you know, 50-30 years ago when looking at the year 2000, they said we would have flying cars, robotic butlers and all manor of cool things.
some how, this article reminds me of those dreams from the past.

HAHAHAHAHAHA. Complete nonsense. The only way they make the numbers work is to fudge the \"evironmental\" costs of fossil fuels. The baseload claims are absurd. The boilerplate installed capacity will have to be at least double the actual demand to come close to ensuring a reliable power supply, and this doesn\'t even begin to address the added costs of a significantly expanded and upgraded transmission grid. And, please, please, please, please, get over the obsession with hydrogen. It\'s a crappy storage medium that is inefficient, leaky, and low energy density.

It is too much optimism. Rven simple box type solar cooker which is more than 50 years old is stll to take off!

Dr.A.Jagadeesh Nellore(AP),India

The authors are not proposing anything fantastical, just the widespread implementation of what technology already exists. All it takes is the will to do it! Which of course the coal gas and oil companies will fight and lobby to the death to weaken and stop.

Total garbage. The footprint of wind and solar compared to nuclear is about a thousand to one. Then, the storage issue.

The title of the article should be \"clean energy 20-40 years ago\" if we had not allowed hippies to kill nuclear for no reason whatsoever. And now look at the terrible cost.

I can believe that some of this will happen for simply financial reasons. There is money to be made in renewable energy production. We have come a long way in the last ten years, from green energy being seen as a pipe dream of extreme environmentalists to now having gigawatts of installed wind farms, with significant tidal projects in development. All the turbine manufacturers worldwide are booked up for at least two years, there is simply not enough manufacturing capacity to meet demand. Green energy is mainstream now for one simple reason; its profitable.Having said that, coal will be a large part of the mix for the foreseeable future. Its profitable too, so the fact that it may well lead to the extinction of our species (among millions of others), just doesn\'t count. Money talks.

I think that\'s wishful thinking... Can you comprehend the changes necessary to bring \"green\" power to the back corners of India, Africa, China, Tibet? There are likely places here in the U. S. that still don\'t have telephones.

Hydrogen is the deal breaker, for reasons already stated. Unmentioned is the source of hydrogen. Currently, we obtain ALL our hydrogen from oil. So this proposal does not free us from fossil fuels.
I support efforts toward clean energy. But this is pie-in-the-sky talk.

Unfortunately this excellent plan relies on people being unselfish but wherever wind farms are proposed there are always selfish people who don\'t want to see them ... or worse still, the local gliding club think it will interefere with half a dozen people\'s expensive part-time hobby!

@Todd Dunning - \"no reason at all\"? Really, terrible nuclear accidents, terrible safety record - no methodology for disposing of the waste other than \"let\'s tip it down a big hole and come up with a new language so that our ancestors in 100,000 years time will know when they read the sign that taking the seal out will be a really bad idea.\"
I\'m pro-nuclear, but only with a proper thru-life infrastructure in place too. Modern Fast-Breeder reactors theoretically should limit the amount of nuclear waste that needs to be processed, but that needs to be thought out now (or indeed 20 years ago), before we build the plants. However, it\'s too late I suspect, for nuclear to span the upcoming power gap...