Yes, you're right I think.

These take up ALOT of land, and especially if you're going to completely rely on them. They are also very costly (but ofcourse they're clean and provide free energy, so as long as we make a moderate but steady push towards these, cost shouldn't be an issue)

Nuclear however, I think if we can tap into the power of fusion -- then we can start thinking about furthering our current technology. We can start building bigger and badder machines ~ haha j/k ofcourse, ( or maybe not o.o), but we could definately start exploring more space and think about faster planes. The instantaneous power that fusion provides is what will allow us to build any type of machine with no worry about energy consumption -- no matter what rate of usage.

The technology itself won't be ready for at least 50 years (AT LEAST- emphasis) within sound energy production limitations.

The reactors, like current nuclear reactors, will take decades to build on top of that.



There are dozens of carbon neutral energy sources as well as case specific power alternatives (MFCs for example). Lack of funding for research in less broad power applications lead to a lessened progression of an overall solution. We have more options to explore than non-fuelled )loosely applied).



They are hugely effective...



Why would we consider the solar energy that doesn't hit our planet? That's irrelevant. The only reason it is considered inefficient is because people typically assume that solar energy refers to solar panels, which have the disadvantage of a poor conversion factor from radiant to electrical energy per surface area of panel.

Solar turbines/solar towers are far more productive, an a viable source of energy in mass production.



We don't use the full potential of any energy source. As far as solar turbines go, they're pretty easy to utilise an endless amount of energy (in the right location) in comparison to fuel powered plants which require purification, insulations, etc. etc. of fuel and the plant itself.




Solar panels aren't the only form of solar power. Why do people always draw that assumption?



It's already done in industry to reduce emissions and produce a substantial amount of power. Don't see why it's not being done commercially.

already happens in several countries

and another comment to solar energy:
how come germany which is not really blessed with too much sun is leading in solar technology and has a whole township supplied with it?

some comments on the others:

tidal energy has been used in france since over 50 years but not on a large scale, nowadays britain and australia are probably leading

heavy breeders do not recycle nuclear material, they are efficient in producing weapon grade plutonium

geothermal energy is being heavily tested in france where a whole suburb is supplied with it

This post was edited by brmv on Dec 14 2008 11:01am

sorry cannot edit anymore but found an interesting article:

http://www.welt.de/english-news/article2862218/Is-German-energy-policy-a-model-for-Obama.html

Germany's Solar Power
...
Despite its heavy cloud cover most of the year, Germany produces half of the world’s solar power, twice as much as its nearest rival, Japan, and four times third-placed United States.
It produced 3.78 gigawatts in 2007 and in 2008 will add 1.5 gigawatts. Renewables account for 14 percent of its electricity.
This success was set in motion a decade ago, when a new coalition of Germany’s Social Democrats and Greens set up a framework to promote solar, wind and other renewables by requiring utilities to buy clean energy at above-market rates.
...
In Germany, utilities will be paying out less to solar providers from 2010, reflecting the sector’s strong gains in recent years.
...

except solar panals need to be replaced every 15-20 years.
and im quite sure germany doesn't have nearly the power needs of the us. if we were to do that with our energy demand wed need quite a bit more panals than germany has
solar is good energy on the personal scale, such as back yards or roof tops, but for the public scale of providing energy to the people its incredibly unefficiant

This post was edited by Kamikizzle on Dec 14 2008 03:55pm

Solar panels are not the direction we are heading in for solar power, at least not on a communal level. There are other ways to harness solar power, at least in the appropriate area, which is what alternative enrgies are about. It's not at all about a global fix. We should be thinking on a local scale.

Honda has made a hydrogen fuel cell that can power a car. Hydrogen might be the way if we learn some cheap extraction processes for it.

solar photovoltaic is currently over 40% efficiency.

solar thermal is the best though.

h2o cars! Anyone know if this actually works? There are sources for both the possibilty and impossibilty of it so i don't know what to believe:\