Carbon sucker

[Dr H]

I don't think nuclear fusion will ever be a part of the mix, since the money spent on its questionable results could be invested more effectively elsewhere.

I think we'll crack that nut, eventually -- although probably not in my lifetime.  We know it's possible in nature, at any rate, and you never know what new thories may be developed in the future.  You make a good point, though, that at least for now we might better be spending our resources on developing things that we already know will work.
I'd hate to abandon the pursuit of fusion altogether, though . . .

However, new designs for nuclear fission seem promising, especially those which run on what was previously considered spent fuel.  Compared to older nuclear installations, they would be cheaper, safer, easier to build, and could actually help reduce nuclear waste.  The question is how soon they will be viable.

Agreed.  It's always bugged me to see how much potential energy we were throwing away by burying spent fuel in salt mines and ponds -- seemed like there should be some way to make practical use of that energy -- and now there is.

Most big locations for hydroelectric are already being used, but lots of smaller dams can be adapted to generate electricity.  We need to focus on lots of small projects rather than just a few big ones.

True, but as I said, we seem to be back-tracking in this regard.  We're not adapting smaller dams for electricity production; we're removing them.

Hopefully people will become better educated about the options and tradeoffs in the near future.

That is essential.  And it's why I'm leery of presenting any particular project or approach as a panacea.  Proposals need to be made in a practical way, detailing both advantages and costs, insofar as they can be realistically predicted.  New energy production methods need to be carefully compared not only to existing production methods, but also to other proposed new methods.  Broad, multifaceted plans need to be developed:  wind, solar, nuclear, etc., are all viable options -- and I think we're going to need all of them -- but not everyone of them will work in every location or situation.  (Solar, for example, might be great for an arid location that has oodles of sunlight and low annual rainfall; not so much in places that log 250+ cloudy and overcast days every year.)

The conservation aspect needs to be closely considered as well.  If we use less energy, we need less generation capacity, and reduce emissions accordingly.  But once again, a realistic view needs to be taken.  Replacing a dozen light bulbs doesn't mean much if the same household is also running a 350 gallon outdoor hot tub, year round.

Ah well, Thoreauvian, I know I'm preaching to the choir.
But it is nice to have a receptive, if small, congregation now and then.