting women and minorities even if their qualifications are not as good as the white male scientists, I am all for it. We need diversity at the lab and if that is what it takes, so be it.  Quit your whining. Look around the lab, what do you see? White male geezers. How many African Americans do you see at the lab? Virtually none. LLNL is one of the MOST undiverse places you will see. Face it folks, LLNL is an institution of white male privilege and they don't want to give up their privileged positions. California, a state of majority Hispanics has the "crown jewel" LLNL nestled in the middle of it with very FEW Hispanics at all!
79 comments
Read more