Energy development complex and currently illogical.
While thorium is 400 times more abundant on the planet than uranium, dramatically cheaper - short and long term, dramatically safer in use and potential worst case risks than uranium will ever be, and a logical choice for immediate development as Mark points out - from 1960, we are neither a scientifically literate or logical society. Thorium faces an all but impossible battle in the US against a 60+ year old deeply entrenched uranium industry that owns much of Congress and the military power structure - MIC as Ike called it. No possibility of an unbiased scientific/logical decision to go to thorium in that environment.
We are also currently both privately and publicly pissing away billions of dollars on biofuel development - without distinguishing between non-NPK biofuels and NPK dependent biofuels - and or the fact that NPK biofuels are dependent on the same petroluem industry products they're trying to replace. In addition NPK dependent biofuels threaten our food supply with the accelerated depletion of peak phosphates - for which we have no feasible replacements in sight and this simple and relatively un-discussed fact - trumps global warming, CO2, rising sea levels, and our energy problems. Fortunately, NASA through it's OMEGA program is currently pursuing non-NPK biofuels that will also clean up the coastal environments, do not use peak phosphate, but recover it from sewage instead - while producing biofuels and other products - though in comparatively modest amounts.
Solar is economically here now and cheaper than fossil fuel generated power. Admittedly, practical electrical storage is not here - unless you consider Europe's model of using a nation wide electric auto fleet's collective battery capacity to store 40% of their wind and solar power and send it back to the grid at night. It also makes the auto consumer finance solar energy through the cost of their excess car battery capacity. That may not be all bad in the long run, but it doesn't seem to be getting a lot of traction in the current economic climate.
Natural gas (NG) and natural gas liquids (NGL) while cleaner (less CO2, sulfur and particulates) than other fossil fuels (gasoline, diesel, heating oils and coal) can power our transportation (ground and aviation) and power generation for an extended period - with the penalty of diminished, but continued CO2 production.
In any case, if we want to get off foreign oil independence we are going to have experience at least a transition period (30 years?) of multiple advanced energy sources - thorium, NG and NGL, solar, wind, tide, geo-thermal and non-NPK biofuels. The long term energy source of our future is likely to be beyond our imagination, but no matter, we need to be energy independent now if our economy and nation are going to survive.
