More is being done. Itu2019s not about how much is spent. Donu2019t look for solutions from bloated government programs and University research programs. There is nothing intrinsically creative about institutions. Creative solutions come from talented individuals, who may or may not work in those environments.As an example, after millions of dollars spent to figure out a way to make turbines in along the south Texas coastline safer for birds, the best thing they could come up with was implementing radar systems to detect birds and command the turbines to shut down. A very high-tech solution, indeed, full of exciting u201cblingu201d that is attractive to technology magpies. Unfortunately, the detection system itself costs lots of money, and the solution, when implemented, actually reduces the operating time of the turbines, resulting in reduced revenue.Several years ago one of my wave energy projects was funded with government money. The overhead and reporting for the project sapped close to 50% of the budget. Plus, this was research, meaning that for some elements we needed to u201cfind our way.u201d The lack of flexibility to purchase parts to work out variations, even at laboratory scale, was an impediment to the creative process. When we ultimately succeeded and I looked back on the project, I concluded that it could have been done for about 20% of what was actually spent.My conclusion, after having over 30 years associated with government funded research, is that they have no business in that business with the exception of certain things that for security purposes absolutely cannot be entrusted outside (e.g., design of nuclear weapons). Even there, the designers at Los Alamos are not directly government employees but are civilians under contract. And yes, the processes there are inefficient and onerous. But, nobody else is allowed to do that particular work.Renewable energy is totally different. Every Henry Ford, Dean Kamen, Steve Jobs, or guys like me have the opportunity to conduct research and create with private funds to build things that compete in a free market. Just take a moment and try to imagine what progress computer technology might have made if only the government (or sponsored operators) had been allowed to develop it. If it were the government that decided whether the only operating system would be DOS or Unix or Windows, and the only architecture to be a PC. Innovation would be virtually nonexistent, and we would have the equivalent of the consumer products from the Soviet block during that era (terrible, cheap cars, etc.).In todayu2019s environment, there are some of us who, in spite of the growing involvement and influence of wasteful government meddling in this sector, have chosen to walk the righteous path. We are funding our work with private money, out of our own pockets. The result is that we are lean, mean, and efficient in not just the way we perform the research but in our expectations for the economic efficiency of the products we create.The result of is this approach is a soon to be marketed wind turbine that makes power for 1/2 the cost of the big commercial units, doesnu2019t hurt birds, is not an eyesore, and can be operated sustainably in economically disadvantaged locales.But tell the government about it, and they donu2019t want to know about it. It upsets the status quo of there incredibly wasteful u201csandboxu201d approach and does not support the narrative that government can do things better than the private sector, which is 100% false.As Ayn Randu2019s character John Galt said, u201cGet out of my way.u201d