Skip to main content

Trump's 74 questions sent to DOE:

Image
By scooby
Full list of Trump's 74 questions sent to DOE:
http://www.eenews.net/assets/2016/12/09/document_gw_06.pdf

Comments

Anonymous said…
Interesting. Whoever did the asking knows little about the DOE bureaucracy.
12/11/2016 9:52 PM
Anonymous said…
Said like a true bureaucrat. Whomever did the asking only needs to know one thing about bureaucracy: there is too much of it and heads need to roll.
12/12/2016 11:33 AM
Anonymous said…
74 questions to DOE and not one on its nuclear weapons program - which is over 40% of DOE's budget. Trump doesn't even know what DOE does. Take about zero intellectual curiosity among this incoming administration.
12/14/2016 6:13 AM
Anonymous said…
Here are the ones they should push on:
61,64,65
61 - Is there a readily available list of any technologies or products that have emerged from DOE S4 programs or the labs that are currently offered in the market without any subsidy?
It would be great to see the DOE labs pushed to do practical development. Maybe the LDRD tax could be converted into commercialization funds to encourage us to work with companies.
12/14/2016 10:07 PM
Anonymous said…
Companies don't want to work with the labs, because the labs are too expensive and too risky, and because the paperwork burden is enormous. It takes special unusual circumstances for commercial partnerships to make sense to the commercial partners, and no amount of money shuffling and incentivization at the labs will change that.
12/16/2016 8:22 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

Rumor corner

By scooby
LLNS may have excluded the wrong people in last VSSOP? The exclusions were based on outdated job categories and related skills. ULM are now thinking that in the future, job categories and functional areas will have to be re-defined. The next VSSOP/ISP will be based on the new categories and functional areas. The questions I have are: 1) Why didnt they think of that before the transition. It seems like their style is “change things as you go”. Planning is out the window! 2) Who will give input on the new changes? The next RIF apparently is going to be more lucrative than the VSSOP. Depending on the length of employment, a RIFed person, not only gets their 1 week pay per year of service but also from 30 to 120 days notice, essentially 30 to 120 days pay. Please feel free to comment on the rumors or add new ones you actually heard.
92 comments
Read more