The argument (government sometimes has to fund new technologies, because the private sector won’t) is only valid for the basic research and development costs. (And then, only in special cases.)
However, most of the subsidies for green energy are going toward full-on industrial-scale installation, implementation, and operation. In “normal” times (i.e., where there was no bogus global warming scare), the R&D phase would continue, until the technology became economically viable. When economically viable (or nearly so), the technology would be rolled out by the private sector.
When subsidies are provided, the question of the “incidence” of those subsidies should be examined. Not all of any subsidy goes toward lowering the price of the subsidized product. Some portion of the subsidy goes into the pockets of the business owners, and employees. When you also consider the disincentive to be efficient and economical; it is entirely possible that the subsidies for production actually result in higher prices for the products. (This can happen, when subsidizing one company creates a barrier to entry for other companies; and thus reduces competition.) It is always very difficult to determine the incidence of a subsidy (or, of a tax), as there is no counter-factual to compare it to.
yes. we have a great example here in southeast OK..one local telacommunicatons company has received million in granst for 30 years to maintain a monopoly. 30 million just recently...hence we are in a dead zone..but good news..Verizon is comming in to help break it up. now how long have we had phones cabel and internet? solar doesnt need subsidies. its an old technology..and alot cheaper if government stays out of it.