"The age of cheap oil is over," agrees Andrew Chung, partner at Khosla Ventures, arguably the most knowledgeable venture capital firm spearheading next-generation energy projects.
While perhaps more optimistic than Chris on the odds that the world can transition off fossil energy sources without experiencing some duration of lower overall energy output, Andrew is clear to point out that large and near-term capital investments are essential for such a smooth transition.
The size and scale of the investments necessary to evolve and replace our existing (and increasingly outdated) power infrastructure are enormous, and too big for private companies alone to address the issue on an acceptable timeline.
And as of now, the U.S. is decidedly NOT treating the matter with the urgency it deserves. Of the total U.S. budget, the Department of Energy receives only 8%; and only 0.1% of the total budget is directed to the alternative technologies we hope will one day replace our fossil-based sources. By contrast, China alone is dedicating $800 billion over the next ten years to help support the development and commercialization of alternative technologies and cleantech.
In the coming decades, the efficient and effective use of energy is going to be a real determinant between winners and loser across the global landscape. Affordable, sustainable energy will increasingly determine the prosperity of world powers -- and America is at a growing relative disadvantage until it starts talking honestly with itself about the un-sustainability of its current energy policies and prioritizing its resources (both monetary and human) accordingly.
Despite these concerns, Andrew and Khosla have a lot of optimism for the impact new technological innovations will have in addressing the energy challenge -- a number of which are discussed in this interview. And they encourage companies, capital and workers to enter the sector, as demand for expertise and solutions will be high for a very long time. And the future price of NOT investing ourselves wholeheartedly at this time is unacceptably dear.
On the End of the Age of "Cheap Oil"
I think that the scarcity of oil -- hitting Peak Oil -- and the increasing cost of being able to extract and discover new oil deposits is making it more and more costly. And importantly, the demand for energy and oil is going up dramatically with a lot of the emerging countries like China and India just exploding in demand as the countries develop into more urban economies.
If you look at the demand for electricity and energy in China, that has gone up tenfold over a period of about 15-20 years. India has gone up about fivefold, whereas the U.S. has only doubled in that period of time. So you can see that with these emerging economies being very aggressive in their domestic growth, the demand for oil and the demand for electricity is just going to go up dramatically and that is going to make the cost of oil at a minimum, stable, if not going up over time.
On the Obsolescence of the U.S. Energy Grid
We are looking at an energy infrastructure that is 40-50 years old. If you have ever been to an actual power plant or looked at the inside of a transformer substation, it is a spaghetti of wires that was designed in an era where we don’t have the computing capability and the circuitry and so forth that we have today.
So a lot of the initiatives right now are really around making the software on the backside much more up to date. The sensing capability, like the smart grid and smart meters that you would have at your home, and then adding additional infrastructure like storage capability that did not exist in a cost-effective form 10 or 15 years ago -- or even, frankly, two years ago. So, there is a lot of opportunity over time to upgrade that infrastructure in a massive way to make more efficient use of the energy generation that we have right now.
On the New Energy Arms Race
It is going to be difficult for the market to solve the problem alone without government intervention and capital dollars, just because of the massive scale of the problem. If you look at manufacturing, whether it is solar panels, or producing biofuel, manufacturing LEDs -- these are all large manufacturing businesses that if you want to even scratch the surface on the amount of energy that we need, fuel that we need, it requires substantial, substantial investments.
When you are talking about the scales that you need to reach in order to make a real difference, again sources of capital can really help here I think the government needs to really help support and foster these types of technologies so that promising entrepreneurs and promising startups don’t get lost in a private capital-unfriendly environment today. China, as you mentioned, is really trying to lead the way here, in a very aggressive way.They already are number one today in terms of the amount of capital that they are committing to alternative energy sources, electricity production, and fuels production. In their most recent announcement on their next five-year plan, they are essentially pledging $80 billion every year for the next ten years to help support the development and commercialization of alternative technologies and cleantech. That is a massive number: $800 billion that is being committed over a period of a decade to do this.
If you look back at what we were doing in Washington just several years ago with the stimulus package, there was a lot of excitement and strain and stress about putting several tens of $billions into the stimulus package for various types of renewable energy, energy infrastructure improvement. Today, some of that money has gone out, some of it may not get fully deployed. Then, with a lot of negativity in the press today, a lot of the folks in Washington are actually pulling back a bit in terms of their support of the clean technology ecosystem. So, if you think about us putting the brakes on a relatively modest level of investment in clean technology and you compare that to what China is doing and other countries are doing (there are a number of countries in Europe, for example, that are investing a significant amount per capita in clean technology), it just puts us at a disadvantage relative to the long-term viability of scaling up alternative technologies in the U.S.
Click the play button below to listen to Chris' interview with Andrew Chung of Khosla Ventures (runtime 44m:45s).
Andrew, a Partner at Khosla Ventures, is interested in developing leading companies in cleantech, Internet, mobility, education, and genomics and also leads the firm’s China activities. He is one of six Partners at Khosla and is a director on the boards of Lanzatech (biofuel), LS9 (biofuel), EcoMotors (transportation), Pellion (storage), Biodiscovery (agriculture), and a stealth company (mobile).
Prior to Khosla, Andrew spent five years at Lightspeed Venture Partners and helped to build the firm's cleantech practice. He helped drive and manage Lightspeed's investments in Solazyme (NASDAQ: SZYM, biofuel), Stion (solar), LS9 (biofuel), Coaltek (clean coal), Leyden Energy (energy storage), Orbis Education (nursing), and Personalis (genome interpretation).
In addition to assisting portfolio companies, Andrew was Founding Chair of the Cleantech Board for The Indus Entrepreneurs Group (TiE) and is a long-time advisor to the Cleantech Open (CTO). Andrew delivered the keynote address at the CTO’s 2011 National Finals Gala and will be the opening keynote speaker at Cleantech Investment World Asia 2012, the largest conference of its kind in Asia. Andrew has also advised a number of government officials on cleantech-related policy issues.
Our series of podcast interviews with notable minds includes:
I've been thinking about your debate. I strongly lean toward the Libertarian side; however, I also see the need for succumbing to the "greater good." To me, the limit dwells in the particulars. For instance, highways only function when the horizontal and vertical attributes align with the design speed of the facility. (Imagine a sharp right corner on a 70 MPH freeway because an individual wouldn't sell.) If the only economically feasible option is to "take" a given property, then it needs to be procured - at market value.
If, on the other hand, a private entity wishes to erect a wind turbine, or build a shopping mall, or pursue any other private concern on my property and isn't willing to cough up $1 million per square inch, they are out of luck. The government has no right to force me to accept any offer! It doesn't matter what consequences result to society.
Bottom line - the bar for eminent domain needs to be considerably higher than it currently is placed.
OK, let me restate, you have a barn, it is listing badly out back of your 20 acre spread, a good sized breeze will blow it down. We need it torn down for the common good of all. We want a windmill there instead, it will create 5 good paying jobs for at least 30 years. We'll give you a fair market price for this barn, say, absolutely nothing because we should have condemned the darn thing years ago as a community, as dangerous, even to yourself. Are you willing to move that then? Or have a sit in, and complain "THE MAN" is unreasonable"?
Is our government leaderless, YES!, over all. However, not in everything. Are concerns I have being addressed, NO, they are not. Do I vote for the candidate that tells me what I believe are my core principles, Yes, so I vote for him, and expect him to be honorable, and do what he said he would? Here's the rub though, other members of Congress get paid too, to do just the opposite of what I believe. So nothing gets done. Other than that I can do very little but what I can do is focus on my family, and I do that effortlessly.
Look, some things are done unfortunately that effect others lives. In fairness we make the transition as comfortable as possible but to live as though everything the government does is to screw each and every one of us is NOT how I am going about my day, so save all the gasps and OMG to someone who gives a sh*t. Listen, if someone, anyone wishes me harm, in my home, I assure you their feet won't hit the ground again until they have been blown fare enough to remove the threat of any harm to my Lady, Family or Self. I choose not to be so blunt most all the time except for using as an example of how I would react to any tyranny to my family or neighbors. Perhaps this unfortunate admission shows everyone the extent of my commitment to family and community, to anyone being wronged unfairly.
How would you respond to me saying your parents were probably the ones who spit on the Vietnam soldier who while in a wheel chair after doing what he thought was the honorable thing, then while returning home from what was a mind blowing event, war itself, was spit on, and degraded. I seen this happen. I also seen my own brothers, the national guard, shoot at and kill the students at Kent State, my president shot in Texas, and riots in the streets in a near by family home. These events galvanized me with how I have lived my life, what I expect of myself as a Man. I soldiered myself during the Vietnam experience and I apologize to no one, certainly not a complete stranger. Now these parents raise a bunch, such as yourself who got all the answers, gonna generalize that you somehow know me, take liberties on my character, behind a blue screen. Give me a break. Like you matter in my life. I'm from the John Wayne era, we talk face to face, get our stuff out of the way then sit, have a beer, and finish our thoughts.
The above paragraph is a harmful sample of grouping those you think have an apposing point of view, so instead of engaging, and getting a sense of who that person is, you take the easy road and just attack for the self gratification as a baby would without his binky. I am guilty too folks but admitting the flaw is to effect change. Talk folks, communicate, and listen. We do have our differences even though we all probably see critical issues the same. In any society unfortunate things happen. Most of us are fair minded, and usually, eventually, get things right. At least that is my optimistic view. BOB
Bob,
Rather than going off on this disconnected diatribe which does not reflect very well upon you, I'd come back to your statement, "It is not my intention to have your home stolen for the common good but if practical, and cheaper to do then I'm sorry, you gotta go." (that, IMHO, was rightfully condemned by earthwise) and ask yourself if it represents the American ideals and values which I think you hold dear or Stalinist/Maoist ideals and values. I was shocked by this statement and couldn't disagree more.
Also, Grover makes a good point about the bar of eminent domain being placed considerable higher than it presently is.
Chris (all of us really) has dealt with the issue of how painful it was to initiate some serious issues our country now faces due to the fact that Debt and Growth will be effected by the supply of oil. How no matter how much he stated the statistics, and proved up his point of view he would get that walleye look from the person he was talking to (in so many words). This is how I am feeling right now only I'm digging a deeper hole with every word. Why? Texture, sincerity, hand gestures, tone of voice, etc...are not being viewed or heard by the person or persons I am talking too. If given more time with any here in a casual setting, face to face, discussing these issues, I believe that clarity would be established (because it is of interest to us so no walleye looks). Perhaps on some issues we wouldn't agree but that's OK, I don't always see eye to eye with my Lady.
I will take some liberties when I say I believe we are so much nearer a consensus than meets the eye here in this discussion. I believe that everything is on the table when the seriousness of the problem of Peak Oil is made known to all. In addition, what I thought were firm beliefs as I matured throughout life have really been tested these last few years, actually since 9-11. With regards to our government, I almost have a do the opposite of what they say because I know a big part of what they are saying is smoke being blown up my...! So, mostly, I just tune them out with a few exceptions, and Ron Paul is in that very small group. Now, at the grass roots level, in my community, I have a strong committment to what is going on because when the sh*t hits the fan it will be my neighbors that I come to depend on.
ao, the fact that you were shocked doesn't surprise me because (out of character) it was my intention to shock in telling a currently hypothetical story. Listen, and I speak broadly now, everyone knows that as a country we need to cut Social Security, Medicaid/Care, that we will need to raise taxes, etc,,,to balance (riiiight!) the books. Yet no one wants to have their salaries cut to pay for this. No one wants to pay any more taxes. The rich, middle class, and the poor are well aware of the issues concerning balancing our books but on the backs of someone else. There in lies our problem, and until the gravity of this situation across the broad spectrum of Americans is realized then nothing will get done, not a darn thing.
We are not each others enemies folks, we just want to effect change, be proactive, and see that things are moving in some positive direction, and is what makes us solid as individuals. It is why I have chosen to join the CM group. I don't want singular thought, I want serious dialogue and discussion with some humor to shake the anxieties loose. Sincerely, it is not my intention to upset anyone but in any discussion over the Internet you have to read, try to visualize what I look like, my body language, how my hands move, etc...to try and figure out exactly what I am saying. I know this, I am not bothered at all if I get or do not get the benefit of the doubt. Frankly, most discussions are to strengthen our core beliefs by having open discussions with complete strangers, that we have never met, in the hopes that we learn something that we/I may apply somewhere down the road. I have received so many differing angles and views here while reading everyone, and it has served me well. I do wish everyone well, and respect each and everyone of you, and take the time to read everyone's points of view. Frankly, I have never been judgemental personality of any of you. I may not agree with your printed word and will ask for clarity. I am however a little stronger with my comments from essayists like Gregor or Smith, Erik T., and others if what they say I do not agree with. Why? Their voice is assumed by me as just a little stronger so they deserve to be critiqued because some here are betting on there every word, literally... Regards BOB
Fair points, and agree with you in an ideal world, every form of research and development would be funded by the private sector. Without the overhang of heavy government taxes and overly complex regulation, I would bet on the private individual over the government lab every time. Yes, restrict the government to its constitutional and straightforward tasks of fielding a military, protecting the borders, setting and a policing practice of common sense rules (not investing in "winners" and "losers") for a transparent and fair field of play for commerce, and a few others (art 1 sec 8)
I should acknowledge in fairness that you are correct that in the biological arena I discussed but failed to mention, several companies do fund what would be labeled as basic research, and there is no conceptual reason an alternative energy company or big energy company cannot also (probably they already do- I'm unaware since its not my area). You may rightly point out that the transistor, the computer, the mouse, the GUI all came from private laboratories.
I guess what I'm seeing as different, and Chris may want to weigh in here, is that we have a situation that is now an emergency, thanks to 60 years of national dawdling on our rudderless federal energy policy. Absolutely, the private sector works very well in an organic way, over time, and grows the best, sustainable crops (i.e. goods and services including energy). Albeit imperfectly with fits and starts. But, to extend the metaphor, if your country is starving, you may have to use fertilizer for a short time to boost yields or else you won't have anyone around to produce the slower but better organic approach using soil amendments etc.
The national center which focuses on one question is like that short term fertilizer. And it can have an end point which is designed in from the start.
Thank you for the Sandia link, it was educational and I didn't realize that much was going on. It underlined my point in that they are working on about 30-40 things right now across PV, wind, water, geothermal. Not that those aren't interesting and valid projects. However the singular focus that I advocated does not exist.
For the government as robber baron discussion with Bob and , may I suggest that we turn back to the energy questions. We agree, I believe, that we claim our individual rights and don't like confiscation of money or property. However, imminent domain is the law of the land. To be used with extreme care. Taxation is the law of the land. The state has always used tools in 'high stakes' situations, such as quarantine of the contagious or confinement of the mentally ill and dangerous individuals, to work to the common good. I believe this has always been and will always be. Clearly the individual in question has not been happy about this in most instances. Individual rights are sacred and jealously guarded, but not infinite ('fire' in a crowded movie theater). But we aren't Huns, so assuming we aren't going to ride into town by town to force the libertarian life, we should focus on the ballot box and advocate with all our energy there, and hold our elected officials feet to the fire after elections.
Again I respectfully ask that we come back to energy questions for this forum.
Who mentioned politics you leftist commie republican?
Bob, are you saying you agree with what you wrote about the currently hypothetical story, or your posts were hung for the shock value?
If you want shock value, lets fast forward a few billion more people. Governements force people to leave suburbs and rural areas and move to standardized housing in the cities so that the earth can "breathe" and heal itself. Since it's for the greater good, you are in, right? What, you are living sustainably on your own property? Who cares, theres a one bedroom flat waiting for you, get moving.
Who decides what the greater good is? Maybe one government feels that babies should be outlawed. Clearly a case could be made, right?
You seem to roll over to the whims of imperfect governments quite easily. Or maybe that's not really you, and you say this all just for the shock value?
""Bob, are you saying you agree with what you wrote about the currently hypothetical story, or your posts were hung for the shock value?
Ready, isn't everything a hypothetical story until it develops into reality? No one asked me, what, where, why, how, if, they simply assumed.
To those who want the topic back on oil, this is about oil, and we are now discussing where oil has now taken us in this time in our history. Ever day I wake up it is oil I think of first but only after a nice squeeze and tender kiss as I see my Lady off to work.
In everything I have ever projected on this site I have been consistent that family above all be loved and tendered. I have spoken the need to extend beyond my own home to be charitable, and helpful. I have prepared mind, body and soul for all contingencies. I have entered and exited the internals of my being, and have determined that I am a good man with good intentions. I seek knowledge, moving forward always, and are a realist. Bullshit isn't a game with me so I reject it up front, Mano-e-Mano. I am fair minded, and wish everyone was. I do not want a single thing that you have but would give you the shirt off my back without you ever having to ask. The United States is my home but I value all human life of all nationalities as my Brothers and Sisters. I am not perfect nor will everyone GET me.
Regarding eminent domain: I am thinking this was the "shock value" trigger to your question. My feelings are that we are well beyond the point of a smooth, and seamless transition to the next ten years. That when the crisis hits it will be sudden, immediate, and cruel. that all hands on deck will be required, and NO LAW, and NO LIBERTIES will be our birth right until the issue is stabilized. If anyone here thinks, after knowing what we due, that violence and chaos are not a very real possibility then I have nothing to say to you but I wish you well, and good luck with that. Curfews, rationing, confiscation, and a very stringent and tough minded police force will be very direct with any individual who insights more than themselves, to disrupt the lives of others. What is often lost in many conversations is that others have the right to pursue there lives in the manner that they wish too, and perhaps your point of view is causing such mayhem that it is interfering with their lives because you are so determined to have it YOUR WAY.
Again, we must be fair minded and use common sense. Who determines this?
I do know this, that from birth, "We hold true certain inalienable rights to pursue, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." This not not a fading ideology it will be tested, and I believe it will be the will of the people who will prevail. That it is our turn to shine in this moment of time in history, and WE WILL PREVAIL. Keep in mind that this also includes every Man, Women, and Child the world over. It is not an ideal for American citizens only but for the citizens of the world. We would be respectful to understand this... Respectfully Given... BOB
PS: A song that I have enjoyed my whole life because it goes to the essence of who I am, plus it just sounds good, to me.
Bob, I'm not discussing this with you because I want to be a pain in the ass. I consider it very important because it is easy to fall into the trap that "I'm fair" and assume that "fair" is a universal concept. It's easy to assume that governments will be "fair" despite much evidence to the contrary. It's easy to let liberties and rights slip when times are good and even easier when times are bad.
robert essian wrote:
I am fair minded, and wish everyone was.
Fair is a very subjective. For example I suspect you and I are pretty close on what is fair, but there are people who believe that fair is everyone being equal. Having the same stuff. That if someone has more than you they should have it taken away and given to them to be "fair".
robert essian wrote:
I do not want a single thing that you have but would give you the shirt off my back without you ever having to ask.
You say this, but you were quite clear that you would take via proxy from others if you thought it was necessary with you deciding what was a fair trade (a nice foreclosed house taken from those evil bankers). Do you not see that taking from others via government is the same as you holding someone at gun point to take something you want?
robert essian wrote:
My feelings are that we are well beyond the point of a smooth, and seamless transition to the next ten years. That when the crisis hits it will be sudden, immediate, and cruel. that all hands on deck will be required, and NO LAW, and NO LIBERTIES will be our birth right until the issue is stabilized.
...
I do know this, that from birth, "We hold true certain inalienable rights to pursue, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." This not not a fading ideology it will be tested, and I believe it will be the will of the people who will prevail. That it is our turn to shine in this moment of time in history, and WE WILL PREVAIL. Keep in mind that this also includes every Man, Women, and Child the world over. It is not an ideal for American citizens only but for the citizens of the world. We would be respectful to understand this
...
I do not disagree that we are past the point of smooth transition. But exactly what are you protecting when you are willing to throw those ideals away when there is a crisis? Exactly how do you believe in the second paragraph above but then say "NO LAW, and NO LIBERTIES will be our birth right until the issue is stabilized".
I suspect we are a lot alike. I used to have some of the very same thoughts before I spent quite a lot of time thinking about what I really believed in and examined my actions closely to see if they meshed with those beliefs. For example, I have always been an avid non-smoker, so I used to cheer when states and cities legislated against smoking in bars and restaurants, after all it was for the "greater good". However, I now realize that what I was advocating was the government taking a right/liberty away from the owners of private establishments (restaurants and bar owners) for my benefit. But what happens when it's my right being taken away? Some examples include: right to drink raw milk, right to own a gun, right to use salt on my food, right to eat fatty things, right to smoke pot, right to privacy, right to travel freely, right to speak freely, the list goes on and on and all being done for the "greater good".
We see so many of our rights disappearing. Many will say why does this happen without realizing they have advocated it through whatever government intervention they favor. During hard times it will get much much worse, and as we have seen, once those rights are gone they rarely return even if things get better. So when are you going to say enough is enough?
Times are still realitively good. It's why I believe it's critical to have this conversation now, to decide what the role of government should be in our lives before we have a really big crisis.
, I have always been an avid non-smoker, so I used to cheer when states and cities legislated against smoking in bars and restaurants, after all it was for the "greater good"
Smoking killed my Dad in a undignified manner.
Moral: Never take advice from people who smoke.
We are not free agents. Fweedom is an illusion. We are prisoners of habit and genes. The only freedom we have is the knowledge that we are in the world but not of the world.
rhare, my final thoughts are as follows: Common sense, and fairness is all I require. As to how I will react to any given situation I do not know but will make that decision in a timely manner, and I will be decisive. Finally, I have tremendous faith in most all Americans to posses critical thinking skills, if your gut rejects the notion then I believe you will move the lips that form your mouth, and will then find the words to SHOUT OUT against any oppressor, and stop him or her where they stand. An example of this in recent history was the civil rights movement of which I attended at Kennedy Square in downtown Detroit with my Mother, and a few of my many Brothers and Sisters. The Chinese Brother who stood in front of the tank in T. Square, China, and my Brother who lit himself on fire last March in Tunisia, and who could ever forget Gandhi (not ever) just out of respect. Everywhere I look I see good people, with good intentions, that are highly motivated, and very smart. I feel real good about that, hopeful you might say... Go Tigers-Go Wings
Rhare, I agree with you (and Kugs Cheese) very much. If one looks at the history of industrial development in the US, it is so clear that giving money to the federal government to create our food, clothing, energy or anything else business wise is such a waste or disaster. My own experience in research and since working for government agencies and all the other people I meet here at my K street office constantly remind me of that simple fact. When will people stop worshiping their rulers?
THe federal government has polluted via more radioactive waste than all of the civilian power plants put together. The federal government (via military) is the biggest user of energy. Once the SHTF hopefully we will stop invading and killing around the world and our energy consuption will come down via that source.
Even in nuclear power. If the federal government had stayed OUT of nuclear power, very likely we would have a healthy and safe thorium based nuclear energy industry today instead of a uranium based one that our overlord Federal masters chose, in order to further their aims of spending our inheritance on giving money to their friends to build (what, about 65,000?) uranium based bombs that we never needed. As a country, we had the option to develop much safer thorium based nuclear energy and even had a prototype, but the Feds chose to go the high risk, high pollution uranium direction instead because of the tie in with bombs (could not make a bomb out of thorium based nuclear industry very well, no uranium mining and enrichment in large scale etc) I cannot think of a single area where the feds did not completely screw up everything they touched, in the energy area...........
Arthur:
thank you for your thoughtful reminder of the true state of affairs we find ourselves in.
"Smoking killed my Dad in a undignified manner.
Moral: Never take advice from people who smoke.
We are not free agents. Fweedom is an illusion"
I agree much. I think that the closest we ever get to real freedom is when we are truly confused between two paths to take, and only then make an objective decision based on true logic. It seems that everything is based on programming (and I suppose, genes). A best example of this is to look at the politics of children. The oldest child adopts the politics of the father and the youngest is always the opposite. That is a much more accurate predictor of how someone votes, than any "freedom" based thinking. This is scary.
The fundamental premise of this article is nonsense. President Obama and his employees are NOT our saviors and WILL NOT create a bright and happy future for us. This quote from the Andrew Chung interview above is completely wrong-headed and foolish: "The size and scale of the investments necessary to evolve and replace our existing (and increasingly outdated) power infrastructure are enormous, and too big for private companies alone to address the issue on an acceptable timeline" The president and his employees did not invent the light bulb for us and develop and install the power grid, the integrated circuit and the immense silicon foundaries and infrastructure, the multi billion oil refinery industry infrastructure, the billion dollar new jet airplanes and infrastructure, new jet engines, the internal combustion engine and the infrastructure to maintain and repair the machines that use it. As another example, here is a recent quote from a private company that is ready now to fly to the space staion INSTEAD of the feds, who finally gave up because they couldnt do it for many billions of our confiscated wealth:
"It's a huge step for an entrepreneurial company to begin operations to supply the space station, and frankly they've built a system that is good enough to transport crew, with regulatory approval the only thing standing in the way," he said.
"And they've done this for a tiny fraction of the money, something like one-twentieth of what NASA proposed to spend developing their own Orion or other multiple-purpose vehicle.
Instead of interviewing dizzy money-government politico-advisors who are part of the problem, why not interview someone who actually solved a problem? This Andrew Chung guy actually said:
"you look back at what we were doing in Washington just several years ago with the stimulus package, there was a lot of excitement and strain and stress about putting several tens of $billions into the stimulus package for various types of renewable energy, energy infrastructure improvement. Today, some of that money has gone out, some of it may not get fully deployed"
Sometimes I think that this blog is part of the problem with continued worship of government control and takeover of everything.
"The number of hidden subsidies in our currently 75% fossil fueled society are just too numerous and pervasive for me to overlook."
If you factor in the cost of having the US military keep the sea lanes open, fight wars to keep access to oil unimpeded, occupy countries, and build bases around the world, the actual cost per gallon of gasoline would be multiples higher than $4-$5 a gallon. Who can calculate how much?
OIl is "subsidized" by the budgets required to fund the military adventures that keep access open.
And..what happens if the dollar ceases to be the world reserve currency? I'd love to see your comments on that possibility and what it would do to energy costs in the USA.
"The age of cheap oil is over," agrees Andrew Chung, partner at Khosla Ventures, arguably the most knowledgeable venture capital firm spearheading next-generation energy projects.
Join the discussion