I wish they would get off their asses and build more nuclear. :(

Over the past few decades, a predictable pattern has emerged: Governments tout cool-sounding renewable energy technologies, but promises and funding fall flat because of the biases and inefficiencies of the public sector.

When alternative power is viable, someone in the private sector will make a fortune with it.

Until then, research is needed. The government can fund research and can be excellent provider of pure research money through universities and research foundations. However, when the government expects specific outcomes, or promises them, the funding is wasted because the actual outcome never matches the promised one.

In the meantime, a lot of pure research today is being funded privately, through university grants, bequests, foundations, and entrepreneurs hoping to make a killing on the results - e.g., Elon Musk. This is not new, even though the media and celebrities act like it is.

Solyndra was a failure because the government invested OPM for results no entity could have delivered at that point in solar power generation. Too much pure research is still needed before a practical application can be developed.

Too many people today think it's just "flip a switch" and we'll invent this. We've been monkeying with solar power and electric cars for over 100 years and this is as far as we've gotten. It's a bit more complex than developing an app for your smart phone.

This is one of those issues that illustrates the difference between idiots and rational people.

EVERY highway in the USA, no matter how built, gets resurfaced every so often because, SURPRISE, having traffic on them wears them out. A truck over 60,000 pounds produces measurable deflection of most road surfaces. A hopping car tire, out of balance, beats on the road like a hammer.

But somebody said, "Hey! Let's not put our solar panels on the right-of-way, of comparable area - let's put them directly under traffic!"

And this was approved by somebody who knew it wasn't HIS money. Screw that taxpayer!

Even for pure research the government isn't an efficient producer. It is one of the seemingly counterintuitive things, since research and technology is so important to economic development it is important for the government to do as little of it as possible.

When people put their own money up (like investing in a power plant or building one) they do the math. Not with "free" money.

Even for pure research the government isn't an efficient producer. ~ Ben at August 24, 2019 1:46 PM

With pure research, there isn't usually a direct payoff, a calculable ROI. It's what the pure research leads to that pays off - usually for the entity smart enough to take it and run with it.

That's why government makes an adequate funder of pure research. It can pay for something that will benefit society in the long run without itself bringing a product to market. Private entities funding pure research expect to own the research and get a payoff from what can be developed from it and brought to market.

Solyndra became a problem because the government was investing in the market end of the process, something government has no business or expertise in doing. It gambled with taxpayer money and lost.

Re: the resurfacing of roads

The government finally got off their collective butts and the six or seven blocks in my immediate area have been resurfaced recently. I told my husband that we received an indignant letter from the Squirrels, Chipmunks, Possums, Mice, and Dinosaur Descendants Association in the area complaining that their local swimming pools have been taken from them.

He reminded me that the Old Bold Biker in Our Family (my strength and agility are sadly no longer up to it) is very grateful for the lack of deep potholes.

Back when I was an electronics engineer, I worked for a military contractor which occasionally took on private-sector jobs. The standing joke was that a military product only had to meet spec; the other kind had to actually work.

"That's why government makes an adequate funder of pure research."

I'm going to demand proof of that.

Last batch of data I saw actually showed the opposite. The more nations directly fund research (of any type, blue sky included) the slower research progressed. Bureaucracies are inherently inefficient and government funding doesn't happen in a vacuum. The money and more significantly the people they use could be used more efficiently elsewhere.

NASA is a good example for this. Their projects follow the traditional over sold and hence under funded model. Which means that a lot of the time their researchers aren't actually working. Or at least not at anything significant. Since the project is underfunded in order to get approval to start the project and people have to be paid first you end up with very intelligent and valuable people wasting their time because there is no money left over for materials to work with. Private groups who waste resources like that don't survive and the resources get transferred to other more efficient groups.

I understand it is a religious catechism that government should fund pure research projects. But I've seen little proof to back it up.

A curious thing about gov grants is that successful grant-getters in the sciences depend on an army of grad students to actually do the work. While it is true that the genius prof set it all up, it is totally inexperienced students who are doing the work. Not ideal.

I understand it is a religious catechism that government should fund pure research projects. But I've seen little proof to back it up. ~ Ben at August 25, 2019 7:00 AM

Should?

I never said "should," Ben. I said government can be "an adequate funder of pure research."

I still say provide some proof of that Conan.

I still say provide some proof of that Conan. ~ Ben at August 25, 2019 5:53 PM

Proof that the government can give away money? Well, um, sure, Ben. Check the federal budget.

"While it is true that the genius prof set it all up, it is totally inexperienced students who are doing the work. Not ideal."

And of course, the other problem there is that the genius prof is spending most of his time thrashing through the grant process, rather than working on the subject matter that he's a genius at.

How about that adequate word Conan. You didn't say they just could fund research. Of course they can.

"Even for pure research the government isn't an efficient producer." ~Ben

"With pure research, there isn't usually a direct payoff, a calculable ROI. It's what the pure research leads to that pays off - usually for the entity smart enough to take it and run with it.

That's why government makes an adequate funder of pure research." ~Conan

I say provide proof of your assertions! I still stand by mine that you will get more quality pure research if the government doesn't do it.

Ben, you and Conan are both right. "Adequate" isn't the same as "best", "ideal" or "most efficient". For that matter, without a definition of what constitutes adequacy, Conan's statement can't be challenged.