Democrats have dominated the white house and the senate and the legislature most of the last 2 decades. Reps can stop nothing...but even Democrats recognize that they are throwing good money after bad by promoting and picking winners...some of whom have turned out to be big time losers....
I don't know how old you are but if over 40, hydrocarbon energy will remain the dominate energy source in N. A. for your lifetime period. The "other" energy sources will continue to grow slowly and as hydrocarbons increase in price, they will be more competitive. But nothing can overcome the fact solar panels don't work after dark and windmills slaughter birds and bats. It's a choice.
I disagree with that assessment. Technology builds on technology and as you know, it grows exponentially. In 50 to 100 years people will shake their heads at the idea that we used to burn carbons to create energy; kind like burning candles and torches for light - now we have Light emitting diodes and it isn't stopping there. Computers made of metal, wires and printed circuits will be a thing of the past. Nano tubes and exotic materials not used today will intelligent systems in most things we will then interact with - perhaps even our dogs will have computer chip implants that will allow them to speak, like "get off the couch you lazy beer gut and take me out for a walk - ruff!) - Ok, maybe there will be resistance to that last innovation happening.
I feel certain before I'm gone, so will be carbon fuels for combustion (even in the third world countries, since the new technologies will be cheap and renewable).
I've taken care myself, but I'm no young cat according to my prasercat calender! I'll actually be hitting 60 when Obama leaves office; however, I do believe I will witness big changes in energy in my life time (I'm thinking in the next 40 to 50 years); such as, private excursions to the moon and space, fusion energy production, intelligent and interactive clothing, cars that drive themselves on three dimensional highways, most people working from home. The end of reliance on centralized energy like we do today and a predominance of energy (and possibly waste) self sufficient systems for homes and commercial buildings.
I disagree with the idea that the government shouldn't invest in "winners". It has been doing so with a high success rate and it should continue to do so, especially where corporate monopolies would squash these innovations through their superior competitive position. Some will fail, that is the nature of business. If some didn't fail, then they would be subject to corporate welfare - that isn't the role of the government; unless of course, you have too-big to-fail. Many incubators for business are also partnerships between government, academia and the private sector. There is alot of talk about the free market; however, we don't have a free markets, so it is good there is some help for promising start-ups when it gives our country a competitive edge. It is entirely appropriate use of public funds in my opinion. If you want free markets, help pass legislation to reinstate vigorous enforcement of existing antitrust laws already on the books and then we can have a conversation about the benefits of an "essentially" free market after the large mega-corps are broken into competitive pieces.
