backtop


Print 20 comment(s) - last by Cerin218.. on Oct 2 at 2:22 PM


The DOE plans to focus more on EVs in the future   (Source: Tesla Motors)
The Quadrennial Technology Review will be used to steer spending for fiscal 2013, and a budget proposal will be released in 2012

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has released a new "Quadrennial Technology Review," which reveals the government's alternative energy plans for fiscal 2013.

The Quadrennial Technology Review pushes alternative energy technology that can be commercialized in a 10-year period, and according to its first report, the DOE wants to focus more of its $3 billion research budget on the adoption of electric vehicles and the modernization of the power grid.

The review noted that the DOE "underinvested" in transportation in fiscal 2011, where only 26 percent of spending was dedicated to this particular area. Nine percent went to electric vehicles in fiscal 2011, 4 percent went to adding fuel efficiency to vehicles, and the rest went to alternative fuels.

"Currently, DOE focuses too much effort on researching technologies that are multiple generations away from practical use," said The Quadrennial Technology Review.

The DOE now plans to concentrate on advanced biofuels as well as "technology that does not require new fuel-station infrastructure."

Much of fiscal 2011's budget was devoted to clean electricity at 51 percent of spending, but in addition to transportation, the DOE will put aside more funding in the future for the modernization of the power grid, carbon capture/storage research, building and factory efficiency and technology that can be operated using less water like wind and solar photovoltaic.

The DOE is currently facing scrutiny for a government loan to solar company Solyndra, which recently filed for bankruptcy. The government reportedly knew the company was destined to fail, according to emails the FBI found when raiding Solyndra in early September. The Quadrennial Technology Review does not address loan guarantees private-sector companies, which was a $180 million program in fiscal 2011.

Source: Automotive News



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: Energy Policy is how I will vote next election
By Shig on 9/30/2011 11:59:19 AM , Rating: 2
Herman Cain is a business man that worked in the restaurant industry for most of his career. His sole belief is that if you cannot profit from something, it's worthless and should be scrapped.

The whole point of cap and trade is to make protecting the environment and the health of the American public profitable, this is the GOP's #1 fear. You say he's a scientist but he considers any science relevant to the climate as a 'hoax'.

Here's another fun fact, the GOP is the only conservative oriented political party IN THE WORLD that 100% denies anything and everything about any science related to the climate and weather.


RE: Energy Policy is how I will vote next election
By mkrech on 9/30/2011 12:45:53 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Herman Cain is a business man that worked in the restaurant industry for most of his career. His sole belief is that if you cannot profit from something, it's worthless and should be scrapped.

Nice generalization, but it is demonstrable that he would profit far less from a presidential campaign and time in office than he already has and would continue to in business for himself.
quote:
The whole point of cap and trade is to make protecting the environment and the health of the American public profitable, this is the GOP's #1 fear. You say he's a scientist but he considers any science relevant to the climate as a 'hoax'.

No, cap and trade is intended to artificially pick winners and losers while funneling money to the connected cronies of the liberal left. Just like other programs currently funneling billions ie: Solyndra. It is a massive transfer of wealth combined with a path to serfdom for the middle class so the liberal elite can continue to maintain power.

The primary demographic of the democrat party is the lower class, specifically those benefiting from entitlements. The primary demographic of the republican party consists of successful middle class and up. So, to ensure a strong base and continued support each party must try to grow its base. The democrats must work to ensure more poverty and entitlement beneficiaries, whereas the republicans must work to create individual success and increase the number of middle class and above. The Dems have been doing everything they can to increase the numbers in poverty, on unemployment, welfare and other assistance programs. Hopefully, American citizen will make themselves aware of just what they are supporting. This will mean some hard choices for those in need. But, just like kicking any other addiction, it will be difficult.
quote:
Here's another fun fact, the GOP is the only conservative oriented political party IN THE WORLD that 100% denies anything and everything about any science related to the climate and weather.

Platitudes. Here's a quid pro quo for you. The GOP doesn't support or endorse AGW climate science because it is a platform position to not support cults.


By Cerin218 on 10/2/2011 2:20:20 PM , Rating: 2
But that is the problem with Democrats. Their beliefs are based on flawed philosophy and epistemology. The very system they function under is unsustainable and encourages failure. I would even go so far as to say rewards failure. In order to progress their system, they consume resources, but they don't produce resources. If we would segregate a Democrat populated space, they would go extinct because of their very inability to understand the failure of their logic.


By Cerin218 on 10/2/2011 2:14:16 PM , Rating: 2
As opposed to the collectivist thought that as much money should be spent on things they find important regardless of the amount and regardless of the sustainability and regardless of glaring logic flaws. "Green" energy is a perfect example. Look at Ethanol. It costs more to produce, causes more pollution than it offsets to produce, and uses a food source as a fuel source. Where is the sustainability of that. If it weren't for the government stealing my money to give to the producers, there wouldn't be any producers. Yet Nuts like you think green is great

The fact you believe that Cap and Trade will be positive for you kind of speaks to how steeped in logic fail you are. Companies should have incentive not to pollute, not be told they can pollute as much as they want as long as they pay for it. The only people that will find it "profitable" are the people running it. I.E. your corrupt leadership.

Lots of us believe that "climate change" (notice the name had to be changed because the earth us actually cooling) might possibly have something to it, but when the very scientists are caught red handed lying about it, how do we trust their data? Earth is billions of years old. Do I really believe that people can do all this in less than a hundred years? The Sahara used to be a rain forest in the past, why is it desert now? Because the earth changes. But you can't prove man is causing it any more than I can prove they can't. Difference between us is that I don't want to impose my standpoint on you in a way that will cost you the resources you work hard for. Unlike people like you that believe something and feel we should all be burdened for it until it is resolved to your satisfaction.

Democrats exist because they prey on the weak and stupid.


"Death Is Very Likely The Single Best Invention Of Life" -- Steve Jobs














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki