U.S. President Donald Trump unveiled his fiscal year 2021 budget request, which includes $35.4 billion to fund the Department of Energy (DOE), a reduction of about 8 percent.
Presidential budgets are symbolic gestures that rarely make it through congress. Nevertheless, this budget reveals the administration’s radical goals.
The budget proposal envisions increased funding for nuclear and the questionable pursuit of clean coal, while slashing funding for energy R&D by almost half, from $5.3 billion to $2.8 billion, according to reports.
- Energy storage is relatively prominent. Solar is not.
- The only mention of solar is in the context of opening up public lands to energy development by oil, gas, coal, and geothermal and solar
- Trump wants to shut down the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy.
- In a 180-degree turn from the administration’s long-time stance, there’s no funding sought for the revival of the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository plan, according to The Hill.
- There’s $546 million proposed for the dubious cause of advanced coal energy systems and carbon capture, utilization and storage.
- $1.3 billion is slated for the Office of Nuclear Energy, including advanced reactor development and the establishment of a uranium reserve
Earlier this month, the DOE did announce up to $125.5M in funding for solar research in: reducing costs of silicon and other PV materials; innovations in manufacturing; systems integration; solar and agriculture; AI in solar; and small innovative projects in PV and CSP.
Slashing the EPA, Energy Star, waterway protection in blue states
The budget takes aims at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), proposing to reduce its budget by 25 %, and cut off funds for the appliance efficiency rating program, Energy Star, as reported in The Hill.
EPA programs intended to be cut or eliminated include those that fight for safe water in disadvantaged communities, the reduction of radon and lead, as well as the Superfund program and its backlog of toxic sites.
Storage gets some mention
Last week, as reported in the Washington Examiner, Energy Secretary Dan Brouillette said the DOE was looking at “innovative solutions” that could include interim storage or other types of storage.
The DOE budget includes $40 million for the Grid Storage Launchpad and $97 million for the Energy Storage Grand Challenge.
Still, these storage and solar numbers pale compared to the dollars being proposed for the coal industry.
Gregory Wetstone, CEO of the American Council on Renewable Energy, comments in a release: “The Trump Administration’s Fiscal Year 2021 budget would once again dramatically underinvest in clean energy research and innovation.”
Here’s the DOE budget request fact sheet.
This content is protected by copyright and may not be reused. If you want to cooperate with us and would like to reuse some of our content, please contact: firstname.lastname@example.org.
The Southern Company’s clean coal fired plant was pretty much DOA, it never put out the ‘calculated’ power at the effective price point that would have been appropriate. At one time it was putting out $95/MWH at a time when simple solar PV and wind generation could be bought for $40 to $60/MWh on the open market. I understand the Kemper plant’s boilers were modified to use natural gas before it would be semi-profitable. All in all, solar PV and wind generation technology is still dropping in price point. Any data derived from the installation and operation of the Kemper plant should “prove”, clean coal is NOT viable, but for the same cost over runs the Kemper plant accrued over the years, one sure could put in massive amounts of energy storage, distributed along the grid for a more robust and capable grid infrastructure.
The NRC has been the agency in charge of nuclear technology roll out for decades now. One article made the claim, a ‘new’ nuclear generation technology takes about $1 billion dollars or more and several years to get through NRC scrutiny for one to get a permit to build a new technology plant. Right now a “process” for smaller, modular reactors is under way. It may still take 20 years before one sees this technology used in the public sector. Who ever it is that is ‘advising’ Trump where future energy expenditures should go, should become, “You’re fired”, by the Donald.
By submitting this form you agree to pv magazine using your data for the purposes of publishing your comment.
Your personal data will only be disclosed or otherwise transmitted to third parties for the purposes of spam filtering or if this is necessary for technical maintenance of the website. Any other transfer to third parties will not take place unless this is justified on the basis of applicable data protection regulations or if pv magazine is legally obliged to do so.
You may revoke this consent at any time with effect for the future, in which case your personal data will be deleted immediately. Otherwise, your data will be deleted if pv magazine has processed your request or the purpose of data storage is fulfilled.
Further information on data privacy can be found in our Data Protection Policy.