Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Power Earth Government United States

US Energy Department Funds 'Energy Earthshots' to Speed Clean-Energy Innovations (energy.gov) 77

Posted by EditorDavid from the going-green dept.
This week America's Department of Energy announced $264 million for 29 projects as part of its Energy Earthshots Initiative "to advance clean energy technologies within the decade."

The funding will support 11 new research centers — along with 18 university research teams — studying things like industrial decarbonization, carbon storage, and offshore wind energy. The ultimate goal is a clean-energy revolution that will "accelerate innovations toward more abundant, affordable, and reliable clean energy solutions."

One ambitious example: The Department of Energy's Oak Ridge National Laboratory has been selected to lead an Energy Earthshot Research Center focused on developing chemical processes that use sustainable methods instead of burning fossil fuels to radically reduce industrial greenhouse gas emissions to stem climate change and limit the crisis of a rapidly warming planet... The ORNL-led Non-Equilibrium Energy Transfer for Efficient Reactions center, or NEETER, will coordinate a research team from across the nation focused on replacing bulk heating for chemical processes with electrified means, providing a new way to do chemistry, and decarbonizing large-scale processes in the chemical industry. DOE has committed $19 million over four years for the center...

The scientists, in addition to using their own laboratories, will use Department of Energy Office of Science user facilities, including ORNL's Oak Ridge Leadership Computing Facility, Spallation Neutron Source, High Flux Isotope Reactor, and Center for Nanophase Materials Sciences. They will also include the beam line at Stanford's SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory. NEETER's proposed research is a radical departure from traditional chemistry and holds promise for transformational breakthroughs in energy-related chemical reactions. The NEETER EERC addresses the Department of Energy's Industrial Heat Shot announced in 2022, which aims to develop cost-competitive industrial heat decarbonization technologies with at least 85% lower greenhouse gas emissions by 2035. This EERC will employ new kinds of chemical catalysis as one pathway toward electrifying the delivery of process heat.
The projects include:
  • Investigating hydrogen arc plasmas for carbon-free steelmaking
  • Using exascale computer simulations and observations to produce more resilient clean energy systems.
  • The University of Florida has reportedly teamed with Switzerland-based Synhelion to "research the production of green hydrogen, aiming for a lower cost to produce."
  • The Center for Understanding Subsurface Signals and Permeability will attempt research to "advance enhanced geothermal systems with the goal of making them a widely accessible and reliable source of renewable energy"

"Our Energy Earthshots are game-changing endeavors to unleash the technologies of the clean energy transition and make them accessible, affordable, and abundant," said U.S. Secretary of Energy Jennifer M. Granholm. "The Energy Earthshot Research Centers and the related work happening on college campuses around the country will be instrumental in developing the clean energy and decarbonization solutions we need to establish a 100% clean grid and beat climate change."


This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

US Energy Department Funds 'Energy Earthshots' to Speed Clean-Energy Innovations More

US Energy Department Funds 'Energy Earthshots' to Speed Clean-Energy Innovations

Comments Filter:

  • Is that anything like Red Mercury?

  • Um, you do know that steel is an alloy of iron and carbon? Leave out the carbon and you're left with... iron.

    • Even better, where is the hydrogen coming from for the hydrogen arc? Clean petroleum?

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by necro81 ( 917438 )

        Even better, where is the hydrogen coming from for the hydrogen arc? Clean petroleum?

        [pedantic]Most hydrogen comes from natural gas, not petroleum.[/pedantic]

        Although there isn't much of it happening now, it is absolutely possible to create hydrogen from non-carbon sources [wikipedia.org] like renewables.

        • where do you think natural gas comes from?

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by necro81 ( 917438 )

            where do you think natural gas comes from?

            Natural gas - methane - comes from several sources. It is often found alongside petroleum (petroleum wells will often flare off the gas that cannot readily be collected). But natural gas is frequently harvested from dedicated wells that don't produce petroleum. And while it is possible to produce methane from petroleum (crude oil) at a refinery, it is usually cheaper to just mine it as a standalone product.

            • Natural gas is a fossil fuel, just like oil and coal

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by necro81 ( 917438 )
                Read back through the comment chain, please, and get off my back.

                I was responding to someone asking "where is the hydrogen coming from for the hydrogen arc? Clean petroleum?" I pointed out that most natural gas isn't derived from petroleum. I even added [pedantic] flags around it, recognizing my response for what it was. Nowhere did I claim that natural gas wasn't a fossil fuel. I'm not sure what point you are trying to make.

      • RTFA: One funded project is for cheaper green hydrogen production. We've had expensive production for a long long time... I think longer than we've had petroleum production!

        For some things, we simply have to BAN or TAX cheaper production so the better option is relatively more affordable. It's idiotic to think about everything like a soul crushing MBA! Slave labor is the best for business but we mostly banned private slavery... It continues but will continue to grow as we develop better mechanical slaves (t

    • Re:Carbon-free steelmaking? (Score:5, Informative)

      by necro81 ( 917438 ) on Monday October 02, 2023 @07:28AM (#63893445) Journal

      Um, you do know that steel is an alloy of iron and carbon? Leave out the carbon and you're left with... iron.

      I get your point, but the carbon content in steel is a tiny, tiny fraction of the carbon associated with steelmaking.

      Carbon sources - oftentimes coke make from coal (a.k.a. metallurgical coal or "metcoal") - is added to the smelt to chemically react with the ore, drawing out oxygen and impurities. Depending on the plant, a lot of additional coal is burned to melt stuff - process heat. React carbon with oxygen and you get CO2. And because we use a lot of steel, we produce a lot of CO2 this way: about 1.5 tons of CO2 per ton of finished steel. Depending on how you run the numbers, steelmaking contributes about 2-3 gigatons of CO2 to the atmosphere annually, around 7% of humanity's total. [ref 1 [rmi.org]][ref 2 [iea.org]]

      Greening this process requires some other way to reduce iron from ore. Reacting with hydrogen [europa.eu] instead of carbon is one possibility. Doing it with electricity [bostonmetal.com] (similar to aluminum processing) is another.

      • In the traditional way of steelmaking (and ironmaking), you burn coal / charcoal / something else to produce CO. The iron ore is iron oxide, and the oxide in the ore reacts with the CO to form CO2. The main difference between the making of iron and steel is whether you burn all the carbon or leave something in the end result. This chemical reaction is why traditional steelmaking is so bad for the climate and alternatives are needed.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by jbengt ( 874751 )

      Um, you do know that steel is an alloy of iron and carbon? Leave out the carbon and you're left with... iron.

      FYI, cast iron has more carbon [reliance-foundry.com] than steel does.

    • Um, you do know that steel is an alloy of iron and carbon? Leave out the carbon and you're left with... iron.

      You realise that even if you don't understand the difference between steel and steelmaking you can still differentiate between a discussion of putting carbon in the atmosphere vs ... sequestering it as part of an alloy right?

  • Are we shooting at the Earth now, to try to save it? Actually, that does sound like us...

  • Public Investment? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by abagelgoeswoof ( 10139895 ) on Monday October 02, 2023 @06:16AM (#63893373)
    Who owns the IP when it's all done?

    The U.S. government "invested" a tidy little sum into cellulosic alcohol and algae based petroleum. Those projects were definitely successful, yet somehow all the IP for those projects is owned privately, and we the people haven't seen any of those products make it to market, despite there being commercially viable processes developed.

    Gotta love crony fascism...

    • despite there being commercially viable processes developed

      Except that never happened. Chemical pilots were successful and utterly failed to work at any significant scale. Algae especially was a big flop despite all the research had no path to commercial viability. On top of national R&D, private companies and even oil companies (looking for a greenwashing ticket) invested billions into additional R&D and failed to product a commercially viable plant.

      Heck just a quick search on the topic shows that algae based fuels become competitive at ... $800USD/barrel

      • > By the way all the research done by the USA is public.

        Research perhaps, but not patents. If I get government funding to develop a new process or technique, I get to patent it. There are rules about disclosure and development, but I still get a patent and with it exclusive rights to develop and commercialize that technology. The only exceptions to this are some (most?) projects done under DoE, DOD and NASA in which case patent rights are transferred to the government. Still not public domain, though...
        =

        • In general yes, but we're talking about DoE here. Private companies are not sitting on patents for algae based on research funded by the government.

  • Investment into hard science, such as material science, is a good idea. However, measures against hype must be taken - there should be no feel-good solutions that end up being net-loss.

    For example, where I live green activists through City Council forced mandatory inclusion of recycled rubber into paving asphalt mix [nih.gov]. This was based on the idea that this is greener way to do roadwork. The net result is that asphalt surface failed prematurely, these streets now require SUV or a truck to get through due to p

    • But your roads are greener. Saving the environment requires a series of small bad decisions. There is no one single bad option. Thanks to your town for doing your part. /s

      This is what happens when politicians make policy based on feel good instead of science.

      • Voters decide on what makes them feel good instead of just about anything else and that is reflected in their politicians.

        Ignorance of the solutions/products can lead to improper application and bad results; the contractors and politicians need to read the manuals... but when you hire low information people who feel good that is what you get.

        • You think voters really know anything about who they vote for? You know what the turnover rate is in this country for incumbents?

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by jbengt ( 874751 )
      The study linked above states that the use of tire rubber in asphalt pavements is increasing, that it provides several benefits and poses some pitfalls, and that a lot of the problems encountered have been because of it being improperly used or poorly processed (often due to a poor understanding of a new product).

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by sinij ( 911942 )
        That is exactly what that study says, however the reality that these additives amplifies effects of freeze-thaw weathering and degradation.

  • Battery capacity is the biggest impediment to green energy. Any research on that front?

    • Batteries are slower going but a huge amount of research over DECADES has already been done and needs to be tried for implementation. The bigger problem is likely the old grid, power monopolies, and being willing to take losses trying it out.

      They've researched all you need to do flywheels and flow batteries like starting back in the 70s. They can be done at grid scale but not cheaply and it's a risk; businesses generally won't try even proven tech until their competition starts to hurt them with it... Elec

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by HiThere ( 15173 )

        Wireless power transmission was horribly inefficient compared with power lines. It probably still is, though I haven't checked in a decade or so. And for any large power transmission you still need clear right-of-way, but for wireless it needs to be in a straight line. No curves or corners. (That's why SPSS is more probable than long distance land based transmission across most of the land mass.) ("Keep your power beam out of my bedroom!")

        • Since there's no perfect antennas, and there's attenuation due to the atmosphere, it's unlikely that wireless power transmission can ever be more efficient than a wire outside of a vacuum (wires aren't perfect either...)

          • We've already been charging phones with wireless power transmission. I said nothing of replacing power lines other than referencing Mr Telsa's pioneering work - which is good enough for short distances such as a parking lot or parking meter location or even downtown roads. Transmission distance = maybe 20 cm (8 inches?)

            • We've already been charging phones with wireless power transmission.

              Yeah, but look how inefficient that is. Even in the best case you're looking at over 10% power wasted, and at worst (like with a thick case, which is necessary for many people) it can be as much as 50%.

              • ICE wastes over 60%.
                The old grid wastes 10-20%.
                Incandescent bulbs waste more heat than light they produce...

                Government had to force LED lights forward; otherwise, we'd still be backwards.

                Waste is often red herring; can't adopt the disrupting change because it's not perfect or it's not cheaper or whatever other excuse. EVs are better in EVERY WAY except refueling time and storage size; but that must be the sole focus by the corporate media since the 1990s until Telsa broke thru the industry's created barrie

                • Oh look whataboutism and blather.

                  We are talking about wireless charging being inefficient compared to a wire, not all that other shit.

                  Stay on topic.

                  • No, they are examples of ...and I point out the red herring excuses that everything has to be 100% efficient and better than whatever you choose before we can use it because it's not ready yet. Doesn't matter that it loses power if it loses less power than a ICE car it's will a win.

    • 10C range charging to make do. Liquid hydrogen and liquid renewable methane as an alternative (pump hydrogen and air captured CO2 into an old gas field and wait a bit, obviously methane has problems but this is likely the cheapest renewable hydrocarbon).

  • We can't harness fusion energy yet, but the Sun can. We can't create photovoltaic cells as efficient as leaves. We can't capture carbon like the oceans and trees... ...but we'll spend billions on useless GREEN projects that will ultimately change nothing. The Earth has been hotter and colder than present day. The Earth has spun faster and slower than present day. The Earth's magnetic poles have flip-flopped, axial tilt changed... The Sun's radiation output has fluctuated over time... See levels have fluct

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by gtall ( 79522 )

      Pseudo scientists like yourself do not understand the Rate of Change makes a difference. So yeah, the Earth was colder and warmer in the past, but we are making it warmer faster than it has ever changed before.

  • Waste of money, therefore increasing inflation, and decreasing net productivity of the economy. Digging ditches where you don't need them is good for the ditch diggers, but not anyone else.

  • Spending a lot more $ on long shots, as opposed to spending it on speeding up nuclear, geothermal, and small hydro which are sure things.

    • High risk, high payoff. Nothing wrong with that, the government has the bucks and patience.

      • Problem is, these are not really high pay-offs. Geothermal and Nuclear are far better payoffs in ability to drop emissions quickly.
  • The Department of Energy's $264 million investment in 29 projects, including research centers and university teams, signals a significant commitment to advancing clean energy technologies. These initiatives aim to accelerate the transition to sustainable, affordable, and abundant clean energy solutions, addressing critical challenges like industrial decarbonization, carbon storage, and offshore wind energy. With ambitious goals and innovative approaches, they hold the potential to drive transformative break

Slashdot Top Deals

If all else fails, lower your standards.

Close