Yea, but the whole "economically feasible" part is ever-evasive. A lot of start up companies in the green space aren't willing to spend the capital on risky ventures, which is where the government comes in to mitigate. They've done the same thing for every industry: oil, banking, insurance, medicine, academia, retail--you name it, and the US government has subsidized it. I mentioned the theories of Karl Polanyi in another comment in this thread: there's no such thing as a "free market." Even laissez-faire economics of the 17th-early 19th century required government policy and investment for its existence.

Take science as a recent example: the defunding and de-facto elimination of the National Science Foundation and the firing of its board has left the advancement of American science in a precarious situation. Essentially, they do the critical groundwork that lays the foundations upon which new advancements can be made by identifying and subsidizing the very risky, early steps of development-- like providing grants for university scientists to search for an effective vaccine against an elusive virus. Because the virus is little-known, no real profit can be realized for some time, therefore no private company would be willing to spend that capital for something that may not return a profit for 20, 30 years.

And that's true for green energy development, too. Just because something is unable to turn a profit does not mean it is not a net-positive for society, it just means it's a net-negative for capitalism. Which, in my opinion, profit should not be the measure of success for things and services that provide a social good. Can we lower the cancer rates in Corpus Christi through stricter regulation? Yes. Will it cost Exxon-Mobile a few million? Probably. But will fewer families be subject to the crushing weight of medical debt, or be affected by all of the downstream costs of losing a parent? Those are the questions we should be asking.