There aren't many people who will claim that the government is here to help you and they will save you money, but Chris Cooper and Benjamin Sovacool are doing just that. Cooper is Senior Policy Director, Network for New Energy Choices while Sovacool is a Senior Research Fellow and teaches in the Government and International Affairs program at Virginia Tech.

They recently completed a study advocating a national energy policy mandating renewable energy. 21 states currently have a renewable energy policy, they state, but this patchwork approach is worse for consumers than having a bureaucracy in Washington telling people in Alabama how much they should be charged to light their homes.

Let's look at their points one at a time.

Federalization of energy standards will save consumers $49 billion, the report says. That's a lot of money. It's always a lot of money in reports like this. No one would pay any attention if they said it will lose money, like the $15 billion wind power has cost California taxpayers even though projections had them profitable a decade ago.

How do they say it saves money? Economies of scale, of course. 'Economies of scale' is a nice, vague way of saying "we dislike capitalism unless we are rationalizing nationalization of the power industry - then we think capitalism will make products cheaper."

More government employees naturally lead to lower prices for everyone. That's just common sense. I am never sure how 'economies of scale' don't work in, say, the hospital industry, where competition drives up prices, but reports like this nonetheless insist that mandating solar panels and subsidizing their purchase will somehow make them cheaper.

Mandating renewable energy on a national scale will also add 240,000 jobs, they say. 80% more than mean old fossil fuels will. Because people will be needed for manufacturing, repair, etc.

So maybe having 80% more people will save us that $49 billion? It must be economies of scale again.

This plan they propose will necessitate construction of almost 27,000 miles of transmission lines at a cost of $56 billion. So, yes, it will already cost you $56 billion and 165,000 full-time workers ( not counting government employees ) to save that $49 billion.

How happy are people going to be about even more transmission lines in their backyards? Not many, you would think, but they make an interesting claim:

Case studies show that public opposition to transmission lines turns into widespread support when utilities justify the infrastructure with the need to interconnect new renewable generation.

Yes, if you simply tell poor people that the high-voltage lines behind their homes are necessary for renewable energy, they go from being unhappy to happy about it.

They should just tell them that renewable energy will keep companies from making a profit, except they can use the bad word for it: profiteering. If you make a percentage and prices rise, you are now "profiteering" yet if I make more money and pay more taxes to the government I am simply "doing my part" and usually I am told I am "not doing enough."

Federalizing energy cuts down on lawsuits, they say. Because state laws can be unconstitutional if the Supreme Court says they are. And the Supreme Court said the federal government could do anything it wanted in 2002, the report states, so a lawsuit is just waiting to happen.

On the other hand, their plan will not require nuclear power, which is still a sore spot with the environmental left in America. It would also save billions of gallons of water ( as would nuclear power ) reduce air pollution ( ditto ), reduce greenhouse gas emissions ( ditto again - hey, wait a minute ). Right, they seem to be against nuclear power for no other reason than they are in the wind business.

Here's where it really gets crazy. Solar and wind power will use 75-90% less land. Yes, they put that in writing. 40 square miles of land can provide energy for 4% of the nations energy, they say. So for 1,000 square miles they can supply 100% of the nation's energy, right? In other words, we can take a 35 mile chunk of anywhere the sun shines and stretch it 35 miles sideways and we never need coal again. 1,000,000 turbines could do that today?

Well, maybe not, but putting solar panels on 7% of rooftops would generate all the electricity we need too.

I can go on but I am not sure it's necessary. As usual, when advocates start making claims that are too good to be true, you should reach for your wallet.

Cleaner, renewable energy is a 'must' and it will happen sooner rather than later. It may be in a form completely unknown to us now. much like the internet was unknown in 1975. But it will happen. Hitching the government wagon to tired old horses like the renewable energy in this proposal will be the kind of expensive, inefficient boondoggle only someone who still advocates using the telegraph to buy books could get behind.

Download the full study here