And I hope you stop putting words into my mouth. I just said that there are 5 sources of energy (solar, lunar, geothermal, nuclear, and fossil fuels) on earth. Also, you're also factually incorrect regarding the Sun being the only energy source. The lunar / tidal energy is due to the gravity between the earth and the moon, and the geothermal energy is due to the gravity of the earth itself. Fact of the matter is that there is no silver bullet that'll solve all our energy problems ala Star Trek unless there's a breakthrough in something like nuclear fusion.

The paper you cite assume 100% uranium recovery from uranium contained within the Ocean waters, which holds most of recoverable uranium on Earth. The Japanese have some interesting research that they're doing to recover the seawater Uranium using a giant sponge like device, but it hasn't been proven yet whether it's possible to extract uranium from seawater in net-energy-positive manner, not to mention most of the seawater being fairly inaccessible.

I don't understand your hostility, as I've mentioned over and over again that I am in agreement that Nuclear power has gotten the short end of the shaft, and that more investment is needed. All I was trying to do is to say that there are benefits of investing in pure renewables like wind and solar - wind energy is already almost cheap enough to compete with other conventional energy sources even without the PTC. And as a working engineer in a tiny startup struggling to fix the very issues that you bring up (and completely re-imagine the wind industry as it exists if we succeed), I'm not a mouth piece of this large wind power conglomerate that you seem to make me out to be.

I'd highly recommend reading David MacKay's "Without the Hot Air" which is available free on PDF at http://www.withouthotair.com/ . David is much more eloquent than me and has done far more research into the issues at play here.