Why Green Energy Can't Power a Job Engine

Some of you might know - I have a college degree in renewable energy but have always stated that government subsidy is not the right way to advance alternative energy. Ritter tried to force this to work, and it will fail here as it has in other states.

Government is far less skilled at knowing what technology will win and what will lose than private entrepreneur's are and government should not be in this business at all. Leave it to the private sector.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Why-Green-Energy-Cant-Power-a-nytimes-1810043759.html?x=0&sec=topStories&pos=5&asset=&ccode=

Green energy's big hope is $150 a barrel oil. Then it will start to make sense.

I am willing to spend some taxpayer money to develop new technology, or tax credits for better insulation etc, but eventually the industry has to stand on its own two feet. And the lack of goverment aid might encourage industry to make more competitive solar arrays, etc.

I would agree that if any taxpayer money is to be spent on "Green Energy" - it would be best spent on research and development - not on subsidizing a manufacturing plant or on a particular company.

And yes - if oil hits 150 and stays there for any length of time- all kinds of alternate energy sources become economically feasible.

I'm not sure BearMtn. I work in this field too (sometimes),, and have seen lots of money wasted on R&D too. I have been to NREL and written SBIR grant proposals to DOE on lots of projects, some were pretty flaky and R&D welfare I thought. The end result was a paper report or prototype hardware that collected dust after the project ended. Most of the big R&D breakthroughs are from large companies, though they get some tax credits for it no doubt.

As for manufacturing, I am ok with it with cost sharing. 50% Gov't and 50% stock or private capital. But only if it is a sound business plan. If the business plan is viable though, usually the investment capital is available, ie venture capital, IPOs, secondary offerings.