Thanks for the offer, but I write as a professional on this subject all the time. Solar energy doesn't have to go anywhere to be ready for prime time, except, in the the case of the latest technology like the solar "paints" and inks that can put solar "panels" on a wide range of surfaces by multi-layer printing techniques, the production facilities need to be scaled up to meet demand. Nanosolar has sold its complete production capacity for a couple of years according to the trade press, and Germany really has implemented a large amount of solar panel technology already. My brother has silicon-based panels on his house, though he lives in a State that gives significant tax credits to help finance it. I live in a State that pours tax money down the corn ethanol drain (the governor's brother-in-law just happens to be in that business) and does nothing to promote real clean power. So, financial viability depends a lot on where you live. But, the only question is "when will it start paying dividends?", not "will it pay dividends?". Many, but not all, utility companies are willing to buy your excess capacity, and will no fossil fuels being burned for this electricity, it is great clean power, without question, as long as the financials add up in your area.
I'm not saying that the technology isn't getting there by any means, just making sure that you are aware that we have yet to discover the magic bullet cure for all of our energy issues. Sounds like you are well versed enough, and I'm a consultant for the commercial power industry, so I feel I am a bit qualified to speak on these matters.
As I type this, I am involved in the resource planning of several new/expansion wind farm projects across the US. FPL, one of the country's largest energy providers had plans to build a 250KW solar array near Sarasota, considered the be the largest array in the "Sunshine" state thus far, not even coming close to meeting the demands of millions of customers. Solar energy is also more expensive, resulting in higher rates to customers who are already feeling the pinch. And with Florida's healthy abundance of cloud cover (in addition to sunlight), reliability is in question - it would take twice as much equipment and resources to generate a given amount of power from a place such as the Mojave desert, for example. Meanwhile $$$ continue to add up.
Wind energy, while clean and as renewable as the sun is also struggling to get off the ground, when you consider a single wind turbine produces on the average about 5 MW of power. Just to keep things in perspective, current output in MWe, for most coal, natural gas or nuclear powered generating stations is on the order of 1,000 MW or more. So, doing the math, you are looking at 200 wind turbines to match the output of a single conventional generating station, and most larger cities and metropolitan areas of course are not supplied by one single power station. And that's providing the wind holds up...
Suffice it to say, the major wind energy companies are gearing up and building more wind farms, you have Suzlon (Asian market), Mitsubishi, Vestas, Siemens, Zond (formally acquired by GE, and is now known as GE Wind), hell even John Deere has been getting in on the action lately - we just had two bids from John Deere's Wind Division come our way within the last two weeks.
I'm all for this - as Strat pointed out, I cut my teeth on the nuclear power biz, so that's where my heart lies, so I am a strong proponent of increased nuclear funding, new construction projects and power uprates of existing reactors in order to keep up with demand. To me, this is the only real, viable solution until the other two technologies catch up. I am not against either wind or solar - it's noble, great and good, but the reality of it is, until technology improves and inefficiencies worked out in a way that doesn't break the bank, we should not be looking at them with rose colored lenses, we should be looking at them as potential players in very high demand market.
Hence, long way to go.
