We should not, if you were to follow what I wrote instead of just going on the automatic propaganda trail - you would see that I am against it. I am glad they gave it a subsidy to evaluate if it makes sense, and when it is pretty clear that it does not - they need to pull the plug. That's the way proper science and technology development happens - a lot of dead-ends before you get to the real solution. Because maybe it is the right answer and we need to fund the basic research until proven otherwise. See solar. No there isn't. There is a short in your brain that makes it impossible for you to read what I actually say without seeing red because it is government funded. This happened at the electric grid for transportation thread as well where you were going after the not-relevant things I said by trying to point to my irrelevant to the discussion personal situation. Then stop, read what I say, and stop bringing non-relevant to the discussion issues or try to put words in my mouth. Duh. That's the nature of innovation. The problem is not the nature of innovation, the problem is that most of the really important innovation foundations require large investments and long periods of gestation with occasional dead ends - and the private sector, given the nature of financing - does not provide the groundwork necessary as history has proven.
I see your problem. You believe that you have the wisdom to pick winners and losers. You KNOW ethanol is a loser, yet you think wind or solar may be a winner. You're so wise, like a mini-Buddah covered with hair. The difference between you and me is I know what I don't know. And as for innovation, you put your faith in the government, I'll put my faith in private enterprise. Right now, my record is significanly better than yours. Please tell me which technologies required "large investments and long periods of gestation" that private enterprise hasn't shown itself willing to undertake that was critical to our country. It's a pretty short list.
George Bush tried to pick a winner - hydrogen fuel cells. Of all the replacements for making a car go, this one looks like it has the most promise at this point. It's 3x to 5x more efficient than solar panels, but making the hydrogen for them takes more energy than you get out; you're still burning coal or whatever upstream. Obama cancelled the fuel cell research program in 2009.
The legal system says that a corporation is a person. The Supreme Court says that corporations can make unlimited campaign contributions, unreported and in secret. Why not make government a person, or maybe a god?
It might be your god, or barfo's, the way you worship it. But seriously, there's a reason a corporation is a "person." It's to defend them against government just as human beings need to be defended as well. If you've ever read the ruling, it's about whether a state government can discriminate against one corporation vs. another - a corporation is a person for the purposes of the 14th amendment. Now if you want to argue that the state should favor one corporation over another, feel free to make the case.
