Skip to main content

Can the labs get out of DOGE?

Image
By scooby

 Niw that trump is president:


What does it mean for the labs

Could the money be cut for DOGE,

Could the labs only focus on weapons

Would the labs work on ways to invade Greenland

Would all alternative energy research cease?

Would DEI be cut

Will strange new rules be implemented

Comments

Anonymous said…
Could the money be cut for DOGE,
- the money will be cut BY DOGE, not for them

Could the labs only focus on weapons
- that would waste expertise developed

Would the labs work on ways to invade Greenland
- OK, Silly question, do you think the military is going to blind them with NIF?

Would all alternative energy research cease?
- If it can be done better in the private sector it might go there. Develop the science at the lab and transfer it to the private sector.

Would DEI be cut
- The executive order is out, it dies a quick death

Will strange new rules be implemented
- Like merit based productivity, real science?
1/20/2025 7:38 PM
Anonymous said…
Honestly, if DOGE came into the labs and mandated a cut of 50% of managers and useless regulatory compliance and support staff, which is about 3/4 of the labs at this point, not only would cost go down but actual work output would soar. We all know this is the truth.
1/22/2025 7:05 AM
Anonymous said…
Los Alamos has always focused on weapons. Look at the yearly budget. It is silly to suggest there will be a change.
1/22/2025 12:21 PM
Anonymous said…
Greenland has large deposits of rare earth minerals, found in association with uranium, it could be extremely valuable:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kvanefjeld

Greenland's government has blocked development of this,

https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/greenland-bans-uranium-mining-halting-rare-earths-project-2021-11-10/

https://newint.org/mining/2025/greenland-being-held-ransom

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20250121-the-enormous-challenge-of-mining-greenland
1/23/2025 1:54 PM
Anonymous said…
Whatever happens, it will not be good. The purpose of National Labs are for ground breaking research. A president who is anti-science and reactionary is going to do harm.
1/24/2025 11:23 AM
Anonymous said…
7:05 is absolutely correct. DOE and NNSA bureaucracy is legendary for its waste and outright stupidity. You could gut the Forrestal and area offices along with at least half of the managers in the DOE labs and not only would productivity soar, but morale would improve too.
1/24/2025 5:45 PM
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

tcp1 looking good

By scooby
I just received my annual TCP-1 letter from LLNS and a summary of the LLNS Pension Plan. Looked in pretty good shape in 2013. About 35% overfunded (funding target attainment percentage = 134.92%). This was a decrease from 2012 where it was 51% overfunded (funding target attainment percentage = 151.59%). They did note that the 2012 change in the law on how liabilities are calculated using interest rates improved the plan's position. Without the change the funding target attainment percentages would have been 118% (2012) and 105% (2013). 2013 assets = $2,057,866,902 2013 liabilities = $1,525,162,784 vs 2012 assets = $1,844,924,947 2012 liabilities = $1,217,043,150 It was also noted that a slightly different calculation method ("fair market value") designed to show a clearer picture of the plan' status as December 31, 2013 had; Assets = $2,403,098,433 Liabilities = $2,068,984,256 Funding ratio = 116.15% Its a closed plan with 3,781 participants. Of that number, 3,151 wer...
105 comments
Read more