http://arpa-e.energy.gov/foa/FOA-7-28-09.PDF
I just read the procurement and while it is intentionally vague, it doesn't exclude geoengineering proposals, especially those involving carbon sequestration, either from air capture, OIF or related mechanisms involving biomass or albedo altering ideas like the Cool Cities proposal which is being marketed as geoengineering with benefits that include reducing CO2 emissions. The intent was to solicit ideas to reduce dependence on foreign oil from the Middle East and Venezuela (hey what about Nigeria, got a civil war going there and you never can tell when those Canadians and Mexicans will turn on us) and to reduce GHG emissions. It would have been helpful if (a) examples of technologies they were interested in were listed, e.g., advanced batteries, PV systems, wind turbines, nukuler (Bush pronunication), biofuels, etc. and (b) ideas not being considered such as geo were also listed. Whether or not this would have pared the 3500 down to 350 is doubtful, but when you ask for "ideas" and aren't specific, expect to get a lot of them, especially when dangling $150 million out the window during the worst recession in 75 years. Hopefully, the next go round will be more specific. And also include some of the geoengineering ideas. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eugene I. Gordon" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]>; "'geoengineering'" <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 2009 8:26 AM Subject: [geo] Re: Is this what an energy revolution looks like? 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
