There is no wide public support for subsidizing sustainable technologies. High cost per kWh is the reason most frequently heard. Another frequently heard argument is that markets should do their jobs..

That is alright with us! But for this to happen, the equation must include all cost and risk. Underexposed aspects are: expense for Infrastructure, risk due to unreliable supply of primary resources, inevitable increase of its price due to decreasing availability plus growing demand, thus growing export of capital, and medical expense due to health hazard. What to think of the huge sums that are reserved in case of nuclear calamities? In spite of their size, they will probably not suffice by a long-shot. The environmental damage is also a financial aspect for reasons like locally concentrated heat waste, gasses set free (not only CO₂), political turmoil (war, terrorism, resistance, dwindling public acceptance) and - last but not least - radioactive leaking.
These issues are underexposed in the media. Why are they?.
Another question to raise:: how to quantify hazard to health and well-being? The answer would further extend the list above.

Photovoltaics (PV) combined with a growing intellligent grid lacks any and all of these drawbacks, especially when our panels stem from sustainable production.
Considering the lack of gigaconcentrated power, heat and waste, the long panel life cycle, ultra low need for maintenance and free primary energy, we expect broad public realism to eventually emerge. When will that happen?

The grid needs reform, that much is certain. Our mission is to promote renewable energy sources such as photovoltaics to eventually replace the current outdated ones.