
David M. Hart, George Mason University
To address climate change over the coming decades, all nations will need to transition to energy resources that emit less carbon. This transformation, already underway, will require many new technologies.
The United States is a world leader in scientific research and technological development. But new inventions have to be brought to market and then widely adopted to have a deep impact. And in the clean energy field, the United States doesn’t do as well at making that happen as one might be expect, given its strength in basic research.
The energy transition might stall if the U.S. doesn’t overcome this problem, endangering human health and the environment. Research I carried out with Jetta L. Wong, the founding director of the Office of Technology Transitions at the U.S. Department of Energy, suggests that creating a new foundation that would be authorized by Congress to work closely with the Energy Department could help.
‘Valley of death’
Government policies to help clean energy companies commercialize their technologies are necessary because markets tend to be biased against them. This is true for many types of innovation, but it is particularly so for low-carbon innovation.
The general problem is so well known it has a catchy name: “the valley of death.” It takes money to turn a prototype into a product and persuade customers to buy it. It’s also risky. And it takes time. These hurdles deter investors, particularly when a project requires a lot of money, takes a long time and has uncertain returns.
The valley of death – often depicted as a desert – is a metaphor for what innovators experience. They have to stay on a tight budget for as long as it takes for their businesses to become self-sustaining.
The valley of death is less challenging for software innovations like smartphone apps. A few people can write the code. If the app is a hit, it can be distributed almost instantly to billions of users. Profits can come in quickly and really pile up.
But for hardware innovations that can reduce the greenhouse gas emissions that cause climate change – innovations like new ways to make steel or cement or generate electricity – the valley is much wider and deeper. These methods and machines are very complex and expensive to develop and install. They would replace existing systems that are more familiar, and usually less costly, and may last a long time. Most potential customers prefer to see multiyear track records of reliability and affordability before they commit to adopting such innovations.
As a result, many energy innovators never get enough funding to cross the valley of death. Promising tech never gets a chance to prove what it can do. Some technological pathways are never pursued because of a fear of failure.
The Energy Department has sought to bridge the valley of death for clean energy innovations, with some success. But its efforts are inevitably limited by the complex legal requirements that bind all federal agencies and a risk-averse culture that makes it difficult to move quickly and aggressively.

Precedents since 1935
The idea that a government agency like the Department of Energy should create a private foundation to help it solve a problem like the “valley of death” may strike you as odd. But there are precedents.
The oldest federal philanthropic partner of this kind, the National Park Foundation, dates from 1935. Our research turned up eight others with missions ranging from agricultural research to public land stewardship to advancing military medicine.
Since they are free from many government regulations and raise most of their funding from private sources, these foundations can undertake tasks that federal agencies might have trouble carrying out. They can move more quickly, too.
This model is particularly useful for creating and funding complex public-private partnerships to advance science and technology related to an agency’s mission.
A great example is Accelerating COVID-19 Therapeutic Interventions and Vaccines. The Foundation for the National Institutes of Health coordinates this partnership, which involves government agencies, funders and drugmakers. Set up in a matter of weeks in the spring of 2020, it has already led to numerous clinical trials.
A to-do list
The work of a clean energy foundation set up along these lines might focus on challenges that are too complex for either the public or the private sector to tackle alone. Such challenges cause particularly wicked valleys of death for would-be innovators.
For instance, maritime shipping causes about 3% of global carbon emissions. Cleaning up emissions from ships and port operations is not as simple as swapping out dirty engines for clean ones. Zero-carbon ports may need new kinds of fueling facilities for ships and trucks and new systems for handling freight and passengers. Their physical layouts may need to be redesigned.
Getting these tasks done will require many different kinds of companies to collaborate with public agencies from all levels of government, including the Navy.
Innovators trying to reduce carbon emissions from agriculture, mining, construction and manufacturing will have to surmount similar challenges.
A clean energy foundation might convene stakeholders, mobilize private and philanthropic partners and devise strategies to bring technology solutions to these challenges to market. It could bring to these collaborations access to the world-class expertise and facilities of the department’s 17 national laboratories and network of academic researchers.
A clean energy foundation could also work with states and localities to deepen the public-private partnerships that fuel these efforts. For instance, it could help the National Renewable Energy Laboratory just outside of Denver to collaborate more easily and fruitfully with Colorado clean energy innovators. It could also tap into experts affiliated with the Energy Department to fill gaps in places lacking major federal labs.
A foundation focused on technology commercialization would complement many existing Energy Department programs, rather than substitute for them. For instance, it may be able to work around bureaucratic barriers to seed new initiatives that could then be taken up on a larger scale by the government itself.
Next steps
A clean energy foundation would work best if Congress authorized it, and lawmakers are moving in that direction. After a hearing in July on Capitol Hill, a bipartisan authorization measure was included in an energy package that passed the House of Representatives on Sept. 24.
This measure would direct the Energy Department to establish a nonprofit, independent foundation to work with it on innovation initiatives. The foundation would have the ability to raise funds from private donors to support technology commercialization. It would direct the department to work closely with the foundation and cut some of the red tape that would otherwise impede a close relationship.
Companion legislation is pending in the Senate.
David M. Hart, Professor of Public Policy, George Mason University
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
The market is biased against technologies that cause companies to lose money.
Therefore we need government to push such technologies.
I just wish I was being sarcastic.
Technologies that solve real world needs, and or save money, have no trouble being adopted and marketed.
It’s only technologies that nobody wants and or cost more than they save, that need government to push them.
Um, there’s been a government agency doing this since 2009. ARPA-E (Advanced Research Projects Agency – Energy) was stood up early in the Obama Administration, and held a gala conference in the Gaylord National Resort & Convention Center in that year. I was trying to do renewable energy development for my then-employer, and attended it. The keynote speakers were all from the pantheon of leftist anti-American elite, from John Holdren (Obama’s “science” advisor, a crank who, in the 1980s, was used as an example of cranks by other cranks) to Tom Friedman of the NYT (!), who lamented that Obama didn’t have the same power as the Red Chinese to impose “optimum” solutions from the top down.
In the technical sessions, the presentations were quite honest and well done. Summing up what I heard, the bottom line was: “alternate” and renewable energy sources are further in the future than nuclear fusion, but without the promise.
ARPA-E’s first year budget was $400 million. It dropped to $180 million in 2011, then rose at a rate of $21 million a year for the next 8 years.
Look at the Wikipedia page for ARPA-E, under “Accomplishments.” It’s amusing.
Vuk
Good point about turning lead into gold.
The irony was that the “alchymists” required money to to do the experiment to turn lead into gold.
In the 1500s, the Fugger Bank out of Augsburg was huge. Relative to the economy–perhaps the biggest in history.
In the 1570s it regularly published a newsletter covering important issues.
One edition recorded that only princes and governments were stupid enough to give money to “alchymists”.
Official cupidity at its finest until governments chose Keynesian economics.
These are all “educated elites” who believe they know how to make utopia if only given a chance. If only they had the power and money to tell the peons what to do, when to do it, how to do it, where to do it, etc. (but not the why) they could make everyone’s life enjoyable. How many times does the world need to let this attempt be made? This has worked in so many places and times. Let me count them, Soviet Union, China, Vietnam, Cambodia, Cuba, and lately Venezuela. How about the leaders? Lenin, Stalin, Mao Tse-tung, Ho Chi Minh, Pol Pot, Castro, Chavez. All great leaders whose subjects enjoyed great times while living in freedom.
Hey don’t forget the gas to liquids scam investments from former politicos (Gen. Wesley Clark) and oil from lignite in micro refineries at UT Arlington.
https://www.uta.edu/ucomm/researchmagazine/2009/departments/bytes/energy.php
It takes money to turn a prototype into a product and persuade customers to buy it. It’s also risky.
Programmes like Dragons Den/Shark Tank illustrate why only a few ideas make it.
Markets are usually biased against bad ideas that don’t work.
Caution: LENR comment or Cold Fusion comment below!
When diesel motors (powered with peanut oil) were first invented, buggy whip makers probably didn’t notice…immediately.
EVO’s (Exotic Vacuum objects) are being tapped to siphon off some of the energy in E=MC^2
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/330601653_E-Cat_SK_and_long_range_particle_interactions
not long, now
From the above article: “And in the clean energy field, the United States doesn’t do as well at making that happen as one might be expect . . .”
“Making that happen”, huh? Sounds like what one needs to embark on a communist/socialist style 5-year or 10-year plan.
Fortunately, the capitalistic, free-enterprise system that is the basis of the US economy—by and large—lets the combination of individual choice and free markets determine what technologies develop and how soon they get to market. Need some recent examples? . . . how about innovations in home computers, cell phones, GPS, HDTV, Tesla EVs, smart watches, and wireless ear buds . . . and none of these was driven solely by government mandate.
The saying for US industry is: find a need then fill it. This approach has only lead to the most innovative, highest standard-of-living country on the planet.
And the very last thing we need is yet one more “government-linked foundation” that wants to gorge at the taxpayers’ feeding trough.
Really.
Its different for politicians/bureaucrats when betting your money on the future than when you bet your money on the future.
“creating a new foundation that would be authorized by Congress to work closely with the Energy Department
Sounds like another layer of tax payer supported unproductive bureaucrats.
Just place a Small Modular Reactor (SMR) in the innards of cities.
I suggest using raised city parks for properly decorated E-cozys. Themes, contests, and a new urban charm space will follow. Folks can even vote on the spelling of cozys.
“I’m from the government and I’m here to help”.
It’s funny how things that actually work don’t require this intervention and people gladly buy them.
Thus we should all be highly suspicious of things that require government subsidy to survive. In Canada there is a list too long to repeat of companies getting government grants and then saying thanks for the money, goodbye. Delorean comes to mind- looked nice and didn’t work, sounds like a “green” idea. Solar chargers for my phone are a great option – for charging my car – NOT ready for the big leagues.
The U.S. economy needs another R&D “foundation” to promote the myth of cheap green energy like I need two heads. The reason that some green inventions haven’t gotten any traction is NOT because somebody in the market place feels like their lunch ticket is threatened. It is because the inventions in question are still uneconomical on a scale of mass production/mass use. Or, in the case of solar and wind energy (as examples), in order to achieve the same level of energy production as that currently obtained by traditional methods of generation (yes, I would include nuclear and hydro power in that latter category), all of that energy being needed to sustain life as we know it now, one would have to cover the earth with windmills and solar panels to do it. If even then! So color me highly skeptical – I don’t need another Obama-like foundation giving funny money grants to Solyndra-like “innovators” or other potential frauds. Nor do I want the Federal government picking winners and losers, either.
Once again, they want to save the world using other people’s money. What could possibly go wrong, apart from massive business failures and whole states being blacked out?
The solar PV scam boils down to taking $0.08/kwh Chinese coal and hydropower generated electricity, and turning into $0.12 to $0.35 / kwh mandated electricity, depending upon which country you’re bilking.
It doesn’t have to break even thermodynamically, those PV panels make money either way.
Not sure if this is the “clean energy” the author envisioned.
re: “How a government-linked foundation could speed the spread of new clean-energy technologies”
Oh?
Like a certain Bob Park of APS did regarding the hydrino et al?
A “government-linked foundation” advancing scientific work? Won’t work. “Lifer” physics types stand in the way, holding dear to Schrodinger’s equation and the like …
Remember, “Science advances one obituary at a time.”