How Much Is the US Really Investing in Biofuels Research?

Business News/Analysis Defense (DOD)Energy (DOE)Federal Agency/Executive Branch Funding/Financing/Investing grants Opinions Original Writing, Opinions Advanced Biofuels USA Policy Policy Statements, Analysis by ABUSA White House

September 10, 2015

Print This Article Share it With Friends

by Robert E. Kozak* (Advanced Biofuels USA) I, like many of you reading this, am working on a concept paper for the US Department of Energy/Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy’s recent Bioenergy Technologies Incubator 2 Funding Opportunity (DE‐FOA‐0001320).

This is a very important program that could produce major cost reduction breakthroughs in bioproduct and biofuel production.

But, how important does the Obama Administration and Congress consider this program that would lead to US technology jobs and Climate Change reductions? Let’s look at the funding provided for Incubator 2 and see how it compares to funding for other US energy and energy related geopolitical priorities.

In the DOE solicitation for Bioenergy Technologies Incubator 2, the total budget for grants is listed as $10 million dollars over two years.

Incubator 2 Compared to Another US DOE Priority

The US DOE has been building a plutonium recycling plant in South Carolina for 15 years at a cost of about $5 billion. This facility is not yet operational and DOE Secretary Ernest Moniz is quoted as saying, “north of $1 billion a year,” for decades to come would be needed for the project.

The purpose of this project is questionable on both its cost and its compliance with nuclear non-proliferation treaties such as the recent Iran accord.

Recently, a team of National Laboratory researchers concluded that an existing plutonium-to-waste system could do the job cheaper and safer while a group of former US arms negotiators and diplomats have written to Secretary Moniz this week calling for an end to project citing both cost and nuclear proliferation issues. “The United States has for four decades consistently opposed the spread of such activities because of the obvious proliferation danger of putting nuclear-weapons explosive materials into commercial channels.”

The ratio of Incubator 2 money to funds spent to date for the DOE Savannah River project to recycle plutonium that could end up in nuclear weapons: .2 Percent

Incubator 2: $10 million (.2%)

Savannah River MOX: $5 billion

(to date)

Incubator 2 Compared to Current Iraq Air Campaign Costs

Recent media reports, including “Battle to retake Iraq’s Ramadi is going nowhere,” Washington Post, September 7, 2015, have highlighted the ineffectiveness of the US limited air bombing campaign in Iraq and Syria. After one year, very little success in countering ISIL or recapturing oil refineries has been noted, even by top US commanders.

According to the US Department of Defense the DAILY cost of this air campaign is $9.9 million dollars, or about as much as the ENTIRE Incubator 2 program.

Ratio of Incubator 2 money to one year of the ineffectual US Iraqi air bombing campaign: .3 Percent

Incubator 2: $10 million (.3%)

Iraqi Air bombing campaign: $3.613 billion

$9.9 million x 365 days

Apparent Importance of Biofuels Research and Development

Since project funding ultimately shows governments' priorities, comparing funding priorities shows where biofuels R&D ranks.

Compared to just .2% of a questionable DOE plutonium recycling project and .3% of a year-long ineffectual bombing campaign if biofuels funding is not at the bottom of the priorities list, it is surely close!

References:

"Moniz: Properly funding MOX would take $1 billion a year" Aiken Standard, June 17, 2105 http://www.aikenstandard.com/article/20150617/AIK0101/150619518

"Energy secretary is urged to end U.S. nuclear fuel program at Savannah River" Washington Post, September 10, 2015 http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/energy-secretary-is-urged-to-end-us-nuclear-fuel-program-at-savannah-river/2015/09/09/bc6103b4-5705-11e5-abe9-27d53f250b11_story.html

“Battle to retake Iraq’s Ramadi is going nowhere,” Washington Post, September 7, 2015 https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the-battle-to-retake-ramadi-is-going-nowhere/2015/09/03/8e4d4792-4dac-11e5-80c2-106ea7fb80d4_story.html

*Robert E. (Bob) Kozak is the founder of Atlantic Biomass, LLC, and a co-founder of Advanced Biofuels USA. Having worked for about 40 years in the transportation, energy, environmental, and government relations industries and in enzyme development, he serves as a fuels/engines and policy expert for Advanced Biofuels USA.