I've read about these things quite a bit, and have a few comments. You can consider these 'informed opinions' of a non-industry export.
First, no one fuel is going to be the 'replacement' for gasoline. Heck, you think about it, the same oil is used to make kerosene, jet fuel, propane, gasoline, diesel, motor oil, etc... It's all just different cracks of the oil refinement process. We have three major engine fuels coming from the process. So Ethanol, bio-diesel, and electric all have a place in the future.
Second, the 'Hydrogen' economy is something of a joke. What many people don't realize is that hydrogen isn't just created or mined, the most efficient process for seperating it out of water involves a nuclear reactor, and that we'd have to cover most of Nevada to get enough solar power. It's also difficult to store or move. Ethanol fuel cells would actually be a better choice. Ethanol is safer than gasoline, and while it only has like 2/3 the energy of gasoline per gallon, burning it in a fuel cell would increase the efficiency such that you'd still get better mpg.
Third, I'd like to see us get away from coal power. It's dirty. I heard on the radio that living within 50 miles of a coal plant gives you the same chances for lung cancer as being a former smoker. Nasty. A nuclear plant, while it produces waste, doesn't really pollute unless you count raw heat in the water dump. On the other hand, this is also manytimes the best fishing spot.
Anyways, there are common sense disposal methods for nuclear waste that leaves it harmless. A few breeder reactors would have the benefit of turning all the waste currently sitting in pools around the USA into usable fuel again. As we've seen, terrorists are more interested in blowing civilians up the direct way rather than assaulting a power plant to get the materials to construct a dirty bomb.
Fourth, 'Alternative power sources'
Costal power is uneconomical: Way, Way too expensive to install, and maintanence is up there too.
Solar Power: Currently about 10x of nuclear, and that's using the steam tower model, which has all the maintenance requirements of running a steam plant, whether the boiler heat comes from coal, nuclear, or even solar. Direct panels still require maintenance in the form of motors to face the panels the right way or cleaning them off occasionally. The sheer amount of surface area needed for significant power makes this a real chore/expense. Oh, and it costs 100x per megawatt to run. Can be good for specific uses in more or less remote areas for low-power items like highway signs/blinkers. Oh, and it only provides efficient power during the day. There are equivalents to giant UPS units that they can use, but again, that costs money, takes maintenance, and isn't particularly efficient.
Wind: I've already heard some ecologists wailing about the effects of windfarms, and they require regular maintenance too. They don't provide steady power in most areas. End result is for a given amount of power, you generally need just as many workers as at a coal/nuclear plant.
Geothermal, Dam, etc: Nice, if you're lucky enough to live by one of the few suitable areas.
Fifth: Recycling. Most post-consumer recycling today takes more material/energy than using fresh materials. Part of this expense is generally the transportation of the stuff to the planet. Let the stuff sit in a landfill until we get the technology to make 'mining' those landfills profitable, even if it ends up just setting up a plant on site, and running it like a mine until the landfill is 'empty', then shutting down the plant for the next twenty or so years. A cheap, 'green' transportation system would help with this. I kinda like the idea of nuclear powered electric rail.
