My chief worry right now is not that this technology will not work. It is assuming that it does work that the government will seize it using some lame eminent domain argument. They would probably screw up the prototype research, then the deployment would be totally politicized with the government, not the people reaping all the benefits.

I googled “ARPA-E” and found on this site http://opencrs.com/document/RL34497 that:

In August 2007, Congress authorized the establishment of the Advanced Research Projects Agency – Energy (ARPA-E) within the Department of Energy (DOE) as part of the America COMPETES Act (P.L. 110-69).

Yet the Mercury article quoted in first post above says that:

Deep in the $787 billion stimulus bill that became law two weeks ago is $400 million to launch ARPA-E, the Advanced Research Projects Authority for Energy.

I guess in August 2007, ARPA-E is “established”, but with $400million in 2009, it gets “launched”. Oh, wait! Reading further in the opencrs article, we see the Bush administration didn’t want to really fund ARPA-E:

The Bush Administration questions whether the DARPA model can be used for the energy sector and is concerned that it might redirect funds away from current DOE research activities, particularly the DOE Office of Science. Instead, the President’s FY2009 budget requests funding for six new technology transfer collaborations. ARPA-E proponents doubt that DOE can achieve ARPA-E’s goals with its existing structure and personnel, as opposed to the ARPA-E’s innovative R&D;management design.

So, it was funded, but not actually funded (authorized funds – psych -not appropriated):

Congress authorized $300 million for ARPA-E in FY2008 and “such sums as are necessary” for FY2009 and FY2010. Congress subsequently appropriated no funds for FY2008. The Administration requested no funds for ARPA-E in FY2009.

Where does that leave us now? $400 million, but will that be authorized/not appropriated as well?

And who are the contact people there! I’m off to find an address. Is it even up and running yet? Has it only been on paper since 2007?

It will be cool if Obama becomes the “Fusion President”.

I still don’t think most people in this country have been able to wake – up and realize the sheer magnitude of the fossil fuel dependence and how much effort, will – power and determination is going to be required to overcome this problem. They simply don’t comprehend the sheer urgency or scope of it all. Eventually, every car on the road will have to be replaced by an electric or hybrid electric. Literally thousands (millions?) of new nuclear electric powerplants would have to be built to replace oil. Just to build all this new infrastructure will require more fossil fuel consumption for just a while longer until it can all be built. And because the DEA has suppressed renewable industrial hemp so long, it will take forever to put enough acres into cultivation to even put a dent in the problem.

And then you have the deeply entrenched interests. Will any coal mining company, oil company, or fuel – thirsty jet airline industry just simply volunteer to go out of business to save the planet? Not hardly. If Jimmy Carter could have had it his way back during the 1970’s, we would probably be well on our way by now. But you know how that turned – out. When Reagan became President, the entrenched interests and business as usual got things their way. The operating budget for Carter’s DOE was severely slashed until it became a virtually worthless and ineffective government agency. So now we’re playing catch – up on the problem and lagging decades behind. Even if Lerner’s research team gets focus fusion on the fast track to development, will big business try to suppress focus fusion and electric cars that run off it?

Because the bridge to the future and all the necessary infrastructure will require more fossil fuel consumption in order to get there, I sincerely hope President Obama and his good intentions don’t burn down that bridge with too much taxation and caps on CO2 emissions before we get there. The goose must lay the golden egg first. Only then is it O.K. to go ahead and kill the goose. He doesn’t expect all these windplants, photovoltaic solar panels and other things to just build themselves without fossil fuels being consumed, does he?

Aside from waiting for ARPA-E to come together, how else can we tap the stimulus grants? It’s a bit daunting looking at the literature.

The feds have some handy sites: http://www.recovery.gov/ and http://grants.gov

For recovery grants, we’re directed to this link http://www07.grants.gov/applicants/recovery.jsp

Looking at their timeline, there doesn’t seem to be much time to jump in, find a grant, and apply for it. http://www.recovery.gov/?q=content/timeline This all seems very rushed.

The National Council of Nonprofits offers these words of comfort:

With so many businesses, governments, and nonprofits struggling to survive financially, there may be an immediate “feeding frenzy” as people eye the stimulus bill and angle for a slice.

and

Nonprofit leaders should review their mission statements, review their community needs, and review the stimulus bill to see if there is alignment. If not, then pass and find other ways to help our nation’s economy recover, including stepping forward to ensure that wise decisions are made so the stimulus funds really “stimulate” the broader economy. Avoid mission drift: don’t chase after the money. Keep true to your mission and core values.

I’m just overwhelmed, back at the grants.gov site, trying to find a grant that fits focus fusion or LPP. Take the NSF “Emerging Frontiers in Research and Innovation” grant, the title sounds right, but the emerging frontiers they’re interested in are BioSensing & BioActuation: Interface of Living and Engineered Systems (BSBA), and Hydrocarbons from Biomass (HyBi). And many other stipulations which disqualify LPP, even if the frontier were aligned.

The timing does seem to have passed on all of this (the above required an initial letter of intent in December, before Obama was even in office. Grantseeking was never my best skill.

Here’s hoping the ARPA-E thing materializes.

Continuing to track ARPA-E:
EETimes article: Stimulus: Energy Department scrambles to build new R&D;agency notes that:

The stimulus package contains about $43 billion for energy efficiency and technology programs, including $4.3 billion for smart power grid R&D;. Industry groups and companies large and small are already lining up to win federal energy funding. Whoever is selected to head ARPA-E must be confirmed by the Senate, meaning the nominee will likely have to wait to get on a crowded Senate confirmation schedule. The director will report to Chu.

The chief congressional promoter of ARPA-E in Congress is Rep. Bart Gordon (D-Tenn.), chairman of the House Science Committee. Backers said the new energy R&D;agency would act as a “broker” that would bring together industry and university researchers with U.S. national laboratories. The stimulus package will fund “renewable energy technology development, standards-setting and deployment of smart grid technologies, demonstration of carbon capture and storage, grants for companies producing advanced batteries and loan guarantees for the deployment of existing clean technologies,” Gordon said in a statement.

Hmmm. No mention of fusion.

An industry source nevertheless expressed concern about how long it would take to set up the new energy research agency. “How do they expect to spend $400 million quickly if there is no one there?” the source said.

Gordon’s panel has created a Web site designed to track federal R&D;spending. Along with federal research agencies, the committee is also tracking funding designated for the America COMPETES Act, the legislation that created ARPA-E.

Visiting the website, we find Bart Gordon’s on twitter. Yay. We’ll send out a shout.

Wow. Hot off the press. That’s dated April 27. Reading it, I see we are a great fit. We can check off all 4 boxes of the ARPA-E Mission Areas, and they DO have a box for Nuclear Fusion in the Application Areas. Even the amounts:

ARPA-E anticipates that most awards will be for total project costs in the range of $2 million to $5 million.

Now, to apply.

…ARPA-E applicants are required to submit a concept paper as the first step of the application process. ARPA-E will review the concept paper and provide early feedback on whether the kernel of the R&D;idea is likely to form a basis of a successful full application. Only after notification from ARPA-E on the concept paper will the applicant be permitted to submit a full application.

And we’re to do it via “Fedconnect“. Are we registered with them?

In any case, clicking the “Search public Opportunities” link and “Reference Number” DE-FOA-0000065 brings us to our target. (Somehow I can’t put a direct link here in the forum. As you see, it says “session ended” or you have to re-enter the ref #. So you have to go through the steps.)

Anyway, back to the concept paper:

The concept paper must be submitted through http://www.FedConnect.net. The total concept paper is limited to eight (8) pages, exclusive of the cover sheet (Appendix 1). All pages shall be formatted to fit on 8-1/2 by 11 inch paper with type not smaller than 12 point and margins not less than one inch on every side. The concept paper must be submitted as a PDF file. The page limitation for applications includes all figures, tables, and charts. The submission of other supporting materials is strongly discouraged as it will not be considered for review. All applications must be written in English.
No later than one week prior to the concept paper submission deadline, the applicant must submit a web-based cover sheet through http://www.arpa-e.energy.gov/foa/coverpage.html (Appendix 1). Once the cover page is submitted, ARPA-E will email the applicant an application control number. This number must be placed at the top right corner of each page of the concept paper.

So, it looks like the first step is the web-based cover sheet, and it’s not up yet – link above goes to page that says, “Link to Cover Sheet Template: Will be posted soon.” I suppose in a few days. We’re chomping at the bit here. But the application itself gives a sample.

Let’s do this thing!

I fail to see how a 95% reduction in the production costs of energy would not be considered a “technological lead”.

I’m also surprised that the Anti-Obama peanut galery didn’t chime in after the Reagan attack a few pages up.