Talk:United States Department of Energy/Archive 1

Archive 1

New article

I have added a new article (United States Energy Information Administration) that relates to the United States Department of Energy. I am not quite sure where to add and link it in the current DoE article. I will defer to you unless this goes unnoticed for a day or so, in which case I will try and figure out how to properly add it to the current article. Michael A. 09:07, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

National Lab template?

Not sure if anybody cares much, but I thought about doing a US National Lab template, something like the following:

I've left off any of their facilities which I didn't think were officially "National Laboratories" but I might be wrong on that. (Actually, I confirmed which ones were national labs, from here) Any thoughts? A few of them don't have pages yet but I'll eventually get to them (quick stubs could be easily put up in the meantime). --Fastfission 17:25, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Budget (1)

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Department_%28US_government%29 lists DOE as having over 20 billion dollars in the 2004 budget, but this page says that the budget is 1.1 billion in 2007. It seems like either one of these numbers is a mistake, or that the twenty fold drop in budget in a few years seems noteworthy. I haven't taken the time to suss out which. Forkazoo 00:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Hanford and Savannah River

Should the Hanford Site and Savannah River Site be listed here? Simesa 3 July 2005 20:20 (UTC)

Also, where should Pantex fall? Are production facilities not included? —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheSpooph (talk • contribs) 15:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability

I suggest an article about DOE´s Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability .--Nopetro (talk) 14:21, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

history

needs more history on how it was founded and past secretaries —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 151.199.194.227 (talk) 18:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC).

The article should also mention the occasional efforts to shut the organization down and how DOE has managed to keep reinventing itself to try to stay relevant after its original purpose was rendered moot by the collapse of OPEC. Specifically, it should address this sort of thing: http://www.heritage.org/research/energyandenvironment/bg1061.cfm --Blogjack (talk) 14:16, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Added past secretaries. I'm sure someone else can make a better looking list. I will when I get around to it, eventually. Zuneguy (talk) 11:21, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Budget (2)

According to the Infobox: $24.1 billion (2009)

According to the 3rd sentence in the 1st paragraph: "DOE also sponsors more basic and applied scientific research than any other US federal agency..." This is not substantiated, and I question that claim AS IT IS STATED.

Further: HHS The 2010 United States federal budget establishes a reserve fund of more than $630 billion over 10 years to finance fundamental reform of the health care system. http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/assets/fy2010_new_era/A_New_Era_of_Responsibility2.pdf That is $63 billion budgeted per year, greater than $24.1 budgeted for the US DOE.

It would be GREAT if the DOE sponsored more research into clean energy than the NIH budget, or the entire HHS budget for extramural and in-house research, but I don't see data to substantiate this claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaynardClark (talk • contribs) 22:31, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Why do Republican candidates want to eliminate it?

Anything more specific than "making more government smaller"? Historian932 (talk) 15:21, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Lopsided statement

I added a {{lopsided}} template to the following statement that violates WP:POV:

Most of the stimulus spending was in the form of grants and contracts. Yet, according to Robert Alvarez, "Even with additional stimulus money, spending for bombs and cleanup will still exceed those for actual energy-related functions. Spending for the weapons complex is currently comparable to that during the height of the nuclear arms race in the 1950s. The big difference now — half of that money is spent dealing with the Cold War's environmental legacy.[7] "

The statement's language is extremely charged, and it references the site http://www.ips-dc.org/, which is an opinion-publishing site with heavy bias (not to mention, the cited opinion column does not itself cite a single source). Alternate perspectives need to be added, and more objective sources cited. Charlesreid1 (talk) 04:43, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Budget--links to update information

The budget section here is a bit dated as well as misleading. The dated part is that it is based on the FY 2012 request to Congress, when the FY 2013 request is the latest. The misleading part is that the numbers cited are from the FY 2011 column of the FY 2012 request, and at the time the FY 2012 request was submitted, FY 2011 appropriations had not yet been enacted, and the FY 2011 numbers used are from a projection of the appropriation. The budget request documents generally focus on 3 years--the most recently completed year (for the FY 2013 request to Congress, this was FY 2011), the year currently underway (FY 2012 in the FY 2013 request) and the year for which funds are requested (FY 2013 for the FY 2013 request). Especially considering the recent history of delayed appropriations (from FY 1998 to 2012, "temporary appropriations" known as continuing resolutions that typically hold activities to the prior year's appropriated level pending normal appropriations, have averaged 127 days, or about 4 months) as a general rule of thumb it is probably best to ignore the middle column in the budget requests unless it is clear that it reflects an actual appropriation. Even if it does reflect an actual appropriation, since it is mid-year, it is possible that subsequent supplemental appropriations, rescissions, and appropriation transfers could further change the total. The funding amounts ought to be clear whether they are referring to a budget request (so the FY 2013 column from the FY 2013 request, and so forth) or the appropriated budget (to be sure you have a final number, you'd go back 2 years, so the FY 2011 column of the FY 2013 request). Each year's budget is released on the first Monday of February (sometimes a bit delayed after elections), and for DOE is published at http://www.cfo.doe.gov/crorg/cf30.htm (scroll down the page to the Budget Justifications and Supporting Documents heading, pick the latest fiscal year, and under Summary Tables, select the table by organization for the easiest table to see the appropriate numbers to update the table currently on the page--for the FY 2013 request, this is at http://www.cfo.doe.gov/budget/13budget/Content/Orgsum.pdf, and when the FY 2014 budget comes out, it will likely be published at http://www.cfo.doe.gov/budget/14budget/Content/Orgsum.pdf). Anyhow, I'd update it myself, but as a DOE employee, that is probably discouraged, so I'm leaving the pointers here if someone else wants to tackle it. --Rusty 205.254.147.8 (talk) 12:54, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments Rusty... I also face this issue on a couple of my articles ...it raises the question of what role Wikipedia plays in these matters... we can't keep these articles current for agencies such as your agency or my old one DOT... too much happening and not really Wikipedia's area to focus on .... I will be working on some Agency templates, distilling what others have said in this matter and coming back to this page... Thanks for your comments... Risk Engineer (talk) 23:56, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Science Bowl

The U.S. Department of Energy sponsors the National Science Bowl every year since its inception in 1991 to promote students to pursue their careers in math and science fields. Now, it has grown into one of the nation's largest science competitions, with around 14,000 students participating annually and and more than 250,000 have participated in its 25-year history. I feel this has been a significant part of the Department of Energy and should be included in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richyrich wf (talk • contribs) 14:26, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

"Office of Nuclear Energy" in navbox

Where does the Office of Nuclear Energy fit in Template:United_States_Department_of_Energy? --Ysangkok (talk) 12:04, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Under Secretary for Science

In the "Structure and positions" section of the article, there is a red link to a "Under Secretary for Science and Energy" position. Is this mention actually referring to the Under Secretary of Energy for Science position? --1990'sguy (talk) 03:14, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Organization section inaccuracies

The organization section is wrong. The DOE must have changed its organization because it is totally different now. Correct Orginizational chart is here. I will try to fix it soon but I'm going to leave it marked as inaccurate until then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kdkd131313 (talk • contribs) 02:37, 23 January 2015 (UTC) )

Four years later it's still very, very wrong. It doesn't match either the old or the "new" structure, which has been in place for years. Correct chart is here: https://www.energy.gov/leadership/organization-chart

Some of the names do seem to fit current officeholders. I'm not sure where there's an organizational chart that includes the names as well. I just looked because the Assistant Secretary of Fossil Energy is in the news and I wanted to see where it fit in the chart. This is my first Wikipedia post and I don't have the time or skills to fix this article. E in Austin (talk) 19:26, 29 May 2019 (UTC) E in Austin

@E in Austin: I wonder if we should try to keep it updated with the current officeholders. The general structure could be there. It should not require frequent updates. --Per W (talk) 20:01, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Featured picture candidate

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Lisa Gordon-Hagerty -- Editor-1 (talk) 04:48, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Office of Clean Coal and Carbon Management

The Office of Clean Coal and Carbon Management https://www.energy.gov/fe/science-innovation/office-clean-coal-and-carbon-management seems worthy of an article of its own, but pending that, perhaps a section here? Or would it be more appropriate at Coal pollution mitigation or Clean coal technology or Carbon capture and storage? Here seems the best place to me, with links from those other articles. Andrewa (talk) 16:31, 12 November 2019 (UTC)