> Should a climate intervention research program fund energy r&d? > > The problem is that there is no research program in how to counter > near-term climate threats. > > But it is ok for different research programs to be focused on > different topics. > > ______________ > Sent from a limited typing keyboard > > Ken Caldeira > +1650 704 7212 > [email protected] > > > On Aug 5, 2009, at 6:26 AM, "Eugene I. Gordon" > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Why is this not unreasonable? Energy systems developed under ARPA-E >> funding >> are at least 25 years away and implementation may take enormous >> funding that >> may not be available to any and certainly not to all. Geo can be >> implemented >> much earlier and at lower cost. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [email protected] >> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ken Caldeira >> Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 2009 7:59 AM >> To: geoengineering >> Subject: [geo] Re: Is this what an energy revolution looks like? >> >> >> 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
