[Senate Hearing 108-650]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005
----------
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 3, 2004
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10:08 a.m., in room SD-138, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Pete V. Domenici (chairman)
presiding.
Present: Senators Domenici, Craig, Reid, and Murray.
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
STATEMENT OF DAVID GARMAN, ASSISTANT SECRETARY
opening statement of senator pete v. domenici
Senator Domenici. The committee will come to order. Thank
you everyone for coming. It's interesting to note that, of no
consequence other than it's interesting, this is the first
meeting of the Subcommittee on Energy and Water and we haven't
yet seen impact that the budget's going to have on this
subcommittee's ability to do its work, but it's pretty obvious
that it won't be a bed of roses, so I regret to tell you that I
don't think there's any chance that very many of the
discretionary programs are going to be funded with any
increases. Most will get some cuts.
But today we're going to review the Department of Energy's
2005 budget request, the Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, the Office of Science, and the Office of
Nuclear Energy, and we will receive testimony from David
Garman, Assistant Secretary, Office of Energy Efficiency. I'd
like to thank you for joining us. And Dr. Raymond Orbach,
Director of the Office of Science, and William Magwood,
Director of the Office of Nuclear Energy. I appreciate your
attendance today and look forward to your testimony.
The budget request for Renewable Energy provides $374
million, an increase of $4.3 million. DOE--that's 1.2 percent--
DOE's budget provides $95 million for hydrogen technology, that
is the basic research. It's a $13 million increase and overall
the President proposes spending $228 million on hydrogen R&D,
multi-agency effort to diversify energy supply.
Office of Science, the administration requests $3.4
billion, a reduction of $78 million, 2 percent below last
year's level. Science reports specifically stated that flat
funding for the office should be reversed. Unfortunately, that
language was ignored.
Dr. Orbach, I understand the Secretary of Energy released a
20-year science plan late last year which will serve as a road
map for science research. I appreciate your efforts to focus on
these priorities and look forward to learning more about this
proposal.
For the Office of Nuclear Energy, the budget provides $409
million, that's a $4.7 million increase, 1.2 percent. I'm
disappointed to learn that nuclear R&D budget has been cut by
$34 million, a 26 percent reduction. If I have anything to do
about it, I'll put that money back, but I don't know how to do
it yet.
The budget also cuts nuclear energy technology by 50
percent. I'm skeptical that the Department is serious about its
commitment to deploy a new nuclear reactor, especially if you
put a date alongside it of 2010.
I'm discouraged by the fact that the advanced fuel concepts
initiative was cut. The objective of this program is to develop
a proliferation-resistant nuclear fuel. In light of the recent
news regarding the sale of nuclear materials, the last and
biggest being Pakistan's top nuclear scientist, I believe more
should be done to protect against nuclear proliferation, not
less. I think we're beginning to make people understand that in
the administration. The President spoke to it, Secretary Powell
has alluded to it, but nonetheless you can't do this without
money, and I'm hopeful that America will take the international
lead in this regard.
prepared statement
I'm now going to turn to my good friend who's been working
with me on this subcommittee either as chairman or ranking
member for many years, Senator Reid. I'd like you to make your
opening statement and then we will proceed in order to Mr.
Garman, Dr. Orbach, and Mr. Magwood.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Pete V. Domenici
Today, the subcommittee will review the Department of Energy's
fiscal year 2005 budget request for the Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, the Office of Science, and the Office of Nuclear
Energy.
We will receive testimony from David Garman, Assistant Secretary,
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Dr. Raymond Orbach,
Director, Office of Science, and William Magwood, Director, Office of
Nuclear Energy.
I appreciate your attendance today and look forward to your
testimony.
The budget request for Renewable Energy provides $374 million--an
increase of just $4.3 million (+1.2 percent). The DOE budget provides
$95 million for hydrogen technology research, a $13 million increase.
Overall, the President proposes spending $228 million in fiscal year
2005 on hydrogen R&D in a multi-agency effort to diversify our Nation's
energy supply.
For the Office of Science, the administration has requested $3.4
billion--a reduction of $78 million or 2 percent below last year's
level. The Senate report specifically stated that flat funding for the
Office of Science should be reversed--unfortunately, that language was
ignored.
Dr. Orbach, I understand the Secretary of Energy released the 20-
year Science Plan late last year, which will serve as a road map for
DOE's science research. I appreciate your efforts to focus the
Department's priorities and I look forward to learning more about this
proposal.
For the Office of Nuclear Energy, the budget provides $409
million--an increase of $4.7 million above fiscal year 2004 (+1.2
percent).
I am disappointed to learn that the Nuclear R&D budget has been cut
by $34 million (-26 percent). The budget entirely eliminates funding
for the Nuclear Energy Plant Optimization and the Nuclear Energy
Research Initiative.
This budget also cuts the Nuclear Energy Technologies by 50
percent. As a result of these cuts, I am skeptical that the Department
is serious about its commitment to deploy a new nuclear reactor by
2010.
I am also discouraged by the fact that the Advanced Fuel Concepts
Initiative was cut by 30 percent. The objective of this program is to
develop a proliferation-resistant nuclear fuel. In light of the recent
news regarding the sale of nuclear material by Pakistan's top nuclear
scientist; I believe more should be done to protect against nuclear
proliferation.
It is clear from these lean budgets that we will face numerous
challenges this year. Nevertheless, I look forward to working with
Senator Reid to develop the best bill we can.
I will now turn to Senator Reid or any other Senator who would like
to make a brief opening statement. Thereafter, we will hear from Mr.
Garman, Dr. Orbach, and Mr. Magwood.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR HARRY REID
Senator Reid. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. You and I
have worked together, a long, long time together on this
committee, subcommittee, I'm sorry, and I enjoy working on this
bill with you. I think the enjoyment will have been better in
the past than this year because of the tremendous constraints
on the budget. It's been frankly a lot of fun in years past,
but I don't see that happening this year, but with our
friendship we'll work our way through this.
Today is a first, as you have indicated, in a series of
five budget oversight hearings for our subcommittee. Next week,
a week from today, the subcommittee will hear testimony from
the Bureau of Reclamation and the Corps of Engineers, which is
so vitally important to the entire western half of the United
States.
Today we're going to hear from the witnesses as you've
outlined. I've reviewed all your statements and they cover some
of my most--some of my favorite subjects, alternative energy
and all these things that are so important to the future of our
country.
I'm going to--we have a big tax bill coming up in 20
minutes so I have to leave soon, go back and work on that on
the floor, but I appreciate everyone being here. I have a
series of questions for each of the witnesses, Mr. Chairman,
and I would ask consent of the subcommittee that I be allowed
to submit those in writing and that they respond to them within
the next 10 days in writing.
Senator Domenici. Yes, sir.
Senator Reid. And the answers go to every member of the
subcommittee.
Senator Domenici. I'll submit them on your behalf and let
me say to you, if you have any trouble with the time, I don't
expect you to just let it pass. I expect you to tell us why, if
you had to go find something or whatever then let us know. Go
ahead, Senator.
OFFICE OF SCIENCE FISCAL YEAR 2005 BUDGET REQUEST
Senator Reid. I've reviewed the budget for the Office of
Science, and by and large I suspect that you share some of the
same frustrations as I have and you won't articulate them today
and I understand why you can't. I'm concerned that such a
budget, if enacted, will not allow you to move forward
aggressively on enough major initiatives, including the ITER
Project.
The request also strikes me as inadequate in terms of
allowing you to maintain and improve your laboratory facilities
nationwide. My overall impression is that the request is weak
and I really believe it's short-sighted. I hope we'll be able
to improve on that this year before we complete our work.
As I've said many times before, funding for research in the
hard sciences is one of the very best and most appropriate
investments taxpayer dollars can be made for this country. Few
things that we do here can make our country safer or more
secure than maintaining a scientific and technological edge.
For many years now, Chairman Domenici and I have watched as
the last two administrations have sent ever-escalating budget
requests up here for National Institutes of Health that have
far outstripped the increase requests of the Office of Science.
The imbalance between funding for the physical sciences and the
biological sciences was getting to be staggering, particularly
because both disciplines rely on each other so much. I think
this is short-sighted in the long term.
I'm pleased with the work that you're doing on genomics and
with the very impressive pace of the nanotechnology. Drew
Willison of my staff and Tammy Perrin of Senator Domenici's
staff visited the Lawrence Berkeley National Lab last month and
were surprised at the rapid progress the lab is making on the
molecular foundry.
ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY
You've been on the job now for nearly 2 years and I hope
you're enjoying your time in one of the greatest jobs our
Federal Government has to offer. Mr. Garman, as you know, I am
a big supporter of your programs and believe that the National
Renewable Energy Laboratory in Golden is one of the premiere
labs in all the DOE if not the world. While I certainly hope we
can add some resources to your budget, I realize that the most
important thing Congress can do in the short term for the
renewable energy industry is to get a series of productive tax
credits into place and extend some of the others. Hopefully our
body will be able to get that done this year and we may be able
to get it done on this bill this week.
For the last few years, you've funded a competitive project
in Nevada that has worked very well. As you know, my State has
tremendous solar and geothermal potential and the seed money
for the Department--that the Department has provided--allows
Nevada and its universities and research organization
industries to work together to prove out technology and
techniques.
NUCLEAR ENERGY
Mr. Magwood, as you know, I've been very supportive of your
programs during my years as chairman and ranking member of this
subcommittee. I'm supportive even though it sometimes puts me
in an awkward spot due to that very visible word, nuclear in
your office's title. I support strong budgets for you because,
as I mentioned earlier, long-term stable investments in
scientific research and development is what makes our Nation
strong.
My biggest problem with nuclear power comes, of course, at
the end of the fuel cycle, and we've heard that so many times
that I even get tired of myself saying it. To the extent that
there will be an ongoing waste stream, it will be investments
in science that solves all or most of those disposal problems,
and you're involved in that and I appreciate that.
That's why I've supported your advanced fuel cycle
initiative over the years. I'm a little concerned this year
that your support for this program seems to have eroded, but I
suspect that Chairman Domenici and I can help you un-erode it
as we move through this budget.
PREPARED STATEMENT
I feel confident that Senator Craig and Domenici have
thoughts on the ongoing transition of the laboratory in Idaho
to the Nation--this is to the Nation's nuclear energy
laboratory, so I'll not address that issue at this time, other
than to say that I'm far more interested in an aggressive R&D
budget that benefits the Nation as a whole than I am in a long,
slow, drawn-out transition.
I thank everyone for appearing today and appreciate the
patience of everyone listening to my long statement.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Harry Reid
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. By my count you and I are beginning our
eighth Energy and Water appropriations cycle together. As you know I
enjoy working on this bill with you and greatly appreciate your
friendship and support throughout our many years together here in the
Senate.
Today is the first in a series of five budget oversight hearings
for our subcommittee. Next Wednesday, the subcommittee will hear
testimony from the Bureau of Reclamation and the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers.
Today we will hear from three witnesses: Dr. Raymond Orbach, the
Director of DOE's Office of Science; Mr. Bill Magwood, the Director of
the Office of Nuclear Energy; and Mr. Dave Garman, the Assistant
Secretary for the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
Good afternoon, gentlemen, thank you for coming. Senator Domenici
and I both appreciate you taking the time to join us. My duties on the
Floor may require me to depart early today, but my staff will remain
here and will report back on what transpires. I do have a series of
questions for each of you and would ask, at this time, that they be
made a part of the record. I hope each of you can respond quickly
because the Chairman and I rely on your answers to help us make
informed funding decisions. We are likely to be on an accelerated
schedule this year so timely responses are critical.
I plan to keep my comments very brief today, but do want to
highlight several issues concerning the budget requests for each of the
three DOE offices represented today.
Dr. Orbach, I have reviewed the budget for the Office of Science
and, by and large, I suspect that you and I share some of the same
frustrations with it. The administration's budget request provides your
office with a 2 percent cut this year. I am concerned that such a
budget, if enacted, will not allow you to move forward aggressively
enough on a number of major initiatives, including the ITER project.
The request also strikes me as inadequate in terms of allowing you to
maintain and improve your laboratory facilities nationwide.
My overall impression is that the request is weak and shortsighted.
I hope that we are able to improve on that a little bit before
Congress completes work this year. As I have said many times before,
funding for research in the hard sciences is one of the very best and
most appropriate investments of taxpayer dollars that Congress can
make. Very few things that we do here can make our country safer or
more secure than maintaining a scientific and technological edge.
For many years now Chairman Domenici and I have watched as the last
two administrations have sent ever-escalating budget requests up here
for the National Institutes of Health that have far outstripped the
increases requested for the Office of Science. The imbalance between
funding for the physical science and the biological sciences was
getting to be staggering, particularly because both disciplines rely on
each other so much.
Again, over the long-term, this is very short-sighted.
That said, I am very pleased with the work you are doing on
genomics and with the very impressive pace of the nanotechnology
program. Drew Willison of my staff and Tammy Perrin of Senator
Domenici's staff visited Lawrence-Berkeley National Laboratory last
month and were surprised at the rapid progress the lab is making on the
Molecular Foundry.
You have been on the job now for nearly 2 years and I hope you are
enjoying your time in one of the greatest jobs our Federal Government
has to offer.
Mr. Garman, as you know, I am a big supporter of your programs and
believe that the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Golden is one
of the premiere labs in all of DOE. While I certainly hope we can add
some resources to your budget this year, I also realize that the most
important thing Congress can do in the short term for the nascent
renewable energy industry is to get a series of production tax credits
into place and to extend some of the others. Hopefully, we, as a body,
will be able to get that done this year.
For the last few years you have funded a competitive pilot project
in Nevada that has worked tremendously well. As you know, my home State
has tremendous solar and geothermal potential and the seed money the
Department has provided has allowed Nevada universities, research
organizations, and industries to work together to prove out
technologies and techniques. I appreciate your hard work and that of
your staff in getting this program started and keeping it moving
forward.
Mr. Magwood, as you know I have been very supportive of your
programs during my years as Chairman and Ranking Member of this
subcommittee. I am supportive even though it sometimes puts me in an
awkward spot due to that very visible word ``nuclear'' in your office's
title.
I support strong budgets for you because, as I mentioned earlier,
long-term, stable, investments in scientific research and development
is what makes our Nation strong.
My biggest problem with nuclear power comes at the end of the fuel
cycle. However, I firmly believe that investments in the future of
nuclear power can produce reactors that are safer and will not produce
the deadly waste streams that plague the current generation of
reactors.
To the extent that there will be an on-going waste stream, it will
be investments in the science that solves all or most of the disposal
problem.
This is why I have supported your Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative
over the years. I am a little concerned this year that your support for
this program seems to have eroded, but I suspect that Chairman Domenici
and I can help you in this area.
I feel confident that both Senator Craig and Senator Domenici have
many thoughts on the on-going transition of INEEL to the Nation's
nuclear energy laboratory, so I will not address that issue at this
time other than to say that I am far more interested in an aggressive
R&D budget that benefits the Nation as a whole than I am in a long,
slow, drawn-out transition.
Again, thanks to our witnesses for appearing today.
Senator Domenici. Senator, thank you very much, and now we
will excuse you and look forward to the next hearing.
Senator, would you like to make some comments, please?
Senator Murray. Mr. Chairman, I do not have an opening
statement. I'll just welcome the witnesses. I do have questions
and we'll wait until after they've had their testimony.
PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR THAD COCHRAN
Senator Domenici. Senator Cochran has submitted a statement
for the record which will be included.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Thad Cochran
Mr. Chairman, I'd like to thank the Assistant Secretary and
Directors for testifying before this committee today. The work you do
is very important to my State and to me. I commend David Garman, the
Assistant Secretary of the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy, for the work his department does with biomass research.
Biomass energy is estimated to contribute over 7 percent of
Mississippi's total energy consumption--that amount is double the
national average. The majority of our lumber facilities burn wood waste
to generate steam for industrial processes. Biomass offers special
benefits for Mississippi's economy by keeping energy dollars in our
State and by providing jobs in rural areas where biomass is produced.
By using these wastes for energy, disposal costs are avoided, and
industries are better able to compete. I would also like to commend
Mississippi State University and Jackson State University for their
continuing research into this important scientific area.
Mr. Chairman, with your permission I have some questions I'd like
to submit for the record.
Senator Domenici. Let me say how good it has been to have
you working with us on this subcommittee. You have some very
significant interests, but I'm very pleased to find that when
we have problems on this committee, you're there to help us.
It's not just strictly what's going on in your State, and we
all need each other. Some very tough, tough problems when you
cut the budget as much as ours here.
I want to make one last observation before I proceed to the
witnesses. I don't know how to solve it, but I want to say
about 10 years ago or a little less, a couple of Senators
circulated around and got most of us to sign up on a
resolution. Perhaps you signed it like I did and you probably,
having been here awhile, chuckled as you signed it. We were
going to make the NIH, National Institute of Health, double in
10 years. Of course, we signed it as we walked out the door
wondering, who's kidding who?
Well, it happened, and every year after that it would be
among the last bills, and sure enough, somebody would stand up
and say, well, in order to meet our resolution we need $680
million more and the next year they needed a billion and here
we have the largest National Institute of Health growth in a
decade of any institution of that type in the world has ever
seen. And here we sit with everybody telling us the counterpart
is science, right, that without basic science, pretty soon the
NIH, with all of its work, is going to be without the talent
that's needed to back up the medical people.
And here we come, not critical of the President, after all
we're in this terrific deficit, but here we are. While that
occurred, we're cutting basic science, not increasing it. And
I'm just wondering what we have to do around here to get us on
a path where we recognize that these scientists and scientific
prowess is not going to keep America if we don't fund it.
ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY
And so with that, I'm very sorry to start with such a
negative comment, but let me open with you, Mr. Garman. You're
the Assistant Secretary of Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy and we want you to give your testimony and be ready for
questions. I do want to say to you, sir, from the first time I
inquired of you about this work, you have come a long way and I
am very complimentary of you.
First of all, you are not run by the renewable associations
out here in America. They have their interests but they don't
run your Department. You're not supposed to be running their
editorials, you're not supposed to be paying for their
journals. Remember, we had all that going when you took over.
Of course, all they did was get mad. Then when you looked at it
you found that Domenici was right, that if you want to do
research, you ought to do research, but you sure shouldn't be
paying for various organizations to get done what they want.
They aren't synonymous with research. And now I think it's
pretty clean in that regard.
I also want to tell you that we can do as much research as
you want, but ultimately Americans want to see some of this
work, and I am very, very pleased that I heard today that
Democratic leader said we have the votes to pass the Energy
bill. Now why would I be speaking of that at the same time?
Well, you know, if you want to build wind energy, you want to
build solar energy and biomass energy, everybody knows how to
do that. You can perfect it, but that's already passed, your
research issues.
And we're ready to go and build those but we need the
incentive that caused them to move ahead so rapidly, and what
everybody's finding out now, there is no incentive today. And
people say, well what do you mean? Well, the incentives expired
in January, so those who are very anxious and terribly enamored
as most of us are with energy that comes from wind, you ought
to know that unless you have a project that is already going,
there are no new ones, and there's nobody going to do a new
one. Why? Because they can't afford it.
But if we pass this bill they got this wonderful incentive
for this next decade, and you will see biomass and geothermal
and these other ones, you'll see them flourish across the land.
The biggest one will be wind. Whether the public's going to
want that much wind, I don't know. It's going to look funny
because there's going to be a lot of it, but I think we're
going to win, I think it's going to happen.
All right, would you proceed with your testimony? Make it
brief, please.
STATEMENT OF DAVID GARMAN
Mr. Garman. Yes, sir. And thank you for your comments. As
you noted in your statement, we are seeking an increase of
$17.3 million in the renewable energy funding, and a budget
increase in this environment does constitute an awesome
responsibility and we understand that. We're not only mindful
of how much we spend, but the way we spend it, as you noted,
and we're proud of the fact that OMB has recognized the
Department of Energy as leading the pack of Cabinet agencies in
terms of management improvement, and we're also proud that the
Office of Management and Budget has singled out the Office of
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy as an example in
implementing the President's management agenda.
So I will very briefly mention a few highlights of our
budget. Our hydrogen technology subprogram is a key component
of the President's Hydrogen Fuel Initiative. For 2005, we
request $95.3 million, a $13.3 million increase. With these
funds we propose to continue and accelerate our work with
regard to hydrogen production, safety, storage, codes and
standards, and other work that's critical to the long-term
success of this initiative.
Last year, roughly $40 million out of our total hydrogen
appropriation of $82 million was earmarked for some specific
projects that in many cases were inconsistent with our research
plan, so we will have to delay some very important work in
areas such as hydrogen storage and production that the National
Academy of Sciences and others have told us is very important
to the success of our program.
For our solar energy technology program, we're seeking
$80.3 million, roughly equivalent to the unencumbered amount of
our fiscal year 2004 appropriations. With this funding, we'll
continue our work to lower the cost of photovoltaic solar
energy systems, and for the first time in several years we're
seeking funding for concentrating solar power technologies.
Our wind energy technology program has been successful in
bringing down the cost of electricity generated from wind. Wind
energy systems have been the fastest growing source of
electricity worldwide for over a decade, but, of course, as the
chairman mentioned, that is dependent on the production tax
credit, which we do hope Congress will extend very quickly.
We are starting to devote more attention to the promise of
offshore wind and our focus on wind energy has shifted to
larger blades and turbines using advanced materials that will
allow economically viable wind development in lower wind speed
areas that are distributed across the country.
For our hydropower technology work, we request $6 million,
a $1.1 million increase over the fiscal year 2004
appropriation. Geothermal, as the chairman mentioned, offers a
promise as a baseload renewable energy resource, particularly
in the U.S. West. Our program focuses on exploration and
reservoir technologies and drilling research to enable industry
to locate and produce new geothermal fields at greatly reduced
cost.
Our biomass and biorefinery system R&D program is focused
on technologies to transform our domestic biomass resources
into high value chemicals, fuels, and power. In fiscal year
2005, we're seeking $72.6 million for activities conducted
under this appropriation. That's $13.9 million less than the
fiscal year 2004 amount. However, last year we did receive
nearly $41 million in earmarks, so we're actually seeking far
more funding directed toward our biomass and biorefinery R&D
goals than we received last year.
PREPARED STATEMENT
There are a variety of other programs and activities that
time doesn't allow me to mention, but for now I ask that my
full statement appear in the record and I'm happy to answer any
questions this committee has either today or in the future.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of David Garman
Mr. Chairman, Members of the subcommittee, I appreciate the
opportunity to testify on the Fiscal Year 2005 President's Budget
request for the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
(EERE). My focus will be the renewable energy activities under the
purview of this subcommittee.
The research and development activities surrounding and the
deployment of advanced clean energy technologies are already making a
difference in the lives of Americans, and they will have an even
greater impact in the future. The overall EERE budget request for
fiscal year 2005 is a robust $1.25 billion, an increase of $15.3
million over the comparable fiscal year 2004 appropriation. For the
renewable energy programs funded through the Energy and Water
Development appropriation, the fiscal year 2005 request totals $374.8
million, a $17.3 million increase over the fiscal year 2004
appropriation and 30 percent of the total EERE Budget.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Activities focused on energy conservation are funded through
the Interior and Related Agencies appropriations bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are not only mindful of how much we spend on these programs, but
also the manner in which we operate and the results we are achieving.
Our budget is prioritized in accordance with the National Energy Policy
Report and the Department of Energy Strategic Plan. EERE has also used
the research and development investment criteria called for in the
President's Management Agenda to focus our research and development
dollars on a balanced portfolio of well-planned activities that could
generate significant public benefits and that require Federal
involvement to be successful.
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) recently announced that
DOE has made the most progress among cabinet-level agencies in the
implementation of the President's Management Agenda. OMB recognized the
Department as the cabinet-level agency ``leading the pack with regard
to management improvement.'' In support of that, EERE in 2002 underwent
a dramatic restructuring to streamline program management and
centralize administration functions with a focus on developing
consistent, uniform and efficient business practices. We are also
increasingly successful in linking our expenditures with performance
and results. We are striving to achieve more work in the laboratory
with every research and development dollar entrusted to our
stewardship. While we are very proud of the accomplishments we have
made, a great deal of progress remains to be made in all of these
areas.
renewable energy programs fiscal year 2005 budget request
The renewable energy programs included in the Energy Supply account
and funded within the Energy and Water Development appropriations
include Hydrogen Technology, Solar Energy Technology, Wind and
Hydropower Technologies, and Geothermal Technology. Activities in the
Biomass Program and Intergovernmental programs are funded through both
the Energy and Water Development and Interior and Related Agencies
appropriations.
hydrogen technology
The Fiscal Year 2005 Budget Request for Hydrogen Technology is
$95.3 million, a $13.3 million increase over the fiscal year 2004
appropriation. Much of the proposed increase is for hydrogen safety
research. This includes safety testing and analysis on bulk storage
systems, fuel dispensing equipment, and piping to support new codes and
standards specific to hydrogen. The Department has worked with the
Department of Transportation and other agencies on an interagency codes
and standards plan. Under this activity, we will also develop system
safety requirements for producing hydrogen and sensors to detect
hydrogen leaks.
Research undertaken in the Hydrogen Technology Program is also
targeted to reduce the cost of distributed hydrogen production from
electrolysis and natural gas reformation. An enhanced focus on
electrolysis, as recommended by the National Research Council, may lead
to cost competitive production of hydrogen from renewable energy at
$2.25 per gallon of gasoline equivalent by 2015.
One of the major technical obstacles we face is developing the
means to store sufficient amounts of hydrogen aboard the vehicle to
provide a driving range of greater than 300 miles. The fiscal year 2005
budget provides funding for innovative storage technologies to be
pursued under our ``Grand Challenge'' to leading universities and
national laboratories. ``Grand Challenge'' is our name for a
competitive solicitation that was directed towards the scientific
community to get the best minds at our universities and national labs
to propose research ideas to tackle this challenging problem.
The Hydrogen program is also stepping up its efforts on education
at all levels, so Americans know what the hydrogen economy will mean
for them, their businesses, and the environment, and understand how to
handle hydrogen safely in their communities.
Our hydrogen work is well integrated with the fuel cell and vehicle
work funded through the Interior Appropriations bill. Taken together,
these programs represent the majority of the Federal efforts comprising
the Hydrogen Fuel Initiative announced by President Bush during his
2003 State of the Union Address, and we have published very specific,
measurable technical goals against which to measure our progress. If we
achieve our technical objectives, the automotive and energy industries
will be in a position to consider commercialization by 2015, with mass
market availability of both vehicles and refueling infrastructure by
2020.
The President's initiative was received by Congress with
enthusiasm, and we appreciate this subcommittee's support. However,
while the fiscal year 2004 EERE appropriation for hydrogen technology
was approximately $82 million, roughly half of those funds were
earmarked for specific projects that are not wholly consistent with our
research plan or the recommendations of the National Research Council.
As a consequence, we must delay some very important work in areas such
as hydrogen storage and production, and thus our ability to meet our
established research targets in the specified timeframes may be in
jeopardy. The Department looks forward to working with the subcommittee
to help ensure that projects supported by the Committee are consistent
with our established goals in an effort to keep our progress on track.
solar energy technology
The Solar Energy Technology program focuses research on advanced
solar devices that can provide the Nation with a widely available
domestic energy resource to help meet electricity needs and reduce the
stress on our critical electricity infrastructure. Efforts are directed
in the interrelated areas of Photovoltaics, Solar Heating and Lighting,
and Concentrating Solar Power. The fiscal year 2005 budget request for
Solar Technology is $80.3 million. This is roughly equivalent to the
unencumbered amount of the fiscal year 2004 appropriation of $83.4
million, which included $3.6 million earmarked to specific recipients.
Photovoltaic research and development seeks to reduce the
manufacturing cost of highly reliable photovoltaic modules from $2.10/
watt in 2003 to $1.85/watt by fiscal year 2005. The program is focused
on next-generation technologies such as thin-film photovoltaic cells
and leap-frog technologies such as polymers and nanostructures. Systems
engineering efforts seek to increase system durability and develop
technologies to improve interconnections with the electric grid. The
fiscal year 2005 request of $75.4 million for photovoltaic includes:
$30 million for critical fundamental research, including $2.1 million
to equip the new Science and Technology Facility at the National
Renewable Energy Laboratory; $29 million for advanced materials,
including thin films and next generation materials with potential for
dramatic cost reductions; and $16.4 million for technology development
efforts to improve reliability of the entire system, including testing,
verification, and deployment activities for grid-connected applications
and analysis of private sector commercialization options.
The fiscal year 2005 $2.9 million request for Solar Heating and
Lighting will support efforts on hot water and space heating for
residential and commercial buildings in collaboration with industry
partners. The program uses new formulations of lightweight polymer
materials to modernize solar water heaters, making them easier to
install, while lowering the cost of solar water heating in non-freezing
climates.
Last year, we did not request any funding for the Concentrating
Solar Power (CSP). In light of recent studies we sought from an
independent engineering firm, a draft of which was reviewed by the
National Research Council, the Department proposes $2 million for
Concentrating Solar Power in fiscal year 2005 to support a more
thorough investigation of the appropriate R&D course needed to realize
the potential for CSP. The fiscal year 2005 budget request will
maintain essential facilities and support work with several States on
the establishment of 1,000 MW of Concentrating Solar Power in the
Southwest, while developing a comprehensive program plan to help inform
the fiscal year 2006 budget development process and a longer term R&D
plan.
zero energy buildings
Zero Energy Buildings activities develop strategies to integrate
renewable energy technologies into highly energy-efficient buildings
that produce as much or nearly as much energy as they consume on an
annual basis. The fiscal year 2005 budget request for the Building
Technologies Program funded through the Interior Appropriations bill
combines this energy research and development with ongoing activities
in the Buildings program and therefore, no fiscal year 2005 funds are
requested in this area.
wind and hydropower technologies
Wind and Hydropower research and development supports the Nation's
fastest growing and most widely used renewable energy resources. These
technologies emit no air pollution or greenhouse gases, and they
produce significant amounts of bulk power to help meet America's
growing need for clean, domestic sources of electricity.
Since 2000, installed wind turbine capacity in the United States
has more than doubled, driven in large part by the tremendous
reductions in cost that have resulted from wind energy research. Our
research contributed to reducing the cost of electricity generation by
a factor of 20 since 1982, to 4 cents or less per kilowatt-hour in
areas with excellent wind resources.
The fiscal year 2005 budget request for Wind Energy is $41.6
million, $290,000 more than the fiscal year 2004 appropriation, which
included $1.4 million in funds that were earmarked to specific
recipients. The $12 million request for Low Wind Speed Technology
research and development will support multiple large wind system
technology pathways to achieve the goal of 3 cents per kilowatt-hour
for onshore systems. It also supports new work in off-shore systems to
help achieve a cost goal of 5 cents or less per kilowatt-hour. Fiscal
year 2005 activities will include field testing of the first full-scale
low wind speed technology prototype turbine and fabrication and testing
of advanced drivetrains, power converter and blades for future low wind
speed turbines. The $17 million request for supporting research and
testing will engage the capabilities of the National Labs, universities
and private sector for technical support including both facility and
field tests of newly developed components and systems to ensure design
and performance compliance.
Hydropower is the most widely used form of renewable energy in the
world today and accounts for about 7 percent of total electricity
generation in the United States and over 75 percent of domestic
renewable electricity generation. The fiscal year 2005 budget request
for Hydropower Technologies is $6.0 million, a $1.1 million or 22
percent increase over the fiscal year 2004 appropriation. The
Department's research approach involves a unique combination of
computer modeling, instrumentation, lab testing, and field-testing that
is improving the design and operation of the next generation of
hydropower technology. The request will support development of
technologies that will enable hydropower operators at existing plants
to generate more electricity with less environmental impact. This will
be done through environmentally enhanced, improved efficiency turbines,
as well as with new methods for optimizing unit, plant, and reservoir
systems to increase energy production per unit water. Supporting
research and testing will improve understanding of fish response to the
physical stresses experienced in passage through turbine systems. The
program will also explore ways to harness undeveloped hydropower
capacity without constructing new dams.
geothermal technology
The fiscal year 2005 budget request for Geothermal Technologies is
$25.8 million, a $300,000 increase from the fiscal year 2004
appropriation of $25.5 million, which included almost $2 million in
funds that were earmarked to specific recipients. Geothermal energy
generates electricity and provides heat for applications such as
aquaculture, crop drying, and district heating, and for use in heat
pumps to heat and cool buildings. The program focuses on developing
technology that optimizes the use of geothermal energy through improved
exploration, drilling, reservoir engineering, and energy conversion.
These technology improvements lead to cost-effective energy production
at new geothermal fields and expanded production at existing fields.
Fiscal year 2005 resource development activities will characterize
and assess the geothermal resource by understanding the formation and
evolution of geothermal systems, including a collaborative effort with
the U.S. Geological Survey on a national geothermal resource
assessment. Activities in the Enhanced Geothermal Systems program seek
to increase the productivity and lifetime of reservoirs, potentially
more than doubling the amount of viable geothermal resources in the
West. Fiscal year 2005 activities will include Enhanced Geothermal
System field tests in California and Nevada, and tests of the
Diagnostics-While-Drilling advanced drilling system in a high
temperature geothermal well. New geothermal State working groups in
Alaska and California will be added, bringing the number of groups to
nine.
biomass and biorefinery systems r&d
Biomass and Biorefinery Systems R&D focuses on advanced
technologies to transform the Nation's domestic biomass resources into
high value chemicals, fuels, and power. With the U.S. Department of
Agriculture, the DOE biomass program leads the multi-agency Biomass
Research and Development Initiative that coordinates and accelerates
all Federal bioenergy research and development in accordance with the
Biomass Research and Development Act of 2000.
The 2002 EERE reorganization integrated several bioenergy
activities into one office to allow a clear and consistent set of goals
and objectives and increased collaboration with industry. The program
worked closely with industry to produce a vision and R&D roadmap that
focuses on the most promising long-term opportunities that, with
leveraged funding from industry, can realize a goal of establishing the
first large-scale biorefinery based on agricultural residues by 2010. A
multiyear technical plan in support of this goal provides a
comprehensive work breakdown structure with milestones, costs and
schedule, so that every project is linked to program goals, objectives
and technical barriers.
In fiscal year 2005, the Department is requesting $72.6 million for
biomass program activities in the purview of the Energy and Water
appropriation, $13.9 million less than the fiscal year 2004
appropriation. However, it is important to note that the fiscal year
2004 appropriation included nearly $41 million, or nearly half of the
biomass budget, targeted to specific projects not identified in program
plans. Congressional earmarking has delayed progress toward the program
goals and diminished core research capabilities at the National
Laboratories.
Biomass activities funded through the Energy and Water
appropriation focus on advanced biorefinery technologies to produce low
cost sugars, syngas and pyrolysis oils. In fiscal year 2005, the
thermochemical program will test the continuous production, cleanup and
conditioning of biomass syngas and pyrolysis oils suitable for
conversion to fuels, chemicals or hydrogen, and examine the production
of hydrogen from biomass via synthesis gas. Work will continue with
industry on improved process integration capabilities for industrial
biorefineries, and the program will evaluate existing partnerships for
more productive and lower-cost cellulase enzyme systems. Additional
partnerships may further improve the procession operations leading to
cheaper biomass-based sugars. Projects to test and evaluate the
performance and costs of converting corn fiber to fuels and co-products
will also continue.
intergovernmental activities
Intergovernmental Activities funded through the Energy and Water
appropriation include a variety of programs to promote renewable energy
technologies. The fiscal year 2005 request for these programs is $16
million, an increase of $1.3 million over the fiscal year 2004
appropriation.
The International Renewable Energy Program provides technical
assistance to support sustainable development and emerging market
economies. These efforts expand the market of U.S. industries and
reduce the cost of energy to trading partners while improving their
environment and creating new jobs. In fiscal year 2005, we request $6.5
million for international activities, a $612,000 increase from the
fiscal year 2004 appropriation, which included nearly $2.7 million in
funds that were earmarked to specific recipients. We propose to use
these funds for a wide variety of partnership activities under the U.S.
Clean Energy Initiative arising from the World Summit on Sustainable
Development.
In fiscal year 2005, we request $5.5 million for the Tribal
Resources Program, an increase of $594,000 over the fiscal year 2004
appropriation. The program provides assistance to Native American
Tribes and Tribal entities in assessing energy resources, comprehensive
energy plan development, energy technology training, and project
development. This primarily involves the development of energy
efficiency and renewable energy resources on Tribal lands. Projects
include resource assessments and development plans for energy efficient
and renewable energy technologies. Technical assistance helps Native
American Tribes, and Tribal Colleges develop culturally compatible
energy and economic development plans and strategies reflecting Tribal
priorities. In addition, the program invests in technical program and
market analysis and performance assessment in order to direct effective
strategic planning. Again, this is an area where congressionally
directed spending totaling $3.2 million, or more than half of our
funding, inhibits our ability to issue and entertain competitive
funding opportunities for tribes.
We are also requesting $4.0 million dollars for the Renewable
Energy Production Incentive, which will create an incentive similar to
the renewable production tax credits available to investor-owned
utilities for public power providers.
departmental energy management program
The Departmental Energy Management Program seeks to improve energy
and water efficiency, promote renewable energy use, and manage utility
costs in DOE facilities and operations. The Department owns or leases
about 11,000 buildings at more than 50 sites across the United States.
The fiscal year 2005 request for Department Energy Management Program
activities of $1.97 million, about the same as the fiscal year 2004
appropriation, will allow continued facility audits to identify energy
conservation opportunities; provide funding for best practices
identification and dissemination; and accomplish energy conservation
retrofits through direct funding and alternative financing.
national climate change technology initiative competitive solicitation
program
This is the third year we seek funding for the Competitive
Solicitation Program as part of the President's National Climate Change
Technology Initiative. The competitive solicitation process will seek
innovative, novel, high-impact climate change technology options that
can complement and enrich the existing portfolio of climate change-
related research and applied technology. By stimulating and
strengthening Federal research in this area, the program hopes to
inspire private sector interest and international cooperation in a
sustained collaborative program of research investment aimed at
accelerating technology development and advancing the administration's
climate change goals. The Department is requesting $3 million in fiscal
year 2005 for this initiative.
facilities and infrastructure
This Facilities and Infrastructure budget addresses capital
requirements for capital projects, equipment and plant maintenance at
the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). NREL provides state-
of-the-art research facilities, user facilities, analysis, and
management of R&D contracts for the Solar, Wind, Geothermal, Biomass,
and Hydrogen programs within the Energy Supply budget, and does the
same for the programs in the Energy Conservation budget and
superconductivity research in the Office of Electricity Transmission
and Distribution. NREL is home to 1,100 researchers, engineers,
analysts, and administrative staff, plus visiting professionals,
graduate students, and interns on a 300-acre campus in Golden, CO,
occupying five large research buildings and over 200,000 square feet of
research and administrative space in a neighboring office park.
The fiscal year 2005 request of $11.5 million will provide $4.8
million for operation and maintenance funded activities and $6.7
million for continued construction of the Science and Technology
Facility.
program direction
Program Direction provides the technical direction and oversight
resources needed to successfully implement EERE renewable energy
programs. The budget requests covers Federal staff, as well as
associated properties, equipment, supplies, and materials required to
support the management and oversight of programs. Areas funded by these
requests include information systems and technology equipment; travel;
public information activities; support service contractors; and
crosscutting performance evaluation, analysis and planning.
The fiscal year 2005 budget request for Program Direction in the
Energy Supply account is $20.7 million, which is $8.3 million more than
the fiscal year 2004 appropriation. The increase in fiscal year 2005
will fund activities to develop and strengthen EERE's program
management and project management practices at both Headquarters and
field offices. A new Project Management Center that includes the Golden
Field Office and other EERE field organizations is responsible for
project management of research and development partnerships, laboratory
contract administration including the management and operating contract
for the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, and providing
procurement, legal, business management, and information resource
management. This Project Management Center initiative allows our
Laboratories to devote more time to real research as opposed to
management oversight functions, and will help our program dollars
remain focused on research, development, and deployment.
The proposed increase will also provide full funding for the
renewable energy programs' share of landlord services at the Golden
Field Office and its fair share of Information Technology services and
local-area network operations.
The budget request also includes $3 million to provide analytical
and technical support services to the cross-cutting Climate Change
Technology Program, a multi-agency research planning and coordination
activity led by DOE.
conclusion
Mr. Chairman, we believe the administration's fiscal year 2005
budget request for renewable energy technologies reflects a robust,
balanced and consistent approach toward meeting the Nation's energy
goals of increased energy security through utilization of diverse
domestic supplies, greater freedom of choice of technology, and reduced
financial costs and environmental impacts of energy utilization.
This completes my prepared statement, and I am happy to answer any
questions the subcommittee may have.
OFFSHORE WIND
Senator Domenici. I have a series of questions, but your
testimony kind of interrupted my thoughts and suggested that I
ask you a question. When you mentioned offshore activities,
we've run into a lot of arguing about people wanting more say-
so about where these great big fields of windmills are located.
In fact, we almost got an amendment on the floor. They were all
waiting for me to do it and I guess I let them down to give
local authority to decide yes or no.
I'm not asking you that question, but I'm saying, is there
a significant growth in the complaints about where you should
locate these fields and tell me a little bit about what's
happening?
Mr. Garman. Sure. Today the regulatory structure is very,
very difficult to navigate. There are a variety of State and
local agencies that one has to deal with if one wants to put
offshore wind in place. Offshore wind has such great promise
because it is a tremendous resource that's located very close
to the population and load centers, particularly on the
northeast coast of the United States, and we believe wind
energy could be very competitive there.
But today, unlike if you're trying to develop offshore
leasing for oil and gas and you deal with only one agency, the
Minerals Management Service as the lead agency to develop
offshore wind you have to deal with several agencies. The Army
Corps of Engineers is the lead agency, but it is very, very
difficult to deal with the regulatory structure.
There is a provision in the energy bill, however, that
would vest authority with the Department of the Interior to
begin to manage offshore leasing for wind similar to the way
they manage it for offshore outer continental shelf leasing.
Senator Domenici. Well, sir, you mentioned the northeast.
What's the issue off the shore of Massachusetts?
Mr. Garman. The Cape Wind Project is a project that is
probably economically viable today, but there is, of course,
concern, NIMBYism, some call it, about the impact of the wind
turbines on the horizon. I think wind turbines are
aesthetically beautiful, but that's me. Not everybody agrees.
So we are actually developing the larger technology that
could be offshore at such a distance that it couldn't be seen
from shore, and I think that could help ameliorate many of the
concerns that people have about the aesthetics.
Senator Domenici. There isn't any need that it be right
close, but does it get more expensive as you go out?
Mr. Garman. It does because the water is deeper. But
particularly in the Northeast, less so on the West Coast, you
have shallow water that extends 20 or more kilometers offshore.
The limit today is about 30 meters. If you go deeper than that,
we don't quite have the technology today to install wind
turbines.
Senator Domenici. Okay. Thank you very much. Dr. Orbach.
Office Of Science
STATEMENT OF RAYMOND L. ORBACH, DIRECTOR
Dr. Orbach. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I want
to thank you for your support over the years. I look forward to
working with you to ensure that our Nation stays at the leading
edge of science and technology for energy security.
The Office of Science 2005 budget request is $3.4 billion,
an increase of $72 million, or 2.2 percent over the fiscal year
2004 appropriation when congressionally-directed projects are
taken into account. This request allows the Office of Science
to carry forward with the Department's and the administration's
priorities in critical areas of science.
It enables us to begin our planning for the future of
science in America through important progress on the priorities
set out in the Facilities for the Future of Science report and
in the Office of Science strategic plan. It increases the
operation of our user facilities from 92 percent to 95 percent
of optimum, enhancing our leverage for our construction
investment. The full details of our budget request are provided
in the written statement I have submitted.
By title, let me talk about the highlights of our budget.
It will keep our Nation on the path to fusion power, with
important investments in ITER and other fusion programs. It
will enable investments in leadership-class machines for high-
end computation, essential for America's open scientific
technological research and economic development.
The President's request for the Office of Science will fund
vital research enabling the hydrogen economy. The President's
request provides funding for long-lead procurement of the LINAC
coherent light source, an X-ray free-electron laser, which will
truly provide a new window on nature.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Finally, this request provides the funding needed to
initiate project engineering design activities for the GTL
facility for the production and characterization of proteins
and molecular tags, which promises to accelerate genomics
research.
I would be delighted to answer any of your questions and I
hope that my testimony can be submitted for the record. Thank
you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Raymond L. Orbach
Mr. Chairman and Members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to testify today about the Department of Energy's Office of
Science fiscal year 2005 budget request. The Department appreciates the
support of the Chairman and the Members of the committee over the past
years and I look forward to working with you to ensure that our Nation
stays at the leading edge of science and technology.
The Office of Science fiscal year 2005 budget request is $3.4
billion, a $68.5 million decrease from the fiscal year 2004
appropriation levels. When $140.8 million for fiscal year 2004
congressionally-directed projects is set aside, there is an increase of
$72.3 million in fiscal year 2005. This request makes investments in:
Advanced Scientific Computing Research (ASCR), Basic Energy Sciences
(BES), Biological and Environmental Research (BER), Fusion Energy
Sciences (FES), High Energy Physics (HEP), Nuclear Physics (NP),
Science Laboratories Infrastructure, Safeguards and Security, Workforce
Development for Teachers and Scientists and Science Program Direction.
It allows us to increase support for high priority scientific
research, increase operations at our key scientific user facilities,
keep major science construction projects on schedule, and support new
initiatives. This request, coming at a time of tight overall Federal
budgets, is also a demonstration of the administration's support for
basic research and the role that fundamental science plays in keeping
our Nation strong and secure.
OFFICE OF SCIENCE FISCAL YEAR 2005 PRESIDENT'S REQUEST
[B/A in thousands]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year
Fiscal Year Fiscal Year 2005
2003 Comparable 2004 Comparable President's
Approp. Approp. Request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Science:
Advanced Scientific Computing Research................... $163,185 $202,292 $204,340
Basic Energy Sciences.................................... 1,001,941 1,010,591 1,063,530
Biological & Environmental Research...................... 494,360 641,454 501,590
Congressionally-directed projects.................... (51,927) (140,762) ...............
Core Biological and Environmental Research........... (442,433) (500,692) (501,590)
Fusion Energy Sciences................................... 240,695 262,555 264,110
High Energy Physics...................................... 702,038 733,631 737,380
Nuclear Physics.......................................... 370,655 389,623 401,040
Science Laboratories Infrastructure...................... 45,109 54,280 29,090
Science Program Direction................................ 137,425 152,581 155,268
Workforce Development for Teachers & Scientists.......... 5,392 6,432 7,660
Small Business Innovation Research/Technology Transfer... 100,172 ............... ...............
Safeguards and Security.................................. 61,272 56,730 67,710
--------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Science...................................... 3,322,244 3,510,169 3,431,718
Use of prior year balances................................... ............... -10,000 ...............
--------------------------------------------------
Total, Science......................................... 3,322,244 3,500,169 3,431,718
Total, excluding Congressionally-directed projects..... (3,270,317) (3,359,407) (3,431,718)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am proud to tell you that the Department of Energy was ranked the
most improved cabinet-level agency in the most recent scorecard to
assess implementation of the President's Management Agenda (PMA). The
scorecard, which evaluates agency performance in the areas of human
capital, competitive sourcing, financial management, e-government, and
budget/performance integration, was issued by the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) in January and recognized the Department as one of the
agencies ``leading the pack with regard to management improvement.''
The Department has made a strong commitment to a results-driven,
performance-based approach to management of itself and its government-
owned, contractor-operated laboratories. Laboratory contracts are being
renegotiated so that mutually agreed upon performance measures will
result in increased contractor authority and accountability, while
lessening the burden of DOE day-to-day oversight of activities. In
January of this year, the Department announced that it will compete the
management and operating contracts for seven of the DOE laboratories.
In September 2003, the Department issued its updated Strategic Plan
and incorporated this Plan and the Performance Plan into the fiscal
year 2005 budget request. The performance measures included in this
budget were developed with input from our scientific advisory
committees and OMB. A website (www.sc.doe.gov/measures) has been
developed to more fully explain the new measures within the context of
each program.
science plans and priorities
When I joined the Office of Science after a career as a university
scientist and administrator, I came with an appreciation for the four
key roles that the Office plays in the U.S. research effort. We provide
solutions to our Nation's energy challenges, contributing essential
scientific foundations to the energy, national, and economic security
missions of the DOE. We are the Nation's leading supporter of the
physical sciences, investing in research at over 280 universities, 15
national laboratories, and many international research institutions. We
deliver the premier tools of science to our Nation's science
enterprise, building and operating major research facilities for open
access by the science community. We help keep the United States at the
forefront of intellectual leadership, supporting the core capabilities,
theories, experiments, and simulations to advance science.
This fiscal year 2005 budget request will set us on the path toward
addressing the challenges that face our Nation in the 21st Century. SC
has recently released ``Facilities for the Future of Science: A Twenty-
Year Outlook'' which sets an ambitious agenda for scientific discovery
over the next two decades. The priorities established in this plan--
which is clearly not a budget document--reflect national priorities set
by the President and the Congress, our commitment to the DOE missions,
and the views of the U.S. scientific community. Pursuing these
priorities will be challenging, but they hold enormous promise for the
overall well-being of all of our citizens. We have recently released an
updated Office of Science Strategic Plan that is fully integrated with
the Facilities Plan, the Department's Strategic Plan, and the
President's Management Agenda--including the R&D Investment Criteria
and OMB's Program Assessment Rating Tool. The fiscal year 2005 budget
request begins to implement these plans.
I am increasingly mindful that the health and vitality of U.S.
science and technology depends upon the availability of the most
advanced research facilities. DOE leads the world in the conception,
design, construction, and operation of these large-scale devices. These
machines have enabled U.S. researchers to make some of the most
important scientific discoveries of the past 70 years, with spin-off
technological advances leading to entirely new industries. More than
19,000 researchers and their students from universities, other
government agencies (including the National Science Foundation and the
National Institutes of Health), private industry, and those from abroad
use DOE facilities each year. These users are growing in both number
and diversity.
Because of the extraordinarily wide range of scientific disciplines
required to support facility users at national laboratories, and the
diversity of mission-driven research supported by the SC, we have
developed an interdisciplinary capability that is extremely valuable to
some of the most important scientific initiatives of the 21st Century.
There is also a symbiotic relationship between research and research
tools. Research efforts advance the capabilities of the facilities and
tools that in turn enable new avenues of research.
Excluding funds used to construct or operate our facilities,
approximately half of our research funding goes to support research at
universities and institutes. Academic scientists and their students are
funded through peer-reviewed grants, and SC's funding of university
research has made it an important source of support for graduate
students and postdoctoral researchers in the physical sciences during
their early careers.
Mindful of the role that the Office of Science plays in supporting
the physical sciences and other key fields, I would now like to briefly
outline some specific investments that we are proposing in the Fiscal
Year 2005 Request.
science programs
advanced scientific computing research
Fiscal Year 2004 Comparable Appropriation--$202.3M; Fiscal Year 2005
Request--$204.3M
The Advanced Scientific Computing Research (ASCR) program
significantly advances scientific simulation and computation, applying
new approaches, algorithms, and software and hardware combinations to
address the critical science challenges of the future, and provides
access to world-class, scientific computation and networking facilities
to the Nation's scientific community to support advancements in
practically every field of science and industry. The ASCR budget also
supports the Scientific Discovery through Advanced Computing (SciDAC)
program--a set of coordinated investments across all Office of Science
mission areas with the goal of achieving breakthrough scientific
advances via computer simulation that were previously impossible using
theoretical or laboratory studies alone.
The fiscal year 2005 budget request includes $204.3 million for
ASCR to advance U.S. leadership in high performance supercomputing and
networks for science and to continue to advance the transformation of
scientific simulation and computation into the third pillar of
scientific discovery. The request includes $38.2 million for the Next
Generation Computer Architecture (NGA) research activity, which is part
of a coordinated interagency effort that supports research, development
and evaluation of new architectures for scientific computers that could
help enable continued U.S. leadership in science. Enhancements are
supported for ASCR facilities--the Energy Sciences Network (ESnet) and
the National Energy Research Scientific Computing Center (NERSC). The
request also includes $8.5 million for the new Atomic to Macroscopic
Mathematics research effort to provide the research support in applied
mathematics needed to break through the current barriers in our
understanding of complex physical processes.
basic energy sciences
Fiscal Year 2004 Comparable Appropriation--$1,010.6M; Fiscal Year 2005
Request--$1,063.5M
The Basic Energy Sciences (BES) program is a principal sponsor of
fundamental research for the Nation in the areas of materials sciences
and engineering, chemistry, geosciences, and bioscience as it relates
to energy. This research underpins the DOE missions in energy,
environment, and national security; advances energy-related basic
science on a broad front; and provides unique user facilities for the
scientific community and industry.
For fiscal year 2005, the Department requests $1.1 billion for BES
including $208.6 million to continue to advance nanoscale science
through atomic- and molecular-level studies in materials sciences and
engineering, chemistry, geosciences, and energy biosciences. This
supports Project Engineering Design (PED) and construction of four
Nanoscale Science Research Centers (NSRC's) and a Major Item of
Equipment for the fifth and final NSRC. NSRC's are user facilities for
the synthesis, processing, fabrication, and analysis of materials at
the nanoscale. The request also includes $80.5 million for construction
and $33.1 million for other project costs for the Spallation Neutron
Source, and $54.1 million for research, development, PED, and long lead
procurement of the Linac Coherent Light Source, a revolutionary x-ray
laser light source. With these tools, we will be able to understand how
the compositions of materials affect their properties, watch proteins
fold, see chemical reactions, and design matter for desired outcomes.
The fiscal year 2005 budget request also includes $29.2 million for
activities that support the President's Hydrogen Fuel Initiative. This
research program is based on the BES workshop report ``Basic Research
Needs for the Hydrogen Economy,'' which highlights the enormous gap
between our present capabilities and those required for a competitive
hydrogen economy.
biological and environmental research
Fiscal Year 2004 Comparable Appropriation--$641.5M; Fiscal Year 2005
Request--$501.6M
The Biological and Environmental Research (BER) program advances
energy-related biological and environmental research in genomics and
our understanding of complete biological systems, such as microbes that
produce hydrogen; in climate change, including the development of
models to predict climate over decades to centuries; developing
science-based methods for cleaning up environmental contaminants; in
radiation biology, providing regulators with a stronger scientific
basis for developing future radiation protection standards; and in the
medical sciences, by developing new diagnostic and therapeutic tools,
technology for disease diagnosis and treatment, non-invasive medical
imaging, and biomedical engineering such as an artificial retina that
will restore sight to the blind. For fiscal year 2005, the Department
requests $501.6 million for BER. The fiscal year 2004 appropriation
includes $140.8 million of one-time Congressionally-directed projects,
for which no additional funds are being requested in fiscal year 2005.
Research on microbes through the Genomics: GTL program, addressing
DOE energy and environmental needs, continues to expand from $63.5
million in fiscal year 2004 to $67.5 million in fiscal year 2005. The
request also provides $5 million for initiation of Project Engineering
Design (PED) activities for the GTL Facility for the Production and
Characterization of Proteins and Molecular Tags, a facility that will
help move the Genomics: GTL systems biology research program to a new
level by greatly increasing the rate and cost-effectiveness with which
experiments can be done. DOE, through the Genomics: GTL program, will
attempt to use genetic techniques to harness microbes to consume
pollution, create hydrogen, and absorb carbon dioxide.
fusion energy sciences
Fiscal Year 2004 Comparable Appropriation--$262.6M; Fiscal Year 2005
Request--$264.1M
The Fusion Energy Sciences (FES) program advances the theoretical
and experimental understanding of plasma and fusion science, including
a close collaboration with international partners in identifying and
exploring plasma and fusion physics issues through specialized
facilities. This includes: (1) exploring basic issues in plasma
science; (2) developing the scientific basis and computational tools to
predict the behavior of magnetically confined plasmas; (3) using the
advances in tokomak research to enable the initiation of the burning
plasma physics phase of the Fusion Energy Sciences program; (4)
exploring innovative confinement options that offer the potential of
more attractive fusion energy sources in the long term; (5) focusing on
the scientific issues of nonneutral plasma physics and High Energy
Density Physics; (6) developing the cutting edge technologies that
enable fusion facilities to achieve their scientific goals; and (7)
advancing the science base for innovative materials to establish the
economic feasibility and environmental quality of fusion energy.
When the President announced that the United States would join in
the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) project he
noted that ``the results of ITER will advance the effort to produce
clean, safe, renewable, and commercially available fusion energy by the
middle of this century.'' To this end, the Department continues its
commitment to the future of Fusion Energy Science research with a
request of $264.1 million, slightly above the fiscal year 2004 enacted
level. Within that amount, $38 million is requested for preparations
for ITER in fiscal year 2005, $30 million more than in fiscal year
2004. Of this $38 million, $7 million is for scientists and engineers
who will support the International Team and for the qualification of
vendors that will supply superconducting cable for ITER magnets. The
remaining $31 million will be used to support refocused experiments in
our tokamak facilities and for component R&D in our laboratories and
universities that is closely related to our ongoing program but which
is focused on ITER's specific needs. The researchers and facilities
that we support will not be doing less work because of ITER, but some
of their time and effort will be directed to different, ITER-related,
work than they were doing before.
Fabrication continues on the National Compact Stellarator
Experiment (NCSX), an innovative confinement system that is the product
of advances in physics understanding and computer modeling. In
addition, work will be initiated on the Fusion Simulation Project that,
upon completion, will provide an integrated simulation and modeling
capability for magnetic fusion energy confinement systems over a 15-
year development period. The Inertial Fusion Energy research program
will be redirected toward high energy density physics research based on
recommendations that will come from the recently established
Interagency Task Force on High Energy Density Physics.
high energy physics
Fiscal Year 2004 Comparable Appropriation--$733.6M; Fiscal Year 2005
Request--$737.4M
The High Energy Physics (HEP) program advances our understanding of
the basic constituents of matter, including the mysterious dark energy
and dark matter that make up most of the universe; the striking
imbalance of matter and antimatter in the universe, and the possible
existence of other dimensions. Collectively, these investigations will
reveal the key secrets of the birth, evolution, and final destiny of
the universe. HEP expands the energy frontier with particle
accelerators to study fundamental interactions at the highest possible
energies, which may reveal previously unknown particles, forces or
undiscovered dimensions of space and time; explain how everything came
to have mass; and illuminate the pathway to the underlying simplicity
of the universe.
For fiscal year 2005, the Department requests $737.4 million for
the HEP program, an increase from fiscal year 2004. The highest
priority in HEP is the operation, upgrade and infrastructure for the
two major HEP user facilities at the Fermi National Accelerator
Laboratory (Fermilab) and the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center
(SLAC), to maximize the scientific data generated.
In 2005, the Neutrinos at the Main Injector (NuMI) facility will be
complete and the beam line will be commissioned. The fiscal year 2005
budget request also supports research and design activities for a new
Major Item of Equipment, the BTeV (``B Physics at the TeVatron'')
experiment at Fermilab that will extend current investigations, using
modern detector technology to harvest a data sample more than 100 times
larger than current experiments. Research and development work
continues in fiscal year 2005 on the proposed Supernova Acceleration
Probe (SNAP) experiment for the DOE/NASA Joint Dark Energy Mission
(JDEM).
nuclear physics
Fiscal Year 2004 Comparable Appropriation--$389.6M; Fiscal Year 2005
Request--$401M
The Nuclear Physics (NP) program supports innovative, peer reviewed
scientific research to advance knowledge and provide insights into the
nature of energy and matter, and in particular, to investigate the
fundamental forces which hold the nucleus together, and determine the
detailed structure and behavior of the atomic nuclei. Nuclear science
plays a vital role in studies of astrophysical phenomena and conditions
of the early universe. At stake is a fundamental grasp of how the
universe has evolved, an understanding of the origin of the elements,
and the mechanisms of supernovae core collapse. The program builds and
supports world-leading scientific facilities and state-of-the-art
instruments necessary to carry out its basic research agenda.
Scientific discoveries at the frontiers of Nuclear Physics further the
Nation's energy-related research capacity, which in turn provides for
the Nation's security, economic growth and opportunities, and improved
quality of life.
The fiscal year 2005 budget request of $401 million gives highest
priority to exploiting the unique discovery potentials of the
facilities at the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) and Continuous
Electron Beam Accelerator Facility (CEBAF) by increasing operating time
by 26 percent compared with fiscal year 2004. R&D funding is provided
for the proposed Rare Isotope Accelerator (RIA) and 12 GeV upgrade of
CEBAF, which is located at Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator
Facility.
Operations of the MIT/Bates facility will be terminated as planned,
following 3 months of operations in fiscal year 2005 to complete its
research program. This facility closure follows the transitioning of
operations of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory 88-Inch
Cyclotron in fiscal year 2004 from a user facility to a dedicated
facility for the testing of electronic circuit components for use in
space (using funds from other agencies) and a small in-house research
program. These resources have been redirected to better utilize and
increase science productivity of the remaining user facilities and
provide for new opportunities in the low-energy subprogram.
science laboratories infrastructure
Fiscal Year 2004 Comparable Appropriation--$54.3M; Fiscal Year 2005
Request--$29.1M
The Science Laboratories Infrastructure (SLI) program supports SC
mission activities at SC laboratories by addressing needs related to
general purpose infrastructure, excess facilities disposition, Oak
Ridge landlord, health and safety improvements and payment in lieu of
taxes (PILT).
The fiscal year 2005 budget request supports three ongoing line
item construction projects at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory,
Brookhaven National Laboratory and the Stanford Linear Accelerator
Center and nine projects to clean-up/remove 84,000 square feet of
excess space to reduce operating costs, and environment, safety and
health liabilities, and to free up land for future use. The request
also supports activities to maintain continuity of operations at the
Oak Ridge Reservation (ORR), including Federal facilities in the town
of Oak Ridge and PILT for local communities surrounding Oak Ridge. PILT
is also provided to communities surrounding Brookhaven and Argonne
East.
We have continued to work cooperatively with the Occupational
Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) teams as they have conducted audits of our
laboratories. NRC has completed its audits; OSHA is expected to
complete its audits in mid-March 2004. The laboratories are preparing
cost estimates to meet the requirements as identified by those
agencies, and we plan to provide this information to Congress by May
31, 2004. Health and safety improvements to address OSHA- and NRC-
identified deficiencies and recommendations at Office of Science
laboratories are expected to be completed in fiscal year 2004.
safeguards and security
Fiscal Year 2004 Comparable Appropriation--$56.7M; Fiscal Year 2005
Request--$67.7M
Safeguards and Security activities reflects the Office of Science's
commitment to maintain adequate protection of cutting edge scientific
resources and assets. The fiscal year 2005 budget request includes $9.8
million for Pacific Northwest Site Office safeguards and security
activities, which were transferred from the Office of Environmental
Management. In fiscal year 2005, Safeguards and Security will enable
the Office of Science laboratories to meet the requirements of Security
Condition 3 level mandates for the protection of assets. The request
also provides the laboratories with the ability to maintain
requirements of increased Security Condition 2 level for 60 days. The
funding includes the increase needed to meet expectations of the
revised Design Basis Threat approved by the Secretary in May 2003. In
addition, critical cyber security investments will be made to respond
to the ever changing cyber threat.
workforce development for teachers and scientists
Fiscal Year 2004 Comparable Appropriation--$6.4M; Fiscal Year 2005
Request--$7.7M
The mission of the Workforce Development for Teachers and
Scientists program is to continue the Office of Science's long-standing
role of training young scientists, engineers, and technicians in the
scientifically and technically advanced environments of our National
Laboratories.
The fiscal year 2005 budget request of $7.7 million provides $1.5
million for a Laboratory Science Teacher Professional Development
activity. About 90 participating teachers will gain experience and
enhance their skills at five or more DOE laboratories in response to
the national need for science teachers who have strong content
knowledge in the classes they teach. A new $500,000 Faculty Sabbatical
Fellowship activity will provide sabbatical opportunities for 12
faculty from minority serving institutions (MSI's). This proposed
activity is an extension of the successful Faculty and Student Teams
(FaST) program where teams of faculty members and two or three
undergraduate students, from colleges and universities with limited
prior research capabilities, work with mentor scientists at a National
Laboratory to complete a research project that is formally documented
in a paper or presentation.
science program direction
Fiscal Year 2004 Comparable Appropriation--$152.6M; Fiscal Year 2005
Request--$155.3M
The mission of Science Program Direction is to provide a Federal
workforce, skilled and highly motivated, to manage and support basic
energy and science-related research disciplines, diversely supported
through research programs, projects, and facilities under the Office of
Science's leadership.
Science Program Direction consists of two subprograms: Program
Direction and Field Operations. The Program Direction subprogram is the
single funding source for the SC Federal staff in Headquarters
responsible for directing, administering, and supporting the broad
spectrum of scientific disciplines. This subprogram also includes
program planning and analysis activities which provide the capabilities
needed to evaluate and communicate the scientific excellence,
relevance, and performance of SC basic research programs.
The Field Operations subprogram is the centralized funding source
for the SC Federal workforce in the field who are responsible for
providing business, administrative, and specialized technical support
to SC and other DOE programs. Our service centers in Chicago and Oak
Ridge provide primary support to SC laboratories and facilities,
including Ames, Argonne National Laboratory, Brookhaven National
Laboratory, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratories, Oak Ridge National
Laboratory, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Fermilab, Princeton
Plasma Physics Laboratory, Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator
Facility, and Stanford Linear Accelerator Center.
Secretary Abraham approved the Office of Science Restructuring
(OneSC) on January 5, 2004. OneSC was initiated in July 2002 to embrace
the changes envisioned by the President's Management Agenda (PMA) to
accomplish government programs more economically and effectively by
creating a new, more efficient, and productive SC organization. It will
also provide a management environment for SC employees in which their
success and high performance can continue in the face of changing
resources, requirements, and societal needs.
The fiscal year 2005 budget request of $155.3 million represents a
1.8 percent increase over the fiscal year 2004 enacted level. This
increase is reflected in salaries and benefits to support a total SC
workforce of 1,014 full-time equivalents (FTE's). Compared to fiscal
year 2004, the fiscal year 2005 request is flat or lower in our other
major budget categories, such as travel, training, support services,
and other related expenses. We will continue to leverage resources and
rely on building good business practices by streamlining operations,
improving financial controls, and reengineering business processes in
support of the PMA and the OneSC structure.
conclusion
The Office of Science occupies a unique and critical role within
the U.S. scientific enterprise. We fund research projects in key areas
of science that our Nation depends upon. We construct and operate major
scientific user facilities that scientists from virtually every
discipline are using on a daily basis, and we manage civilian national
laboratories that are home to some of the best scientific minds in the
world.
Our researchers are working on many of the most daunting scientific
challenges of the 21st Century. These include pushing the frontiers of
the physical sciences through nanotechnology and exploring the key
questions at the intersection of physics and astronomy. We are also
pursuing opportunities at the intersection of the physical sciences,
the life sciences, and scientific computation to understand how the
instructions embedded in genomes control the development of organisms,
with the goal of harnessing the capabilities of microbes and microbial
communities to help us to produce energy, clean up waste, and sequester
carbon from the atmosphere. The Office of Science is also pushing the
state-of-the-art in scientific computation, accelerator R&D, plasma
confinement options and a wide array of other technologies that advance
research capabilities and strengthen our ability to respond to the
rapidly changing challenges ahead.
I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for providing this opportunity
to discuss the SC's research programs and our contributions to the
Nation's scientific enterprise. This concludes my testimony. I would be
pleased to answer any questions you might have.
Senator Domenici. Is this your product?
Dr. Orbach. Yes, it is, sir.
Senator Domenici. Facilities for Future of Science 20-Year
Outlook. I think it's terrific.
[Clerk's Note.--The document entitled, ``Facilities for the
Future of Science: A Twenty-Year Outlook'' can be found at
http://www.sc.doe.gov/sub/Facilities_For_Future/20-Year-
Outlook_screen.pdf.]
Dr. Orbach. Thank you.
Senator Domenici. I'm very sorry that it doesn't get more
use and more exposure and maybe you might just tell me, how
does it get around?
Dr. Orbach. Well, we've been distributing it at each of the
meetings that I attend around the country. We have made major
press announcements and we have submitted it to scientific
organizations not only in the United States but also abroad.
Also our current budget request enables us to begin the top
six of our priorities at different stages depending on R&D, so
we're beginning to put it into play.
Senator Domenici. Great.
Dr. Orbach. Thank you for your comment.
Senator Domenici. Mr. Magwood, would you proceed with kind
of dispatch on your statement, because we've got a lot of
questions.
Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM D. MAGWOOD, IV, DIRECTOR
Mr. Magwood. Be happy to, Mr. Chairman. I do have a written
statement for the record. Let me very briefly summarize my
remarks because I know you're very familiar with our program
activities.
NUCLEAR ENGINEERING PROGRAMS
I want to take a look back. When you think about where we
started from back in 1998, when you and I spoke about the
pretty dire situation facing the nuclear energy program run by
the Federal Government, at that time our research budget
plummeted to zero; students entering nuclear engineering
programs had gone down to 500 from 1,500 just a few years
earlier; and many countries that had seen the United States as
a principal partner for nuclear energy research and development
had turned away from us and had begun to think of the United
States as being basically a past partner.
Over the last several years, this has turned around
significantly. I think there's been a lot of success to look
back on. Looking at it today, the number of nuclear engineering
students now are 1,400 in universities across the country. This
is a huge accomplishment considering where we were a few years
ago.
Senator Domenici. How many?
Mr. Magwood. One thousand, four hundred. Almost as----
Senator Domenici. Studying what?
Mr. Magwood. Nuclear engineering. So that's almost
completely reversed from the climate of the 1990's.
Senator Domenici. But now we went like that and we're going
to stop growing.
Mr. Magwood. No, we want to keep growing. We think we're in
good shape. As a matter of fact, we are actually starting new
programs in nuclear engineering across the country at schools
like the University of South Carolina, South Carolina State and
even--I'm sorry that Mr. Reid's not here--University of Nevada
Las Vegas is looking at starting a new nuclear engineering
program.
On our side, the research that we're pursuing in Generation
IV nuclear power systems has really taken off. We're working
with our international partners very closely and we're very
optimistic about the direction that that work has taken.
PREPARED STATEMENT
You may know, Mr. Chairman, that I was recently elected
chairman of the Generation IV International Forum and also the
OECD steering committee on nuclear energy, and in those
positions I've been able to really leverage our activities with
those of our international partners; and we think that the
ability to work with our international partners to pursue
advanced technologies, including the possible pursuit of a
project at our Idaho site to look at an advanced hydrogen
electricity production reactor, is something that's well within
our grasp.
So I'll just leave it at that. We've appreciated your
leadership over the years and look forward to any questions you
have.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of William D. Magwood, IV
Mr. Chairman, Senator Reid, and Members of the subcommittee, it is
a pleasure to be here to discuss the fiscal year 2005 budget submission
for DOE's Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology.
The program has made a great deal of progress over the past several
years. From the time, not so many years ago, when it appeared that the
United States might abandon advanced nuclear research and development,
we have been successful in reasserting U.S. leadership in the world.
Representing the United States, I have been elected by my international
colleagues to serve as the chair of two important international
bodies--the OECD Steering Committee on Nuclear Energy and the
Generation IV International Forum. When it appeared that nuclear
power's era had ended in the United States, nuclear utilities have
turned their programs around, making more energy last year than at any
time in history and launching into very serious discussions to explore
the construction of new plants for the first time in decades.
Recent developments have been encouraging. The Department has
launched the process of establishing a central laboratory for nuclear
research and development--the Idaho National Laboratory. We are also
exploring the possible construction of a pilot Generation IV nuclear
plant at our new lab that will demonstrate highly efficient electricity
production and pave the way to realize the President's vision of a
future hydrogen economy.
The Department's fiscal year 2005 request for the nuclear energy
program proposes a $410 million investment in nuclear research,
development and infrastructure for the Nation's future that is designed
to continue this progress. This budget request moves forward the
Department's commitment to support the President's priorities to
enhance the Nation's energy independence and security while enabling
significant improvements in environmental quality. Our request supports
development of new nuclear generation technologies and advanced energy
products that provide significant improvements in sustainability,
economics, safety and reliability, and proliferation and terrorism
resistance.
We are committed to efficiently managing the funds we are given. We
have abandoned outdated paradigms to integrate the Idaho Operations
Office with our headquarters organization, enabling us to manage our
responsibilities in the field to achieve greater quality and efficiency
than would otherwise be possible. We are enhancing our expertise in
critical areas such as project management through training and
certification of existing staff and the acquisition of experienced,
proven managers. We continue to implement the President's Management
Agenda (PMA) by further integrating budget and performance, improving
Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) scores for our research and
development programs, and linking major program goals in the
performance plans for our Senior Executives and technical staff. These
improvements are challenging and time-consuming, but we feel they must
be done to assure our program's ability to make the best use of the
taxpayer dollars.
While we have made great progress in all these areas, much remains
to be done. Our fiscal year 2005 request moves us in the right
direction and I will now provide you a full report of our activities
and explain the President's request for nuclear energy in detail.
generation iv nuclear energy systems
Our Generation IV effort continues to make significant progress.
Since the Generation IV International Forum and the Nuclear Energy
Research Advisory Committee (NERAC) issued their joint report, ``A
Technology Roadmap for Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems'', the
members of the Forum have expanded to include Switzerland and the
European Union. The now 11 members (Argentina, Brazil, Canada, the
European Union, France, Japan, the Republic of Korea, the Republic of
South Africa, Switzerland, the United Kingdom and the United States)
have organized into interest groups associated with each of the six
selected Generation IV systems and are negotiating international legal
agreements to enable advanced nuclear research to be conducted on a
multilateral basis.
We hope to complete these negotiations later this year and move
forward with these countries to develop advanced reactor technologies
for commercial deployment in the 2015 to 2030 timeframe. Generation IV
concepts offer significant improvements in sustainability,
proliferation resistance, physical protection, safety and economics.
These advanced systems will not only be safe, economic and secure, but
will also include energy conversion systems that produce valuable
commodities such as hydrogen, desalinated water and process heat. These
features make Generation IV reactors ideal for meeting the President's
energy and environmental objectives.
As indicated in our recent report to Congress on our implementation
strategy for the Generation IV program, while the Department is
involved in research on several reactor concepts, our efforts and this
budget proposal place priority on development of the Next Generation
Nuclear Plant (NGNP). The NGNP is based on the union of the Very-High-
Temperature Reactor concept in the Generation IV Roadmap with advanced
electricity and hydrogen production technologies. We are exploring the
potential of an international, public-private project to build and
operate a pilot NGNP at the Department's Idaho site. While the
Department has not made a decision to proceed with this effort, such a
project could validate the potential of this technology to contribute
to meeting to goals of the President's Hydrogen Fuel Initiative. If
successful, this technology could produce hydrogen at a cost that is
competitive with gasoline and electricity and with advanced natural
gas-fired systems.
The Idaho National Laboratory and several other labs will also
explore a range of other Generation IV concepts principally the
Supercritical Water-Cooled Reactor, the Gas-Cooled Fast Reactor and the
Lead-Cooled Fast Reactor. Our efforts will focus on establishing
technical and economic viability, and developing core and fuel designs,
and advanced materials for these concepts. We are also working with our
colleagues in the Office of Science to assemble a joint Future Energy
Advanced Materials Initiative aimed at the development of new materials
for advanced fission and fusion energy systems. The fiscal year 2005
request enables progress on this broad front. With your support, and
the leveraging of our resources with those of our international
partners, we expect to make continued progress toward developing world-
changing technologies.
nuclear hydrogen initiative
Hydrogen offers significant promise as a future energy technology,
particularly for the transportation sector. The use of hydrogen in
transportation will reduce U.S. dependence on foreign sources of
petroleum, enhancing national security. Significant progress in
hydrogen combustion engines and fuel cells is making transportation
using hydrogen a reality. Today, through electrolysis, we can convert
water to hydrogen using electricity. We believe that for the future,
Very-High-Temperature Reactors coupled with thermo-chemical or high-
temperature electrolytic water splitting processes offer a more
efficient technology for production of large quantities of hydrogen
without release of greenhouse gases. The goal of the Nuclear Hydrogen
Initiative is to develop economic, commercial-scale production of
hydrogen using nuclear energy.
With funding of $9 million in fiscal year 2005, the Nuclear
Hydrogen Initiative will progress toward the development and
demonstration of closed, sulfur-based cycles, such as the sulfur-iodine
process. These processes have been demonstrated on a bench scale at
somewhat lower temperatures and pressures than would be required for
economic hydrogen production, but they show considerable promise,
especially when they are considered for mating to Very-High-Temperature
Reactor systems. We will also explore high-temperature electrolysis,
which uses electricity to split high-temperature steam into hydrogen
and oxygen, similar to a fuel cell operating in reverse (specifically a
solid-oxide fuel cell, SOFC). High-temperature electrolysis requires
much less fundamental R&D, but the ability of the process to scale
economically must be demonstrated.
Finally, a major effort will be pursued in fiscal year 2005 to
explore materials for hydrogen production processes which must endure
high temperatures and very corrosive environments while maintaining
structural integrity at low costs. Included in this effort will be our
work to explore new membranes that can increase the efficiencies of the
hydrogen production processes.
advanced fuel cycle initiative
Of the issues affecting future expansion of nuclear energy in the
United States and worldwide, none is more important or more difficult
than that of dealing effectively with spent nuclear fuel. After a long
and difficult process, the United States is moving forward with a
geologic repository, and the Department is on schedule to submit a
license application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission by the end of
2004.
Research on improving ways to treat and utilize materials from
spent nuclear fuel will allow the Department to optimize the first
repository, and delay--and perhaps even eliminate--the need for future
repositories. The Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative, with an investment of
$46 million for fiscal year 2005, will continue the progress made in
the development of proliferation-resistant treatment and transmutation
technologies that can reduce both the volume and toxicity of spent
nuclear fuel. These technologies would support both national security
and energy independence by reducing inventories of commercially-
generated plutonium while recovering residual energy value from spent
nuclear fuel. If successful, these same technologies offer benefits of
enhancing national security by reducing inventories of commercially-
generated plutonium and enhancing energy independence by recovering the
energy value contained in spent nuclear fuel.
The program has already enjoyed considerable success. We have
proven the ability of our UREX technology to separate uranium from
spent fuel at a very high level of purity and also shown that a
derivative, UREX+, can separate a combined mixture of plutonium and
neptunium that can serve as the basis for a proliferation-resistant
fuel for light water reactors.
The Department's research efforts are leading to the demonstration
of proliferation-resistant fuel treatment technologies to reduce the
volume and radioactivity of high level waste, and the development of
advanced fuels that would enable consumption of plutonium using
existing light water reactors or advanced reactors. We have tested
proliferation-resistant nitride and metal transmutation fuels in the
Advanced Test Reactor and are currently testing mixed-oxide fuels such
as would be derived from the UREX+ process.
For the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative to be successful, advanced
fuel treatment and transmutation research and development must be
integrated with the development of Generation IV nuclear energy
systems, particularly with those reactor technologies that can produce
very high energy neutrons that would be needed to transmute a wide
variety of toxic radioactive species. We have organized our national
labs, universities, and international collaborations in a manner that
will enable this work to proceed in a coordinated manner.
nuclear power 2010
The President's Budget supports continuation of Nuclear Power 2010
in fiscal year 2005 to demonstrate, in cost-shared cooperation with
industry, key regulatory processes associated with licensing and
building new nuclear plants in the United States by the end of the
decade. The requested funds of $10 million would support the activities
associated with achieving NRC approval of early site permits and the
development of Combined Construction and Operating License
applications. (It is also critical that the Department identify the
business conditions under which power generation companies would add
new nuclear capacity and determine appropriate strategies to enhance
such investment. In fiscal year 2005, the Department will continue to
evaluate and develop strategies to mitigate specific financial risks
associated with the deployment of new nuclear power plants.)
In December, the Department issued a solicitation inviting
proposals from teams led by power generation companies to initiate New
Nuclear Plant Licensing Demonstration Projects. Under these cost-shared
projects, power companies will conduct studies, analyses, and other
activities necessary to select an advanced reactor technology and
prepare a site-specific, technology-specific Combined Operating License
application. These projects will provide for NRC design certification
and other activities to license a standardized nuclear power plant
design. The Department expects to award at least one project in this
fiscal year. The focus of activities in fiscal year 2005 for these
projects will be on development of the Combined Operating License
application.
university reactor fuel assistance and support
The Department is very pleased with the progress we have made in
reversing the decline in nuclear engineering in the United States. With
significant support and encouragement from this body and your
colleagues in the House of Representatives, we have played a large role
in completely reversing the decline in undergraduate enrollments in
this area of study that began in 1993 and continued through 1998. In
1998, the United States saw only around 500 students enroll as nuclear
engineers--down from almost 1,500 in 1992. After several years of
focused effort, the United States now has over 1,300 students studying
nuclear engineering. That number is set to increase further, as strong
programs--such as at Purdue and Texas A&M--continue to grow and we see
new programs start at schools such as South Carolina State University,
the University of South Carolina, and the University of Nevada-Las
Vegas.
The growth of nuclear energy in the United States is dependent on
the preservation of the education and training infrastructure at
universities. The research conducted using these reactors is critical
to many national priorities. Currently, there are 27 operating
university research reactors at 26 campuses in 20 States. These
reactors are providing support for research in such diverse areas as
medical isotopes, human health, life sciences, environmental
protection, advanced materials, lasers, energy conversion and food
irradiation.
The most exciting development in University Reactor Infrastructure
and Education Assistance is the Innovations in Nuclear Infrastructure
and Education (INIE) Program established in fiscal year 2002. In fiscal
year 2003, two additional university consortia were awarded, bringing
the total to six INIE grants, providing support to 24 universities in
19 States across the Nation. The consortia have demonstrated remarkable
collaborative efforts and strong formation of strategic partnerships
between universities, national laboratories, and industry. These
partnerships have resulted in increased use of the university nuclear
reactor research and training facilities, upgrading of facilities,
increased support for students, and additional research opportunities
for students, faculty and other interested researchers. We are very
pleased that the President's Budget includes $21 million for the
University Reactor Infrastructure and Education Assistance program for
fellowships, scholarships, nuclear engineering research, and for
critical support to university research reactors, all of which will
help address this shortage of well-trained nuclear scientists. (We have
modified the structure of this program for fiscal year 2005. I am
pleased to report that the President's request includes a small but
important element to provide scholarships and graduate fellowships to
students studying the vital and too-often overlooked discipline of
health physics. The Department is concerned that the Nation may soon
not have the trained health physicists who are needed to assure the
safety of all nuclear and radiological activities. With this budget, we
begin building a program to reverse the negative trends in this field
as we have already done in nuclear engineering.)
In another change, we will transfer responsibility for the shipment
of spent research reactor fuel to the Office of Civilian Radioactive
Waste Management, which is to become the Department's central expertise
in the management of spent fuel.
One final note in this regard, Mr. Chairman. I am sure that you
have noticed that no funding is requested for the Nuclear Energy
Research Initiative (NERI) in fiscal year 2005. While this program has
successfully spurred U.S. nuclear energy R&D, we believe that the time
has now come to integrate the program into our main-stream R&D
programs. We will continue to make peer-reviewed NERI awards to
university-based researchers who work in areas relevant to our
Generation IV, Nuclear Hydrogen, and Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative
programs. With this step, we will engage NERI researchers at
universities in the exciting, first-class research we are pursuing in
cooperation with countries all over the world.
radiological facilities management
This budget request also includes $69.1 million to maintain
critical research, isotope and space and national security power
systems facilities at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Los Alamos
National Laboratory, Sandia National Laboratory, and Brookhaven
National Laboratory in a safe, secure, and cost effective manner to
support national priorities.
The fiscal year 2005 budget request also includes $20.6 million to
continue baseline operations and begin construction of the Uranium-233
project at Oak Ridge National Laboratory. This project is aimed at
stabilizing materials left over from the Cold War to address a Defense
Nuclear Facilities Safety Board recommendation, while extracting
isotopes from the uranium that are needed for very promising medical
research.
inl--doe's command center for nuclear r&d
This budget supports the Secretary's realignment of the mission of
the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory to focus
the future of the site on nuclear research and development. The
Department is in the process of establishing the Idaho National
Laboratory, which will combine the resources of the INEEL and the
Argonne-West site. As the Department's leading center of nuclear
research and development, a core mission of this laboratory is advanced
nuclear reactor and fuel cycle technologies, including the development
of space nuclear power and propulsion technologies. The new Idaho
National Laboratory will play a vital role in the research and
development of enabling technologies for the Next Generation Nuclear
Plant, which will support the Department's long-term vision of a zero-
emissions future free of reliance on imported energy.
The Department issued a request for proposals in February to find a
management team to reduce costs and build expertise at the INL. The
Department's nuclear energy program involves the collective talents of
universities, the private sector, international partners and many of
our other national laboratories--Argonne, Los Alamos, Sandia and Oak
Ridge among them. However, the rebuilding of the Department's nuclear
power research and development program will be centered at INL. While
environmental cleanup remains an important focus at the Idaho site,
real progress is being made that will aid in the expansion of nuclear
research and development.
Developing a central research laboratory is a major step forward
for the nuclear energy program. We will join the other key energy
programs at the Department by having a central, dedicated research site
at which we can centralize our infrastructure investments and build the
expertise needed to accomplish our program goals. A central lab also
helps us minimize the shipment of nuclear materials across the country
and allows us to bring our nuclear materials together in a single,
secure location. We also expect that our new lab will become a major
player in the education of the next generation of nuclear energy
technologists that this Nation will need to assure our energy security
in the future.
conclusion
This concludes my prepared statement. Your leadership and guidance
has been essential to the progress the program has achieved thus far
and your support is needed as we engage the tasks ahead.
I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
Senator Domenici. Thank you very much. Well, the fact that
we've started at nothing and put these things in is a good
thing to repeat, but it's pretty pathetic when you note that
most of them were things everybody knew we needed. It wasn't
like this was a vision from on high, and every year because
they didn't come out of the administration made it harder and
harder to fund them. And now when we get a tighter and tighter
budget, it's, you know, they're the easiest ones to choke.
So, you know, you're getting 20 and 30 percent cuts in
yours, while over here on the side they're saying we're for
nuclear energy, right? You don't have to comment. You work for
the administration.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR PATTY MURRAY
Senator Murray, I note you're on a tough time schedule and
I'm most appreciative you would come today so I yield to you.
PACIFIC NORTHWEST NATIONAL LABORATORY FACILITIES
Senator Murray. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you for your tremendous work on this committee over the
years and your leadership in many directions. I just have a
couple of questions for Dr. Orbach today. Dr. Orbach, you note
the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, PNNL. In my State
it's one of the Department of Energy's multi-program
laboratories and is under your stewardship at the--as Director
of Science.
PNNL is a very valuable asset to the State of Washington
and it's going to be an enduring asset to the Tri-Cities
community after Hanford clean-up is completed. I think you know
there's been considerable concern over the schedule for the
cleaning up of the 300 area and the replacement of the many
facilities that currently house approximately 1,000 staff at
PNNL. That space, I think it's 700,000 square feet, represents
a third of PNNL's total laboratory space.
The Tri-Party Agreement required clean-up of the Columbia
River corridor including that 300 area by 2018. As I understand
it, current proposed clean-up contracts assume a 2012 or 6-year
earlier completion date. That would require those 1,000 PNNL
employees to exit the 300 area facility by 2007. This budget,
the fiscal year 2005 budget, has no funding for replacement
facilities in the 300 area and I see no scenario where new
facilities can be in place by fiscal year 2007.
I noticed in your written testimony you talk a great deal
about facilities and infrastructure and planning, but I don't
see any plan from you or DOE on how those facilities at PNNL
are going to be replaced. As owner of PNNL, Mr. Orbach, what
are you doing to lead the effort in the Department to seek an
aggressive program to replace those facilities at PNNL, which
is your laboratory?
Dr. Orbach. Thank you, Senator, for the question. We are as
concerned as you are over the 1,000 staff members who have been
so productive for our country. I have visited PNNL often and it
is a magnificent laboratory and your assessment of its future
is mine as well, and also the community's.
We have put together some funding from our own budget from
2003 and from fiscal year 2004, and there are funds in the
fiscal year 2005 budget which we believe can help in this
process, but it will require a reprogramming to use the fiscal
year 2003 and fiscal year 2004 funds and so I hope you will
help us in the reprogramming request.
Senator Murray. So would you support a reprogramming in the
fiscal year 2004 budget for that?
Dr. Orbach. Yes.
Senator Murray. You do, okay.
Dr. Orbach. We may require it for 2003, 2004, and for 2005
we will reassess our options.
Senator Domenici. Did you ask him if they had?
Senator Murray. I was about to. I will.
Senator Domenici. Good.
Senator Murray. Had you----
Dr. Orbach. And I want to say also we're working very
closely with the contractor, Battelle, to work together to
provide the facilities for the staff who will be displaced from
the 300 area. Our target date is October 2007, which as we
understand it, would be the latest that the Office of
Environmental Management could begin the clean-up in order to
satisfy the river corridor agreement that it has by 2012. And
we believe that by working with Battelle, we can achieve the
facilities that are required to house the staff. They will be
new facilities, they will be more efficient facilities, and in
the long run we hope that this will be a very positive outcome
for the laboratory.
Senator Murray. Well, we need to get a reprogramming
request from you as soon as possible then to get this going
because in order to replace your facility there we're going to
have to have some planning in place fairly quickly. And, Mr.
Chairman, I really am concerned about DOE's initial inability
to coordinate its clean-up and its science programs, and I
think we have to be very concerned about DOE's planning process
for both the labs and the clean-up sites.
I know that the Secretary's office has become engaged in
this matter and I've personally spoken with Mr. McSlarrow and I
appreciate the Secretary and Mr. McSlarrow's involvement. I
wish it hadn't risen to that level, but I do think we need
direction from you, reprogramming requests, and to get this
going because 2007 is not that far off when we're talking about
an entire facility or large facility there that needs to be--we
need to know where we're going with that, so I want to hear
more from you on this.
Dr. Orbach. You're absolutely right, Senator, and I have
just met with Dr. Len Peters, the director at PNNL, and we've
talked about the need to get moving quickly in order to begin
the planning and construction phase. It's my view that if we
start now that we can in fact meet that October 2007 date.
Senator Murray. When do we expect to see the reprogramming
request from you?
Dr. Orbach. We need to process it through the Department
and I'm hopeful that we can get it to you within a month.
Senator Murray. All right. Well, Mr. Chairman, thank you
very much. I have some other questions. I will submit them for
the record and look forward to working with you on this.
Senator Domenici. You understand if we get that, unless
there's something I'm not aware of, I will hurry up. It comes
to me and my friend in the House and we'll try to----
Senator Murray. I appreciate that very much.
Senator Domenici [continuing]. Try to hurry it up.
Dr. Orbach. Thank you.
Senator Murray. Thank you.
Senator Domenici. Senator, would you like to inquire,
Senator Craig?
STATEMENT OF SENATOR LARRY CRAIG
Senator Craig. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize for
running late.
Senator Domenici. I haven't asked any questions yet, but I
would like to yield to you for a few remarks.
Senator Craig. Well, why don't we move right ahead into the
questioning? You proceed with questions and then I'll come to
questions. That would be appropriate.
Senator Domenici. I was going to make an observation since
this was the first time off the Senate floor this year that we
have your presence at a committee hearing and I want the record
to reflect that we have a very distinguished Senator here. He
has a big record. Yesterday he completed work on a bill where
he spent more time, took more amendments, defeated more
amendments, all in pursuit of the bill that he wanted, that
many wanted, only to find that in the end he had to vote
against the bill.
Senator, I had been leaving for a little while and taking
naps, so when I came in, my staff said, it's very important you
be here for the last vote because it's an important thing for
your constituency, as you might recall, you were there. And I
walked in and made the wrong vote. I voted aye because I had
been wanting to help pass that bill. It turned out everything
had kind of blown up and you were advising everyone to vote no.
How many no votes? Everybody?
Senator Craig. Ninety-something, yes. I don't think it was
a demonstration of my power whatsoever. I wish it were, Mr.
Chairman.
Senator Domenici. It was.
Senator Craig. But I will tell you, in the words that I've
been here working with you and a good many other of our
friends, I've learned a few lessons, and I've also learned that
something that goes bad does not necessarily get better and
that you have an opportunity to stop something and that's what
I did yesterday.
Senator Domenici. Yes.
Senator Craig. Because it had grown worse than we had hoped
it would be and because of the rules of the Senate, something
those who want to obstruct can obstruct absolutely. We found
that on a couple of issues that you and I had been working on
in recent times and some of our friends on the other side I
think have determined that this is a year of total
obstructionism, and so we're going to have to work our way
through those problems. Thank you.
Senator Domenici. I do want to tell you, Senator, I'm most
appreciative of all your work that you've put into the energy
bill, and there's a nice story out today that the Minority
Leader expects a victory on the floor and so it's just a matter
of when. No, there are going to be some Senators like the ones
you mentioned that wanted to obstruct that bill, but how many
days are they going to get on it to make our leader frustrated?
I don't know. I don't think it's going to frustrate him if they
take a few days because he's made up his mind that he wants to
send this bill to the House so that the Senate can at least go
on record that they've produced one.
SCIENCE PRIORITIES
Having said that, let me move quickly. Dr. Orbach, can you
explain to me the department's priorities contained in this 20-
year plan and how they were selected? Can you do that very
quickly?
Dr. Orbach. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. We began an
initial process in my office through our Associate Directors
who headed each of our six programs. That set of
recommendations is important because it began first with the
research money. We took into account the energy bill
authorization level and subtracted from the out-years the cost
of doing research. The reason I stress that is that these
facilities are not meant to displace our ability to do
research. Research comes first. They then provide us the
ability to do that.
With the recommendations from the Associate Directors, we
went out to our advisory committees, and what you see today
reflects the advice, priorities that the advisory committee set
with regard to the importance of the science. This is a
science-driven prioritization.
I then had over 50 recommendations from the advisory
committees and I had to make them fit under the energy bill's
authorization levels and I had to make them fit also with
regard to time, and when we got done we had 28 facilities that
survived.
I was in the unenviable position of having to prioritize
across fields, but the response of the community has been very
positive and I believe that the scientific community is very
supportive of this prioritization.
Z MACHINE APPLICATION TO THE SCIENCE PROGRAM
Senator Domenici. Thank you very much. Now let me ask you a
question about something technical and see if you can agree to
do something for us. Sandia National Laboratory has developed a
power plant concept known as the Z machine. You must have heard
of it. It has made all kinds of news, including the front page
of Time magazine. Shortly after we had agreed to pay for NIF
over in California because the Z hadn't quite made it, we got a
big announcement that Z was ready to go. What we've got now is
about $3 billion invested in NIF and we've got Z going, a
little cheap machine.
This machine is the world's most powerful x-ray source, and
extensive experiments have led the technology to make
breakthroughs that lead to record fusion neutron yields.
Although this program has been funded by NNSA, and that's part
of the nuclear preparedness program of the country, the low
cost and high efficiency seem attractive to the development of
commercial fusion power. In fact, this facility has been
identified by the Fusion Energy Science Advisory Committee as
one of the three promising approaches to internal fusion
energy.
I would greatly appreciate it if you would visit Sandia and
spend some time with the scientists associated with Z and would
be willing to visit the facility. After you've done that and
had the opportunity to evaluate it, I would be interested in
your thoughts on its application to the science program. Can
you do that?
Dr. Orbach. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I'd be delighted. I've been
briefed on the Z-Pinch machine. It is a magnificent
accomplishment and I am scheduled to visit Sandia on the 24th
of May.
Senator Domenici. That's great.
Dr. Orbach. And I will be spending a good portion of my
time there to talk to the people on the Z-Pinch. They have some
very clever ideas for renewing it with a liquid wall, which
might help in the fusion energy area.
GENOMES TO LIFE PROGRAM
Senator Domenici. I have a question with reference to ITER,
but I'll just submit that and I'll move on to Genomes to Life.
This project focuses on the utilization of genome maps and
understanding of genome, or genomic functions in seeking
solutions to DOE missions. Funding increases by $4 million to
$67 million from its inception. It's accurate to say that the
entire program was created by virtue of a discussion which very
few people know about which took place in my office with a very
distinguished scientist named Charles DeLisi. You may or may
not know him but he was with the NIH.
He decided he didn't like the NIH because they didn't like
genome research, believe it or not. Think of that. They covet
it today as their great baby, but they literally didn't want to
do it, so he left and went to the Energy Department. He came to
my office and talked me into funding it. Believe it or not,
when I got it funded, NIH decided that they should too, so it
turned out--you wonder why DOE and NIH are in it, that's why,
because I introduced a bill, put it all in DOE, and that
brought the people who are for NIH to my office and we changed
the bill so they both got funding. Great things happened much
quicker than expected in producing the genome mapping of the
human system. You're aware of that.
PROTEIN AND MOLECULAR TAGS FACILITY
I note that you plan to start project engineering and
design for dedicating a facility, a facility for the production
and characterization of protein and molecular tags. I
understand that you will conduct a competition for the site of
that facility. What's the status of that competition? How will
this benefit the Genomes to Life program?
Dr. Orbach. First of all, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you
for your support----
Senator Domenici. You're welcome.
Dr. Orbach [continuing]. Of genomics and the Genomes to
Life program. It has been a tremendous success. What this
project does is to take us from the structural elements that we
have been able to study through our sequencing to the dynamics
of how cells actually function, and this particular factory
will produce, as you noted, proteins for our scientists in the
United States which are tagged.
We are currently in the final stages of preparing the
competition amongst all of the DOE laboratories for the
facility, and we are working towards the formal RFP as we
speak.
GENOME SCIENCE
Senator Domenici. How do you generally, for 2 minutes,
think genome is going? The evolution of the genome science, is
it going well?
Dr. Orbach. It's going wonderfully. The relationship with
NIH is as you described it. The DOE has the ability to create
these large-scale machines using, as you said in your opening
remarks, the physical sciences that we have available. This is
truly a factory. This will produce proteins that are tagged so
there will be a common way of identifying them and visualizing
them in cellular function. Your assistance and really
initiation of this project has had phenomenal impact.
Senator Domenici. You know, it's interesting when people
look around and read from time to time some experts tell us,
Greenspan testifies and my friend, Senator Craig, gets a hold
of it and goes to the floor and gives a speech because
Greenspan says productivity went up 8.2 percent and it doesn't
bother him because he doesn't have too much hair, but people
that have got a lot of hair, they go bald-headed when they hear
such a thing. That's incredible.
But I'll give you an example. We produced the entire
mapping of the protoplasm of the human genome in half the time
predicted when we started the program, half. It was supposed to
take 20-plus years, it took 10. Why? Well, because the machines
that we used to do it, computers, were never imagined to have
the capacity in such a short time that they had. That's a
perfect example of productivity. The productivity was
incredible in producing the mapping of the human genome, wasn't
it? It was so big that it caused us to produce the most complex
set of information in half the time, which is the genome
mapping of the human body.
I think we haven't even come close to its utility, is that
correct?
Dr. Orbach. Absolutely, and what you've said is true in
spades. The sequencing facility we have in Walnut Creek used to
cost $2 a base pair to sequence. It now costs two-tenths of a
cent, so it's a factor of 1,000 increase in productivity that
this factory has achieved. It can now sequence two human
genomes a year.
Senator Domenici. Entirely?
Dr. Orbach. Entirely, so that 10 years is now compressed
into 6 months.
ADVANCED REACTOR HYDROGEN CODE GENERATION PROJECT
Senator Domenici. Just a couple more. This one has to do
with Senator Craig and I. Mr. Magwood, general funding under
the title of nuclear energy, last year as part of the 2004, $15
million was included in the Generation IV initiative so the
Department could begin the research, development, design work
on an advanced reactor hydrogen code generation project at
Idaho National Laboratory.
Senator Craig and I sent a letter to Secretary Abraham
urging him to make a competitive solicitation for this project.
The response we received, signed by the Secretary, reassuring
Senator Craig and me that the Department intended to undertake
this design competition this year. Do you recall that, Senator?
Senator Craig. I do.
Senator Domenici. Now, can you please tell us what you have
prepared for the budget and the schedule for this solicitation,
and what you believe your funding requirements will be for
2005? Are the funds requested sufficient to support the
engineering design of at least two competing concepts as
spelled out in H.R. 6 prior to selecting the final choice?
Mr. Magwood. Mr. Chairman, we have been working very hard
over the last several months since the 2004 appropriation was
passed to put in place the kind of program that you're
describing. We do expect to have some sort of solicitation
available for the industry and others to look at this fiscal
year, fiscal year 2004, and we believe that the funding that we
have available in fiscal 2004, and what we have requested in
fiscal 2005, which by the way is an increase for this activity
of about $4\1/2\ million over the 2004 request, 2004
appropriation rather, is sufficient to move forward.
Obviously, if we move forward with a major project,
significantly more funds will be needed, but at this stage of
the game, we believe that what we've asked for is enough.
WORLD NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS UNDER CONSTRUCTION ON ORDER
Senator Domenici. I have two other questions for you, Mr.
Magwood, and then I'll proceed to yield to Senator Craig. One,
could you get for us at your earliest convenience a current
status of the construction of nuclear power plants in the
world? Get us a report that says as of this date, whatever date
that is, three plants are being built in Taiwan, two in China,
one somewhere else, so we would know just how many plants the
world is building, and if you can, tell us what their status is
and what kind they are, we'd appreciate it.
Mr. Magwood. Be happy to do that.
[The information follows:]
WORLD NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS UNDER CONSTRUCTION AS OF JANUARY 1, 2004
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year of
Capacity Expected
Country Name Location Type \1\ (MWe) Commercial Comments
Operation \2\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
USA............................... Browns Ferry 1....... Decatur, AL.......... BWR.................. 1,065 2007 Approximately $1.7
billion is being
invested over five
years to return this
unit, which has not
operated since 1985,
to service.
Argentina......................... Atucha 2............. Buenos Aires......... PHWR................. 962 NA Suspended
indefinitely.
China............................. Tianwan 1............ Jiangsu.............. VVER................. 1,000 2004
China............................. Tianwan 2............ Jiangsu.............. VVER................. 1,000 2005
China--Taiwan..................... Lungmen 1............ Taipei............... BWR.................. 1,300 2006
China--Taiwan..................... Lungmen 2............ Taipei............... BWR.................. 1,300 2007
India............................. Kaiga 3.............. Karnataka............ PHWR................. 202 2007
India............................. Kaiga 4.............. Karnataka............ PHWR................. 202 2007
India............................. Kudankulam 1......... Tamil Nadu........... VVER................. 917 2007
India............................. Kudankulam 2......... Tamil Nadu........... VVER................. 917 2008
India............................. Rajasthan 5.......... Rajasthan............ PHWR................. 202 2007
India............................. Rajasthan 6.......... Rajasthan............ PHWR................. 202 2008
India............................. Tarapur 3............ Maharastra........... PHWR................. 490 2007
India............................. Tarapur 4............ Maharastra........... PHWR................. 490 2006
Iran.............................. Bushehr 1............ Bushehr.............. PWR.................. 915 2005
Japan............................. Hamaoka 5............ Shizuoka............. BWR.................. 1,325 2005
Japan............................. Higashidori 1........ Aomori............... BWR.................. 1,067 2005
Japan............................. Shika 2.............. Ishikawa............. BWR.................. 1,304 2006
North Korea....................... LWR-Project 1........ Kumho................ PWR.................. 1,040 NA Construction
suspended pending a
decision, to be made
before 12/1/04, on
whether support for
this project by the
Korean Peninsula
Energy Development
Organization (KEDO)
should continue.
Romania........................... Cernavoda 2.......... Cernavoda............ PHWR................. 655 2007
Russia............................ Balakovo 5........... Saratov.............. VVER................. 950 2008
Russia............................ Kalinin 3............ Tver................. VVER................. 950 2004
Russia............................ Kursk 5.............. Kursk................ RBMK................. 925 2006
Russia............................ Rostov 2............. Rostov............... VVER................. 950 2007
South Korea....................... Ulchin 5............. Ulchin............... PWR.................. 950 2004
South Korea....................... Ulchin 6............. Ulchin............... PWR.................. 950 2005
Ukraine........................... Khmelnitski 2........ Neteshin............. VVER................. 950 2004
Ukraine........................... Rovno 4.............. Kuznetsovsk.......... VVER................. 950 2004
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................... ..................... ..................... ..................... 24,130 .............
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ BWR-Boiling Water Reactor; PWR-Pressurized Water Reactor; PHWR-Pressurized Heavy Water Reactor; LMFBR-Liquid Metal Fast Breeder Reactor; VVER-Soviet-
designed PWR; RBMK-Soviet-designed boiling water, graphite-moderated, pressure-tube reactor.
\2\ NA-Not Announced.
Sources: IAEA Power Reactor Information System; Uranium Information Centre/World Nuclear Association; Nuclear News 2004; organization press releases/web
pages.
WORLD NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS ON ORDER AS OF JANUARY 1, 2004
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year of
Capacity Expected
Country Name Type \1\ (MWe) Commercial
Operation \2\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
China............................... Lingdong 1............. PWR.................... 1,000 2012
China............................... Lingdong 2............. PWR.................... 1,000 2012
China............................... Sanmen 1............... PWR.................... 1,000 2012
China............................... Sanmen 2............... PWR.................... 1,000 2012
Finland............................. Olkiluoto.............. PWR.................... 1,600 2009
India............................... Kaiga 5................ PHWR................... 489 NA
India............................... Kaiga 6................ PHWR................... 490 NA
India............................... Rawatbhata 7........... PHWR................... 490 NA
India............................... Rawatbhata 8........... PHWR................... 491 NA
Japan............................... Fuikishima 7........... PWR.................... 1,325 2009
Japan............................... Tomari 3............... PWR.................... 912 2009
Japan............................... Fuikishima 8........... PWR.................... 1,325 2010
Japan............................... Higashidori 1-2........ BWR.................... 1,320 2011
Japan............................... Shimane 3.............. BWR.................... 1,375 2011
Japan............................... Tsuruga 3.............. PWR.................... 1,500 2011
Japan............................... Higashidori 2.......... BWR.................... 1,320 2012
Japan............................... Ohma................... BWR.................... 1,350 2012
Japan............................... Tsuruga 4.............. PWR.................... 1,500 2012
Pakistan............................ Chashma 2.............. PWR.................... 300 2011
South Korea......................... Shin Kori 1............ PWR.................... 950 2008
South Korea......................... Shin Kori 2............ PWR.................... 950 2009
South Korea......................... Shin Wolsong 5......... PWR.................... 950 2009
South Korea......................... Shin Kori 3............ PWR.................... 1,350 2010
South Korea......................... Shin Wolsong 6......... PWR.................... 950 2010
South Korea......................... Shin Kori 4............ PWR.................... 1,350 2011
South Korea......................... Ulchin __.............. PWR.................... 1,350 2015
South Korea......................... Ulchin __.............. PWR.................... 1,350 2015
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total......................... ....................... ....................... 28,987
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ BWR-Boiling Water Reactor; PWR-Pressurized Water Reactor; PHWR-Pressurized Heavy Water Reactor.
\2\ Not Announced.
Source: Uranium Information Centre/World Nuclear Association.
ADVANCED FUEL CYCLE INITIATIVE
Senator Domenici. You know, Mr. Magwood, some of us in this
Congress are very happy that the President and the Secretary
have finally come around. They're talking about trying to stop
proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction in the broadest
sense, stop the proliferation of the great scientists, you know
about that. We're trying to stop the flow of plutonium, got a
big program going, highly enriched uranium, we've bought a
bunch of it from them, a lot of things, cost a lot of money,
but we've started.
Now, I am very concerned. With that going and the threat of
nuclear proliferation, what's the basis for reducing funding
for this account, Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative, from $66
million to $46 million? Would you update the committee as to
what you hope to achieve this year, when you expect to have a
project ready for deployment?
Mr. Magwood. Yes, Mr. Chairman. First, I should say that
the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative really has shown tremendous
progress over the last several years and continues to show
progress. For example, we have successfully demonstrated on a
laboratory scale the separation of pure uranium from spent
fuel, to the point of 99.999 percent purity.
We've also demonstrated on a laboratory scale the
separation of a mixed neptunium/plutonium fuel that we believe
could form the basis of a new proliferation-resistant
recyclable fuel for the future, and this work is going to
continue in increasing scale in fiscal 2005.
So our primary missions for this program will continue. We
will continue to make progress. The reduction that you spoke of
is primarily because we are deferring the project of a large
commercial-scale facility for UREX+ until we've gained greater
confidence that this technology is really viable commercially.
That said, there are--we are going to continue to fund our
primary missions for the program. That will continue.
Senator Domenici. Senator Craig.
Senator Craig. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. Let me
use my time both to ask questions and make in positioning those
questions somewhat of an opening statement, and I'll address my
questions at you, Bill, and I do thank all the rest of you for
being here.
ADVANCEMENT OF NUCLEAR ENERGY TECHNOLOGY
Bill, your prepared statement starts off by talking about
the times not so many years ago when this country was very
close to abandoning advanced nuclear reactor research and
development. I remember those years very well. As a matter of
fact, the chairman and I wrote a letter to the then-Secretary
of Energy, Federico Pena, and we told him this in our letter,
and I'm going to quote from that letter, that was 1997.
The Chairman and I said, the coming fiscal year will mark a
notable event in the history of your agency and its
predecessors. For the first time since the establishment of the
Atomic Energy Commission more than 40 years ago, the United
States Government has no program to further the development of
nuclear energy for the production of energy. This change, in
the view of many, of the technology's critics is long overdue.
However, in the view of many members of the Senate and in the
view of the Nation's energy experts, the lack of a strong and
reliant nuclear energy research and development program
represents a major gap in the Department of Energy's research
and development agenda.
The year is now 2004. We've traveled a long way on nuclear
energy since I signed that letter along with the chairman. I
appreciate your efforts in the progress we've made and I mean
that most sincerely, but I must suggest to you that the state
of our nuclear energy program is nearly as fragile and
vulnerable today as it was when we sent that letter in 1997,
and I will further suggest that the nuclear energy budget
proposal for fiscal year 1995 is as--is a--2005--is a discredit
to the progress that we've made. I believe the chairman has
made similar strong statements.
INEEL SOLICITATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
That's the basis of my following questions, the question
that the chairman just asked was my first question, and I
appreciate him asking it. So, having heard that answer, Bill,
let me ask you this question. Since you will be issuing a
solicitation, why have you not engaged the experts at the Idaho
labs, the INEEL and Argonne, that are supposedly DOE's command
center of nuclear R&D? To my knowledge, you have not engaged
anyone in the lab in this initiative yet. Is that true?
Mr. Magwood. In the actual solicitation?
Senator Craig. In the process.
Mr. Magwood. In the process, not yet, and that's because we
are still working within my office to put a plan on the table
where we can sit down with those lab scientists and discuss the
ins and outs and the particulars of it. It's been my experience
that before sitting down with the scientists who are trying to
deal with very technical issues, it's been my job to set the
framework as to how to accomplish a particular mission, and
that's proven successful in the past and that's what we're
implementing this time.
Senator Craig. Well, I thank you for that, because the
Office of Nuclear Energy is currently responsible, I think is
the lead program office for the INEEL. Because you have this
lead, most of the costs for supporting the INEEL's
infrastructure being transferred over to the nuclear energy
budget, my conclusion is that the nuclear energy budget is not
growing sufficiently to support the infrastructure that your
program is becoming responsible for at Idaho.
I think this leads to a very dangerous situation. You can
either not support the infrastructure adequately, a program
that some would say already exists, or you can raid your small
research budget to support the infrastructure. Over time, the
nuclear energy program might reach a point where it is doing
very little research but is merely supporting an aging
infrastructure. Either way, it is a bad situation for nuclear
energy, for Idaho, and for the country from my perspective.
We even had a recent example, I think, with the Advanced
Test Reactor, the only operating test reactor in Idaho and one
of the few in the DOE complex. What happened? It was shut down
because the safety documentation was not up to date. Lack of
resources, lack of initiative, down goes the reactor. Question:
Do you believe the budget you are requesting is sufficient to
fully support the Idaho infrastructure as well as research you
are charged with doing?
Mr. Magwood. Senator, I would say that clearly--you use the
word fragile--and I clearly agree with that. I think that the
program is at a fragile state at this point in history, but
nevertheless, still poised for some considerable growth. In the
case of the infrastructure and research program that we've laid
out for fiscal 2005, I do believe that it's sufficient to meet
the primary missions that we've set out for ourselves.
We have a long way to go to build this laboratory. It's
going to be a long, hard process that we think will take 10
years to really accomplish. So while this fiscal year 2005
budget request is a first step, a fragile first step, it is
only the first step, and I think that what we do in fiscal
years 2006 and beyond will probably be more important to the
future of the laboratory than what we've done in 2005.
Senator Craig. Well, I guess my greatest concern, one last
comment----
Senator Domenici. Sure.
Senator Craig [continuing]. Mr. Chairman, it is that
tearing down and then building back can be a very expensive
process, one that I doubt this country could afford to do or
would be willing to do. Sustaining and building on a sustained
base is something that we can afford to do and should.
Now finally, I have many concerns, I think, with DOE's
request for the proposals for the Idaho lab. This is not, I
think, the forum to explore all of those concerns, but let me
say this. The Idaho congressional delegation will be sitting
down with the Secretary. We are very concerned about DOE's
draft RFP. It does not reflect, we believe, the principles
necessary to build a sustainable new mission. We--and I say
this, Mr. Chairman--I know that Los Alamos is facing a
recompetition in its operating contract in the near term.
Senator Domenici. Yes.
Senator Craig. I think that we have at stake some very
important issues to address with DOE as we craft RFP's for the
sustainability and growth of these laboratories. So I say that
as now not just an observer, but one who's fully engaged in an
RFP that--the devil is in the details, and we're very much
focused on the details.
I thank you very much, Bill, to all of you thank you much.
Mr. Chairman, thank you.
ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAM DIRECTION
Senator Domenici. Mr. Garman, did we fail to ask you
something that is important in your opinion that you want put
on the record?
Mr. Garman. I would like to mention one thing, Mr.
Chairman.
Senator Domenici. Please do.
Mr. Garman. And I appreciate the opportunity. You said
something a little earlier about gaining control of the program
and understanding and being able to be accountable for the
things we spend----
Senator Domenici. Yes.
Mr. Garman [continuing]. And to assure the taxpayers are
receiving value for their dollars. I think the committee will
note that we have sought an increase in funding for program
direction, which is not a very popular thing to do and a very
difficult thing to talk OMB, much less the Congress, into
doing.
But we've done that and we were successful in making our
case to OMB and we think it's important, because quite frankly,
we heard what you said in your direction to us in prior
conference reports that we must have an increased vigilance in
project management and that we take project management very,
very seriously. And candidly, in the past we ceded some of our
responsibilities to contractors and others that we need to re-
federalize to ensure that we're doing a good job. More money
will actually get to the lab at the bench doing R&D, which is
the important thing, and so I do leave you with that plea and
thank you for that opportunity.
Senator Domenici. Well, thank you. Thank you to all three
of you and for the record, I'd like to close with two things.
First, it's my understanding that Senator Stevens from Alaska
has questions he's going to ask of you. They're going to be
submitted. Please answer them as quickly as you can. I ask that
any other questions submitted to you by me or any other members
of the committee receive your response within 2 weeks, and
again, I said if you can't do it, tell us so we don't sit over
here getting mad at you for not doing your work. The record
will be left open for 2 weeks for members to submit questions,
so watch for them also.
YUCCA MOUNTAIN
Senator Craig, I would just like to talk with you a moment
about the status of nuclear power in the world and what a
terrible mistake the United States has made, is making. You
know, there is nobody, no country trying to build a Yucca
facility, just America. France has 87 percent of its facility
from nuclear. Countries have lots of nuclear power. So I ask
for the record for conversation, that we be able to talk about
what's even happening today, how many new reactors are being
built.
Senator Craig. Good point.
Senator Domenici. Lots of them. I don't mean 50, but I can
check off six or eight that I know about. What are we doing?
Nothing. Every year we have a fight over how much is enough for
Yucca and we all with bated breath wonder, is the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC) going to really license them,
aren't they?
And if you go to Europe or France and you'd say, I'd like
to see your spent fuel rods. Oh, fine, we'll take you. They put
you in a bus and blindfold you--no they don't, but they could--
and say, we're here and let you out. You walk into this
beautiful building, looks like a great schoolhouse, modern
schoolhouse, and once you're in the doors, they say, now you
can look all around. And you look around and you say, this is
where all the nuclear waste is, and you say, well, what are you
talking about. Well, now you can just look down and you look
down and it's all in the floor in casks, glass casks. Spent
fuel rods are in there and the whole thing is filled with glass
of some kind and you walk all over the place and there's no
radioactivity escaping, it never will, and they may take it out
of there in 100 years. They plan to get it out in 50 but
they're wondering how crazy, why do we want to do that and just
disturb everybody. It's very safe.
Here we sit with the tail end of this tiger haunting us,
the greatest engineers in the world. This morning we read we're
following old Rover around up there on the red planet, right?
Trying to find out how much water was up there, how many
thousands of years ago, and America can't find a way to dispose
of in a safe manner high-level waste so you can build some
nuclear reactors.
To me, one of the most astounding failures on the part of
talent and leadership that the world has ever seen, and we're
all worried about energy. Now we're going to run out of the
next one, which is natural gas. We've already run out of crude
oil, now pretty soon natural gas, and then pretty soon after
that, who knows? But we've got 15 big power plants in a row
waiting there, where's my natural gas, right, 15, I think, or
13, up almost 1,000 kilowatts each. Not a single one plans to
use coal, geothermal, nothing, all natural gas.
Well, to me, we have a little bit of a role up here when
we're in the Senate for a while, we're only here a few years.
But I tell you, I'm going to continue to make the point and try
to make the proposition wherever I can that the United States
must get on with this, and frankly I wouldn't be at all adverse
right now, as late as it is, to pick a site for interim storage
and do it. You know, Senator, we've come that close.
Senator Craig. Oh, yes.
Senator Domenici. If we didn't have the President we had at
that point, we would already be building interim storage some
place and it wouldn't have been the least bit dangerous to
anybody except those who want to run around and claim that the
world's dying because there's radioactivity coming out of spent
fuel. So obviously you can't help but get my lecture.
Senator Craig. Well, Mr. Chairman, for those of us who
worry about a variety of issues when it comes to energy, I so
totally agree with you that we've not only made some missteps
and some poor judgement over time because of the political
pressures involved, but we've been unwilling to lead.
The reason I was late coming here, as I was sitting down
with the new Minister for Energy from Canada. Canada loves us
at the moment and they'll continue to love us more because
we're not developing energy and they are and they're anxious to
send it south. And I'm glad they're our northern neighbors,
because if we cannot rely on ourselves, thank goodness we've
got them to rely on.
But the consequence of doing that is that the $35 billion
that flows north today will be $40, then $50, then $60, then
$80, then $100 billion a year and more, and that's not good
business that some of that can't stay here. That'll be our
companies north of the border working with Canadians and
Canadian companies.
CLIMATE CHANGE
But lastly, I found it fascinating, I was in Milan this
winter for the climate change conference. The world has
significantly changed since I was in Belgium a few years ago
where I was almost--put it this way--a riot almost occurred, we
almost were succumbed by eggs and pies in the face and all of
that. Today the world recognizes a folly so defined. The
Minister of Energy for Italy, now that Italy has ratified the
Kyoto Protocol, suggests that they can't meet it. In fact,
their gases today, emissions, are a factor of 5, 4 or 5 percent
higher than they were at the time. You cannot grow today in the
world using hydrocarbons without greater emissions and nobody
wants to die, economically speaking.
I met with the Minister of Environment for Japan. Japan was
at 6 percent above 1999 gas emissions at the time they signed
it. They are now 13 percent and she opined as to how they could
not meet, and they've even become an aggressive nuclear reactor
developer.
So it is significant out there that politics sometimes
mislead us dramatically, but the reality is that those
emissions levels cannot be met, because we're driving the world
toward greater use of hydrocarbon, and unless we advance the
technologies of their utilization, we don't meet anywhere near
those standards unless we just turn our economy off.
Lastly, we met the 1999 standards about 6 months ago, 8
months ago in this country, and the reason we did was because
we were in a recession and we reduced our employment by 2.5,
almost 3 million jobs, and we met the standard or were right at
it. That's the bad news, so you see they can be met, and for
those of us who went to the floor and spoke of those realities,
guess what? We were right. I don't like to be right on those
kinds of issues, but we were.
Now, the good news is that we come back--as we come back
online, and we are, our unit of utilization of hydrocarbons is
less per unit of production. Our emissions are less per unit of
production coming back online because the technologies we are
applying are newer. We're not using less hydrocarbon, we're
using it differently, and those of us who have advocated
technology and the application of technology over the years
again are right as it relates to economic growth development
and jobs.
And the combination of the two, and that's what the
chairman has always driven toward, the development of
hydrocarbons and the combination of nuclear energy, is the
right combination. So we're not going to give up on this fight.
I hope the chairman is right that the Minority Leader will
support us in the policy you've developed. Our new hurdle will
be the House again and we'll work closely over there to see if
we can't get something accomplished this year, but thank you
for your leadership, Mr. Chairman. It's greatly appreciated.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
Senator Domenici. Thank you very much, Senator. I just want
to say, what one should do as you listened to all statements
just made by the good Senator from Idaho, we probably ought to
conclude our remarks by saying we speak of nuclear because it
has not contributed any of the pollutants we're worried about,
zero. So it's not like we were for it because we did it once
and it's our baby. It's because the pollutants that we're
worried about and the pollutants that are going to ruin China
come from coal, come from those kinds of products which they're
going to all have to produce because everybody's scared of
nuclear. Nuclear produces none excepting fear and trauma from
those who are scared and question what we do with the waste.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Pete V. Domenici
twenty year facility plan
Question. Given the strong support demonstrated by the Secretary
for your 20 year facility plan can you help me understand how this
budget supports these new priorities?
Answer. The 20-year facility plan is not a budget document and
reflects a most aggressive and optimistic view of future funding for
the Office of Science. Affordability of these facilities will depend
upon many factors in the future, and the list of facilities may change
as science priorities evolve and mature. In the fiscal year 2005
request, funding is provided for the top 5 facility priorities in the
plan as follows: ITER $7,000,000; Ultrascale Scientific Computing
capability $38,212,000; Joint Dark Energy mission $7,580,000; Linac
Coherent Light Source $54,075,000; and Protein Production and Tags
$5,000,000. We consider the above facilities to be near-term priorities
for the next decade.
international thermonuclear experimental reactor (iter)
Question. Can you explain why the Department purposefully ignored
congressional direction in this regard?
Answer. We believe the Department has not ignored Congressional
direction because the fiscal year 2005 budget request does not reduce
the overall level of domestic fusion research to any significant extent
as a result of ITER preparations. Where appropriate, domestic fusion
experimental, theoretical and enabling technology research is
reoriented more toward the needs of ITER. This research is performed by
existing fusion scientists and engineers. Only a very small amount, on
the order of $1 million of the ITER preparations request of $38
million, is for industrial preparations at this time. This
reorientation of fusion research has resulted in some shifts in
priorities, such as reducing facility operating time and focusing
technology more on the near-term, but overall the domestic fusion
research is not reduced to any significant extent.
Question. Can you please update the subcommittee on the ongoing
negotiations to pick a location for the project?
Answer. The ongoing negotiations are centered on the two host
candidates, Japan and EU. These two governments are communicating with
each other and trying to find a solution. On the periphery, all of the
negotiating parties are still discussing various technical aspects of
the two candidate sites; however, this is not likely to be decisive as
both sites are considered to be fully acceptable.
Question. What does the funding curve look like for this large
international project?
Answer. Assuming the site negotiations are successful and the ITER
International Agreement is completed, fiscal year 2006 would be the
earliest time to start the ITER construction project. According to a
preliminary cost and schedule estimate--which has yet to be validated
according to the project management guidelines for capital assets set
out in DOE Order 413.3 and OMB Circular A-11--the profile of the U.S.
funding share would begin in fiscal year 2006, peak around fiscal year
2010 at about $190 million, and end in fiscal year 2013.
Question. How much funding is the United States expected to provide
on an annual basis going forward and how does that compare with our
international partners on this project?
Answer. The U.S. contributions to the project, mainly in the form
of hardware, but also including some personnel to work on the project
and some cash for common expenses, would be about 10 percent of that
required for the total project. That is essentially the same as all of
the non-host partners.
who controls the hydrogen initiative?
Question. Who is ultimately responsible for the overall hydrogen
initiative, and what controls will be implemented to ensure the
taxpayers are getting best deal for the research dollars?
Answer. Within the Department of Energy, the Offices of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EE), Fossil Energy (FE), Nuclear
Energy, Science and Technology (NE), and Science (SC) participate in
the hydrogen initiative. As stated in the DOE Hydrogen Posture Plan,
the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy leads the effort
and is responsible and accountable for DOE's success or failure in
carrying out the Plan.
The Hydrogen Posture Plan includes performance-based milestones
that will be used to track progress of the hydrogen initiative. Based
on a recommendation by the National Academies, the Hydrogen, Fuel
Cells, and Infrastructure Technologies Program is establishing an
independent systems-analysis activity to help prioritize research,
evaluate program risks, and ensure that results meet requirements. The
Program will undergo periodic peer reviews of its plans and research
such as the one just recently performed by the National Academies.
The approach of the Department's four offices working together has
been to:
--Update internal planning documents annually to support the
administration's request for the President's Hydrogen
Initiative;
--Ensure EE, FE, NE and SC budget submissions to OMB support the DOE
Posture Plan and that there are no gaps or redundancies in
requested budgets;
--Plan solicitations and evaluate proposals; and
--Evaluate funded research.
No conflicts have arisen between the four DOE offices participating
in the hydrogen initiative thus far. Should conflicts arise in the
future, the Under Secretary for Energy, Science and the Environment
will ensure program and budget integration, as all of the Assistant
Secretaries and Directors of the four offices involved in the effort at
DOE report to the Under Secretary.
The Department also works closely with the Department of
Transportation, which currently has a small role, but whose
participation will grow more important as hydrogen technologies advance
toward commercialization.
r&d vs. funding for demonstration projects
Question. How is DOE deciding on and managing the balance between
funding for the necessary research for the required breakthroughs and
funding for demonstration projects using current technology platforms?
Answer. A continuum of research and development, from basic science
to demonstration, will be needed to develop a long-term hydrogen
economy.
Basic science will be performed in areas that are only conceptual
but have the potential for making major impacts. An example would be
photoelectrochemical production of hydrogen (direct solar conversion
without the intermediate step of electrolysis). Although conversion
efficiencies are orders of magnitude too low, the potential benefit is
great because of the large renewable resource available. This research
may take decades to come to fruition.
Exploratory and applied research will be done in areas where there
is proven performance but a large gap still exists between current
technology and what is needed to meet consumer requirements. An example
is hydrogen storage, where approaches such as metal hydrides are
proven, but we still need improvement factors of two to three times
current values to meet our requirements. As performance improvements
are made, cost targets become more important.
Demonstrations are appropriate when technology has matured to the
point that system integration issues must be addressed and performance
under real-world operating conditions must be evaluated. Further
research or significant progress may still be needed to reduce cost,
but system performance must be validated. Demonstrations may uncover
operating issues not previously considered, such as performance in
certain climates, and will guide and refocus future R&D efforts.
The National Academies' hydrogen report recommended that the
Department shift away from some development areas towards more
exploratory work. Exploratory research involves the application of
novel ideas and new approaches to ``established'' research topics, and
is likely to catalyze more rapid advances than basic research and more
innovative advances than applied research. The Department is doing this
through the Hydrogen Storage Grand Challenge, which includes the
establishment of three ``Centers of Excellence'' led by national
laboratories along with multiple university and industry partners. This
could be a model for ``expert'' centers focusing on other priority
research areas.
centers for excellence in hydrogen
Question. How do you plan to fund your soon-to-be announced centers
for excellence in hydrogen storage, and future R&D efforts?
Answer. Funding for the Hydrogen Storage Grand Challenge
solicitation was requested in the fiscal year 2004 budget. However, due
to the number of and funding associated with Congressionally-directed
projects in the fiscal year 2004 hydrogen account, no funds are
available to start the Centers of Excellence and other projects
selected under the Grand Challenge this year. These efforts will be
initiated in fiscal year 2005 with fiscal year 2005 funds, subject to
the availability of funds.
storage centers
Question. Will you start any activity this year for these storage
centers to begin the important groundwork?
Answer. No. Due to the number of and funding associated with
Congressionally-directed projects in the fiscal year 2004 hydrogen
account, no funds are available to start research in the Centers of
Excellence and other projects selected under the Grand Challenge this
year.
omb funding request
Question. Your [EE] budget has an unusually large funding increase
for Program Funding within the Renewable section. Funding increased by
67 percent from $12.3 million in fiscal year 2004 to $20.7 million. How
did you get this funding request by OMB and how do you intend to use
the funding?
Answer. Of the proposed $8.4 million increase, $3 million is for a
new activity, the Climate Change Technology Program (CCTP). These funds
will generally be used for support services in developing a CCTP
strategic plan and conducting analyses.
Excluding this new activity, the increase we request is $5.4
million, or 44 percent. Much of this proposed increase is in direct
response to the committee's exhortations that EERE emphasize better
stewardship through stronger project management and increased
competition in contracting.
We plan to spend $3.6 million to hire additional Federal staff in
order to move away from the practice of using the laboratories to
oversee their own contracts, cooperative agreements, and grants. We
believe these inherently Federal activities should be performed by
Federal employees. Our fiscal year 2005 budget request includes an
increase of 22 FTE over the budgeted level of 84 FTE for fiscal year
2004, mostly for project management staff at the Golden Field Office.
It is important to note that hiring Federal staff instead of using
laboratory personnel for these 22 FTEs will allow more of EERE's
funding to be devoted to actual R&D activities. In fact, we calculate
that filling these 22 FTE positions using laboratory personnel would
cost roughly $5.8 million, compared to $3.6 million for Federal staff.
This action will therefore ``save'' an estimated $2.2 million in
program funding, which is captured in the Program Direction budget
line. We do not show the ``savings'' by program in the budget
justification materials because program budgets generally do not
include a line item corresponding to overhead costs for laboratory
staff to manage contracts. These costs are built into each budgetary
line as appropriate. The entire amount of the ``savings'' within each
program is redirected from formerly unstated program overhead costs to
actual program activities that contribute to program goals.
Of the remaining portion of the increase ($1.8 million), $1.2
million will be used to sustain the current on-board staff level of 84
FTE. The remaining $0.6 million will be used mostly for support
services, information technology investments, consolidation of legacy
business practices and systems, and management services for
implementing our strategic management system.
nuclear energy budget
Question. Based on this anemic budget should the committee assume
that the nuclear energy is no longer a priority for this
administration?
Answer. The President's budget request increases the funding for
the Department's nuclear energy program by 1.2 percent to about $410
million for fiscal year 2005. This budget advances the policy direction
for the Nation's energy security established by the National Energy
Policy and allows the Department's priority efforts in programs such as
Generation IV and the Nuclear Hydrogen Initiative to proceed
vigorously. The Department's request more than doubles the fiscal year
2004 request for each of these programs, demonstrating the
administration's commitment to dealing with not just the short-term
issues of the energy market, but longer-term, strategic issues.
In addition, the President's fiscal year 2005 budget also lays the
groundwork for one very important element of the administration's
effort to expand our future use of nuclear energy with the creation of
a new national laboratory, the Idaho National Laboratory. This new
laboratory's central mission is to pursue research, development,
demonstration and education associated with nuclear energy.
Two of the Department's nuclear R&D programs have ended with the
fiscal year 2005 budget.
--We request no funding for the Nuclear Energy Research Initiative
(NERI) for fiscal year 2005, but the activity will continue as
an annual competitive research grants program for university
researchers that is tied to mainline programs such as
Generation IV and Nuclear Hydrogen Initiative. We believe that,
to be relevant, the NERI program must be tied more closely to
the Department's mainline nuclear energy programs. We also
believe that NERI's greatest benefit is in its support for the
Nation's university nuclear technology programs. The
restructuring of NERI addresses both of these important
concerns.
--The Nuclear Energy Plant Optimization program has accomplished the
most important mission it was designed for: addressing many of
the aging material and generation optimization issued which
have been identified as the key long-term issues facing current
operating plants. We are confident that industry will continue
supporting the research objectives highlighted by NEPO because
these objectives are consistent with industry's interest in the
long-term, reliable, and economic operation of existing nuclear
power plants.
We are requesting less for two other programs:
--The Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative requires less funding in fiscal
year 2005 because the Department has decided against the rapid
development of commercial-scale UREX+ technology. Instead, we
are focusing on longer-term, higher-payoff research at
laboratory scale in next-generation fuel cycle technologies
including advanced aqueous and pyroprocessing spent fuel
treatment, advanced transmutation and Generation IV fuels, and
detailed systems analysis and modeling.
--The Department has requested only minimal funding for the Nuclear
Power 2010 program in fiscal year 2005 to enable the
continuation of ongoing licensing demonstration and related
analysis projects. Future requirements for the program will be
reviewed as Congress completes work on comprehensive energy
legislation and the Department assess the responses and
requirements associated with its recent solicitation related to
New Plant Licensing Demonstration Projects.
nuclear energy technologies/nuclear power 2010
Question. Can you please update me on the status of the Nuclear
Power 2010 program and explain to me how this money will be used and
how it will benefit the companies participating in this program?
Answer. The Nuclear Power 2010 program is a joint government/
industry cost-shared effort to identify sites for new nuclear power
plants, develop advanced nuclear plant technologies, evaluate the
business case for building new nuclear power plants, and demonstrate
untested regulatory processes. These efforts are designed to pave the
way for an industry decision by the end of 2005 to order a new nuclear
power plant which will be built and begin commercial operation early in
the next decade.
As an initial step in the demonstration of the untested regulatory
processes, the Department has established cost-shared cooperative
projects with three nuclear power generating companies to demonstrate
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Early Site Permit (ESP)
licensing process. Under these cooperative projects, each of the three
power generation companies (Dominion, Exelon, and Entergy) prepared and
submitted, in the fall of 2003, an ESP application to the NRC. The
program will support the analysis and regulatory interactions required
to allow the NRC to issue Early Site Permits to all three sites during
fiscal year 2006.
In fiscal year 2003, the Department initiated a cost-shared project
with an additional power company, Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), to
evaluate the environmental, seismic and geo-technical suitability of a
commercial nuclear plant site in Alabama. This project is expected to
be completed in October 2004 and will provide important input for a TVA
decision to proceed with ordering and building a new nuclear power
plant.
The remaining critical untested regulatory process is the combined
Construction and Operating License (COL) process. The COL process is a
``one-step licensing'' process which results in resolution of all
health and safety issues associated with construction and operation of
a new nuclear power plant. The importance of this new ``one-step
licensing'' process is that all regulatory and licensing issues are
resolved before a power company makes a major investment and begins
construction of the plant. In fiscal year 2003, the Department
initiated a cost-shared project with industry to develop generic
guidance for the COL application preparation and to resolve generic COL
regulatory process issues. This project will be completed in fiscal
year 2005.
In November 2003, the Department solicited power company proposals
to initiate New Nuclear Plant Licensing Demonstration Projects. Under
these cost-shared projects, power companies will conduct the necessary
activities to select an advanced reactor technology and prepare a
license application to build and operate a new nuclear power plant.
These projects will also provide for NRC design certification of a
standardized nuclear power plant design. The Department expects to
receive two or three and proposals from industry teams.
This work and a variety of smaller studies in cooperation with a
range of industry partners will advance the public/private effort aimed
at the deployment of new nuclear power plants around the beginning of
the next decade.
Question. Do you have an estimate as to how much time the DOE
proposed contribution of $10 million will save companies in this
licensing process?
Answer. The Nuclear Power 2010 cooperative licensing demonstration
projects with the power generation companies has made it possible for
the companies to seek Early Site Permits (ESPs) and begin planning for
a combined Construction and Operating License (COL). Successful
demonstration of the licensing processes will encourage future
decisions to build new nuclear plants by elimination of industry
concerns over regulatory risk and reduction in the overall license
process duration. It is estimated an overall reduction of at least 1
year in the ESP licensing application and approval process can be
realized from the current projection of 4\1/4\ years. Similar time
savings is expected to be realized in the COL licensing process. The
savings for COL applicants are in addition to more than 2 years in
savings projected to be realized as a result of having certified
standardized Generation III+ designs available.
Perhaps more important than the funding provided to support this
work is the Department's partnership with the industry in exploring the
development of new nuclear power plant projects. Without such
aggressive government support, which flows from the National Energy
Policy and public encouragement provided by senior administration
officials, it is possible that industry would be more hesitant to
pursue these activities.
Question. Do you have an estimate as to what you believe the
companies will expend over the next year?
Answer. As part of the Nuclear Power 2010 program cost-shared
projects, power companies are expected to invest an amount at least
equal to DOE spending. For ongoing activities in fiscal year 2005,
industry is expected to spend at least $4.5 million on the Early Site
Permit Demonstration projects and an additional $1.8 million for
generic activities and guidance development for COL applications.
The Department expects to have a firm estimate of industry planned
expenditures for fiscal year 2005 and the overall requirement for the
licensing and development of Generation III+ designs after assessing
the industry responses to its recent solicitation for New Nuclear Plant
Licensing Demonstration projects. This solicitation was issued in
November 2003 and we expect to receive responses from industry in
spring 2004. The most recent industry estimates provided to the
Department project an industry cost-share of approximately $60 million
to $80 million per year through 2010 to obtain a combined Construction
and Operating License and complete associated first of a kind
engineering activities.
idaho national laboratory
Question. Following the establishment of the Idaho National
Laboratory, what role do you see for the other laboratories that
currently contribute to the nuclear energy program?
Answer. We anticipate that several of the Department's national
laboratories will continue to play key roles in implementing the Office
of Nuclear Energy Science and Technology's research and development
agenda. While the Idaho National Laboratory will develop a prominent
and central role in the nuclear energy technology program, the
expertise and capabilities of several other labs--chiefly Oak Ridge
National Laboratory and Los Alamos National Laboratory--will be
essential in the success of our research efforts.
Question. Do you have a transition plan and budget estimate
prepared that will guarantee the success of the nuclear research into
the future and continue to draw on the experience of the other national
laboratories?
Answer. The execution of our nuclear energy R&D programs is guided
by multi-year program plans that have been jointly developed by our
Federal and national laboratory personnel. These program plans identify
R&D activities will evaluate undertaking over the next 10 years and
include estimates of the out-year budgets necessary to carry out those
efforts. The continued participation of the national laboratories in
executing the multi-year program plans is essential to the overall
success of the programs. As an example, the attached chart displays the
organization of the Department's Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems
and Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative programs--note that this
organization highlights important roles for several national
laboratories. We expect that this approach will endure as these
programs progress.
The attached chart illustrates the program integration for the
Generation IV and Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiatives.
Question. Can you explain what would happen if full funding of $48
million isn't provided for costs associated with the restructuring of
the Idaho National Lab restructuring plan?
Answer. The $43.8 million identified in the President's budget
request for Laboratory Transition and Restructuring will assure that
all current INEEL personnel remain employed through the contract
transition period, thus enabling the new contractors to hire the staff
that best fit their very different requirements. Without this funding,
we would not be in a position to facilitate an effective transition of
the laboratory staff.
Question. Would funding shortfalls delay the Idaho upgrades or will
this put the entire nuclear energy R&D effort at risk with further
delays?
Answer. Shortfalls in the restructuring request could require the
Department to explore taking funds taken from the infrastructure or
other programs at the site including the nuclear energy R&D efforts.
Alternatively personnel could be terminated before the new contractors
have an adequate opportunity to review their qualifications.
Question. The Budget Request includes $46 million for ``one-time
costs associated with restructuring the Idaho lab.'' Since EM was the
previous landlord for this Lab, why aren't these one-time costs being
paid by EM, instead of NE?
Answer. Most of the workers who may not find immediate employment
with either new contractor will be support personnel who perform
landlord type functions that benefit the entire site. As NE is now the
site landlord, it falls to NE to fund this work since that office
controls the affected functions.
Question. The Idaho Lab will have a difficult challenge
establishing its research programs. In the past, the Idaho Lab could
tax EM programs for LDRD to fund internal research. Now those EM funds
are being swept into another contract. I am hearing that future EM
funds can not be taxed to support the new INL. Is this correct and can
you explain that logic?
Answer. The Idaho Cleanup Contract is designed to only fund those
activities that directly support accelerated cleanup. As the cleanup
work is not expected to continue indefinitely, it is not appropriate
for the lab to rely on the cleanup contractor to fund ongoing research
activities.
Question. Aren't you worried that the new INL will have too small a
base of funding to derive any meaningful LDRD funding?
Answer. We believe that there will be adequate the funding
available for LDRD projects in the future as the INL becomes a world
class research center for nuclear technology development.
university programs
Question. How can progress in university programs be maintained
when the overall pot of R&D funds, for universities and labs is
slashed?
Answer. Over the past several years, the Department has had a
substantial positive impact on the Nation's university nuclear
engineering programs as evidenced by increasing student enrollments,
re-establishing stronger academic programs, improving the performance
and use of their research and training reactors, and attracting
minorities to the nuclear engineering discipline. The University
Programs budget for fiscal year 2005 is essentially equal to our fiscal
year 2004 appropriation when it is considered without the one-time
funding of $2.5 million for spent fuel transportation. In fiscal year
2005 the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management will assume
responsibility for university reactor spent fuel transportation and,
therefore, the University Programs budget reflects the transfer of this
activity. Funding for faculty and student research at our Nation's
nuclear universities remains constant for fiscal year 2005.
In fiscal year 2005, the Department will integrate researchers from
the Nation's universities into the Department's mainline nuclear energy
R&D activities. The Department will use competitive, peer-reviewed
solicitations focused on the university community to select the best
ideas for meeting the technology challenges of our various research
efforts. Funding for this university-based research will be derived
from the Department's primary nuclear energy R&D programs, including
the Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems Initiative, the Advanced Fuel
Cycle Initiative, and the Nuclear Hydrogen Initiative. Overall, the
proposed funding for university R&D is $1.8 million higher in fiscal
year 2005 than fiscal year 2004.
Question. I was pleased that additional regional consortia, now six
in total, were created to enable students to have access to important
research reactors. But how does addition of new consortia match with
proposed 10 percent cut in the university program budgets?
Answer. The six consortia, under the Innovations in Nuclear
Infrastructure and Education (INIE) program, are an unqualified
success. Funding for this important and highly successful program is
essentially equal to the level of fiscal year 2004, which supported the
increase from four to six consortia.
louisiana energy services--enrichment
Question. In written response to questions in last year's review of
the fiscal year 2004 budget, you stated:
``The Administration places a high priority on ensuring nuclear
nonproliferation safeguards are in place and that access to sensitive
technology is controlled. The information available to the Department
indicates that URENCO has acted responsibly with regard to the control
of sensitive technology and the employment of non-proliferation
safeguards.
``The Department believes that LES's plans for the deployment of
centrifuge technology in the United States are of considerable national
benefit. Deployment of an LES plant will help assure the important
energy security objective of maintaining a reliable and economical U.S.
uranium enrichment industry.
``The Department believes there is sufficient domestic demand to
support multiple commercial uranium enrichment plant operators in the
United States and that competition is important to maintain a viable,
competitive domestic uranium enrichment industry for the foreseeable
future.''
Does this response from the Department still stand?
Answer. Yes, we understand that URENCO continues to follow
nonproliferation safeguards and controls on access to sensitive
technology in accordance to agreements with the U.S. Government
regarding to LES' deployment of centrifuge technology.
The Department also continues to believe there is sufficient
domestic demand to support multiple commercial uranium enrichment plant
operators in the United States and that competition is important to
maintain a viable, competitive domestic uranium enrichment industry for
the foreseeable future. Currently, domestic uranium enrichment capacity
is less than half of U.S. nuclear fuel requirements. Over the next two
decades, U.S. demand for electricity is forecasted to grow by 50
percent. Without the deployment of reliable and economical advanced
technology and assuming nuclear power maintains its current share of
demand, the share of U.S. nuclear fuel requirements met by foreign
suppliers could rise to 80 percent in 20 years.
radiopharmaceuticals
Question. Is the Department's policy of requiring that researchers,
who require new radiopharmaceuticals, pay the full production costs
coordinated with the National Institutes of Health such that vital
research in improved applications of radiopharmaceuticals is continuing
at a rapid pace?
Answer. The Department's program requires that researchers pay for
isotope development and direct production costs. Isotope production
costs are accrued on a batch basis. The Department must obtain funding
for the direct production cost for each batch before production can
commence. Research customers have not been able to purchase the
required isotopes in the manner currently required by the Department.
Recognizing this and the impact this approach could have on medical
research, the Department has engaged with the NIH. We are working with
that agency to develop an approach to address this issue and to ensure
that vital isotope-based medical research is not impeded.
Question. Are the two agencies, DOE and NIH in agreement that this
is the appropriate place for these costs to be borne?
Answer. There have been positive discussions at the staff level.
The Department continues to seek an agreement with the NIH that will
lead to a resolution of this issue.
barter arrangements
Question. As part of DOE's fiscal year 2005 budget request for its
Nuclear Energy Program, DOE is proposing to employ a ``barter
arrangement'' to support the continuation of the technetium-99
activities currently being undertaken by USEC at the Portsmouth Site.
Please describe the nature of the ``barter arrangement'' that DOE is
contemplating?
Answer. At the end of fiscal year 2004, substantial quantities of
both USEC and the Department's uranium inventories will remain
contaminated with technetium-99 above the commercial standard for use
as feed in a uranium enrichment process. Currently, processing the
uranium at Portsmouth is the only economical means to remove enough
technetium-99 contamination to allow it to be used as feed to the
Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant. Because the cost to continue the
technetium-99 removal activities is between one-third and one-half the
replacement or market value, both USEC and the Department may benefit
from the continuation of this program. A barter arrangement would help
achieve realization of the full economic value of the uranium.
Question. Has DOE completed its evaluation of the need for
additional legal authority to carry out the proposed ``barter
arrangement?'' If so, please provide a copy of the evaluation. If not,
when will this evaluation be completed? When it is completed, please
provide a copy.
Answer. The Department has performed an informal evaluation and
concluded that an additional authorization is not needed. Under section
3(d) of the Atomic Energy Act (AEA), the Department is to effectuate
programs that encourage the ``widespread participation in development
and utilization of atomic energy for peaceful purposes.'' All of the
material, with the exception of Freon, that is currently being
contemplated for barter is ``source material'' as defined by section
11(z) of the Atomic Energy Act (AEA). Under section 63 of the AEA the
Department is authorized to distribute source material, and under
section 66 of the AEA the Department is ``authorized and directed . . .
to effectuate the provisions of this Act'' to purchase or otherwise
acquire supplies of source material. In addition, under section 161(g)
of the AEA the Department is authorized to acquire, sell, lease, grant
and dispose of real and personal property that the Department has
acquired in connection with carrying out functions under the AEA or
property that will be used to carry out objectives under the AEA.
Pursuant to these existing authorities, the Department is authorized to
enter into any of the barter arrangements that are currently being
contemplated.
Question. What products or services is DOE contemplating using as
``barter'' under the proposed arrangement? Is DOE considering the
option of transferring uranium from DOE's stockpile to USEC as part of
a ``barter arrangement?''
Answer. The products or services being considered for a possible
barter arrangement are excess assets related to the Department's former
uranium enrichment program, or services that are incidental to
activities necessary to the final disposition of that programs legacy.
The selection of materials is subject to negotiation and agreement by
the other party.
Question. Section 3112 of the 1996 USEC Privatization Act includes
a provision that explicitly requires DOE to undertake an evaluation of
the impact of any sales or transfers of natural or low-enriched uranium
on, among other things, the domestic uranium mining, conversion, and
enrichment industry. In the event that any ``barter arrangement'' were
established employing uranium from DOE's stockpile, would DOE agree
that the provision in section 3112(d) would apply to any such transfer?
Does DOE consider a ``sale or transfer'' to include a ``barter''? If
so, please provide the analysis to support this conclusion.
Answer. The Department is not currently considering proposing to
barter material that is subject to subsection 3112(d). However, if the
Department were to use material subject to 3112(d), it would comply
with the provisions of 3112(d). ``Sale or Transfer'' is a broad term
which encompasses arrangements in addition to normal commercial sales
such as barter transfer.
The Secretary is sensitive to his responsibility for the domestic
uranium industry as detailed in the USEC Privatization Act and
subsection 1014 of the Energy Policy Act of 1992, and has carefully
considered the proposed activities. In addition to restoring the
economic value to contaminated uranium inventory, any barter proposal
would sustain 154 workers employed during fiscal year 2005 in the
domestic uranium industry.
Question. Section 3112(d) also requires the recipient of any such
uranium sales or transfers to pay the ``fair market value of the
material.'' In a barter arrangement, how would DOE address this ``fair
market value'' requirement?
Answer. The Department is not contemplating a barter of material
that is subject to subsection 3112(d). However, the barter would be an
arms' length transaction for value that would take into consideration
the ability to monetize the asset in a fashion adequate to meet the
financial needs necessary to provide the services at the Portsmouth
facility.
ceramic ion transport membranes project
Question. For the past 7 years the DOE-Office of Fossil Energy (FE)
and Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) have
supported a development project that uses ceramic Ion Transport
Membranes (ITM) to produce hydrogen from natural gas. Selected through
a competitive solicitation in 1997, the ITM Syngas project has been co-
funded since that time by DOE-FE (75 percent), and DOE-EERE (25
percent). However the fiscal year 2004 funding for the project was
reduced by EERE from $1.3 million to $200 thousand. The ITM Syngas
project is currently in Phase 2 with the objective of operating a Sub-
scale Engineering Prototype (SEP) that will demonstrate full conversion
of natural gas to synthesis gas. Achieving this objective is critical
to gaining the technical understanding to proceed to the project's next
phase, a pre-commercial demonstration of the ITM Syngas technology.
From the beginning of the project, EERE had committed to supporting the
project through the end of Phase 2, and financial participation through
completion of the SEP demonstration is necessary to maintain the
project on schedule. After demonstrating full product conversion in the
ITM Syngas process, smaller units could be developed that would be
amenable to distributed hydrogen production.
In view of this critical stage of the ITM Syngas project, will DOE-
EERE revise its fiscal year 2005 budget to provide $1.3 million for the
project?
Answer. The ITM Syngas project was one of several hydrogen
production projects for which EERE funding was reduced in fiscal year
2004 due to a shortfall caused by the large number of Congressionally-
directed projects. The Department plans to meet its total obligations
identified in the ITM cooperative agreement, subject to Congressional
appropriations, the extent of fiscal year 2005 Congressionally-directed
projects, and the results of the annual merit review that helps to
guide our prioritization of research projects. EERE will determine its
fiscal year 2005 contribution to the project following the completion
of the fiscal year 2005 appropriation process.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Thad Cochran
biomass r&d and national laboratories
Question. Mr. Garman, you mention in your written testimony that
the Department is interested in working with industry and the National
Laboratories to reach your goals of a large-scale biorefinery and
advanced technologies to transform the Nation's domestic biomass
resources into high value power. I believe that our National Labs
provide a valuable service and conduct important research. What are you
doing to ensure that this research and development is not overly
entangled with the industries which fund such activities?
Answer. Our National Bioenergy Center facilitates the coordination
of biomass research and development across the National Laboratories.
The Center is focused on enabling long-term research needed to convert
a wide variety of domestic biomass resources to fuels, chemicals, and
heat and power in a sustainable manner. Through partnerships with
industry, the Department fosters the nearer term research and
development that leverages the National Laboratories' foundational,
enabling work. The public/private partnerships advance biomass
conversion processes and integrate them into commercial systems and
facilities for testing and performance validation. The National
Laboratories are involved with industry's research and development
through Cooperative Research and Development Agreements (CRADAs). These
CRADAs are carefully constructed to avoid duplicative efforts and to
ensure that our participation is an appropriate Federal role.
biomass r&d and universities
Question. What role do you see our Nation's universities playing in
this ongoing research and development?
Answer. Universities play an important role in the Biomass Program.
One example is the Biomass Refining Consortium for Applied Fundamentals
and Innovation (CAFI). With support from the National Laboratories,
Federal Government, and industry, this group of universities focuses on
various possible pretreatment technologies to identify options that
enable the integrated industrial biorefinery. In addition, universities
are collaborating with the National Laboratories on a variety of
research projects as listed below:
--Colorado School of Mines.--Impact of Water Structure Modifying
Agents and Cellulase Mutations on Cellulase-Cellulose
Interactions,
--University of Arkansas.--X-Ray Crystallographic Studies of
Cellulases,
--Purdue University.--Building A Bridge To The Corn Ethanol Industry
Follow-On Project--Phase II,
--University of Colorado.--Boulder, Mechanistic Model Development for
Biomass Thermochemical Conversion Process,
--Cornell University.--Molecular Modeling of the Interaction of
Cellulose with Cellulases and Catalysts,
--Cornell University.--Improving T. fusca Cellulases by Protein
Engineering,
--Dartmouth University.--The Role of Biomass in America's Energy
Future,
--University of Pittsburgh.--Biorefinery Optimization Software.
Universities are also funded in fiscal year 2004 through the
following congressionally-directed projects: Iowa State University,
Iowa State University Center for Catalysis, Purdue University & the
Midwest Consortium for Sustainable Biobased Products and Bioenergy,
University of Louisville, Louisiana State University Agriculture
Center, Mississippi State, and the University of North Dakota. While we
do not support continuation of Congressionally directed projects, we
expect that many universities would receive funds through a competitive
awards process.
The Biomass Program continues to fund multi-disciplinary programs
at universities to develop graduate programs that focus on biomass. The
approach is to foster collaboration among various departments including
business, science, and engineering. The Biomass Program also sponsors
research internships at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory
involving undergraduate and graduate students majoring in science and
engineering. These internships allow the students to gain hands-on
research experience under the guidance of prominent researchers.
______
Question Submitted by Senator Larry Craig
funding a commercial biomass plant
Question. A biotechnology company is interested in building a
commercial bio-ethanol production facility in the State of Idaho. This
plant would use agricultural wastes--primarily wheat straw--as its
feedstock. Using an enzyme-based process, the plant would convert the
carbohydrates from the wheat straw into hydrocarbons for ethanol. The
construction of this plant would demonstrate the long-term viability of
using agricultural products to provide both energy and chemicals that
have thus far been derived from petroleum. The success of this project
will create new jobs in the agriculture, energy, technology, research,
and construction sectors in Idaho and elsewhere. It will contribute to
accomplishing the President's goal of reducing the greenhouse-gas
intensity of the economy because the CO2 emitted by burning
ethanol is roughly equal to the CO2 absorbed by growing the
wheat--meaning that burning ethanol created from this process would add
no net CO2 to the atmosphere. Completion of this facility
would also demonstrate a realistic way to begin reducing our Nation's
dependence on foreign oil.
This cutting-edge project would be eligible for the loan guarantee
program described in the energy bill conference report. Because that
bill has not been sent to the President by the Congress, and because
this project can serve multiple national interests simultaneously, I
seek your assistance in identifying existing authorities that would
ensure the rapid construction of this facility.
Please identify any existing programs, funds or authorities that
could be used by this company to secure financing and commence
construction on this vitally important project.
Answer. The Department of Energy does not have any program funding
available to support this effort at this time. The Department of
Agriculture (USDA) conducts a loan guarantee program under Section 9006
of the Farm Bill that has funded small grain-based ethanol plants.
However, because the proposed plant is a first-of-a-kind facility with
a high degree of technical and financial risk, this project may not
receive funding under the USDA program. The Department is unaware of
any other Federal programs that would fund this project.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Ted Stevens
alaska examination of geothermal sites
Question. In September 2003, Assistant Secretary David Garman and
Dr. Roy Mink traveled to Alaska to examine geothermal sites, determine
their viability for electricity production, and to assess ways in which
the Department of Energy can assist in developing this energy resource.
What steps has the Geothermal Technologies division and the Office of
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy taken towards this end?
Answer. The Geothermal Technologies Program has reached out to help
Alaska define its geothermal resource and to begin building a base for
development of that resource. A database of potential geothermal
resources has been developed that targets two areas in Alaska for
possible power plant developments (Akutan and Unalaska).
The Program is also providing assistance to private developers, one
working with the Native Corporation to establish a basis for
development of a power plant at Akutan and another developer who has an
interest in working with the Native Corporation for a potential power
plant at Dutch Harbor (Unalaska). We are also working with the Kotzebue
Electric Association to evaluate existing geothermal data and provide a
basis to evaluate potential use of geothermal thermal energy to protect
the town sewer system from freezing.
As a result of the September 2003 trip, the Geothermal Technologies
Program has included additional funding opportunities for Alaska. The
Geothermal Outreach funding opportunity announcement (State Energy
Program) closes on April 6, 2004. The Geothermal Resources Exploration
and Definition funding opportunity announcement will be released on
March 18, 2004, and the Power Plant Development funding opportunity
announcement will be released near the end of March 2004. These
announcements will provide up to $5 million of geothermal funding in
fiscal year 2004.
DOE also provided $100,000 to the Alaska Division of Energy to
support development of a working group to promote geothermal energy
awareness in Alaska.
assistance to alaska companies
Question. Given the extraordinarily high cost of energy in rural
Alaska, many utility companies are exploring the possibility of
harnessing wind energy to supply rural communities with electricity.
What assistance is the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
providing to these companies?
Answer. The Department of Energy supports wind power projects in
Alaska through several local and State organizations. There are ongoing
wind projects with Kotzebue Electric Association, the City of Unalaska,
and TDX Corporation (St. Paul Island) that are aimed at providing lower
cost energy alternatives to rural Alaskan communities. Through the
Department's Tribal Energy Program, renewable energy studies are
underway for Southeast Alaska, the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta region, and
the Bristol Bay region. National Wind Technology Center personnel
provide expert technical support to these projects by supplying
anemometers, evaluating the wind resources, conducting wind workshops,
and sponsoring local representatives to attend technical workshops.
evaluation of renewable energy sources on public lands
Question. In February 2003, the Department of Energy and the
Department of the Interior released a report evaluating renewable
energy resources on public lands. Alaska was excluded from this report.
Will the Department of Energy undertake a similar evaluation of
renewable energy resources on public lands in Alaska?
Answer. The Geothermal Technologies Program is working with the
United States Geological Survey on a limited geothermal resource
assessment for the western United States, including Alaska.
Comprehensive energy legislation pending in the Congress requires
thorough annual assessments of all renewable energy resources,
including solar, wind, biomass, ocean, geothermal, and hydroelectric,
in all 50 States.
tidal energy projects cost in alaska
Question. The use of tidal energy is currently being explored in
Alaska. As you know, the coast of Alaska has exceptional energy
producing potential. Tidal energy projects have high capital costs. Is
the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy exploring
opportunities to harness tidal energy?
Answer. The Department is not currently funding research in tidal
energy. Since there are only two areas of the Nation with a significant
tidal flux (Cook Inlet, Alaska; Bay of Fundy, Maine) the application of
tidal energy is not considered widely applicable.
renewable energy program in alaska
Question. Please describe in detail the Department of Energy's
(DOE) renewable energy program in Alaska.
Answer. Some of the activities DOE is funding in renewable energy
in Alaska are described below. All of these projects were
Congressionally directed. We strongly support competitive awards to
ensure that the Department's program goals are advanced and taxpayer
dollars are spent wisely.
Biomass
The Department is supporting an ethanol production facility with
Sealaska Corporation in Ketchikan that will utilize wood residues
produced from various forest industry operations in a process to
produce fuel grade ethanol. Regional Biomass Energy Program funds
support a biomass energy specialist at the State level who assists
developers with regulatory and utility issues, provides technical
assistance, and in some cases provide financial assistance. The
Regional Biomass Program also contributed to the Dutch Harbor Fish Oil
Demonstration Project which demonstrated blending fish oil with diesel
oil to power engine generator sets that provides electricity to the
town of Dutch Harbor.
Wind
DOE has been supporting wind power projects in Alaska for several
years through various local and State organizations. There are ongoing
wind projects with Kotzebue Electric Association, the City of Unalaska,
and TDX Corporation (St. Paul Island) that are aimed at providing lower
cost energy alternatives to rural Alaskan communities. National Wind
Technology Center personnel provide expert technical support by
supplying anemometers, evaluating the wind resources, conducting wind
workshops, and sponsoring local representatives to attend technical
workshops. The Department has also tested cold weather wind turbines to
mitigate performance problems in extreme-cold climates (e.g. icing on
blades and gear box freezing).
Geothermal
The Department assisted the Alaska Energy Authority in completing a
statewide assessment of geothermal resources. The assessment concluded
that geothermal resources near the community of Akutan have the
potential to displace a substantial portion of the 4.3 million gallons
of diesel per year used for generating power and heat in the community
and fish processing plant. The Department has also supported site
specific feasibility investigations. This past September, Assistant
Secretary Garman accompanied the Geothermal Program Manager to Alaska
to examine several geothermal sites to determine their viability for
electricity production. The Geothermal Technology Program is supporting
a geothermal working group to promote geothermal energy awareness in
Alaska. This group will be visiting Nevada on a trade mission to learn
about successes and procedures used by Nevadans to develop geothermal
energy.
Hydropower
The Department has supported a number of hydropower technology
development efforts in Alaska over the years. Currently, DOE is
supporting the Alaska Village Electric Corporation in a hydropower
feasibility study at Scammonbay, and a Power Creek hydro-electric
project in Anchorage.
State Energy Program
The State Energy Program provides base-level funding for Alaska to
maintain energy specialists in State government. Funding is used to
conduct resource assessments, fund projects, and provide technical
assistance and workshops.
Tribal Energy Program
Renewable energy studies are underway for Southeast Alaska, the
Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta region, and the Bristol Bay region.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Harry Reid
for inspiration and recognition of science and technology (first)
Question. In the fiscal year 2004 Conference Report we carried
language encouraging the Department to support competitors in the For
Inspiration and Recognition of Science and Technology (FIRST) robotics
competition, a brainchild of Dean Kamen, the inventor of the Segway and
several other remarkable devices. Do you mind describing what the
Department has done to follow-up on this direction?
Answer. Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL) scientists and
engineers provided significant support to students of William Floyd
High School, Mastic Beach, NY, in the form of technical guidance and
assistance in the fabrication of the components to build a robot. BNL
is providing the funding necessary to purchase the competition kits for
Longwood High School, Middle Island, NY, and Port Jefferson High
School, Port Jefferson, NY, to participate for the FIRST event.
Additionally, special times for operation of the machine shop were
provided by BNL. The FIRST competition is exciting and rewarding with
the per team costs typically running between $10,000 to $15,000. The
Office of Science provided $20,000 to BNL to support these three high
school teams' participation in the FIRST event.
iowa environmental/education project
Question. Is the Iowa Environmental/Education Project, something
that has been described to me as a giant, $200 million roadside
terrarium, a worthy investment of Federal funds that will generate
useful, cutting edge science or is it just a huge waste of Federal
taxpayer dollars?
Answer. This Congressionally directed project will develop an
environmental and ``green energy'' education center on a 30 acre
Environmental Protection Agency Brownfield site in Coralville, Iowa. It
will not be a cutting edge research facility. The project includes an
indoor tropical rain forest, aquarium, educational center, and
galleries on the prairie eco-system, Midwest geology, and agriculture.
user facilities
Question. We have a large capital investment in the Office of
Science user facilities that serve many users at universities and
laboratories. Are we operating these facilities at maximum capacity in
the fiscal year 2005 budget to meet the needs of these scientists?
Answer. Overall, Office of Science user facilities are operating at
95 percent of optimum in the fiscal year 2005 request, 3 percent better
than in fiscal year 2004. (This metric is straightforward but perhaps
too simplistic, and we are working to develop a more sophisticated
metric for the fiscal year 2006 President's Budget.) It is always
difficult to find the right balance among competing priorities for
facility operations, research, construction, etc. We are satisfied that
we have allocated the funding in the request to achieve the best
balance possible.
international thermonuclear experimental reactor (iter)
Question. As I mentioned in my opening statement, I am pleased that
the United States has resumed its participation in the ITER (``EATER'')
project. However, the dollar levels look somewhat low, particularly in
light of our commitment to fund 10 percent of the total. Are the funds
in the budget adequate to fulfill our international requirements?
Answer. The fiscal year 2005 budget request for ITER is adequate
because the funds are for preparations for a subsequent ITER
construction project. The plan is for the construction project to start
in fiscal year 2006, at which time the U.S. funding requirement would
increase significantly.
Question. As a follow-up, the U.S. participation seems fairly
modest compared to that of several of the international partners. Are
you satisfied that it appears that the United States will be just a
junior partner in ITER. Is a larger role something we should aspire to?
Answer. The Department is satisfied that the 10 percent role is
appropriate for the United States. With the exception of the host, all
of the ITER Parties would be at approximately the same level of
participation. Each Party would receive the same benefits in terms of
equal access to the scientific and technological results from ITER, as
well as an equal role in planning the ITER scientific program.
Accordingly, a larger financial contribution for the United States is
not considered necessary.
Question. Dr. Orbach, as I understand it, the Department is getting
ready to select a site for a U.S. ITER Project Office. Could you please
explain the process for that selection?
Answer. The process for selection of the host for a U.S. ITER
Project Office consists of review by an independent Evaluation
Committee of Federal and non-Federal employees. This process will be
managed by the Chicago Operations Office. The conclusions of the
Evaluation Committee will be forwarded to the Office of Fusion Energy
Sciences for selection of the host by the director of that office.
Question. Given the importance of the ITER project to fusion
research and to the fusion community, has an expert independent review
board been appointed to guide that selection?
Answer. We are in the process of identifying members of such a
board.
funding for concentrating solar power
Question. I see that you have a $2 million request for funding for
the Concentrating Solar Power portion of the solar energy budget. While
I realize this is an improvement from the $0 you requested last year it
is a far cry from what I expected given that your office, the National
Academy, and many other national organizations all now agree that CSP
has merit and promise. Despite your words to the contrary, are you
giving up on Concentrating Solar Power?
Answer. We are not giving up on Concentrating Solar Power (CSP). As
you pointed out, last year we did not request any funding for CSP. In
light of recent studies we sought from an independent engineering firm,
a draft of which was reviewed by the National Research Council, we
propose $2 million to support a more thorough investigation of the
appropriate R&D course needed to realize the potential for CSP. The
fiscal year 2005 budget request will be used to maintain CSP facilities
at Sandia National Lab, to provide analytical support to States, and to
develop a comprehensive program plan to help inform the fiscal year
2006 budget development process and a longer term R&D plan.
Question. If not, what do we need to do to get this program back on
track?
Answer. DOE will develop a Concentrating Solar Power (CSP) program
plan which will use recommendations from the independent review studies
and take a systems approach to identify the highest value technology
R&D investments. These findings will then be used to inform the fiscal
year 2006 budget development process and a longer term R&D plan.
national renewable energy laboratory
Question. In the last three conference reports we have carried
language directing the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) to
deploy some of their technologies in Nevada in partnership with
industrial and university partners. It is my understanding that this
effort is working out well for everyone involved, but I would be
interested in your thoughts.
Answer. As a matter of principle and administration policy, we do
not support earmarks. Nevertheless, over the past 2 years, the
Department has worked closely with NREL and various State interests in
order to make the most effective use of these directed funds. A
competitive process was used to select projects that would bring
laboratory, university, and industrial partners together in the State
of Nevada to help develop the solar, geothermal, wind, and related
hydrogen resources in the Southwest. Per fiscal year 2004 Congressional
direction, the Department will continue these efforts and look for
additional opportunities to form alliances between Nevada's university
system, other Nevada State agencies, and industry to establish centers
of renewable energy expertise in the State. The ``RE Centers of
Expertise'' will likely include, but not be limited to, research and
development, training for future workers in renewable energy, and
technology demonstration and performance validation.
biomass rationale for cuts
Question. Biomass seems to have taken a substantial cut in the
fiscal year 2004 request. By all accounts this program has been very
successful. Why are you cutting back at this time?
Answer.
FUNDING SUMMARY
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year Fiscal Year
Fiscal Year 2004 Fiscal Year 2004 Fiscal Year
Program/Activity 2004 Comparable 2004 Unencumbered 2005
Request Appropriation Earmarks Appropriation Request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Biomass Program (EWD and Omnibus 69,750 86,471 42,805 43,666 72,596
Appropriation)............................
Biomass Program (Interior)................. 8,808 7,506 ........... 7,506 8,680
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Biomass Program............... 78,558 93,977 42,805 51,172 81,276
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Excluding all the Congressionally-directed projects in fiscal year
2004, we are actually seeking $30 million more in fiscal year 2005 than
was appropriated last year toward the research and development (R&D)
goals established in our program plan and budget submissions. Our R&D
goals have been developed in consultation with the U.S. Department of
Agriculture, National Laboratories and the Biomass R&D Advisory Board
established by Congress.
In order to fund Congressionally-directed projects in fiscal year
2004, we have had to modify our program goals. Furthermore, we will
experience delays in achieving our key milestones and the broader
market acceptance of power, fuels and products derived from biomass. We
urge the committee to provide us the flexibility to spend Biomass funds
in accordance with our program plans, which will provide the best
potential for producing long-term positive returns on the taxpayers'
investment.
high temperature superconductor program
Question. Do you think that the High Temperature Superconductor
program should be moved back into your organization, particularly in
light of the wholesale redirection of funds away from superconductors
that the Electricity Transmission and Distribution program has
undertaken?
Answer. The new Office of Electric Transmission and Distribution
(OETD) has voiced its strong support for High Temperature
Superconductivity (HTS). The funding of the High Temperature
Superconductor Program is not a result of the office in which the
program is housed, but rather the fact that Congress appropriated
$10.972 million less for transmission and distribution R&D in fiscal
year 2004 than in fiscal year 2003, the year before the new office was
created. Of the $69.467 million appropriated for R&D within OETD,
$25.75 million was for Congressionally Directed Activities, leaving
only $42.49 million ($6.285 million less than in fiscal year 2003) for
all R&D work.
financial assistance to geothermal development in alaska
Question. What percentage of the division's budget will be
dedicated to providing financial assistance to geothermal development
in Alaska?
Answer. The fiscal year 2004 budget for the Geothermal Technologies
Program is $26 million. The program provides opportunities for Alaskan
entities to participate in open and competitive funding opportunity
announcements. Current and upcoming opportunities are valued at a total
of $5 million, or 19 percent of the program's budget. Alaskan proposals
will be considered alongside others in open competition.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Patty Murray
genomics: gtl facilities
Question. Dr. Orbach, I understand you have recently published a
strategic plan for new facilities supporting DOE's missions. PNNL,
along with other research Institutions in the State of Washington, is
very interested and, indeed, believe we have a strong research
infrastructure to be the location of one of the GTL facilities in your
strategic plan and facilities plan.
What is your position on the schedule for the various facilities
with the genomics program, including the proteome analysis facility?
Answer. Our 20-year facilities plan lays out the time sequence of
the scientific user facilities, including those advocated by our
Genomics program. As the Genomics program evolves we hope to be able to
proceed with the construction and operation of the Genomics facilities.
PNNL, along with other research institutions in the State of Washington
should be in a strong position to successfully compete for one or more
of these facilities. I should also note that while the facilities plan
lists four large Genomics facilities, it is conceivable that evolving
scientific needs and the competitive solicitation process for each
facility could lead to us to fund multiple distributed facilities at a
smaller scale. As available funding allows, we intend to let the
science drive the ultimate makeup of these facilities.
ultra high-speed super computers
Question. The Department of Energy has recently announced an
aggressive computing program, including ultra high-speed super
computers. What is your position on competition?
Answer. The Department believes that competition is critical to
ensuring effective stewardship of the taxpayers' investment in science
as well as selection of the best ideas to ensure the scientific
leadership of the country. We have just announced a solicitation to the
Office of Science laboratories to begin installation of a leadership
class computer for open science. The award will be made on the basis of
peer reviewed open competition.
hydrogen in the pacific northwest
Question. What are the unique assets that research institutions and
the natural resources of the Pacific Northwest provide that will make
hydrogen a reality in the Northwest?
Answer. The Pacific Northwest uses renewable energy resources to
produce much of its energy. These resources can be tapped to produce
hydrogen. Hydropower is a carbon free source of inexpensive electricity
that can produce hydrogen via electrolysis. Wind can also be harnessed
to create hydrogen via electrolysis, with Washington and Oregon alone
possessing over 8,000 megawatts of developable wind generation
potential.
The Northwest is home to many organizations with the ability to
play a part in developing a hydrogen infrastructure. These include
State and city governments, the Bonneville Power Administration, fuel
cell developers (Ballard, Avista labs, IdaTech, etc.), major regional
universities, heavy truck and aerospace manufactures, Pacific Northwest
National Laboratory, and Idaho National Engineering and Environmental
Laboratory.
time scale for hydrogen in northwest
Question. In what time scale do you see hydrogen being a viable
source of energy in the Northwest?
Answer. Hydrogen is not a source of energy, but an energy carrier
that can be produced from multiple energy resources. Because of the
many technical and cost hurdles associated with a transition to a
hydrogen economy, we don't expect wide scale use of hydrogen--in the
Northwest or elsewhere--before 2020.
industry-laboratory cooperation
Question. Can you tell me more about industry's role in research
development and demonstration projects in the effort to develop a more
robust grid; specifically efforts underway involving national
laboratory and industry cooperation?
Answer. Industry-laboratory partnerships enable the full
development and/or deployment of new and promising technologies that
form the cornerstone of DOE's efforts to modernize the Nation's
Electric Transmission infrastructure.
Within the High Temperature Superconductivity's (HTS's) Strategic
Partnership Initiative (SPI), Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL),
Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), IGC SuperPower, Waukesha Electric
Systems, Southwire Company, and American Superconductor are the primary
partners working together to develop High Temperature Superconducting
(HTS) wire, and four types of HTS electric power equipment prototypes,
including cables, motors, generators and transformers. This technology
will enable distribution and transmission cables that have three to
five times the capacity of conventional copper cables and higher
efficiency (especially useful in congested urban areas), and power
equipment with half the energy losses and half the size of conventional
equipment.
Examples of current research and development projects--all
involving DOE-Industry cost sharing--include the Boeing Phantom Works
with Argonne National Laboratory to design, fabricate and test a 35
kilowatt hour superconducting flywheel energy storage system as a power
risk management system that will give power users and utilities a full-
scale device to manage both cost and reliability risks; the General
Electric HTS Generator Project involving LANL and ORNL to install a 100
MVA prototype generator; the IGC SuperPower project with LANL to
develop and install a transformer component at a HTS substation; and
the Long Island Power Authority project with LANL involving the
installation of a HTS cable system.
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory has the lead for the national
laboratory/industry/university consortium that was formed to support
cutting-edge research in Transmission Reliability R&D, provided support
on the summer 2003 Blackout Investigation, and is integral to projects
for developing reliability tools.
The Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) is part of the
national laboratory/industry/university consortium that was formed to
support research on Transmission Reliability R&D to transform the
Nation's distribution system. PNNL conducts evaluations of the
technological and institutional aspects of recent reliability events on
the Nation's electric power system, and is the lead for research
activities in real-time monitoring and control of the power grid. PNNL
partners with the GridWise Alliance, in which IBM, SEMPRA, the
Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Maryland Interconnection (PJM) and others
work to modernize the Nation's electric distribution system in
potentially revolutionary ways.
In fiscal year 2004, PNNL has provided support on the summer 2003
Blackout Investigation. PNNL supports development of communication and
control architectures and technologies, as well as the integration of
multi-vendor distributed energy resources into the distribution system.
PNNL supports development of technologies for improved load/demand
management while responding to market prices and electricity supply/
demand conditions.
Sandia National Laboratory (SNL) participates in a national
laboratory/industry/university consortium to support research on
Transmission Reliability R&D. SNL also works to develop advanced
superconductors based on the sol-gel chemical deposition process. For
energy storage, SNL develops improved energy storage system components
including power conversion electronics and modular multi-functional
energy storage systems.
Argonne National Laboratory performs research and development for
the HTS Program Activity. Argonne utilizes unique expertise in ceramics
and materials science to improve conductor performance and to
investigate deposition processes, such as metal-organic chemical vapor
deposition. Argonne also performs research on superconducting electric
motors, transmission cables, and flywheel electricity systems.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator Domenici. So that's it. We stand in recess. Thanks.
[Whereupon, at 11:23 a.m., Wednesday, March 3, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
the Chair.]