US Department of Energy invests $300 million into sustainable transportation R&D

[Polycount]

In context: Over the past decade or so, the transportation industry has begun to shift its focus away from fossil fuel-powered vehicles toward "green," often fully-electric alternatives. Whether this process is the result of a desire to combat climate change, or simply an attempt to prepare for a future in which some traditional fuel sources may be in limited supply, the US Department of Energy is chipping in to speed things along.

The organization today announced that it has allocated a whopping $300 million toward the research and development of sustainable transportation "resources and technologies." This cash will be split up into three separate funding opportunity announcements (FOAs).

$133 million is going toward the "FY20 Vehicles Technologies Office Multi-Topic" FOA, which will cover research topics like advanced battery and engine technologies, lightweight vehicle materials, and energy-efficient "mobility systems."

The $64 million H2@Scale New Markets FOA will be issued on behalf of the Department of Energy's Fuel Cells Technologies office, and it primarily centers around the development of "innovative hydrogen concepts."

The final "FY20 Bioenergy Technologies Office Multi-Topic" FOA will be used to lower the cost of biofuels and enable "high-value products" from waste resources or other biomass.

Companies who feel their operations line up with one or more of the topics stated above can apply for funding now. Each FOA has a separate application deadline, but the initial requirements are the same -- interested parties must submit a "concept paper" and a full application. Presumably, if you're in a position to issue such an application, you already know what this process entails.

At any rate, it is nice to see the Department of Energy invest its funds into the development of sustainable transportation. $300 million is a sizable chunk of change, after all, so hopefully, it will do some good.

Image credit: Autoweek, CNBC

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/83688-us-department-energy-invests-300-million-sustainable-transportation.html

 

[ShagnWagn]

What will make a bigger difference, and would have for the last several decades? How about actually making streetlights efficient for vehicles? This is what is and has been killing gas mileage. Not only this, but companies profits will go up plus people won't be wasting their life and complaints of sitting in traffic.

I often sit for minutes at a time when there is no traffic in any other direction. There will be a line of 50 cars and semis coming down the road and no cars behind them. One car on a side street will pull up and the light will instantly change and stop all 50 cars so one can cross. Multiply that by every streetlight. If it had waited a few extra seconds for all 50 to pass then you just saved a lot of gas and time. You also solve traffic complaints. It can be done but they don't care.

 

[yRaz]

What will make a bigger difference, and would have for the last several decades? How about actually making streetlights efficient for vehicles? This is what is and has been killing gas mileage. Not only this, but companies profits will go up plus people won't be wasting their life and complaints of sitting in traffic.

I often sit for minutes at a time when there is no traffic in any other direction. There will be a line of 50 cars and semis coming down the road and no cars behind them. One car on a side street will pull up and the light will instantly change and stop all 50 cars so one can cross. Multiply that by every streetlight. If it had waited a few extra seconds for all 50 to pass then you just saved a lot of gas and time. You also solve traffic complaints. It can be done but they don't care.

Smart intersections are a thing and they're everywhere where I live. Most of the time it's local governments that come up with the funding for them with many places being to inefficient to find the funding.

 

[Lounds]

Smart intersections are a thing and they're everywhere where I live. Most of the time it's local governments that come up with the funding for them with many places being to inefficient to find the funding.

They're called roundabouts.

 

[Uncle Al]

I am hoping that some ingenious inventor out there is working on a universal charging system that can buried in the parking spaces so, like many of today's phones, you simply get close enough and it will sense the vehicle and start charging if that feature has been manually selected by the operator. If not it should generate a warning that the car should be parked in a different non-charging slot.

Going to have to be a lot safer than the 3rd rail but I believe it certainly can be possible.

 

[yRaz]

They're called roundabouts.

US drivers are so bad that I look both ways at roundabouts. After being hit by a car on my bike at 2018, we Americans should stick to traffic lights

 

[wiyosaya]

What will make a bigger difference, and would have for the last several decades? How about actually making streetlights efficient for vehicles? This is what is and has been killing gas mileage. Not only this, but companies profits will go up plus people won't be wasting their life and complaints of sitting in traffic.

I often sit for minutes at a time when there is no traffic in any other direction. There will be a line of 50 cars and semis coming down the road and no cars behind them. One car on a side street will pull up and the light will instantly change and stop all 50 cars so one can cross. Multiply that by every streetlight. If it had waited a few extra seconds for all 50 to pass then you just saved a lot of gas and time. You also solve traffic complaints. It can be done but they don't care.

Welcome to the crowd.

Part of what is already being researched for autonomous and "smart" cars is connectivity with the other cars around you and, believe it or not, street lights. One story I heard (I believe it was on NPR) was that at least one person's vision of autonomous vehicles and the communication between them and street lights was that the car would negotiate with the street light for a window to pass without having to stop. The car may have to adjust its speed, however, I would imagine that that adjustment would be within reason and be well short of a need to stop.

 

[wiyosaya]

Smart intersections are a thing and they're everywhere where I live. Most of the time it's local governments that come up with the funding for them with many places being to inefficient to find the funding.

As I see it, some of those "smart intersections" (to me, they are obvious on a route I drive every day) are pretty dumb.

 

[Freddie159]

What will make a bigger difference, and would have for the last several decades? How about actually making streetlights efficient for vehicles? This is what is and has been killing gas mileage. Not only this, but companies profits will go up plus people won't be wasting their life and complaints of sitting in traffic.

I often sit for minutes at a time when there is no traffic in any other direction. There will be a line of 50 cars and semis coming down the road and no cars behind them. One car on a side street will pull up and the light will instantly change and stop all 50 cars so one can cross. Multiply that by every streetlight. If it had waited a few extra seconds for all 50 to pass then you just saved a lot of gas and time. You also solve traffic complaints. It can be done but they don't care.

The City of over 100K people where I worked actively controlled the street lights TO SLOW TRAFFIC DOWN so they would stay on the main roads, ie interstates, and off the local roads during rush hours. They slowed traffic even further during snowy or icy weather so the heat from the cars would keep the roads clear. It was a concious decision by the Traffic and Parking folks and it continues today!!

 

[ShagnWagn]

My city has sensors for some traffic lights, but some don't work, some switch the light when a vehicle barely touches them, and all of them wait until a car stops on them to even switch the light. This further aggravates the issue when they are just turning right and don't even need the light. Lights are so inefficient it is unbelievable they haven't improved them in decades.

The City of over 100K people where I worked actively controlled the street lights TO SLOW TRAFFIC DOWN so they would stay on the main roads, ie interstates, and off the local roads during rush hours. They slowed traffic even further during snowy or icy weather so the heat from the cars would keep the roads clear. It was a concious decision by the Traffic and Parking folks and it continues today!!

Cars don't heat the roads. You/they can't be serious. LOL. This blows my mind someone thought this would work, and they've spent millions of dollars and infrastructure. /facepalm

Welcome to the crowd.

Part of what is already being researched for autonomous and "smart" cars is connectivity with the other cars around you and, believe it or not, street lights. One story I heard (I believe it was on NPR) was that at least one person's vision of autonomous vehicles and the communication between them and street lights was that the car would negotiate with the street light for a window to pass without having to stop. The car may have to adjust its speed, however, I would imagine that that adjustment would be within reason and be well short of a need to stop.

autonomous self-wrecking cars are the worst thing we can do. A lot of needless deaths - Darwin awards for "death by computer". Do you know of a single "smart" device that is even remotely smart? All of them are stupid. Putting cars on the internet will be a disaster. Every hacker on the planet will be looking to cause accidents/deaths.

 

[wiyosaya]

autonomous self-wrecking cars are the worst thing we can do. A lot of needless deaths - Darwin awards for "death by computer". Do you know of a single "smart" device that is even remotely smart? All of them are stupid. Putting cars on the internet will be a disaster. Every hacker on the planet will be looking to cause accidents/deaths.

I bet people said something similar about the airplane.

While Tesla gives them a very bad name now, I doubt that it will remain that way forever.

 

[ShagnWagn]

I bet people said something similar about the airplane.

While Tesla gives them a very bad name now, I doubt that it will remain that way forever.

Not that I know of. Airplanes don't have any of the obstacles like vehicles do. Vehicles have literally thousands of possible outcomes and objects to avoid. Humans do this second nature every day. A computer can't possibly be programmed to proactively anticipate problems. Computers don't have a fear of death either. They could care less if people are maimed or killed. Just like the people that are forcing these things on us, and the people who are trying to encourage it.

 

[wiyosaya]

Not that I know of. Airplanes don't have any of the obstacles like vehicles do. Vehicles have literally thousands of possible outcomes and objects to avoid. Humans do this second nature every day. A computer can't possibly be programmed to proactively anticipate problems. Computers don't have a fear of death either. They could care less if people are maimed or killed. Just like the people that are forcing these things on us, and the people who are trying to encourage it.

Back in the day, there were no airplanes around. For centuries, humanity never thought anyone would ever be able to fly. I am not saying there are no issues. However, companies are starting to take things more seriously - like security.

As I see it, if you want to change the "hackers gonna hack," it is going to take a change at a deeper level. To me, hacking, while a problem in itself, is a symptom of a deeper problem.

 

[ShagnWagn]

Back in the day, there were no airplanes around. For centuries, humanity never thought anyone would ever be able to fly. I am not saying there are no issues. However, companies are starting to take things more seriously - like security.

As I see it, if you want to change the "hackers gonna hack," it is going to take a change at a deeper level. To me, hacking, while a problem in itself, is a symptom of a deeper problem.

I agree, but no matter how many precautions there will always be holes. Yes I also agree, the hacking is part of a deeper issue - a heart problem. Humans sin by nature. Unless everyone repents and quits their fleshly desire to do harm to others (lying, cheating, stealing, hate/murder, blasphemy, etc etc), it will continue. I try to do my part by sharing the Good News with others, but sadly, it will not be fully cleansed until the world burns up and made new. Thank goodness there is a Savior for those who trust in Him!

 

[wiyosaya]

I agree, but no matter how many precautions there will always be holes. Yes I also agree, the hacking is part of a deeper issue - a heart problem. Humans sin by nature. Unless everyone repents and quits their fleshly desire to do harm to others (lying, cheating, stealing, hate/murder, blasphemy, etc etc), it will continue. I try to do my part by sharing the Good News with others, but sadly, it will not be fully cleansed until the world burns up and made new. Thank goodness there is a Savior for those who trust in Him!

I could not agree more that humanity engages in behaviors that are wrong. Personally, I think the question why does humanity do such things has to be asked. I am sure there is a myriad of responses to that question; however, I think part of the answer to that question comes from the dominant economic systems in the world.

The dominant economic systems place value on how much one has. The more money that ones has, the more valuable those economic systems place on that entity. The less money that one has, the less value that those economic systems place on that entity, with an exception to those who chose to live an austere life for spiritual purposes.

Those with little, for instance, might steal to survive; while those with plenty might steal out of greed.

For me, the overriding factor, though, is that the majority of the world has reduced humanity's value to one of how much money one posses. It has fostered a win at all costs attitude. Because of the reverence paid to those with large amounts of money, there is little incentive to stop when one has enough, and I see that as part of the problem.

I see this as a system that emphasizes differences rather than similarities. If one has money, one is valuable. If one does not have money, one has no value. Like https://sacred-economics.com/ I think that everyone has value. However, within the constraints of the dominant economic system, everyone must struggle to survive and fit in. Some people, I am sure, never find an outlet for their talents and become lost.

I think the best of parents guide their child in ethical behavior. At some point, though, I think the best of parents step aside. To realize their own potential, the child has to walk their own path. They must be free to make mistakes and learn from those mistakes. Otherwise, the child stands a chance of becoming dependent on their parents for their entire life, and this is something I see as unhealthy.

I think humanity needs to find a way to define itself based on the similarities between individuals rather than on the differences. IMO, this is the only way that humanity will find that saving light within.

 

[ShagnWagn]

I could not agree more that humanity engages in behaviors that are wrong. Personally, I think the question why does humanity do such things has to be asked. I am sure there is a myriad of responses to that question; however, I think part of the answer to that question comes from the dominant economic systems in the world.

The dominant economic systems place value on how much one has. The more money that ones has, the more valuable those economic systems place on that entity. The less money that one has, the less value that those economic systems place on that entity, with an exception to those who chose to live an austere life for spiritual purposes.

Those with little, for instance, might steal to survive; while those with plenty might steal out of greed.

For me, the overriding factor, though, is that the majority of the world has reduced humanity's value to one of how much money one posses. It has fostered a win at all costs attitude. Because of the reverence paid to those with large amounts of money, there is little incentive to stop when one has enough, and I see that as part of the problem.

I see this as a system that emphasizes differences rather than similarities. If one has money, one is valuable. If one does not have money, one has no value. Like https://sacred-economics.com/ I think that everyone has value. However, within the constraints of the dominant economic system, everyone must struggle to survive and fit in. Some people, I am sure, never find an outlet for their talents and become lost.

I think the best of parents guide their child in ethical behavior. At some point, though, I think the best of parents step aside. To realize their own potential, the child has to walk their own path. They must be free to make mistakes and learn from those mistakes. Otherwise, the child stands a chance of becoming dependent on their parents for their entire life, and this is something I see as unhealthy.

I think humanity needs to find a way to define itself based on the similarities between individuals rather than on the differences. IMO, this is the only way that humanity will find that saving light within.

It can be boiled down to one old saying: The love of money is the root of all evil. It is in the core of all of us unfortunately. Those who try to repent and not let it guide their actions still fail from time to time.

 

[wiyosaya]

It can be boiled down to one old saying: The love of money is the root of all evil. It is in the core of all of us unfortunately. Those who try to repent and not let it guide their actions still fail from time to time.

From my viewpoint, even if the ones with the lowest value ascribed to them repent, they are still the ones with the lowest value ascribed to them.