Thread by @yayitsrob

1/ I’m flummoxed by this @tylercowen column about how an Operation Warp Speed for clean energy won’t work.

Cowen argues that a procurement pledge won’t help advance energy innovation, which might be true. But his evidence doesn’t really make sense.

bloomberg.com/opinion/articl…

2/ He contrasts the cost of Operation Warp Speed ($18B) to total US energy expenditures ($1.2T).

But… why? OWS didn’t comprise all US healthcare spending in 2020, and an OWS for clean energy wouldn’t comprise all US energy spending then, either.

3/ The comparison doesn’t hold up once you fix it. The right analogue to the $1.2T figure isn’t a federal program; it’s total US healthcare expenditures. And in fact, Americans spend 3x more on healthcare ($3.6 trillion, according to NHEA) than we do on energy ($1.2 trillion).

4/ What’s a good analogue to the cost of Operation Warp Speed? Maybe it’s clean-energy R&D. But the govt spent about as much on OWS this year ($18B) as it spent total on renewables and nuclear R&D in *the decade from 2009 to 2018* ($23B). fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R…

5/ The really shocking number: The US spent nearly twice as much on Operation Warp Speed this year ($18B) as it spent on *all renewable-energy R&D* from 2009 to 2018 ($9.4B). fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R…

6/ Over all, the column focuses very tightly on Warp Speed’s purchase guarantees. And that’s fair. But I think when folks talk about Warp Speed for clean energy, they’re not talking about procurement per se. They’re talking about the govt’s ability to spend $ to focus innovation.

7/ And it should be clear: The US could stand to spend a lot more money on clean-energy innovation.