Quote:
Originally Posted by Lou_Dorchen
That depends on the class's professor. If you had Obama's professors you would have received an "A" in that class for that answer.
Capt Awesome is right, it's gov't interference that's causing the problems. It's no more complex than that. The only way the gov't should get involved in trying to get the private sector to pay for the R&D themsleves, is to offer up a HUGE pot of gold if they are successful instead of subsidizing ideas that have previously failed. And use the gov't as the guinea pigs, not us. Simply tell the Big 3 if they can develop an EV for their fleets that will reduce the current cost per mile with a lower cost per mile while retaining (or besting) the current reliability. Do it like the military often does, submit specs to private sector companies and if they CHOOSE to try and meet or beat those specs, guarantee the best EV's company an exclusive contract for say 15 years. So that company will make a huge profit and the rest of us will see how well the EVs work and save money for the gov't and thus people will embrace them in greater numbers than when the Federal gov't decides to "nudge" Americans into them (that was Energy Secretary Chu's exact choice of words).
|
I agree with you 100% that we should not be paying up front for development work, and that offering "X-prize" type awards for developments is the way to go.
If that is too radical, I propose that if we MUST be paying for R&D then we should be paying for VERY soecific milestones. We CANNOT let the producers build any piece of crap and then pay subsidies for whatever happens to get built so people will buy it.
For example, we pay a certain amount of money to a battery company to research a new type of battery or manufacturing process that MUST meet some specific targets. If they can't make it work, then they don't get any future funding. This breaks the payment up into small chunks we can afford and it keeps the R&D focused and practical.
The whole "Clean Energy is just like the Manhattan Project or the Apollo Missions" is a strwman argument. The only thing they have in common is that they were paid for by the taxpayers. Everything else was completely different. The most major difference was that in the earlier programs, the technology existed or was within reach and in the green energy the technology is not within reach and the infrastructure to put it to use is vastly more costly and will take decades to deploy.
The Atomic Bomb and the Moon missions were very well defined problems and the solutions were designs which could be put on paper early in the development. The designs were specified and defined and in the Apollo case they were bid upon by the various aerospace companies and the winners were paid to produce the designs they bid.
What we have today is companies owned by campaign fund bundlers being given money with no specs or plans or even a bidding process. It's simply paying off contributors under the guise of doing things for the environment. They have no requirements to meet or specs to follow. We're not even getting an end product. The money goes to fancy marble office furnishings and bonuses. There's no accountability.
This needs to stop!