Transformational Energy Research Projects Win $151 Million in Funding

[alexey]

http://arpa-e.energy.gov/news.html

See the actual list of awards at the site.

Department of Energy's ARPA-E selects 37 projects to pursue breakthroughs that could fundamentally change the way we use and produce energy

San Francisco, CA - The Department of Energy today announced major funding for 37 ambitious research projects - including some that could allow intermittent energy sources like wind and solar to provide a steady flow of power, or use bacteria to produce automotive fuel from sunlight, water and carbon dioxide.

ARPA-E was originally established under the America Competes Act of 2007. In April of this year, President Obama announced $400 million in initial funding for ARPA-E through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

The $151 million in funding is being awarded through the Department's recently-formed Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy ("ARPA-E"). ARPA-E's mission is to develop nimble, creative and inventive approaches to transform the global energy landscape while advancing America's technology leadership. This is the first round of projects funded under ARPA-E, which is receiving total of $400 million under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

[SnyderShrugged]

The Federal government shouldnt be funding anything while we are in such deep debt. No matter how good the cause.

[Thiebear]

Research and development is the one place to FUND.....

It creates jobs and moves us forward.

The paving of a perfectly good road because its "shovel ready" is not a good one.

[jpillian]

Research and development is the one place to FUND.....

It creates jobs and moves us forward.

The paving of a perfectly good road because its "shovel ready" is not a good one.

Couldn't agree more.

[PeterMP]

Research and development is the one place to FUND.....

It creates jobs and moves us forward.

The paving of a perfectly good road because its "shovel ready" is not a good one.

I want to double this point. Our economy grows when we develop useful technology that at least intially will be manufactured here and then exported. Imagine if the electronic/computer technology that was developed here that ended up fueling the 90's tech boom was developed somewhere else.

How much money would not have entered into our economy?

Imagine if companies like Microsoft and Intel had NOT been American companies. In fact we know, what that looks like. It is called the late 70's/early 80's when most of the advanced technology on the market was Japanese.

The situation is bad now, but it gets a lot worse for a lot longer if the next big/integrated technological advance comes from somewhere else.

This is a good time to really think about what we are funding and how we go about it, it is a BAD time to not fund research.

[mjah]

The Federal government shouldnt be funding anything while we are in such deep debt. No matter how good the cause.

The above statement is exactly the opposite of true.

[Hubbs]

I want to double this point. Our economy grows when we develop useful technology that at least intially will be manufactured here and then exported. Imagine if the electronic/computer technology that was developed here that ended up fueling the 90's tech boom was developed somewhere else.

How much money would not have entered into our economy?

Imagine if companies like Microsoft and Intel had NOT been American companies. In fact we know, what that looks like. It is called the late 70's/early 80's when most of the advanced technology on the market was Japanese.

The situation is bad now, but it gets a lot worse for a lot longer if the next big/integrated technological advance comes from somewhere else.

This is a good time to really think about what we are funding and how we go about it, it is a BAD time to not fund research.

Funny you should bring up the Japanese....

(I'm guessing you know why, but if not, well, feel free to Google how they responded to their own Giant Popping Bubble of Economic Fail.)

[SnyderShrugged]

The above statement is exactly the opposite of true.

except that should be said about your statement.

when you are in the red, it never makes sense to get further in the red. It doesnt matter how you justify it or slice it.

Its fact, and recent history (stimulus, bailouts, etc) is on my side.

[Burgold]

when you are in the red, it never makes sense to get further in the red. It doesnt matter how you justify it or slice it.

I don't know. That's how Thomas Edison always did it. In the field of science, investment in research and spending money is a must. If you stay with the product you have and don't work to create others or improve it you'll be about of business.

[SnyderShrugged]

I don't know. That's how Thomas Edison always did it. In the field of science, investment in research and spending money is a must. If you stay with the product you have and don't work to create others or improve it you'll be about of business.

Thomas Edison wasnt using taxpayer dollars during a severe economic downturn. I'd fully support private investment, that of course makes sense.

[mjah]

when you are in the red, it never makes sense to get further in the red. It doesnt matter how you justify it or slice it.

You're pretending that when you're in a deep hole, the only thing research buys is another shovel. Were that true, you'd have a good point. Fortunately, research produces ladders too. So you don't.

Research investment during down times is a matter of identifying ladder opportunities and staying away from the shovels. It's a trick, but only a fool would pretend that all ladders are shovels. You have to try.

Wait -- no, on second thought, you're right. You don't have to try. I see it your way now. It's better for us to just sit in the hole and wait for someone else to shovel dirt on top of us. Someone who invested in a nice ladder.

USA! USA!

[SnyderShrugged]

You're pretending that when you're in a deep hole, the only thing research buys is another shovel. Were that true, you'd have a good point. Fortunately, research produces ladders too. So you don't.

Research investment during down times is a matter of identifying ladder opportunities and staying away from the shovels. It's a trick, but only a fool would pretend that all ladders are shovels. You have to try.

Wait -- no, on second thought, you're right. You don't have to try. I see it your way now. It's better for us to just sit in the hole and wait for someone else to shovel dirt on top of us. Someone who invested in a nice ladder.

USA! USA!

Yes, I am right. Thanks!

seriously, I have no issue with R & D at all! It's R & D funded by the taxpayer when we are in a hole like this that I have an issue with.

Especially with the debt and deficit in the incredibly dangerous place it is in.

[NavyDave]

I want to double this point. Our economy grows when we develop useful technology that at least intially will be manufactured here and then exported. Imagine if the electronic/computer technology that was developed here that ended up fueling the 90's tech boom was developed somewhere else.

How much money would not have entered into our economy?

Imagine if companies like Microsoft and Intel had NOT been American companies. In fact we know, what that looks like. It is called the late 70's/early 80's when most of the advanced technology on the market was Japanese.

The situation is bad now, but it gets a lot worse for a lot longer if the next big/integrated technological advance comes from somewhere else.

This is a good time to really think about what we are funding and how we go about it, it is a BAD time to not fund research.

Strange I don't recall Bill Gates being funded by the Government. The risk takers and successful entrepreneurs come from the private sector motivated by profit which is right now a four letter word for some reason.

[The Evil Genius]

Yes, all entrepreneurs are just like Bill Gates. That's why there are hundred of thousands of billionaires running around in the US.

[PeterMP]

Strange I don't recall Bill Gates being funded by the Government. The risk takers and successful entrepreneurs come from the private sector motivated by profit which is right now a four letter word for some reason.

Bill Gates wasn't directly funded by the government, BUT before he founded Microsoft he used computers from sources that certainly did get government funding, including University of Washington and GE.

If those computers aren't availible to Gates, then you have no Microsoft.

[The Evil Genius]

Bill Gates wasn't directly funded by the government, BUT before he founded Microsoft he used computers from sources that certainly did get government funding, including University of Washington and GE.

If those computers aren't availible to Gates, then you have no Microsoft.

Additionally, he and Paul Allen conned their way into getting a meeting with a company's president - which resulted in getting funding that created MicroSoft.

I wonder if two punk dropout kids could do the same in today's economy?

[Baculus]

Bill Gates wasn't directly funded by the government, BUT before he founded Microsoft he used computers from sources that certainly did get government funding, including University of Washington and GE.

If those computers aren't availible to Gates, then you have no Microsoft.

And without ARPA and federal dollars, we wouldn't be chatting on the Internet, either.

[JMS]

The Federal government shouldnt be funding anything while we are in such deep debt. No matter how good the cause.

What are you talking about? We have a multi trillion dollar budget (3 trillion I believe).... You are suggesting we should unfund Defense, State, Transportation?

151 million for some research in looking into systemic problems is a drop in the bucket.

[JMS]

Additionally, he and Paul Allen conned their way into getting a meeting with a company's president - which resulted in getting funding that created MicroSoft.

I wonder if two punk dropout kids could do the same in today's economy?

Actually I think Gates borrowed money from his father to buy QDOS.

Gates didn't have to "con" his way into meeting IBM reps who were putting together the first PC. They sought Gates out because Microsoft had a hardware insert which contained the most popular PC OS at the time. Only Microsoft owned the hardware card, they liscenced the OS from Digital Research. Dr refused to sign IBM's non compete, and put off the meeting with IBM. That's what gave Gates the ability to re-enter the talks....

Likewise Apple and Jobs did benifit from reviewing the technology invented by both AT&T and Xerox. Xerox invented Object oriented programming, the mouse, windows, and the eithernet. The Unix Mach kernel which is at the root of current Apple OS's is an offshoot to Unix OS which was pioneered by AT&T.

[JMS]

And without ARPA and federal dollars, we wouldn't be chatting on the Internet, either.

Darpa is responsible for the internet, not Arpa.

[The Evil Genius]

Actually I think Gates borrowed money from his father to buy QDOS.

Gates didn't have to "con" his way into meeting IBM reps who were putting together the first PC. They sought Gates out because Microsoft had a hardware insert which contained the most popular PC OS at the time. Only Microsoft owned the hardware card, they liscenced the OS from Digital Research. Dr refused to sign IBM's non compete, and put off the meeting with IBM. That's what gave Gates the ability to re-enter the talks....

Likewise Apple and Jobs did benifit from reviewing the technology invented by both AT&T and Xerox. Xerox invented Object oriented programming, the mouse, windows, and the eithernet. The Unix Mach kernel which is at the root of current Apple OS's is an offshoot to Unix OS which was pioneered by AT&T.

I am talking about the Altair con they ran on MITS (one of the early creators of the micro computer) president Ed Roberts. I think Allen and Gates were hired by MITS after it. Which led to the formation of MicroSoft...had to google it cause my memory was fuzzy on it. I think they told Roberts they had written a BASIC program for it - when it reality - they hadn't....yet.

[JMS]

I am talking about the Altair con they ran on MITS (one of the early creators of the micro computer) president Ed Roberts. I think Allen and Gates were hired by MITS after it. Which led to the formation of MicroSoft...had to google it cause my memory was fuzzy on it. I think they told Roberts they had written a BASIC program for it - when it reality - they hadn't....yet.

I was not familiar with the story of Microsofts first product. I had to google it too. Good one.

[DjTj]

I am talking about the Altair con they ran on MITS (one of the early creators of the micro computer) president Ed Roberts. I think Allen and Gates were hired by MITS after it. Which led to the formation of MicroSoft...had to google it cause my memory was fuzzy on it. I think they told Roberts they had written a BASIC program for it - when it reality - they hadn't....yet.

And of course MITS was founded by three Air Force Engineers who learned many of their skills through government funding. The whole era of computer technology prior to Microsoft was very much driven by military and government needs.

The Altair 8800 computer that led to the founding of Microsoft used an Intel 8080 Processor. Those Intel guys came out of Fairchild Semiconductor, who developed much of their technology while working largely on military contracts and the space program in the 50's and 60's.

The government does not directly fund the entrepreneurs that drive the U.S. economy - most of that happens in the open market. The government has been pretty successful, however, in funding the research and development needed to create tools that entrepreneurs can later use to build new industries. Whether it's the chemical engineering that makes the semiconductors that lead to the integrated circuits that lead to the computers that lead to the software industry or it's the chemical engineering that makes the battery that is used in the electric car that gets us off our dependence on foreign oil, the government often has a role to play in the early stages of these technologies.

[Baculus]

Darpa is responsible for the internet, not Arpa.

ARPA (Advanced Research Projects Agency) was first established before it was renamed to DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency). When ARPANET was created, it was before ARPA was renamed to DARPA. Hence, the name, Advanced Research Projects Agency Networt or ARPANET.

ARPA and DARPA are often used interchangeably, though, but, historically, ARPA is more correct.

Just as a note of interest.

[Mad Mike]

The Federal government shouldnt be funding anything while we are in such deep debt. No matter how good the cause.

The people I distrust most are those who want to improve our lives but have only one course of action. - Frank Herbert