So it worked so quickly and so well ... and then it didn't ... and left few traces behind.
Maybe it didn't actually work very well after all.
Grunwald is repeating these claims over and over again, but this idea of "hidden success" looks pretty dubious.
The "green energy" claims are questionable as well. Maybe in 20 years somebody will look back and praise the stimulus for its energy effects, but so much can happen over 20 years that it would be hard to say that what was done in 2008 or 2009 was critical.
My gut feeling is that in 20 years, people will look back and say WTF were they thinking when it comes to the wind mill farms. I suspect that none of the farms will be operational unless they continue to get huge subsidies..
I posted on an earlier thread that no serious journalist thinks that solar will providing 10% of our energy needs any time soon. Then I saw a program the other night on the Science may provide 10% of our energy needs by 2030. So that is a BEST case scenario, and it assumes future technological advances, made possible (I assume) by further taxpayer "investment." So if we give them the benefit of the doubt, and assume we can get another 5-10% from windpower (already conceeded by the green crowd as NOT the "most promising" solution), and nuclear is out of the question, where does the other 80-85% of our energy needs come from? Magic beans?
This entire conversation is madness I tell you.