Alternative & Renewable Energy Blog

So, to save hundreds of billions of dollars, we need more Solyndra scams, more abandoned wind turbines dotting the horizon, and another Ponzi scheme based on "carbon credits" (more funny money- value "created" from thin air, beware the last fool holding the pot...)

Warning, I use the word ass in the last line of this post.

This is as plain as your face in the mirror. Of course we must do it.

This comment list is going to be interesting. Purporting to identify the folly of this theory will entail complete denial about the status of current energy production/consumption and the environmental (not to mention geopolitical) havoc it is wreaking. I guessing we will be treated to an explanation of how the government needs to get out of the environmental and energy business, and let these folks figure it out on there own! Kram will pick a few agencies he likes.

I'm pretty sure this is the same line of reasoning the South was making about the right to own slaves, and the inappropriate interference of these danged "Know-it-alls"

There are causes for which capitalism does not care, and human rights and environmental preservation are two of them. It does a great job on most of the others, and that's why I like making money. That's why I must pay taxes. Except that for the last 15 years, my taxes have been re routed to the top 1% and the infrastructure and the environment are taking it up the ass.

Huh?

I like ARPA-E because it does what it is intended to do and it doesn't require $10 billion a year. A perfect example of government doing the right thing.

The rest of my examples are crony-capitalism at it's worst, and amounts to government, (pick your party), doling out huge amounts of money to friends and political donors. Examples of government doing the wrong thing.

I have no problem with government involvement that doesn't shovel hundreds of billions into various, (privately owned), rat holes with no return on the investment.............................which is our current modus operandi.

Do you just like to argue, or do you honestly believe that our current method is a good thing?

Just keep financing startups until one of them works, and when they go bust, the money is history in the pockets of the company founders.

Wrong

Wrong

Wrong

Right This is a good one. We need to get the DOE, EPA and all the rest out of the grant/guaranteed loan business........................they are inept, and need to be drastically reduced in size, or eliminated altogether. DARPA does a good job with a 3.2 billion annual budget. ARPA-E is modeled after DARPA, and the guy in charge does not believe in wasting money. Kudos from me. The rest of the DOE could be dismantled as far as I'm concerned.

kramarat-

I am with you 100% on your opinion of DARPA. I don't know a whole lot about ARPA-E, but if they adhere to the philosophy of DARPA, I could support that also...

I'll have to do a little looking. According to wilmot, ARPA-E is yet another government loser. It would be a shame if that's the case. The DARPA model is something that I think has worked well, and something I would support in the alternative energy sector.

ARPA-E has been a flop. Due to their 20% cost-sharing requirement, only big companies get to participate. Truly new ideas have no way to get heard because they are financially disqualified. DOE does no technology assessment, other than the grant review process. The deadlines for applications are so tight that there is no time to prepare anything unless you have been tipped off. The last one gave 2 days from the announcement to the deadline.

The "Black Swan Thesis of Energy Transformation" holds that the best hope is to look for long-shot ideas instead of tweaks to the current technology. Vetting and supporting the viable new ideas is what government should be doing, not financing the deployment of the old stuff for the benefit of political friends.

If that's true, then I stand corrected. It's been a couple of years since I read about what they were doing, and at the time it sounded like an excellent approach, with genuine hands on involvement from the government.

That's too bad....................I guess ARPA-E has become another example of government's propensity to screw things up. Great.

Do you expect IBM to pick up the tab and continue the outstanding research ARPA and DARPA have been doing for the last 40 years, when it gets shut down for all of the wasted money they've spent? Can't have it both ways. There will be stinkers, failed theories, missed opportunities, stolen ideas, etc. If taxpayers don't fund it, we don't have the internet. I guess that wouldn't be that bad. And yes, I like democracy, where the voters select important issues to deal with, and fund, that are in the interest of its citizens.

Black swan is pie in the sky

is there any example of this happening in any field?

close examination of any potential example will show a series of increment innovations

the time frame is in decades from drawingboard to implementation

It's too bad. My original thoughts on ARPA-E, was that just about anyone could get help/funding, but they had to show that their idea had merit and could work. Not help launching a private company, but help with the basic research and work needed to bring an idea to fruition. It sounded like a winner to me.

Lots of beneficial things have come out of DARPA, including to a certain extent, the internet. But as far as I know, DARPA has funded research, not propping up privately held companies. Nor should they. DARPA wins by getting first dibs on emerging technology.