Fiber may have been partly funded by the government but industry did it on its own; Corning and AT&T most of it. Times have changed along with the N Y Times. The tough part now is getting up front funding to establish feasibility. That is a good role for government. It pays for my R&D in medicine; for example. The government should not be in the deployment business at all. Indeed, a lot of the people who take govt R&D grants have no intention to deploy. They live off the govt. grants hoping they can get a patent and then license it.
The entire issue needs a solid look including using tax incentives to encourage on shore R&D and then huge tax incentives for deployment. The govt. R&D managers, to a person, have no skill in the business end and the business end is the key to successful R&D choices. Research is virtually senseless. The payoff is too far out to interest most companies other than those simply hoping to live off govt. grants. Gene G. -----Original Message----- From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineer...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Andrew Revkin Sent: Sunday, August 02, 2009 9:30 AM To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com Subject: [geo] more on Arpa-E rejection letters The tail end of this post discusses the Arpa-E rejection letters. I'll be posting an example on Monday. http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/30/how-many-ds-in-obamas-energy-pl edge/ -- Andrew C. Revkin The New York Times / Environment 620 Eighth Ave., NY, NY 10018 Tel: 212-556-7326 Mob: 914-441-5556 Fax: 509-357-0965 http://www.nytimes.com/revkin --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
