Chu Announces $193 Million For Renewable Energy Research

GOLDEN, Colo. — The primary U.S. lab for renewable energy will receive $110 million in federal stimulus funds and another $83 million will go toward wind energy and other alternative power and efficiency projects, Energy Secretary Steven Chu said Wednesday.

"Wind energy will be one of the most important contributors to meeting President Obama's target of generating 10 percent of our electricity from renewable sources by 2012," Chu said.

Also on the administration's priorty list is making buildings more energy efficient.

NREL, in Golden, will get $68 million for an energy-efficient office building, with the goal of creating a design process for use on other construction projects. NREL will also receive $19.2 million for solar, geothermal and fuel cell equipment to produce electricity for its labs and $13.5 million for upgrades to its biorefinery research facility.

NREL will get another $10 million for testing and evaluation of wind technology at the Energy Department's Wind Technology Center in Colorado.

The wind energy research money will be administered by DOE's office in Golden and includes $45 million to research and test drive-train systems for wind turbines, $14 million to encourage private industry in the development of lighter, more advanced materials for wind turbine components and $24 million to develop up to three partnerships between universities and industry to focus on critical technological improvements for wind energy.

Obama's goal, Chu said, is to prepare the country to compete economically decades down the road, as well as meet the immediate challenges of climate change and energy demand.

"Because of those things, you want to get head of the curve," Chu said. "This is the president's vision, knowing what's going to happen 10, 20, 30 years from now. And we want to go where that is rather than fight a rearguard action."

Chu's visit to the lab was his first as energy secretary. He is a Nobel Prize-winning physicist and former director of the Lawrence Berkeley National Lab in Berkeley, Calif.

Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter said Chu is moving the U.S. toward "the next place that we need to go as a country."

The Energy Department is managing $39 billion in grants, tax breaks and loan guarantees under the stimulus package, with much of it going to renewable energy and conservation programs.

___

On the Web:

National Renewable Energy Laboratory: http://www.nrel.gov/

Comments

[robbor]

193 million?!! couldn't they come up with an even billion? if they're throwing around millions for research, we're doomed.

[Joethepauper]

Million! With an "M"??? We need an energy revolution, not an energy band-aid from the loose change that fell on the floor after the bailouts. We need to get out of oil, nuclear, and coal as fast as possible, not whenever we get around to it (with whatever funding is left after the CEOs get their share). WTF??

[robbor]

right on, man.

[MissElaineous]

That's a drop in the bucket compared to the defense department's budget for meddling in oil-rich countries.

[Matayo]

Took the words right out of my mouth. Considering the 2010 defense budget is over 600 BILLION, this sort of seems like chump change...

[ccwguy]

Umm, no. We need a huge national defense budget to keep and maintain our advanced weapons systems. Nobody can touch us because of what we spend on our military efforts.

And meddling in oil-rich countries? Maybe if you people would stop being va-gi-nas and get with the program, we could just invade Saudi Arabia and turn it into one big U.S. embassy. If we took/own the land, we wouldn't have to actually pay for it now would we?

[Matayo]

Umm, no. These 'advanced weapons systems' are obsolete- even Secretary Gates recognizes that modern warfare has no use for expensive weapons programs like the F-22 and the DDG-1000. The defense budget is so high because war is extremely profitable to government contractors like Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and Halliburton (among many others).

[nogimmicks]

I am afraid passing a few winds will not be sufficient. Mr Chu may need to go nuclear.

[Guitar63]

Nuclear is good in some ways... The problem is that so much waste is created in making it. There isn't really a good place to dispose of that waste... so what do we do? I'm sure you don't want it stored in your backyard...

[Egalitare]

Winds are virtually constant above a certain altitude. If we are going to research wind power (hopefully beyond what we already know works), we should spend some funds on how to capture wind power at whatever altitude yields uninterrupted flow.

[doctorkosan]

More money needs to be spent to advance these technologies to commercially ready status. The amount in the headline is paltry. Then these technologies can become solutions to the major energy supply problems we will be facing. Let's stop subsidizing oil and re-allocate some of that money to renewables- a large part of the current oil subsidy is in the Pentagon/military budget.

[RageCage]

This is another reason why so many people are getting frustrated with the government. Why is public money going to these research companies? If the sky's the limit for this energy technology, private investors would be clamoring to get their money into it. Are they? I assume not because otherwise there would be no need for the government to take our money and put it into wind power.

Besides, there are two main functions of the government: provide for the common defense and promote the general welfare. Is this government investment doing either?

[Brandon Crisler]

Its doing both. We spend billions of dollars and thousands of lives defending oil, we have done so for 100 years. It's clear that our energy situation is a serious national security risk. Do you need any better example than this summer's gas-hike? Secondly, concerning the general welfare, mining/drilling and burning fossil fuels damages the physical environment, alters the climate, and directly poisons people. Just look at the WHO's numbers on respiratory disease in heavily polluted areas. Not to mention we're running out of fossil fuels anyway. This is sound strategy one millionfold. I don't know how many times you conservatives need to be beaten over the head with this: NOBODY IS SPENDING RIGHT NOW and that is NOT good for the economy. The government must needs pick up the slack in dollars down. That's what got us out of the depression, that's what will get us out of our current mess. And by the way, do your homework, the government had to initially invest in oil to get it off the ground, so your argument fails there, too.

[Joethepauper]

You could explain it over and over to a "conservative" and they will never get that lightbulb above their head to light up. They will say they understand, but then they repeat the same counter argument that made no sense to begin with. I've been dealing with my own confused mother and stepfather for almost 9 years without results. Fox news has such a stranglehold on them that they can no longer think rationally. They keep it on 24/7 and never check any other news sources for comparison­/contrast. They don't check any facts or try to source any information. The reptilian part of their brains has grown through fear and agression to the point where it is pushing against their frontal lobes, discouraging rational thought. I've even produced evidence for them, but they don't want to read it or see it. Charts and graphs are just colorful pictures that don't mean anything "and were probably cooked-up by a liberal anyway". They never produce any evidence on their own and don't trust science or facts anyway. It's mega-frustrating when it's your own mom who's confused.

[TxAggie]

With 85% of the federal OCS off limits to O&G Exploration, how can you deduce that we are running out of fossil fuels? WE are running out of politicians with backbone, that is what we are running out of. Aside from that dirty nasty oil (that makes gasoline which I am sure you enjoy the use of) what about the natural gas reserves we have? If we are "defending oil" for the 15% that we import from the middle east, that is indeed a poor investment. What about our own home grown resources?

[Sumocat]

"Why is public money going to these research companies?" -- What research companies? The $193M is going to government research, not private companies.

As for the grants, tax breaks and loans, the fossil-fuel energy industry has been benefiting from those for decades, along with their private investors.

Re: common defense and general welfare, unless consuming mercury and funding hostile nations are good for us, moving away from toxic energy sources and foreign fuels seems to be in our best interests.

[plantguy]

Wish I could make some money and get rich, taxpayers will pay the price for rich people to get richer.

[Brandon Crisler]

Those wealthy universities and research groups, stealing our hard earned money! They're probably terrorists!

[Joethepauper]

Where have you been for the last 8 years? Did all Republicans undergo hypnosis via Fox News for the last decade? "The last thing I remember is Monica Lewinsky. I turned on the T.V. and Obama had ruined the economy, started two wars, taxed the hell out of our tea, and turned us all into Socialists". Cluing them in on the last 8 years will take a lot of work and I don't think it's worth it. Let them continue being ignorant. It's blissful, or so I hear.

[tapeatsbill]

Really glad to see it and thanks to Huff for newzing it.

But perspective is everything. In proper perspective this is literallly like a drop in the bucket.

Perspective: Our defense budgett is somewhere around $500 BILLION a year.
Next highest spending by any country - Russia ab out $50 billion.

ITs the 800 pound gorilla tearing up the house that no one talks about.

Stimulus package - piss on it.

$500 BILLION a year after year after year ........... perspective

Okay that's my rant for today.

Now its back to work ending debt pollution. www.TheGreenFInanceProject.org

[elmerfude]

Research bad -- oil good.

[rwext]

somebody better tell them the Duke of Chappaquidic is against wind

[Rucio]

Wind is already a mature technology. Throwing more money at it isn't going to make it work substantially better or get it to be much cheaper. The problem is that wind is a diffuse, intermittent, and highly variable source of energy.

[Sumocat]

Your sights are set too low. The future of wind will be a combination of locally-based, small-scale turbines and high-altitude, high-yield collectors, both of which are far from mature. High-altitude collection relies on the strong, steady winds far above us (and should ultimately extend to the jetstream, though that is dependent on further advancements in building materials). It is currently in the experimental stages and should solve all the problems you cite. On the cost side, check out the Jellyfish wind turbine, a roof-mounted device that relies on standard parts and plugs into existing AC outlets. These solutions combine centralized and decentralized power and require minimal land use.

[quiviran]

There are NREL studies which find that as few as three geographically diverse wind farms can provide capacity that is reliable enough for base load considerations and can frequently exceed the base load. The "generator in the jet stream" probably isn't necessary.

[joebaggadonuts]

The market based solution is a high gasoline and diesel tax. People will get the message. And now that Ford's Chairman has said it, I think the R's in Congress blocking the cap and trade bill will have only the gas tax to fall back on when they look for alternative ideas. Deliciously ironic, no?

Here's where I read about Ford. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/f00c2b0c-342b-11de-9eea-00144feabdc0.html

[quiviran]

Thanks for the link. That's probably why Ford will be the last legacy domestic car company in the US. I have high hope for Aptera and Tesla. GM and Chrysler just haven't gotten it (top management problem, not engineering or manufacturing).