I too am suspicious of any program that require subsidies to stay in operation, including farming subsidies, oil subsidies, etc. However, the military is a common defense supported by a common pool of money, but it is given subsidies, it is operated on a budget. Can we agree that the military does not belong in this category?

Then, can we agree that as homeowners and taxpayers we pay for Fire and Police, as well as 'public' water and sanitary sewers. The 'government' may float a bond issue to build the infrastructure in the first place but we are expected to pay it back with established rates for these services. In fact, some of us buy these bonds and make money...

OK, back to energy. Electrical utilities have built fossil-fuel power plants without Government money, but they are not rushing to invest nearly as heavily in solar or wind technologies. Why not? Since they are reluctant to make the initial investment without seeing an acceptable payback, why should the 'government' be eager to jump in with subsidies that will artificially lower the initial investment?

What are the useful lifespans of solar equipment?
What loss of efficiency can be expected over the lifespan?
How much 'extra' solar plant do you install to allow for this loss?
When do you replace the cells to regain lost capacity?

Operating costs for solar may be so large that the payback time may be a lot longer, or there may be no payback. If there is no payback, solar will require subsidies forever, or the utilities could just raise our energy rates to pay for the solar plant. If fossil fuel power is available at lower investment and operating costs, solar energy would be irresponsible on their part and a disservice to their customers.

My head hurts...