4 ms·

It's probably cheaper for government and taxpayers in the long run to for the govermnent to aid in the development of markets for alternative energy that can re

It's probably cheaper for government and taxpayers in the long run to for the govermnent to aid in the development of markets for alternative energy that can reduce the negative externalities of pollution, the international control of conventional fuel sources, and ease the transition from finite nonrenewables as supply diminishes, than to sit it out completely and deal with the aftermath. Not many private investors invest on the >50 year timescales that energy transitions require.

Spivak 10y ago
Serous question, why not just fund/subsidize the research and development until it's actually competitive? Then when it's ready to bring to market give them a huge investment for the infrastructure to combat the high barrier to entry in return for something we want as a society, like say, a cap on battery costs or an open charging protocol. Are electric cars, as they currently stand, really so environmentally friendly that it's worth the taxpayers $5-15k/car plus the infrastructure subsidies to get someone off gasoline? If that's the case then I'll happily pay it but then damn -- we should just pay people $2k/year to just not own a car.
- ScottBurson 10y ago
  > why not just fund/subsidize the research and development until it's actually competitive? Because R&D isn't all that's needed. It takes time to grow an industry. It's one thing to project future economies of scale, quite another to demonstrate that those economies are already being realized. IIRC, battery prices are on track to fall by another 50% by 2023 or so. That will be a game-changer, and there's no way it could have happened through R&D alone.
- cossatot 10y ago
  Electricity isn't a primary energy source. Electric cars are only as environmentally friendly as the power generation plants that make it. If you're in Seattle, your Tesla is pretty low-CO2 because it runs on hydropower. If you're in the northeast, your Tesla runs on coal, and if you're in CA, it runs on natural gas. But the combustion doesn't happen in the middle of the cities, and is centralized, so some aspects of the pollution can be controlled a little more, there's less smog, etc. Renewable power plants/companies receive both tax incentives and R&D subsidies from state and federal government, and there is research being done directly by the DOE at national labs, as well as at universities etc. from DOE grants. There are also private companies that get DOE research grants for a range of pure through applied research. It's unlikely that grid-scale renewables could be developed in a wholly R&D environment then deployed at once. And then what would the government do? License or auction technology that hasn't been field tested at scale? Utilities, local governments and private companies would still probably need intermediaries to set things up. So it makes sense to provide some direct funding and some tax incentives to allow companies to do their own R&D, collaborate with government researchers, and work with utilities to bring systems online. Market disruption due to sudden, untested new entrants is less appealing with utility power than with phones--it makes sense to work for a gradual transition. As far as consumer-scale power generation (rooftop solar or whatever), I think what you've suggested is pretty much what's happening, but I don't follow it. (I'm not a homeowner but have done DOE funded geothermal research with a private R&D company, Altarock LLC.) edit: Electric cars are also abstracted from the type of power plant that produces the energy, unlike internal combusion cars, so having more of them is more amenable to a somewhat rapidly evolving power generation landscape.
  - piotrjurkiewicz 10y ago
    > so some aspects of the pollution can be controlled a little more ALL aspects of the pollution can be controlled in big power generation plants. For example coal power plants have advanced filter systems, which can reduce pollutants by more than 99% in some cases. http://i.imgur.com/dsNgDvn.png http://i.imgur.com/dsNgDvn.png http://web.archive.org/web/20150611212052/http://www.babcock.com/library/documents/br-1886.pdf http://web.archive.org/web/20150611212052/http://www.babcock... http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40789-014-0001-x http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40789-014-0001-x Moreover, in power plants, coal burns in a much more optimal conditions, what results in less pollutants being generated. > According to Environment Canada, coal-fired power plants in Alberta in 2011 emitted only 0.4% of PM2.5 of human-made emissions (excluding wildfires). https://friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/FoS_BurningQuestions_Health_Coal_Wildfires_Jan2015.pdf https://friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/FoS_BurningQue... The only thing which can't be controlled is CO2. But this is not a pollutant.

Spivak 10y ago

Serous question, why not just fund/subsidize the research and development until it's actually competitive? Then when it's ready to bring to market give them a huge investment for the infrastructure to combat the high barrier to entry in return for something we want as a society, like say, a cap on battery costs or an open charging protocol. Are electric cars, as they currently stand, really so environmentally friendly that it's worth the taxpayers $5-15k/car plus the infrastructure subsidies to get someone off gasoline? If that's the case then I'll happily pay it but then damn -- we should just pay people $2k/year to just not own a car.

ScottBurson 10y ago
> why not just fund/subsidize the research and development until it's actually competitive? Because R&D isn't all that's needed. It takes time to grow an industry. It's one thing to project future economies of scale, quite another to demonstrate that those economies are already being realized. IIRC, battery prices are on track to fall by another 50% by 2023 or so. That will be a game-changer, and there's no way it could have happened through R&D alone.
cossatot 10y ago
Electricity isn't a primary energy source. Electric cars are only as environmentally friendly as the power generation plants that make it. If you're in Seattle, your Tesla is pretty low-CO2 because it runs on hydropower. If you're in the northeast, your Tesla runs on coal, and if you're in CA, it runs on natural gas. But the combustion doesn't happen in the middle of the cities, and is centralized, so some aspects of the pollution can be controlled a little more, there's less smog, etc. Renewable power plants/companies receive both tax incentives and R&D subsidies from state and federal government, and there is research being done directly by the DOE at national labs, as well as at universities etc. from DOE grants. There are also private companies that get DOE research grants for a range of pure through applied research. It's unlikely that grid-scale renewables could be developed in a wholly R&D environment then deployed at once. And then what would the government do? License or auction technology that hasn't been field tested at scale? Utilities, local governments and private companies would still probably need intermediaries to set things up. So it makes sense to provide some direct funding and some tax incentives to allow companies to do their own R&D, collaborate with government researchers, and work with utilities to bring systems online. Market disruption due to sudden, untested new entrants is less appealing with utility power than with phones--it makes sense to work for a gradual transition. As far as consumer-scale power generation (rooftop solar or whatever), I think what you've suggested is pretty much what's happening, but I don't follow it. (I'm not a homeowner but have done DOE funded geothermal research with a private R&D company, Altarock LLC.) edit: Electric cars are also abstracted from the type of power plant that produces the energy, unlike internal combusion cars, so having more of them is more amenable to a somewhat rapidly evolving power generation landscape.
- piotrjurkiewicz 10y ago
  > so some aspects of the pollution can be controlled a little more ALL aspects of the pollution can be controlled in big power generation plants. For example coal power plants have advanced filter systems, which can reduce pollutants by more than 99% in some cases. http://i.imgur.com/dsNgDvn.png http://i.imgur.com/dsNgDvn.png http://web.archive.org/web/20150611212052/http://www.babcock.com/library/documents/br-1886.pdf http://web.archive.org/web/20150611212052/http://www.babcock... http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40789-014-0001-x http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40789-014-0001-x Moreover, in power plants, coal burns in a much more optimal conditions, what results in less pollutants being generated. > According to Environment Canada, coal-fired power plants in Alberta in 2011 emitted only 0.4% of PM2.5 of human-made emissions (excluding wildfires). https://friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/FoS_BurningQuestions_Health_Coal_Wildfires_Jan2015.pdf https://friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/FoS_BurningQue... The only thing which can't be controlled is CO2. But this is not a pollutant.