Pointing to white papers from think tanks that you fund isn’t a good evidentiary basis to support the claim of R&D’s cost effectiveness. As with most things, the details matter quite a bit. The R&D benefit for advanced nuclear since the 1970s has yielded a net increase in price for that technology. For renewables and efficiency, the gains were useful until about the early 00s. After that, all the technology gains came from scaling, not R&D. You can’t take economy wide estimates for energy R&D funding and apply them to a specific federal bill if the technology mix is quite different. And historic estimates are not necessarily indicative of future gains; we should expect diminishing returns.
Furthermore, most of the money in BIL and IRA were for demonstration projects—advanced nuclear, the hydrogen hubs, DAC credits. Notably NOT research and development. You make a subtle shift in your cost effectiveness table where you use unreviewed historic numbers on cost-effectiveness for research and development, and then apply that to the much larger demonstration and deployment dollars. Apples and oranges. The needs for low TRL tech are very different from high TRL tech.
Pointing to white papers from think tanks that you fund isn’t a good evidentiary basis to support the claim of R&D’s cost effectiveness.
I cite a range of papers from the academia, government, and think tanks in the appendix. You don’t cite anything either those are just like… your opinions no?
The R&D benefit for advanced nuclear since the 1970s has yielded a net increase in price for that technology
Are you saying the more we invest in R&D the higher the costs? I agree that nuclear is getting more expensive on net but that can still mean that R&D will drive the price down.
After that, all the technology gains came from scaling, not R&D.
What about the perovskite fever from the mid ’10s?
Also there’s a long lag with research.
And historic estimates are not necessarily indicative of future gains; we should expect diminishing returns.
Furthermore, most of the money in BIL and IRA were for demonstration projects—advanced nuclear, the hydrogen hubs, DAC credits. Notably NOT research and development. You make a subtle shift in your cost effectiveness table where you use unreviewed historic numbers on cost-effectiveness for research and development, and then apply that to the much larger demonstration and deployment dollars. Apples and oranges. The needs for low TRL tech is very different from high TRL tech.
I’ve simplified R&D to RD&D here, but I do cite RD&D projections—see and my calculation—do you think these numbers are off? What do you think they are? All models are wrong as they say.
That was a straightforward brag because he has millions of followers on X. I’m quite critical of Gates—I have blogged about this here. But also maybe we should give more credit to doing high-risk high reward stuff even if it doesn’t work out… like Solyndra?
Pointing to white papers from think tanks that you fund isn’t a good evidentiary basis to support the claim of R&D’s cost effectiveness. As with most things, the details matter quite a bit. The R&D benefit for advanced nuclear since the 1970s has yielded a net increase in price for that technology. For renewables and efficiency, the gains were useful until about the early 00s. After that, all the technology gains came from scaling, not R&D. You can’t take economy wide estimates for energy R&D funding and apply them to a specific federal bill if the technology mix is quite different. And historic estimates are not necessarily indicative of future gains; we should expect diminishing returns.
Furthermore, most of the money in BIL and IRA were for demonstration projects—advanced nuclear, the hydrogen hubs, DAC credits. Notably NOT research and development. You make a subtle shift in your cost effectiveness table where you use unreviewed historic numbers on cost-effectiveness for research and development, and then apply that to the much larger demonstration and deployment dollars. Apples and oranges. The needs for low TRL tech are very different from high TRL tech.
Lastly, a Bill Gates retweet is not the humble brag you think it is. Bill has a terrible track record of success in energy ventures; he’s uninformed and impulsive. Saying Bill Gates likes your energy startup is like saying Jim Cramer likes your stock. Both indicate a money-making opportunity for those who do the opposite.
I cite a range of papers from the academia, government, and think tanks in the appendix. You don’t cite anything either those are just like… your opinions no?
Are you saying the more we invest in R&D the higher the costs? I agree that nuclear is getting more expensive on net but that can still mean that R&D will drive the price down.
What about the perovskite fever from the mid ’10s?
Also there’s a long lag with research.
I’ve simplified R&D to RD&D here, but I do cite RD&D projections—see and my calculation—do you think these numbers are off? What do you think they are? All models are wrong as they say.
That was a straightforward brag because he has millions of followers on X. I’m quite critical of Gates—I have blogged about this here. But also maybe we should give more credit to doing high-risk high reward stuff even if it doesn’t work out… like Solyndra?