[qam1]

While I am all in favor of alternative energy sources, most of them are far too sugarcoated.

Compare 1989 vs 2004 when the earliest & latest numbers are available.

In 1989 Wind, Solar and Geothermal combined made up 0.61% of our power generation

15 years later, with all the new plants and farms, Gazillion of dollars and tax breaks for subsidizes and research, in 2004 those numbers only increased to 0.79% of our power generation. And almost all of that "BIG" gain was made by wind.

We've been hearing about how cheaper and more efficient solar panels are just around the corner for 50 years now. And with out fail, solar (and these other alternative energies) has overpromised and underdelivered every single time.

Solar will never be viable, no matter what breakthrough comes down the pike you just can't get around those pesky Laws of Thermodynamics

[chimera]

The numbers I have seen indicate that if all of the "alternative" technologies were developed to their maximum, economically feasible potential, we'd be looking at meeting something like 20-30% of our total projected demand. We're spending decades of time and billions in research and tens of billions in tax breaks and direct subsidies on something that might meet at most a fifth or fourth of our projected needs. The larger problem remains unsolved: where do we go for the other 70-80% of our needs?

No matter how you slice it, it's going to come down to two things: find a way to use coal in an environmentally acceptable manner, or go with nuclear, or do both. With coal you can develop synfuels and gasification and perhaps address some of the transport sector needs. Nuclear can do it if we go with electric substitution for ground transport and some kind of energy carrier, hydrogen, boron, whatever. Nuclear will have to go with commercial reprocessing and actinide recycle to address the fuel supply and waste storage issues. Maybe something like the closed fuel cycle IFR concept can also make a difference.