It's a catch-22 scenario. I agree that we will not see some other form of energy, on any kind of large scale, in our lifetimes. However, like so many other things that have eclipsed their former rival, some new form of energy will only take hold when it is cost effective for the consumer.Or the converse, when solar , and such becomes cheaper for the masses and dosen't rely on fossil fules then we will have a new energy source. Unfortunately, nuclear is out , but is the most efficient so far. Nothing has come close. Wind is next to useless at the moment, no longevity, not making enough power , peices that aren't recycleable. Solar , as proved in California dosent work in high demand and at night. Battery storage power, while getting better, is large, costly, and also non recyclable. Water disrupts too many things environmentally and for drinking. So, going back to sci fi writing of the 1960s , untill you get a power source that is cheap, readily avaliable and dosen't cause future problems, were stuck with what we got. You also have to not rush into stuff you don't know long term effects of. We, as humans, cause more damages fixing crap that should have just be left as is. I agree, fossil fules are a thing of the past, but that isnt in my lifetime, and isnt near where it needs to be yet.
ScenicsRme's statements are enlightening and educational. I never thought about nuclear power plants that way. But if I think about the plant at Limerick, Pa, the money that went into building it would allow you and me to live like billionaires. Some of my co-workers worked on the building of the plant. The stories they used to tell me about methods and materials they worked with would bankrupt any normal construction site. I agree with sjm9911 about nuclear power. While efficient my not be the correct term, I do believe it puts out the most energy of any type of fuel, fossil or renewable.