Yes lets go to solar:

Obama wound right now, if he knew how to tax it.

Here is a video of him saying that if anyone wants to build a coal power plant, he will bankrupt them. It's also interesting that he, in the same talk, said no nuclear power.

So its more expennsvie at the moment, so what?  It's cleaner and it'll get cheaper with more advances in tech, plus we can couple it with the other options I mentioned

Wind isn't much more cost effective, and hydro-electric dams are about as popular as nuclear powerplants and are much more limited in the number of places that they can be installed ...

OK, so if right now you pay $100 a month on coal, you will be paying $3,700 a month on solar until it gets cheeper. That's what.

"Cleaner" is debateable because of the massive environmental footprints of all of those technologies (which is why most of these powerplants have a similar fight to nuclear and coal powerplants); and (as it has already been pointed out) until Solar gets to being about 10% of its current price, and wind gets to being about 20% of its current price, the cost of the energy used in the average home is far beyond what the typical household can afford.

We are completely surrounded by potential sources of limitless, clean energy: wind, solar, geo-thermal, nuclear (fusion), etc.

I don't think anyone here would, all else being equal, take coal or oil over solar.

But the thing is, all else isn't equal. Different energies have different costs involved, because of the infrastructure and technology available.

Someday, I've no doubt, the entire world will run on some kind of solar power. But until then people are going to make the choices (as individuals and en masse) that benefit them the most. Some times in some places, that might mean taking a more expensive technology over a cheaper one... but in most times and places, it will mean using the cheaper alternative.

The scientist who *really* wants a clean world only needs to make solar power the best/cheapest alternative. Then large-scale businesses will be the first adopters, and homeowners quickly behind; if it's sound financially, the world will "go green" in a heartbeat. Those ecologically-minded surely can find someone to donate their money to, to promote this kind of research.

Till then, though, I don't think it's very worthwhile to expect (or try to force) people to do what they perceive is not the best thing for themselves; i.e. use more expensive energy.

Why not save the hundreds of billions of dollars by using coal/oil/nuclear, and use the extra funds for research, rather than use all the money to pour into inefficient poor technology?

While we are at it, why can't we mandate solar powered cars to replace every other car in the next 2 years? After all, it's not *that* more expensive...Just a few ten thousand per car.

Actually increasing prices on energy isn't always a bad thing, see by increasing prices you force people to conserve, only use power on the very essentials.  It becomes a kind of excise tax and forces people to change their habits.

As for footprints, offshore wind farms create a much smaller footrpint, and since they can be taller in the open seas, they can be more efficient than the onshore ones

Because the coal oil and nuclear produce a lot more pollution, and if the climate change supporters are right, it'll just screw over the future.