(12-09-2016 09:35 AM)I45owl Wrote:  

(12-08-2016 06:03 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-08-2016 05:41 PM)I45owl Wrote:  What is the compelling reason to have producers of ineffective technologies here rather than Germany?

It's a tough sell to classify PV as ineffective technology.

If it's economically viable, then why would it need to be subsidized?

Solyndra - Wikipedia

Quote:Although the company was once touted for its unusual technology, plummeting silicon prices led to the company's being unable to compete with conventional solar panels made of crystalline silicon.

That bottom reason is why Solyndra, not the entire PV industry went out of business.

But this line of thinking goes back to a point I brought up earlier and the role that people view the government should play. Some believe it should be used/allowed to try and invest in emergent technologies and research that could benefit mankind and others don't.

Subsidizing an emergent energy sector to allow for necessary research and growth makes sense when you look at the benefits. A vibrant solar energy sector could provide the US with independence from foreign energy producers, reduce overall carbon emissions (and likely other emissions), and potentially create breakthroughs in other sectors as well (like batteries). The free market is great at allocating resources best with known technologies, but since R&D does always have a known ROI, certain industries will be less aggressive in trying to push forward and investigate something new. Since government inherently doesn't have to worry about an ROI in the same manner, they can either directly fund that research (through things like the NSF) or help reduce the burden on companies who are spearheading the effort.

Do you think research and innovation in solar energy production is a waste of time?