Vinod speaks...

The solution to energy issues lies in a "Black Swan Event", check it on Wikipedia. He does not expect us to reduce usage, while we may be more efficient in what we use, usage will go up. This is more a question of taking more shots on goal. How do we get the financial system to fund more "science experiements"? This fits the VC model better than other investment models. Government money can be an accelerator, but shouldn't be the driver.

Solar: 1st Solar owns the business, give up on low cost low efficiency. Look into getting up to 50% efficient is the remaining investment niche. Also look into storage, wind an solar have problems. Solar thermal is still the dirty secret. Thin film will get to ~20%, but no higher expected. Concentration may still be important, balance of system cost important.

Integrated systems will make an impact when someone realizes efficiencies by doing so. Upgraded high voltage DC grid is better for us than a smart grid, even though we need both. These approaches get to 15% ish of the national grid on peak demand, the issue is really on the 85%, how do we get low carbon in a big way?

Short term, government policy will drive changes, but long term the sources will become more efficient and pay for themselves without support. Interesting derivative of that statement, if carbon taxes are used to offset other taxes, then the revenue from carbon tax is a short term increment in governmental time scales.

International: even though there is a lot of interest in Europe, Asia, India, there is little innovation; most innovations come from the US and migrate. So how do we extract the ideas? Innovation ecosystem is best in the US, again the government tries to fill the role elsewhere but doesn't do as well. The big markets will be in India, China, and they are unsubsidiezed. So you have to win without subsidies.

What about Nukes? Allow it to compete, and it will not be successful. Nukes depend on low cost of capital, loan guarantees etc. This gives a huge advantage and subsidy. Innovation cycle takes too long, 15-20 years, and you have to pay 100m in fees to qualify the system. Therefore, there won't be innovation at nearly the rate of other technologies, which will surpass it.

In the end, the diversity of opinions and approaches is the key to making innovation work. This is the problem with the government support. Throw out anything the pundits say, don't be afraid to try something, we are all too conservative (according to Vinod).