It is a well understood, long standing judgment that all alternate energy technologies are far too expensive for societal bulk supply. Thus, it is in the public interest, to develop any technology which has a real technical chance of working at reasonable costs. This lessens America’s dependence on unstable foreign sources. However, at some point of development, when the cost issue is brought into focus, and the news is bad, a decision to kill further investment must be faced. The ending of subsidies, and mandated usage must occur if one segment of the competitive industry is not to be unfairly favored. Government must remove its thumb from the scales of commerce.

The counter argument is externality costs, societal costs not recognized in the sale between the parties. However, externality costs are in the eye of the beholder, and range from zero to infinity, depending on your religion or politics. Example: the Pope, or a brothel owner would price certain activities differently. Who is to decide in a free society, the Renewable Fuels Association, or the American Petroleum Institute ? My solution is to squeeze both on technical and cost issues. People who care one way, or the other, must stop spending taxpayer’s money and use their own to develop better technologies, and science. George Soros and T. Boone Pickens must fund their own R&D.

If cellulosic ethanol or wind energy is too expensive to compete, let them die. I will not pay for it. The alternative is slavery.