Hey I have an idea (not really original) that I want to throw out there and hear why it might and might not work.

 Let's build windturbines solar heat collection dishes (here) for the production of power all over the country.  I'm talking ever few thousand feet.  By using renewables for power, demand for coal and oil will be decreased.  More jobs will be created than lost.  Using power for ethanol and hydrogen fuel production will make those more affordable.  Open bidding will allow all the traditional oil and energy company to build the grid, along with oppurtunities for smaller companies and subcontractors.

I'm talking about the largest program ever in the US and it can all be done for a profit.

The Midwest and Appalachian regions are very good for wind power that can be sold to other regions, they are also hurting the most economically.  This would create a lot of jobs.

Your thoughts please. 

Its expensive. Nuclear power is a pretty solution awesome for any country that isn't NZ.

Particularly if they ever nail fusion.

One of the reasons why wind and solar technologies are so expensive is because they are a niche product. Marginal cost curves are U-shaped, so when the production is to the left the cost per unit is higher. Demand is there, substitute products are not cheaper in the long run and people want "green" for preference.

The problem with that is that it takes away one of the biggest advantages of solar and wind power generation : the ease with which they can be deployed where the need is.

In your scenario, your would still need long distance electrical transmission which leads to energy losses. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_transmission#Losses

With solar and wind, almost every community, or individual with enough acreage and money, can set up their own power generation and minimise loses due to long distance power transmission.

That only affects one aspect of the energy crisis, also. Most petroleum usage in America is put towards transportation.

Solar and wind power would be helpful in producing ethanol or hydrogen, but ethanol has a lot of problems as a fuel (corn ethanol is believed by most to be net-negative, meaning it requires more energy to prpduce than it yields, and it inflates food prices by taking supply off the market, which is also becoming a problem these days), and we don't realy have the technology to store and transport hydrogen efficiently, though I believe hydrogen-fueled vehicles are possible today.

And after further research., it appears that even hydrogen fuel cells are net-negative as well, and hydogen combustion is both bulkier and less efficient than gasoline combustion. There really aren't any good options, are there?

How about we actually build more Nuclear Power Plants and drill for our own oil?
Energy "crisis" solved right there.

we should get the 'Command & Conquer' style of power building down. 300$ for a power plant.

 QFT. Also did you guys know about the Bakken Formation in the Dakotas? Look it up. There are potentially 2 million barrels of oil PER DAY being missed because we are not drilling off of the coasts of California, Florida, and the Gulf of Mexico. I am not even counting ANWR in that 2 million barrels per day...

 Ignorance at its best.  Gotta love it.  Realistically, the most likely solution the US might adopt is natural gas.  It's much more efficient than gasoline, burns cleaner, and we have much larger reserves of it than oil.  It should hold us over for a few hundred years 'till we can get something more permanent.

My dream solution is antimatter.  100% efficiency, incredible amounts of power in small sizes, NO polution.  If we could ever create this crap at a practical speed (and store it), the energy crisis would be all but over.