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

Energy Policy is how I will vote next election
By Shig on 9/30/2011 11:16:12 AM , Rating: 1
Let me start by saying I hate both political parties in the US, they're both jokes that either favor pure spending and free giveaways to lazy people or giving everything to corporations.

Mitt Romney and Rick Perry and every republican for that matter simply want to strip mine the country for resources. Obama isn't much better, but at least his Energy Advisor, Steven Chu, believes in science and reason and isn't just another fossil fuel lobbyist.

I mean FFS, I want to vote for a candidate that wasn't a lawyer before becoming a politician, where are you scientists.




By therealnickdanger on 9/30/2011 11:28:48 AM , Rating: 2
Scientists are busy doing science. It should stay that way.


RE: Energy Policy is how I will vote next election
By Shig on 9/30/2011 11:33:30 AM , Rating: 2
They won't be doing much science when their budgets get eliminated. We spend trillions of dollars a year yet we can't get the Tevatron another 100 million for ground breaking research for hundreds of the worlds top scientists.


By Bad-Karma on 9/30/2011 11:44:42 AM , Rating: 3
Big deal, What do we need all those scientist for, I watched Tony Stark make a collider in less than a 5 minute montage and produce a new element to boot. It must be really easy.

<sarcasm


RE: Energy Policy is how I will vote next election
By mkrech on 9/30/2011 11:43:54 AM , Rating: 3
Herman Cain IS a scientist. Support him.

Not only is he a scientist, but he is one of the candidates that understands the unsustainable position federal agencies such as the EPA, DOE, and many others have brought us upon.

The ONLY thing the federal government should mandate over the electrical grid is a program to harden the system against EMP. That is a national security concern and should be mandated. As for green energy, it is a clear and present danger to our society.


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.


By cjohnson2136 on 9/30/2011 12:18:11 PM , Rating: 2
Even on his own website it says nothing about him being a scientist http://www.hermancain.com/about

Yes he got a BS in Math and a MS in Computer Science but his career has always been in business.


By Dr of crap on 9/30/2011 12:35:29 PM , Rating: 2
Really, you're pushing a candidate on this web site?

You must lead a boring life. And for the record I've never heard of this guy, that's how much I CARE about politicains!


RE: Energy Policy is how I will vote next election
By mkrech on 9/30/2011 12:56:50 PM , Rating: 2
I was responding to a call for a scientist as a political choice.

I personally don't LIKE politicians. But, I do CARE about their actions.

I expect you probably will care as well as you grow older and attempt to build your own wealth. Even if you choose just to use government to leach off others, I expect you will still become much more interested in politics.

I have to say, I do miss the days when I did not care. It was a simpler time. However, some things shock you into awareness. Unfortunately for the youth of today, the bliss of ignorance must be outgrown quickly if you expect to have any chance at all.

http://www.usdebtclock.org/
Over $47,000 per citizen... almost $132,000 per taxpayer.
Do you CARE now?


By ClownPuncher on 9/30/2011 1:05:39 PM , Rating: 2
Most people care, just not about Herman Cain.


RE: Energy Policy is how I will vote next election
By Spuke on 9/30/2011 1:17:12 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Over $47,000 per citizen... almost $132,000 per taxpayer.
That "debt clock" is misleading, it ASSumes every dollar of the stimulus package was spent but it hasn't. And if it assumes that, it probably assumes a bunch of other things too.


By mkrech on 9/30/2011 1:26:34 PM , Rating: 2
What's that phrase you guys like to use...

Oh ya, "Lipstick on a pig!"

Nice to know that it'll actually be next year before the country is totally f()@&ed!


By Cerin218 on 10/2/2011 2:22:15 PM , Rating: 2
There is great truth to the phrase "if you are young and not liberal, you have no heart. If you are old and not conservative, you have no brain". - Winston Churchill


Sometimes I don't understand them...
By Aikouka on 9/30/2011 1:39:09 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
"Currently, DOE focuses too much effort on researching technologies that are multiple generations away from practical use," said The Quadrennial Technology Review.


Isn't it possible to consider electric car technology under this same quote? While we do have electric cars today, I think most people realize that their use is essentially restricted to a short daily commute. With the overall size of the United States, electric cars essentially are not practical.

I also understand where the EPA is coming from as well. They're not wrong in that electric cars have a large advantage in that the fuel distribution network (i.e. our power grid) already exists. If we look at another alternative fuel such as hydrogen, the issue that we run into is that it would require outfitting current gas stations to be able to serve the fuel.

Along those lines, I think that they're overlooking a large problem. A large issue with electric cars now is charging time, and given the relatively low output of a wall socket, we will need hardware to facilitate faster charging times. That means we need to outfit gas stations or other charging locations with devices that are designed to provide more current to the electric vehicles. This is the same problem that other alternative fuels have, and it's a large and expensive problem to fix.

Essentially, electric vehicles still have plenty of kinks to be worked out, and some of its technology is still in a fairly infantile state. Does this mean that electricity is currently a worse means of "fuel" compared to other alternatives? I'll let someone smarter than me figure out the logistics behind that. :)




RE: Sometimes I don't understand them...
By Shig on 9/30/2011 4:46:29 PM , Rating: 2
I agree with you that electric cars are not practical for a lot of typical families. But as far as fleet vehicles go, they can be perfect. There's tens of thousands of government gas guzzlers driving the same short routes day in and day out. Car sharing is another area where electric cars would be very successful, rent a car for a couple hours for ~20$, pay close to nothing in fuel and get your errands done. These types of big companies and organizations will be able to afford the vertical integration of quick chargers at strategic points in pre-planned routes.

Take General Electric for example, they agreed to buy thousands of plug-in electric hybrids and pure electrics because they can make their own solar panels and charging infrastructure. GE can also finance these cars over long periods of time with structured payoff times, after a certain amount of time they'll become essentially free to be driving. Then after the cars are old and used up, they can recycle their batteries back into grid infrastructure (many auto companies are doing this kind of thing too, Ford for example).

Electric cars are also nice because there really isn't that much maintenence to be done. Pure electrics never need oil changes, fluid changes, and all those other nickel and dime costs the average car owner has to pay.

Battery technology is just one of those areas of science that moore's law can't really help. It takes a lot of money and the progress is slow going, but there still is sustained progress through investment.

Electric cars aren't going to be a major part of the US fleet anytime soon, but there are many areas where it does work and works well.


By Solandri on 9/30/2011 6:42:41 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Car sharing is another area where electric cars would be very successful, rent a car for a couple hours for ~20$, pay close to nothing in fuel and get your errands done.

This is something that's puzzled me too. People see $20 to use a car for a day's errands and think "Are you nuts?" They compare to using their own car "for free", and ignore the costs of actually owning the car.

If you buy your car for $25k, use it for 60k miles, and sell it for $10k, that's $0.25 per mile. A $35 oil change every 3500 miles adds $0.01 per mile. A $600 overhaul every 15k miles adds $0.04. $120 annual license and registration adds $0.01 assuming 12k miles/yr. And $400 for new tires after 50k miles is another $0.008. $600 insurance for a year would be $0.05. Add in misc expenses (e.g. car washes) and all told you're looking at about $0.40 per mile to own this car.

Gas at $3.50/gal and 28 mpg is $0.125 per mile. So owning the car costs more than 3x as much as the gas you put into it. Financially, most people should be more concerned about the car's ownership costs than its gas mileage.

Combined you're looking at about $0.525 per mile to drive a car you own. In other words, $20 will get you about 38 miles in a car you own. I'm not saying short-term rental is for everyone. But it seems to me renting $20 only on days you actually need a car, or $50-$75 for a weekend getaway, would make a lot of financial sense for many people. Except people don't think of this because they view any miles they put on a car they own as "free".


By wookie1 on 10/1/2011 12:00:29 AM , Rating: 2
Are you sure that GE isn't buying Volts from GM in order to keep their favored status with Obama? Are you sure he didn't make them a deal that they couldn't refuse in order to make at least some Volt sales so that the GM takeover didn't look like such a disaster?


"Intel is investing heavily (think gazillions of dollars and bazillions of engineering man hours) in resources to create an Intel host controllers spec in order to speed time to market of the USB 3.0 technology." -- Intel blogger Nick Knupffer














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