mead cohen berger shevtsova garfinkle michta grygiel blankenhorn
Failure to Fund
Why Don’t We Spend More on Energy Research?
Features Icon
show comments
  • Corlyss

    “Research into new energy technologies is dangerously underfunded, according to a new report from the American Energy Innovation Council. ”

    Well, that’s certainly a load of leftist BS! There is other money besides “everybody’s money.” I think those public minded idiots like Gates and Buffett should spend their fortunes one alternative energy research, down to their last billion, and THEN call on us to fund their silly schemes to destroy prosperity based on cheap energy.

    • FriendlyGoat

      Bill and Warren, oddly, seem to be following priorities identified by Melinda Gates. Bill believes in Melinda and Warren believes Bill, I think.

  • qet

    Maybe because we’re already spending all our money on other stuff? Just a guess. My own Lamborghini research is severely underfunded for a similar reason.

  • gabrielsyme

    I would have no objections to more money being spent on different fission technologies, and whatever fusion projects are out there. Wind and solar have sucked up enough public money, and were never offered a viable solution anyway.

    • Andrew Allison

      Especially if it were diverted from the AGW scam, er cult.

  • rheddles

    One wonders what Edison or Steinmetz would think of the CEO of General Electric panhandling the government for funds to conduct it’s research. Perhaps the fact that GE doesn’t see energy research as a wise use of its research and development funds should tell you why money isn’t being spent on it.

  • Fat_Man

    Welfare for white middle class people, and a titanic waste of money.

    The only technology with the technological head room to support a large increase in R&D money is nuclear, and liberals and greenies won’t let that happen.

    Further don’t take R&D advice from Gates. His company has spent more money on R&D to less effect than any other other tech company. He may be rich, but he is not a good businessman.

  • CaliforniaStark

    Totally agree with the post. Government funding should be directed at developing new technologies, not a subsidy regime which has cost taxpayers billions of dollars. This limited approach proved successful, for example, in the development of fracking; likewise, once solar and wind were sufficiently developed, government funding should have been phased out. The private sector would have quickly realized that intermittancy issues, and the relatively low energy production capacity, of both wind and solar made neither economically viable, and moved on to other technologies. By contrast, politicians are incapable of ending a bad investment of government money once a subsidy-dependent constituency comes into existance.

    Take wind as an example; the wind industry has received a generous subsidy for almost 30 years. When congress neglected to renew it, the construction of new wind turbines all but stopped. Now some politicans want to resume the subsidy and continue it indefinitely. Then there is the 2.2 billion dollar Ivanpah solar plant boondoggle. In hindsight, would anyone now advocate building Ivanpah with its disappointing low level of energy production, and serious environmental issues? Yet am not aware of any government official stating Ivanpah was a mistake.

© The American Interest LLC 2005-2016 About Us Masthead Submissions Advertise Customer Service