You may remember, last April, President Obama launched the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E) as part of the initiative to boost federal investment in research and development and science education.
(the picture above is a Ga ball-Si crystal-SiOx Nanowire Octapus)
That sparked outrage from the Republicans and their TeaParty spokespersons. They disagreed with the $150M allocated in the Recovery Act for research leaning toward renewable alternative energy sources.
Well, first example of advancement due to this funding, is the Liquid Metal Battery under development at MIT. Another is the Symbiotic Bio-Reactor being developed at UMinn that could create synthetic gasoline. Lastly, we are intimately aware of the Crystal Growth Technology that if successful, drastically advance the LED light manufacturing possibilities. We saw LED examples displayed at the TechCity facility in Ulster, NY.
So why do I bring funding like this up now? Well, while we had the two year national throwdown over the spending in the "stimulus", this particular funding was singled out because it threatened the companies that backed the opposition (oil & coal) which is understandable. That's how our government works. What is troublesome is how we compartmentalize the priorities facing this country.
With the current military operation in Libya, we are spending millions of dollars a day. The F-15 that crashed cost $100M. It is going to be replaced with a $150M F-35.
In one day, this operation cost the US more than was spent for Alternative Energy Research in 2009. True, $400M was set aside for the ARPA-E initially, but only 36 teams met the criteria last year. The funding is intended to fund high-risk, high-reward research that might not otherwise be pursued because there is a relatively high risk of failure. Almost the same attempt we are making in Libya.
The Pentagon has placed an arbitrary limit on Odyssey Dawn at $1Billion before approaching Congress for more money. They have a contingency fund that could float the operation for a short time. It's been done before, it will happen again.
As noted in the National Journal: These unanticipated costs come at a time when the Pentagon is putting pressure on Capitol Hill to pass its fiscal 2011 budget. Continuing to operate under a stopgap continuing resolution through September, senior Defense officials argue, would amount to a $23B cut to the military’s request for the current fiscal year, which began on October 1. The Pentagon wants $708B for this year, including $159B for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
For the U.S. military, the highest costs of the operations over Libya come in the form of munitions, fuel for aircraft, and combat pay for deployed troops -- all factors that will pile up each day U.S. forces remain at the helm of the operation.
One week in, U.S.-led forces launched 162 long-range Tomahawk cruise missiles, which cost about $1M to $1.5M each, from ships stationed off the Libyan coast. The total to replace those missiles comes to between $162M to $243M. It is unclear how many of those Tomahawks came from the U.S. inventory, but it is believed the vast majority did.
So why then, do we consistently fight over the inconsequential spending in Energy Alternative Research when our government regurgitates Billions in war ventures? And shockingly enough, not a single peep from the Tea Party Overspending Alarmists?
Truth is, you wont hear a word from these folks. Why? Because the industries poised to reap the benefits of a prolonged engagement in Libya and other oil rich countries are the very same funding sources that mobilized much of the TeaParty movement. If these folks were thinking more about our country's long term health and diminished dependency on foreign oil, they'd be in the streets screaming for increased spending in the ARPA-E and other agencies. But they're not.
ARPA-E utilizes many of the same organizational elements that fostered the successful culture of innovation of DARPA at the Department of Defense. The program managers are given extraordinary autonomy and resources to pursue high-risk technological pathways, quickly assemble research teams and start and stop projects based on performance and relevance.
