I think one of the big points of "new" energy is the de-centralization of energy production.
There are trade-offs in both directions though. One of the pluses of centralization is that the pollution generation portion of the power generation is all in one place where it can be contained as well as possible (and not put right in someone's backyard). We don't know yet what environmental effects having solar panels on every roof and wind turbines in every backyard will have. And we also don't know what'll happen 10-20 years out when all the stuff we're putting on people's roofs and in their backyards break down and end out in a landfill. Centralized systems can be monitored and regulated far better than decentralized ones can.
Transporting electricity over hundreds of miles with high-voltage lines is, I seem to recall, horribly inefficient and destroys large swathes of the environment, among other problems.
Actually electricity lines are arguably the most efficient means of transporting power. But the bigger issue is that even with all the solar panels and wind turbines, nearly every house that's hooked to the grid today will be hooked to the grind 10 years from now. Certainly, unless every house in a neighborhood disconnects fully (which isn't really feasible since it's not sunny and/or windy all the time), the parts of our electric grid with the largest impact will remain in place. Most of that stuff is underground anyway. Again, you're replacing wires under the ground in most cases, with solar panels and wind turbines which are above ground. I'm not sure that's an improvement.
Lining homes and other buildings with solar cells, mini wind turbines, etc. requires zero transportation.
Except getting them to the homes, installing them, and then removing them when they eventually fail or are replaced. And as I pointed out above, you're still going to have wires hooked to your home. The grid will still be in place. You may be drawing less off it, and I absolutely think that's a good direction to go. But it's not a magic bullet either.
Large cities, industrial complexes and other constructs of that nature will of course require much more power demands but not nearly as much as also servicing all of the supporting suburbs, outlying towns, smaller cities and the odd hick villages out in the middle of nowhere.
I think a better sell is to look at the cost per unit of energy. That tells us if something is more or less efficient. Solar cells are rapidly getting there. The one unknown is the environmental impact from making and then disposing of the cells themselves. The solar power is renewable but the materials used in the cells are not. Wind isn't even remotely close to cost effective and it's hard to see if there's a path that will ever make it so.
I think that there are lots of good reasons to pursue alternative energy. I just also happen to think that most of the reasons people are sold for using them *aren't*. This causes us to incorrectly evaluate the true value or cost of what we're doing. I'd prefer we chart a course based on good solid science and planning rather than based on the equivalent of ideological advertising.