My understanding was that albedo modification and related options were
intentionally placed outside the scope of ARPA-E.
Rumor has it that that was one of the compromises made in getting ARPA-
E funded. This is rumor and I have no direct documentation of this.
A not unreasonable decision was
I am among those who received such a rejection letter from ARPA-E for
a proposal on carbon sequestration. In defense of such a high
rejection rate, the $150M divided by average grant size of $2M leaves
you 75 projects (divided by 3500 that gives you about 2%). So being
'discouraged' for an 8-page
I've had a great deal of experience with reviewing EPA STAR (Science to
Achieve Results) Grant and SBIR proposals, so I offer here my explanation
for the 98% reject rate. The funding rate for these is usually about 15%,
but within individual categories that means that of 8 proposals
