All 'alternative' energy forms, just like the conventional ones, depend on public funds. That's where the money is. You can make a list and see how true that is, from tar sands to nuclear to clean coal to ethanol, it applies to every single case.

And those are direct forms of subsidy (let's count tax credits among them). It doesn't include the fact that extracting finite resources should, but doesn't, show up in the ledgers, and under normal accounting rules would require that a form of compensation be paid.

The result is a hugely distorted, entirely unrealistic, far too low, picture of the true price we pay for energy. Which can have only one effect: more consumption. Without that distortion, the price of gas would double or even triple, which in turn would lead to significant changes in the workings of society. These changes would be beneficial to all parties, except for energy producers.

The one exception was supposed to be new nuclear plants in the UK, where the government shouted out loud that all investment had to be private. There is a deep silence on that file by now. No surprise.