Earlier, I guessed that Bush's "Advanced Energy Initiative" amounted to a promise of $264 million in new money to EERE. Mike Millikin at GreenCarCongress seems to think it's more -- specifically, $996 million. Since he's smarter than me, I suppose I'll accept his breakdown of the funding, though he doesn't say where he got it:
Funding proposals to support the Advanced Energy Initiative in the President's 2007 Budget will include:
- $150 million -- a $59-million increase (65%) over FY06 -- for the Biorefinery Initiative, the purpose of which is to help develop bio-based transportation fuels from agricultural waste products, such as wood chips, stalks, or switch grass.
- $30 million -- an increase of $6.7 million (29%) over FY06 -- to speed up battery development for hybrids and plug-in hybrids.
- $289 million -- an increase of $53 million (22%) over FY06 -- to accelerate the development of hydrogen fuel cells and hydrogen-powered cars.
- $281 million for the development of clean coal technologies. The President had committed $2 billion over 10 years to speed up research in the use of clean coal for power generation. The 2007 Budget request will nearly complete that $2-billion promise 4 years ahead of schedule, according to the White House.
- $54 million for the FutureGen initiative -- a public-private partnership to develop an emissions-free coal plant. (Earlier post.)
- $148 million for a new Solar America Initiative -- an increase of $65 million (78%) over FY06 -- to accelerate the development of solar photovoltaic cells.
- $44 million for wind energy research -- a $5-million increase (13%) over FY06 levels.
If you add the $281 million for "clean coal" and the $54 million for FutureGen you get $335 million. In other words, by far the biggest recipient of Bush's "alternative energy" money is coal. I'm sure I don't need to point out that coal does not replace oil. So there goes 28% of the "solution." Solar and wind won't replace oil either -- not unless that plug-in and hydrogen-car research produces some electric cars mighty quick -- so altogether 47% of Bush's response to oil addiction is totally irrelevant.
Some alternative.
(For curiosity's sake, I've appended a table showing the current priorities of EERE. )
Comments
View as Threaded
greenstork Posted 4:48 am
01 Feb 2006
If I understand correctly, he is increasing research funding for cellulosic ethanol, one of the most promising biofuel technologies in the pipeline. Yet all I'm reading on this blog is what he screwed up and how he fell short on his SOTU.
If I was to walk in to my favorite nonprofit advocacy organization and ask them which areas of technological research would be the most ideal for combating climate change, what do you think they would say? I would imagine they would put cellulosic ethanol high on the list, along with algal biodiesel for oil alternatives. And wind and solar would surely be mentioned for our power needs.
I have no doubt that this research money is just another corporate subsidy and I have no love for anything related to coal, but when is a subsidy going to the right cause? When would you be happy David Roberts? With no subsidies at all?
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 5:33 am
01 Feb 2006
My point, Greenstork, is simply this: Bush said we have a big problem. We're addicted to oil. By any measure, his proposed response to that problem is grossly, almost comically, inadequate.
I would prefer, honestly, that the federal government get out of the energy-subsidy business altogether, and simply institute a stiff carbon tax. Given that such a development is, uh, unlikely, I'm all for some subsidies for wind, solar, and cellulosic ethanol. I don't mean to say such subsidies are a bad thing, given current realities. But they aren't exactly change-the-world stuff either.
www.grist.org
Permalink
rh Posted 5:52 am
01 Feb 2006
As Joe Romm has pointed out, we have all the technology we need. What we need to do is get that technology deployed in a meaningful way that has more than a 1 or 2% impact.
I see touting "technology" as just another piece of the "We're spending billions on climate change research" argument - you should read it as "By continuing to spend money on research, we can put off actually doing anything!!"
(and don't take that as an attack on research - it's not. I strongly support research, but research without a commercialized product doesn't do us much good...)
And no, Dave, to answer your question, it certainly isn't an answer that meets the scale of the issue at hand.
Permalink
odograph Posted 6:40 am
01 Feb 2006
Permalink