Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Say the govt decided to put forth 25 billion a year to develop clean, inexpensive alternative energy sources (solar, wind, geo, tide, etc...)
if they had two choices in where to place our money, private enterprises that compete for it, or given to our top engineering schools (MIT, GA Tech, Cal Tech, etc...)
Say the govt decided to put forth 25 billion a year to develop clean, inexpensive alternative energy sources (solar, wind, geo, tide, etc...)
if they had two choices in where to place our money, private enterprises that compete for it, or given to our top engineering schools (MIT, GA Tech, Cal Tech, etc...)
Who do you think could do it better?
Here are several reasons to favor private industry over more academic sectors like universities or government labs.
(1) Lets assume we have to replace a significant fraction of our energy from prtroleum and have to do this within the next 20 years. Most in the utility or oil business know that most of the cost in making a technology commercial is really backloaded. The majority of cost is in commercialization and making the engineering meet industry practice. An idea in the lab is no where near this standard. If we want to use alternative technology it had already be in use or available from competent suppliers.
(2) A utility or energy company bets its reputation on technology that is reliable. They know that customers lives and wellbeing may be at risk and anything less than five nines reliablity is asking for trouble. You might be sued if electric power is not availble or that new biofuel fouls up someones truck engines.The fact that new technology can't show proven relaiblity has kept a lot of USDOE technology in the labs never to see the light of day.
(3) Government funded technology developed in its labs or universities is public not private intellectual property. Everyone can use it even foreign companies. Why should a private company spend enormous sums to use the same technology its competitors can use for free as well?
Private companies would be able to make the cost effective products, market it, and hopefully do it better then any of the big auto makers. Universities would be better at the more obtuse and less cost effective areas, where returns and profit sit father away.
I think it's been shown (no I don't have any links, this is more personal experience/anecdotal evidence) that a combination of public/private (univeristy/corporate) research works pretty well. IIRC the first sustained nuclear reaction was at the University of Chicago, but there was probably a lot of government (US) money in that.
Many universities develop products (I know Colorado State for one) in conjunction with (Dept of Energy in this case) and private business a huge increase in output in solar panels.
Yes, the utility/energy companies have been doing so much for us lately, haven't they? Enron, Chevron, Exxon etc.
golfgod
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
