Jobs are a cost, not a benefit.

With a benefit that isn't counted in the frame of "subsidy per job".

Where is the profit? Where is the revenue? Exactly. It is framed specifically with the intention of leaving that out.

I'm sorry that it takes money to make money. I truly am.

I'd ban mcdonalds.

If I knew more about economy, I'd probably just verify what you said in (B). I'm not sure what you're trying to say with (A) though. Yes, prices will rise so long as oil production can't keep up with demand, but seeing as prices are indeed rising, why not try harder to replace oil? Whether it's economically viable is out of my grasp, but I do know that the world is hellishly reliant on oil, both for energy, but for many other things as well, including plastic and medicin. The fact that things are headed the way they are with oil just tells me that we need to keep trying really hard to be properly prepared for when oil is no longer a viable resource.

My reason for bringing all this up in the first place though, is because of the video. It paints a picture of all this focus on moving away from cheap fossil fuels as being bad, when it's certainly not. It's a very real issue, and it's one we need to work hard to solve. 

Do I really need to provide a source beyond recent healdines to prove that your laughable utopianism is just that? If Solyndra and $250,000 of subsidies per $40,000 Chevy Volt and the bursting of the Spanish renewable energy bubble and the fact that our stupid government can't even pass a budget (let alone balance one) and the manifold flaws of crony capitalism don't shake your faith in the idea that if we'd just keep throwing money at the SunPowers and Fiskers and Teslas everything would work out gloriously in the end because it just has to, I don't know what source I could possibly provide that would persuade you. It's entirely an article of faith on your part, and since you weren't reasoned into your position, so you can't be reasoned out of it.

Except you know... when that money could be spent elsewhere to create MORE jobs.

Moving to Solar was all well and good, but Germany's knee-jerk reaction to Fukushima was unfounded. I do believe that we should move forward on renewable energy, but too fast too quickly will result in more economic damage than a more balanced approach (this is one of the realms where I am in agreement with the Obama Administration quite solidly: the "all of the above" energy policy). Germany does well to advance to solar, but has made a poor choice in choosing to dump nuclear all at once. Japan is even worse off, because they're going off nuclear due to Fukushima and they want to go back to oil, which is going to send sky-high energy prices in Japan even higher...

And what do you consider to be more deserving?

Pretty much anything.  I'd rather the government pay people to dig and refill ditches.

I think the problem is... your not really thinking this out.  Which I will illustrate through some points the first few of which just about nobody could disagree with.

1)   Logically, Green Energy is not a new product that creates new demand. 

It's not like say... the Ipad, which if comes out and is something everybody wants.  Green Energy is simply a form of Energy, and it pretty much completely just displaces demand for more traditional energy.

2) Therefore, establishing that Green Energy does not create demand, this leads to one of two possibilties.  I'll let you decide which of these is true... though I suspect it's a combination of both.

A) Green Energy, and subsidies for it displace demand for regular energy.  Therefore jobs in the regular energy sector invariably have to be lost... and there is no net economic gain because gains in green energy are offset by losses in other energy sources.   Therefore, we are sacrificing money for no economic growth, in the name of stopping global warming.

B)  Green Energy is serving excess demand.  Therefore more green energy is being supplied and just as much hydrocarbons are being used, just elsewhere and with markets who normally couldn't access it due to being outbid by the bigger guys.  Therefore we are spending excess money to create an expensive product, only for all those hydrocarbons to be used anyway, with no actual change in global warming, despite the claims that we are doing this for global warming.

(Fun Time article about B by the way.  http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2112907,00.html)

3) Essentially this means one of two things.  

A) Green Energy will only replace traditional energy with HUGE subsisides that would cost a crazy amount, unless we try and "run out the clock. and wait for it to be cheap"  Either way, there will be no gain in jobs.  As for jobs... keep in mind, this is assuming that making green equipment and running it is = to making unclean equipment, running it, and mining/drilling and preparing said products for work.  Pretty clearly not the case.  Hence why Green jobs cost dirty jobs.

B) Green Energy will continue to grow, and really SHOULD grow without subsidies since the demand is out there.  However, Hydrocarbons will always be the first choice by someone until it's cheap... meaning hydrocarbons will be used anyway at max levels.

4) Say you are a solar plant operator.  You get a solar subsididy to make your electricity as cheap as other forms of electricity.  What benefit is there... in spending all kinds of money to make your plant more efficent and cheaper... when the end result will be the government lowering your subsididy the first chance it gets?   Where is your benefit towards progress?  Why wouldn't you instead of keep upgrading and losing money as your subsidies get cut too quickly and instead just keep the systems you have, save up some money for upgrading, and then just upgrade whenever the subsisides are about to disapear?

Subsisdies HURT progress by removing motivators for improvement.

That's not even counting the risk of subsidies needing to be taken away in the future due to budget constraints, leading to HUGE collapses.... which if

A)  Is true, you no longer have proper infrastructure for traditional fuel, leading to energy costing WAY more and hurting economic growt quite a bit.

B)  Raise prices because there has been more access to energy, leading to growth in other places leading to more competition for said energy.

yeah like i said it was just an example that you can't search for random numbers on the internet to prove that something is wrong or right and that you can't simple say "a job costs 240k" because they don't calculate as example the costs of the radwaste (which is only one of thousands of numbers you should have to calculate) which will  get reduced with it. i don't even have the numbers on my mind what they caculated as costs for that some years ago but you would have to put all numbers in a calculation and not what new york times or whatever newspaper are doing with their stupid graphs. hell we would even have to calculate what green energy would mean for the air we breath and if it would reduce cancer and so on with less coal power station pushing dirty emissions in the air (but i say this isn't possible). if i just think about where i live, a region which lived from coal mining and coal power stations. the air was so dirty in the past you won't believe it^^.

personally i have no problem with nuclear power if it comes to the dangers and our efforts for solar were huge even before fukushima, we started with it much earlier and our government cut the subsidies this year. solar companies have a hard time now without those. 

but we didn't bump nuclear energy at once, we decided to bump it in 2002 or so  which was way before fukushima and over some decades. what we did was that we did close the oldest facilities with the worst safety standards earlier because of fukushima (which i was against it but the green party had a lot of success here with scaremongering) and we forced the full nuclear phase-out which will happen in 2023 or so.  at least it means less radioactive waste which will reduce the costs for thousands of years^^

but i hope they will find other ways the next years to produce enough as replacement and won't just use more coal to produce energy because this would be really stupid. but 1/5 of germanies energy was atomic energy in 2011 i believe we can do it without using other shit the next years.