SEARCH BLOG: ENERGY
From the Energy Information Agency in 2007, all energy subsidies were calculated at more than $16 billion. Subsidies for "renewable energy" sources made up about 30% of the total while generating about 3% of the total electricity. While overall that might seem small, you must remember that even with the subsidies, the cost of "alternatively" generated energy is more than conventionally generated energy... coal, natural gas, nuclear.
So, how about this... let the marketplace work with one giant incentive. Call it a bribe, if you will.
Offer $100 billion dollars to whoever comes up with a non-subsidized alternative energy system that can scale up to the nation's total energy needs, connects easily to the existing grid, and costs 25% less per kilowatt hour to generate than the lowest cost method presently used. After it has been proven out and gets past the Energy Prevention Agency, pay out the award, do not allow a patent, and remove all other subsidies.
Of course, if anyone or any company could actually create such a technology, they might skip the government incentive and keep the patent for the huge licensing fees around the world. The accountants could figure that out. What's in it for utility companies? Depends on the government, but if utilities were then deregulated, the lower cost producers could make larger profits while offering competitive rates. Oh, profits, bad word!The $100 billion makes up for the loss of any patent and licenses. All electrical energy producers would then have the opportunity to convert their operations to the new technology without fees or subsidies. The government then gets out of the electrical energy production business except for gradually increasing taxes on all companies that do not fully convert to the new technology... and prohibits simultaneous rate increases.
Hey, there was the Manhattan Project and the Man to the Moon effort, so why not a challenge to develop an alternative energy technology that is a better alternative energy technology?