I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of freedoms of the people by gradual and silent encroachment of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations. (attributed)

Okay, for investors, alternative energy is a little more hit-or-miss. It seems like a pretty rosy long-term outlook, if you can guess correctly which alternative energy sources will take off, and when. You don't want to put money into windmills and find Don Quixote took out your investment for personal spite. You don't want to buy stocks in nuclear power and then see a repeat of TMI or Chernobyl. The politics, patents, and polls are surely more difficult to divine than some other, safer investments. Petroleum alternatives are exciting for some people, but in all honesty, investors may be better off with commoditites - even petroleum! Unless, of course, they are investing with taxpayer money instead of their own (see Rediff India Abroad article):

In a bid to reduce American dependence on oil "that feeds Middle east terrorism," prominent Indian-American venture capitalist Vinod Khosla is financing a state-wide ballot initiative to get Californians to tax oil producers and endorse clean energy.

The initiative would bar oil companies from passing the tax on to consumers in the form of higher pump prices...

The planned economy - the only reason it didn't work for the Soviets is because they didn't have the right people planning, I guess. Khosla is a Republican, keep in mind. You know what that party stands for - smaller government, right? It's a good thing the Democrats aren't running things. (/sarcasm)

If passed, it could raise as much as $380 million a year to develop alternative fuels and reduce the state dependence on oil by 25 per cent within a decade.

$380 million a year. This money will be slushed over to other causes, squandered in bureaucracy, and invested unwisely, as always happens to government money. If Khosla wants to see real development in alternative energies, he should be rallying up private organizations to do the investing and the research.

I think Mr. Khosla's goals are fantastic - something that should have broad appeal, as stated above. From a recent article in The Economist:

His plan is to use technology and entrepreneurship to tackle big social and environmental problems: "In venture capital, we fail far more often than we succeed," he says. "I've decided that I'd better focus on taking on problems that really matter, so that when I win it makes a difference to the world." He likens his need to get involved with worthy causes to a drug addiction.

Again, the aim is laudable. But the means to this end are not good. Back to the Rediff article:

"We have an energy crisis on our hands. We have our oil feeding Middle East terrorism, and we need to do something about it. Besides, consumers are paying too much."

Khosla says the measure, which he's already spent more than $1 million to back, is not about him, but about "doing the right thing."

Consumers are paying too much - to the government, that is. Well over $380 million per year is already taken in by the California state government from the sale of petroleum products, and consumers do not need to be made into the unwilling investors in any new schemes, no matter how noble. If it is about doing the right thing, then I say again that Mr. Khosla should stick to forming private investment groups in the field of alternative energies.

Count me a part of what this article calls "a coalition of oil companies and anti-tax activists is opposing the alternative energy initiative".

"This is not about alternative energy development," said John Martini, chief executive of the California Independent Petroleum Association.

"This is about getting the taxpayers to pay a dedicated revenue stream into the preferred projects the proponents have investments in."

The Road to Serfdom is paved with good intentions. Invest your own time, energy, money and enthusiasm in alternative energies. Do not dictate these investments to others. Such behavior has no place in a free society.

Update: Jon Henke, blogging on the topic at QandO, links to some articles on ethanol, which is a reasonably efficient alternative energy source for automobiles. One of the links is to the American Enterprise, where Dr. Robert Zubrin argues ethanol over hydrogen fuel cells, for reasons of efficiency. As is noted in the Q and O comments section, and in the Economist article I mentioned in my post (found here), ethanol requires infrastructure investment. Gallon to gallon, ethanol comes out pretty well - in the laboratory. Bringing it to the BP on my corner puts it at a huge cost disadvantage to gasoline.

For this reason, as I said at Q and O, Because of the infrastructure issue, the only alternative energy source that seems likely for automobiles in the near future is electricity. We can’t pipe ethanol very well, but we can set up local electrolyzing stations all around the country, without any new infrastructure. And it’s a snap to develop home battery charging devices for electric cars or for "pure" hybrids - cars that run pure electric under 30 mph or so.

For the record, my personal interest in alternative energies is not limited to automobiles. But that's a separate topic, for another day.