The United States should fund alternative energy research

"This solution still stands on the con side because it counters pros method to the topic." Don't worry, I completely agree with the eligibility of your stance as Con. First, to address the comment by "the instigators opening statement seems unclear as to if the government should just fund the initial research or if it should continue to make it viable (eg.Further research, or funding of Infastructure.", I will present a case that supports the current infrastructure of alternative energies, and the main factor on why they are not more technologically advanced today is a lack of funding. The most efficient manner of researching alternative energy is through the private sector. Directly funding companies instead of government agencies will grant growth in both the economic and technological sectors. "This method is better than through the private sector because the private sector is out for profit, quick solutions. While the government would not have any motives but the ends goal." This is only the case when the government restricts the contracts to one or a few companies, typically known as no-bid contracts. Before granting a contract to the private sector, the companies must compete for the contract not only by giving the government the best deal but also by having the strongest business proposal. There are risks involved in funding the private sector, but if the companies begin to work out of line and diverge away from the desired goal that the government seeks, then the government can pull its funding as a breach of contract. It seems that the both of us agree on the potential of alternative energy reducing oil dependence and rectifying America's long-term future. The solution to alternative energy has been found, however it has not yet been implemented because of a large gap in technology. Solar voltaic cells and nanotechnology are the future of the United States. Professor Nate Lewis of California Institute of Technology presents a lecture series evaluating and assessing both the theoretical and practical yield of power output for several forms of alternative energy including geothermal, solar, nuclear, and wind. He states that the most efficient manner is solar power, which holds the potential of harvesting 600 Terawatts, but can practically yield 60 TW. This is enough power to solve the world's energy for over a century. Dr. Lewis goes so far as to even provide geographical positions where the solar panels may be placed to successfully provide this much power. Once solar power is instituted, it will lower the cost to all consumers worldwide, emit no pollution, and solve the obvious problem of a limited supply of fossil fuels on earth. The annual consumption for the world is 13 TW annually, 10 of which are fossil fuels, and by the year 2050 it is estimated that the earth will consume almost 25 TW per year. At this rate, unless there is significant alternative energy source, the world will not be able to power itself by 2050. The main flaws with solar power are: 1)Perfecting the nanotechnology of voltaic cells 2)Perfecting the preservation of energy 3)Lowering the cost of the cells by improving technology These projects are a main focus for many engineers, businessmen, and corporations in America, as their production capabilities are limited by their available funds to spend on such projects. These projects need not to be started by the government, but provided additional funding. This eliminates a strong possibility of government spending being inappropriately allocated. Your solution, of government funding its own projects, is inefficient because: 1)Current projects already exist, and merely need funding 2)Less economic benefits 3)Less options for success The solution to alternative energy is an increase in funding, a realistic goal that can be accomplished more subsidizing and government spending.