How many of these “investments” would be profitable without government (tax) subsidies?
Some, but not most. Right now.
Of course, it's hard to find an industry sector that doesn't benefit from govt. subsidies, not that I'm defending pork.
Something useful to keep in mind is that the vast majority of support for utility scale wind energy is from the production tax credit. This isn't a handout in the sense a check is being written. It's taxes that aren't collected on a portion of energy generation revenues. I'd rather the money stay in the hands of businesses generating something useful than go to Reid Pelosi LLC.
Not to be too cynical but perhaps it’s more investment BABBLE than investment bubble. We’ve all seen this green energy nonsense come and go over the years and yet nothing ever makes it into the energy marketplace as a succesful competitor. No, the answer lies elsewhere for high energy density sources, it isn’t here.
Probably about the same percentage as private roads vs. public roads. Not many would thrive, but that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t happen.
None. The bubble can be better described as “a rat hole”
“How many of these “investments” would be profitable without government (tax) subsidies?”
1. Over 20 years ago, heavy oil, oil shale, tar sands projects were given jumpstarts by Canada, Alberta govs. Today they are profitable, going concerns.
2. At the same time, the US gov. helped get similar efforts underway here, but the plug got pulled, once crude dropped to $12 per barrel.
However had those projects gone forward, they too might well have been profitable (were originally based on $40 per barrel crude equivalent.). One example was Union Oil, Parachute Creek, Colorado, oil shale, with a guarantee from the Navy to buy product at $40 per barrel.
I’d settle for heavy use of proven technology and resources, such as nuclear and transport fuels from coal (Fischer-Troepsch/Sasol).
Yeah, that's where I'd set up a company to hire technology engineers. </s>