The U.S.

Department of Energys Fiscal Year 2012 B d t Request Budget R t

B-61 nuclear warheads

Robert Alvarez Senior Scholar Institute for Policy Studies February 2011

Solar Panels Radioactive waste container

U.S. Department FY 2012 Budget Request

Energy Activities Include: Science $5 41 Billion ATOMIC $5.41 DEFENSE (18.3%) ACTIVITIES Energy gy Supply, R&D $5.78 Billion Nuclear Weapons, Weapons Non-Proliferation, Naval Reactors, and Nuclear Site Cleanup $18.04 Billion Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy: gy $ $3.2 Billion Fossil Energy: $520 Million Nuclear Energy (fission):$754 Billion Electric Transmission: $123 Million Energy Information Administration: $123 Million Power Marketing Administrations: $85 Million Energy Loan Guarantees (subsidy costs): $305 Million

(19.5%)

(61%)

Administration $299 Million

DOETOTALREQUEST=$29.5Billion

DOE spends 10 times more on military nuclear activities than for energy conservation.

Management $299 M

Science $5.41 $5 41 B

Energy $5.78 B

(18.3%)

(19.5%)

Proportional Spending in the DOE budget for FY 2012 is similar to that W. th t of f George G W Bush B h and d several presidents before him.
Obama Administration Energy Department FY2012Budget Request

Nuclear Weapons, Naval Reactors, Nuclear Site Cleanup, and Non-Proliferation $ $18.2 billion

(61%)

Science $4.7 B

Energy $4.3 B

(19%)
Management $670 M

(17%)

Bush Administration Energy Department FY2009 Budget g Request q

Nuclear Weapons, Naval Reactors, Nuclear Site Cleanup, Nuclear Site Cleanup and Non-Proliferation $15 3 billion $15.3

(61%)

More Money for Nuclear Weapons

About 46 percent of the Energy departments budget is for military nuclear activities. Even though the DOE has not made a new nuclear weapon for 20 years, its weapons complex is spending at a rate comparable to that at the height of the nuclear arms race in the late1950s. Military nuclear spending has increased by more than $1 billion since 2010 2010.

NUCEARWEAPONSMODERNIZATION

Overthenext20years,theDOEplansfor theU.S.tospendabout$167billionto maintaintheU.S.nuclearweapons stockpileandrefurbishtheweapons researchandproductioncomplex. AlthoughtheU.S.nucleararsenalhas beencutinhalf sincetheendoftheCold War andnewweaponsproduction War, stopped20years ago,spendingon nuclearwarheadshasincreasedbymore than30percentsincethelate1980s 1980s.By 2018,NNSAspendingisplannedto increaseby50percentaboveColdWar levels.

B61warheads

Thisdoesnotincludeanadditional$100 billionprojectedbytheDefense departmentformissile,bombers and submarinestodeploynuclearweapons.

TheU.S.NuclearArsenal TheU S nuclear U.S. in2010 stockpilehas400times

6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 2,500 2 500 TacticalandStrategic Warheads 3,500 Retired R i d Warheads 2,500 NonDeployed Warheads thedestructivepowerof explosivesusedbyall combatantsinWorld WarII. About70percentofthe U.S.nucleararsenalis notdeployed. About Ab t40percent th has beendiscardedbythe U.S.military. Theprimarytargetsare mostlythoseselected duringtheColdWar, whichended20years ago.

Deployed Weapons

ExcessWeapons

Source:FederationofAmericanScientists

Elimination of nuclear weapons h i it has a l low priority

2500 2000
dollars in thousands

1500 1000 500 0 FY 10 FY11 FY 12 FY 13 FY 14 FY 15 Weapons stockpile service and life extension Dismantlement

There is a 15-20 year backlog of some 3,500 retired nuclear warheads awaiting dismantlement. Yet, funding for dismantlement will drop by nearly 50 percent over the next five years.

CostsforNuclearWarheadLifeExtension
(thousandsofdollars) 2,000.00 1 800 00 1,800.00 1,600.00 1,400.00 1,200.00 , 1,000.00 800.00 600.00 400.00 200.00 0.00 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2014 2016
Sources:DOECongressionalBudgetRequests, Requests NaturalResourcesDefenseCounciland FederationofAmericanScientistsU.S.NuclearArsenal2009

BetweenFY2003and 2016,about$15billion willbespentonnuclear warheadslifeextension

Theperunitlife extensioncost fortheB61andW76 warheadsarebetween $11and$12million.

Becauseofthe20yearvoluntarymoratorium onnuclearweaponstestingbytheUnited States,thedesignlabshaveclaimedthatlong termstockpilereliabilitycannotbeguaranteed withoutnewdesignnuclearweapons. ThisclaimhasbeenrepudiatedbytheJason group,ahighlyregardedgroupofspecial expertswithalonghistoryofcredibleadvice totheU.S.nuclearweaponsprogram.The JasonGroupconcluded: Lifetimesoftoday'snuclearwarheadscould beextendedfordecades,withnoanticipated lossinconfidence,byusingapproachessimilar tothoseemployedinlifeextensionprograms (LEPs)todate. Thiswasnoevidencethataccumulationof changesincurredfromagingandLEPshave increasedrisktocertificationoftodays deployednuclearwarheads.

HighRiskProjects TheU.S.GovernmentAccountabilityOffice(GAO) identifiedtheDOEnuclearweaponsprogramtobeoneofthe governmentstophigh riskprogramsvulnerable towaste,fraud,and abuse.Forinstance: TheChemicalandMetallurgyResearchandReplacement(CMMR) facilityattheLosAlamosNationalLaboratoryinNewMexico.The mainpurposeoftheCMMRisrampupmanufacturingcapabilityof plutoniumpitstoasmanyas80peryearby2022.Itsestimatedcosts increasedfrom$666millionin2004to$5.8billionin2010. TheUraniumProcessingFacility(UPF)attheY12weaponsplantin OakRidge,TN.Thisfacilityisexpectedtoreplaceanagedplantbuilt inthe1950s.Theestimatedcostforthisprojecthasincreasedfrom $600millionto$6.5billion. TheNNSAsLifeExtensionProgramcostsfornuclearwarheadtypes h increased have d b by400percent.

NuclearProliferation

Uraniumenrichment

20or30Stateshavethecapacityto developnuclearweaponsinavery shortspanoftime.

DirectorGeneralDr.MohamedElBaradei,International AtomicEnergyAgency,October16,2006

Reprocessing

LessforNonproliferation p

Energyisseeking $ 3 6million $137.6 illi less l than h requestedinFY2011.

Nuclear weapons production has resulted in the most expensive p environmental cleanup p program p g in the United States.
EPA Superfund Program $1.3 billion Defense Department Environmental Cleanup $1 Billion $6.1 billion

DOE Nuclear Site Environmental Cleanup

DOE Site Cleanup Costs*

140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0
Sources. DOE 2008, GAO 2005, EIA 2006

Hanford, WA (ORP/RL) ( ) $135 B Portsmouth,OH Oak Ridge, TN $11.2B Uranium Mines & Mills $8 B $5 B Paducah, KY $15B Rocky Flats, CO West Valley, NY $10B SRS, SC $5 B $53 B WIPP, NM LANL, NM Fernald, OH $6.9 B $3.5B $3 B Idaho $33B NTS,NV $2.6B BNL, NY $541M ETEC,CA $325M SNL,NM $236M Pantex, TX $200M Mound, OH $116 M

Total Cost = $283 Billion

*Does not include NNSA projects

Energy R&D Spending for FY 2011 and 2012

(thousands of dollars)
1,800 1,600 1,400 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200 0

FY2012 FY2011

*IncludesfissionandfusionR&D

Loans and Loan Guarantees

DOE is proposing to provide $166 Billion in federal loans and loan guarantees to aid the ailing auto industry, and help finance nuclear, coal renewable energy projects coal, and to restructure and modernize the nations electric grid system. Nuclear loans totaling $56.5 billion are likely y to come from the U.S. Treasury. With a greater than 5050 chance of default, Wall Street will not finance nuclear projects. projects

$78.5 billion in loan guarantees for renewable bl and electric transmission $25 billion for auto Industry loans $56.5 billion in loan guarantees for nuclear projects $8 billion in loan guarantees for coal projects

DOEsOfficeofScience

About45percentof EnergysScience budgetreflectsits historicalemphasison nuclearrelatedand physicsresearch.

SUMMARY

Created in 1977 in response to oil disruptions, the U.S. Department of Energy has done little since to stem the country's burgeoning energy problems. With about 5.5 percent of the world's population, the United States consumes more oil than any other nation, three-fourths of which comes from foreign sources.

As U.S. energy dependence has worsened, its greenhouse gas emissions have grown worse as well: Increasing by 17 percent since 1990 Accelerating potentially disastrous climate disruptions

SUMMARY(cont)
PantexPlant
The main Th i reason f for the th DOEs DOE ineffectiveness is that it's not structured to usher in the country's energy future. For most of its existence, about twothirds of the DOEs annual spending has gone to maintaining the U.S. nuclear weapons complex and cleaning up its environmental legacy. Now, a large g funding g increase is being g sought as a down payment for nuclear weapons research and production modernization estimated to cost about $167 billion over the next 20 years years. Actual energy functions continue to take a back seat with less than 20% of DOEs FY 2012 budget request.