The ARPA-E Show: It Doesn’t Get Much Better
The annual Department of Energy “ARPA-E” show (Advanced Research Projects Administration-Energy) ranks among the very best events of the year for us here in the U.S. who are interested in the forward progress of cleantech, and for several reasons:
1) It makes us proud to be Americans, a phenomenon that doesn’t happen every day of the week.
In a day in which people of any level of intelligence and decency are suffering the humiliation of the ascendancy of Donald Trump, it sure is refreshing to see something good happening in the public sector. It’s popular here to believe that government in any and all of its forms is corrupt, bloated, and ineffectual. While ARPA-E isn’t perfect, it’s achieved some really stellar results: more than $1.25 billion has been secured in private sector follow-on funding, 36 projects have formed new companies, 60 projects have partnered with other government agencies for further development, and an ever increasing number of technologies have already been incorporated into products that are being sold in the market. The full list of ARPA-E projects announced today is available here.
In the words of FedEx CEO Fred Smith, “Pound for pound, dollar for dollar, activity for activity, it is hard to find a thing the United States has done that is more effective(ly) than ARPA-E.”
2) We need to keep in mind that literally every major development in technology since World War II has enjoyed at least some participation from government. Why? While the private sector can and does invest in R&D, its focus overall is necessarily on the fairly near-term. Put another way, private enterprise cannot be expected to look to huge, perhaps highly risky changes in paradigm.
3) On a personal level, being surrounded by thousands of brilliant and highly motivated scientists and businessmen is a joy of indescribable dimension for me.
A few details on my trip here.
Good government is how we get together as a people and do big things that the market can’t or won’t do efficiently, equitably, or at all – like the construction and maintenance of the national highway system, potable water and sewage systems, flood control, universal postal delivery, universal primary education, etc.
Government is also the only hope that We the People have to defend our Public Commons and advance our Common Good. Good government won’t ever be delivered by people who hate government.
Government has its place and the market has its place, and they often overlap, either through government assistance via tax breaks, R&D support, lease forgiveness, direct subsidies, data collection and sharing, or indirect support through infrastructure and defense – as well as through market support of government and the nation as a whole through mandated reinvestment of a percentage of profits.
This is how civilization begins and continues. We emerged from an animal existence through sharing and cooperation – by intelligently violating the “Law of the Jungle” we became the most powerful creatures on the planet. With power comes responsibility.
The DOE (representing the public sector) has provided investment and incentives for R&D and initial loan capital for the development of many useful and successful projects and technologies. The DOE has also funded some failures.
Over the years the US taxpayer is entitled to be proud of the way the DOE has funded the development of new technology and economic stimulus. Successful R&D and projects promoted by the DOE have more than outweighed the failures.
Over the years the DOE has developed more skill with managing and granting of investment. The DOE has proved to be a very useful catalyst for public/private partnerships.
No organization is perfect, and there is always the danger of politicians of all persuasions to interfere with organizations like the DOE and impose ideological restraints or doctrines.
IMO the DOE has been doing a good job.
Depending on details, I would not necessarily condemn the DOE for funding failures. Sometimes things have to be tried to see whether they can work. However, I would condemn the DOE if it funded a huge project before testing for feasibility on a small scale first.
Hi Frank,
It’s a difficult assessment to make. Some projects can’t be “small scale” . All venture funding must be a calculated risk. Sometimes being too cautious can be an error. There is an old banking maxim that still remains a truism, “never lend a client enough money to get into trouble, but not enough to get out” !
All these things are difficult calls and as a general rule governments are not good at running businesses. The DOE on the other hand, seems to have developed some expertise at assessing and funding projects.
There is a role for governments to use taxpayers money to fund incentive schemes,R&D, loans and even direct investment to stimulate the economy and increase the nations ability to compete.
True the government must not be profligate, but it must also be able to invest without the necessity of an immediate return or profit.
I always thought Dr Steven Chu had a very difficult job which he performed remarkably well. He received little recognition, a miserably low salary, and had to put up with gratuitous abuse from fools of every discription.
Marcopolo,
You are right that not everything can be on a small scale. However, there have been large projects implemented that could have been implemented on a small scale before being expanded. There is one non-technical project that illustrates that point well.
When aid to families with dependent children (AFDC) was implemented, it was done on a large scale. It was figured that if the father was part of a $$wise poor family, the family should not receive aid since it was the father’s responsibility to support the family. The result was that if the father could not find work he realized that it was best for his family if he left so the family could receive aid. That caused the break-up of families until the problem was corrected. Had the program been tried first on a small scale, the large scale problem would have been prevented.
The same sort of thing can occur with energy and power systems.
Oh yes indeed, there have been thousands of poorly thought through government backed schemes with disastrous consequences, all of which could have been avoid with a little more thought and commonsense.
A thinking, critical mind is important, but the knowledge of basic physics and chemistry helps a lot too. Somehow we need to test high school graduates on critical thinking and train those who fail, before they try out capitalism.
Keep up the sorting.
There are unique, achievable ideas of value to us all out there and funding them is good for everyone.
Nice to read positive things about the government. In the comments, too.
I’d like to see an all out R&D for, first cheaper solar and solid state batteries, and then for the ability to manufacture (or “printing”) of the two together as one overall process.
It’s notable that Dr. Chu observed and communicated that a shift away from fossil fuels is essential to mitigate climate disruption.