CleanTechnica is the #1 cleantech-focused
website in the world. Subscribe today!


Batteries batteries energy storage government

Published on October 17th, 2012 | by Joshua S Hill

13

Battery & Other Energy Storage Boosted by US Government

Share on Google+Share on RedditShare on StumbleUponTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on FacebookPin on PinterestDigg thisShare on TumblrBuffer this pageEmail this to someone

October 17th, 2012 by  

 
The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) has just published the findings of report that found 39 separate battery and energy storage initiatives with a variety of key characteristics had been implemented across six US agencies.

The six agencies — the Departments of Energy (DOE) and Defense (DOD), the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the National Science Foundation (NSF), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) — required $1.3 billion over the fiscal years from 2009 to 2012 and supported a variety of technologies, uses, advancement activities, and goals.

The funding provided through the six agencies was available to several types of recipients, such as private industry, universities, and federal labs, through contracts, grants, and other mechanisms.

Federal Agency Battery and Energy Storage Initiatives and Funding Obligations, Fiscal Years 2009 through 2012
Agency Number of obligations Funding obligations
DOE 11 $851,994,808
DOD 14 430,274,229
NASA 8 20,811,374
NSF 4 8,582,868
EPA 1 3,258,029
NIST 1 1,375,000
Total 39 $1,316,296,308

The GAO was requested to complete the study on behalf of US Representative Ralph Hall, Chairman of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology; and Andy Harris, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. It was asked to:

  1. identify the scope and key characteristics of federal battery and energy storage initiatives;
  2. determine the extent to which there is potential fragmentation, overlap, or duplication, if any, among these initiatives; and
  3. determine the extent to which agencies coordinate these initiatives.

The “GAO found  that initiatives were fragmented and had overlapping characteristics but did not find clear evidence of duplication.” And though there were some overlap in terms of what the funding went towards, in most cases this overlap was mission- or agency-specific.
 

 
Of the initiatives found, 21 of the 39 supported more than one kind of battery or other energy storage technology, and initiatives supported on average two technologies.

Number of Initiatives Supporting Each Type of Technology
Technology Number of initiatives
Li-ion batteries 28
Metal-air batterie 19
Capacitors 17
Lithium-metal batteries 16
Basic energy storage research 14
Advanced lead-acid batteries 11
Redox flow batteries 9
Sodium batteries 9
CAES 4
Flywheels 4
Other 15
Numbers total more than 39 because many initiatives supported more than one type of technology.

Source: U.S. Government Accountability Office via Green Car Congress

Keep up to date with all the hottest cleantech news by subscribing to our (free) cleantech newsletter, or keep an eye on sector-specific news by getting our (also free) solar energy newsletter, electric vehicle newsletter, or wind energy newsletter.



Share on Google+Share on RedditShare on StumbleUponTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on FacebookPin on PinterestDigg thisShare on TumblrBuffer this pageEmail this to someone

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


About the Author

I'm a Christian, a nerd, a geek, and I believe that we're pretty quickly directing planet-Earth into hell in a handbasket! I also write for Fantasy Book Review (.co.uk), and can be found writing articles for a variety of other sites. Check me out at about.me for more.


Related Posts



  • Pingback: Marcacci Communications

  • JDH

    The additional piece of information needed: is this money translating into advances in the technologies? I think most of us like the idea of money being well spent on advancing the “state of the art” and solving the “big storage problem”. Why these departments spent so much on Lithium Ion technologies or lead acid is a mystery and not well thought out. Japan, Korea and China all lead by years in producing and researching Lithium Ion batteries, that battle is lost. Just look at the A123 story! The truth is government shouldn’t be choosing winners and losers. Don’t listen to me, just look at the results. I reviewed the “DOE storage program peer review” results from last month and found no significant advancements at all! Look for yourself. The management of DOE, DOD, NASA, etc aren’t paid/rewarded on success or failure, as they should be. We need a more open and transparent model to direct funding to researchers with good ideas. Put the proposals out in front of everyone to “see and comment” on by using the web, not by reviewers that are rewarding buddies/sponsors. Limit the amount of funding to $5M so that we get 263 obligations instead of this measly 39. Make the process more like the VC model where you can pitch your story to these federal departments, they have some standard financing documents and things move quickly and efficiently. This kind of approach will lead to real breakthroughs and advancement, maybe even create a new industry that we lead.

    • Bob_Wallace

      I only read a couple of sentences of your massive paragraph rant.

      I’ll answer your first question – Is this money translating into advances?

      Yes.

      • JDH

        Ouch. Please supply any proof to back up your insightful reply

        • Bob_Wallace

          Ambri – liquid metal
          Aquion – sodium-ion
          Eos – zinc-air
          Envira – high capacity lithium-ion
          IBM – lithium-air

          These are all very promising battery companies/technologies. Look them up. A couple should be manufacturing in the next few months, factories are being finalized.

          • JDH

            Thank you for making my point Bob. $1.3B and thats all you can come up with? A123 and Ener1 had factories, so what. We need profitable businesses with compelling value propositions that can sustain themselves, like companies in the real world.

            Ambri = NGK = High temp risk = Not in my backyard
            Aquion = seriously? Low voltage and energy density = poor solution
            EOS = Fuel Cell = Bifunctional electrodes don’t last and have poor efficiency
            I think you meant Envia? See my previous post on Japan, Korea and China.
            IBM = see previous post on electrodes

            My first post made a point, we need transparency and limitations on the funding process. Government’s role should be a bridge between innovators and industry by providing high risk funding, not building factory’s and financing. Your list would have included hundreds of great startups!

          • Bob_Wallace

            Huh?

            We’re not going to install massive high temperature storage in people’s backyards. That sort of activity goes on in areas zoned for industrial use.

            Aquion has a very good product for small grid storage.

            Eos is not fuel cell. Read again.

            The government constantly chooses winners and loosers. Every research application funded. Every purchase contract signed.

            You certainly don’t expect the free market to do the heavy lifting of funding emerging technology do you? That’s a route to national failure.

          • JDH

            Failure is what we have, wake up

          • Bob_Wallace

            You talking about Romney again with his 44% failure rate at Bain and his many failures to win elections?

          • JDH

            No disagreement there.

          • Badger

            Versus what, Obama’s 90 billion blown on solar vaporware?

          • http://cleantechnica.com/ Zachary Shahan

            That figure is such complete bull that I don’t know if i should laugh or cry at this comment.

          • DeeBee

            Ambri = NGK nope – high-temp batteries are not inherently unsafe. NGK’s technology could use an update? I agree. Ambri’s technology is nowhere near a thermal runaway case, please re-evaluate.

Back to Top ↑

© 2014   Sustainable Enterprises Media, Inc.



Back to Top ↑