An enterprise isn't profitable if it REQUIRES a government subsidy to exist.

From a Reuters.com article about the US Senate's decision to nix tax incentives for inferior energy technology companies.

Quoted from: "US Senate drops tax package, boosts auto fuel rules"

"Dropping the $32 billion in clean-energy tax incentives is a big loss for developers of wind, solar and geothermal projects, who say the funds are needed to turn a profit. [emphasis added]"

A profit is when more value is created than is used to generate it. Energy sources with high energy input to energy output ratios, such as: ethanol (as a fuel), wind, solar, are INFERIOR to petroleum or coal based fuels, so only those who can afford to throw away their time/money use them; and this "gassroots" chairity is obviously not enough for inferior energy companies to make a profit.

What's to stop these companies from generating their energy and selling it to the grid? Consumers are none the wiser about the source, so there's not a strong case for commercial inertia (slow adoption). The fact of the matter is they cannot transform their energy into the common electrical "currency" for a price at or below the current market price. They should be in the lab or back at the drawing board, NOT in Washington D.C. begging for a handout from the U.S. taxpayers. Their profit problems will only be solved with science (if the technology is even economically/physically feasible, which I strongly doubt), not politics.

These technologies will be adopted if and only after they create cheaper and equal or more abundant energy than what currently exists.