Labs versus deployments -- fed solar funding squabble.

[skids]

http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/story?id=39691

A curious and not altogether comfortable situation has emerged in the U.S. solar industry lately. In the past few weeks, Senators and State Representatives from across the U.S. have proudly trumpeted their successful efforts to secure funding for solar projects in their home districts through the use of Congressional earmarks, or line-items added to bills. While new solar projects throughout the U.S. may seem like a good thing, the solar industry's national representatives came out against such actions, characterizing the projects as "solar pork"; programs that are not really there to advance solar energy but rather a way for lawmakers to bring money to home districts while gaining some positive press.

...

A total of $14.4 million, or 17 percent of the total $84 million solar budget, was diverted from the traditional Department of Energy research and development process for 11 Congressionally earmarked solar projects. At the heart of the issue is that while the $14.4 million may be going to solar projects, the funding is coming at the expense of Department of Energy (DOE) directed solar research, which SEIA argues offers a higher value to the advancement of solar research.

...

Indeed, the pie is getting smaller. In 1980, for example, the federal government had increased its federal funding for renewable energy and energy efficiency to $2 billion, excluding all tax benefits. Almost three decades later, the entire DOE renewable energy and energy efficiency budget has fallen to around one billion.

An industry expert, speaking anonymously due to the sensitive political nature of the topic, characterized the situation on Capitol Hill as one where the Department of Energy has been so lacking in providing adequate funding for renewable energy that people in the industry have resorted to Congressional line-item funding opportunities.

Basically this is a case of fighting for scarce resources -- but it does raise an important question. Is it more important to fund research for bleeding edge technologies that are nowhere near the point of mass production and commercialization, or is it more important to build with the technologies that are available, so that those mid-aged technologies which are just shy of becoming mass produced have an economic stimulus/pressure to finally fall out the end of the pipeline?

[GreenPartyVoter]

1. I say fund both. Just snag some of the DOD budget resources