Hard to imagine a sector of the economy not affected by energy costs. Because of this, access to energy markets is rightly considered an overriding national interest. This leads to entanglements like ours with Georgia, and the eagerness to toss out the Taliban, and the unseemly greed for Iraq's huge reserves. But it's not necessary, and it is growing increasingly dangerous (setting aside climate worries).

But while we act more and more desperate in our grasping remaining oil supply lines, with a showdown brewing vs Russia, at least some money is looking elsewhere. The federal government can help in much more direct ways than so far proposed, and there is a sort of Manhattan Project that has not been considered since Barry Commoner proposed it in the 70s--federal purchase of its own generating capacity.

The Clinton Foundation is looking to fund a 5-gigawatt solar installation in Gujarat, India. This is like 5 large coal plants, and a company in the US, Ecosystem Solar Electric Corp, is planning a 10 Gw setup in the Mojave.

There is a bottleneck in switching to renewable energy sources, and it is simply manufacturing the equipment. The current cost equations are just about to flip to positive for solar and wind without subsidies. But waiting means a long transition as the market finds the constantly changing balance between the old and new.

What market? The product with the ready infrastructure and accessories easily holds back the one with the need for hobbyists; the existence of gas stations means people will keep buying gasoline cars and AC air conditioners ask for AC grid power. (In places where nobody has much, new things are possible without the encumbrance of familiarity.) This is among the reasons we have (had) tax incentives, sadly defeated for the eighth time recently.

Here, we have too much familiarity with centralized power production. These large installations are nice but not what should be emphasized. That should be on small installations, single buildings, and parking lots, which are already land that is not available for agriculture. And the equally important emphasis should be on using the electricity for transport as well as heating/cooling.

But without the panels or turbines to install, we can’t move forward. A confidence in large quantities being ordered would invite ramping up production capability. That kind of investment, capital goods, is fundamental for an industrial economy, and we would see lots of money going there with certain contracts to fill. So let’s mandate the government to do for itself what home and small business owners should also do. While there are studies, and Executive Orders, on the subject of decreasing the federal energy demand, so far this amounts to some better windows and white-painted roofs.

The Pentagon, along with its parking lot, has enough area to yield 600 megawatts or so, many times the size of a solar installation in Moura, Portugal opening this year with 45 Mw. It's ironic that the only public-service federal ads I hear these days encourage TV owners to take advantage of federal coupons to buy digital converters. That's more important, obviously.

Much ado about a know-nothing approach to problems, McCain's crowd shouts "Drill Here; Drill Now". The pretense of sophisticated expertise represented by "Gusher of Lies" by Robert Bryce consigns us to continuing down the addiction trail with no escape from oil. But reality, in the form of real money and kilowatts, is Denmark's growing independence from oil, China's growing industrial capacity to provide wind and solar energy systems, and our pathetic inaction on supporting home production.
Is it a surprise that Denmark supplies 1/3 of the world's wind turbines? (Vestas.) They tackled oil independence after 1973, imposing taxes on oil products and using those funds to provide incentives for alternatives. It turned out to be a job-creating process, which is no surprise, since it promoted new ventures, and production instead of consumption.
Ditlev Engel, president of Vestas, said they had seen 35 new competitors from China this year. Zero from the US. Are we the idle rich, who can simply buy anything we want?
Even with our uncertain, short-term tax provisions, Wal-Mart and other chains are installing solar to beat the year-end cutoff for tax incentives. Engel said he couldn't understand how Congress could fail to extend the energy-production tax credit. Perhaps the thinking that is exhibited in a NYT piece on it ("Giant Retailers Look to Sun for Energy Savings")  is a cause. The writer incorrectly compares not apples and oranges, but apples and apple trees, when she reports that coal costs 6 cents per kilowatt-hour, while solar costs 30 cents. Given that coal mining and delivery costs are not likely to stay constant, but to go up, ditto natural gas, this is only a snapshot. And when you consider that the "cost" of solar is only the amortization, that it means zero operating cost, you see there is no easy comparison.
Wal-Mart is surely not loose with its money. While it wants to take advantage of the tax break, it intends to make much more money by saving power costs, or eliminating them altogether. They think in terms of selling power, not buying it.
From the Times  piece---"Bernard Sosnick, an analyst with Gilford Securities who has examined Wal-Mart’s plans, said the day might come when people can pull their electric cars up to a store and recharge them with power from the roof or even from wind turbines in the parking lot." Duh. One thousand times our energy demand falls as sunlight.