Recovery power: The largest U.S. solar array, in Arcadia, FL, received a $44 million grant as part of the Recovery Act of 2009.
Florida Power and Light
The DOE accounts for its spending of stimulus funding.
Over a year after the Recovery Act of 2009 was signed into law, the U.S. Department of Energy says that $32.5 billion of the $36.7 billion it was authorized to spend is "spoken for," and nearly 5,000 projects have been funded. The department has selected all but 1 percent of the proposals that will receive grants and contracts. So far, however, only $3.5 billion has actually been spent, and the money has only directly created 22,841 jobs.
This week, the DOE's senior advisor for Recovery Act implementation, Matt Rogers, provided an update on the department's progress in identifying projects that will receive funding. While much of the Recovery Act focused on funding for near-term recession relief, including tax relief for individuals and support for local and state governments, the funding allocated to the DOE was mainly for projects with longer term payoffs, including building infrastructure such as wind farms and battery factories and conducting research.
Rogers highlighted the battery industry as an area that needed investment, noting that while much of the technology was first developed in the United States, "we've allowed 99 percent of battery manufacturing to move over to Asia." Currently there are only three battery factories operating in the U.S., he says. Through the Recovery Act and related incentive programs, 30 battery and battery component factories are now being built. This will result in the capacity to build enough batteries for 500,000 electric vehicles a year, "whereas today we can hardly touch the topic," Rogers says.
Meanwhile, the DOE is funding research projects that could increase the performance of batteries threefold to sixfold, while reducing costs by 90 percent or more. Rogers noted that today's batteries can store about 100 watt-hours per kilogram; research projects aim to increase that to as much as 600 watt-hours. He also said batteries cost at least $1,000 per kilowatt-hour (although automakers such as GM say that batteries are less than that now); the factories being constructed are supposed to cut this in half by 2012. Long-term research projects aim to reduce it to as little as $50 per kilowatt-hour by 2020 via new materials and battery designs. Mass-market electric vehicles with a range of around 80 miles will soon be on the market (although some more expensive electric cars already have a much greater range); the goal is to make practical, affordable electric vehicles with a range of 400 miles.
How many ethanol plants have closed down that had taxpayer guarantees?
Another half assed approach to green energy by using a food crop for ethanol feedstock rather than switchgrass. Next thing you know they'lll be telling us that hydrogen is an energy source (and not an energy carrier). Heck most of it is made from NON renewable sources (SMR technology) that liberate CO2 using non renewable energy. Real green hydrogen is dissociating water using renewable energy. Not much of that going on... But the becoming less and less technical hoi polloi will continued to be lied to... Being an engineer these days ranks lower than whale schitte in the millenial generations eyes. It's hard holding two drinks while you're trying to work a thermo problem...
To understand why ‘green’ technology is held hostage by China, read: China’s Rare Earth Elements Industry: What Can the West Learn, a report by the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security (IAGS) www.iags.org/rareeartIAGSh0310hurst.pdf.
What DOE SHOULD be doing is working on the US vertical supply chain for rare earth elements and other resources needed to improve our energy posture. As far as a hear, DOE isn't doing that.
I agree 100% and have called out this tragic lack of US prominence in this market area BY OUR OWN short term minded hands. This is a result of enviro whackos having the upper hand in concert with just as clueless politi-morons. While the Chinese plot long term patient strategy in these critical market areas, we emotionally knee jerk our way to our own demise, courtesy of the extreme ignoramuses in our midst. How do we stop it! The world laughs at our sheer and ignorant ability to shiv ourselves with our own knife!
I am glad to see "investment" in clean energy, however, I do not trust anybody with my money. Oops, I mean my great, grand children's money.
I would like to see an audit of grants to campaign donation relationships.
Trillions in debit. 36 billion for energy. The world goes to war over energy!
I don't like them taking my kids money, and I don't like how they spend it.
Imagine a world with abundant energy years from now, because of some MIT breakthrough science. We could clean sea water and pump it to the driest lands. Oh, I'm sorry we're too in-debit paying union pensions, interest and controlled health care to do anything comrades.
Half the people in the US paid no taxes, and many of those non taxpayers are members of the Tea Party Movement. I find it interesting that these are the same people who complain the most about what the government is doing with taxpayers money. I pay plenty of taxes and I have no problem with government investment in technology.
actually the number is closer to 60%, and I find it hard to believe that there are many of that number in the Tea Parties. no matter what the Administration or the MSM say, Tea Parties have a single common theme - small, non-intrusive, inexpensive government with defined, limited roles to play. those who expect payouts from Uncle Sugar would hardly fit in that mold.
StupidPeasant "36 billion for energy. The world goes to war over energy! " you couldn't be more right. 36 billion is insignificant compared with the $$$ & lives wasted in both Iraq wars fighting over oil. We, all of us, need to figure out a way to break this addition. How much would you pay to avoid sending your grand children to fight another war for oil?
Wahh - I posted some of this in TR last year. It may be of interest to you.
Barrels of Oil consumed by the US in 2008 7,100,000,000
Percent of Oil consumed by US which came from Middle East (UAE) 12%
Barrels of Oil from Middle East Sources 852,000,000
One barrel of oil is 42 US gallons and can be refined into 19.6 gallons of gasoline
US Gallons of gasoline derived from Middle Eastern Sources 16,699,200,000
October 2009 costs (Congressional Budget Office) for deploying 1 US Soldier $1,000,000.00
US Soldiers Deployed in Middle East Region (1 year billet) 250,000
Cost of US Military Personell Securing Middle East Region $250,000,000,000.00 per year, and growing. We have deployed more in Afghanistan too. I think 30,000 more in 2010.
Hidden Cost of a US Gallon of Gas (Military Cost / Gallons of Gas) $14.97
Retail cost of Gasoline (Gasbuddy.com) $2.60
True cost of a gallon of gas? $17.57
I did a market study on specific supply chain aspects of the wind turbine industry and the lying, or at the least complicity in the lies, going on about funding US based manufacturing goes all the way up to the AWEA head. Too much of this money is being funneled from US front companies to the companies actually making the components for wind turbines overseas. Our manufacturing participation in this area is relegated to the relatively low tech parts of the wind turbine assembly. I do not get all that exicted when I read what appears to be one more big fat lie by our government about "rescue spending". The biggest change that can be made is to wait out the Obama regime and throw it out with vigor! We can't take much more of this leftist bozo!
Re: Shell games and Ponzi schemes
US government investments have produced the microprocessor and the internet, which you are using right now. Not all investments pan out, but if we don't throw the dice, then nothing happens.
We need to invest in technologies that will build industries and create jobs. Investments in alternative energy, healthcare and education are our best hope.
Re: Shell games and Ponzi schemes
there is a difference between investment and throwing money away. government investment in true R&D created the microprocessor and the internet. a government like the one we have now, that simply throws money at pet projects will never get us anywhere. I hate the term "green" - it is misleading. we need to invest in true R&D for efficient technologies to accomplish many things, that is just smart, though you also might call it green. we also need to invest in education, though the current practice of throwing cash at schools which is only absorbed by extra oversight and administration must stop. we should be investing in the actual educational part of education, and this Administration has shown exactly zero interest in investment in any aspect of education except the strengthening of teacher's unions. healthcare is not an investment. it should not be handled at the Federal level, or be funded through tax dollars. the only thing that government involvement in healthcare will do is what has already happened with Medicare and VA - costs will rise astronomically, the system will approach failure, care will be rationed, fraud and error will be rife.
Shouldn't the title read "Recovery Act Has Bolstered Clean Energy Spending"? We don't know yet if any of this will achieve the stated goal, other than spending a lot of money. If we really had an energy crisis, which we don't, we would be mass-manufacturing nuclear reactors and creating new nuclear fuel cycles.
nicely put. extremely accurate - ARRA, aka The Porkulus, was designed from the ground up to simply spend money (in the naive Keynesian hope that the economy would be revived - obviously not). it was never designed to "accomplish" anything except that.
Government Spending and Root Causes
The article mentions that there are only three battery factories operating in the USA, in spite of the country being a leader in battery research. Thanks to government initiatives, this is about to change, with about 30 plants now being built. This is encouraging, assuming that the funds used to support this development, supplied in part by current and future tax payers (individuals and businesses), would not have a more beneficial impact if spent by them in response to market forces.
Governments are very diligent in tabulating the direct and indirect benefits that result from their programs, as well they should be. However, I have noticed that they rarely (if ever), provide an estimate of the negative economic contribution associated with removing money from the market-driven economy, to fund these programs. An unbiased, rigorous analysis of the value of any government program would subtract losses to the market economy from gross program benefits, in order to calculate a net benefit.
I see another problem with these government programs. There are bound to be certain root causes which are responsible for the dearth of manufacturing of batteries (and lots of other stuff) in the USA. If this government spending does not address these root causes (and I'm not convinced that it does), the benefits resulting from the spending will be a temporary departure from normal trends; and they will not be sustainable.
I'm not against government spending on R&D and other investments, if it's done right. But since we taxpayers are the real investors - Governments are, in effect, managing our money - We need to ask tough questions about cost-effectiveness and incrementality.
Manufacturing in the United States is in trouble. That's bad news not just for the country's economy but for the future of innovation.
Our list of the 50 most innovative companies, including the following:
On Twitter
Become a Fan on Facebook
Subscribe to the Feed
RD
211 Comments
Issues
DOE also has funded ethanol research which has taken America in the WRONG direction. By promoting ethanol, America damages or destroys many of the 300 million open cycle engines. www.opei.org/ht/a/GetDocumentAction/i/1926. And automakers now have asked the EPA to delay E15 implementation because they found HALF of all cars get damaged with E15 www.nytimes.com/2010/05/05/business/energy-environment/05ethanol.html?src=busln. This funding will cost Americans MORE to fix.
DOE also pushes 'green technology' that has a reliance on rare earth elements, of which China has a monopoly. So for promoting windmills and electric cars, DOE has been forcing more demand on a decreasing supply. DOE is creating MORE JOBS FOR CHINA.
Reply