Friday, August 3, 2012
Back to the Basics of Sustainability -- Houses of Bark and Energy of Sunshine
Post from the blog of the U.S. Dept. of Energy:
http://energy.gov/articles/back-basics-sustainability-houses-bark-and-energy-sunshine
http://energy.gov/articles/back-basics-sustainability-houses-bark-and-energy-sunshine
Thursday, August 2, 2012
ARPA-E Announces $43 Million for Transformational Energy Storage Projects to Advance Electric Vehicle and Grid Technologies
Press release from the U.S. Dept. of Energy:
ARPA-E Announces $43 Million for Transformational Energy Storage Projects to Advance Electric Vehicle and Grid Technologies
August 2, 2012 - 10:34am
News Media Contact
WASHINGTON – The Department of Energy today announced that 19 transformative
new projects will receive a total of $43 million in funding from the
Department’s Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E) to leverage the
nation’s brightest scientists, engineers and entrepreneurs to develop
breakthrough energy storage technologies and support promising small businesses.
These projects are supported through two new ARPA-E programs -- Advanced
Management and Protection of Energy Storage Devices (AMPED) and Small Business
Innovation Research (SBIR) – and will focus on innovations in battery management
and storage to advance electric vehicle technologies, help improve the
efficiency and reliability of the electrical grid and provide important energy
security benefits to America’s armed forces.
“This latest round of ARPA-E projects seek to address the remaining challenges in energy storage technologies, which could revolutionize the way Americans store and use energy in electric vehicles, the grid and beyond, while also potentially improving the access to energy for the U.S. military at forward operating bases in remote areas,” said Secretary of Energy Steven Chu. “These cutting-edge projects could transform our energy infrastructure, dramatically reduce our reliance on imported oil and increase American energy security.”
Twelve research projects are receiving $30 million in funding under the AMPED program, which aims to develop advanced sensing and control technologies that could dramatically improve and provide new innovations in safety, performance, and lifetime for grid-scale and vehicle batteries. Unlike other Department of Energy efforts to push the frontiers of battery chemistry, AMPED is focused on maximizing the potential of existing battery chemistries. These innovations will help reduce costs and improve the performance of next generation storage technologies, which could be applied in both plug-in electric and hybrid-electric vehicles. For example, Battelle Memorial Institute in Columbus, Ohio, will develop an optical sensor to monitor the internal environment of a lithium-ion battery in real-time.
ARPA-E is also announcing a total of $13 million for seven projects to enterprising small businesses to pursue cutting-edge energy storage developments for stationary power and electric vehicles. These projects will develop new innovative battery chemistries and battery designs, continuing ARPA-E’s funding for storage technologies. These awards are part of the larger Department-wide Small Business Innovative Research (SBIR)/Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) program. For example, Energy Storage Systems, Inc., in Portland, Oregon, will construct a flow battery for grid scale storage using an advanced cell design and electrolyte materials composed of low cost iron. The flow battery will have a target storage cost of less than $100/kWh, which could enable deployment of renewable energy technologies throughout the grid.
Information on all of the new AMPED and SBIR projects announced today is available HERE.
ARPA-E’s Principal Deputy Director Eric Toone announced the selected projects at the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation’s event, the “New Age of Discovery: Government’s Role in Transformative Innovation,” in Washington, DC, where he spoke alongside former ARPA-E Director Arun Majumdar.
ARPA-E was launched in 2009 to seek out transformational, breakthrough technologies that are too risky for private-sector investment but have the potential to translate science into quantum leaps in energy technology, form the foundation for entirely new industries, and have large commercial impacts. Prior to today’s announcement, ARPA-E has attracted over 5,000 applications from research teams, which have resulted in approximately 180 groundbreaking projects worth nearly $500 million. More information on the program is available at www.arpa-e.energy.gov.
“This latest round of ARPA-E projects seek to address the remaining challenges in energy storage technologies, which could revolutionize the way Americans store and use energy in electric vehicles, the grid and beyond, while also potentially improving the access to energy for the U.S. military at forward operating bases in remote areas,” said Secretary of Energy Steven Chu. “These cutting-edge projects could transform our energy infrastructure, dramatically reduce our reliance on imported oil and increase American energy security.”
Twelve research projects are receiving $30 million in funding under the AMPED program, which aims to develop advanced sensing and control technologies that could dramatically improve and provide new innovations in safety, performance, and lifetime for grid-scale and vehicle batteries. Unlike other Department of Energy efforts to push the frontiers of battery chemistry, AMPED is focused on maximizing the potential of existing battery chemistries. These innovations will help reduce costs and improve the performance of next generation storage technologies, which could be applied in both plug-in electric and hybrid-electric vehicles. For example, Battelle Memorial Institute in Columbus, Ohio, will develop an optical sensor to monitor the internal environment of a lithium-ion battery in real-time.
ARPA-E is also announcing a total of $13 million for seven projects to enterprising small businesses to pursue cutting-edge energy storage developments for stationary power and electric vehicles. These projects will develop new innovative battery chemistries and battery designs, continuing ARPA-E’s funding for storage technologies. These awards are part of the larger Department-wide Small Business Innovative Research (SBIR)/Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) program. For example, Energy Storage Systems, Inc., in Portland, Oregon, will construct a flow battery for grid scale storage using an advanced cell design and electrolyte materials composed of low cost iron. The flow battery will have a target storage cost of less than $100/kWh, which could enable deployment of renewable energy technologies throughout the grid.
Information on all of the new AMPED and SBIR projects announced today is available HERE.
ARPA-E’s Principal Deputy Director Eric Toone announced the selected projects at the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation’s event, the “New Age of Discovery: Government’s Role in Transformative Innovation,” in Washington, DC, where he spoke alongside former ARPA-E Director Arun Majumdar.
ARPA-E was launched in 2009 to seek out transformational, breakthrough technologies that are too risky for private-sector investment but have the potential to translate science into quantum leaps in energy technology, form the foundation for entirely new industries, and have large commercial impacts. Prior to today’s announcement, ARPA-E has attracted over 5,000 applications from research teams, which have resulted in approximately 180 groundbreaking projects worth nearly $500 million. More information on the program is available at www.arpa-e.energy.gov.
INHOFE AGAIN REQUESTS SEC. MABUS TO DISCLOSE FULL COST OF GREEN FLEET DEMONSTRATION
Press release from the Office of Senator Jim Inhofe:
INHOFE AGAIN REQUESTS SEC. MABUS TO DISCLOSE FULL COST OF GREEN FLEET DEMONSTRATION
August 2, 2012
WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), a senior member of the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC), today issued a second letter to Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus requesting again a full, detailed report on the cost of the U.S. Navy’s “Green Fleet” demonstration and overall alternative energy program. Sen. Inhofe’s first request was made on July 24, which led to Sec. Mabus responding to only a few of the questions.
“To be clear, I fully support the development and use of all sources of alternative fuels,” said Inhofe in the letter. “For the sake of our energy security and independence, we must take an all-of-the-above approach in order to end our dependence on foreign oil. This includes making full use of Research and Development (R&D) funds to test, evaluate and certify all types of alternative fuels. At the same time, I believe these pursuits within themilitary must be sensible and affordable solutions. Using scarce Operations and Maintenance (O&M) funds impacts readiness and jeopardizes the lives of our service men and women.”
The second letter to Sec. Mabus reiterated the unanswered questions that would qualify “at a minimum” as disclosing the total cost for the demonstration. Sen. Inhofe also requested a report on the Navy’s R&D and O&M expenditures on alternative energy over the past 10 years. A copy of the letter can be read here.
Sec. Mabus’ initial response answered Sen. Inhofe’s questions on the cost to ship the fuel from Louisiana and Texas to Washington state by ground; cost to the Navy to paint logos on its aircrafts and ships to promote the event; and cost of the green hats and t-shirts to mark the event and who provided the funding. This came to a total of almost $13 million. A copy of the letter can be read here.
“The budget cuts DOD and all the Services have already absorbed, in addition to those that could be realized under sequestration, are a stark reminder of how responsible the DOD must be with current acquisitions and planned purchases,” said Inhofe in the letter. “It is imperative that DOD and all the Services effectively use the shrinking funds available to continue providing an adequate defense for the men and women of this country and ourallies abroad.”
In closing, Sen. Inhofe asked about the Navy’s involvement with the Department of Defense (DOD) in funding the design and construction of “commercial-scale” biorefineries. Despite the DOD being denied by SASC in 2011 to reprogram $170 million from O&M for these refineries, the FY’12 Omnibus provided an unspecified amount to build biofuel refineries. In President Obama’s FY’13 budget request, $70 million more is appropriated for building these refineries.
Sen. Inhofe has been the leading voice exposing the Obama Administration’s attempt to force its liberal green agenda through the Department of Defense. He has expressed concern that the “greening” of the military is stalling advancements in energy independence and undermining national security.
###
Support for the wind-energy production tax credit
Press release:
For Immediate Release
August 2, 2012
August 2, 2012
Support for the wind-energy production tax credit
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Reporters and Editors
RE: Support for the wind-energy production tax credit
DA: Thursday, August 2, 2012
Senator Chuck Grassley issued the following comment about the inclusion today of a one-year extension of the wind-energy tax credit in The Family and Business Tax Cut Certainty Act of 2012 reported by the Committee on Finance. The overall package includes an amendment written by Senator Grassley and accepted this morning as part of the modified proposal of Committee Chairman Max Baucus.
Grassley comment:
“The wind-energy production tax credit is designed to level the playing field for this renewable resource against coal-fired and nuclear electricity generation. The credit has been successful in developing clean, renewable, domestically produced wind energy and the jobs that go along with it. The one-year extension approved today would make the credit effective for producers for one more year. In the face of an effort to end this incentive, I persuaded committee leaders to include the extension in a way that keeps it at full value and that puts the wind-energy production tax credit in a strong position for the floor debate this fall. No single energy tax incentive should be singled out over others, energy-related and not, before a broad-based tax reform debate. Congress and the President need to take up tax reform to make American business more competitive with lower rates, a broader tax base, and a simpler code. Until tax reform is undertaken, workers and employers need certainty in existing tax law.”
Description of the Grassley amendment to The Family and Business Tax Cut Certainty Act of 2012:
Extend for one year, through December 31, 2013, the section 45 production tax credit for wind which expires on December 31, 2012. Modify placed-in-service date for wind to a “begin construction” rule.
Background information:
Senator Grassley authored the legislation that created the wind-energy production tax credit in 1992 and has won passage of extensions a number of times.
Today, wind-energy production supports 75,000 American jobs and drives as much as $20 billion in private investment. During the last five years, 35 percent of all new electric generation in the United States was wind. There are nearly 400 wind-related manufacturing facilities in the United States today, compared with just 30 in 2004.
Conventional energy sources, including oil, gas and nuclear, enjoy countless tax incentives and many of them are permanent law.
TO: Reporters and Editors
RE: Support for the wind-energy production tax credit
DA: Thursday, August 2, 2012
Senator Chuck Grassley issued the following comment about the inclusion today of a one-year extension of the wind-energy tax credit in The Family and Business Tax Cut Certainty Act of 2012 reported by the Committee on Finance. The overall package includes an amendment written by Senator Grassley and accepted this morning as part of the modified proposal of Committee Chairman Max Baucus.
Grassley comment:
“The wind-energy production tax credit is designed to level the playing field for this renewable resource against coal-fired and nuclear electricity generation. The credit has been successful in developing clean, renewable, domestically produced wind energy and the jobs that go along with it. The one-year extension approved today would make the credit effective for producers for one more year. In the face of an effort to end this incentive, I persuaded committee leaders to include the extension in a way that keeps it at full value and that puts the wind-energy production tax credit in a strong position for the floor debate this fall. No single energy tax incentive should be singled out over others, energy-related and not, before a broad-based tax reform debate. Congress and the President need to take up tax reform to make American business more competitive with lower rates, a broader tax base, and a simpler code. Until tax reform is undertaken, workers and employers need certainty in existing tax law.”
Description of the Grassley amendment to The Family and Business Tax Cut Certainty Act of 2012:
Extend for one year, through December 31, 2013, the section 45 production tax credit for wind which expires on December 31, 2012. Modify placed-in-service date for wind to a “begin construction” rule.
Background information:
Senator Grassley authored the legislation that created the wind-energy production tax credit in 1992 and has won passage of extensions a number of times.
Today, wind-energy production supports 75,000 American jobs and drives as much as $20 billion in private investment. During the last five years, 35 percent of all new electric generation in the United States was wind. There are nearly 400 wind-related manufacturing facilities in the United States today, compared with just 30 in 2004.
Conventional energy sources, including oil, gas and nuclear, enjoy countless tax incentives and many of them are permanent law.
Wednesday, August 1, 2012
The Renewable Fuels Standard, Ethanol, and the U.S. Corn Crop
Press release:
For Immediate Release
August 1, 2012
August 1, 2012
The Renewable Fuels Standard, Ethanol, and the U.S. Corn Crop
Mr. President,
The President and CEO of Smithfield Foods, Larry Pope, took to the opinion pages of the Wall Street Journal again to blame all that ails him on the Renewable Fuels Standard.
Some may recall that he did the same thing back in April of 2010 when commodity prices were rising. At that time, he perpetuated a smear campaign and blamed ethanol in an attempt to deflect blame for rising food prices while boosting Smithfield’s profits. And now he’s at it again.
I may start referring to Mr. Pope as Henny Penny from the children’s folk tale Chicken Little. Every time Smithfield has to pay a little more to America’s corn farmers to feed his hogs, Mr. Pope starts up with the same argument that the sky is falling and it’s all ethanol’s fault.
Mr. Pope’s opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal might lead some to believe that he’s very knowledgeable about the ethanol industry. But there are many areas where he’s not. He continues to perpetuate the myth that ethanol production consumes 40 percent of the U.S. corn crop. Mr. Pope states, “ethanol now consumes more corn than animal agriculture does.”
Everyone with a basic understanding of a livestock farm, a corn kernel or an ethanol plant knows that’s not true. According to USDA, 37 percent of the corn supply is used in producing ethanol. But the value of the corn does not simply vanish when ethanol is produced. One-third of the corn re-enters the market as a high value animal feed called dried distillers grains.
I would imagine that millions of hogs raised by Smithfield every year are fed a diet containing this ethanol co-product. Mr. Pope appears unaware of its existence. When the distillers’ grains are factored in, 43 percent of the corn supply is available for animal feed. Only 28 percent is used for ethanol.
This is the inconvenient truth for ethanol detractors. They prefer to live in a bubble where they believe that ethanol is diverting corn from livestock use. That’s just not the case.
Mr. Pope also proclaims, “Ironically, if the ethanol mandate did not exist, even this year’s drought-depleted corn crop would have been more than enough to meet the requirements for livestock feed and food production at decent prices.”
I’d like to ask Mr. Pope, why do you think that is? Why did farmers plant 96 million acres of corn this year? Why have seed producers spent millions to develop better yielding and drought resistant traits? The answer is simple: Ethanol.
If not for ethanol, farmers wouldn’t have planted 96 million acres of corn this year. Without ethanol, I doubt we’d have seen investment in higher yielding and more drought tolerant corn plants.
I’m sure Mr. Pope is an intelligent man. But he’s woefully uninformed on the issue of what the ethanol industry and the demand for corn has done for the size and genetic improvement of the corn crop.
It’s easy to understand Smithfield’s motive. They benefit from an abundant supply of corn, just not the competing demand for it. What is Smithfield’s primary problem? Again, the answer is simple: cost and profit. They still want to pay $2 for a bushel of corn.
This is an important point that I hope people understand. For nearly 30 years, until about 2005, companies like Smithfield had the luxury of buying corn below the cost of production. Corn prices remained at about $1.50 to $3.00 a bushel for nearly 30 years. Farmers routinely lost money.
The federal government then provided economic support for the farmers. Producers like Smithfield had the best of both worlds. They were able to buy corn below the cost of production, and let the federal government subsidize their business by guaranteeing a cheap supply of corn.
In the view corporate livestock producers, subsidies are just fine if they allow them to buy corn below the cost of production. Anybody could look like a genius with that business model.
Mr. Pope also continues to overstate the impact of corn prices on the consumer. Agriculture Secretary Vilsack recently stated that farmers receive about 14 cents of every dollar spent on food at the grocery store. Of that, about three cents is the value of the corn costs.
A research economist at the USDA recently stated that a 50-percent increase in the price of corn will raise the total grocery shopping bill by about one percent. To put it in perspective, the value of corn in a four-dollar box of corn flakes is about ten cents.
Mr. Pope also exaggerated the impact of ethanol on food prices in 2010, and he’s doing it again today. He’s using the devastating drought to once again undermine our nation’s food, feed and fuel producers. And he’s doing it to make more money.
Repealing the Renewable Fuels standard won’t bolster Smithfield’s profits. Because of the flexibility built into the renewable fuels mandate, a waiver won’t significantly reduce corn prices.
A recent study by Professor Bruce Babcock at Iowa State University found that a complete waiver of the Renewable Fuels Standard might reduce corn prices by only 4.6 percent. The report states, “The desire by livestock groups to see additional flexibility in ethanol mandates may not result in as large a drop in feed costs as hoped.” And, “…the flexibility built into the Renewable Fuels Standard allowing obligated parties to carry over blending credits from previous years significantly lowers the economic impacts of a short crop, because it introduces flexibility into the mandate.”
The drought is enormous in both scale and severity. But we won’t know the true impact until September, when the harvest begins. The latest estimates from USDA indicate an average yield of 146 bushels per acre. That would result in a harvest of 13 billion bushels. This would still be one of the largest corn harvests.
I would suggest that those claiming the sky is falling withhold their call for waiving or repealing the Renewable Fuels Standard. It’s a premature action that will not produce the desired result. And it would increase our dependence on foreign oil and drive up prices at the pump for consumers.
The President and CEO of Smithfield Foods, Larry Pope, took to the opinion pages of the Wall Street Journal again to blame all that ails him on the Renewable Fuels Standard.
Some may recall that he did the same thing back in April of 2010 when commodity prices were rising. At that time, he perpetuated a smear campaign and blamed ethanol in an attempt to deflect blame for rising food prices while boosting Smithfield’s profits. And now he’s at it again.
I may start referring to Mr. Pope as Henny Penny from the children’s folk tale Chicken Little. Every time Smithfield has to pay a little more to America’s corn farmers to feed his hogs, Mr. Pope starts up with the same argument that the sky is falling and it’s all ethanol’s fault.
Mr. Pope’s opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal might lead some to believe that he’s very knowledgeable about the ethanol industry. But there are many areas where he’s not. He continues to perpetuate the myth that ethanol production consumes 40 percent of the U.S. corn crop. Mr. Pope states, “ethanol now consumes more corn than animal agriculture does.”
Everyone with a basic understanding of a livestock farm, a corn kernel or an ethanol plant knows that’s not true. According to USDA, 37 percent of the corn supply is used in producing ethanol. But the value of the corn does not simply vanish when ethanol is produced. One-third of the corn re-enters the market as a high value animal feed called dried distillers grains.
I would imagine that millions of hogs raised by Smithfield every year are fed a diet containing this ethanol co-product. Mr. Pope appears unaware of its existence. When the distillers’ grains are factored in, 43 percent of the corn supply is available for animal feed. Only 28 percent is used for ethanol.
This is the inconvenient truth for ethanol detractors. They prefer to live in a bubble where they believe that ethanol is diverting corn from livestock use. That’s just not the case.
Mr. Pope also proclaims, “Ironically, if the ethanol mandate did not exist, even this year’s drought-depleted corn crop would have been more than enough to meet the requirements for livestock feed and food production at decent prices.”
I’d like to ask Mr. Pope, why do you think that is? Why did farmers plant 96 million acres of corn this year? Why have seed producers spent millions to develop better yielding and drought resistant traits? The answer is simple: Ethanol.
If not for ethanol, farmers wouldn’t have planted 96 million acres of corn this year. Without ethanol, I doubt we’d have seen investment in higher yielding and more drought tolerant corn plants.
I’m sure Mr. Pope is an intelligent man. But he’s woefully uninformed on the issue of what the ethanol industry and the demand for corn has done for the size and genetic improvement of the corn crop.
It’s easy to understand Smithfield’s motive. They benefit from an abundant supply of corn, just not the competing demand for it. What is Smithfield’s primary problem? Again, the answer is simple: cost and profit. They still want to pay $2 for a bushel of corn.
This is an important point that I hope people understand. For nearly 30 years, until about 2005, companies like Smithfield had the luxury of buying corn below the cost of production. Corn prices remained at about $1.50 to $3.00 a bushel for nearly 30 years. Farmers routinely lost money.
The federal government then provided economic support for the farmers. Producers like Smithfield had the best of both worlds. They were able to buy corn below the cost of production, and let the federal government subsidize their business by guaranteeing a cheap supply of corn.
In the view corporate livestock producers, subsidies are just fine if they allow them to buy corn below the cost of production. Anybody could look like a genius with that business model.
Mr. Pope also continues to overstate the impact of corn prices on the consumer. Agriculture Secretary Vilsack recently stated that farmers receive about 14 cents of every dollar spent on food at the grocery store. Of that, about three cents is the value of the corn costs.
A research economist at the USDA recently stated that a 50-percent increase in the price of corn will raise the total grocery shopping bill by about one percent. To put it in perspective, the value of corn in a four-dollar box of corn flakes is about ten cents.
Mr. Pope also exaggerated the impact of ethanol on food prices in 2010, and he’s doing it again today. He’s using the devastating drought to once again undermine our nation’s food, feed and fuel producers. And he’s doing it to make more money.
Repealing the Renewable Fuels standard won’t bolster Smithfield’s profits. Because of the flexibility built into the renewable fuels mandate, a waiver won’t significantly reduce corn prices.
A recent study by Professor Bruce Babcock at Iowa State University found that a complete waiver of the Renewable Fuels Standard might reduce corn prices by only 4.6 percent. The report states, “The desire by livestock groups to see additional flexibility in ethanol mandates may not result in as large a drop in feed costs as hoped.” And, “…the flexibility built into the Renewable Fuels Standard allowing obligated parties to carry over blending credits from previous years significantly lowers the economic impacts of a short crop, because it introduces flexibility into the mandate.”
The drought is enormous in both scale and severity. But we won’t know the true impact until September, when the harvest begins. The latest estimates from USDA indicate an average yield of 146 bushels per acre. That would result in a harvest of 13 billion bushels. This would still be one of the largest corn harvests.
I would suggest that those claiming the sky is falling withhold their call for waiving or repealing the Renewable Fuels Standard. It’s a premature action that will not produce the desired result. And it would increase our dependence on foreign oil and drive up prices at the pump for consumers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)