1. Solar and/or wind do not necessarily require vast of *new* land, or land that we’d miss. For instance, the existing roof top area of all structures in the US, several thousand square miles in total, if covered with solar PV would generate about 2/3 of electric energy produced in the US. Similar arguments hold for the area of the US road system, or *one* military base in the deserts of NM.

2. While in general I object to subsidies of any shape, including solar and wind, my wallet espescially objects to attacks on solar/wind subsidies while ignoring completely fossile fuel and nuclear subsidies which are *far* larger in total. The common retort that oil/gas/coal/nuclear subsides are cheaper per unit energy is no help to my wallet, or the current budget.