You make assumptions you have no right to make, and then make judgement calls and accusations based on those assumptions.
I make assumptions you disagree with. I certainly have a right to make them though.
I would like to see us diversify our energy sources for many reasons
1. A diverse market is a healthy competitive market.
Only if the energy sources are competing on an even footing. And yes, I'm aware that we subsidize energy all the way around and in every direction. My point is that I don't think anyone can look at our current energy market and call it either "healthy" or "competitive".
2. Regional considerations to efficiency. Solar may be the best choice for those in the desert while wind for those on the coast, etc etc.
3. Cleanliness and healthyness to the over-all environment/ecology.
Yup. But this is the area where I really do believe that the cart sometimes strays well ahead of the horse. People assume that because something is labeled "green", that it must be better. But in most cases, we're trading one form of environmental impact for another. I just believe that it's important to point this out.
4. Accessibility and sustainability.
5. Cradle to grave considerations. ie, Currently solar panels produce good clean energy though unreliable. However, the solar panel, once unusable has some disposal issues (platinum). These can be worked out, emissions can be scrubbed, metals can be retained, solventy stuffs can be broke down to inert substances - lets see how willing the industries are to take responsibility. This is where nuclear really takes a hit as we still have no good disposal options for spent fuel.
But this is also where the "perception is reality" bit comes in. Because some energy sources are labeled as clean/green/whatever, people perceive them as better, and thus they actually work to make one cleaner than another. You're correct that we should do this
, I just think that quite often we don't do a good job fully considering the costs and benefits of each power source.
6. Newer and better stuff can continue to be R&D's IF there is not a monopoly on one energy source as they will tend to stifle anything that might be viable competition.
I think that this is feared more than it happens. We always hear about how the electric car was killed by oil interests. I just don't buy it though. It's not like there's one company selling oil, or one company making cars. There fact that one energy source may dominate a given area doesn't really have anything to do with monopolies and doesn't have the same anti-competitive aspects of a monopoly. It's really a very different thing.
The companies who sell power don't really care how the power is generated. If they can make more money generating power by having people run on giant hamster wheels, that's how they'll do it. There are some inter-industry interactions which may act as blocks for newer sources entering the market, but those factors really don't have nefarious purposes. If an energy source really is cheaper and/or more abundant, companies will fall over themselves to develop it and make a buck off it.