OpenGov - Open Government Brainstorm

The federal government has been attempting such a thing since Jimmy Carter. The results have been dismal.

Politicians are not the best arbiters of energy matters. Here is some greater history of that experience:

http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/hines/060927

The results of governmental energy plans include more subsidies to corporations whether or not they get results. If you think corporations have too much influence now, wait until they are partners in a governmental energy plan!

There have been numerous inventions that created greater efficiencies in electric turbines, solar cells, and over unity engines, but once anyone gets near a patent office they get slapped with secrecy orders and are shut down. Then the bullies come in and threaten you every so often and if you do try to release your ideas, you are killed. Until the carbon venders are removed from controlling our government this will never change. Since our congress is reliant on donated funds for re-election campaigns then the carbon venders will continue to rule. Selling carbon fuels is a $12 trillion dollar per year world wide industry. This is why electric generators have not increased much in efficiencies since their inception. Less efficient means more profits.

ok i hope alot of people read this but if we spent 1/4 of what we spent on iraq on solar energy we wouldnt have much of a problem at all if theres no more solar energy...then well i dont think there would be anymore problems at all. you see its an energy source that will last as long as the human race will omg pure genius....get your faces out of the oat bags.....

Beholder_5000, you seem to think that money equals success. Some oat bag you got there!

History shows that government investment does not necessarily equal success. The installations created by the Carter administration went bankrupt and closed. Recently subsidized ethanol plants have closed. Where are the results?

I have no problem with the development of solar cells. I do have a problem with the thought that if government funds it, it will be a panacea.

Development funds don't always achieve the results one anticipates. Post-It notes was failed search for a superglue. It turned out far from super, so 3M figured out a way to market it. With a government investment, it would have been a complete loss, instead of a backhanded success. There would have been no motivation to make lemons into lemonade.

Solar has some political problems as well. Some folks hate seeing the acres necessary to generate the power. Heck, some folks hate seeing energy produced in any manner whatsoever, though they don't mind using it. There have already been lawsuits to prevent solar installations, citing the loss of acreage for wildlife, for example.

Solar energy has been used for thousands of years, without government investment. Have you installed a trombe wall in your home? That's passive solar, not requiring billions of other people's money. Have you installed some solar panels so that you have some first-hand experience of what you promote, and know the limitations and the problems? Probably not; you're waiting for government to do it all.

You see a panacea, if only you can get hold of enough of other people's money. I see a technology that holds some promise, but is nowhere near being a cure-all. That ain't no oat bag; that's reality.