New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

"Let's Go for It": Q&A with Head of ARPA-e, the U.S. High-Risk Energy Research Agency

The leader of the government's push into alternative energy talks about fuel-making microbes, the next industrial revolution and how soon his high-risk projects will reach the market

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Name: Arun Majumdar
Title: Director, Advanced Research Projects Agency–Energy
Location: Washington, D.C.

What is ARPA–e’s mandate?
The wise thought leaders who created ARPA-e felt that a place to go and try out a new, high-risk idea did not exist. [That is] what ­ARPA-e was created for.

We are saying that if energy is the next industrial revolution and if we are going to be competitive in this globally competitive world, and we are falling behind right now, gosh, let’s go for it. You need ARPA-e to look for short-term translation of science into technology.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


What kinds of projects is ­ARPA-e funding?
Scientists at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory are making progress on electro­fuels [using microbes to turn carbon dioxide back into liquid fuels similar to gasoline]. They have got a new catalyst that is cheaper, and they are taking that catalyst and attaching it to a microbe, and that’s supposed to produce the hydrogen that the bug will consume to produce electrofuels. I don’t think they have any idea whether the catalyst will actually work when attached to the bug, but you’ve got to just try it out. Now that’s risky. But there are slightly less risky projects as well.

This high-risk research also includes developing better batteries for electric cars, cheaper photovoltaics and power electronics (superefficient electrical converters). When will these projects start to deliver?
My most optimistic estimate is 10 years for when these products will actually be in the hands of consumers or placed in the energy infrastructure. But frankly, look at how long the Internet took, from 1968, and ARPAnet to the late 1980s. That’s 20 years. That’s the sort of time­scale we should be looking at.

Which programs can deliver fastest?
Electrofuels are really in an early stage. I don’t think we should expect that any time soon. Maybe power electronics.

How do you decide when something’s a failure?
Usually if a project does not meet its milestones [after an extension of] two or three months. We give them a little window instead of just cutting them off.

Still, our primary goal is to help researchers reach their milestones and move forward. We tell our folks, look, if something’s not working and we terminate a project, don’t take it personally. Come back again, and we will try to support you.

David Biello is a contributing editor at Scientific American.

More by David Biello
Scientific American Magazine Vol 304 Issue 5This article was published with the title “'Let's Go for It': Q&A with Head of ARPA-e, the U.S. High-Risk Energy Research Agency” in Scientific American Magazine Vol. 304 No. 5 ()
doi:10.1038/scientificamerican052011-50GPSa9SCW3swXCCFG84nC

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe