The ONLY way to fix the (AGW) problem (in time) is to force fossil fuel generators out of the ‘market’ and build the low carbon alternatives that can deliver enough dispatchable electricity to make the whole system work. Not by any stretch of the imagination can that be ‘designed’ as a ‘free market’.

The so-called ‘markets’ we have are an entirely artificial construct, which will only ever have incentives and ‘signals’ that suit the players, otherwise they won’t play the game and they won’t invest.

It’s primarily a (disruptive) technology problem. The incumbent industries and investors both run a mile from that stuff. SMEs try their best (Pelamis e.g.), but they’re on a hiding to nothing in any ‘market’ with big-money corporations calling the shots.

My comments here elaborate:-
http://cleantechnica.com/2013/06/29/ges-brilliant-1-6-100-clean-green-grid-ready-wind-power-cheaper-than-coal-or-natural-gas/#comment-946118947

Somehow we have both to encourage cheap variable renewables (wind and PV), and ensure there is enough rarely-used but more expensive dispatchable capacity (geothermal, biomass, syngas, batteries) to cover peak demand. It’s still vital to keep the lights on.

The solutions are technological and they will only be delivered by political will, informed by (unbiased) science.

Standardisation is anathema to the market model, and yet:-
http://www.renewableenergyfocus.com/view/33172/new-standard-will-increase-confidence-in-floating-offshore-wind-turbines-dnv-kema/

“This situation demands new technology, so in both Japan and the US ideas are turning to floating structures for wind turbines.”

“The JIP focuses on floater specific design issues:” No it doesn’t. It ignores the fundamental laws of physics, which dictate that any floating HAWT is a bad idea – inherently unstable and by far the most expensive design premise. Any idiot can see that even a 2MW turbine requires a huge (idle) substructure just to hold it up:-
http://www.windpoweroffshore.com/2013/06/25/fukushima_floating_trial_set_for_installation/#.Uc1WDHCUC74

“It is now time to take the next step: standardisation.” These stupid design standards lock in high capex, (substructure and installation) expensive O&M, and high system operations costs, for life! (ok – only 25 years)

I read a uniquely candid technical article on F1 suspension. In regard to the actual function of the anti-roll system the analysis confessed; “This is the opposite of what is required.” That will now apply to marine renewables.

When engineers become wedded to a design paradigm they lose the ability to reason. It can take decades of flogging a dead horse, before the penny drops.

R&D and IPR are at the heart of the matter. R&D is seen as a poor investment – lousy ROI – and the IP system is rotten to the core:-

“There is almost as much money being spent defending and settling these troll cases as being spent in R&D – no kidding, it’s crazy.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-22993221