Except when it doesn't shine or, in northerly latitudes, is buried in snow. Then you need a conventional energy plant to supply electricity.

That's the catch with windmills and solar generators -- they all need 100 per cent conventional back-up. So what's the point in building all these windmills and solar arrays? Why not just put money into the back-up systems which have to be there anyway.

It's all lunacy driven by the politically-correct and scientific illiterates.

one only has to look at the ISS to realize how ineffective solar panels are. Its about the size of a football feild now and only services 6 people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Space_Station

maybe they can report glaciers melting at the rate of 5 International spacestations a day so people can relate.

"one only has to look at the ISS to realize how ineffective solar panels are. Its about the size of a football feild now and only services 6 people."

Actually, it is only 6 people but it is electric heat up there and that costs enough down here on terra firma. No word on when the natural gas pipeline will be in place.

They probably generate that amount of power when the sun is shining at the most optimum conditions. If so the statement is correct but clearly intends to mis-lead.

Read the link.

Note: that would be a different "sun" than the one deniers claim is capable of altering the earth's climate

Hahaha! Good one. ALL YOUR SARCASM AND IRONY ARE BELONG TO US.

In other news, folks may find useful a recently published 4-second video summary of the
Obama Economic Recovery Plan® here.

mhb23re
at gmail d0t calm

Another bubble in the making - a green energy economy built on the economics of subsidies, rather than natural market forces. It is bound to collapse. If only we could harness leftie dreams - we could power the universe.

Those subsidies can only continue to flow if the greenback presses continue emitting pieces of paper.

The only problem with that is that the price of imports will skyrocket as the currency is debased.

Engineering by fiat. Obama's realm of fiat ends at the shoreline. Obama cannot order foreign countries to value his greenbacks as he wishes - unless he does that at the barrel of a gun.

Global BC had a story a week or two ago, detailing a 'successful' solar energy firm from Courtenay that had installed panels, and a noisy wind turbine, and how it was wonderfully putting energy back into the grid, beyond the home owners needs.

Finally, at the end of the story, they got around to the cost of install.....

$80,000 !

Of course, no mention of how unfeasible this is to 99% of the population, let alone the fact that it is not viable.

But you should be happy being 'green'

Great post, Shaken.

People without even a cursory knowledge of economics won't understand the difference between subsidy-based and market-based economics. But they will, once the inflation required to pay for the subsidies wipes out their savings and assets.

mhb

The technology behind solar panels is rapidly evolving and there is a steadily growing private market industry, without government subsidy, for rooftop panels to provide power to, for example, big box stores. These not only can, at peak solar periods, produce enough energy for the particular store at that particular time, enough energy can be produced to allow the store to actually sell power back to the grid.

It still only makes sense on a grander scale (likely not for a museum for a long time) and the energy cannot be efficiently stored up so traditional power hook-ups will still be required.

Still, this is a very real and very big deal for businesses that can afford it. There is real economic value in solar power in the right circumstances and conditions.

Solar is only about 20-30% efficent depending on technology used. So Even if the energy hitting them could power 30 homes the real output at peak efficency and perfect conditions would be enough for 10 homes, for about 3 hours during midday.

I have said it 100 times if they want to throw money at it then do a proof of concept.

Take a small town of 25,000 remove it from the Grid and power it and a surrounding 100 mile rural area for local food production from renewables, no hydrocarbons at all. So no gasoline for cars, lawn mowers, generators, service vehicles. You can use bio-fuels but no natural gas. This town should be in a mid northern latitude and include a hospital, a manufacturing sector to create what they need and emergency services. There can be no new products generated from oil distillates of any kind (oil = bad) used in any products including the renewable energy generation. They can have no new products generated from burning coal and no natural gas.

I would let them build the first 5Mw of power generation equipment off-site as a starting point and the get the town "as is".

Prove to me we can decarbonize and have it work, if you cannot work on it until it does work. All research and development done on site.

The reason is simple they cannot raise the costs of what we have to fund what we don't and use products created by and with what we want to eliminate. In their own words it is not sustainable.

Do you have an example Ted, that's great news.

really Ted.

so at about 25000dollars/house , you can get a halftime system installed on the roof of the nearest Walmart ( not allowed in Vancouver) and get electricity half the time with a generous backup from the utility grid. and save 50$ a month giving a payout of 41 years (at zero discount rate)

not to worry , if solar panels really made sense , the power companies would be all over them without subsidies.

hey folks , what ever happened to tony guitar. he used to post stuff about solar panels and compressed air cars all the time.

Those big box stores - they have flat roofs, don't they?

Next up:

Obama trisects an angle by construction and establishes values for pi, e, and the square root of two that are rational numbers.

I alway thought this would solve alot of small town power issues.
http://www.atomicinsights.com/AI_03-20-05.html

Richfisher:

I act for two very large clients who have, in their own self-interest and without government subsidy, purchased rooftop solar systems just like that, and are doing so across their national chains.

I don't crunch the numbers to see how much they save, but I trust that businesses act in their own self-interest with a view to profit. Such largescale purchases are not made with a whole lot of review and oversight and number crunching. If it was saving pennies they would not do it. If it was just for the sake of looking good to the public, there are far more effective ways to generate public goodwill with your dollars.

I raise this example not to say solar is the way to go in all circumstance, damn the torpedos, but to highlight that the market can show the way to the right and most effective use of early stage technology. I would not want the impression to be left that, just because in many areas of the market it only makes sense if government subsidizes the purchase, people think that in all areas of the market that is so.

Don't forgot too the energy required to produce the solar cells.

When I was in university I took a graduate course on silicon processing, and the professor used to delight in proving that solar cells took more energy to make than they gave back over their lifetimes.

Manufacturing and indeed solar cells themselves have improved since then, such that in the net they produce more energy than is used to make them.

But you cannot ignore the fact that energy was consumed to make them, and it's a non-trivial amount.

I have always found solar cells a fascinating idea. If you can find a way to make them more efficient you would make a small fortune.

The depressing part however is that increasingly solar cells are being manufactured overseas. So we go from buying oil from foreigners, to buying solar cells from foreigners.

How stupid can we get.

Sorry, that should obviously have read "Such largescale purchases are not made without a whole lot of review and oversight and number crunching

"How much was the electric bill before and after the Solar panel installation"

Why would anyone want to know the numbers and make decisions based on reality when we can base major decisions on fantasy and anecdotes that Suzuki and Gore tell us.

Ted, I'm calling BS on that one. Solar installations do not pay for themselves with the current technology available. The only way to make it profitable today is to collect a nice subsidy from the government for installing them.

Sorry to break it to you cal but there is a new WALMART in Vancouver. Its the old Costco on Grandview Hwy just off Boundary. It has a full grocery section and it warms my heart knowing its taking business away from the liberano owned superstore down the street.

Have a read here:


http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/research/4306443.html

one only has to look at the ISS to realize how ineffective solar panels are. Its about the size of a football feild now and only services 6 people.

yeah...but what about at night time?

Ted, Re your big box solar systems

Do you know for certain that there are no subsidies through utility ratepayers, tax credits, grants, or other creative ways our governments shuffle dollars around?

The public is all hot&bothered and salivating over solar energy, if there was even a scent of real profit energy companies would be all over it yesterday.

Solar and wind power have their uses, they will not replace other sources. They are good for people that live off the grid or on the far end of the grid where power can be cut at any time. The houses using these types of power need to be designed with the limited supply in mind.

a new walmart in fortress vancouver. thats good news to me.

though I was enjoying the idea of the lefty city council thinking they had forced a green agenda on vancouver by letting them all drive to the suburbs.

btw , I still havent figured a way to bypass vancouver city without driving to prince george and catching the ferry south. hmm,, maybe south and come up from seattle?

Jimmy Carter on steroids.

Bob:

It is an early market and many companies are all over it. In fact, that is part of the design of the RESOP program in Ontario: by trying to limit the program to smaller plants, part of the idea is to create the knowledge and expertise here, that will hopefully fasttrack technological development. Solar companies are flocking to Ontario as a result.

This is not too dissimilar to a lot of early technological development in our free market society, be it trains in the 1800s or computers at the end of the last century. None of these industries developed without government support.

Ahh... that's illuminating. So, without government largesse - er, support - we'd have no personal computers? Is that it, ted? Got a link for that?

The significant achievements of the 20th century had everything to do with the private sector and nothing to do with government: the automobile, aircraft, transistors, microchips, the PC, cellular telephones, even Federal Express... the list goes on and on. Fact is, if there is a viable commercial reason for inventing or perfecting something AND the economic system supports it, somebody will make it happen. Contrast these achievements that enrich people's lives to those "achievements" of the left: welfare, the Great Society, the "War on Poverty", the systemic destruction of the black family. Just a little bit of difference. And obama and the democrats are working hard at destroying the capitalist incentive for innovators and entrepreneurs to continue their work.

Funny how leftists find reasons aplenty for the government to take over industry and business, but when there IS a need for government funding (say, the military), they get squeamish and want to cut off the spending.

mhb

Ted- you should know if you live in Ontario, that McGinty is paying 42cents/kwh for solar on long term contract and almost 12 cents/kwh for wind. This even makes AECL white elephant nuc. plants look good!

fair enough Ted, but solars not that new, lot's of big talk for what 30 years now?

In Cobourg, near where I live, the news a few weeks ago was all about this several hundred acre solar farm which had just been built. It was expected to be able to supply all the power necessary to between 300-400 homes.

Sounds good so far.

Then they said it cost $45 million. That's $100,000 per home, assuming they're able to power 400 and not 300.

Let's assume it works perfectly, and never rusts or requires any repairs, and the homes never need any other kind of power. Let's also assume that ths solar farm can work on its own, without any laborers or overseers.

If so, the farm will make its money back in about a century. How is that a good thing? Are people just insane? I don't get it.

"In Cobourg, near where I live, the news a few weeks ago was all about this several hundred acre solar farm which had just been built. It was expected to be able to supply all the power necessary to between 300-400 homes."

Well, you're of by a factor of 10. The farm is supposed to power up to 4,000 homes, not 400. That works out to $11,250 per home, which is a lot better.

Realistically, you can set up a system TODAY for under $30,000 which will provide enough power for the average homes needs. That's not a horrible price tag, but it's not a worthwhile investment for most people. However, a big part of the cost is the inverters and controllers and batteries which are a necessary part of any generating system. Adding more panels doesn't really cost that much. So if you have a large home, or a medium sized business, the cost-per-watt drops dramatically, and if you're running a solar farm the cost is ... well, $11,250 per home :)

Of course the requests were denied, because the museum is lying and can't prove that which isn't true in the first place.

They're all lying. But that's not news to those of us who can tell when we're being bullshat.

Shouldn't that be "incapable of altering the earth's climate"?

I plan on trying to incorporate both solar and wind power into my "retirement" sailboat. The main reason being it is hard to plug in your laptop between here and Tahiti. Getting an oil tanker to stop for a couple of gallons is tough.

This seems to be a good reference on the efficiency of solar panels. http://www.amsolar.com/solarpanels.html
The panels must be facing the sun flat on and not flat on a roof to provide maximum efficiency. Efficiency is also reduced when the sun heats them up. The cheapest panels are 6 - 8% efficient and the most expensive 16%. On a perfect day at high noon you can get 160 Watts per square meter if the panel is facing the sun square on.

"without government subsidy" - Ted

You know that for certain? Care to share how? I don't believe it.

Did you know that the manufacture of solar panels releases the equivalent GHG as if they burned coal for their entire productive lifetime, and then some?

http://motls.blogspot.com/2008/10/global-warming-caused-by-solar-panels.html

"The cheapest panels are 6 - 8% efficient and the most expensive 16%."

That article is a bit dated - you can get cells now that are more efficient. Really, though, silicon cells are pretty limited. The current record for a silicon cell is 25% efficiency. Multi-junction cells, on the other hand, can reach efficiencies exceeding 40%. The next big step would be making them cheap enough to be viable for home installations. That's why thin-film cells are currently the best choice for most people - they're less efficient than the other types, but they're also significantly cheaper. In the long-term, they're expected to exceed 20% efficiency, so there's definitely some potential there.

An explanation of the math involved in solar is here:

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/environment/solarstart.html

There's not much to add. It starts with solar fluence and explains the reduction in power due to various factors. Unfortunately, super genius solar cells won't change geometry or make the sun more powerful...

There better be wind power involved in your retirement sailboat Tex!!!

:)

We used a small solar panel worked into the forward end of the cabin to charge the battery for the radio and nav systems.

Ted, so who are these two large clients "without government subsidy " that you speak of.
Surely they are proud of their achievements.
What's with all the mystery?

Whoa, richfisher!!! Not fair! How can you ask Ted to be honest and transparent? Perhaps you didn't know he's a Liberal?

hahahahhaa! Good one BC, I'm still laughing...

If a company installs solar power it is a capital expense. It doesn't have to make sense as long as their customers think it does.

kent, what are you smoking? How does a waste of money being a capital expense matter? And why would they care about what their customers think? If the company is in the red because of foolish capital expenses, they won't be around for very long, regardless of whether their customers like the foolish expenses or not. Economics 101

1st thing that crossed my mind with ted's story "green marketing" appearance is everything. Reality is nothing.

Re: Cobourg Solar Farm


Hamilton Township council approved the rezoning of the 86 acre parcel of land at the March 17 meeting.

86 acres of land? That's ridiculuous! Do you know how many CO2 eating trees could be grown on that land? Enough to offset any CO2 produced by a gas-powered generator providing the equivalent electricity. And trees are home to an extensive ecosystem, solar panels aren't. Plus the cost of building an 86-acre forest isn't anywhere near $45-million (unless implemented by Liberals)!

It seems that some guys here have experience with
solar cells... So I will ask the dumb question.

Why are Solar cells (cheap garden variety) prone to unstable polarity? That is that manufactured arrays placed (connected) in series will, over time, flip polarity. This of course kills the charging current, hence dead batteries

I have found that simply disconnecting the faulty array from the circuit and subjecting it to a day in the Sun will flip it back to the correct polarity.

Comment?

mhb: “Ahh... that's illuminating. So, without government largesse - er, support - we'd have no personal computers? Is that it, ted? Got a link for that?”

Don’t be an idiot. That’s not what I said. I said that those technologies - and yes, especially including computers - were developed with a great deal of government assistance. The first big computer technology development was financed by the military for example. The internet was built in part by the government. Where would these markets and technologies have gone without government? Who knows. The only point is the fact that government money spurred investment and development.

MikeW: “Ted- you should know if you live in Ontario, that McGinty is paying 42cents/kwh for solar on long term contract and almost 12 cents/kwh for wind.”

Mike, I'm very familiar with the RESOP program and deal with it almost daily.

But the fact and reality of the importance of government assistance in developing technologies is a separate issue from the point that solar technology is a nascent industry that is already showing profitability in the private sector without government subsidization.

One small problem with the sun! It don't shine after dark. Nuclear reactors shine all night.

" nascent industry that is already showing profitability in the private sector without government subsidization." -- Ted

Still only assertions, no evidence. So anonymous commenter "Ted"'s word is all the evidence we need to disbelieve our own thinking.

Ted, do you care at all about the amount of GHG that manufacture of solar arrays puts into the atmosphere? Gases which will persist for *700* years, and which have the CO2 equivalent of generating the same power with coal? Except that the panels better last 700 years or the whole thing is a net climate loser.

Setting the world on fire - 30 homes at a time.

Campaign slogan sounds good for 2012.

That is, if there is anybody left in homes.

Solar power; don't care. Solar collectors for hot water heating? Now that's a whole 'nuther story.
http://www.retscreen.net/ang/g_solarw.php
EVERY flat roofed residential building could/should incorporate solar gain technology. It just makes economic sense for the bldg. owners, domestic hot water heating is a big portion of the owners/tenants htg. costs.

Jack Fosst says:
"One small problem with the sun! It don't shine after dark. Nuclear reactors shine all night."

And they keep shining after you turn them off!

Ted, I must sadly join the throng calling BS on you.

Once upon a time I lived in Phoenix Arizona. I bought a house with an -existing- solar hot water heater on the roof. I crunched the numbers a couple times, because I was shocked by them. It was cheaper to rip the solar crap out and put in an electric water heater. Much cheaper.

Phoenix is the most solar energy PERFECT place in North America. It is sunny and bright EVERY DAMN DAY, to the point where it becomes unpleasant. You wake up, look out at the cloudless blue sky, and wish for a cloud or some rain or snow or -something- to come along and relieve the monotony. It rains two days a year, if that. People run outside to watch when it rains, the way we do for a solar eclipse around here.

There are no solar collectors on roofs in Phoenix. Please do not believe that, please take yourself to Google maps and see for yourself. You will see a billion swimming pools, a trillion AC units and swamp coolers on roofs, but almost zero solar panels.

They don't pay.

Your clients are buying solar panels for reasons other than saving money. Greenie bragging rights perhaps, or to grease some civil servant?

Incidentally, I should mention I am not opposed to wind and solar per se. I have a large water puddle on my property I'm considering installing a windmill to handle, until the county gets around to fixing the drainage around here. I'm not holding my breath for the county.

See, its crazy to use electricity or gas powered pumps to empty a puddle, because the damn thing fills up again every time it rains. A windmill on the other hand pumps all the time for free. It doesn't matter if it stops for a while, or if it pumps when the puddle is empty. Intermittent work is not a problem in this application.

That's why older farms in Ontario invariably have a windmill or the remains of one. In the old days they were used to fill up the water storage tanks for the cattle and the house. Water given pressure by gravity.

Farms don't use them anymore because... wait for it... electric pumps are WAY cheaper than building a big windmill tower and water tank etc.

But to drain a persistent mosquito infested puddle? Awesome! West Nile sucks!

Last week a caller to an Ottawa radio talk show had the lowdown on what to expect with the installation of Dear Leader Dalton's smart meters here in Ontario. Suppose to be 98% of Ontario homes are already hooked up.
As of Jan 1st/2010 during the hours of 8 a.m. and 10 p.m. the rate will be X 3 what we pay now.
Plus a monthly rental fee for the smart meter itself. All of this will also have the new 13% harmonized sales tax applied to it when that takes affect.
In the mean time it is full speed ahead erecting solar and wind farms all over the province and with the passage of the provincial Green Energy Act not even municipalities can oppose/stop this blight on rural Ontario.
My guess is that this expensive green policy will totally finish off any business and industry that has managed to survive thus far in this province.
For Earth Hour in April 2010 maybe home owners in Ontario will be able to treat themselves to turning the lights ON for an hour.
We're now a have not province moving towards being totally BROKE!

Kate:

I love that my calculator works by just holding it under a desk lamp.

That pretty much sums it up ,including its importance. Too funny by the way , still laughing because thats what first came to mind. (O:}

If I had the money to spend on solar cells, a large battery bank and DC to AC conversion circuitry, I'd tile the roof of my house with solar cells to have some degree of energy independence. I don't have the money right now so I'm stuck being dependent on the local electricity grid. I've got enough roof area so that I'd more than meet my energy needs during the summer. It's sunny enough here in the winter that the increased efficiency of solar cells in the cold might also allow me to run computers entirely on solar power during this time. When I last looked the system I want would cost in the $50-80 K range. That amount of money would also buy a 10 Kw generator (~$10K) and leave lots left over for gasoline. The recent "power hour" experiments indicated that the most I'd be using would be about 10 Kw 99% of the time. Also I should note that I'm a gadget freak and having a solar power system would give me an excuse to monitor sunlight, power levels, battery charge, etc which would regrettably mean buying another 2-3 desktop machines and a host of microcontrollers to monitor the plethora of variables involved.

Solar cells are fun to play with and I have dozens of cheap solar powered LED garden lights throughout my yard. I expect that the cost of solar cells will steadily go down and efficiencies will increase making it reasonable to cover our roofs with solar cells at some point in the future.

Until such time lets leave solar power to plants which have got a couple of billion years head start on us in terms of harnessing solar energy. I have a solar heated workshop for which the energy cost is minimal. Rather than getting the solar energy the hard way, I've let trees use solar energy to build large quantities of cellulose which I burn in my wood stove to produce large amounts of heat. A massive weeping willow that used to stand in my back yard has provided years of winter heating and when that runs out there are vast tracts of pine beetle killed trees a short drive from where I live.

The main obstacles making solar power practical for an individual home at current installed cost are the huge energy footprint of the average home, the high installed cost per watt and the amount of storage required if not on the grid.

We live in northern Saskatchewan six months a year. The minimum cost to run power to our property was six thousand dollars. Our four solar panel system cost a little less than that installed. It provides our electrical needs which are meager - lights, computer, internet satellite dish and microwave oven. Stove, fridge and water heater are all propane.

If the weather is cloudy for three days in a row we need to run a generator for a couple of hours to recharge the batteries which run about $50/year in replacement costs. Gasoline for the generator is about $40/year.

All our equipment and wire was purchased at wholesale prices and my son-in-law and I did the installation over a weekend (both are electricians).

Solar is not the final solution for most at the present cost per installed watt but it works for us.

Typing this post on stored solar power from my Wal-Mart deep cycle battery. A single Kyocera 130 watt panel on my RV provides the charging. 6-9 amps in the full sun of New Mexico rocks the battery to the top daily. I can also run lights till 11pm. One more panel and I'll be running my new Nova Kool fridge easily as well. From where I'm sitting I fail to see a downside. Without solar, my mobile lifestyle would not be possible.

Will be first in line when 40% efficient panels become affordable. Hurry up people!

And finally this note:

"How impressive that some of Sandy's PV panels are 37 years old and STILL
generating power. Another guy talked about the initial investment in
PV as a way of "locking in" future energy costs. While they are
expensive today, anyone who makes the investment will be looking like
a freakin' genius 20 years from now. Compared to what folks spend for
a new car? Without giving it a 2nd thought? What's that stupid car
gonna' look like in 20 years? Compared to something which has been
giving you FREE power for 20 years and STILL looks good? And is STILL
making power for who knows how many more years?"

Celebrate Human Achievement and buy a solar panel today!

Any energy soure that can work only at, possibly, 15%, maybe 10%, efficency for one third of the day is going to be very expensive.

Solar energy isd NOT FREE. The solar cells are expensive. And they must be replaced as they do decay in efficiency over the years.

Koffee Kommando

I do not live in New Mexico, I live in Canada. It's even worse in Europe or Russia.

Koffee Kommando

I do not live in New Mexico, I live in Canada. It's even worse in Europe or Russia.

Obama lied
The economy died

"Once upon a time I lived in Phoenix Arizona. I bought a house with an -existing- solar hot water heater on the roof. I crunched the numbers a couple times, because I was shocked by them. It was cheaper to rip the solar crap out and put in an electric water heater. Much cheaper."

Either you really suck at math, or your solar heater was actually cooling the water. Either way, you're the exception.

"While they are expensive today, anyone who makes the investment will be looking like a freakin' genius 20 years from now." that will be about the time you break even.

What if you put the money in the bank at interest? What would you have in 20 years then? Enough to buy a dozen better and cheaper solar panels, probably.

Let me guess, you voted for Obama.

Alex. The solar water heater system I inherited was a 60 gallon electric water tank , a pump, a large solar panel, and related plumbing, sensors and blah blah. Installed cost, a big chunk of money but there was a -solar subsidy!- so the company sold a few of these systems.

The notable thing about solar heating is that it only works in the -day time-. When do you normally use hot water? Before work, and after work.

So while it seems totally intelligent to have a solar panel heat the water, it only heats it when you aren't using it. When you use it, its mostly getting heated by the electric elements because its dark. When the solar is working, its idling.

By the time you figure in the electricity consumed by the pump which moves denser cold water up to the roof and less dense hot water down to the tank, the solar panel is a net -cost- even when you get one completely free like I did.

And that little bit of arithmetic is THE reason every house in Sun Valley doesn't have a solar heater on the roof.

People are not stupid Alex. You drive through a city in the desert and there's no solar collectors to be seen on roofs, there's a reason for that.

Incidentally, the reason there are no solar pool heaters in Phoenix is that the pools need to be -refrigerated- in the summer. Most aren't, but it would be nice. By about the end of June your average pool feels like a hot tub. Only tourists swim in the winter, locals whine and put on coats when the daily high drops under 75F.

Kate you're just dumb. You couldn't administer an enema.

Posted by: Ted at April 1, 2009 3:11 PM

Actually, ted, your post shows who the real idiot is.

Early government backing of computers or algore's invention of the internet were for defense purposes, and not to encourage commerce or public use of the technologies. That the public benefited from the initial spend is nice, but it wasn't in the original scope of research. Governments "invest" for one reason: voting benefits, not economic benefits. Unlike businesses they don't worry about net present value or internal rate of return on big spending projects. They analyze whether or not the projects will continue to buy votes in the future.

Do yourself a favour and learn about Bastiat's "Broken Window Theory" here and effects of public spending thereof here. Every dollar spent by the government is a dollar directly not available by the private sector or individuals to spend as they see best. Since governments don't pick winners based on sound economics, $millions or $billions spent in the X sector are much less likely to benefit the economy than had they been invested with the knowledge and forethought of companies and individuals. We're seeing the reaction to $TRILLIONS of wealth removed from the private sector even now: just look at the Dow.

As for wind & solar, they're a bust: far more expensive to produce electricity and less reliable than fossil fuels or nuclear. But they are green "feel-good" initiatives, and that's why the government supports them; again, "investment" for voter return and not economic return. England has recently admitted the economics aren't there for wind, despite hundreds of windmills on the coast. The unintended consequences and harm of bird-shredding windmills are now emerging, and they may pose health issues to humans. We've been searching for the "magic" solar panel to make solar economically competitive to our main forms of electricity generation, but no dice thus far.

Does it make more sense to leave the research in the hands of private companies to optimize these types of power, or to continually funnel private wealth after them? If there is a way of making a profit with market forces in play (and not government subsidies or raised energy taxes/carbon credits to "force" the economics), the market will find it, and be rewarded accordingly.

But by shoveling $billions of private money into the maw of this unreliable and costly energy production, who knows how many viable energy saving technologies or other beneficial inventions will be stifled by the diversion of private wealth via the Broken Window Theory? Of the privately-researched & funded technologies I listed above (and countless others), how many of these may not have been invented had the supply of R&D funds dried up because the government had "better" plans for investment?

What kind of "idiot" thinks the government is the best arbiter of wealth investment to improve conditions of living? Of all the things in your home that make your life pleasurable (TV, microwave, Ipod, etc.), how many of these owe their success to the foresight an planning of the government? Back to your expertise there, ted.

mhb