While wind energy is all neat and touchy feely everyone needs to come to their senses. There is absolutely no way wind energy and solar power will supply the exponentially exploding population with power. The world loves their electronics. Nuke power is the only way to generate the massive quantities of power necessary. Hydro Power is awesome but the amount of head needed to generate the amount of power necessary just isn't available in most places. Wind power = green and neat NOT a feasible alternative to solve the green energy debate. Besides the 99% of the population that doesn't read this site would get pissy about the noise pollution from wind turbines (ironically they are the same ones that will drive through my neighborhood with their huge mufflers or radios super loud in the middle of the night). Besides all of that didn't everyone watch the Coal Power Owner talk about how we would destroy our economy by putting restrictions on coal or not using coal? (rather than give condolences to the families of the six trapped miners) COAL COAL COAL! PETRO PETRO PETRO! BIG SUV'S BIG SUV'S BIG SUV'S!
/rant

Very few people live where it's windy enough for commercial wind farms, but many people would be able to see them on far away ridges. And 20% is often considered wind's highest potential contribution to the grid.

The neighbors of a solar plant probably wouldn't even notice it, unless that's who they paid for their power.

Anyway, we need to understand that we need several power sources, even if we had a perfect one, which we most certainly do not, we would not want to rely on it entirely. At least 5 sources in different places with different characteristics and different supply lines is what we need. Please don't fall too in love with any one technology.

I've lived near a nuclear plant for the greater part of my life, so I'd tolerate pretty much anything being built near me.

Question for nuclear proponents: Where will the energy to mine, process, ship, store, protect and dispose of the nuclear waste come from? Is it even a net energy gain after all those are taken into consideration?

I'm not a knee-jerk anti-nuke greenie. I recognize that recent advancements make it relatively safe and relatively waste-free. I just question whether something as industrially intensive as nuclear power can survive in a post-fossil fuel world.

Does any energy process have a net energy gain after all that is taken into consideration? I doubt it. Current reactors only use about 2% of the available energy in uranium...we are just afraid of proliferation to use the rest.

I have wind turbines going up in my backyard. And I really wouldn't mind if the power were staying in my backyard. Instead it is being shipped to an area almost 200 miles away.

The turbines going up could power every house and business within a 75 mile radius. Instead it is going to an excessively large city, the same place all the water in the area goes.

I hope to be able to put up a solar array for my house in the next 5 years. That will take me basically off the grid except cable tv and interent access. (Sorry need both for work).

Nuclear can be a good power. Why cant we just come up with a way to use the spent fuel as power? Make up some kind of reactor that uses the waste to make more power.

Also why cant we just start putting solar panels on businesses and school roofs? Most of them dont get used for anything but ac units.

The problem is that governments only do whats good for the oil and coal companies and dont use their brains.

So. 55% voted for wind turbines. Of course. We're all Treehuggers. Some of them got propellors instead of branches.

Anything but coal.

Cherie, if it's generating power, it doesn't matter where that power "goes" - it's all on the grid. You're on the same grid as someone 200 miles from you, except in very rare cases.

I want wind and solar in my backyard ... as in, on my side of the fence in a suburban-sized yard.

Specifically, I'd like enough solar and (vertical axis) wind generation to supply my needs and provide a surplus.

Unfortunately, I don't think we have high-enough average wind speeds in Georgia to help.

So, my vote is wind and solar.

And to Mike, the first commenter, you're not thinking on a large enough scale. On a large scale, nuke and coal cause problems. On the other hand, a huge number of micro power stations would supply plenty. I would even venture to say that numerous micro power generators are the most likely way to keep up with any sort of exploding population.