ARPA-E Should Not Ever Be Shutdown Period.

Source: Department of Energy

The Trump Administration has waged war to close the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy Program (of division) over the last two and a half years.  Why?  In large part because President Obama created ARPA-E which immediately sets the organization into the crosshairs of the Congressional budget committee each year.  The behavior of the President is strange given that both Republicans and Democrats feel that funding for ARPA-E as an organization is critical to meet the energy needs of the future of the United States.



To understand the motivation further of the Trump Administration, let's take a look at the Wikipedia page description of the Agency:

Legislative history 

The concept of ARPA-E was initially conceived by a report by the National Academies entitled Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future. The report recognized a U.S. need to stimulate innovation and develop clean, affordable, and reliable energy.[1] ARPA-E was officially created by the America COMPETES Act , authored by Congressman Bart Gordon,[2] within the United States Department of Energy (DOE) in 2007, though without a budget. The initial budget of about $400 million was a part of the economic stimulus bill of February 2009.[3] Then in early January 2011, the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010 made additional changes to ARPA-E’s structure; this structure is codified in Title 42, Chapter 149, Subchapter XVII, § 16538 of the United States Code.

Among its main provisions, Section 16538 provides that ARPA-E shall achieve its goals through energy technology projects by doing the following:

(1)Identifying and promoting revolutionary advances in fundamental and applied sciences;

(2)Translating scientific discoveries and cutting-edge inventions into technological innovations; and

(3)Accelerating transformational technological advances in areas that industry by itself is not likely to undertake because of technical and financial uncertainty. 

Mission 

Like DARPA does for military technology, ARPA-E is intended to fund high-risk, high-reward research that might not otherwise be pursued because there is a relatively high risk of failure.[4] Like DARPA, it is intended to fund projects involving government labs, private industry, and universities. ARPA-E has four objectives:

(1)To bring a freshness, excitement, and sense of mission to energy research that will attract the U.S.'s best and brightest minds;

(2)To focus on creative, transformation energy research that the industry cannot, or will not support due to its high risk, but that has high reward potential;

(3)To utilize an ARPA-like organization that is flat, nimble, and sparse, capable of sustaining for long periods of time those projects whose promise remains real, while phasing out programs that do not prove to be as promising as anticipated; and

(4)To create a new tool to bridge the gap between basic energy research and development/industrial innovation.[4] 

Launch 

President Barack Obama announced the launch of the Advanced Research Projects Agency–Energy (ARPA-E) on April 27, 2009 as part of an announcement about federal investment in research and development and science education. Soon after its launch, ARPA-E released its first Funding Opportunity Announcement for the new agency, offering $151 million in total with individual awards ranging from $500,000 to $9 million. Applicants submitted eight-page "concept papers" that outlined the technical concept; some were invited to submit full applications.[5]

Arun Majumdar, former deputy director of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, was appointed the first director of ARPA-E in September 2009, over six months after the organization was first funded.[6] U.S. Secretary of Energy Steven Chu presided over the inaugural "ARPA-E Energy Innovation Summit" on March 1–3, 2010 in Washington, D.C..[7]

After reading the above excerpt, who would not want to provide funds for the research initiatives conducted by ARPA-E.  With that being said, the only real reason which I can find for shutting down the program (aside from Obama's vision) is that the funding is for renewable/clean energy for the future of the United States.  ARPA-E is a spin-off from DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency).



DARPA projects are specifically aimed at the military.  Years ago in graduate school, I had a research project which was funded by DARPA.  The research project was centered around the understanding of limits of quantum computation (quantum information processing) using Solid-State Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy (SSNMR).  Members of the public might think that there is no connection between the SSNMR spectroscopy and the military.



Although, the progress made on the project would indirectly improve the measurement known as Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) in the hospital setting.  Funding for DARPA projects is usually aimed to fund projects which are high risk with large pay-offs along with high failure rates.  The range and scope of projects which are supported by DARPA are large.  Which is partly why a specific agency was created -- aimed explicitly at renewable energy research.



Additionally, the need to fund renewable energy projects which pose a large pay-off with a high risk of failure is essential.  As I emphasized earlier, the need to have a broad portfolio of diverse research projects is critical.  Casting as wide of a net as possible ensures a diverse range of technologies which result from the initial plans.  Therefore, keeping the funding source open and increasing the level of funding annually, ensures a healthy nation which keeps up with the pace of developing (and researching) new technologies.



In light of the obvious, universities and private organizations have banded together to show support for the continuation of ARPA-E funding into the future.  Here is the letter of support from many organizations (corporations and universities) for the extension in arpa-e financing (and program):

Dear Chairman Alexander, Ranking Member Feinstein, Chairwoman Kaptur and Ranking Member Simpson,

As diverse organizations interested in the Department of Energy’s Advanced Research Projects Agency – Energy (ARPA-E) program, we thank you for the significant funding for this vital program in Fiscal Years 2018 and 2019. ARPA-E plays a unique and critical role in maintaining America’s global leadership in energy technologies. As you begin drafting the Fiscal Year 2020 Energy and Water Appropriations bills, the undersigned organizations, companies and institutions urge you to enhance our competitiveness and energy security by supporting robust funding for ARPA-E in the Fiscal Year 2020 appropriations bill.  We support funding ARPA-E at least at $400 million in Fiscal Year 2020. This is roughly $35 million higher than in Fiscal Year 2019 and would allow for one additional program solicitation to pioneer advances in a high-impact energy technology area.

ARPA-E is a highly innovative and effective program which enjoys strong bipartisan congressional support. Since its inception, ARPA-E has successfully sponsored a dynamic range of research, including technologies with potentially profound benefits for the nation’s future energy security. Modeled after the highly successful Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), ARPA-E supports “high-risk, high-reward” research which has the potential to drastically alter how we make and use energy in the future. The program utilizes a unique organizational structure and highly successful selection process to identify innovative technologies, pushes them to meet aggressive milestones and helps them to cross the valley of death so the private sector can then commercialize them.

Despite being just ten years old, ARPA-E is already fostering technological breakthroughs in energy storage, transportation fuels, and industrial efficiency. To date, 136 of more than 340 completed projects supported by ARPA-E have attracted over $2.6 billion in private sector follow-on funding, and 71 projects have gone on to form new companies. The enthusiasm for ARPA-E’s vision and quality of work is evidenced by its ability to repeatedly draw more than 2,000 entrepreneurs, state and federal government officials, state and federal agencies and large numbers of investors to its annual Energy Innovation Summit.

The importance of U.S. leadership in energy technologies to our economic and energy security makes ARPA-E a tremendous competitive advantage for our nation. Stable and sustained funding growth is necessary to ensure this successful program continues to enhance America’s ability to pioneer the energy technologies of tomorrow. 

and the signers were from the following organizations:

American Chemical Society

American Council for Capital Formation (ACCF)

American Geophysical Union

American Society of Agronomy

Association of American Universities

Association of Public and Land-grant

Universities

BASF Corporation

Bettergy Corp.

BPC Action

Brayton Energy

Citizens for Responsible Energy Solutions

Clean Energy Business Network

Clean Energy Trust

Cleantech Alliance

ClearPath Action

Copper Development Association

Crop Science Society of America

Dioxide Materials

Duke University

E2 (Environmental Entrepreneurs)

Elemental Excelerator, Inc.

Energy Technology Savings, Inc.

Environmental Defense Fund

Fearless Fund

Flash Steelworks, Inc

Florida State University

General Electric

Georgia Institute of Technology

Gnosys, Inc.

Greentown Labs

Industrial Microbes, Inc.

Information Technology and Innovation

Foundation

Intel Corporation

Introspective Systems

Ionic Materials, Inc.

LEEDCo

Malta Inc

Marine BioEnergy, Inc.

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Michigan State University

Michigan Technological University

National Audubon Society

National Venture Capital Association

National Wildlife Federation

Natron Energy, Inc.

Natural Resources Defense Council

Newton Energy Group LLC

Nuclear Energy Institute

Onboard Dynamics, Inc.

Otherlab

Pajarito Powder, LLC.

Penn State University

Powerhouse

Princeton University

Prospect Silicon Valley

RedWave Energy, Inc.

SAFCell

SixPoint Materials, Inc.

Soil Science Society of America

Solar Energy Industries Association

Spruce Capital Partners

SSTI

Starfire Energy

Stony Brook University

Swift Coat, Inc.

TechNet

Tenley Consulting

The Nature Conservancy

The State University of New York System

The Texas A&M University System

Third Way

United Technologies Corporation

University of California System

University of California, Berkeley

University of California, Los Angeles

University of California, Merced

University of California, San Diego

University of Colorado Boulder

University of Houston System

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

University of Illinois System

University of Maryland, College Park

University of North Carolina System

University of Oregon

University of Rochester

Urban Future Lab/ ACRE Incubator

US Chamber of Commerce

Vanderbilt University

The above signatures (organizations) represent a massive research consortium.  From industry to academia, there is full support for ARPA-E.  Especially, since investment in energy projects will undoubtedly return dollars to the market in one form or another (either directly or indirectly).  Congressional leaders realize the importance of funding a diverse portfolio of projects both aimed at improving the military side of the nation along with projects aimed at society in general.  More often than not, investment in either pays off in some manner.



Investing money into research might seem pointless at times.  Although, if we look back into history and see the numerous advances which have come out of research spending, funding projects into the future would not ever be questioned.  That is not to say we (as a nation) should throw money at any given research project being proposed.



To close the loop on this conversation, check out this short video about ARPA-E which introduces a few of the concepts which drive research at the organization:

A nation with a diverse and appropriate funding scheme which supports a wide range of projects stands to gain the most.  The United States spends most of GDP on research compared to other nations.  Although, the United States also benefits the most from their investments.  The correlation is obvious.  Spend more and get more.  But spend smart too.



Related Blog Posts:


Congress Intervenes And Asks For No More Oil Drilling Off Of Florida

President Trump Is Out Of Touch With The Transition Toward Renewable Energy

EPA Director Finally Realizes Reality Of Trying To Roll-Back Obama Era Clean Air Act Regulation

Environmental Groups Question Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Cuts

President Trump's Immigration Rhetoric Damages International Science Student Enrollment

What Promises Did President Trump Make Science Research During His Campaign?

Can The President Prevent The Public From Learning About Scientific Research???

President Trump's Understanding of the Paris Agreement


World Goes Left, While Trump Leads Right - On Climate - Why?


Is This Behavior Presidential - President Trump?


Paris Climate Agreement Is A Start Toward The Renewable Energy Future


READ THIS BEFORE VOTING -- Presidential Science (WORLD) Issues!


Brings Jobs Back By Promoting Renewable Energy!

Parameters: "How widespread within NASA is the conviction that human activity is responsible for climate change?"

Source: The Weekly Standard

Climate change is a hot topic issue.  Different people fall onto different ends of the spectrum on the 'causes' of climate change.  Climate skeptics have held onto the notion that a component attributable to the daily operations of humans on Earth does not figure prominently into the overall equation which represents 'cause.'   Whereas, people who believe in the component of climate change attributable to 'man made' are on the other end.  In between lie people with varying percentages of the two dispositions.



To address the question listed in the title of the article, Astrophysicist Dr. Michelle Thaller, who works for NASA was interviewed by Big Think produced a video interview titled "Does NASA have any climate change skeptics?" gave the following answer:

Michelle Thaller: Hi Jay. So your question is how widespread is it within NASA that scientists are convinced that human activity is responsible for climate change? And this is something that is important to say very, very clearly. I have known and worked with hundreds of earth scientists at many different locations in NASA, all of them, all of them believe that human activity is responsible for the current climate change that we see going so fast it's almost unprecedented. I want you to think about that.

One thing that I take really seriously and I'm very proud of is that NASA is not a political organization. We are scientists that work for the American people. We're funded by taxpayer's money. And what we do is we make measurements. We have many, many different satellites that are orbiting the earth right now they're looking at things like ice on the oceans and at the poles, they're looking for things like vegetation growth and the change of that, ocean level, is the ocean level rising? Yeah it turns out that it is. So we have many scientists all over the planet studying all of the different ramifications of climate change. We understand the causes. There actually is no scientific controversy about that. Humans are releasing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere and this is warming our planet.

Now what scientists are researching currently, and they don't all agree about, is what are the most important components of driving climate change. Is it carbon dioxide? Could it be something else like methane? When methane gets released that's an even more powerful greenhouse gas. We don't agree on how quickly things like the ocean level will rise. People have different estimates for how quickly that will happen. So there still is scientific controversy about what the most important aspects of climate change are and how quickly it will go in the future, but there is no scientific disagreement within NASA that humans are causing climate change.

Now I started this off by saying that one of the things I'm very proud of is that NASA is not political. And what that means for me is that I cannot advocate for any specific solution to climate change. That's not my job. That's up to policymakers. People might suggest things like having more solar energy or cutting carbon emissions or things like that, but at NASA we really understand that's not us, that's up to the American people, our leaders and leaders around the world. What we do is provide the facts to everybody on the planet. All of our data is actually free to any government, any person, any scientist all over the world that wants to use it. So we all know what's causing climate change, we can't tell you what to do about it but we can say it's time to do something about it.

I particularly like the ending where Dr. Thaller states that her job is not to convince people of the human component (or any other for that matter) which contributes to climate change.  What is her job is to present the scientific data and let the chips fall where they may -- on the policy (and human) side.  Data speaks for itself.  The data shows an upward trend to the overall effects of global warming over the period.  That is what the data shows.



Regardless of where you lie on the spectrum, science should not be taken for granted.  Each of us should aspire to learn at the very least how science plays into our daily lives.  Further, we should be concerned when scientific data points in one direction while policy points in the other.  That is when the data should be presented again -- or we should revisit the data to remind ourselves of the future.  At the end of the day, each of us will show up to the poll or make our minds up regarding 'cause' and 'solutions' to grand issues facing life on Earth.  The best we can do is gather as much data on which to base our future decisions on.  Happy New Year!



Related Blog Posts:


Senator Carper Blasts Environmental Protection Agency For Considering Relaxing 'Mercury and Air Toxics Standard'?


What does a Government Shutdown look like?


What is the difference between General Anxiety Disorder and Trump Anxiety Disorder?


Congress Gets Involved In Beef Recall


How Effective Are Poultry Corporations At Reducing Salmonella In Their Products?


NIDA Director Nora Volkow: How Health Communicators and Journalists Can Help Replace Stigma with Science


Governor Jerry Brown Leads The U.S. With Ambitious Calls For 100% Renewable By 2045 -- Wow!!!


Thoughts: An example letter of opposition to repealing the 2015 Clean Waters Rule


EPA Estimates Of Methane - GHG - are off by 60%


Chemical Safety Board's Future Uncertain as Hurricane Season Approaches


Update: Congress asks Federal Agencies about Dangerous Chemicals -- PFOA and PFOS


Congress Asks Defense Department and Environmental Protection Agency about Dangerous Chemicals


President Trump Just Allowed Greater Environmental Risk To Children's Health


Thoughts: Senator Bernie Sanders Asks Public To Get Involved In The Public Process At Any Level


Do You Need Clean Air To Breathe? An Introduction To Environmental Justice


French President Macron Organizes Climate Conference With Pledges Of Trillions Of Dollars For Climate Risk Management From World Organizations


Coal Magnate Murray Shames Fossil Fuel Industry For Being "Forward Thinkers" For Energy


Democrats Question EPA Adminstrator Scott Pruitt On Historical Job Cuts At EPA


There Is No Climate Debate -- Scientific Facts Have Settled The Issue?

Why Would A President Choose To Deregulate The Environmental Protection Agency?

A Republican Senator Votes "NO" For EPA Nominee Scott Pruitt For The Environment?

Write Your Elected Official And They Will Write Back?