Robert Fri, former deputy administrator of the EPA and the U.S. Energy Research and Development Administration, former president of progressive think tank Resources for the Future, says the government isn't very good at doing energy research, and that a price on carbon would do more to stimulate productive energy research than targeted grants for specific research programs.
Meanwhile, RFF publishes a paper saying that "broad-based policies like emissions pricing are substantially more cost effective than more targeted approaches, such as R&D subsidies." (This all via Keith Johnson.)
I guess RFF isn't going to be on Breakthrough's Christmas list.
Comments
View as Flat
BILL HANNAHAN Posted 1:51 pm
01 Nov 2008
They run off the tracks when their model shows that emissions charges are more effective than R&D. The problem is that they assume there will be no breakthroughs associated with the R&D.
Suppose R&D develops a new algae or catalyst that allows the conversion of air water and sunlight into oil suitable for use as diesel fuel with no refining required, and at a rate 10 times that of the best algae available now.
Suppose R&D develops a nuclear reactor that can be mass produced for 1/10 the cost of wind mills or solar cells per kWh. These would result in revolutionary changes.
It is not an either/or situation. We should have emission fees to level the playing field and a massive (not a small targeted) energy R&D budget of $100 billion per year that pushes every technology as hard as possible.
Things Everybody Should Know About Energy
Permalink