The premise that government stifled wind and solar is false. Let's take the conclusion at the end of this article
It is now more economical to build power generating stations using wind than using coal, oil, gas, or nuclear. When amortized over the life of a typical mortgage, installing solar power in a house in most parts of the US is cheaper than drawing power from the grid. (Shell and British Petroleum are among the world's largest manufacturers of solar photovoltaic panels, which can now even be used as roofing shingles.) And hybrid cars that get 50-70 miles to the gallon are increasingly commonplace on our nation's highways. Instead of taking a strong stand to make America energy independent, Bush kisses a Saudi crown prince, then holds hands with him as they walk into Bush's hobby ranch in Texas. Our young men and women are daily dying in Iraq - a country with the world's second largest store of underground oil. And we live in fear that another 15 Saudis may hijack more planes to fly into our nation's capitol or into nuclear power plants.
Meanwhile, Bush brings us an energy bill that includes eight billion dollars in welfare payments to the oil business, just as the nation's oil companies report the highest profits in the entire history of the industry. Americans struggle to pay for gasoline, while the Bush administration refuses to increase fleet efficiency standards, stop the $100,000 tax break for buying Hummers, or maintain and build Amtrak. George Bush Jr. is arguably right that gas prices are spiking because we don't have an energy policy. But instead of blaming Clinton, he should be pointing to the Reagan/Bush administration, and to his own abysmal failures over the past four years.
I can punch so many holes in this it's ridiculous, let's take the first statement "more economical to build power generating stations using wind" Really? Why are we subsidizing these projects by about 50% through federal and state subsidies? The answer is simple, they would never get built because they can't compete. Freddy has a windmill, ask him if he would build another another one.
The following statement says: "When amortized over the life of a typical mortgage, installing solar power in a house in most parts of the US is cheaper than drawing power from the grid" ... Figures from the solar industry peg the magical number at about $1 per watt to compete with coal. Currently cost per watt hovers around $4+. I'm going to take wild guess the author is taking into account the final cost to the homeowner which is substantially less than the real cost. For example you'll see these stories on the news of people installing solar in California and expect a return in 25 years which is about the lifetime of such installation. What they will fail to mention is the state of California is picking up half the tab.
After that it's followed by some leftist crap.... and then we get to the whopper of $8 billion in subsidies to the oil companies. Firstly I would like to see a reference for that figure, the EIA puts the number at about $3 billion in 2007. Let's just say for minute that is true and they do get 8 billion a year. That comes up to a little over 1 cent per gallon of fuel, compare that to the more than 50 cents the government collects at the pump or the $30 billion Exxon alone paid in income taxes in 2007.
Then the author goes onto lament about Amtrak? WTF... Amtrak was supposed to self sustaining shortly after it was created but has been drain on the US taxpayer ever since.
This author is an idiot, the last two paragraphs alone are filled with nothing but made up figures. There is nothing to support what this author is stating, nothing.
Keep in mind Samhill the people that you are citing would have your coal furnace shut down in an instance if they could. It wouldn't matter what you showed them or pointed out. It's coal, it's bad.