An energy conservation program funded through federal stimulus dollars cost $18.5 million to create 149 "projected" jobs in Florida last year, Sunshine State News has learned.

Florida Renewable Energy Efficiency and Conservation Grants went to 27 cities and counties for so-called "energy retrofits."

"At $124,161 per job, it's nice work if you can get it," said Todd Myers, environmental director at the Seattle-based Washington Policy Center.

And that's just the tip of the bureaucratic iceberg.

The James Madison Institute, another free-market think tank, reports that Florida received more than 2,000 federal stimulus grants last year, surpassed by only six other states.

"In the 'green' area, nearly $1 million has been spent or earmarked for landscaping projects, biomass studies addressing consumption patterns and cultural attitude changes, solar computerized trash cans and Tallahassee’s famous Turtle Tunnel," JMI said.

All grants were requested during former Gov. Charlie Crist's administration.

The Florida Renewable Energy Efficiency and Conservation Grants illustrate how a federal stimulus program that promises job creation and "green" savings underachieves at both.

"They're actually spending tremendous sums for tiny benefits," says Myers, author of the book, "Eco Fads."

For example, Florida reported that its energy retrofits will reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 147,000 tons over 20 years. But based on the value of carbon credits available on the open market, that translates into a monetary savings of, at best, $2.9 million, Myers says.

Some estimates peg the net as low as $294,000.

Either way, the supposed savings are dwarfed by the $18.5 million expenditure of taxpayer dollars.

Proponents of the stimulus-fueled retrofits tout their job-creation benefits. But here, too, the program comes up short.

Officials with the state Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, which administered the grant, anticipate that the green energy program will generate 149 full-time positions, Myers reported. He puts a large asterisk next to that number.

"They say they're full-time jobs for one year. My experience is that's not the case," he said. "A lot of fudging goes on with these numbers."

For instance, some jurisdictions will fund a job for a week or a month and call it a full-time equivalent. In some cases, a single quarterly job could appear as "four" annual positions.

Additionally, Myers said some of the funded slots include "bureaucratic administrative jobs, not boots on the ground."

An extreme case of stimulus inefficiency surfaced in Seattle, one of America's greenest cities.

After 16 months, a $20 million federal grant to weatherize homes there had put just 14 people to work, mostly in administrative jobs, and upgraded only three houses.

Myers and other critics say the biggest problem with the "green" stimulus program is that government is trying to create a market that consumers don't want.

The Seattle weatherization upgrades were aimed at saving 15 percent on energy consumption. If a government-funded retrofit costs $10,000, it will take more than 30 years to pay off through lower energy bills, Myers calculates.

Seattle Mayor Mike McGinn says it's too early to declare the program a failure.

"We may have to adjust how we market it and the incentives we provide," the mayor admitted to Fox News. "Nobody has really cracked the green jobs code."

Myers counters: "The problem is the policies the politicians choose, whether green jobs or retrofits, are based on appearance. They choose things that look good, rather than what's best for the environment."

Citing the 13-year payback in one of Florida's programs, he said "a company would probably not do that" in the open market. Only inflated government subsidies make projects pencil out by sticking taxpayers with the overhead.