The problem with renewable energy is it is not dependable, fluctuates with the seasons and time of day, and we have no effective way to recycle the environment waste it creates, so at some point we are simply trading one environmental problem for another.

I am not against solar power; I have 32 solar panels. I am in the midst of installing a battery to help me bridge the gap between when the sun goes down and my peak demand drops. But solar has its issues. An additional problem with solar technology is that it is largely "electricity based" which has drawbacks vs combustion-based energy sources.

Nuclear represents the best energy source for "base demand". That is the constant energy required day or night. Nuclear is cheapest when it operates 24 hours a day and 365 days a year. Like solar, it has "waste" issues.

For solar and nuclear to be the energy source of the future, we need to figure out how to recycle the waster these technologies produce.

The ultimate answer is "carbon fuel" for most of our energy needs. What? It is not accidental that nature operates primarily on carbon fuel. All living cells work on carbon fuel. It is simply the ideal energy source that is most compatible with nature and which we have the know how to recycle right now. Fossil fuels are carbon fuels produced millions of years ago, but we produce carbon fuel all the time... we call it food, wood, feed, biodiesel, and ethanol.

Unlike solar, wind, and nuclear, we know exactly how to recycle the "waste" (CO2 and water). The problem is we don't do it. But if we recylced 100% of the CO2 and water we produced by burning carbon fuel to make more carbon fuel, then it would be the "cleanest" energy for the planet.

And here is why "mother nature" loves carbon fuel. It is the only fuel source that uses its "waste" as the primary ingredients to produce new fuel. Take the waste "CO2 and water" add a catalyst (like chlorophyl) and a little sunshine... and you have renewable carbon fuel.

Again, I am not against solar panels, or wind farms, nuclear or fossil fuels, they are all good transitional energy sources. But the "end game" should be to produce as much "carbon fuel" as we consume. That would produce "zero" net CO2 emissions, zero waste, and create and endless source of renewable energy.

The bad wrap that fossil fuels have gotten have largely led to the underdevelopment of the renewable carbon fuel industry. I also have some concerns about turning human food like corn and sugar cane into industrial fuel. But intentional carbon fuel farms based on algae farms or even ocean plant farms combined with using artificial catalysts to convert CO2 and water into carbon fuel are the "real end" game.

Ask yourself the simple question what is likely to be the best energy strategy... emulating nature or creating a "work around"?

Note: regarding the point that solar is not dependable, I looked at my solar panel production over the last three months on a daily basis. Daily production for my solar panels varied from 6.7 kWh to 42.5 kWh. It breached 40 kWh four times over 3 months and was under 10 three times.