"All 'alternative' energy forms, just like the conventional ones, depend on public funds. "

This is just wrong. I have built several passive solar houses, none of which received any public funds. The house I currently live in was a passive solar remodel, that has been functioning fine on less than 30% of the heating energy that my neighbors use for 15 years.
Examples of subsidy-free alternative energy abound. Throughout the off-grid regions of the world (Nepal, Latin America) I have seen many PV systems that were purchased with no government subsidy (mostly low-tech Chinese made 1 panel, 1 battery, 1 flourescent light systems).

tommyvee.

passive solar is not an energy form

Of course it is. It is Solar Energy, with the most direct and material-saving way for homebuilders to heat. Just because you don't put it in a pipe, battery or a tank doesn't mean that it is not DIRECTLY doing what everyone else does with 'Ancient Sunlight', Oil, Gas, Wood, Coal, Nuclear (Ancient 'Starstuff'?)

But it is this very illusion that energy has to seem like 'stuff' or be run with some kind of machine, or be a quantifiable market item- if even just the charge on a battery.. to be considered energy at its most essential, which is to say, energy being used for what we need. Most importantly, Tommy's houses are NOT having to burn nearly as much of the other stuff.. so it is 'dirty-energy spared'. (And I'm not put off by the arguments of how 'someone else' is just going to use it then. It's not a cause/effect relationship)

Bob

Good for you. Any investment strategy that has to do with energy, whether personal or public, should begin with how now to need the energy in the first place. This is typically where the greatest returns lie. This country, while supposedly finally waking up, is mostly about supply and fanciful investments in magical potions like ethanol and hydogen. While we pursue the impossible, there is all that cheap insulation out there just waiting for the next home or the next retrofit.