Green sources of energy is a topic that’s become hot-button fodder for geologists, politicians, pundits, liberals, conservatives, businesses and, of course, the manufacturing community. Recent federal funding initiatives, or lack there of, could potentially ignite the green debate even further.

At IMT we’ve done a fair share of coverage around the developments of green sources of energy, and we’ll continue to do so. While we realize green methods have ideological connotations and are associated with environmentalists, leftists and hippies, we also realize alternative energies and fuels are major factors (if not hallmarks) of good management (as are, say, reduced packaging, shorter supply lines and closed-loop manufacturing). You may be tired of green energy before it’s even entirely mainstream, but it’s a topic that has become hot-button fodder for businesses, geologists and politicians, but more important, it’s a major issue that’s creeping up on the manufacturing community, especially as the costs of traditional oil spills fuels continue to rise.

And if the following news developments are any indication, it looks like the green landscape will soon become scorching hot as it becomes mired in debatable funding issues.

First up is a news about a U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and Department of Energy (DOE) partnership designed to award nine grants totaling $5.7 million for bio-based fuels research. Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman said the projects build upon DOE’s strategic investments in genomics, to accelerate scientific discovery and promote the development of alternative energy sources vital to America’s energy and safety.

Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns says the grants will further the cause of growing biomass in large amounts:

To be a reliable renewable energy source, farmers and ranchers will need to be able to grow biomass in large quantities. This joint research initiative will address our nation’s need for alternative energy resources and improve the efficiency with which biomass and plant feedstocks are used to produce renewable fuels such as ethanol.

Sound good so far? Hmmm…

The list of schools that “won” the grants are all, well, really great institutions. Beyond question, it makes sense to divvy up the cash amongst the best and brightest, but my guess is that there are probably far less prestigious institutions out there anxiously awaiting for this type of opportunity that also know a thing or two about alternative forms of energy. What metrics/criteria were used to determine the winners?

I guess it really isn’t fair to bemoan the fact that select Federal institutions are taking proactive steps to speed the development of biofuels. Then again…

John D. McKinnon and Laura Meckler, authors of a recent Wall Street Journal article, say (more like gnarl) that the Bush administration is doing very little to cure the U.S.’s “addiction to oil.”

“He isn’t proposing new mandates for ethanol use or new incentives for gasoline stations to stock the fuel,” the two write. “He isn’t making tougher auto fuel-economy standards a high priority and doesn’t support a higher gasoline tax.”

Some of the article just sounds like liberal media whining.

However, also note that President Bush’s budget for the fiscal year beginning Oct. 1 seeks less than $500 million in federal spending on research for the major alternative-fuel technologies, including cellulosic ethanol — an amount that’s less than what Americans spend each day on gasoline. The administration says its proposed spending for clean-energy research overall represents a 22 percent increase.

Whatever your thoughts are on the current administration, in comparison with Americans’ daily spending on gasoline, “less than $500 million” for a fiscal year’s research into an alternative is a bit on the low side. But maybe it’s not all about showing nosy IMT bloggers the money but more about how that money is being spent. Like the aforementioned USDA/DOE initiative. Or another initiative that the DOE is heading up that IndustryWeek dissects this week.

In a (biodegradable) nutshell, U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Secretary Samuel W. Bodman said the DOE will establish and operate two new Bioenergy Research Centers to accelerate basic research on the development of cellulosic ethanol and other biofuels — with $250 million to back it.

“This is an important step toward our goal of replacing 30 percent of transportation fuels with biofuels by 2030,” Secretary Bodman said.

Does this sound like a solid biofuel plan? If not, how do you think the government should be divvying up the green?

By the way, last month the House Energy and Commerce Committee released a fact sheet on Energy Policy Act of 2005′s impact to date (after one year). The partial list includes:

- 27 new ethanol plants have broken ground;

- 1.4 billion gallons of annual ethanol production estimated to be online by end of 2006;

- 401 E-85 pumps have been installed;

-116,871 new hybrid vehicles purchased since Jan. 1, 2006; and

- 500 million gallons of new annual ethanol production online.

Not bad. No doubt much remains to be done. Still, not bad. See the complete list for facts on nuclear, coal-based, solar thermal, wind, et al. energy updates.