The Dept. of Energy's chief commercialization officer, Dr. Vanessa Chan, discusses her office's efforts to coordinate and accelerate the commercialization of new clean energy technologies.
This is one of the very best Volts podcasts ever. I'm aware of 3 important commercial projects springing from this DOE mission. One is EOS Energy's aqueous zinc modular BESS for micro grids, now being produced at scale in Pittsburg PA. Another is Cyrq Energy, Eavor Energy & Chevron now under contract to develop 3 new Geothermal power production & storage projects for Sonoma Clean Power (SCP) within 3 years. A key roadblock was recently resolved when the CA legislature approved Sonoma County to administer the regulatory approvals for these projects. This new Geothermal power will eliminate all fossil gas power in the SCP portfolio. And finally, DOE is playing an essential role in developing massive California offshore wind resources.
Hey David, following your pod cast for quite a while, this one was quite eye opening again… great work and always a pleasure to listen to. In this case the discussion could well be linked to the work of Mariana Mazzucato, emphasizing publicly funded research and incentivizing private investments, but also not forget to provide a refund for the public in case of success of such technologies. The “real” risk takers are often enough public/government institutions and less private investors who just succeed more effectively in creating such an image.
GREAT comment. I logged in here to note that the entire conversation was about "How can we give wealthy investors public money to persuade them to invest in new technologies that will make them even more money, on which they will be very lightly taxed if at all through the exceedingly light burdens of capital gains taxation."
The constant mention of "de-risking" as a necessity for the clean transition just galls me. Profit is the reward for risk. Why should investors profit if they only invest in ventures that have been "de-risked" for them?
I finished this pod convinced that if we're going to "unleash" the private capital we need, then we need to get serious about sticks and not just carrots (since we have starved the public purse so long that we can't afford enough carrots to do the job).
We need:
a) a Tobin tax on all stock trading -- even a 0.25% nick would raise serious bank
b) a small wealth tax on all private fortunes over $10 million and 100% of all hedge and investment funds, so that the funds can't just sit and wait for the government to come and pay them to get richer. Then the owners of these vast fortunes wouldn't be able to demand such sweeteners before they will invest their money.
Or we could devise a "Set your own capital gains tax rate" -- we let all hedge funds and investors choose for themselves what capital gains tax rates they want to pay on gains . . . by applying a decreasing wealth tax to their choice. That is, everyone pays ordinary tax rates on all gains as the default condition (abolition of favorable capital gains tax rates except under these rules); if you want to pay low taxes on capital gains (like Elon, Zuck, and Peter Theil, etc) then you pay a high annual wealth tax on the order or 1.0 - 2.0%. Call it 2%. But you can avoid the annual wealth tax by setting your capital gains tax rate at a higher percentage, with the endpoint being that you pay no wealth tax at all if you pay capital gains taxes at ordinary income rates.
I didn’t dare to mention Ingrid Robeyn’s (university of Utrecht/netherlands) work on limitarianism in my first comment, but that covers a great deal of what you propose. 👍🏽
This is a valuable conversation to have shared. I have long said (as a self-proclaimed "word nerd"), that people require a vocabulary and a lexicon to have meaningful conversations about all things. Language matters and the normalization of phraseology and terms associated with this work will help further ongoing and challenging conversations about America's energy politics. I appreciate your work and will continue to follow this Stack!
A related question. I'm a retired pre-sales computer dude. I'm very interested to see if there are companies that are working on the community outreach on these alternative energy solutions to help get community buy-in to remove local obstacles. My skills as pre-sales technical person were critical in communicating with customers to develop consensus. But who would a pre sales (System Engineer) talk to to get involved in these projects. It seems these pre sales skill sets would map well to moving the needle on alternative energy projects. anyway big fan!!
Agree with others. This was an exceptional episode showing David Roberts superpower to talk policy and provide insight with a clear expert hero in govt. awesome.
She seems to be saying all the right things. I was hoping they were starting something like the Fraunhofer Institute. Not quite, but still good. Within DOE, the Building America program has been successful with development and deployment and using feedback from the deployment for incremental innovation. In the EV world, the following link seemed illustrate addressing "readiness."
It seems to me that, in this country in particular, tech can be fully ready for "adoption," but reactionary forces, often funded by fossil fuels, or just part of our incredible inertia, can as Leah Stokes said, "short circuit" that adoption.
One of the hallmarks of the current crop of civil servants in Granholm's DOE is their unfailing optimism when talking about their work. Pessimism promotes the status quo, and even the skeptical should acknowledge a steady as we go approach hasn't taken us to where we want to be. The transformation in the LPO and OTT over the last 4 years is remarkable and while the executives here are salaried they are unquestionably volunteering to help make our world a better place.
As someone who spends a lot of time managing a company through its TRLs and has recently spent too much time in the SBIR grant process I have a lot of thoughts about crossing the valleys of death in climate-tech. In brief: the diligence in government money is too rigorous for the award size between lab spin-out and the LPO's very large deals (and $1M vetting process).
While I've been aware of our company's ARLs since the OTT's round of publicity in April, I haven't interacted with anyone who can look beyond TRLs - it isn't the safe conventional wisdom yet. Importantly, it leads the keeper of the ARLs into telling other company executives (or VCs) how to do their jobs which leads to friction. The ARLs are cross-cutting, which explodes the relationship matrix. A TRL might be an assessment and agreement between Product, Engineering, and Operations (6 relationships) but the ARL brings in Commercial, Market Development, Community Development, Policy, etc. and the human interactions in any group are factorial (for our company: 6 domain leaders means 720 relationships). I think there is something really useful here, but the level of abstraction isn't quite right yet and it has a bit of novelty effect because this market is ready for something better than the status quo of gut checks and ignorance.
It doesn't surprise me that BTI is a fan - they love complicated things and tend to load their companies with high priced overhead (beggars/choosers I'd still say yes). But in practice one can't just start using the ARL in the wild like you can with TRLs, which have 60+ years of history behind them. So many of the roles involved in that matrix haven't ever thought about their responsibilities in such a formal way before. We already spend too much time 'discussing' if this or that feature is TRL 5 or 6 when the point of the TRL framework is to facilitate prioritization across a project where all the parts are moving at different speeds but have to all come together at one moment in time to launch. Bring in runway management and getting the customer and market to the point they can not just say yes but pay their invoice before that runway runs out... and it is a lot.
The SBIR process asked for a breakdown of fringe benefits on a sum of money that keeps the company alive for 12 days. Another SBIR process for similar award size asked about manufacturing plans (net new location, structure, staff). You'd better not be planning to build a factory on the strength of fundraising 12 days of cash. You can get 10x that on a vibe check in the VC space and have faith that others will pile in behind it due to FOMO. The intention is there, but some of the execution just isn't contemporary in approach and we get perpetual funding of that one lab still doing the same work 20 years later never making a commercial impact or the complete opposite where a company that is already on the way wins phase I money to signal they've been vetted and immediately raise 100x in the VC or debt markets. It just feels like suboptimal fund allocation. If we look at the past awardees and outcomes: in how many cases did the award amount take a bad end and turn it good? From where I sit, the winners already looked like winning before they got funding in the middle valleys, there was no actual bridge - before we get to timelines where a hard tech clean-tech company might go 7 years pre-revenue.
A must listen for anyone trying to make money off of the Energy Transition? Sure... but also, I would argue, a worthwhile listen for anyone who has no interest whatsoever in having a work life focused on being someone elses' employee forever.
Dr. Chan's "I'm someone who truly believes in a growth mindset.." sets the stage for all that's discussed, but also for all that's not discussed & questions not asked. Not a shred of scepticism about the goal of unending growth is voiced. What is the endgame of growth for an already half dead ecosphere? Growth enabled entirely by burning FFs. No mention that the power sector is only ~20% of total energy; that wind % solar remain a small amount of generation and have no chance of taking the role of primary energy; or that government, industries & investors are 100% committed to ramping FF extraction to meet ever rising demand. No attempt to spotlight resource depletion or the carbon footprint of massive new buildout. The only numbers presented or asked about here are the billions spent to commercialize products & systems that neither you, David, nor Dr. Chan can claim will reduce total Co2e emissions. Am I wrong in this? I Would be glad to see strong evidence to the contrary. Meanwhile, obvious hard questions about the promise of"clean" tech are left unasked.
This is one of the very best Volts podcasts ever. I'm aware of 3 important commercial projects springing from this DOE mission. One is EOS Energy's aqueous zinc modular BESS for micro grids, now being produced at scale in Pittsburg PA. Another is Cyrq Energy, Eavor Energy & Chevron now under contract to develop 3 new Geothermal power production & storage projects for Sonoma Clean Power (SCP) within 3 years. A key roadblock was recently resolved when the CA legislature approved Sonoma County to administer the regulatory approvals for these projects. This new Geothermal power will eliminate all fossil gas power in the SCP portfolio. And finally, DOE is playing an essential role in developing massive California offshore wind resources.
Hey David, following your pod cast for quite a while, this one was quite eye opening again… great work and always a pleasure to listen to. In this case the discussion could well be linked to the work of Mariana Mazzucato, emphasizing publicly funded research and incentivizing private investments, but also not forget to provide a refund for the public in case of success of such technologies. The “real” risk takers are often enough public/government institutions and less private investors who just succeed more effectively in creating such an image.
Keep on going & all the best
Ruediger
GREAT comment. I logged in here to note that the entire conversation was about "How can we give wealthy investors public money to persuade them to invest in new technologies that will make them even more money, on which they will be very lightly taxed if at all through the exceedingly light burdens of capital gains taxation."
The constant mention of "de-risking" as a necessity for the clean transition just galls me. Profit is the reward for risk. Why should investors profit if they only invest in ventures that have been "de-risked" for them?
I finished this pod convinced that if we're going to "unleash" the private capital we need, then we need to get serious about sticks and not just carrots (since we have starved the public purse so long that we can't afford enough carrots to do the job).
We need:
a) a Tobin tax on all stock trading -- even a 0.25% nick would raise serious bank
b) a small wealth tax on all private fortunes over $10 million and 100% of all hedge and investment funds, so that the funds can't just sit and wait for the government to come and pay them to get richer. Then the owners of these vast fortunes wouldn't be able to demand such sweeteners before they will invest their money.
Or we could devise a "Set your own capital gains tax rate" -- we let all hedge funds and investors choose for themselves what capital gains tax rates they want to pay on gains . . . by applying a decreasing wealth tax to their choice. That is, everyone pays ordinary tax rates on all gains as the default condition (abolition of favorable capital gains tax rates except under these rules); if you want to pay low taxes on capital gains (like Elon, Zuck, and Peter Theil, etc) then you pay a high annual wealth tax on the order or 1.0 - 2.0%. Call it 2%. But you can avoid the annual wealth tax by setting your capital gains tax rate at a higher percentage, with the endpoint being that you pay no wealth tax at all if you pay capital gains taxes at ordinary income rates.
I didn’t dare to mention Ingrid Robeyn’s (university of Utrecht/netherlands) work on limitarianism in my first comment, but that covers a great deal of what you propose. 👍🏽
This is a valuable conversation to have shared. I have long said (as a self-proclaimed "word nerd"), that people require a vocabulary and a lexicon to have meaningful conversations about all things. Language matters and the normalization of phraseology and terms associated with this work will help further ongoing and challenging conversations about America's energy politics. I appreciate your work and will continue to follow this Stack!
I would love to see you revisit this in a couple months on how this situation has continued under the Trump administration. Thank you!
A related question. I'm a retired pre-sales computer dude. I'm very interested to see if there are companies that are working on the community outreach on these alternative energy solutions to help get community buy-in to remove local obstacles. My skills as pre-sales technical person were critical in communicating with customers to develop consensus. But who would a pre sales (System Engineer) talk to to get involved in these projects. It seems these pre sales skill sets would map well to moving the needle on alternative energy projects. anyway big fan!!
Agree with others. This was an exceptional episode showing David Roberts superpower to talk policy and provide insight with a clear expert hero in govt. awesome.
She seems to be saying all the right things. I was hoping they were starting something like the Fraunhofer Institute. Not quite, but still good. Within DOE, the Building America program has been successful with development and deployment and using feedback from the deployment for incremental innovation. In the EV world, the following link seemed illustrate addressing "readiness."
https://cleantechnica.com/2024/10/15/hyundai-says-it-will-have-300-wh-kg-lfp-batteries-in-2025/
It seems to me that, in this country in particular, tech can be fully ready for "adoption," but reactionary forces, often funded by fossil fuels, or just part of our incredible inertia, can as Leah Stokes said, "short circuit" that adoption.
One of the hallmarks of the current crop of civil servants in Granholm's DOE is their unfailing optimism when talking about their work. Pessimism promotes the status quo, and even the skeptical should acknowledge a steady as we go approach hasn't taken us to where we want to be. The transformation in the LPO and OTT over the last 4 years is remarkable and while the executives here are salaried they are unquestionably volunteering to help make our world a better place.
If you've never dealt with TRLs before or it has been a while, this is an amazing refresher: https://www.granttremblay.com/blog/trls
If you haven't seen this Third Derivative article on the Green Tech Valleys of Death since the work did the rounds 4 years ago:
https://www.third-derivative.org/blog/climate-techs-four-valleys-of-death-and-why-we-must-build-a-bridge
As someone who spends a lot of time managing a company through its TRLs and has recently spent too much time in the SBIR grant process I have a lot of thoughts about crossing the valleys of death in climate-tech. In brief: the diligence in government money is too rigorous for the award size between lab spin-out and the LPO's very large deals (and $1M vetting process).
While I've been aware of our company's ARLs since the OTT's round of publicity in April, I haven't interacted with anyone who can look beyond TRLs - it isn't the safe conventional wisdom yet. Importantly, it leads the keeper of the ARLs into telling other company executives (or VCs) how to do their jobs which leads to friction. The ARLs are cross-cutting, which explodes the relationship matrix. A TRL might be an assessment and agreement between Product, Engineering, and Operations (6 relationships) but the ARL brings in Commercial, Market Development, Community Development, Policy, etc. and the human interactions in any group are factorial (for our company: 6 domain leaders means 720 relationships). I think there is something really useful here, but the level of abstraction isn't quite right yet and it has a bit of novelty effect because this market is ready for something better than the status quo of gut checks and ignorance.
It doesn't surprise me that BTI is a fan - they love complicated things and tend to load their companies with high priced overhead (beggars/choosers I'd still say yes). But in practice one can't just start using the ARL in the wild like you can with TRLs, which have 60+ years of history behind them. So many of the roles involved in that matrix haven't ever thought about their responsibilities in such a formal way before. We already spend too much time 'discussing' if this or that feature is TRL 5 or 6 when the point of the TRL framework is to facilitate prioritization across a project where all the parts are moving at different speeds but have to all come together at one moment in time to launch. Bring in runway management and getting the customer and market to the point they can not just say yes but pay their invoice before that runway runs out... and it is a lot.
The SBIR process asked for a breakdown of fringe benefits on a sum of money that keeps the company alive for 12 days. Another SBIR process for similar award size asked about manufacturing plans (net new location, structure, staff). You'd better not be planning to build a factory on the strength of fundraising 12 days of cash. You can get 10x that on a vibe check in the VC space and have faith that others will pile in behind it due to FOMO. The intention is there, but some of the execution just isn't contemporary in approach and we get perpetual funding of that one lab still doing the same work 20 years later never making a commercial impact or the complete opposite where a company that is already on the way wins phase I money to signal they've been vetted and immediately raise 100x in the VC or debt markets. It just feels like suboptimal fund allocation. If we look at the past awardees and outcomes: in how many cases did the award amount take a bad end and turn it good? From where I sit, the winners already looked like winning before they got funding in the middle valleys, there was no actual bridge - before we get to timelines where a hard tech clean-tech company might go 7 years pre-revenue.
A must listen for anyone trying to make money off of the Energy Transition? Sure... but also, I would argue, a worthwhile listen for anyone who has no interest whatsoever in having a work life focused on being someone elses' employee forever.
Dr. Chan's "I'm someone who truly believes in a growth mindset.." sets the stage for all that's discussed, but also for all that's not discussed & questions not asked. Not a shred of scepticism about the goal of unending growth is voiced. What is the endgame of growth for an already half dead ecosphere? Growth enabled entirely by burning FFs. No mention that the power sector is only ~20% of total energy; that wind % solar remain a small amount of generation and have no chance of taking the role of primary energy; or that government, industries & investors are 100% committed to ramping FF extraction to meet ever rising demand. No attempt to spotlight resource depletion or the carbon footprint of massive new buildout. The only numbers presented or asked about here are the billions spent to commercialize products & systems that neither you, David, nor Dr. Chan can claim will reduce total Co2e emissions. Am I wrong in this? I Would be glad to see strong evidence to the contrary. Meanwhile, obvious hard questions about the promise of"clean" tech are left unasked.