My understanding was that albedo modification and related options were intentionally placed outside the scope of ARPA-E.
Rumor has it that that was one of the compromises made in getting ARPA- E funded. This is rumor and I have no direct documentation of this. A not unreasonable decision was made to focus on energy systems and exclude climate intervention systems. On Aug 4, 8:55 am, Ning Zeng <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
