Economics

Many sustainable technologies work well in the laboratory but struggle to reach widespread commercial use. While scientific breakthroughs often receive the most attention, economic factors are frequently just as important in determining whether a technology succeeds. A process may reduce carbon emissions or improve efficiency, but if it cannot compete financially with existing alternatives, widespread adoption is unlikely.

Understanding these economic challenges is essential because the transition to a more sustainable future depends not only on discovering new technologies, but also on making them affordable, scalable, and attractive to investors, companies, and consumers.

The "Valley of Death"

One of the biggest obstacles in technology commercialization is the so-called "Valley of Death." This refers to the stage between successful laboratory research and full-scale commercialization [1].

Early research is often funded by governments or universities, while mature technologies can attract private investment because they have proven markets. However, pilot plants and demonstration projects require tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars, yet still carry significant technical and financial risk. Many promising technologies fail during this stage—not because they don't work, but because they run out of funding before reaching commercial viability [4].

See interview with Sarah Baker at LLNL for further explanation of this concept.

SBIR and STTR

One example of how funding affects technology commercialization is the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) programs. These federal programs provide non-dilutive funding—meaning companies do not have to give up ownership or equity—to help small businesses and startups develop innovative technologies with commercial potential [3].

For many early-stage climate technology companies, SBIR and STTR grants provide the funding needed to move beyond laboratory research. A Phase I award allows companies to demonstrate technical feasibility, while Phase II funding supports further research, prototype development, and preparation for commercialization. This funding often helps startups cross the "Valley of Death," where private investors may be unwilling to invest because the technology is still considered too risky.

The importance of these programs became especially clear in 2025, when the SBIR and STTR programs temporarily lapsed before Congress reauthorized them in 2026. During the lapse, many federal agencies paused issuing new awards, leaving startups uncertain about whether expected funding would arrive.

"Most critically, even though data protection rules remain in effect, contracting for Phase I and Phase II developments cannot proceed, effectively stalling the defense innovation pipeline" [2].

Some companies delayed hiring, postponed research and development, or worried they would exhaust their remaining cash before grants resumed. The disruption highlighted how dependent many deep-tech startups are on early-stage public funding to continue developing technologies that may take years to become commercially viable.

Although successful companies are ultimately expected to attract private investment and generate their own revenue, programs like SBIR and STTR play a critical role in helping promising technologies survive long enough to reach that stage [3]. They demonstrate that economic support is often just as important as scientific innovation in bringing new sustainable technologies from the laboratory to the marketplace.

Building First-of-a-Kind Facilities

Many clean energy technologies cannot simply be manufactured in existing factories. Instead, companies must build entirely new production facilities.

These first-of-a-kind (FOAK) plants are particularly expensive because engineers are constructing systems that have never been built at commercial scale [5]. Unexpected technical issues, construction delays, and lower-than-expected performance are common. As a result, investors often view these projects as high-risk. 

"According to the director of Cleantech for Iberia, both challenges [investment and risk aversion] can be addressed with public support. Implementing robust support plans and risk reduction mechanisms can boost confidence in the private sector" [6].

Fortunately, costs often decrease as more facilities are built. Engineers gain experience, manufacturing improves, and supply chains become more efficient. This process is known as the learning curve, and it has played a major role in reducing the costs of technologies like solar panels and lithium-ion batteries.

Nuclear Reactors

Nuclear energy is an example of an industry that requires these expensive FOAK facilities. 

The process of building nuclear reactors is difficult because of requirements for licensing by the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, uranium fuel procurement, and substantial testing requirements as there is less operating and regulatory experience [5]. 

Competing Against Established Industries

Many sustainable technologies face competition from industries that have had decades to optimize their production processes.

Fossil fuels, for example, benefit from mature infrastructure, established supply chains, experienced workforces, and economies of scale. Refineries, pipelines, power plants, and distribution networks have already been built and paid for over many years [8].

New sustainable technologies often have to build similar infrastructure from scratch while competing against products that are already inexpensive. Even if a cleaner technology performs better, companies may hesitate to switch if doing so requires replacing existing equipment or changing manufacturing processes. 

Electric and Gas Vehicles

The competition between electric vehicles (EVs) and gasoline-powered cars demonstrates how difficult it can be for new technologies to challenge established industries. 

Gasoline vehicles benefit from more than a century of investment in oil extraction, refining, fuel distribution, and automotive manufacturing. Gas stations are widespread, repair shops are familiar with internal combustion engines, and manufacturers have optimized production to keep costs low. 

Although electric vehicles offer lower operating costs, reduced emissions, and fewer moving parts that require maintenance, they must compete against this extensive existing infrastructure. Expanding charging networks, securing battery supply chains, and building large-scale battery manufacturing facilities all require significant investment. 

At the same time, consumers may hesitate to switch because of concerns about charging availability, vehicle price, or driving range. On vehicle price, "according to data from Cox Automotive (parent company of Kelley Blue Book), the average price paid for a new EV continues to fall—in September 2023, it came down by $14,300 over the prior year. This amounted to a cost of just $2,800 more than the average paid for a new gas-powered vehicle. And with the EV market growing rapidly, the price margin is expected to shrink even more in the coming years as manufacturers produce more affordable models and improve battery technology, the most expensive part of an EV" [9]. 

This shows how although a sustainable technology offers long-term advantages, overcoming the economic advantages of a well-established industry can take many years.

Capital Costs vs. Operating Costs

The economics of sustainable technologies often depend on the balance between capital expenditures (CapEx) and operating expenditures (OpEx). CapEx involves major, long-term purchases like buildings and equipment that will be used to improve a company’s performance in the future. OpEx, however, covers routine, day-to-day expenses like salaries and rent [11].

Some technologies require large upfront investments but have relatively low operating costs. 

Other technologies may have lower construction costs but require continuous spending on electricity, maintenance, raw materials, or specialized chemicals.

Investors carefully evaluate whether the long-term savings justify the initial investment, making financing an important part of commercialization.

Renewable Energy and Fossil Fuels

Solar farms and wind turbines, for example, are expensive to build and need large upfront investment because developers must purchase land, install thousands of solar panels or hundreds of turbines, connect the project to the electrical grid, and often build new transmission infrastructure. These costs are paid before the facility generates any electricity. However, once operational, sunlight and wind are free energy sources, so operating expenses are relatively low and primarily consist of maintenance, repairs, monitoring systems, and occasional equipment replacement. 

In contrast, fossil fuel power plants generally cost less to build initially but must continuously purchase coal or natural gas throughout their lifetimes, making fuel one of their largest ongoing expenses. Because renewable energy projects incur most of their costs upfront, financing and access to affordable loans are often critical to making them economically competitive, even though they may produce lower-cost electricity over decades of operation.

Supply Chains and Critical Materials

Many emerging technologies depend on specialized materials that can be expensive or difficult to obtain. Reasons for this difficulty include that they are geographically concentrated, produced in limited quantities, require complex extraction and refining processes, or rely on supply chains that are vulnerable to geopolitical tensions and trade restrictions. 

Mining and processing of certain critical raw materials are concentrated in specific localities, allowing a few countries to dominate the entire sector.  This geographic concentration makes manufacturers vulnerable to geopolitical tensions, trade restrictions, export controls, and supply disruptions that can increase prices or limit material availability. 

"Australia leads in iron ore and lithium production, essential for steel manufacturing and battery technologies, while Chile is the world leader in producing copper. China is a superpower when it comes to graphite and rare earths, which are critical for modern technology. The Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) is a key cobalt producer while platinum and iridium are mainly mined in South Africa. Indonesia dominates nickel with almost half of global production" [16].

In addition to geopolitical risks, many critical minerals are mined in regions where weak labor protections, unsafe working conditions, environmental degradation, and unequal distribution of economic benefits have raised concerns about the sustainability and ethics of global supply chains.

Lithium-ion batteries require materials such as lithium, nickel, cobalt, graphite, and manganese [14]. Electrolyzers for hydrogen production often rely on precious metals like platinum or iridium. Advanced semiconductors, permanent magnets, and catalysts may also depend on critical minerals with limited global production.

If supplies become constrained or prices increase significantly, manufacturing costs rise, making it harder for technologies to compete economically. Developing recycling methods, alternative materials, and more resilient supply chains has therefore become an important part of scaling sustainable technologies [15].

Economic Incentives

For a sustainable technology to achieve widespread adoption, there must be a clear economic reason for companies or consumers to choose it. While reducing emissions or improving sustainability may be important goals, purchasing decisions are often driven by cost, performance, and financial return.

Businesses consider questions such as:

• Does the technology save money?

• Is it reliable?

• Does it outperform existing solutions?

• Will customers pay a premium for environmental benefits?

• How quickly can companies recover their investment?

Economic incentives can come from several sources. Some technologies directly reduce operating expenses by improving energy efficiency or lowering fuel consumption. Others generate new revenue streams, increase productivity, or reduce future costs such as maintenance or waste disposal. In these cases, businesses may adopt a technology because it improves their bottom line, not just because it is environmentally beneficial [18][19].

In other cases, external incentives help encourage adoption. Governments may offer tax credits, rebates, grants, or low-interest financing to reduce the upfront cost of installing new technologies. Carbon pricing or emissions regulations can also make high-emission alternatives more expensive, improving the competitiveness of cleaner options [18][19].

Carbon Product Market

An example of an economic incentive for scaling sustainable technologies is the growing market for solid carbon products. Rather than producing only a single product, some clean technologies generate commercially valuable materials alongside their primary output. For example, methane pyrolysis produces hydrogen while generating solid carbon instead of carbon dioxide. This solid carbon can be sold for use in products such as carbon black for tires and inks, graphite for batteries, carbon fiber composites, and advanced materials like graphene. Likewise, some carbon dioxide conversion technologies produce solid carbon that can be incorporated into industrial materials instead of being treated as waste. 

By creating additional revenue streams through the sale of these carbon products, companies can offset production costs, make low-carbon hydrogen production more economically competitive, improve the economic viability of low-carbon technologies, and make them more attractive for investment and large-scale commercialization.

See interview with Henry Moise at Stanford for further perspective on the necessity of economic incentives in scale-up.

While purchasing and installing a solar system requires a significant initial investment, homeowners can recover these costs over time through reduced electricity expenses and, in some cases, by selling excess electricity back to the grid through net metering programs. Tax credits, rebates, and other financial incentives can further shorten the payback period, making solar energy a more economically attractive investment. "If you buy or take out a loan for a solar system, you may be eligible for the federal residential solar energy credit, which is a tax credit that can be claimed on federal income taxes for a percentage of the cost of a solar photovoltaic (PV) system" [20].

The Role of Policy

Government policy can significantly influence the economics of sustainable technologies.

Policies such as tax credits, research funding, loan guarantees, carbon pricing, renewable energy standards, and clean energy procurement programs help reduce financial risk and encourage private investment [22].

These policies do not replace technological innovation, but they can help bridge the gap between laboratory success and commercial competitiveness [22]. Many technologies that are economically competitive today, including solar power and electric vehicles, benefited from years of public investment and supportive policies during their early development.

U.S. Inflation Reduction Act

The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), signed into law by President Joe Biden in 2022, demonstrated how government policy can accelerate the commercialization of sustainable technologies. The legislation provided hundreds of billions of dollars in incentives for renewable energy, electric vehicles, battery manufacturing, carbon capture, hydrogen, and domestic critical mineral production [23]. By lowering upfront costs through tax credits and grants, the IRA encouraged companies to invest in large-scale clean energy manufacturing and helped technologies move from research and development toward widespread deployment. 

However, changes in federal administration have created uncertainty for the clean energy industry. Under President Donald Trump’s administration in 2025, several IRA incentives were reduced, phased out, or had their timelines shortened, including tax credits for electric vehicles and residential clean energy improvements [24]. While many clean energy incentives remain, these policy changes demonstrate how uncertainty can discourage long-term investment because companies are less willing to commit billions of dollars to projects when future financial support is unclear.

California Zero-Emission Vehicle Program

California’s Zero-Emission Vehicle (ZEV) Program demonstrates how government policy can accelerate the adoption of sustainable technologies by creating market demand. 

Established by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) in 1990, the program requires automakers to gradually increase sales of zero-emission vehicles, including battery electric and hydrogen vehicles. By creating a more predictable market, the policy encouraged companies to invest in electric vehicle manufacturing, battery technology, and charging infrastructure. This helped manufacturers improve production efficiency, reduce costs through economies of scale, and expand clean transportation beyond California [25].

The program also shows that regulations alone are not enough and that successful technology adoption depends on many other factors including supporting infrastructure, consumer affordability, and reliable supply chains.

Why Economics Matters

Scientific innovation is only one piece of the commercialization puzzle. Engineers can design highly efficient batteries, carbon capture systems, or hydrogen production methods, but those technologies must also be affordable, manufacturable, financeable, and competitive in real-world markets.

Successfully scaling sustainable technologies requires collaboration among scientists, engineers, economists, manufacturers, investors, policymakers, and entrepreneurs. By addressing both the technical and economic challenges, promising research can move beyond the laboratory and become practical solutions that reduce emissions on a global scale.

References

1. Hudson, J., & Khazragui, H. F. (2013). Into the valley of death: research to innovation. Drug Discovery Today, 18(13–14), 610–613. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drudis.2013.01.012

2. ielmissaoui. (2025). FEDERAL ALERT: SBIR and STTR Program Expiration | United States | Leyton. In United States. https://leyton.com/us/insights/articles/federal-alert-sbir-and-sttr-program-expiration/

3. SBIR. (2024). About | sbir.gov. In www.sbir.gov. https://www.sbir.gov/about

4. Skillicorn, N. (2021). The Innovation Valley of Death. In Idea to Value. https://www.ideatovalue.com/inno/nickskillicorn/2021/05/the-innovation-valley-of-death/

5. Third Way. (n.d.). In www.thirdway.org. Retrieved July 28, 2026, from https://www.thirdway.org/blog/why-foak-nuclear-reactors-are-so-expensive-and-worth-the-cost

6. BBVA. (2018). What is cleantech and what are its features? In NEWS BBVA. https://www.bbva.com/en/sustainability/foak-what-is-a-first-of-a-kind-cleantech-project/

7. Office of Nuclear Energy. (2023). NUCLEAR 101: How Does a Nuclear Reactor work? In Energy.gov. U.S. Department of Energy. https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/nuclear-101-how-does-nuclear-reactor-work

8. Cheek, L. (2020). 3 Reasons We Are Still Using Fossil Fuels | University of Arkansas Sustainability Blog. In wordpressua.uark.edu. University of Arkansas. https://wordpressua.uark.edu/sustain/3-reasons-we-are-still-using-fossil-fuels/

9. Lindwall, C. (2025). Electric vs. Gas Cars: Is It Cheaper to Drive an EV? In Nrdc.org. https://www.nrdc.org/stories/electric-vs-gas-cars-it-cheaper-drive-ev#prices

10. Electric Vehicles vs. Gas Cars: The Future of Transportation. (2024). In Blog. https://blog.en-plustech.com/electric-vehicles-vs-gas-cars-differences/

11. Ross, S. (2021). What Smart Business Owners Should Know About CAPEX and OPEX. In Investopedia. https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/112814/whats-difference-between-capital-expenditures-capex-and-operational-expenditures-opex.asp

12. Solar Energy Facilities. (2021). In Nppd.com. https://www.nppd.com/powering-nebraska/energy-resources/solar-energy-facilities

13. What is a Wind Farm? (2018). In AZoCleantech.com. https://www.azocleantech.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=703

14. Special focus: Critical raw materials supply chains: Economic Security in a Changing World. (2025). In OECD. https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/2025/09/economic-security-in-a-changing-world_78f3b129/full-report/special-focus-critical-raw-materials-supply-chains_daf99c07.html

15. Heydari, M., Mitchell, P., Cullen, L., Andrieu, B., Serrenho, A. C., & Cullen, J. (2025). A systematic review of resilience in the critical minerals supply chains, needed for the low-carbon energy transition. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Transition, 8, 100127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rset.2025.100127

16. The geopolitics of critical raw materials: Who controls the future? - Diplo. (2025). In Diplo. https://www.diplomacy.edu/blog/the-geopolitics-of-critical-raw-materials-who-controls-the-future/

17. Oldcorn, R. (2023, December 13). Strategic Partnerships on Critical Raw Materials in Central Asia. Srk.Com. https://www.srk.com/en/publications/strategic-partnerships-on-critical-raw-materials-in-central-asia

18. The United States Experience with Economic Incentives for Protecting the Environment. (2001). https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2017-08/documents/ee-0216b-13.pdf

19. &EPA Economic Incentives Options For Environmental Protection. (n.d.). Retrieved July 28, 2026, from https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2017-08/documents/ee-0315-1_acc.pdf

20. Will I Save Money with Solar Energy? (2025). In Energy.gov. https://www.energy.gov/articles/will-i-save-money-solar-energy

21. A Consumer’s Guide to Buying a House with Solar Panels. (2023, April 19). Energy.Gov. https://www.energy.gov/cmei/systems/consumers-guide-buying-house-solar-panels

22. Heinz Schandl, Walton, A., Oliver, S., Barnett, G., & Whitten, S. (2025). Navigating sustainability transitions: A science for policy approach. Sustainable Production and Consumption. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2025.07.001

23. INFLATION REDUCTION ACT OF 2022. (2022). In Energy.gov. https://www.energy.gov/edf/inflation-reduction-act-2022

24. IRA Tax Credit Repeal in the FY2025 Reconciliation Law: Part 2. (2025). In Congress.gov. https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IN12625

25. california air resources board. (2018). Zero-Emission Vehicle Program | California Air Resources Board. In Ca.gov. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/zero-emission-vehicle-program