Of course, that's the most practical and cost-efficient way of doing it (and im sure that eventually a private group will find a breakthrough in technology like always), but in doing so it would give the power to business and the private sector, and Congress isn't willing to give the power up.

I think that it would be great that someday everything will run on solar and alternate resources, but in the time being it is too cost-ineffective for the average consumer. I mean it's still $6 a watt for solar panels last time I checked, which is extremely expensive compared to petroleum/nuclear. 

You don't seriously believe that global warming will destroy humanity in 200 years, do you?  I've been amazed by what nonsense people accept on this issue, but this takes the cake.

At least you are honest about wanting to increase taxes on energy.  I totally disagree and think it will absolutely devastate the poor among us, but at least you're honest about your goals.  I like that.

Do you know solar/wind/geothermal account for less than 1% of U.S. energy production?  How do you think we can get these technologies up to producing even a majority of the energy demanded to keep our economy running anytime soon?  And don't forget to note that for every solar or wind power installation you have to back it up 100% with conventional power, since at any given time the wind might stop blowing or it might be overcast.  There are many problems with these technologies, from them being cost prohibitive to extremely low efficiency, the aforementioned lack of reliability and the problem of storing energy generated for times when the wind is not blowing or the sun not shining.  These technologies need a lot more development before they are efficient and cheap enough to generate most of our energy.

Moderately higher energy prices (like a $200 electric bill) will make people conserve energy ... Dramatically higher energy prices (like the $2,000 electric bill associated with Solar power) will make people choose between driving to work, heating their homes or eating.

Now, consider what if the global warming supporters are wrong? What makes you think that the same organizations who blamed global cooling on evil fossil fuels in the 1960s, then started blaiming global warming on the evil fossil fuel companies in the 1980s, and now blame climate change on those evil fossil fuel companies, are not just taking natural changes in the climate using fossil fuels as a scapegoat inorder to enact their political ideologies? While you're thinking this over consider Canada, a country with 150% the land mass of Europe and has 5% the population and (in most ways) is the picture of sustainable development, is the "Evilest" country in the world to most environmental organizations while Russia and China (where most of the worlds worst environmental disasters are currently happening) are let off the hook.

I'm presuming he didn't actually mean that the human species would be extinct, which is the literal interpretation of what he said.  Anything less is varying degrees of exaggeration, which you should ask him about instead of assuming. 

You didn't mean that, did you, Sardauk? 

Nuclear fusion is the way of the future, all other sources are unreliable or unrenewable. Also, we are a lot closer to nuclear fusion as a reliable source of energy than many people think.

The other aspect of this is that ground-based renewables won't work. They aren't scalable to what we need.

If we wanted enough windmills to power the globe, we would need so many, we would probably change global wind patterns that may effect global warming/cooling, as we're directly altering how our planet works.

Likewise, with thousands of square miles of solar arrays, who is to say that it won't effect the energy that is sent to earth by the sun, causing unnatural global cooling? Hydroelectricity is a totally renewable source. That doesn't mean that it hasn't killed wildlife like salmon and harmed the earth. Us being here, at all, is hurting the earth. Sometimes the right solution isn't the solution that's best for right now...Which some of the people like Sarduk are advocating. It's better to have strong longterm solutions, rather than knee-jerk on fears about the end of the world. If you vouch that GW will end the earth, your as loony as the 2012 people.

As others have said, the best 2 options are:

- Nuclear Fission based on H3 mined from lunar regolith or other sources
- Dyson arrays in the Lagrange points that do not directly effect earth

...And how the heck are we going to get either technology by funding solutions like windmills and geothermal energy? Such solutions are going to require multi-billion dollar investments from major companies. As I've been advocating: That US Stimulus money should have gone to a carbon nanotube or artificial diamond space elevator, and then look for otherworld solution(s)....We could easily have renewable or near-renewable energy for 100% of the earth if we were smart by putting money that'd go toward inefficient renewables into efficient renewables, and super-efficient non-renewables.

Actually the amount of wind energy potentially availible alone is far more than our entire world energy requirement at the moment. The key is building the structures needed to harness that energy.

Stick how is nuclear fission a renewable? Its nowhere near a renewable.

That assumes that the cost will remain at $2000 dollars as solar and wind become more prevalent and advances are made Squirrel, any transition to a renewable energy grid will take a few decades and during that time costs on those forms of energy will fall, in addition during the transition there will be cheaper forms still avainlible to help mitigate costs.

Well Squirrel, i'm not concerned about the political aspects of the environmental movement, the scientific community doesn't seem to be opposed to the idea of climate change and human involvement, at most, some are skeptical.

... define "available" wind power. Not that I think you're trying to pull a fast one, just making sure we've got our facts straight.