Should Renewables Technology Be Developed in the Public or Private Sector?
Frequent commentor and all-around smart guy Larry Lemmert writes:
I whole-heartedly believe (that it’s business that’s causing the rapid migration to renewables) and for that reason, the role of government should be limited to cheerleader on the side-lines, offering only tax credits to lubricant the transition, but largely to just stand back and keep out of the way of this tidal wave of green development….”
Thanks for writing in, Larry. I go back and forth on this. I ran that idea by George Douglas, spokesperson for NREL, in the interview I conducted with my him for my book on renewables, and he politely by firmly took my head off.
I asked, “Isn’t technology is typically developed in the private sector? What was the thought process behind doing this in a public agency?”
He responded, “Well, the first statement is not true. How did we get to the moon? Public sector development of technology. The Internet is public sector development of technology. Really, the model that people think about is the Bell Labs model – the long-term investment in technology. But after the Second World War business itself became much more increasingly interested in short-term returns.
“And the role of government in investing in high risk and long-term research was given a great deal of credibility during the Second World War. The development of radar, development of nuclear arms, and so forth — specifically aimed at harnessing nuclear power. So Oak Ridge National Laboratory, San Diego National Laboratory, Los Alamos, etc. all grew out of that. So, there has been, at least for the last 60 to 70 years, the divide between what research is generally pursued by private enterprise and what research is pursued by the government and in academia. It’s the difference between near-term results, and by near-term — I don’t mean tomorrow — but in the 10 to 20 year time horizon, and much longer-term problems and results.”
We’d all like to say, along with Jefferson, “That government is best that governs least.” Try to find a politician who runs on a “big government” platform. Even as he’s spending your money as fast as he can get hands on it, he’s telling you that he’s for small government.
But you have to admit that NREL’s position on this gives us something to think about.
I was on a conference call this morning with people in Los Angeles, New York, Dublin, London, and Istanbul, trying to raise money for a large run-of-river hydrokinetics project in Turkey. I’d have to go back a long way to recall a conversation representing that many time zones.
Tomorrow morning, I need to rush home from dropping my daughter off at school to be on a 
A couple of readers have criticized me for not being specific in my rants on nuclear energy. It’s true that I do not perform independent research — and I suppose I can be taken to task for that. But I do read a fair amount of others’ writing, and I try to be as specific as possible in supporting my beliefs. E.g., take my post on 
The Great Lakes of the United States and Canada, particularly Lake Superior, Lake Huron, and Lake Michigan, provide excellent opportunity for adequate and reliable green energy for the population near those lakes, as well, in a more limited form, of energy in the wider region. Lake Superior is the largest of the Great Lakes, and the deepest. And most of the water it receives comes from the North. This makes it a large reservoir of cold water. Thus, Lake Superior, of all the Great Lakes, has the greatest potential for the generation of green electricity. Northern Lake Michigan and Lake Huron also have potential, but I will concentrate on Lake Superior in this essay.
