On Friday the Department of Energy issued a press release indicating it had reached an agreement with the FutureGen Alliance (the private part of this public-private partnership).  The agreement would allow the project to move forward with needed planning, research, and design activities, with a final decision on building the plant in early 2010.  Most of the DOE contribution will come from Recovery Act funds.

NOTE: FWIW, I will continue blogging after the pending retirement of this site.  Unlike Roger, my shingle is not yet ready.  Once it is (and it should be soon), I’ll post the link here.

This makes for a pretty complete team appointed at the Department of Energy.  Compare this to other parts of the federal science and technology portfolio, where we still wait for nominees for National Institutes of Health Director, head of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, and three of the four associate directors for the Office of Science and Technology Policy.  With these leadership vaccuums, it would not surprise me to see the Department of Energy to be the de facto lead science and technology agency in the government.  In an effort to sweeten these sour grapes, it’s worth noting that science and technology appointments are still, on the whole, a lot further along at 3 months into a new presidency.

1. Coordinate sustainable energy activities.  Collaborate with other Federal agencies through an interagency working group on sustainable energy that will work under a new Presidential Sustainable Energy Council.

2. Strengthen systems approaches in research programs.  Develop and strengthen interdisciplinary “systems” approaches for research programs in the natural and social sciences that focus on environmental, social, and economic issues fundamental to the future energy economy.  Examples of systems approaches that could be applied to the energy economy include the use of ecosystem life-cycle and whole-system analyses; consumer behavior information; and economic net value of technologies, applications, and systems.  Enhance interdisciplinary research programs that develop environmental accounting techniques that can utilize both biophysical and economic values in parallel.

3. Strengthen science and engineering partnerships.  Support partnerships for building clean and sustainable energy science and engineering initiatives among states, universities, and the private sector.  International entities should be an essential part of many of these partnerships.

4.  Support education and workforce development.  Create new and strengthen existing programs to train students, researchers, and technicians for a sustainable energy workforce.  Promote interest in the fields of science and energy in K–12 education by developing and disseminating programs designed to teach students about energy, the environment, and related technology and economic issues.  Support, in conjunction with other Federal agencies, technical training programs in community colleges and undergraduate institutions that include support for science and engineering teachers, technicians, and professional development activities.

5. Collaborate internationally.  Encourage international collaboration in sustainable energy RD3E, including through the NSF Office of International Science and Engineering and through partnerships with the U.S. Agency for International Development.

6. Promote public awareness and action.  Foster societal literacy about energy-saving practices and technologies and encourage efficient and effective use of energy by enhancing existing programs and by developing new sustainable energy education programs for students, NSF-funded researchers, and the public.

Remember, the Board is looking for public comment, so make the effort and comment by the May 1 deadline.

Even if areas of national concern were not involved, public returns on research investment will be different from the private returns on investment.  So thinking in terms of only one or two forms of knowledge transfer unnecessarily limits the potential for capturing the kinds of returns sought by the transferer(s).  I do not mean to say that patenting and licensing are private sector tools, and more collaborative efforts are necessarily the best for public sector returns.  The semiconductor industry has used a mix of transfer methods to some success – collaborating on more fundamental technologies of benefit to all, and relying more on other forms of intellectual property for more specific innovations.  It’s a mix worth keeping in mind as energy technologies receive more and more attention.

At any rate, the request, paraphrased, asked me about whether or not we would see a 100-mpg car with the same kinds of features that we see in cars today.

I was (and am still) reluctant to answer this for a few reasons.

Ultimately, my answer is I don’t know, but I doubt that’s satisfactory to some.

I’m nowhere near a gearhead/petrolhead, as I never mastered a standard shift, and the bulk of my automotive knowledge comes from a combination of Car Talk, Top Gear and Wired’s Autopia.  While I minimize my driving, and try and maximize fuel efficiency as best I can while driving, I know I have more car than I need.

Even for those who aren’t gearheads but are interested in the issue, discussion of cars – especially in the States – can get particularly heated in a way resembling debates over sports teams.  That’s not particularly productive, and I don’t want to encourage it here.

Finally, I’m not sure that framing the question in terms of 100 mpg is really the best way to address the problems increased fuel efficiency is trying to solve.  Emissions can be reduced by driving less as well as driving more fuel-efficient (or non fossil fuel) vehicles, or some combination thereof.  The drop in miles driven in the United States, as well as the possible shuttering of makes and models that were on the lower end of the efficiency spectrum, can be as beneficial as increasing mileage.  Cost (both in money and emissions) per mile seem a better take on what the agitation in this area is aimed at reducing.

That said, I shall try and give an answer.  I think its possible that a 100 mpg car can be developed and sold successfully.  Given the embrace of good diesel and what amounts to a head start to 100 mpg (compacts in Europe can have an average MPG of at least twice the closest American equivalent – more if using diesel), I expect it to happen in Europe before it takes root in the U.S.  The efforts of Tesla and its electric sports car, as well as the Honda Clarity fuel cell car (both featured on the latest Top Gear episode to premiere in the U.S.), suggest that good, fast, and/or sporty alternatives to internal combustion are possible, but not yet ready for a consumer market.  Will they be the same as their internal combustion-based cousins?  No, but I have reason to think they will come close.

No, this isn’t part of the economic recovery plan, and Secretary Chu isn’t trying to usurp Secretary Geithner’s post at Treasury.  While Secretary Chu’s announcement highlights the prospective economic and environmental impacts of the guarantees in language consistent with the Administration, the program actually dates to 2005 – smack dab in the midst of the Bush Administration.  Apparently the Department has struggled for nearly four years to start issuing what might ultimately be $40 billion in loan guarantees.  Better late than never?

It’s entirely possible that FutureGen may not be able to deliver on what is promised.  But that gamble is better made when cost estimates, and other related math, are done properly.

The bill requires the President to designate zones for green energy transmission lines.  If states and relevant utility companies cannot find an way to build transmission lines, the federal government could step in and develop the necessary infrastructure.  This state-federal tension will likely be the main source of conflict over this bill.  You can read more details from Senator Reid’s press release.

This agency is being created by multilateral agreement, with more than 75 countries currently signed on.  As of this moment, the United States, United Kingdom, China and Brazil are not signatory to the agency.  Given the energy usage of those countries, hopefully that changes by the time the agency holds its first formal conference next year.