I am among those who received such a rejection letter from ARPA-E for a proposal on carbon sequestration. In defense of such a high rejection rate, the $150M divided by average grant size of $2M leaves you 75 projects (divided by 3500 that gives you about 2%). So being 'discouraged' for an 8-page concept paper saves you effort on a 50-75 page full proposal that eventually gets rejected.
Alvia: you are absolutely right, truely transformational work doesn't really get funded through such mechanism which usually ends of funding established groups and ideas. I doubt ARPA-E would fund anything geoengineering in the near future. Best Regards! -Ning -- Prof. Ning Zeng Dept. of Atmospheric and Oceanic Science and Earth System Science Interdisciplinary Center Phone: (301) 405-5377 University of Maryland Fax: (301) 314-9482 2417 Computer and Space Sciences Building Email: [email protected] College Park, MD 20742-2425, USA http://www.atmos.umd.edu/~zeng On Aug 3, 8:47 am, Andrew Revkin <[email protected]> wrote: > Here's an ARPA-E rejection letter. 98% of those pursuing energy > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
