The US Government should fund the development implementation and of Alternative energy tech

My opponent has brought forth a very interesting (and timely) debate topic. Our country stands on the brink of recession, possibly even minor depression. My opponent's views are that the government cannot afford to fund these projects. I assume the reason is that the government has spent money on a "War on Terror", "War on Drugs", and what I like to call "War on Banking" that we have no money for a "War on Energy" as well. I would like to spend a some time explaining why the government should fund research, though in a round about way, on alternative energy. First, my opponent gave a very damning number of $1000 per kilowatt hour (kWh) for . For those of us who are not electricians, the average American house hold uses 900 kWh per month (http://www.epa.gov...). Let us pull out the old calculator and, MY GOD THE AVERAGE FAMILY USES 10800 KWH A YEAR! Good God in heaven, that means that the average American household uses $10,800,000 if we were to be on wind, breaking out the old calculator one more time, the average American family would pay $900,000 a month if they were on wind energy! Can that possibly be right? No, it cannot. You see, the $1000 per KWH is incorrect, that is the SUNK COST initially per wind turbine (http://zfacts.com...) after that, it goes down to about 7 cents per KWH. I just wanted to make sure all the facts were presented on wind. Geothermal, my opponent is absolutely correct, has dangerous bi-products. On to the actual topic of debate however, the government should absolutely give a reward (by doing so pays back for research, in by doing so funds development) to people or companies that come up with viable solutions to major energy producers. Does that mean every Tom, Dick, and Henrietta that says they're working on it should get money? No! What it does mean is that the government should give the reward to whoever gives an actual working product. This also helps because whoever works on these will attempt to make these energy producers as cheaply as possible, which will lower the production cost later. I am by no means a tree hugging, carbon credit spewing, Michael Moore watching wacko; but we do need to take responsibility for our energy producing actions. God gave us the Earth, not just to control, but to keep. To go back to what our government can and cannot afford, is it cheaper to pay $1000 per KW for a wind (since this is one of the examples my opponent used) or thirty-five billion dollars ($35,000,000,000) over the last thirty years to coal miners for black lung (http://www.awea.org...) or to pay the insurance costs for coal trucks when they hit citizens in their cars (this I have personal experience with as an insurance agent in West Virginia for a few years). It is no cheaper to keep doing things as we have than to find easier, cheaper ways to get renewable energy. Other power such as sun, wave, and nuclear are all viable solutions to energy problems. All are currently being used around the world. We only have to find ways to make them available to the everyday American consumer. Without paying more than to put out the information, the American government can put out that they will pay the entire cost of Research and Development for whomever comes up with a commercially viable alternative energy production mechanism.