Government Grants

EIN News says, "U.S. Makes $3 Billion Available for Renewable Energy. The Obama administration on Thursday unveiled guidelines that will allow companies to apply for some $3 billion in government funds to boost development of renewable energy projects around the country, creating jobs. (reuters.com)".
The Obama Administration? Congress has no part in this?
Is $3 billion too little? Too much? Should it be government or private industry? How does it compare with our energy needs as a whole?

From a separate article (Chemical and Engineering News 6/29/09 page 25), we can obtain a little better perspective. Renewable Energy only applies significantly to the generation of electricity, which is used for its traditional purpose of lighting and heating. Use of corn (renewable) to produce alcohol for motor vehicle use has been found uneconomical. Hydrogen for motor vehicle use has not yet been developed, nor is it likely to be in the near future.
Therefore when EIN News says "Renewable Energy", they really mean "as applied to the generation of electricity". "Renewable" means from an obviously inexhaustible supply. That would include wind, solar, nuclear, and biomass, which is annually replaceable through new growth. It also would exclude petroleum, coal, and natural gas (fossil fuels), for which exhaustible supplies can be at least estimated.
Jeff Johnson of C&EN quotes other experts as saying that an aggressive scenario would be to obtain 20% of electricity production from renewable energy sources by 2035. That's 26 years from now. To accomplish this with wind energy, which is the only significantly developed source of Renewable Energy, would require $100 billion. That's 33 times more the Obama Administration has just put up, and it would take 26 years to accomplish only a 20% replacement of fossil fuels. What about the other 80%? We have also not even considered the requirements of automotive vehicles.
Fossil fuels are a major, major portion of our current energy needs. They will remain so for any predictable time. We should concentrate on their efficient use, encourage further discovery and development of sources, and place wind, solar, tides, biofuels, etc. in the minor category to which they belong. Renewable Energy sources are not the areas on which government should be spending public money.
For those who may make the usual claims of our having to protect the environment and preservation of natural resources for our grandchildren, I have the obvious rebuttal. If we are spending our way into the poor house on ridiculous projects, we are destined to become a third world country. What difference will it make if they have to use cow patties as a fuel source to heat their cappuccinos, when they won't have the raw materials for the cappuccinos?