Trump Plans To Scrap Advance Energy Research Program

While it sounds like a environmental disaster in the making, the truth is this agency was essentially shut down in 2011 after a series of grants for vaporware projects, most notably Fisker.

And besides, who needs to "reducing fossil-fuel consumption and improving energy efficiency"?

Where did you get this info about it being shut down in 2011? Shutting it down seems a bit short sighted. On the other hand investing in Coal, that's where it's at!

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARPA-E

https://arpa-e.energy.gov/?q=arpa-e-site-page/arpa-e-history

Seeing how Tesla would not be alive today if it were not for the Feds, DOE loan program..who exactly was lending to any companies, namely automobile companies including Ford and automotive suppliers during the financial crisis?? The Federal Government

This is how to deconstruct America's world leadership position one policy at a time. Those countries like China that pour government money into research, engineering, and science are going to lead the world in the future. Instead here in the US, we pour government money into $60 million high school football stadiums. See ya, USA. Don't wann be ya 20 years from now.

Actually the agency was so poorly run that Obama suspended it back in 2011. However it was still there burning money even though it couldn't grant anything. Why fund an agency that exists with no purpose?

We should NOT be paying for research. Giving a tax break to a company that brings new technologies forward I'm OK with.

Companies are looking at research that is immediately or short term applicable to their bottom line. The federal government is supporting all kinds of long term research that could have profound implications for our planet, future space exploration, the nature of the universe and many other things that we have no idea where they would lead. This is smart for our country to be a leader in research, quantum computing, solar power, genetic research and on and on... all of this helps keep our country competitive in a very competitive world.

I repeat: "We should NOT be paying for research. Giving a tax break to a company that brings new technologies forward I'm OK with."

WE heard you the first time - but it is short sighted nonsense - Matt.

It was the original space program that jump started the technology race that led to semi-conductor advancements - and it is the Defense department that looks to better solutions to maintain its lead around the world that actually fuels basic research in this country. The NIH fuels basic medical research too. Back when At&t was a trust - they had Bell Labs for pure research but there are few manufacturing companies that can move a market that fast anymore - because money has to make a profit. Being a leader in research has kept this country at the top of the heap - and deciding to give multi-national corporations subsidies to develop things that the cannot dedicate to our country initially is a waste of dollars.

THankfully. the money YOU spend yourself to give companies tax breaks is meaningless - and the decision remains with the Congress.

@TomM "short-sighted nonsense" is what idiot Liberals call pragmatism. You want to funnel taxpayer money to cronies of the socialist-fascist, leftist Democrats without ANY parameters.

For example, all the money that has been given to Tesla to get them off the ground, why didn't the government require full repayment AND a share of future profits?

Let's say we fund research that produces a game-changing something-or-other technology. Why shouldn't we expect 100% repayment and a share in the profits?

You'll bluster and pontificate because as a Democrat you don't believe in fiscal sanity.

MDarringer wrote "We should NOT be paying for research. Giving a tax break to a company that brings new technologies forward I'm OK with."

Another way of saying this is "We pay for results!" When I've seen that attitude in Corporate America (I'm a consultant, BTW), it invariably leads to risk-aversion, the fear of making mistakes, relying on the tried-and-proven (where you're sure to get results and a pay-off), and unfortunately, the death of innovation, creativity, and leadership. It's a recipe that rewards "in the box" thinking. This strategy does wonders for the quarterly bottom-line... until it's myopic vision runs out of steam and implodes. It is not a sustainable strategy.

Businesspersons with a long-term and far-reaching vision for (sustainable) profitability understand well that they have to invest now, in what might not pay off for decades. Think of this as spending close to 20 years feeding, clothing, sheltering, nurturing, and educating a toddler until eventually, many years later, they turn the world on its ear with a game-changing idea. Two decade's of money-losing might seem like a stupid idea to some; or a wise investment to others.

I also like to look to science to see how they handle risk, and specifically, where they balance risk with reward. Space telescopes are expensive to operate and their time is extremely limited, so teams have to write a proposal explaining why they "deserve" to get time on these miracle machines. The good folks who run these facilities have discovered that they do best when they allocate 5% of the telescopes' time to "far fetched" proposals. They've discovered that most of them don't pan out, but the ones that do lead to discoveries that nobody would have otherwise made, because they're just so far out "of the box."


For the record, I have no patience or respect for someone who tells me "we don't pay you to think; we pay you to work... we don't pay for research, we pay for results." I've fired clients like that in a heartbeat. We're just not a good match for each other.

@TheSteve It's nice that you're out of the closet with your fascist-socialism, but throwing money at people without getting something to show for it in return is how the Democrat morons like to run up debt.

The government should be "show me some evidence that you have something and we'll consider funding it, but if we fund it and it makes a profit, we co-own the intellectual rights, patents, and a pre-negotiated slice of the profits."

Well Again Matt - you have added something to your thread that I never said and then criticized me for it. AND BobM - sorry but the government has indeed a need to support research into more than "Pure" research. The US government is that largest single consumer of goods in the USA - and research into specific things that would help it run better for less money is in our best interest. In addition - the US Military - is one of the largest in the world - certainly spends the most money on weapons systems - and spending money on advanced weapons research IS and will always be our governments role- this is one thing that cannot be left to independent companies that can then sell it to the highest bidder.. THe combined governments in the USA spend money for all sorts of things - and for instance - paving materials that last longer and are safer would be another place where the government could spend research dollars. Medical research into cancer, heart disease, and other pandemic style outbreaks also requires a central focus - which the NIH provides. An idiot like Matt would rather die - than have the government provide funds for treatments and cures for various diseases. A great example of government involvement is in the funding of BOTH the Salk and Sabin research that led to the near elimination of Polio - that the government THEN supplied to ALL people in the USA - YOU probably were are not old enough to remember that. Yes - it only takes a person who opens his eyes to see things supported by government research grants that have helped ALL the US citizens. I do not think I can name all of the the things that resulted from research for the space programs that we now use daily - and I doubt you can either.

I agree that there is a lot of spending that the government should not be in - but in many areas - a central control of research and funding where the research works together (Companies work to compete) - generally produces results quicker than competitors who keep their discoveries secret. And giving a tax break to those who develop things only supports research for things that can create a immediate financial profit for a company - and could result in cures that no one can afford to actually buy.

@TomM Yes you did. Take your dementia pills. Your senility is too readily apparent.

You seem to want to give corporate welfare and then bash big business, but like all clustered Liberals, you are just incoherent.

ARPA-e has only been in existence less than 10 years. However even in that short time here are a few examples of what they have done.

Developed a 1 megawatt silicon carbide transistor the size of a fingernail
Engineered microbes that use hydrogen and carbon dioxide to make liquid transportation fuel
Pioneered a near-isothermal compressed air energy storage system

Think of so,e of the things DARPA has accomplished like GPS navigation, computer networking etc... and apply that thinking to energy.

Also it is not a loan company for start ups, may be good to understand what it is you are against before commenting...but hey first amendment...I'm all for it. And the second, third and fourth....

Wow Bob you sootcases are too smart, but maybe can't read so well with the soot particles in your eyes... re-read the link to the 2011 story that you posted... Certainly ARPA-e is not always making the right bets on whom to fund, however a nice even handed article from MIT (don't worry I know you are way smarter than those idiots) and in my little engineering mind makes a good case that it is too early to tell. Some nice successes and some failures as in any research (except yours of course as I am sure all of yours would be world changing...you are just so smart...are there any statues of you yet that I can visit?). https://www.technologyreview.com/s/538956/is-arpa-e-making-any-progress/

in any case you're way to smart for me to argue with, so no mas, you win. - All in good jest Bob, enjoy the difference of opinion and ideas!

@BobM: "flies on ... pile of shit!" You are so right Bob!!!

Based on the voracity of MD's and your posts, I must say you are the hungry flies. As with the low life forms, no further explaining is necessary.

@BobM remember it's not hate speech or bullying when a Liberal moonbat says it. I'm surprised Terr'y9'89' hasn't opened his mouth and farted yet.

@BobM You're probably right either that or they are a committee because it would take the IQ of all of them combined to learn a language and be able to sort of express themselves. I guess he/they think the red arrows make us feel sad??? Not me.

@BobM and your retarded adopted son Mattie: as typical bullies, you got a reply you couldn't handle and started you baby cries. The simple fact that you have to band together shows you don't have any self confidence, even behind the safety of your computer screen. How can you handle the real world with such low self esteem ? It sucks to be you.

As etiquette for online posting, you should know not to start throwing insults and expect people to be quiet about it. But too bad you couldn't resist when you ran out of facts or logic to support your opinion.

While I agree with some of the facts about frauds and abuses from the old administration (by the way, did the auto industry complain about the $4B Cash for Clunker program ?), killing the programs altogether by the new administration due to government mismanagement is simply wrong. If Trump is serious about draining the swamp and overhauling the government, he should not surround him with the ex-military and Wall Street crowds. We all know where their interests lie.

If Trump wants to save the budget, DoD is the first place he should do the house cleaning. I used to work for a defense contractor and know full well where the bucks go. Defense contractors typically get the rap for overspending, but they get pennies on the dollars spent, the rest goes to bureaucratic waste and inefficiency caused by the men in uniforms with stars pinned on their collars. These people talk big but bear no accountability. Poor Trump, he's just imitating these guys. And poor you for worshiping Trump.

Correction: the cost of Cash for Clunkers program was $3B, not $4B. If I had that money to invest in the stock market I would have over $10B today.

@BobM I think your thesis that this group of morons is the same guy has been proven.

@HenryN..."veracity" is the word you're looking for.

@MD: nope - I use the word "voracity" for exactly what it means - your extreme appetite for the shxt the liberals feed you.