DOE to Award $25M to Two Consortia for US-China Clean Energy Research with Combined Funding of $100M; Focus on EVs and Carbon Capture and Sequestration
02 September 2010
The US Department of Energy (DOE) will award two consortia—one led by the University of Michigan and one led by the West Virginia University—a total of $25 million over the next five years under the US-China Clean Energy Research Center (CERC). The funding will be matched by the grantees to provide at least $50 million in total US funding and will facilitate joint research and development of clean energy technologies by the United States and China. Chinese counterparts will contribute an additional $50 million, with combined funding from both countries totaling $100 million.
The University of Michigan’s award will advance technologies for clean vehicles, while West Virginia University will use its funding to focus on the next generation of coal technologies, including carbon capture and storage. The announcement of another $12.5 million to a third winning consortium focused on building energy efficiency will be made this fall.
The University of Michigan will lead a consortium that includes Ohio State University, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Sandia National Laboratories, Joint BioEnergy Institute, Oak Ridge National Laboratories, General Motors, Ford, Toyota, Chrysler, Cummins, Fraunhofer, MAGNET, A123, American Electric Power, First Energy and the Transportation Research Center. The consortium will focus on vehicle electrification.
The West Virginia University will lead a consortium that includes the University of Wyoming, University of Kentucky, Indiana University, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Los Alamos National Laboratory, National Energy Technology Laboratory, World Resources Institute, US-China Clean Energy Forum, General Electric, Duke Energy, LP Amina, Babcock & Wilcox and American Electric Power. The consortium will develop and test new technologies for carbon capture and sequestration.
The $25 million in US government funding will be used to support work conducted by US institutions and individuals only. Chinese partners will be announced in the coming months by the Chinese government.
President Obama and President Hu Jintao formally announced the establishment of the CERC during the President’s trip to Beijing last November.
Did the people who awarded these grants read "power to save the world" first. Duke energy is mentioned in the book. Carbon capture and sequestation is easy and is already being done by Dakota Gasification whilst producing methane and fertilizers from coal. It can be done cheaper and is rendered less necessary by nuclear power which is only more expensive than coal power or natural gas power because of unnecessary regulations. When nuclear power plants begin to kill one person a year compared to the 40,000 killed by the combined automobile and oil consortium, then there is a need for consideration. Now the lack of nuclear power is killing tens of thousands of people a year or more because of resperatory diseases and other complications including starvation. ..HG..
Posted by: Henry Gibson | 02 September 2010 at 04:59 PM
'Carbon capture and sequestation is easy'
That is a false statement. CCS increases the cost of power from a power plant by at least 30%. If it were so easy I would expect far more industrial commercial operations.
Posted by: Donough Shanahan | 02 September 2010 at 11:49 PM
Externalized costs make coal seem cheap, but they do not pay the health and environmental costs. Anytime you can just dump your waste and not deal with it, you will make higher profits but society pays the true price tag. This must stop now.
Posted by: SJC | 03 September 2010 at 10:00 AM
HG" Very good points. Many more large up-to-date nuclear power plants will be built in the next 25-50 years. Too bad that we stop building more during the last 30 years. The anti-nuclear lobbies are probably supported by the oil industry.
DS. Cleaner air is worth a 30% increase in coal fired power plants operating cost. Those fine particles are a disaster. However, the CO2 capture cost could be completely offset with higher efficiency plants.
SJC. Well said. The same, and more, could be said for tar sands operations and associated tailing ponds + other pollution emitted in the area.
Any program to reduce coal power plants and tar sands vicious pollutions is worth supporting.
Posted by: HarveyD | 03 September 2010 at 03:17 PM