I would think, all other things being equal, that every family would choose energy independence over being at the mercy of external forces ranging from foreign governments through domestic monopolies.

Now you can say that all other things aren’t equal, and that’s certainly the case. However it is also true that which side wins out depends on your personal circumstances; it isn’t a matter of dogma.

Deceptive sales tactics notwithstanding, there are many for whom solar+geothermal is a sensible solution to their energy needs right now.

Arguably, the alternative energy tax credit creates a positive feedback loop – it tilts the balance in favor of alternative over fossil energy, making it attractive to more people, which stimulates further development of the technology, making it even more attractive, and so on.

For example, My wife has a cousin who is a pig farmer in southern MN. In his case geothermal + either solar or wind generation makes perfect sense – partly because the tax credit actually does take the payback on his investment down to 5-8 years. At the end of that time he’ll be almost energy-independent for the foreseeable future and have massively reduced ongoing energy costs.

On the argument that only 1% of electricity comes from solar and this isn’t going to change, I’d argue that things change very quickly in the face of disruptive technology, and that the emergence of such technology is far more likely in a climate where it is being actively sought out because it is economically favorable to do so.

A second point on this that it’s not just the percentage of total generation that counts – how and where it is applied is very important too. For example, in my wife’s cousin’s case, if he has ~5 KW of solar or wind capacity at his disposal, and uses that to power the compressor on his geothermal HVAC, which supplies 4-5x the energy it consumes, he’s removing the need to supply the equivalent of 30KW from the energy economy as a whole.

What does the government get in return for the lost tax revenue? Not much in the short term.. OTOH if enough people become energy independent, the nation will be too. This makes us stronger, especially in the face of increasing global competition, both for fossil resources and in the consequent development of alternative energy technologies. It also obviates the need for spending trillions on things such as occupying half of the middle-east.

The above is quite apart from the environmental arguments. One may or may not give these credence, but either way they can’t detract from the rationale for personal energy independence, they can only reinforce it.

On the other hand, most of the arguments against encouraging personal energy independence only make long-term sense from the POV of those who have a vested interest in the present energy economy, and/or in the military ecosystem required to support it.