Hey, no question that the nuclear issue is controversial due to issues of its own waste disposal.  But what about the other 6 points or so? 

And failure to address any of the issues presented almost guarntees an energy-poor decline.

One of the Big 5 energy majors stated last month that they had narrowed alternative energy sources to three big potential investment groups based on probability of success within the next 30 years.  Those were:  1) wind power, 2) 2nd generation solar cells, and 3) synthetic biofuels. 

That ought to read encouragingly for you.  Expect some breakthroughs there as a lot of money is going that way. 

That said, analyses show that we lack 30-50 years to really reduce fossil fuel use in a signficant way.  So not drilling more now, really doesn't make a helluva lotta sense. 

Hydrogen is mentioned as a future successor as well, but as many of you know, it's currently very energy intensive to produce hydrogen on the scale necessary to sustain a transport economy.  Until that issue is solved, hydrogen will not and cannot be our alternative fuel savior.

Note that nuclear wasn't even mentioned.  If I remember the speakers' statement correctly, it is viewed as an increasing part of the energy "pie," but not yet any kind of significant replacement due to both safety and waste issues.