<![CDATA[Grist - Comment Feed for Voters like it, but how to do it well?]]> Grist Comment Feed en Comment #1 by sunflower http://www.grist.org/article/the-promise-and-perils-of-public-investment-in-energy/ Fri, 29 Jun 2007 01:13:56 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/the-promise-and-perils-of-public-investment-in-energy/1 Political silence of science

President Carter spent billions on renewable energy public research.  Reagan canceled the research to protect big energy from new technology.  Those r&d funds have never been restored.

Today's renewable energy new technology companies are still coasting on 1970s public research, like old trough solar power plants.  Solar industrial process heat has disappeared altogether.

The leadership from President Carter was based on national security risks from the OPEC oil embargo, not on campaign contributions from pork barrel industrial private projects.  

Giving money to private deployments does not result in the public publishing of research, engineering, and performance studies.  

The national security risks from global warming today should be adequate motivation to restore substantial funding of public research by thousands of scientists and engineers at our national laboratories and universities.

This link is an example of valuable Carter era engineering I can use today.  Note the bibliography dates (at the end of the chapter) reflect individual programs funded and managed by the government for the public good.
Heliostats

]]> Political silence of science

President Carter spent billions on renewable energy public research.  Reagan canceled the research to protect big energy from new technology.  Those r&d funds have never been restored.

Today's renewable energy new technology companies are still coasting on 1970s public research, like old trough solar power plants.  Solar industrial process heat has disappeared altogether.

The leadership from President Carter was based on national security risks from the OPEC oil embargo, not on campaign contributions from pork barrel industrial private projects.  

Giving money to private deployments does not result in the public publishing of research, engineering, and performance studies.  

The national security risks from global warming today should be adequate motivation to restore substantial funding of public research by thousands of scientists and engineers at our national laboratories and universities.

This link is an example of valuable Carter era engineering I can use today.  Note the bibliography dates (at the end of the chapter) reflect individual programs funded and managed by the government for the public good.
Heliostats

]]> Comment #2 by Delay And Deny http://www.grist.org/article/the-promise-and-perils-of-public-investment-in-energy/ Fri, 29 Jun 2007 01:16:34 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/the-promise-and-perils-of-public-investment-in-energy/2 Ms. Hilton, That Will Be $2000 for the next gallon

If all these resources are limited, critical and need to be regulated, then the only fair thing is to go back to the old A, B and C stickers on autos and ration everything.

http://www.ameshistoricalsociety.org/exhibits/events/rati ...

By the end of 1942, half of U.S automobiles were issued an 'A' sticker which allowed 4 gallons of fuel per week.  That sticker was issued to owners whose use of their cars was nonessential.  Hand the pump jockey your Mileage Ration Book coupons and cash, and she (yes, female service station attendants because the guys were over there) could sell you three or four gallons a week, no more.  For nearly a year, A-stickered cars were not to be driven for pleasure at all.

Sounds like Grist and the government are inventing a whole lot of rigmaroles just to say that people need to cut back.

John Bailo
You Read It Here First

]]> Ms. Hilton, That Will Be $2000 for the next gallon

If all these resources are limited, critical and need to be regulated, then the only fair thing is to go back to the old A, B and C stickers on autos and ration everything.

http://www.ameshistoricalsociety.org/exhibits/events/rati ...

By the end of 1942, half of U.S automobiles were issued an 'A' sticker which allowed 4 gallons of fuel per week.  That sticker was issued to owners whose use of their cars was nonessential.  Hand the pump jockey your Mileage Ration Book coupons and cash, and she (yes, female service station attendants because the guys were over there) could sell you three or four gallons a week, no more.  For nearly a year, A-stickered cars were not to be driven for pleasure at all.

Sounds like Grist and the government are inventing a whole lot of rigmaroles just to say that people need to cut back.

John Bailo
You Read It Here First

]]> Comment #3 by Jon Rynn http://www.grist.org/article/the-promise-and-perils-of-public-investment-in-energy/ Fri, 29 Jun 2007 01:25:59 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/the-promise-and-perils-of-public-investment-in-energy/3 If the public investment is in electrified trains,

...it can't be diverted into coal or ethanol.  It's a very clear goal -- trains.  If hummers come out instead, it's obvious somebody didn't do the right thing.  Light rail, subways, and high-speed intercity trains would go far to reduce carbon emissions, and increase energy independence.  But apparently there is not a strong enough group of train manufacturers to push this, like there is with cars -- in fact, I think GE (and maybe GM,which much prefers highways) is the only locomotive manufacturer in the U.S. now

]]> If the public investment is in electrified trains,

...it can't be diverted into coal or ethanol.  It's a very clear goal -- trains.  If hummers come out instead, it's obvious somebody didn't do the right thing.  Light rail, subways, and high-speed intercity trains would go far to reduce carbon emissions, and increase energy independence.  But apparently there is not a strong enough group of train manufacturers to push this, like there is with cars -- in fact, I think GE (and maybe GM,which much prefers highways) is the only locomotive manufacturer in the U.S. now

]]> Comment #4 by Jon Rynn http://www.grist.org/article/the-promise-and-perils-of-public-investment-in-energy/ Fri, 29 Jun 2007 01:49:30 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/the-promise-and-perils-of-public-investment-in-energy/4 Getting on my soap box here...

...having read the article, I think it's a must read:


The kinds of large-scale, long-term investments that were instrumental in producing the Internet, the interstate highway system, and the biotech revolution came from government, and for a reason: Private capital won't stay in the game long enough, and the benefits of private investment are likely to be largely private.

Exactly, which is why it's weird, as the authors state, that environmentalists are so hesitant to just come out and talk about government investment:


Strangely, environmentalists are more quiet on the need for investment, preferring to argue that regulation will drive innovation, which will in turn create jobs and economic opportunity. To the extent that public investment in innovation is mentioned (a survey of environmental web sites and public statements found little on the subject), it seems to be regarded as a hoped-for by-product of the regulatory scheme rather than its core intention.

The market got us into this mess, and the market will not get us out of it.  The authors go on to say that even "Reagan Democrats" were supportive of spending huge amounts of money on a new energy infrastructure.  Solar panels on every rooftop!  Light rail stops near every home!  Wind farms in every neighborhood!  Or as I saw in the model train exhibit at the Museum of Science and Industry here in Chicago, two little figures holding up a banner, "high speed rail now!"






]]> Getting on my soap box here...

...having read the article, I think it's a must read:


The kinds of large-scale, long-term investments that were instrumental in producing the Internet, the interstate highway system, and the biotech revolution came from government, and for a reason: Private capital won't stay in the game long enough, and the benefits of private investment are likely to be largely private.

Exactly, which is why it's weird, as the authors state, that environmentalists are so hesitant to just come out and talk about government investment:


Strangely, environmentalists are more quiet on the need for investment, preferring to argue that regulation will drive innovation, which will in turn create jobs and economic opportunity. To the extent that public investment in innovation is mentioned (a survey of environmental web sites and public statements found little on the subject), it seems to be regarded as a hoped-for by-product of the regulatory scheme rather than its core intention.

The market got us into this mess, and the market will not get us out of it.  The authors go on to say that even "Reagan Democrats" were supportive of spending huge amounts of money on a new energy infrastructure.  Solar panels on every rooftop!  Light rail stops near every home!  Wind farms in every neighborhood!  Or as I saw in the model train exhibit at the Museum of Science and Industry here in Chicago, two little figures holding up a banner, "high speed rail now!"






]]> Comment #5 by Pangolin http://www.grist.org/article/the-promise-and-perils-of-public-investment-in-energy/ Fri, 29 Jun 2007 03:15:56 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/the-promise-and-perils-of-public-investment-in-energy/5 Carbon Taxes are fairer....

especially when the proceeds of the carbon tax are returned directly to citizens on a per-capita basis. Given a yearly wad of cash on one hand and increasingly higher prices on power and gas on the other I think people will be able to do the math for themselves.

Sure some people will go to Vegas and others will buy new Hummers but the majority will find some way to make somebody else be the sucker who pays more than he gets back.

Give the carbon tax proceeds to the government and they will use it to finance stupid wars in countries with more carbon to burn. Congress at  the moment is showing an IQ of an Alzhiemers patient on this issue. We'll get lots of biofuel subsidies and "clean coal" plants and they'll outlaw wind power.

The best government money can buy.

Put the Carbon Back

]]> Carbon Taxes are fairer....

especially when the proceeds of the carbon tax are returned directly to citizens on a per-capita basis. Given a yearly wad of cash on one hand and increasingly higher prices on power and gas on the other I think people will be able to do the math for themselves.

Sure some people will go to Vegas and others will buy new Hummers but the majority will find some way to make somebody else be the sucker who pays more than he gets back.

Give the carbon tax proceeds to the government and they will use it to finance stupid wars in countries with more carbon to burn. Congress at  the moment is showing an IQ of an Alzhiemers patient on this issue. We'll get lots of biofuel subsidies and "clean coal" plants and they'll outlaw wind power.

The best government money can buy.

Put the Carbon Back

]]> Comment #6 by Laurence Aurbach http://www.grist.org/article/the-promise-and-perils-of-public-investment-in-energy/ Fri, 29 Jun 2007 04:06:56 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/the-promise-and-perils-of-public-investment-in-energy/6 billions and billions

Meanwhile, the DOE is proposing $9 billion in loan guarantees for fiscal year 2008 to kick-start new energy investments. That's on top of the $4 billion in loan guarantees already approved in fiscal year 2007. Most of the guarantees go to nuclear, "clean" coal and ethanol investments, with a very small fraction going to renewables.

Ped Shed Blog

]]> billions and billions

Meanwhile, the DOE is proposing $9 billion in loan guarantees for fiscal year 2008 to kick-start new energy investments. That's on top of the $4 billion in loan guarantees already approved in fiscal year 2007. Most of the guarantees go to nuclear, "clean" coal and ethanol investments, with a very small fraction going to renewables.

Ped Shed Blog

]]> Comment #7 by Sean Casten http://www.grist.org/article/the-promise-and-perils-of-public-investment-in-energy/ Fri, 29 Jun 2007 06:51:27 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/the-promise-and-perils-of-public-investment-in-energy/7 Taking the bait

David,

Well, if you call my name, I must respond.  Two general thoughts, for what they're worth.

One, there is clearly a place for government investment, but I'm not sure it's the list of things outlined in some of the comments (nor in the stuff that actually gets public dollars).  The private sector is generally very good at deploying capital with the potential for near term gain.  Government, by contrast is really bad at this, both because political pressures encourage pork and because Karl Marx was wrong (e.g., a small group of regulators, no matter how enlightened will never deploy capital as efficiently as the many actors of an unfettered market).  

By contrast, the private sector in today's economy is much less adept at long-term, higher risk investments.  Government however can do this, and can tolerate much bigger risks.  The internet is often used as the example, but is deceptive in the sense that it starts from the presumption that all those investments are successful.  The whole reason the private sector doesn't do fundamental research as well is because most of it fails.  If the initial goal was to enable us to colonize space and/or create a business case to do so, the Apollo program is a colossal failure.  But if we simply say that the goal was research for research's sake, with the hope - but not the promise - that something good will result (think fuel cells, microwaves, etc.) than it's not so bad.  And I'm not even suggesting that the financial value from microwaves is sufficient to justify the money spent on Apollo - simply that big, high-risk low-probability-of-success investments have always been the way that technology moves forward.  The price of admission is what it is, but there's no other way in the door.

So in this vein, I think there is a critical place for government investment in early stage investment, exploring ideas and doing the fundamental science and conjecturing that is critical to long-term progress.  The challenge in doing this right is what a friend at the National Renewable Energy Labs once described to me as the "valley of death", where a technology is too close to market to obtain congressional funding, but too far from market to encourage private sector uptake.  Lots of DOE (and related) efforts to to tech-transfer and try to bridge this gap, and most are horribly inefficient in my experience.  But we may just have to accept this until someone can come up with a better way.

All of which brings me to my second point - and your bait - about whether market mechanisms alone will be sufficient.  My simple response is that until we've tried, we shouldn't speculate.  As I've ranted elsewhere, we don't pay anywhere near the true price for energy.  I don't think anyone would argue that markets won't respond to price, so asserting that market-mechanisms alone won't be sufficient is essentially a claim that the price won't be high enough - or that the potential for existing technology isn't large enough.  To which I say pshaw.  There are tons of technologies out there that are kept out of market only by virtue of subsidies to the current status quo.  In power alone, we've already identified opportunities to deploy technologies that are twice as efficient or better than the national average, which would displace 20% of US power generation - but for the inability of those plants to get a fair price for their power.  

Note that I am not suggesting that prices will be high enough to stimulate sufficient early stages R&D to bring every immature technology to market, but rather that prices could be restructured (not necessarily as net increase) to bring lots of existing technologies into play that are currently blocked by bad market signals.  So I guess I agree that markets alone couldn't do all the R&D, but not with the implicit assumption that "sufficient" carbon reductions cannot be realized without new technology.

And by the way - I am in violent agreement with your larger point.  Too much of the environmentalist movement unwittingly presents itself as hostile to economic gain.  It's time to get over this false conflict.

]]> Taking the bait

David,

Well, if you call my name, I must respond.  Two general thoughts, for what they're worth.

One, there is clearly a place for government investment, but I'm not sure it's the list of things outlined in some of the comments (nor in the stuff that actually gets public dollars).  The private sector is generally very good at deploying capital with the potential for near term gain.  Government, by contrast is really bad at this, both because political pressures encourage pork and because Karl Marx was wrong (e.g., a small group of regulators, no matter how enlightened will never deploy capital as efficiently as the many actors of an unfettered market).  

By contrast, the private sector in today's economy is much less adept at long-term, higher risk investments.  Government however can do this, and can tolerate much bigger risks.  The internet is often used as the example, but is deceptive in the sense that it starts from the presumption that all those investments are successful.  The whole reason the private sector doesn't do fundamental research as well is because most of it fails.  If the initial goal was to enable us to colonize space and/or create a business case to do so, the Apollo program is a colossal failure.  But if we simply say that the goal was research for research's sake, with the hope - but not the promise - that something good will result (think fuel cells, microwaves, etc.) than it's not so bad.  And I'm not even suggesting that the financial value from microwaves is sufficient to justify the money spent on Apollo - simply that big, high-risk low-probability-of-success investments have always been the way that technology moves forward.  The price of admission is what it is, but there's no other way in the door.

So in this vein, I think there is a critical place for government investment in early stage investment, exploring ideas and doing the fundamental science and conjecturing that is critical to long-term progress.  The challenge in doing this right is what a friend at the National Renewable Energy Labs once described to me as the "valley of death", where a technology is too close to market to obtain congressional funding, but too far from market to encourage private sector uptake.  Lots of DOE (and related) efforts to to tech-transfer and try to bridge this gap, and most are horribly inefficient in my experience.  But we may just have to accept this until someone can come up with a better way.

All of which brings me to my second point - and your bait - about whether market mechanisms alone will be sufficient.  My simple response is that until we've tried, we shouldn't speculate.  As I've ranted elsewhere, we don't pay anywhere near the true price for energy.  I don't think anyone would argue that markets won't respond to price, so asserting that market-mechanisms alone won't be sufficient is essentially a claim that the price won't be high enough - or that the potential for existing technology isn't large enough.  To which I say pshaw.  There are tons of technologies out there that are kept out of market only by virtue of subsidies to the current status quo.  In power alone, we've already identified opportunities to deploy technologies that are twice as efficient or better than the national average, which would displace 20% of US power generation - but for the inability of those plants to get a fair price for their power.  

Note that I am not suggesting that prices will be high enough to stimulate sufficient early stages R&D to bring every immature technology to market, but rather that prices could be restructured (not necessarily as net increase) to bring lots of existing technologies into play that are currently blocked by bad market signals.  So I guess I agree that markets alone couldn't do all the R&D, but not with the implicit assumption that "sufficient" carbon reductions cannot be realized without new technology.

And by the way - I am in violent agreement with your larger point.  Too much of the environmentalist movement unwittingly presents itself as hostile to economic gain.  It's time to get over this false conflict.

]]> Comment #8 by GreenEngineer http://www.grist.org/article/the-promise-and-perils-of-public-investment-in-energy/ Fri, 29 Jun 2007 07:30:48 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/the-promise-and-perils-of-public-investment-in-energy/8 How to...

So how can we design policy that invests in the transition to a new energy economy, in a way that tangibly benefits (or at least impresses) voters, without it becoming nothing more than corporate welfare?

Fund demand-side solutions, rather than supply-side solutions.  Demand reduction measures are necessarily more distributed, so the benefits (both the energy savings, and the taxpayer largess) get spread around more.

]]> How to...

So how can we design policy that invests in the transition to a new energy economy, in a way that tangibly benefits (or at least impresses) voters, without it becoming nothing more than corporate welfare?

Fund demand-side solutions, rather than supply-side solutions.  Demand reduction measures are necessarily more distributed, so the benefits (both the energy savings, and the taxpayer largess) get spread around more.

]]> Comment #9 by JMG http://www.grist.org/article/the-promise-and-perils-of-public-investment-in-energy/ Fri, 29 Jun 2007 07:34:47 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/the-promise-and-perils-of-public-investment-in-energy/9 Proof, please?

And I'm not even suggesting that the financial value from microwaves is sufficient to justify the money spent on Apollo - simply that big, high-risk low-probability-of-success investments have always been the way that technology moves forward.  The price of admission is what it is, but there's no other way in the door.

Hmmmmmm ...

*Discovery and understanding of the elements
*Theory of evolution
*James Watt's steam engine
*Jacquard loom
*McCormick's reaper
*Whitney's gin
*Charles Babbage's engine
*Otto's engine
*Remington's rifle
*Louis Pasteur's work on vaccinations
*Wright Bros.
*Fulton's steamship
*Marconi's radio
*Tesla's work
*Edison's work

Save the world: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions 5% annually.















]]> Proof, please?

And I'm not even suggesting that the financial value from microwaves is sufficient to justify the money spent on Apollo - simply that big, high-risk low-probability-of-success investments have always been the way that technology moves forward.  The price of admission is what it is, but there's no other way in the door.

Hmmmmmm ...

*Discovery and understanding of the elements
*Theory of evolution
*James Watt's steam engine
*Jacquard loom
*McCormick's reaper
*Whitney's gin
*Charles Babbage's engine
*Otto's engine
*Remington's rifle
*Louis Pasteur's work on vaccinations
*Wright Bros.
*Fulton's steamship
*Marconi's radio
*Tesla's work
*Edison's work

Save the world: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions 5% annually.















]]> Comment #10 by Jon Rynn http://www.grist.org/article/the-promise-and-perils-of-public-investment-in-energy/ Fri, 29 Jun 2007 07:44:27 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/the-promise-and-perils-of-public-investment-in-energy/10 But the problem is mostly a long-term problem...

Sean, you said


The private sector is generally very good at deploying capital with the potential for near term gain.  Government, by contrast is really bad at this...By contrast, the private sector in today's economy is much less adept at long-term, higher risk investments.  Government however can do this, and can tolerate much bigger risks

which I agree with, more or less, and is a very nice summation of a problem.  But, unfortunately, since the huge global crises we face, global warming and the destruction of ecosystems (and maybe I can slip in peak oil, which really is technically an ecosystem problem), are very long-term, then it would seem to indicate that the government will have to be very much involved.

The problems that you face can be termed sclerosis, that is, the political system has become set in a very anti-productive structure (you might want to check out Mancur Olson's classic on this, "the logic of collective action", as well as "the rise and decline of nations").  But we also face that problem when it comes to carbon taxes or anything else that raises prices for consumers, which is what the original article Dave posted was talking about.  People will resist change if it comes out of their pocket -- which is why, as the authors point out, it may be an easier sell to actually have the government spend a lot of money building thins.

So we've got some huge, well, to use a Marxian term, contradictions on our hands, only they aren't only social, they are ecological, that is, unless we clear this logjam the planet will fry.

As you point out, which is important, the government will do some very sloppy things when it does do things, but something is better than nothing, in the long-term.  So the government can be an important way to jumpstart the process -- as it did, by the way, with the internet by building the first parts of it, or the interstate highway system by basically building it.  If they can do that, why not an interstate railway system?  Or even building mixed use neighborhoods?  These can all be done with private firms, but to restructure society in the long-term is something the market cannot handle, especially when it needs to "jump" over a hurdle -- and using the government (at all levels, not just federal) just seems practical.




]]> But the problem is mostly a long-term problem...

Sean, you said


The private sector is generally very good at deploying capital with the potential for near term gain.  Government, by contrast is really bad at this...By contrast, the private sector in today's economy is much less adept at long-term, higher risk investments.  Government however can do this, and can tolerate much bigger risks

which I agree with, more or less, and is a very nice summation of a problem.  But, unfortunately, since the huge global crises we face, global warming and the destruction of ecosystems (and maybe I can slip in peak oil, which really is technically an ecosystem problem), are very long-term, then it would seem to indicate that the government will have to be very much involved.

The problems that you face can be termed sclerosis, that is, the political system has become set in a very anti-productive structure (you might want to check out Mancur Olson's classic on this, "the logic of collective action", as well as "the rise and decline of nations").  But we also face that problem when it comes to carbon taxes or anything else that raises prices for consumers, which is what the original article Dave posted was talking about.  People will resist change if it comes out of their pocket -- which is why, as the authors point out, it may be an easier sell to actually have the government spend a lot of money building thins.

So we've got some huge, well, to use a Marxian term, contradictions on our hands, only they aren't only social, they are ecological, that is, unless we clear this logjam the planet will fry.

As you point out, which is important, the government will do some very sloppy things when it does do things, but something is better than nothing, in the long-term.  So the government can be an important way to jumpstart the process -- as it did, by the way, with the internet by building the first parts of it, or the interstate highway system by basically building it.  If they can do that, why not an interstate railway system?  Or even building mixed use neighborhoods?  These can all be done with private firms, but to restructure society in the long-term is something the market cannot handle, especially when it needs to "jump" over a hurdle -- and using the government (at all levels, not just federal) just seems practical.




]]> Comment #11 by GreenEngineer http://www.grist.org/article/the-promise-and-perils-of-public-investment-in-energy/ Fri, 29 Jun 2007 08:11:40 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/the-promise-and-perils-of-public-investment-in-energy/11 Apollo

If the initial goal was to enable us to colonize space and/or create a business case to do so, the Apollo program is a colossal failure.  But if we simply say that the goal was research for research's sake, with the hope - but not the promise - that something good will result

In reality (as I suspect we all already know), the goal of the Apollo program was none of the above: it was to beat the USSR and establish American dominance.

What is less well known is that the Apollo program not only failed to establish a business case for space exploration, it actually damaged that possibility.  NASA was working on a reusable spaceplane that, had it succeeded, would have established the first critical precondition for space development: cheap access to orbit.  But there was no way that it was going to come together in time to win the "space race".  So that approach was dropped (with the X-15 being the last major project in that direction), in favor of big, dumb, throwaway boosters.  (Which are, incidentally, great for launching warheads, but lousy for cheap space access.)  NASA got an enormous infusion of resources and became huge overnight.  But when the race was run and Apollo was shut down, NASA became a huge bureaucracy with no clear mission, except to perpetuate its own existence.  And American rocket engineers were left with this huge body of experience with throwaway rockets, rather than reusable spaceplanes.

I mention this because it illustrates one of the potential dangers of government intervention, and particularly crash programs.  Of course, the program did what it was supposed to do, but it severely retarded our long-term prospects in space.

It makes me wonder what the unintended consequences would be if the Apollo Alliance does succeed in motivating a program of similar magnitude...

]]> Apollo

If the initial goal was to enable us to colonize space and/or create a business case to do so, the Apollo program is a colossal failure.  But if we simply say that the goal was research for research's sake, with the hope - but not the promise - that something good will result

In reality (as I suspect we all already know), the goal of the Apollo program was none of the above: it was to beat the USSR and establish American dominance.

What is less well known is that the Apollo program not only failed to establish a business case for space exploration, it actually damaged that possibility.  NASA was working on a reusable spaceplane that, had it succeeded, would have established the first critical precondition for space development: cheap access to orbit.  But there was no way that it was going to come together in time to win the "space race".  So that approach was dropped (with the X-15 being the last major project in that direction), in favor of big, dumb, throwaway boosters.  (Which are, incidentally, great for launching warheads, but lousy for cheap space access.)  NASA got an enormous infusion of resources and became huge overnight.  But when the race was run and Apollo was shut down, NASA became a huge bureaucracy with no clear mission, except to perpetuate its own existence.  And American rocket engineers were left with this huge body of experience with throwaway rockets, rather than reusable spaceplanes.

I mention this because it illustrates one of the potential dangers of government intervention, and particularly crash programs.  Of course, the program did what it was supposed to do, but it severely retarded our long-term prospects in space.

It makes me wonder what the unintended consequences would be if the Apollo Alliance does succeed in motivating a program of similar magnitude...

]]> Comment #12 by GreenEngineer http://www.grist.org/article/the-promise-and-perils-of-public-investment-in-energy/ Fri, 29 Jun 2007 08:39:28 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/the-promise-and-perils-of-public-investment-in-energy/12 JMG

Not to split hairs, but I think that Sean's statement that simply that big, high-risk low-probability-of-success investments have always been the way that technology moves forward. would be more precisely stated as "these investments have always been the way that the science  moves forward, and that science is what drives and permits technological development."  Stated that way, he's largely correct, at least for the last 200 years or so.

Most of your counterexamples are, in fact, technological developments.  The scientific advancements on your list were, for the most part, accomplished back in the day of the gentleman scientist, which unfortunately no longer really exists.

]]> JMG

Not to split hairs, but I think that Sean's statement that simply that big, high-risk low-probability-of-success investments have always been the way that technology moves forward. would be more precisely stated as "these investments have always been the way that the science  moves forward, and that science is what drives and permits technological development."  Stated that way, he's largely correct, at least for the last 200 years or so.

Most of your counterexamples are, in fact, technological developments.  The scientific advancements on your list were, for the most part, accomplished back in the day of the gentleman scientist, which unfortunately no longer really exists.

]]> Comment #13 by sunflower http://www.grist.org/article/the-promise-and-perils-of-public-investment-in-energy/ Fri, 29 Jun 2007 08:52:51 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/the-promise-and-perils-of-public-investment-in-energy/13 National security

The interstate highway, Internet, and mission to the moon were all based on national security motivations, as was Carter's solar and conservation programs.  Eliminating carbon from global energy supply is the most sever national security issue we have ever faced.  It is entirely appropriate for the government to spend vast sums of money developing and testing new energy technologies which can be transferred to indigenous industries around the world.  This mission is vital to our survival.

]]> National security

The interstate highway, Internet, and mission to the moon were all based on national security motivations, as was Carter's solar and conservation programs.  Eliminating carbon from global energy supply is the most sever national security issue we have ever faced.  It is entirely appropriate for the government to spend vast sums of money developing and testing new energy technologies which can be transferred to indigenous industries around the world.  This mission is vital to our survival.

]]> Comment #14 by JMG http://www.grist.org/article/the-promise-and-perils-of-public-investment-in-energy/ Fri, 29 Jun 2007 09:42:24 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/the-promise-and-perils-of-public-investment-in-energy/14 GreenE

I will concede that my response to the statements actually made do not fit as well as responses to modified statements that were not actually made.

Save the world: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions 5% annually.

]]> GreenE

I will concede that my response to the statements actually made do not fit as well as responses to modified statements that were not actually made.

Save the world: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions 5% annually.

]]> Comment #15 by planetthoughts http://www.grist.org/article/the-promise-and-perils-of-public-investment-in-energy/ Sat, 30 Jun 2007 03:43:37 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/the-promise-and-perils-of-public-investment-in-energy/15 The "R" word

Yes, government is often wonderful, and does great things in many cases.  If I may say, it is Republicans of the currently dominant type, who have repeated over and over that government is bad, that private enterprise should solve everything.  It is their long-term, brainwashing strategy to change percpeptions en masse as part of a (well-known) permanent Republican majority.

So, are we afraid to say to the sleeping masses, "No, government CAN be the best answer to certain problems, those that are very large, that require endurance, that affect the weak or outnumbered, and simply that benefit the public without necessarily being profitable.  The government's job is to protect both the greater good, and the neglected individual".

Are we afraid to say this?  If so, let's change that and see how we go from there.

I will also use the "B" word: let's get Backbones and stand straight and

David Alexander PlanetThoughts.org Love your Planet.

]]> The "R" word

Yes, government is often wonderful, and does great things in many cases.  If I may say, it is Republicans of the currently dominant type, who have repeated over and over that government is bad, that private enterprise should solve everything.  It is their long-term, brainwashing strategy to change percpeptions en masse as part of a (well-known) permanent Republican majority.

So, are we afraid to say to the sleeping masses, "No, government CAN be the best answer to certain problems, those that are very large, that require endurance, that affect the weak or outnumbered, and simply that benefit the public without necessarily being profitable.  The government's job is to protect both the greater good, and the neglected individual".

Are we afraid to say this?  If so, let's change that and see how we go from there.

I will also use the "B" word: let's get Backbones and stand straight and

David Alexander PlanetThoughts.org Love your Planet.

]]> Comment #16 by Colin Wright http://www.grist.org/article/the-promise-and-perils-of-public-investment-in-energy/ Sat, 30 Jun 2007 05:11:56 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/the-promise-and-perils-of-public-investment-in-energy/16 Corruption in government?

DR raises the important question, will government investment become simply corporate welfare? Surely no one wants say a Haliburton or Enron-type company remaking our infrastructure on cost-plus contracts.

Therefore we need to make sure anti-corruption measures are implemented along with the new investment. Public financing of elections would certainly help. As would promoting a regionalization of the economy, whereby local firms are chosen as much as possible for the reconstruction. Much of the money could be dispersed as block grants, whereby communities could decide for themselves where to put new light-rail and transit-oriented-developments.

On the other hand, one could envision a National Energy Corps to tackle projects which cross state lines (say, a new grid). No one could argue with the construction quality of the New Deal WPA projects. With good project mangement and oversight, there is no implicit reason why government can't work in the public interest.

]]> Corruption in government?

DR raises the important question, will government investment become simply corporate welfare? Surely no one wants say a Haliburton or Enron-type company remaking our infrastructure on cost-plus contracts.

Therefore we need to make sure anti-corruption measures are implemented along with the new investment. Public financing of elections would certainly help. As would promoting a regionalization of the economy, whereby local firms are chosen as much as possible for the reconstruction. Much of the money could be dispersed as block grants, whereby communities could decide for themselves where to put new light-rail and transit-oriented-developments.

On the other hand, one could envision a National Energy Corps to tackle projects which cross state lines (say, a new grid). No one could argue with the construction quality of the New Deal WPA projects. With good project mangement and oversight, there is no implicit reason why government can't work in the public interest.

]]> Comment #17 by Delay And Deny http://www.grist.org/article/the-promise-and-perils-of-public-investment-in-energy/ Sat, 30 Jun 2007 10:38:55 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/the-promise-and-perils-of-public-investment-in-energy/17 Peanut Farmer Tried It...Failed


Energy crises?  Need for alternatives?   Government investment?

How about the year 1976, post-gasoline shortages and President Carter enacted broad legislation to push for the development and expansion of alternative energy technology.

<SARCASM>
And look at how well it worked...I mean, look at all the alternative energy that was ready and waiting, 30 years later, now that global heating is taking it's toll and gas prices are again climbing.
</SARCASM>

John Bailo
You Read It Here First




]]> Peanut Farmer Tried It...Failed


Energy crises?  Need for alternatives?   Government investment?

How about the year 1976, post-gasoline shortages and President Carter enacted broad legislation to push for the development and expansion of alternative energy technology.

<SARCASM>
And look at how well it worked...I mean, look at all the alternative energy that was ready and waiting, 30 years later, now that global heating is taking it's toll and gas prices are again climbing.
</SARCASM>

John Bailo
You Read It Here First




]]> Comment #18 by naturescene http://www.grist.org/article/the-promise-and-perils-of-public-investment-in-energy/ Sun, 01 Jul 2007 22:41:55 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/the-promise-and-perils-of-public-investment-in-energy/18 a breath of fresh air

Sean Casten's articles and comments are a breath of fresh air to Grist.  Thanks, Sean.  

Dave, you're all right too.

On Jon's comment:

"People will resist change if it comes out of their pocket -- which is why, as the authors point out, it may be an easier sell to actually have the government spend a lot of money building thins."

And where exactly do you think government funds come from?  Oh yeah, the citizens!  

Either way you look at it, the people are going to be paying for these investments (I for one would rather pay directly, so I know what my money is going towards.).  And though, like Sean said, there is a place for governments, nothing/no one makes use of capital better than the millions of actors in a decentralized market.

]]> a breath of fresh air

Sean Casten's articles and comments are a breath of fresh air to Grist.  Thanks, Sean.  

Dave, you're all right too.

On Jon's comment:

"People will resist change if it comes out of their pocket -- which is why, as the authors point out, it may be an easier sell to actually have the government spend a lot of money building thins."

And where exactly do you think government funds come from?  Oh yeah, the citizens!  

Either way you look at it, the people are going to be paying for these investments (I for one would rather pay directly, so I know what my money is going towards.).  And though, like Sean said, there is a place for governments, nothing/no one makes use of capital better than the millions of actors in a decentralized market.

]]> Comment #19 by odograph http://www.grist.org/article/the-promise-and-perils-of-public-investment-in-energy/ Sun, 01 Jul 2007 23:08:42 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/the-promise-and-perils-of-public-investment-in-energy/19 the examples given:

"the Internet, the interstate highway system, and the biotech revolution came from government"

I think it's important to note that in the first two things were started very slowly, tested with smaller scales over decades, and only "built out" when proven.

We are not at a stage to build out proven energy winners.  We still have too many contenders.  Will solar exceed wind?  The next 10 years might tell.

The third (biotech) actually is a messy example of government investment in basic science and industrial competition for "intellectual property" in parallel.  Often, government investment were converted in to "private property" in this process.

I would not really like to see government energy research follow that last model.

]]> the examples given:

"the Internet, the interstate highway system, and the biotech revolution came from government"

I think it's important to note that in the first two things were started very slowly, tested with smaller scales over decades, and only "built out" when proven.

We are not at a stage to build out proven energy winners.  We still have too many contenders.  Will solar exceed wind?  The next 10 years might tell.

The third (biotech) actually is a messy example of government investment in basic science and industrial competition for "intellectual property" in parallel.  Often, government investment were converted in to "private property" in this process.

I would not really like to see government energy research follow that last model.

]]>