It is private industry (companies) doing it, with our money. It wont be cheaper to him if taxpayers don't pay for it. It would be cheaper for taxpayers. I hope you understood that point.
The theory behind spending taxpayer money on it, gambling with it really, is that private industry wont/cant gamble on risky technologies the way the government can. This is the argument they make.
I get your point..but if government stays out..the market will dictate the price..it wont cost 60 thousand to start with..they will have to produce the panels for a decent price.
and this technology has been around for some time.
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.