Research does not necessarily yield breakthroughs that will save 8, 9, 10+ billion people.
I assume the thread was dealing only with the US, but of course the far greater issue worldwide and longterm is population.
Perhaps the harsh truth is that wind and sun, while ubiquitous, cannot possibly yield the energy that will save our species. Especially not a species that relies on oil to plant, fertilize, and harvest crops out of nutrient-depleted soils and to ship goods all over the planet.
There are only two sources of energy: solar and geo/nuclear - both of which, though finite, are very long term. Petroleum is but a small storage medium for solar energy. Wind is largely a short term (but somewhat consistent and in practical terms endless) reservoir of solar energy.
Don't be naive. All the money in the world poured into research will not create a battery that will power a freighter across the Pacific. Without fossil fuels our entire global economy unravels and we descend into chaos. That unpleasantry is the most painfully obvious yet most sweepingly denied of any major issue we currently face.
Just as is the case for dealing with sovereign debt, the whole petro phase will come and go with a bit of a shakeup, but so what? Civilization and technology have been around for about 4,000 years, and the petro phase has been barely over a century - and will not likely last another 100 years. Compare that with the rate of change of technology, and there is a sufficient amount of time to pull our coillective head out of our petro-a$$ and start thinking like the intelligent beings we pretend to be.
Face it: our global economy is NOT serving the species well. It has resulted in a culture of consumption based on finite resources, so by any measure, this pattern is not sustainable. Just like President Post Turtle, the whole world is focused on how to use more, rather than how to live sustainably.
My problem with government doing applied research is that it becomes tied to political agendae. This is a perfect example. Some half-wit goes to Washington and thoughtlessly puke up whatever his handlers put into his mouth without gagging on the intellectual poison of the attached reasoning (or in this case, complete LACK of reasoning). Before you can get these idiots pointed in the right direction, we need a very close look at what role government should be playing in EVERYTHING they do now (and, in fact if they should even be there - constitutionally or rationally). IMHO, FUNDAMENTAL research should be sponsored by government - as well as private sources, NEVER applied research (with a few noteworthy exceptions).
Let me give you an example: due to government funding applied research into alternative fuels, instead of going someplace intelligent, we end up with ethanol. Now you have political half-wits choosing winners and losers in the marketplace with all kinds of fallout. First of all, a really stupid fuel. Secondly, massive distortion in both domestic and international food markets. Thirdly, perpetuating the trend to destroying soils and aquifers due to intense ag practices. Finally, perpetuating the use of petroleum derived gasoline as a motor fuel.
The biggie there in technological terms is the last one. Now you have rewarded and entrenched a stupid course of R&D - at the real market cost of diverting attention away from intelligent research into far more appropriate fuels and BEHAVIOUR. I have to keep coming back to the real issue: it is not that we don't have enough energy to survive, it is that we live a lifestyle focused on wasting a very finite resource at an every-increasing rate. Partisan politics lives in a world with a four year view to survival. We as a nation and a species need things done that reflect our need to survive beyond the pork barrel.
