The House of Representatives has proposed big cuts in energy R&D, and President Obama has proposed big increases. But no matter which plan prevails (and presumably there will be some sort of a compromise), R&D will remain a tiny sliver of the overall budget. Total non-defense R&D would amount to just 1.7 percent of the budget under the President's plan, and just 1.5 percent under the House plan (based on budget figures from the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the White House.)

For a good look at where the big money actually goes, click on the visualization below, which will take you to an interactive that shows expenditures as a percent of GDP, going back several decades. (From this blog, via the NYTimes.)The data is lifted directly from government historical budget tables. Funding for research can be found under "Other Functions."

This week the U.S. Congress heard testimony supporting a bill that would push to replace diesel with natural gas in heavy vehicles. It's an attempt to cut oil imports, and at the same time reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Part of the argument is that natural gas is substantially cleaner than diesel, and results in the emission of about 25 percent less greenhouse gas.

But experts are warning that natural gas might not be as clean as it seems.

In fact, using natural gas rather than diesel in vehicles could actually increase climate change, says Robert Howarth, professor of ecology and environmental biology at Cornell University. "You're aggravating global warming more if you switch," he says.

Howarth is basing his conclusion on a preliminary analysis that includes not only the amount of carbon dioxide that comes out of a tailpipe when you burn diesel and natural gas, but also the impact of natural gas leaks. Methane, the main component of natural gas, is much more effective at trapping heat than carbon dioxide, so even small amounts of it contribute significantly to global warming. When you factor this in, natural gas could be significantly worse than diesel, he says. Using natural gas would emit the equivalent of 33 grams of carbon dioxide per megajoule. Using petroleum fuels would emit the equivalent of just 20 grams of carbon dioxide per megajoule.

Howarth goes further, suggesting that natural gas could even rival greenhouse gas emissions from mining and burning coal--the dirtiest of fossil fuels. He says it's "not significantly better than coal in terms of the consequences of global warming" and is calling for a moratorium on extracting natural gas from shale, which requires more energy (and so emits more greenhouse gases) than extracting it from conventional natural gas sources.

Howarth's analysis, however, is just a preliminary one. He's already found one major error in his original calculations. "I blew it," he says, by not including the impact of methane leaks from coal mining. (Here's a link to his original, which contains the error; and here's the updated version). But he still says the gap between coal and natural gas is far smaller than generally thought. And his numbers are significantly different than those researchers at MIT came up with a year ago. (On a CO2 equivalent grams per megajoule basis, they scored diesel at 10.7 and gasoline at 14.4, with natural gas splitting the difference at 12.5). The two studies make different assumptions about the strength of methane as a greenhouse gas, and the amount of methane leakage, for example. A complete analysis should also look at the different efficiencies of natural gas and gasoline or diesel vehicles. The MIT study concludes that there is a benefit from switching to natural gas, all told, but it might not be worth the cost or the hassle. Making more efficient gasoline and diesel vehicles might work better, and be a faster way to reduce greenhouse emissions, it suggests.

But for all the shortcomings of Howarth's analysis, it points to a real need. Before Congress passes any bill promoting natural gas, a thorough study of the potential impact needs to be taken into account, including the energy it takes to obtain it, and the impact of methane leaks.

Otherwise the U.S. might end up subsidizing something that does little to reduce carbon dioxide emissions--as happened with corn ethanol.

A year after it first received funding, the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Energy (ARPA-E) got high marks from the congressional committee that spearheaded its creation in its "first annual checkup." In a hearing of the House committee on Science and Technology, the new agency, which is designed to promote the research, development and commercialization off "game-changing" energy technologies, received praise for quickly sorting through 3,700 applications to make 37 awards in its first round of funding. It also fine-tuned its awards process, with the second round of funding going into specific areas of research identified in a series of workshops. Some of the projects that ARPA-E funded have since attracted private support.

The agency's fate, however, remains unclear. It's funding so far has come from last year's stimulus package, not the regular budget, and Congress denied its request for funds for the current fiscal year. [Clarification: Congress did this because the agency already had sufficient funds from the stimulus package to continue operation. The appropriations bill included the following language: "The decision not to provide any additional funding for ARPA-E in fiscal year 2010 beyond the funding already provided does not in any way suggest a lack of commitment to this new program by the Committee."] The President's 2011 budget includes nearly $300 million for the agency, but at a time when Congress is facing pressure to cut spending, that money might not make to the final budget.

John Garamendi (D-CA), noted that President Obama wants a freeze on discretionary spending. In order to do that, while also adding new funding for ARPA-E to the budget, Congress will have to cut funding or subsidies elsewhere. Garamandi has his sights set on the oil industry. "We're spending 10 to 15 billion dollars a year subsidizing an extraordinary industry, the oil industry. We've done if for a century. Why in the world are we continuing to do that?"

One concern raised by several of the committee members was whether ARPA-E's efforts will lead to American jobs. Brian Baird (D-WA), noted that technologies such as advanced batteries, which were invented in the United States, have been "exported" and are now being designed and produced in other countries.

John Denniston, a partner from the venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins Caulfield & Byers who testified before the committee, emphasized that the first step is promoting innovation through ARPA-E--and argued that jobs would follow. "First things first. Let's get the breakthroughs," he said. Denniston also warned that putting restrictions on the use of the technologies once they are produced--such as not allowing them to be produced overseas--would hurt entrepreneurs, since it could lead other countries to restrict technology flowing into the United States.