Biden-Harris Administration Launches American Innovation Effort to Create Jobs..

[gredinger]

Full Title: Biden-Harris Administration Launches American Innovation Effort to Create Jobs and Tackle the Climate Crisis

Today, the Biden-Harris Administration is initiating an ambitious innovation effort to create American jobs while tackling the climate crisis, which includes the launch of a new research working group, an outline of the Administration’s innovation agenda, and a new $100 million funding opportunity from the U.S. Department of Energy to support transformational low-carbon energy technologies. The announcements kickstart the Administration’s undertaking to spur the creation of new jobs, technology, and tools that empower the United States to innovate and lead the world in addressing the climate crisis.

President Biden is fulfilling his promise to accelerate R&D investments, creating a new Climate Innovation Working Group as part of the National Climate Task Force to advance his commitment to launching an Advanced Research Projects Agency-Climate (ARPA-C). The working group will help coordinate and strengthen federal government-wide efforts to foster affordable, game-changing technologies that can help America achieve the President’s goal of net zero economy-wide emissions by 2050 and can protect the American people from the impacts of droughts and flooding, bigger wildfires, and stronger hurricanes. The working group will be co-chaired by the White House Office of Domestic Climate Policy, Office of Science of Technology and Policy, and Office of Management and Budget.

“We are tapping into the imagination, talent, and grit of America’s innovators, scientists, and workers to spearhead a national effort that empowers the United States to lead the world in tackling the climate crisis,” said Gina McCarthy, President Biden’s National Climate Advisor. “At the same time, we are positioning America to create good-paying, union jobs in a just and equitable way in communities across the nation that will be at the forefront of new manufacturing for clean energy and new technology, tools, and infrastructure that will help us adapt to a changing climate.”

As the opportunity for American leadership in climate innovation is vast, the Administration is outlining key planks of an agenda the Climate Innovation Working Group will help advance:

• zero net carbon buildings at zero net cost, including carbon-neutral construction materials;
• energy storage at one-tenth the cost of today’s alternatives;
• advanced energy system management tools to plan for and operate a grid powered by zero carbon power plants;
• very low-cost zero carbon on-road vehicles and transit systems;
• new, sustainable fuels for aircraft and ships, as well as improvements in broader aircraft and ship efficiency and transportation management;
• affordable refrigeration, air conditioning, and heat pumps made without refrigerants that warm the planet;
• carbon-free heat and industrial processes that capture emissions for making steel, concrete, chemicals, and other important industrial products;
• carbon-free hydrogen at a lower cost than hydrogen made from polluting alternatives;
• innovative soil management, plant biologies, and agricultural techniques to remove carbon dioxide from the air and store it in the ground;
• direct air capture systems and retrofits to existing industrial and power plant exhausts to capture carbon dioxide and use it to make alternative

As a first example of the widespread innovation effort, the U.S. Department of Energy is announcing $100 million in funding via the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E) to support transformational low-carbon energy technologies. The ARPA-E announcement invites experts across the country to submit proposals for funding to support early-stage research into potentially disruptive energy technologies, specifically encouraging inter-disciplinary approaches and collaboration across sectors.

“Today we are inviting scientists, inventors, entrepreneurs and creative thinkers across America to join us in developing the clean energy technologies we need to tackle the climate crisis and build a new more equitable clean energy economy,” said DOE Chief of Staff Tarak Shah. “The Department of Energy is committed to empowering innovators to think boldly and create the cutting-edge technologies that will usher in our clean energy future and create millions of good-paying jobs.”

In addition to supporting technologies that are near commercialization, the Climate Innovation Working Group will also emphasize research to bolster and build critical clean energy supply chains in the United States and strengthen American manufacturing. As it coordinates climate innovation across the federal government, it will focus on programs at land-grant universities, Historically Black Colleges and Universities, and other minority-serving institutions.

“Today is an important day for tackling the climate crisis through cutting-edge science, technology, and innovation. The Office of Science and Technology Policy is ready to help turbocharge climate-related innovation, and we look forward to engaging with scientists, engineers, students, and innovators all across America to build a future in which not only jobs and economic benefits but also opportunities to participate in climate innovation are shared equitably by all Americans,” said Kei Koizumi, Acting Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy.

Translating fancy bullet points is hard, I deserve like a billionity merit for this one guys. 


---

But seriously, it's kinda cool to see a few new methods of energy storage being taken very seriously.

[1714603924]

1714603924

[1714603924]

1714603924

[1714603924]

1714603924

[franky1]

seems weak

if specialists in industry are paid $100k a year.. that means its only enough budget to finance 1000 jobs

with the wide span of industries this fund applies to (building/air con/heating/power plants/ airline fuel/ boat fuel/heat/water/soil)
thats only if averagely spread. 100 employees per 'utility'

and thats without speaking of any R&D cost of supplies/equipment/leasing/machinery

so although its a good first step. its not going to solve the energy wastages of those industries with just a $100m fund. lets see what the next 'round' of investment into progressing these industries will be

[Rruchi man]

The pandemic saw a lot of Americans loose their jobs, Any attempt to create Jobs for the unemployed mass is a welcome move, and any successful attempt, should be even more applauded. If Biden-Harris can create jobs for the American people, coming in for a second tenure will not be difficult.

[Tzupy]

the title should be: Harris-Biden Administration Launches American Innovation Effort to Create Jobs in China without Tackling the Climate Crisis caused by China

[Natsuu]

the title should be: Harris-Biden Administration Launches American Innovation Effort to Create Jobs in China without Tackling the Climate Crisis caused by China

China or Chinese wasn't even mentioned in OP's Post and yet you look pressed. I wonder how you come up with the idea in the first place?

The article talks about increasing the budget for R&D for Climate Change which will results to create job opportunities. Op's post is very straightforward, I cant seem to understand where did you go wrong. 

[gredinger]

I suppose this article is a counter to China actually.

China's currently #1 in renewables. If the Biden administration gets it shit into gear, America could be #1 renewables manufacturer in the world.

Edit:

Nuclear is non-emission, not renewable.

Solar and wind have great ROI from an energy and financial sense.

[merging posts to keep 100 posts]

[Gyfts]

Reminder that the private sector creates jobs, and not the public sector.

Biden is all for green energy but I'm curious to see how well he's going to put 100's of millions of dollars to use. I'm reminded of California's attempt to go green - https://www.govtech.com/transportation/California-Bullet-Train-Section-Faces-800M-Overrun-Delays.html

TL;DR - Reducing carbon emissions is tough, and you often have to spend a LOT of money before you get any sort of sizeable return. Wind energy and solar aren't even that efficient, Nuclear (from what I've been able to research) is just about the only renewable energy source that's worth a damn. The obvious issue are the radioactive byproducts, but there are solutions to that. Democrats and even some Republicans don't seem to concerned about nuclear -- to me that's the solution. Put all the $$ into R&D into that.

[Gyfts]

Nuclear is non-emission, not renewable.

Solar and wind have great ROI from an energy and financial sense.

It's not technically renewable, but neither is solar energy either because the sun will eventually burn out. The world has enough uranium in it that would make nuclear energy almost unlimited because of how high the energy out put is. Combine that with the fact it's non emission, it's the only solution to the energy crisis.

[Natsuu]

Nuclear is non-emission, not renewable.

Solar and wind have great ROI from an energy and financial sense.

Nuclear is the most stable source of energy, and radioactive materials such as uranium, takes hundreds or thousands of years before it completely deteriorate. The fear for nuclear is natural as this simple leak and mistake in the plant can kill millions of species in thousand of kilometer perimeter. But in today's science and technology, research regarding nuclear is already vast.

[squatz1]

Nuclear is non-emission, not renewable.

Solar and wind have great ROI from an energy and financial sense.

It's not technically renewable, but neither is solar energy either because the sun will eventually burn out. The world has enough uranium in it that would make nuclear energy almost unlimited because of how high the energy out put is. Combine that with the fact it's non emission, it's the only solution to the energy crisis.

Even as a massive advocate of nuclear energy, I wouldn’t say it’s the only solution to the energy crisis. I would say it’s a great solution that green energy people have been pushing off, which is horrid to see as it is a real long term solution that is much more effective then wind, solar, and so on.

People get scared cause they watched a Netflix documentary about Chernobyl and that’s the reason that the approval ratings for nuclear are going to stay super low. Did anyone care about oil drilling mismanagement when it came to the oil spill in the gulf or does that just not matter?

Hopefully people in Washington begin to notice that Nuclear can really fix our energy problem, but they probably wont. Lobbying and stupidity will kill that idea.

[Gyfts]

Nuclear is non-emission, not renewable.

Solar and wind have great ROI from an energy and financial sense.

It's not technically renewable, but neither is solar energy either because the sun will eventually burn out. The world has enough uranium in it that would make nuclear energy almost unlimited because of how high the energy out put is. Combine that with the fact it's non emission, it's the only solution to the energy crisis.

Even as a massive advocate of nuclear energy, I wouldn’t say it’s the only solution to the energy crisis. I would say it’s a great solution that green energy people have been pushing off, which is horrid to see as it is a real long term solution that is much more effective then wind, solar, and so on.

People get scared cause they watched a Netflix documentary about Chernobyl and that’s the reason that the approval ratings for nuclear are going to stay super low. Did anyone care about oil drilling mismanagement when it came to the oil spill in the gulf or does that just not matter?

Hopefully people in Washington begin to notice that Nuclear can really fix our energy problem, but they probably wont. Lobbying and stupidity will kill that idea.

Even with Chernobyl, people need to understand that it was decades ago and was used to meet the energy needs of a communist nation. You combine today's technology with US oversight, the chance of another Chernobyl happening is near nonexistent. The obvious downside is nuclear byproduct/waste. I've seen some interesting solutions on how to deal with that but as of now, the solution seems to be burying it within a concrete capsule or some sort of casket. And this usually can contaminate the water supply, see here: https://environmentamerica.org/news/ame/nuclear-power-plants-threaten-drinking-water-49-million-americans (old article from 2012 but the problem is still there).

[gredinger]

Nuclear is the most stable source of energy, and radioactive materials such as uranium, takes hundreds or thousands of years before it completely deteriorate. The fear for nuclear is natural as this simple leak and mistake in the plant can kill millions of species in thousand of kilometer perimeter. But in today's science and technology, research regarding nuclear is already vast.

Nuclear seems to be coming back through small modular reactors. However, every single time a nuclear project is planned. It's either delayed, overbudget, or both.

Renewables just make more sense from a cost effective standpoint at this point. If it were 2 decades ago, I'd probably agree with nuclear. Heck, even a decade ago, nuclear cost economics kicked the shit out of solar. But today, that's just not the case.

it was decades ago....US oversight... nuclear byproduct/waste...

Well, we've had a rather interesting past with nuclear here in America. There was the militarization of nuclear technology which allowed for the atomic bomb and the civilian use for it as well (for energy). The uranium mines setup decades ago didn't differentiate between the two. Now we're stuck with multi-billion dollar superfund cleanup sites, and generations of cancer due to those mines.

You'd imagine that with US oversight, they'd be actively reducing overall exposure and working to clean up these sites to ensure habitation eventually. But the problem is the mess is still there.

Nuclear incidents do happen in America, but they're tiny and rarely impact people's lives. Considering it's a huge chunk of modern generational capacity, it's pretty impressive. In that regard, it's pretty safe because you have a few low-risk jobs producing a huge amount of energy, and the vast majority of calculations won't include entire supply chain line aspect of the operations of nuclear (from fuel sourcing to waste disposal and processing).

However, nuclear as a single solution is a really bad solution. Demand for energy shifts. It takes time to spin up and down nuclear plants (days), the grid shifts in seconds. So, now you're gonna have to build nuclear power to absolute peak energy requirement and continue to add on each time there's a new peak, otherwise you risk running a brown-out and a grid collapse. You could solve part of that problem with pumped-hydro, but now you're still down to hours of energy storage for the grid, which doesn't work when it takes a couple days to spin up a reactor.

[Natsuu]

Nuclear is the most stable source of energy, and radioactive materials such as uranium, takes hundreds or thousands of years before it completely deteriorate. The fear for nuclear is natural as this simple leak and mistake in the plant can kill millions of species in thousand of kilometer perimeter. But in today's science and technology, research regarding nuclear is already vast.

Nuclear seems to be coming back through small modular reactors. However, every single time a nuclear project is planned. It's either delayed, overbudget, or both.

Renewables just make more sense from a cost effective standpoint at this point. If it were 2 decades ago, I'd probably agree with nuclear. Heck, even a decade ago, nuclear cost economics kicked the shit out of solar. But today, that's just not the case.

Hmmm, if we are talking about the cost effectiveness of nuclear, by a long-run, nuclear will surpass whatever you are thinking about as a source of energy, COST-WISE.

Also, Nuclear Energy in generating electricty, surpasses coals, natural gasses, solar, wind, etc. As it is reliable and efficient.

[OgNasty]

I’d be curious to know what innovation or developments come from this. Looks like the government is just throwing money at the wall and hoping something will stick. I don’t see them being able to compete with private industry when it comes to these areas, but maybe they’ll be able to assist somehow.