@RexRed,
Rep. Issa is correct. Without government subsidies or mandated quotas, there would be no solar industry at all for the very simple reason that it currently costs about four times as much per unit of power generated than do coal, gas or nuclear. Though the advovates of this heavily subsidized industry claim large increases in their use, the fact is that, despite all the sound, fury, self-promotion and government money, wind and solar power amount to no more than one percent of our total power generation - and all of it would vanish quickly if the subsidies were withdrawn. The vast majority of the growing "renewable" power comes from dams and hydroelectric plants that environmental zealots would like to force us to take down.
The best way to get good research to find ways to lower the cost is the prospect of large profits if they succeed. The worst way is to subsidize the effort now.
Government subsidies are dangerous things. The first and most lasting thing they accomplish is the establishment of a well-organized and very active lobbying organization dedicated to the preservation of the subsidy at all costs - even if the oriuginally perceived need for it disappears. That is why in a world awash with cheap sugar we still have a quota on imported suger to protect domestic cane growers (whose fields near Lake Okechobe in Florida contribute most of the runoff of excess nutrients that is so destructive to the Everglades). This country has led the world in the development of new marketable technologies, but only very rarely is that done with any involvement by the government (GPS is a rare exception). The simple fact is that politicians are generally very poor venture capitalists, and are all too easily swayed by organized lobbyists motivated by free government money.
