Another (below) government-selected technology winner bites the dust.....
I seem to recall that DOE put some taxpayer money into this project. Anybody recall?
This project appears to be one more demonstration -- in a very long line -- of the three principal fallacies that have been the foundation for US government energy policy for the past 45 years:
1. More R&D money will inevitably overcome any technical, economic, or environmental hurdle impeding the commercial viability of a favored energy technology.
2. Economies of scale will always overcome economic hurdles.
3. Governments can pick technology winners.
Anybody have an example to challenge the assertion that DOE and its predecessors, having spent over $145 billion (2009$) on energy R&D* (as labeled in historic US budget tables) has yet to produce a significant, commercially viable energy technology?
Glenn Schleede
* The $145 billion does NOT include billions in other federal and state subsidies.
Another (below) government-selected technology winner bites the dust.....
ReplyDeleteI seem to recall that DOE put some taxpayer money into this project. Anybody recall?
This project appears to be one more demonstration -- in a very long line -- of the three principal fallacies that have been the foundation for US government energy policy for the past 45 years:
1. More R&D money will inevitably overcome any technical, economic, or environmental hurdle impeding the commercial viability of a favored energy technology.
2. Economies of scale will always overcome economic hurdles.
3. Governments can pick technology winners.
Anybody have an example to challenge the assertion that DOE and its predecessors, having spent over $145 billion (2009$) on energy R&D* (as labeled in historic US budget tables) has yet to produce a significant, commercially viable energy technology?
Glenn Schleede
* The $145 billion does NOT include billions in other federal and state subsidies.